Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4325RESOLUTION NO. 4325 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR A ONE -HUNDRED FORTY (140) RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPED ON AN APPROXIMATE 6.81 - ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 320-438 WEST 6T" STREET AND 620-- 694 S. B STREET. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application has been submitted to the City of Tustin (the City) Community Development Department by___Intracorp SoCal-1 LLC for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2016-01, Zone Change (ZC) 2016-001, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17993 for Condominium Purposes, Design Review (DR) 2016-004 and Development Agreement (DA) 2016-002 for the development of one hundred forty (140) residential condominium units with common and private open space including a recreation center, swimming pool and paseos, and a privately owned and maintained public park, on an approximate 6.81 acre site located at 320-438 W. Sixth Street and 620--694 S. B Street; B. That the Development Application requests the following approvals: GPA 2016-01 to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial to Planned Community Residential. • ZC 2016-001 to change the Zoning designation from Planned Industrial (PM) to Planned Community (P -C) District. TTM 17993 to subdivide an approximate 6.81 acre parcel located at 420 W. Sixth Street and 320-694 S. B Street into two (2) numbered lots and one (1) lettered lot for condominium purposes to accommodate construction of one -hundred forty (140) attached residential condominium units within twenty seven (27) residential buildings, a recreation center and swimming pool to serve residents, and a privately owned and maintained 3,709 square foot park for the use and enjoyment of the public for public benefit. • DR 2016-004 for the site, architectural and landscape plans. • DA 2016-002 to facilitate the development of a 6.81 acre site and to provide for public benefits. Resolution No. 4325 Page 2 C. That City prepared an impacts associated measures, potential insignificance and a prepared; Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental with the project that concluded, with mitigation significant impacts can be reduced to a level of draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was D. That a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND was published and the MND and Initial Study were made available for a thirty (30) day public review and comment period from July 27, 2016, to August 26, 2016, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines; E. That public comments were received and a Final MND with responses to submitted comments was prepared and is attached hereto as Exhibit A; F. That whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires a lead agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; G. That the City is the lead agency on the project and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed project; H. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for GPA 2016-01, ZC 2016-001-, TTM 17993, DR 2016-004 and DA 2016-002 on September 27, 2016, by the Planning Commission; and I. That the Planning Commission has considered the Initial Study/MND and the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit B and comments received during the public review process. II. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find the Initial Study/MND, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", adequate for GPA 2016-01, ZC 2016-001, TTM 17993, DA 2016-002, and DR 2016-004 and adopt the MND for development of one hundred forty (140) residential condominium units with common and private open space including a recreation center, swimming pool and paseos, and a privately owned and maintained public park, on an approximate 6.81 acre site. III. That the facts and reasons for said recommendation of adoption of the Initial Study/MND and MMRP are hereby found and declared to be as follows: The Planning Commission, as a result of its consideration and evidence presented at the hearing on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the MND and MMRP adequately address the expected environmental impacts of the project. On the basis of this review, the Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. 7 L_J 1 1 1 1 Exhibit A Resolution No. 4325 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 27th day of September, 2016. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit C: Responses to MND Comments STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4325 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27thth day of September, 2016. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: � ���141 ��4: � V�-- V�p G� ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Kozak, Lumbard, Mason — (3) Thompson (1) Smith (1) Resolution No. 4325 Page 4 EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION 4325 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 1 1 1 1 City of Tustin California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study (IS) / Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Vintage Lofts Residential Project Lead Agency: City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Project Applicant: Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Table of Contents Tableof Contents.............................................................................................................................................................. i 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Project Setting............................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.0 Project Description....................................................................................................................................................17 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis.....................................................................................................................43 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program.......................................................................................................138 Appendices...................................................................................................................................................................155 APPENDICES Appendix A: Planned Community District Regulations Appendix B. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses Appendix C: Cultural Constraints Technical Memorandum Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Report Appendix E1: Preliminary WQMP Appendix E2: Preliminary Hydrology Study Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Appendix H: Noise Appendix I: Traffic Impact Analysis City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page i Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS AB 52 California Assembly Bill 52 ACM asbestos -containing material ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AQIA Air Quality Impact Analyses AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BACM best available control measure BFE base flood elevation BMP best management practice CaIEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CBC California Building Code CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CUP Conditional Use Permit ESA Environmental Site Assessment dB decibel dBA A -weighted decibels GHG greenhouse gas gal/day gallons per day HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCA Orange County Health Care Agency HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning ICU intersection capacity utilization LBP lead-based paint LID low impact development LOS level of service LSTs localized significance thresholds MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NO, nitrogen oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Os ozone OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCPL Orange County Public Library OCSD Orange County Sanitation District PDF project design feature PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter PPP Plans, Programs, and Policies PRC Public Resources Code PRIMP Paleontological Records Assessment PWS public water supplier City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page ii Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 REC recognized environmental conditions ROG reactive organic gas RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB 18 California Senate Bill 18, Ch. 905 (2004) SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SO2 sulfur dioxide SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TCC Tustin City Code TTCP traditional tribal cultural places TUA traditional use area TUSD Tustin Unified School District USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VdB velocity levels expressed in decibel notation City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page iii Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1 1.0 Introduction This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the following: • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.); • California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15000 et seq.); and Pursuant to CEQA, this Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the potential for significant impacts on the environment resulting from implementation of the proposed residential development. As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, this Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency, the City of Tustin, in consultation with other jurisdictional agencies, to determine if a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required for the project. This Initial Study informs City decision -makers, affected agencies, and the public of potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. A "significant effect" or "significant impact" on the environment means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project' (Guidelines §15382). Given the project's broad scope and level of detail, combined with previous analyses and current information about the site and environs, the City's intent is to adhere to the following CEQA principles: • Provide meaningful early evaluation of site planning constraints, service and infrastructure requirements, and other local and regional environmental considerations. (Pub. Res. Code §21003.1) • Encourage the applicant to incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and planning at the earliest feasible time. (State CEQA Guidelines §5004[b][3]) • Specify mitigation measures for reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects, and commit the City and applicant to future measures containing performance standards to ensure their adequacy when detailed development plans and applications are submitted. (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.4) Project Design Features (PDFs) and Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) Throughout the impact analysis in this Initial Study, reference is made to 1) applicant -initiated Project Design Features (PDFs), and 2) existing Standard Conditions applied to all development on the basis of federal, state, or local law, and Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies currently in place which effectively reduce environmental impacts. Standard Conditions and Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies are collectively identified in this document as PPPs. Where applicable, PDFs and PPPs are listed to show their effect in reducing potential environmental impacts. Where the application of these measures does not reduce an impact to below a level of significance, a project -specific mitigation measure is introduced. The City would include these PDFs and PPPs along with mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project to ensure their implementation. City of Tustin - Initial StudyAWItigated Negative Declaration Page 3 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1.0 Introduction 1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This IS/MND includes the flowing sections: Section 1.0 Introduction Provides information about CEQA and its requirements for environmental review and explains that an Initial Study/MND was prepared by the City of Tustin to evaluate the proposed project's potential to impact the physical environment. Section 2.0 Setting Provides information about the proposed project's location. Section 3.0 Project Description Includes a description of the proposed project's physical features and construction and operational characteristics. Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist Includes the Environmental Checklist and evaluates the proposed project's potential to result in significant adverse effects to the physical environment. Section 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Provides a table of the project's mitigation measures and the applicable PDFs and PPPs. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 2.0 PROJECT SETTING L 1 2.0 Project Setting This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 2.0 Project Setting 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION Regional The City of Tustin is located in central Orange County and encompasses an area of 11.08 square miles. The City is bounded on the south by the cities of Irvine and Santa Ana, on the north by the unincorporated portions of the County of Orange and the City of Orange, and on the east by unincorporated County territory and the City of Irvine. Within the context of the larger Southern California region, Tustin is located approximately two miles north of Orange County's John Wayne Airport and is transected by two major regional freeways: 1-5 (Santa Ana) Freeway, divides the City into north and south; and the SR -55 (Costa Mesa) Freeway, divides westerly portions of the City. See Figure 1, Regional Location Map. Local The proposed project site is located at southwest corner of W. 6th Street and S. B Street (420 — 436 W. 6th Street and 330 — 694 S. B Street) in Tustin, California. The site is near in the interchange of SR -55 and 1-5; SR -55 is approximately 0.35 miles west of the project site and 1-5 is immediately to the south and adjacent to the site's southern property line. The property consists of one irregularly shaped parcel with an industrial park comprised of buildings with numerous tenants. See Figure 2, Local Vicinity Map. 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Land Uses The project site is located just west of the Old Town Commercial area in Tustin, which is characterized by retail, professional offices, and service-oriented businesses serving Old Town Tustin. To the north of the project area is a single-family residential neighborhood, which encompasses several historic homes. These homes are located within the boundaries of Tustin's Cultural Resources District, which was created to ensure the maintenance, preservation, and enhancement of Tustin's Old Town area and existing single family zoning within the area. Existing vehicular access to the site is provided along 6th Street to the north and B Street to the west. The site is currently developed with 11 buildings totaling 183,430 -square -feet arranged in an "industrial park" setting with interior common streets, shared access, parking and signage, and common landscaping features. The industrial park was built in 1961. The buildings are divided into more than 30 suites with various existing uses, including, but not limited to manufacturing, office, retail commercial and other commercial services. Tenants include Keithco Manufacturing, Permlight Products, Synthetic Grass Store of California, three cabinet makers, pool pump manufacturing, a dance studio, Harris History Services, AT&T cellular tower, printing studio, Sandbox Marketing, and electronic vape cigarettes sales and distribution. Several suites are vacant. The site is also developed with a cellular telecommunications tower. See Figure 3, Existing Site Plan. Existing General Plan and Zoning Under the Tustin General Plan, the project site is designated as an Industrial land use, which permits industrial and office uses, such as wholesale businesses, light manufacturing, storage, distribution and sales, research and development laboratories, and service commercial businesses with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5. In the City of Tustin's Zoning Ordinance, the project area is designated as a "Planned Industrial" zone, which allows for various light industrial and manufacturing uses. The PM zone implements City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 7 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 2.0 Project Setting the Industrial general plan land use designation. The project site is located within the boundaries of the upcoming Downtown Commercial Core Plan, currently being prepared by the City of Tustin. The vision for the Downtown Commercial Core Plan is to promote Downtown Tustin as the historic, economic and cultural heart of the City. The plan is intended to coordinate development in the area through the application of streetscape and architecture design guidelines and alternative zoning standards that are reflective of the area. Surrounding Land Uses The property is surrounded by commercial and light industrial uses to the east, single-family homes to the north across W. 6th Street, a 2 -story self -storage building to the west and 1-5 to the south. Multifamily residential and mobile home uses are located across 1-5, to the south. The adjacent property to the west is developed with a 2 -story self -storage building, which is situated approximately 3 feet from the property line. See Figure.4, Surrounding Land Uses. Background The Tustin Freeway Commerce Center, as the complex is currently known, has been in existence since 1961,, when the first four buildings were constructed. The four buildings, all located at the west end of the complex and parcel, are apparent on a 1963 aerial photograph. Prior to 1961, citrus or other fruit trees were cultivated on the property. By 1972, five more buildings were added to the complex, some of them being added on to the ends of the older structures. Between 1972 and 1974, the final two buildings were added to the complex. By 1980, a few narrow storage spaces with loading doors and docks were added in between existing buildings, forming additions of more recent age. The complex was refurbished in the early 1990s. The complex currently is embellished by large, pagoda -like, Asian roof elements over each suite main entryway, as well as at some building corners. It is not known if these elements were added in 1991 or later. It has been used for a variety of industrial operations, including printing lithography and manufacturing between the 1970s through the present. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 8 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 FIGURE 1 Regional Location Map 2.0 Project Setting This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 10 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 A N 1 mile VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin fuly20, 2016 FIGURE 2 Local Vicinity Map 2.0 Project Setting This page intentionally left blank. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 12 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 436 6TH STREET B STREET I B A N♦ B STREET VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FIGURE 3 City of Tustin Existing Site Plan July 20, 2016 2.0 Project Setting This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 14 Vintage. Lofts Residential Project July 2016 AA °} �i� ^ •� �a`• Hca-..st?^l anali� gyp• lk- „t w A.1 SINGLE-FAMILY a`, #" Ilk _k FES DENTIA "RESIDENTIAL' n IliA• SixtWs ree "Z, xyl * 40 ERC AL ki ROO 1111L - '`' ' _te st RESID N IAL-' . ,, ,.e� -� , -PA. 71 Ot AL 46 w s d s � r . r o n 3 �. ..Ir 2.0 Project Setting This page intentionally left blank. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 16 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 17 Vintage Residential Project July 2016 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 18 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 3.0 Project Description 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6.81 -acre lot into two development parcels for condominium purposes to accommodate 140 -residential units and ancillary uses, including, but not limited to onsite private drives, parking, sidewalks, recreation uses and community center, walls and landscaping. The discretionary actions required to allow for the development of 140 multi -family residential units are as follows: ■ General Plan Amendment — Change the site's land use designation from I (Industrial) to Planned Community Residential (PC Residential). ■ Zone Change — Change the site's zoning from Planned Industrial (PM) to Planned Community Residential (P -C) District. ■ Tentative Tract Map — Subdivision of existing 6.81 -acre parcel into two development parcels for condominium purposes. ■ Design Review ■ Development Agreement - The Development Agreement authorizes the development of project with a 5 -year term and two 1 -year extensions and in return requires public benefits in the form of payment of park in -lieu, affordable housing and traffic fees over and above the City's standard development impact fees, city signage and public infrastructure improvements. Building Design. The project includes two townhouse product types (Melrose Place and Veranda Court) with several architectural styles, including Cottage, Craftsman, Farmhouse, and Spanish influences. The project proposes a range of unit sizes with three- and four-bedroom floor plans. The proposed project allows for the development of 140 townhome residential units. Figure 5, Site Plan, illustrates the proposed product configuration. The 140 multi -family for -sale residential units would be distributed among 27 buildings. The buildings would range between 2 -stories and 3 -stories, with a maximum building height of 42 -feet. See Figure 6, Conceptual Architectural Styles. The project's Planned Community District Regulations are provided in Appendix A herein. Melrose Place Melrose Place homes range in size from 1,700 to 2,300 square feet, utilizing four different floorplans. A total of 92 Melrose Place units are proposed. Melrose Place units are located along 6th Street and B Street, generally in groups of 4 to 8 units per building, and would be 2-3 stories tall, with a maximum building height of 42 feet. All Melrose Place units would include two -car attached garages (side-by-side) accessed from private drives. See Figure 7a, Melrose 6-Plex Elevations. Veranda Court These homes range in size from 1,400 to 1,700 square feet, featuring three separate floorplans. Veranda homes are proposed in groups of four, and are generally located along the project's southern boundary parallel to 1-5. All Veranda Court units would be three stories, with a maximum building height of 42 feet. All Veranda Court units would include two -car attached garages (side- by-side) accessed from private drives. See Figure 7b, Veranda 4 -flex Elevations. Landscaping, Walls and Fencing. Figure 8, Landscape Plan, depicts the Conceptual Landscape Plan for the proposed project. The Conceptual Landscape Plan includes landscaping along W. 6th Street, along S. B Street, as well as along the southern boundary of the project site along 1-5. The drought tolerant landscaping would include various trees and ground cover to provide erosion control, as well as various screening shrubs. The Conceptual Landscape Plan also includes landscaping within the residential community that would be maintained by the homeowner's association (HOA). City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 19 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 3.0 Project Description A 20 -foot noise wall is proposed along the site's southern boundary with 1-5. The freeway is sloped such that the south end of the project site is 9.5 feet below the freeway's grade, and at the northern portion of the site, 4 feet below the freeway's grade. Thus, when viewed from the. residential side, the noise wall would be 20 feet, but when viewed from 1-5, the noise wall would only appear to be 10.5 feet in height at the southeastern edge and 16 -feet high at the northeastern edge. See Figure 9, Sound Walls. Perimeter fencing is not proposed along the W. 6th Street and S. B Street frontages. A freeway security fence would also be installed to provide protection between the freeway and the project and to provide access to the space between the freeway and the sound wall adjacent to 1-5. The allowable freeway security fence height would be up to 8 feet 6 inches. Access. The primary access to the site would be provided via three driveways along W. 6th Street and two driveways along S. B Street. In addition, two emergency vehicle access points are provided along W. 6th Street. Buildings 1 through 11 would be accessed from the three driveways on W. 6th Street, while buildings 12 through 27 would be accessed by two driveways on S. B Street. Parking for the proposed project would meet the off-street parking requirements of the City of Tustin. A total of 315 parking spaces are required, including 280 covered spaces and 35 guest parking spaces. The project provides 280 garage spaces and 69 guest parking spaces for a total of 349 parking spaces. Recreational Amenities. The proposed project also includes development of a publically accessible courtyard and private neighborhood recreation area and community building located near the entrance to the residential community along W. 6th Street. Landscaped pedestrian paseos extend between buildings. See Figure 10, Recreation Area. Courtyard Fronting on W. 6th Street, this open space would have an informal garden aesthetic to fit the existing streetscape character. Features include a seat wall area with an architectural feature, a lawn area, and a dog station. Recreation Area The private recreational area would be designed as a gathering space for residents and their guests and would consist of a community recreation building with clubhouse amenities such as a seating area, small kitchen, changing room, and restrooms. The recreation building would separate the courtyard and pool area with 800 square -foot pool and built in BBQ. Paseos Passive open spaces would be located between residential buildings, including: ■ Outdoor seating — chairs and coffee tables ■ Gathering space - fire table and with chairs ■ Ambient lighting - string lights overhead ■ Enhanced paving and potted plants See Figure 11, Paseos. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 20 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016- VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 \ SITE SUMMARY: \\\�� GROSS ACRES: 6.81 AC NET ACRES: 4.96 AC TOTAL UNITS: 140 DENSITY: 20.6 DU/AC AREA CALCULATIONS: COMMON OPEN SPACE 54,279 SF PUBLIC PARK 3,786 SF PRIVATE FRONT YARDS 4,539 SF PRIVATE PORCHES 5,106 SF I 71abl, PARKING CALCULATIONS REQUIRED PARKING: 140 X 2.00 COVERED 280 140 X 0.25 GUEST = 35 TOTAL REQUIRED: 315 PROVIDED PARKING: 140 X 2.00 GARAGES = 280 OPEN GUEST SPACES 69 TOTAL PROVIDED: 349 STYLE AND COLOR SCHEME LEGEND: �� Cl COTTAGE STYLE -COLOR SCHEMEI C2 COTTAGE STYLE•COLORSCHEME2 SI SPANISHSTYLE-COLORSCHEMEI n a„ CRT CRAFTSMAN STYLE-COLORSCHEME I i � •. r� , �I. CR3 CRAFTSMAN STYLE -COLOR SCHEME 3 Fl FARMHOUSE STYLE - COLOR SCHEME r i. F2 FARMHOUSE STYLE - COLOR SCHEME 2 n r + ti Illi • r r * r laal• I��r ryp I Ilrr•11• Epi �pL Irvl• I I• I 1• I , 1 Vj'�S�!'�P!`(MWIN, kro, 0.4 VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 NORTH FIGURE 5 Site Plan \ SITE SUMMARY: \\\�� GROSS ACRES: 6.81 AC NET ACRES: 4.96 AC TOTAL UNITS: 140 DENSITY: 20.6 DU/AC AREA CALCULATIONS: COMMON OPEN SPACE 54,279 SF PUBLIC PARK 3,786 SF PRIVATE FRONT YARDS 4,539 SF PRIVATE PORCHES 5,106 SF SETBACK LANDSCAPING 15,8555F PARKING CALCULATIONS REQUIRED PARKING: 140 X 2.00 COVERED 280 140 X 0.25 GUEST = 35 TOTAL REQUIRED: 315 PROVIDED PARKING: 140 X 2.00 GARAGES = 280 OPEN GUEST SPACES 69 TOTAL PROVIDED: 349 STYLE AND COLOR SCHEME LEGEND: Cl COTTAGE STYLE -COLOR SCHEMEI C2 COTTAGE STYLE•COLORSCHEME2 SI SPANISHSTYLE-COLORSCHEMEI S2 SPANISH STYLE - COLOR SCHEME 2 CRT CRAFTSMAN STYLE-COLORSCHEME I CR2 CRAFTSMAN STYLE - COLOR SCHEME 2 CR3 CRAFTSMAN STYLE -COLOR SCHEME 3 Fl FARMHOUSE STYLE - COLOR SCHEME F2 FARMHOUSE STYLE - COLOR SCHEME 2 NORTH FIGURE 5 Site Plan 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 22 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 LLI CI • COTTAGE STYLE -COLOR SCHEME 1 (STANDARD PORCH) SI • SPANISH STYLE -COLOR SCHEME 1 CRI • CRAFTSMAN STYLE -COLOR SCHEME 1 IST.ANDARD PORCH) F1 • FARMHOUSE STYLE - COLOR SCHEME 1 (EXTENDED PORCH) "SPANISH" ELEVATION - MATERIALS • 16120 and 20130 CEMENT PESTER EXTEROR FINISH. • SPANISH STYLE CEMENT STILE ROOF. • CEMENT PLASTER OVER RIGID FOAM EAVES. • DECORATYE TERRA COTTA COLOR GABLE END TRIM ACCENTS. • DECORATM SPANISH STYLE METAL RAUNGS. • CFM ENT POSTER RIGID FOAM WINDOW HEADER TRIM. • CEMENT PIASTER RIGID FOAMWINDOW SILL TRIM, TERRA COTTA COLOR • VNYLSINGLEHUNG WINDOW FRAMES. RECESSED 2' AT 6TH AND B STREET. • FIBER GLASS ENTRY DOORS WITH GESS. • SUNBRELLI FABRIC AWNINGSAVITH DECORATIVE SPANISH STYLE BRACKETS. • 0 ORATIVE SPANISH STYLE METAL WINDOW POTSHELF. • DECORATIVE SPANISH STYLE PORCH UGHT. • METAL OIL UPGARAGE DOORS WITH GLAZING. • DOUBLE PANE WINDOWS. "FARMHOUSE" ELEVATION - MATERIALS • 16120 and 20130 CEMENT PIASTER EXTERIOR FINISH. • ASPHALT SHINGLE SLOPING ROOF. • WOOD EAYE AND RAKE BOARDS. • ROUND LOUVER GABLE ANDWOOD CORBEL END ACCENTS WITH CEMENT BOARD SIDING. • W OD PORCH AND DECK RAIUNGS. • WOODCOLUMNS WITH TRIM AT DECKS AND PORCH, FAINTED. • HORIZONTALAND VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN CEMENT BOARD EXTERIOR SIDING. • CEMENT PLASTER RIGID FOAM WINDOW TRIM AT CEMENT PLASTER WALLS. • CEMENT BOARD WINDOW TRIM AT CE ENT BOARD SIDING WALLS. • VINYLSINGLEHUNGWINDONFRAMES. • COMPOSITE MATERIAL LOWER TYPE DECORATIVE WINDOWSHUTTERS • FIBER GLASS ENTRY OOORS`A'ITH GLASS. • 'WOOD POTSHELP ACCENT AT V,1NDOVI. • DECORATIVE FARMHOUSE STYLE PORCH LIGHT. • METALROLLUPGARAGE DOORS'WITH GLAZING. • DOUBLE PANE WINDOWS. VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 S2 • SPANISH STYLE - COLOR SCHEME 2 "COTTAGE" ELEVATION - MATERIALS - • 16/20 and 20130 CEMENT PLASTER EXTERIOR FINISH. • ASPHALT SHINGLE SLOPING ROOF. • WOOD EAVE AND RAKE BOARDS. • METAL LOUVER GABLE END ACCENTS. • WOOD DECK RNUNGS. • CEMENT POSTER RIGID FOAM WINDOW TRIM. • VINYL SINGLE HUNG WINE—FMAES. RECESSED 2' AT 6TH AND B STREET. • COMPOATE MATERIAL DECORATIVE WINDOW SHUTTERS WITH DECORATIVE HARDWARE. • FIBER GLASS ENTRY DOORS'WITH GLASS. • WOOD POTSHEF ACCENT AT W'INDOM • DECORATIVE COTTAGE STYLE PORCH LIGHT. • METAL ROLL UP GARAGE DOORS WITH GLAZING. • DOUBLE PAI E WINDOWS. "CRAFTSMAN" ELEVATION - MATERIALS • 16;20 and 20130 CEMENT PLASTER EXTERIOR FINISH. • ASPHALT SHINGLE SLOPING ROOF. • WOOD SAVE AND RAKE BOARDS AND EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS. • WOOD CORBEL GABLE END ACCENTS WITH CEMENT BOARD SIDING. • WOOD PORCH AIND DECK RAILINGS. • WOOD COLUMNS WITH TRIM AT DECKS AND PORCH, PAINTED. • HORIZONTAL, SHINGLE AN D VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN CEMENT BOARD EPTERIORSIDING. • CEMENT PLASTER RIGID FOAM WINDOW TRIM AT CEMENT PLASTER Y:AUS. • CEMENT BOARD WINDOW TRIM AT CEMENT BOARD SIDING WALLS. • VINYL SINGLE HUNG WIIJDO'Y: FRAMES. • COMPOSITEMATERIAL LOUVER TYPE DECORATIVE WINDOW SHUTTERS. • FIBER GIASS ENTRY OOO—I''LTH GIAW • WOOD POTSHET ACCENT AT WIN DOW. • DECORATIVE CRAFTSMAN STYLE PORCH LIGHT. • METAL ROLL UP GARAGE DOORS WITH GLAZING. • DOU BLE PAN E WTNDOIVS. CR3 • CRAFTSMAN STYLE - COLOR SCHEME 3 F2 • FARMHOUSE STYLE - COLOR SCHEME 2 (STANDARD PORCH) FIGURE 6 Conceptual Architectural Styles 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 24 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 FROM -RIGHT PERSPECTIVE Ltti tLtVAIION RIGHT ELFJAVON 77 7771T t+u.*,m a r �`�:14; Nom( � � � }{NoI x Y Vim;E���i' 8s j SQ"�Q r _ h di a 1 r �+! ■��s,( ail.: ■��� �•i`3 �. 5 � - - - - r s Qtl �� art E� { a � r u"Ib f l._W. Ij LA ° I LIT,_. PIAN 4 PIAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN I PLAN 2 PLAN 3 VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FIGURE 7a Tustin City of Tustin Ciy of Melrose 6-Plex Elevations Jul 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 26 . Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 FRONT -RIGHT PERSPECTIVE RIGHT ELEVATION VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 LEFT ELEVATION FIGURE 7b Veranda 4-Plex Elevations 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 28 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 PLANTING LEGEND EES SHRUBS GROUNCC�PS -;Z4 VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 FIGURE 8 Landscape Plan 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 1 i City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 30 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 All FIGURE 9 Sound Walls 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 1 J , City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 32 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 PUBLIC PARK PLANTING DG PATH TURF ENHANCED PAVING DECORATIVE FEATURE DOG WASTE STATION SEAT WALL NO MOW GRASS RECREATION AREA BUILT IN BBQ POTTED PLANTS POOL ENHANCED PAVING WROUGHT IRON FENCE RAISED PLANTER W/ BENCH VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 FIGURE 10 Recreati®n Area 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 34 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 FIGURE 11 PaSeos 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 36 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 L 1 3.0 Project Description Construction Project construction is expected to span 25 months', divided into three phases: demolition, site preparation and grading, and construction. Construction vehicles would access the project site from W. 6th Street and S. B Street. Phase 1— Demolition: The demolition phase includes removal of the existing buildings and concrete/asphalt and would last 4 months. Phase 2 — Site Preparation & Grading: The project's grading involves disturbance of 6.81 acres of soil. The maximum depth of proposed grading is approximately nine feet at the water and storm drain utility installations. As shown in Table 1, this phase would last approximately 2 months. Phase 3— Construction: The third phase includes utility installation, streets and sidewalks and construction of the residential building. Building constriction is anticipated to occur over 19 months. Construction would occur during daylight hours. Table 1 provides a list of the type and number of equipment and vehicles for each construction phase. All equipment and vehicles would comply with the City's noise requirements. Table 1. Construction Phasing & Equipment Phase Duration Equipment Concrete Saw 1 Demolition 4 months Excavators (3) Dozers (2) Loaders/Backhoes 2 Graders (1) Dozer (1) Excavators (1) 2 Grading 2 months Loaders/Backhoes (3) Excavator (1) Scarper (1) Water Truck Crane (1) Welders (1) Forklift (3) 3 Construction and Paving 19 Months Generator set Loaders/Backhoes (3) Pavers (2) Rollers 2 Total 25 Months The conceptual grading plan is shown in Figure 12, Grading Plan, and the tentative tract map is shown in Figure 13, Tentative Tract Map. ' For air quality modeling purposes, 13 months are assumed to conservatively overestimate potential air quality impacts. See Table 4-2, Modeled Construction Phasing & Equipment. City of Tustin - Initial Study1mitigated Negative Declaration Page 37 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 3.0 Project Description Project Design Features (PDFs) The following PDFs are incorporated into the project by the applicant/developer project to avoid and minimize impacts. These features would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PDF -1 Air Filtration Systems The applicant/developer shall install upgraded air filtration systems in all residential units. Air filtration devices shall be rated MERV13 or higher. Ventilation systems in residential units shall meet the following minimal design standards: ■ A MERV13 or higher rating; ■ At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air; ■ At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and ■ At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the buildings' heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) air filtration system shall be required. Ensure that the CC&R's and other property documents (1) require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected buildings for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include provisions that fees associated with owning or . leasing a unit(s) in the building include funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and replacements of the filters, as needed. PDF -2 Sound Wall The project shall provide a minimum 20 -foot high sound wall along the project's interface with Interstate 5, adjacent to the southern property boundary. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 38 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 « a a y 1 p Y ._ I w . -- u S STREET OT if _.<c.w.-.'., ... .; i x, ..� x.�.. ._ - ..t+V-„ - «_ r-� .'�- .uax�-7��. •.. .. ..n �y :.- .. ''i`Y _ rron <gg.< ryg�nyan� e'ce ,um «a �ii . € lt.rsi sa3' ita $ I � � x< LOT 4- r R �- � J•' ,.ria u � �' � i— \i 'a 1, e* 'L, `_x 8.'t� t� '�.i "" _ „� '" i,, <a m �,�;.e. t �: ! ��E "•—'F--- —ate r, BMio/ \..\�\\ _�- � ;:��' _. >*. t. R.. „"-_A�tio! ._ r• : �t;;^4"_.r.� `tea':. ... �..— �m 4.0, -- f®mom 0®� D®B� VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City Of Tustin July 20, 2016 JalZ1 r r1 ;,, . vFNA.o. cwn r=w crrr OF aysxIN �.a<ee�,v eew • a� �%��^ Nensaxs-Q _ iBxl'A19PE lRACL 1nP NE. t7BE9 420 i. E L M INARY GRADIN N 6NN 4G PLB.1 PRELUIB NSNBBPN ooNsu� rm,,.�....,.. C_N FIGURE 12 Grading Plan 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 40 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 BA<•S OG REFR!YGS .M �. FlO�E xossrtwwas rowan. rvss LANG ARFA Rt S.EET INDEX: pNDFlngFm� © c.md4i1 rw rreRc yxrts NOTE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17993 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20.2016 1"3P trq�.. ... .. b&. 4 E e� waa C=t 1ED 11. AM-884 6 H98SBH M8PRB CC=B FIGURE 13 Tentative Tract Map —=77-F_.-----�-- OT A rr � i f L, . 1 i `li } Li : I LOT 1 L J i ..I ei �° VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20.2016 1"3P trq�.. ... .. b&. 4 E e� waa C=t 1ED 11. AM-884 6 H98SBH M8PRB CC=B FIGURE 13 Tentative Tract Map 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 42 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis ' 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ANALYSIS 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below (X) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, Aesthetics and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Greenhouse Gas I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, Population/Housing there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been x made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Emissions will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Agricultural Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Hazards & Hazardous I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially Public Services significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) Materials has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze Air Quality only the effects that remain to be addressed. Hydrology/Water I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, Recreation because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or Quality mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Geology/Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been x made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name 0 For 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination, is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from `Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: (a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. --(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were. incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 46 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. r 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST QUESTIONS 1 Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Response: City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 47 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact �° I: AESTHETICS k e� Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ X scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ X resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ X ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ ❑ X ❑ light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Response: City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 47 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis No Impact — Based on the County of Orange Master Plan of Scenic Highways and the City's General Plan, there are no designated scenic highways or vistas in the project area. The project site vicinity contains a mixture of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The 1-5 right-of-way is located immediately along the site's southern boundary. The proposed project would replace the commercial/industrial buildings with 140 two- and three-story townhomes. The change in land use and associated building types would alter the visual appearance of the project site but would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista. Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Scenic Highway Mapping System (September 7, 2011), http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic—highways/; County of Orange Master Plan, Ch. IV Scenic Highway Plan (July 2014); City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element (November 20, 2012). Would the project: b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Response: No Impact — There are no designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, there are no State -designated or eligible scenic highways within the City of Tustin. Therefore, there would be no impact related to damaging scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Source: California Department of Transportation, Officially Designated Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways; California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Scenic Highway Mapping System (September 7, 2011), hftp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic—highways/. Would the project: c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and -its . . surroundings? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The visual character of the site's surroundings is dominated by 1-5, residential, industrial, and commercial uses. One- and two-story single-family residential is located to the north across W. 6th Street, one- and two-story industrial and commercial buildings to the east, a two-story self -storage is the west, and 1-5 is immediately to the south. Multi -family residential uses and a mobile home park are located across 1-5. The project site is located just west of the Old Town Commercial area in Tustin, which is characterized by retail, professional offices, and service-oriented businesses serving Old Town Tustin. The single-family residential neighborhood to the north encompasses several historic homes. These homes, along with the project site, are located within the boundaries of Tustin's Cultural Resources District, which was created to ensure the maintenance, preservation, and enhancement of Tustin's Old Town area and existing single-family zoning within the area. The proposed residential project would remove the 11 existing 1970s one- and two-story buildings and parking lots. The complex currently is embellished by large, pagoda -like, Asian roof elements over each suite main entryway, as well as at some building corners. The buildings would be replaced with 140 two-, three-, and four-story residential units. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 48 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Massing of the project's buildings would be broken up along W. 6th Street with 26 -foot wide alleys and 15 -foot wide paseos. A street scene elevation is provided in Figure 14, Streetscape. Units fronting W. 6th Street would be a maximum of 2 -stories in height, and would appear similar to the one and two-story single-family homes across W. 6th Street, as well as the adjacent 2 -story self - storage to the west. The proposed project would be designed following the cottage, craftsman, farmhouse and Spanish design influences, in a manner consistent with the historic architecture used in the surrounding area. The project is designed to blend with the existing single family neighborhood, and as such, the project features only a limited number of fences and walls. The intent is for the community to feel open and welcoming, while still providing the necessary protection from 1-5 and security for its recreational facilities. The community courtyard, fronting on 6th Street, has an informal "garden" aesthetic to fit the existing streetscape character. The courtyard features a seat wall, landscape and lawn area, and dog station. The proposed residential project would not substantially degrade the visual quality and character of the site and its surroundings. Because of the infill nature of the proposed project and its compatibility with similar -scale buildings within this urban setting, visual impacts associated with the construction of the proposed residential project are considered less than significant. Source: None. Would the project: d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Response: Less than Significant Impact — Spill light occurs when lighting fixtures such as streetlights, parking lot lighting, exterior building lighting, and landscape lighting are not properly aimed or shielded to direct light to the desired location and light escapes and partially illuminates a surrounding location. Sensitive uses (e.g., residential uses) surrounding the project site could be impacted by the light from development within the boundaries of the project site. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours. Any construction -related illumination during evening and nighttime hours would consist of the minimum lighting required for safety and security purposes only and would occur only for the duration required for the temporary construction process. Due to its limited scope and short duration, light resulting from construction activities would not substantially impact sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of off-site areas surrounding the construction area, or interfere with the performance of an off-site activity. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and light impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. The project ,site is currently illuminated by nighttime security lighting, street lighting, and wall lighting. Surrounding lighting conditions are typical of similar urban environments particularly those with mixed land uses (e.g., commercial and residential) that have elevated light levels on non-residential sites and on high traffic roadways that require additional lighting. The proposed project would introduce residential nighttime lighting. Residential lighting would be similar to light sources associated with the existing commercial, industrial, and residential uses adjacent to the project area; however, more lighting fixtures are planned than what are onsite . today. After project implementation, site lighting would consist of onsite private drive lighting with 16 -foot and 13 -foot tall poles, low-level (less -than 5 -feet) bollard lighting, and wall lighting. Similar City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 49 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis to the existing site lighting, the proposed project's lighting would be illuminated from sunset to sunrise (generally 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., depending on the time of year). All lighting fixtures are required to have light shielding pursuant to the City's municipal code, "Tustin City Code" (TCC) Section 9271 hh, which would prevent light spillage off of the property. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of new nighttime light, and no mitigation is required. Glare is the result of improperly aimed or blocked lighting sources that are visible against a dark background such as the night sky. Glare may also refer to the sensation experienced looking into an excessively bright light source that causes a reduction in the ability to see or causes discomfort. Glare generally does not result in illumination of off-site locations but results in a visible source of light viewable from a distance. Glare could occur from building materials of the new structures, including glass, concrete, stucco, wood, and other materials. The existing buildings have larger plate glass windows as is typical of commercial and other buildings housing businesses. The proposed building materials and proposed uses are typical of those found in the surrounding residential areas and are not anticipated to create unusual or isolated glare effects as they do not have reflective surfaces. The proposed residential buildings have limited glass features facing existing residences. In addition, the .use of extensive landscaping along project boundaries, and light shielding required by TCC Section 9271 hh would prevent direct views of light sources and reduce the potential for glare. The 20 -foot noise wall adjacent to the site boundary with 1-5 would screen passing motorists from light and glare impacts. The project would create limited new sources of light or glare from security and site lighting but would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area given the similarity of the existing lighting onsite and in the surrounding urban environment. Impacts would be less than significant , and no mitigation is required. Source: TCC § 9271(hh). Proiect Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies Project Design Features (PDFs) No PDFs are applicable to aesthetics. Conditions of Development and Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) The following measures are standard conditions of development and existing plans, programs, or policies (collectively referred to as PPPs) that apply to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to aesthetics, lighting, and glare. These actions would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PPP -1: Construction Hours. Project construction hours will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. PPP -2: Lighting. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan showing compliance with the TCC Section 8102, (N102) (2), which requires a minimum one foot-candle of light on the private drives and parking surfaces and a minimum of one-quarter foot-candle of light on the walking surfaces. The lighting plan is to be City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 50 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis overlaid onto a tree landscape plan. The photometric plan must also show no light spillage pursuant to TCC Section 9271 hh. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary because no significant impacts to aesthetics have been identified. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 51 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT City of Tustin July 20, 2016 FIGURE 14 Streetscape 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis This page intentionally left blank. I City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 53 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analvsis Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Response: No Impact = There are currently no farmland or agricultural activities in the project area. The project site is not used for agricultural production and is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 54 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Mapping and Monitoring Program of =the California Resources Agency. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the conversion of mapped farmlands to non-agricultural uses. Source: California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder (2014), http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html; California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (August 2011), Orange County Important Farmland 2010, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ora10.pdf. Would the project: b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Response: No Impact — The project site is currently zoned PM (Planned Industrial) and has a General Plan designation of I (Industrial). The site is not used for agricultural production, not zoned for agricultural use, and not protected by, or eligible for, a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract would occur, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, there are no impacts. Source: County of Orange General Plan, Ch. VI Resources Element, http://ocplanning.net/civicax/fiilebank/blobdload.aspx?BloblD=8633. Would the project: c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Response: No Impact — The project site does not contain forest land and is not zoned for forest land or timberland. The site is developed with existing industrial/commercial buildings, surface parking lot and associated landscaping. There would be no impact related to a conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, or with the loss of forest land. Would the project: e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Response: No Impact — The project site has not been actively used for agricultural purposes since the mid- 1960s. No land in the vicinity of the site has been designated for future agricultural uses. The proposed project would not result in changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. There would be no impact from implementation of the proposed project. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 55 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Prosect Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to agriculture and forest resources. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary because no significant impacts to agriculture or forest resources have been identified. 1 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 56 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The project site is located within the City of Tustin, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality within the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The main purpose of an AQMP is to describe air pollution control strategies to be taken by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area in order to bring the area into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. A nonattainment area is considered to have air quality worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (National AAQS) as defined in the federal Clean Air Act. The Basin is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for ozone (03), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) standard, and in attainment/maintenance forth federal PM 10, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 57 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact III AIR QUALITY'S ' Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ X ❑ implementation of the applicable quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ X ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable ❑ ❑ X ❑ net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ X ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The project site is located within the City of Tustin, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality within the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The main purpose of an AQMP is to describe air pollution control strategies to be taken by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area in order to bring the area into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. A nonattainment area is considered to have air quality worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (National AAQS) as defined in the federal Clean Air Act. The Basin is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for ozone (03), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) standard, and in attainment/maintenance forth federal PM 10, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 57 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Consistency with the 2012 AQMP for the Basin (2012 AQMP) means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. Per the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993), there are two main indicators of a project's consistency with the applicable AQMP: (1) whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the 2012 AQMP; and (2) whether the project would exceed the 2012 AQMP's assumptions for 2030 or yearly increments based on the year of project build' out and phasing. For the proposed project to be consistent with the AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, the pollutants emitted from the project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold or cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been included in the AQMP projections. Additionally, if feasible mitigation measures are implemented and shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less than significant, a project may be deemed consistent with the AQMP. As discussed in Responses 4.3.b, 4.3.c, 4.3.d, and 4.3.e, below, the proposed project's emissions would be below the emissions thresholds established in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the AQMP and would not result in significant impacts related to implementation of the AQMP. No mitigation is required. Source: Giroux & Associates, Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact. Analysis (2016). SCAQMD, Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (February 2013). Would the project: b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Response: Less than Significant — Construction The proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Air quality impacts would include construction exhaust emissions generated from diesel- and gasoline -powered construction equipment, vegetation clearing, grading, construction worker commuting, and construction material deliveries. Fugitive dust emissions include particulate matter and are a potential concern because the project is in a non -attainment area for particulate matter (PM -10 and PM -2.5), as well as ozone. The AQIA calculated onsite grading and construction equipment emissions and construction crew commuting and truck delivery emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod, version 2013.2.2). The EMFAC2011 program was used for estimating emissions from on -road vehicles during operations. The AQIA uses the following SCAQMD-adopted numerical emissions thresholds as indicators of potential impacts: City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 58 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Table 4-1. Daily EmissionsThresholdsounds/da Pollutant Construction Operations Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Particulate Matter (PM -10) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM -2.5) 55 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev Dozer (1) Following is a summary of the AQIA's construction equipment fleet assumptions and emissions calculations for both phases of construction activity. It should be noted that 270 working days were conservatively used for modeling purposes, however, construction is anticipated to take between 20 and 25 months. Table 4-2. Modeled Construction Phasing & Equipment Phase Duration Equipment Concrete Saw Excavators (3) 1 Demolition 20 days Dozers (2) Loaders/Backhoes (2) Graders (1) Dozer (1) Excavators (1) 2 Grading 20 days Loaders/Backhoes (3) Excavator (1) Scarper (1) Water Truck Crane (1) Welders (1) Forklift (3) 3 Construction and Paving 230 days Generator set Loaders/Backhoes (3) Pavers (2) Rollers (2) Total 270 days As shown in Table 4-3, the AQIA determined all criteria pollutants generated by the project would be well below their respective thresholds (see the AQIA for detailed emissions calculations). In compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, because the region is in non -attainment for particulate matter emissions, the use of Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) is required even if a project does not exceed thresholds. BACMs for the project consist of enhanced dust control mitigation measures (see PPP -3). Examples of these measures include watering of exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times per day and limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. With these measures, PM -10 and PM -2.5 emissions would be reduced by about 40 percent. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 59 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis As shown in Table 4-3, none of the criteria pollutants would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds (with or without the recommended mitigation). Table 4-3. Maximum Daily Construction Activity Emissions (pounds/day) Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM -10 PM -2.5 Phases 1 - 3 2017 Unmitigated 5.6 64.1 45.9 0.1 11.8 6.3 w/Fugitive Dust Mitigation* 5.6 64.1 45.9 0.1 6.6 4.2 2018 Unmitigated 58.2 24.8 23.9 0.0 2.8 1.8 w/Fugitive Dust Mitigation* 58.2 24.8 23.9 0.0 2.8 1.8 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: Appendix B, Giroux & Associates (2016). *enhanced fugitive dust control measures are incorporated into PPP -3. Operation The project would generate less than significant air emissions during operations. Table 4-4, below, depicts annual operational activity emissions. The table shows that operational emissions are negligible. All criteria pollutants would be less than their respective SCAQMD thresholds and are less than significant. No mitigation is necessary for operational air emissions. Table 4-4. Operational Activity Emissions (tons/year) Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM -10 PM -2.5 Area 3.9 0.1 12.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 Energy 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 2.5 6.1 29.1 0.0 6.3 1.8 Total 6.5 6.8 41.6 0.0 6.5 2.0 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: Appendix B, Giroux & Associates (2016). City of Tustin - Initial Study1mitigated Negative Declaration Page 60 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Based on the above,analysis, project construction and operations would neither violate any air quality standard nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. This finding is further strengthened by noting that the calculated emissions are based upon an assumption that all project -related trips are "new" trips. In reality, the existing site uses generate more daily traffic than the proposed project. Implementation of PPP -3 is required to achieve compliance with regional air quality regulations. With application of this SCAQMD requirement, impacts are less than significant. Source: Giroux & Associates, Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (2016). Would the project: c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). As previously discussed in Items Ill.a) and Ill.b), above the project's contribution to criteria pollutants during the temporary construction period would be localized and below the SCAQMD's thresholds. In addition, BACMs are applied to further reduce emissions of particulate matter (PPP -3). Operational activities would generate negligible quantities of air pollutants that are not deemed cumulatively considerable. Since no other sources of potential long-term air emissions would result, impacts would be less than significant. Source: Giroux & Associates, Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (2016). Would the project: d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Response: Less than Significant Impact — Construction Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For the proposed project, LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The following significance thresholds for LSTs have been established by the SCAQMD: • 148 lbs/day of NOx • 1,519 lbs/day of CO City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 61 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis • 24 lbs/day of PM10 • 8 lbs/day of PM2.5 Projects in the Basin with emissions that exceed any of the LSTs above are considered significant by the SCAQMD. For the proposed project, the primary source of possible LST impacts would be construction. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours, such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility. The closest sensitive receptors . to the various construction phases are considered to be the future single-family residential homes located approximately 75 feet away from the project site, across 6th Street. Therefore, a 25 -meter source -receptor distance was chosen. Table 4-5 shows the construction -related emissions of CO, NOx, PM 10, and PM2.5 from off-road construction equipment that would operate on the project site. Even though construction activities would not be occurring simultaneously, the construction emissions estimated below in Table 4-5 assume that construction, paving, and painting activities would overlap in order to represent a worst-case scenario. Because construction activities on the project site must comply with dust control and other measures prescribed in SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to ensure that short-term construction impacts are minimized, compliance with these rules is assumed in Table 4-5 in the "Mitigated" line. As shown in Table 4-5, the calculated emissions rates for the proposed construction activities are below the LSTs for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 for both the unmitigated and mitigated construction activity scenarios. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any short-term LST significant air quality impacts, and no mitigation is required. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 62 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 7 1 Table 4-5. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) LST 2 acre/25 meters CO NOx PM -10 PM -2.5 MazOn-Site °Emissions w° w =715 "115 64v 4 r Demolition Unmitigated 34 43 11 3 Mitigated 34 43 5 2 Gradin Unmitigated 33 48 9 6 Mitigated 33 48 5 4 Construction Unmitigated 18 26 2 2 Mitigated 18 26 2 2 Pavin Unmitigated 15 20 1 1 Mitigated 15 20 1 1 Construction and Paving Overlap Unmitigated 33 48 2 2 Mitigated 33 48 2 2 "SCAQMD Threshold 1;519°; " 148; ' _ ;.24'.°... Exceeds°Threshold? '-N0 No. ; No No, City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 62 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 7 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Operation As discussed in section 3.c) above, the proposed project's operational emissions are below SCAQMD standards and would not exacerbate existing environmental hazards. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Pursuant to California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 CalAth 369, Case No. S213478, agencies are not required to analyze the CEQA impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents, unless the proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist. Nevertheless, a health risk analysis has been prepared to address this issue (Health Risk Assessment Report, Tustin Vintage Lofts Project, City of Tustin, California, EPD Solutions, Inc., March 5, 2016). The health risk assessment determined that the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk significance threshold. The health risk assessment has been provided to the City as an information item for land use decision making, but is not a CEQA required analysis condition. Based on market research, the developer/applicant has identified a consumer demand for upgraded air filtration systems in similarly located projects. Therefore, the developer/applicant has included as a project design feature (PDF -1) upgraded air filtration systems, rated MERV13 or higher, in all residential units. Source: EPD Solutions, Inc. Health Risk Assessment Report, Tustin Vintage Lofts Project, City of Tustin, California, (2016) Giroux & Associates, Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (2016); California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005). Would the project: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Response: Less than Significant Impact - The anticipated future development resulting from the proposed project, which includes residential, recreation and ancillary uses would not include land uses typically associated with the emission of objectionable odors, such as agricultural uses or wastewater treatment plants. However, odors may be generated during future construction, such as diesel exhaust, asphalt paving and application of paint, which could be noticed in the vicinity of the project site, and be considered objectionable. These odors would dissipate rapidly as they mix with the surrounding air, and would be short in duration, ceasing upon completion of construction. Therefore, any potential odors would be considered as less than significant. No mitigation is required. Source: Giroux & Associates, Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (2016). Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs The following PDF is incorporated into the project by the applicant, and would reduce impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollution. This action would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 63 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis PDF -1 Air Filtration Systems The applicant/developer shall install upgraded air filtration systems in all residential units. Air filtration devices shall be rated MERV13 or higher. Ventilation systems in residential units shall meet the following minimal design standards: ■ A MERV13 or higher rating; ■ At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air; ■ At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and ■ At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the buildings' heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) air filtration system shall be required. Ensure that the CC&R's and other property documents (1) require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected buildings for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building include funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and replacements of the filters, as needed. PPPS The following measure is a standard condition of development that applies to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to air quality. This action would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PPP -3: Fugitive Dust The project will comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The project developer will require construction contractors and subcontractors to employ the following enhanced dust control measures during construction to minimize particulate matter (PM -10 and PM -2.5) emissions: 1. Suspend the use of all construction equipment during first -stage smog alerts. 2. Apply soil stabilizers such as hay bales or aggregate cover to inactive areas. 3. Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. 4. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. 5. Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times/day. 6. Cover all stock piles with tarps. 7. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly. 8. Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. 9. Trenches shall be left exposed for as short a time as possible. 10. Identify proper compaction for backfilled soils in construction specifications. 11. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 12. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. 13. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. 14. Minimize in -out traffic from construction zone. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 64 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary because no significant impacts to air quality have been identified. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 65 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Would the project:. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ X ❑ either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ X ❑ any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and. Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ X ❑ ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ X ordinances protecting biological resources? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 66 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The project site is a developed parcel in an urban setting surrounded by existing residential, light industrial and commercial uses and has no native habitat. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) because no federal or state listed species occur on the project site. Because the site does not contain sensitive species, there is a low likelihood implementation of the project would impact such species. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species, Species Lists and Accounts, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/ (accessed April 27, 2016). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (accessed April 27, 2016). Would the project: b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The project site is a developed parcel in an urban setting surrounded by existing residential, light industrial and commercial uses with no native habitat. There are no surface waters or drainages with riparian habitat on or in the vicinity of the site. No sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS are present. Therefore, less than significant impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive vegetation communities would result, and no mitigation is required. Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species, Species Lists and Accounts, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/ (accessed April 27, 2016). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (accessed April 27, 2016). Would the project: City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 67 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Response: No Impact — The 6.81 -acre site is fully developed with buildings and a surface parking lot. No jurisdictional features occur on site. In addition, no natural hydrologic features or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) occur onsite. Therefore, no direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a wetland area would occur with development of the Project site. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. Source: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 (section 404). Would the project: d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Response: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated — Due to the presence of trees and shrubs on the project site, there is the potential for birds protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to nest at the project site. The MBTA makes it illegal to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 50, Part 10), including feathers, nests, eggs, or other avian products. This includes the active nests of all bird species; including common species. Existing trees and other vegetation on the project site would be removed during the demolition phase of project construction. These activities have the potential to disturb nesting birds and destroy their eggs and/or nests. To prevent impacts to nesting birds and their eggs and nests, if possible, vegetation removal should occur during the non—nesting bird season (between September 1 and February 28). If vegetation removal occurs during the nesting season (between March 1 and August 31), proposed project activities could impact an active nest. To reduce this potential impact, B-1 requires a pre -construction survey for nesting birds and describes the methods for managing any active nest sites, if encountered. The project site and surrounding areas are developed urban areas and do not support any other wildlife movement. No wildlife corridors traverse the site or the surrounding area and there is no potential for the site to be utilized as a native wildlife nursery site. Implementation of MM 4-1 would reduce potential impacts related to nesting birds to a less than significant level. Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Transportation, California . Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/connectivity/CEHC. Would the project: e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? Response: u City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 68 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis No Impact — Site development would not conflict with any local, policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including tree preservation ordinances because no resources subject to such policies are onsite. Source: N/A. Would the project: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Response: No Impact—The Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) for the Central/Coastal Subregion does not designate this site for preservation or open space uses. Development of the proposed project would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat species identified in the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP. The proposed project would not conflict with local ordinances or the adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impact related to local ordinances and the adopted NCCP/HCP, and no mitigation is required. Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Community Conservation Planning, NCCP Plan Summary: County of Orange (Central/Coastal) NCPP/HCP, https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Orange-Coastal. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans. Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to biological resources. Mitigation Measures B-1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the Community Development Department shall verify that the following note is included on the contractor specifications to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): "To avoid impacts on nesting birds, vegetation on the project site should be cleared between September 1 and February 28. If vegetation clearing occurs inside the peak nesting season (between March 1 and August 31), a pre -construction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. If the Biologist does not find any active nests within the impact area, then vegetation clearing/construction work will be allowed. If the Biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the Biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity. Construction activities would be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified Biologist determines that the nest has been abandoned." City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 69 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change ❑ ❑ ❑ X in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change ❑ X ❑ ❑ in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ X ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ X ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e) Disturb a tribal cultural resource ❑ X ❑ ❑ Explanation of Checklist Responses Response: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact — CEQA defines a "historical resource" as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) is listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) is listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) is identified as significant in a historical resource surrey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) is determined to be a historical resource by a project's Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project involves construction of new residential buildings, which would replace all existing buildings, requiring the demolition of all 11 existing buildings on the property. Cogstone completed a search for archaeological and historical records within a one-half mile radius of the project site at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton (SCCIC) on February 9, 2016. Results indicate that 14 cultural resources investigations City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 70 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and have been completed previously within a one-half mile radius of the project site. One study intersected the project boundaries, along the 1-5 length, but no sites were recorded within the project site during that investigation. The previous investigations resulted in the recording of four cultural resources, including one prehistoric isolate, one single family residence, one single story commercial building, and numerous historic buildings within one historic district (Old Towne Tustin Cultural Resources District). The district borders encompass the north side of W. 6th Street, just north of the project site. The results of the cultural resources literature and records search at the SCCIC indicated that there are no known archaeological or built environment historical cultural resources within the project area. See Appendix C. An architectural survey of the project site was completed on February 10 and 11, 2016, and included nine historic -age (45 years or older) buildings on the property. The two remaining buildings were not included as they are not yet 45 years old. As the historic resources were not previously recorded, Cogstone completed DPR 523 site records for the nine buildings they were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). None of the nine buildings appear to be eligible for listing on the CRHR under any of its criteria, nor do they retain sufficient integrity for listing on the CRHR. They are not considered significant cultural resources, based on the architectural technical study and evaluation. There would be no impacts to historic properties. No mitigation is necessary. Source: Appendix C, Cultural Constraints Technical Memorandum for the W. 6th Street Historic Lofts Project in Tustin, Orange County, California (Cogstone 2016). Would the project: b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Response: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated — Archaeological resources are the physical remains of past human activities and can be either prehistoric or historic in origin. Archaeological sites are locations that contain significant evidence of human activity. Generally, a site is defined by a significant accumulation or presence of one or more of the following: food remains, waste from the manufacturing of tools, tools, concentrations or alignments of stones, modification of rock surfaces, unusual discoloration or accumulation of soil, or human skeletal remains. Archaeological sites are often located along creek areas and ridgelines. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. There are two types of resources: vertebrate and invertebrate paleontological resources. These resources are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically sedimentary formations. Paleontological sites are those areas that show evidence of prehuman activity. Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. As discussed above, results of the cultural resources literature and records search at the SCCIC indicated that there are no known archaeological or built environment historical cultural resources within the project area. An archeological or paleontological field survey was not completed due to the completely developed, built -upon, and paved status of the project site. The project site is highly disturbed, having previously been graded at substantial depths to develop the industrial City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 71 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis complex and an underground parking garage, and it is not expected that sensitive archeological or paleontological resources would be encountered during construction. However, there is a potential for previously unknown archaeological and/or paleontological resources to be impacted during grading activities if earthmoving activities occur at substantial depths. Per mitigation measures C-1 and C-2, the applicant will retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist, who will be contacted in the event that undiscovered cultural resources are encountered during grading. Compliance with the procedures defined in C-1 and C-2 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered archeological and paleontological resources to less than significant. Source: Appendix C, Cultural Constraints Technical Memorandum for the W. 6th Street Historic Lofts Project in Tustin, Orange County, California (Cogstone 2016) Would the project: d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The probability that construction of the project would impact any human remains is low, given the degree of past disturbance of the site, as it is previously graded and developed with 11 industrial buildings. In the event that human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all activities cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. The Coroner would also be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would then be required to contact the most likely descendant.of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California Health ' and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98), as required by PPP -4, would reduce potential impacts involving disturbance to human remains would be less than significant. Would the project: e) Disturb, a tribal cultural resource? Response: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated — Assembly Bill 52 Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., Assembly Bill [AB] 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project's potential to impact "tribal cultural resources." Such resources include "[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical resources or included in a local register of historical resources." AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a "tribal cultural resource." 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 72 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis . Also per AB 52 (specifically PRC 21080.3.1), Native American consultation is required upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City provide it with notice of such projects. A search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested for the project by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 14, 2016. In a response dated March 16, 2016, the NAHC stated that the SLF failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the immediate project area. The NAHC provided the names of Native American contacts representing who may have information regarding cultural resources that could be impacted by the project. Letters detailing the project and requesting information were sent to the Native American contacts on March 18, 2016. One response and request for consultation was received by Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. The City and that tribe commenced consultation by meeting to discuss the proposed project on April 27, 2016. The City and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation's representatives discussed mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources. The consultation process concluded on May 27, 2016 when the parties reached agreement on the appropriate recommendations to make to the City Council concerning "tribal cultural resources" and the project, as outlined in Mitigation Measure C-3. Mitigation Measure C-3 requires a qualified Native American monitor shall be retained by the ApplicanVDeveloper to provide professional Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils (i.e., previously undisturbed soil 18 -inches or more below the surface). Mitigation Measure C-1 requires that an archaeologist be retained provide on-call services in the event archeological resources are discovered and Mitigation Measure C-2 requires a qualified paleontologist in the event that paleontological resources are discovered. Implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-3 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City's consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measure C-3, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would also be reduced below a level of significance. Senate Bill 18 SB 18 was signed into law in September 2004 and went into effect on March 1, 2005. It placed requirements on local governments for developments within or near traditional tribal cultural places (TTCP). It provided a new definition of TTCP, requiring a traditional association of the site with Native American traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies, or the site must be shown to actually have been used for activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies. Previously, the site was defined to require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, lifeways, and ceremonial activities. In addition, SB 18 law also amended Civil Code Section 815.3 and adds California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places. SB 18 requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities through a notification process for involvement of California Native Americans tribes in the land planning process for the purpose of preserving traditional tribal cultural places. The Final Tribal Guidelines recommends that the NAHC provide written information to the lead agency as soon as possible but no more than 30 days after notification if the proposed project is near a TTCP, and another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if they want to consult with the local government to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. There is no statutory limit on the consultation duration. The CEQA public distribution list may include tribes listed by the NAHC who have requested consultation or it may not. If the NAHC, the tribe, and interested parties agree upon the mitigation measures necessary for the proposed project, it would be included in the City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 73 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and project's CEQA documentation. If both the City and the tribe agree that adequate mitigation or preservation measures cannot be taken, then neither party is obligated to take action. Following consultation and prior to adoption of the general plan or specific plan, a local government must refer the proposed action to the tribes on the NAHC contact list that have traditional lands within the jurisdiction. The referral must allow a 45 -day comment period (Government Code Section 65352). The City of Tustin contacted the NAHC to obtain a list of tribes in order to conduct government to government consultation required by state law. Letters detailing the project and requesting information were sent to 10 Native American contacts on March 18, 2016. No requests for SB 18 consolations were received. Implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-3 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City's AB 52 consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measure C-3, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would also be reduced below a level of significance. Source: California Assembly Bill No. 52 Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act (2014). California Senate Bill 18, Ch. 905 (2004). Project Design- Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans. Programs, or Policies PDFs No PDFs are applicable to cultural resources. PPPs The following measure is the standard condition of development that applies to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid, potential impacts related to cultural resources. This action would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PPP -4: Cultural Resources —Human Remains Should human remains be discovered during project construction, the project would be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the human remains until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity, of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. Mitiaation Measures C-1: Archeological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Applicant/Developer shall provide a letter to the City of Tustin Community Development Department, or designee, from a qualified professional archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications for Archaeology as definedat36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A stating that the Applicant/Developer has retained this individual and that the archeologist shall provide on-call services in City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 74 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis the event archeological - resources are discovered. The archeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference to establish procedures for archeological resource surveillance. In the event a previously unrecorded archaeological deposit is encountered during construction, all activity within 50 feet of the area of discovery shall cease and the City shall be immediately notified. The archeologist shall be contacted to flag the area in the field and determine if the archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). If the find is considered a "resource" the archaeologist shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the archaeologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The archaeologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. Excavation as a treatment option will be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. C-2: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Applicant/Developer shall provide a letter to the City of Tustin Community Development Department, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County, stating that the Applicant/Developer has retained this individual and that the paleontologist shall provide on-call services in the event resources are discovered. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. In'the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, ground -disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate adverse impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the City. Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 75 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental,Checklist and Analysis C-3 Grading Native Soils. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, a qualified Native American monitor shall be retained by the Applicant/Developer to provide professional Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils (i.e., previously undisturbed soil 18 -inches or more below the surface). The Native American monitor from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, shall be selected by the Applicant/Developer and verification of retention of the Native American monitor shall be provided to the City of Tustin Community Development Department on tribal letterhead, including the monitor's name and contact information. The Native American monitor and a City of Tustin Community Development Department designee shall be present at the pre -grading conference to establish procedures for Native American resource surveillance. The Native American monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities of native soil (i.e., previously undisturbed soil 18 -inches or more below the surface) including but not limited to post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching. 1 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 76 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I`VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS 7 Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ ❑ X ❑ fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ X ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, ❑ X ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ X ❑ the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ X ❑ ❑ that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ X ❑ ❑ defined in the California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 77 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Response: Less Than Significant Impact — A Geotechnical Investigation Report was originally prepared for the project in. February 2016, by Geotek, Inc. The Geotechnical Report evaluated seismic and other hazards to the site. The project site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone as identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The nearest zoned fault is the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone, located approximately 10% miles to, the southwest and the Whittier Fault, located approximately 11 Y2 miles to the northeast. Because the project is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, there is a less than significant impact associated with the potential for rupture of a known fault within such a zone. Source: California. Geological Survey (CGS). 2013, May 29. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html#. 2001, January 17. Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Tustin Quadrangle. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. 1994. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Orange County. Open File Report 94-15, Plate 1. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR-94-15/OFR-94-15—Plate—l.pdf-, Appendix D. Geotechnical Investigation Report (Geotek, 2016). ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Response: Less than Significant Impact— The project site lies within a region of active faulting and seismicity in Southern California. Potential regional sources for major ground -shaking hazards include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Elsinore fault zones. This risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. The project would be required to construct proposed structures in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), also known as California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 and the City Building Code. The CBSC and City Building Code are designed to preclude significant adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. The Geotechnical Report provides seismic design criteria and design recommendations for the project site, which, when implemented, would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Impacts related to exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Source: Appendix D, Geotechnical Investigation Report (Geotek, 2016). iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Response: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated — Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake -induced ground motion, create City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 78 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016. 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has developed, the effects can propagate upward into overlying non -saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures. The results of the analysis indicate that the subsurface soils between 40 feet and 45 feet are potentially susceptible to liquefaction upon the application of the design earthquake. Based on the analysis performed, a total estimated seismic -induced settlement of approximately 1 inch with an estimated % inch of differential settlement across a 40 feet span. Due to the relative thickness of the overlying non -liquefiable soils, surface manifestations resulting for soil liquefaction are not likely. Mitigation Measure G-1 requires the project applicant to comply with the recommendations of the project's Geotechnical Evaluation (GeoTek, Inc., February 1, 2016) (included in Appendix D of this IS/MND) and the most current California Building Code (CBC), which stipulates appropriate seismic design provisions that shall be implemented with project design and construction. For these reasons, there is a less than significant impact associated with the potential for seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. Source: Appendix D, Geotechnical Investigation Report (GeoTek, 2016). iv. Landslides? Response: No Impact — The project site is relatively flat, with an approximate total relief across the site of up to 3 feet, sloping down toward the south. There are no hillsides or steep slopes on the site or in the vicinity of the project site. Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during the geotechnical investigation. Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible. Accordingly, property would not be exposed to any risk of landslide. Due to the flat topography of the project site, the potential for landslide or rockfall in the future is considered to be very low and there would be no impact as a result. Source: Appendix D, Geotechnical Investigation Report (GeoTek, 2016). Would the project: b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The potential for erosion or loss of topsoil would be negligible with development and implementation of erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) required of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for any development on the project site. An Erosion Control Plan would be prepared prior to construction as part of the overall SWPPP to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and other water quality impacts associated with construction. The SWPPP would establish BMPs for erosion and sediment control and non -storm water management during construction activities. Additionally, a Water Quality Management Plan City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 79 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and (WQMP) has been prepared to prevent stormwater pollution and manage urban runoff after construction. (see Appendix E) During construction, the project would be required to comply with the SCAQMD's Fugitive Dust restrictions (Rule 403). Project site grading and infrastructure would be designed to City standards to minimize erosion potential. Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP with an Erosion Control Plan is required by PPP -5. Preparation and implementation of a WQMP is required by PPP -6. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 is a standard condition of development and is incorporated into the project as PPP -3. Compliance with these PPPs, which implement standard conditions and BMPs required by local and State regulation, would reduce any potential impacts to below a level of significance. Source: Appendix E, WQMP (C&V Consulting, Inc., 2016). Would the project: c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Response: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated —The project site is not located in an area subject to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence or liquefaction hazards. The near - surface soils generally consist of medium dense to dense native alluvial soils, as well as hard conditions. The proposed project would be subject to the recommendations of the geotechnical report, -as well as future geotechnical recommendations associated with future grading and building permits, which would ensure that any potentially unstable soils present on the project site are appropriately remediated through site design considerations. To ensure these recommendations are adhered to in final project designs, Mitigation Measure G-1 is required. With the application of this mitigation measure, the risk associated with unstable soils causing harm to humans or structures is below a level of significance. Source: Appendix D, Geotechnical Investigation Report (Geotek, 2016) Would the project: e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Response: No Impact — No septic tanks are proposed. Therefore, there is no impact related to soils being incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs No PDFs are applicable to geology and soils. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 80 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis PPPs The following measures are standard conditions of development and existing plans, programs, or policies (collectively referred to as PPPs) that apply to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to geology and soils. These actions would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PPP -3: Fugitive Dust (Refer to Item III for the text of this PPP) PPP -5: Stormwater Pollution/Erosion Control In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed project shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. • The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. • The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and 'disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. • A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as°n"eeded to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. PPP -6: Water Quality Management Plan The project would comply with NPDES requirements for control of discharges of sediments and other pollutants during operations of the facility through preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in effect for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit application. Mitigation Measures G-1. All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the geotechnical documents prepared by GeoTek, Inc. (included in Appendix D of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration). Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the City of Tustin City Engineer, or designee, prior to the start of grading to verify that requirements developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, as well as the recommendations of the project City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 81 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final report subject to review by the City Engineer, or designee, prior to the start of grading activities. Source: Appendix D, Geotechnical Investigation Report (Geotek, 2016). 1 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 82 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 1 1 Constituent gases of the Earth's atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth's radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (Os), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth's natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the state's greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and N2o are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off -gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. Local jurisdictions have the authority and responsibility to reduce GHG emissions through their police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions resulting from its land use decisions. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the global climate change potential of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant global climate change impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. Currently, SCAQMD has only adopted a GHG emission threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) for industrial projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. However, SCAQMD has initiated a Working ,Group to develop a detailed methodology for evaluating GHG emissions significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for all land use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, they have not been formally adopted. The City currently does not have an adopted climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions within its jurisdictional City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 83 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7 " UII GREENHOUSE£GAS IS EMSSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, ❑ ❑ X ❑ either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy ❑ ❑ X ❑ or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1 1 Constituent gases of the Earth's atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth's radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (Os), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth's natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the state's greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and N2o are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off -gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. Local jurisdictions have the authority and responsibility to reduce GHG emissions through their police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions resulting from its land use decisions. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the global climate change potential of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant global climate change impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. Currently, SCAQMD has only adopted a GHG emission threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) for industrial projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. However, SCAQMD has initiated a Working ,Group to develop a detailed methodology for evaluating GHG emissions significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for all land use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, they have not been formally adopted. The City currently does not have an adopted climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions within its jurisdictional City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 83 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis boundaries, and no other regional GHG reduction plans have been adopted. The City uses SCAQMD thresholds for projects located in the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered to create a significant cumulative GHG impact if the it would exceed the annual threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Response: Less than Significant Impact — Construction GHG Emissions Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, with the majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions) occurring during the project's operation (as opposed to its construction). Typically, more than 80 percent of the total energy consumption takes place during the use of buildings, and less than 20 percent is consumed during construction.2 GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term (approximately less than 2 years) from construction activities and would consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. The estimate presented below includes construction emissions in terms of annual CO2e GHG emissions from increased energy consumption, water usage, and solid waste disposal, as well as estimated GHG emissions from vehicular traffic that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as site grading, utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles on-site, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from onsite construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The GHG emission estimates presented in Table 4-6 show the emissions associated with construction of the proposed project. Table 4-6. Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e) YEAR CO2e Year 2017 579.0 Year 2018 22.8 Total 601.8 Amortized 20.1 The SCAQMD's GHG emissions policy for construction is to amortize emissions over a 30 -year time period.1 Construction of the proposed project would result in average emissions of 20.1 MT Of CO2e per year over the course of 30 years. The estimated construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD's threshold criteria of 3,500 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, project construction would be considered to have a less than significant impact related_ to GHG emissions 2 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007. Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities, Paris, France. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 84 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016. 1 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis and would not, directly or indirectly, have'a significant impact on the environment and no mitigation is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the project would be required to implement construction exhaust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 for other air quality topics discussed above, including minimization of construction equipment idling and implementation of proper engine tuning and exhaust controls. Both of these measures would reduce GHG emissions during the construction period. Operational GHG Emissions Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile sources and indirect emissions from stationary sources associated with energy consumption. Area -source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses, natural gas for heating, and other sources. Mobile -source emissions of GHGs would include project -generated vehicle trips associated with onsite residences. Increases in stationary -source emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity, natural gas, and water by the proposed project. The GHG emission estimates presented in Table 4-7 show the emissions associated with the level of development at buildout. Appendix B includes the Air Quality and GHG Impact Analyses (Giroux & Associates, April 2016), which includes the CalEEMod calculations for GHG emissions. Table 4-7. Operational GHG Emissions Consumption Source Area Sources -.,34.7 Energy Utilization 309.6 Mobile Source 1,126.4 Solid Waste Generation 31.0 Water Consumption 67.4 Construction 20.1 Total 1;58,9 2 GuidellnewTh"reshold 3;5x00 x Exceeds Threshold ? ` No Operation of the proposed project would result in average emissions of 1,589.2 MT of CO2e per year. The estimated operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD's threshold criteria of 3,500 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, project operation would be considered to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions and would not, directly or indirectly, have a significant impact on the environment. No mitigation is required. Source: Appendix B. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses (Giroux & Associates, 2016). Would the project: b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Response: City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 85 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Less than Significant Impact—The City currently does not have an adopted climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions within its jurisdictional boundaries, and no other regional GHG reduction plans have been adopted. While the SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold for assessing the significance of GHG emissions, the draft screening value for residential use is 3,500 MT of CO2e per year. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in operational and amortized construction GHG emissions that are significantly below the suggested 3,500 MT of CO2e per year metric. As a result, the proposed project is consistent with SCAQMD's adopted plans and policies, which were determined by SCAQMD to be consistent with California's State - level plans, policies, and regulations related to GHG. Therefore, the proposed project is also consistent with State -level plans, based on its consistency with the 3,500 MT of CO2e per year threshold, and no mitigation is required. Source: Appendix B. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses (Giroux & Associates, 2016). Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans. Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as there are no adverse impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 86 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 87 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and h) Expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Response: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated — The proposed project is not expected to result in impacts from hazards and hazardous materials with respect to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the project parcel was conducted by Hillmann Consultants (see Appendix F). The Phase I assessment revealed two recognized environmental conditions (REC) in connection with the property: ■ The long-term historic use of the property for light -industrial and manufacturing operations (including lithography and printing tenants) is considered to be a REC. ■ The observed leaking transformer along W. 6th Street is considered to be a REC due to the potential for the electrical fluid to contain PCBs. No evidence of any Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) in connection with the property was . identified. A Phase II subsurface investigation was performed in order to determine if the past uses of the property or the leaking transformer have impacted the subsurface of the property (see Appendix G). The Phase II investigation included soil and soil gas sampling to identify potential contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). A total of 12 soil borings occurred across the site. Results of the soil and soil gas samples contained mostly insignificant or non-detectable levels of targeted contaminants that are below accepted residential screening levels. However, two samples had marginal results that exceeded current residential standards: 1. Soil sample 64-1.5 had 200 mg/Kg diesel range hydrocarbons, exceeding the, most conservative threshold for residential cases of 82 mg/Kg (the Residential Regional Screening Level for EPA Region 9). However, the soil sample collected just below this sample 64-5 did not have detectable levels of hydrocarbons, indicating a limited vertical extent of impact. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 88 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 D Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ X a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Response: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated — The proposed project is not expected to result in impacts from hazards and hazardous materials with respect to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the project parcel was conducted by Hillmann Consultants (see Appendix F). The Phase I assessment revealed two recognized environmental conditions (REC) in connection with the property: ■ The long-term historic use of the property for light -industrial and manufacturing operations (including lithography and printing tenants) is considered to be a REC. ■ The observed leaking transformer along W. 6th Street is considered to be a REC due to the potential for the electrical fluid to contain PCBs. No evidence of any Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) in connection with the property was . identified. A Phase II subsurface investigation was performed in order to determine if the past uses of the property or the leaking transformer have impacted the subsurface of the property (see Appendix G). The Phase II investigation included soil and soil gas sampling to identify potential contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). A total of 12 soil borings occurred across the site. Results of the soil and soil gas samples contained mostly insignificant or non-detectable levels of targeted contaminants that are below accepted residential screening levels. However, two samples had marginal results that exceeded current residential standards: 1. Soil sample 64-1.5 had 200 mg/Kg diesel range hydrocarbons, exceeding the, most conservative threshold for residential cases of 82 mg/Kg (the Residential Regional Screening Level for EPA Region 9). However, the soil sample collected just below this sample 64-5 did not have detectable levels of hydrocarbons, indicating a limited vertical extent of impact. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 88 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 D 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 2. Soil gas sample SG6-5 hada maximum concentration of 0.60 ug/L tetrachloroethene (PCE), exceeding the most conservative threshold for residential cases of 0.24 ug/L (the Residential Regional Screening Level for EPA Region 9, as modified by California Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3). The presence of hydrocarbons and PCEs at the site is a potentially significant impact if not properly mitigated. The Phase II investigation recommends additional soil gas testing occur after demolition of the existing structures is complete to ensure solvent concentrations do not exceed stringent residential standards. If there are elevated levels of one or more solvents present, protection of the building foundations may be required with installation of a vapor intrusion barrier system ("liquid boot") or similar mitigation. In addition, all or some of the soil identified with petroleum hydrocarbons will require removal. These measures are required by Mitigation Measure H-1. Project Construction The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. During construction, the proposed project would involve the transport of general construction materials (i.e., concrete, wood, metal, fuel, etc.) as well as the materials necessary to construct the proposed residential community. Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling and servicing of construction equipment. Such substances may be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located on the project site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose workers. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials used in construction of the facility would be carried out accordance with federal, state, City and County regulations. No extremely hazardous substances (i.e., governed under Title 40, Part 335 of the Code of Federal Regulations) are anticipated to be produced, used, stored, transported, or disposed of as a result of project construction. As needed, Material Safety Data Sheets for all applicable materials present onsite would be made readily available to onsite personnel as required by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). During construction of the facility, non -hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of in local landfills. Sanitary waste would be managed using portable toilets, with waste being disposed of at approved sites. Operations The project proposes to construct 140 single-family residential homes. Residential uses typically do not present a hazard associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment because residents are not anticipated to use, store, dispose, or transport large volumes of hazardous materials. Hazardous substances associated with residential uses are typically limited in both amount and use such that they can be contained without impacting the environment. Project operation would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., solvents, cleaning agents, paints, fertilizers, pesticides) typical of residential uses that, when used correctly and in compliance with existing laws and regulations, would not result in a significant hazard to residents or workers in the vicinity of the proposed project. The OCFA is the administering agency for the chemical inventory and business emergency plan regulations for the City. The OCFA's disclosure activities are coordinated with the Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA). The HCA is the Certified Unified Program Agency for local implementation of the disclosure program and several other hazardous materials and hazardous City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 89 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis waste programs. The OCFA's Hazardous Materials Services Section is staffed with technical and administrative personnel who are assigned implementation and management of the disclosure program. All facilities are encouraged to work closely with the OCFA in order to eliminate any unnecessary efforts or costs in complying with the disclosure program. The Orange County Waste and Recycling Department manages four hazardous material and hazardous waste collection centers designed to prevent damage to the environment and reduce the risk of accidental poisoning by removing household hazardous materials and medicines from the home. Because these resources are available to anyone in Orange County, it is reasonable to conclude that the residences would utilize such programs to properly dispose of household hazardous waste. Therefore, impacts associated with the disposal of hazardous materials and/or the potential release of hazardous materials that could occur with the implementation of the proposed project are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. No manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials would occur within the project site. Typical use of household hazardous materials (e.g., pesticides, fertilizer, solvents, cleaning products, and paints) would not generally result in the transport, disposal, or release of hazardous materials of an amount that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Source: Appendix F, Phase I ESA and Appendix G, Phase II ESA (Hillman Consulting, 2016). Would the project: c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Response: No Impact — The nearest school site, Tustin High School (grades 9-12) is located approximately 0.7 mile away and no schools are proposed to be located within one-quarter mile of the project site; therefore, there would be no hazardous materials impact to schools located one-quarter mile of the site. Would the project: d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Response: No Impact — The Phase I ESA for the project parcel reviewed the lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project site is not located on any of the lists; therefore, there would be no impact associated with this hazard. Would the project: e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 90 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis No Impact — The nearest public airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 4.25 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, the project is not within two miles of an airport. The site is not within the boundaries of an airport land use plan and there would be no impact. Would the project: f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Response: No Impact—There are no private airfields or airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. A significant impact associated with private airstrips would not occur. Would the project: g) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Response: No Impact — The Tustin Police Department oversees emergency management for the City. The City's Emergency Plan was approved in 2011. The proposed project would change the land uses onsite to residential, but is not expected to substantially alter or interfere with the implementation of the City's Emergency Plan. The project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the proposed project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by OCFA and the City. Because the project would not impede any existing emergency vehicle access or evacuation routes, and would not otherwise conflict with the City's emergency response plans, there is no impact related to the project impairing the implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Source: City of Tustin Emergency Plan, 2011. Would the project: h) Expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Response: No Impact — The project site is located in an urbanized community, with no areas of substantial native vegetation in the vicinity. The project area is not mapped as an area of high wildland fire hazard by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). There would be no impact from wildland fire due to the urban nature of the area. Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA: Tustin (October 2011) http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire—prevention/fhsz—maps/FHSZ/orange/c30—Tustin—vhfhsz. pdf. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to hazards and hazardous materials. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 91 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Mitigation Measures H-1 During construction, all soil identified with petroleum hydrocarbons, as shown in area B4 in Figure 1 of the Phase II investigation, shall be remediated or removed from the site. Following completion of demolition activities on, all or part of the site, a qualified hazardous materials specialist shall conduct soil gas testing at the location of the residential structures proposed on the site, as recommended by the Phase II investigation. If any testing sites reveal contamination in excess of the EPA Region 9 Residential Regional Screening Level thresholds, measures to minimize intrusion of pollutants into residences shall be applied as determined by the hazardous materials specialist. 1 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 92 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX HYDROLOGYrvAND WATER (QUALITY ,., �_ k".�'w._u. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ X ❑ waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ X ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table? c) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ X ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ X ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ X ❑ which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ X ❑ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ X hazard area? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ X area structures that could impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ X injury or death from flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ ❑ X inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 93 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Response: Less than Significant Impact — This section is divided into analyses for Short-term Construction Impacts and Long-term Operational impacts. Short-term Construction During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into receiving waters. The project is subject to regulation under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. To implement NPDES requirements, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued the statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No 2009-009- DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002). Under this Construction General Permit, individual NPDES permits or Construction General Permit coverage must be obtained for discharges of stormwater from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres and are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or be covered by the Construction General Permit. During construction, the total disturbed soil area would be 6.81 acres. Because the proposed project disturbs greater than 1 acre of soil, the project site is subject to the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. Coverage under the Construction General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) with the SWRCB prior to commencement of construction activities. Among the PRDs are a Risk Assessment;.a Site Map, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the construction site during construction. The Construction General Permit requires dischargers to assess the risk level of a project based on both sediment transport and receiving water risk, and each project would then be categorized into Risk Level 1, 2, or 3, with increased monitoring required for certain higher -risk sites. Sections 8923 and 8924 of the TCC provide additional regulation of erosion and sediment control and water quality requirements. Pursuant to PPP -5, the project would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement construction BMPs that are detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Compliance with the NPDES and TCC requirements would reduce the project's construction related impacts to water quality to a less than. significant level. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 94 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis '' Long -Term Operations Pollutants of concern during operations include sediments, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, and trash and debris, all of which are typically associated with residential development. The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer (drain) systems (MS4s). The Orange County Flood Control District, the County of Orange, and the City of Tustin, along with other incorporated cities in Orange County (Permittees), discharge pollutants from their MS4s.These discharges are regulated under countywide waste discharge requirements contained in Order No. R8-2009-0030 (as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062), Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Area -wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County, which was approved on May 19, 2011 The Permit requires the development and implementation of a program addressing storm water pollution issues in development planning for private projects. The County Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was developed as part of the municipal storm water program to address storm water pollution from new Development and Redevelopment by the private sector, which the City of Tustin uses as a template for project WQMPs. The Model WQMP describes the process for preparing Conceptual or Preliminary WQMPs and final Project WQMPs for certain new development and significant redevelopment projects called "Priority Projects," which the project would be considered. As a Priority Project, the project would be required to prepare a WQMP that specifies the proposed BMPs to mitigate storm water pollution from the proposed development. The Model WQMP contains a list of the minimum required BMPs that must be used for a development project. These requirements are reflected in PPP -5. Additionally, the project would be subject to compliance with the City's Master Plan of Drainage and CMMC Title 15 Chapter III. Compliance with these requirements would reduce the project's potential impacts to water quality to less than significant levels. Would the project: b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The project site is within the service area of the City of Tustin Public Works Department, Water Services Division. The Water Services Division prepared a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which provides information on the present and future water resources and demands and assesses water resource needs for the utility. According to the UWMP, the main sources of water supply are groundwater pumped from wells within the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County through East Orange County Water District. The UWMP reported current water demand to be 13,000 acre-feet per year, consisting of 11,110 acre-feet of groundwater and 1,890 acre-feet of imports, and projects a 7 percent increase in population by the year 2035. Accompanying the increase in population would be a 17 percent increase in demand for water, including the addition of over 1,200 new residential accounts. The UWMP determined that the City is capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2015 and 2035, taking into account the projected increase in demand. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 95 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental .Checklist and The project provides new residential units that are within the total increase in demand anticipated by the UWMP, and the demolition of the existing commercial buildings would partially offset the increase in demand. In addition, the City of Tustin Public Works Department concluded in a will serve letter dated December 1, 2015 that they are capable of meeting the water demands of the project. Based on these factors, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact involving groundwater. ` Would the project: c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The project site is generally flat, and the project would require limited earthworks of 9,100 CY of cut and 4,100 of fill. As required by regulation and implemented through PPP -5, the project would comply with NPDES requirements for control of discharges of sediments and other pollutants during construction. This requires preparation of a SWPPP, which is submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. As implemented through PPP -5, the project would comply with NPDES requirements for control of discharges of sediments and other pollutants during operations of the facility through preparation and implementation of a WQMP in compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in effect for the Santa Ana RWQCB at the time of grading permit application. A Draft WQMP has been prepared for the project (Appendix E). The WQMP shows that the proposed grading design, with the application of Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are incorporated into the WQMP, would result in post - development stormwater runoff conditions not being significantly different from pre -development conditions. A significant difference is defined by the RWQCB's WQMP guidance as a change in stormwater runoff volume and time of concentration of 5 percent or greater. With the application of PPP -5, requiring preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to control construction -period discharges of sediments and preparation and implementation of a WQMP to control operational -period discharges of sediments, the project would result in less than significant impacts associated with on- or offsite erosion, siltation, or flooding. Would the project: g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that could impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to loss, injury or death from flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 96 Vintage. Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Response: No Impact — The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. There will be no impact related to housing being placed in a 100 -year flood hazard area, or to structures being placed in a flood hazard area that could impede or redirect flood flows. There are no levees or dams with the potential to inundate the site in the case of their failure. Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 06059CO277J, eff. 12/3/2009.. Would the project: j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Response: No Impact—The proposed project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The site is not near the coastline and would not be impacted by tsunami waves. There are no standing bodies of water, either onsite or offsite, that could generate seiche waves. Seiches are standing waves in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, such as a lake, that that can be caused by seismic activity. The site and its surrounding area are generally flat, preventing substantial mudflows. No impacts would occur on the site as a result of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs . There are no PDFs related to hydrology and water quality. PPPs The following measure is a standard condition of development and existing plan, program, or policy (collectively referred to as PPPs) that apply to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality. These actions would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: • See PPP -5, above Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary because no significant impacts to hydrology and water quality have been identified. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 97 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact r r"X.,LAND"USE"AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use ❑ ❑ X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with. jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Response: X 710 X No Impact — Implementation of the proposed project would not change the existing parcel configuration within the project site orwithin the local areas, norwould it change the existing street layout. The project site is surrounded by a wide range of uses, including commercial, light industrial, residential, and is adjacent to a highway, 1-5. Vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided by four driveways along W. 6th Street in the northern portion of the project site and one driveway to B Street to the west. The project would not result in the closure of any public rights-of-way or otherwise impede movement in the area. Therefore, future development of the property would be compatible with the surrounding community and would not physically divide an established community; no mitigation is required. Would .the. project: b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The proposed residential project would conflict with the existing Industrial General Plan land use designation for the site. The project proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of the project site from Industrial to Planned Community Residential (PC Residential). According the City's Land Use Element, the purpose of the PC City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated,Negative Declaration Page 98 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Residential is to allow for the diversification in the relationships of various densities, building and open spaces. The land use designation recognizes that mixed and integrated. uses can be made to be compatible and provides for the development of low, medium and high density residential development within a wide range of living accommodations. The actual mechanism for defining location, density range and other building intensity standards will specifically be governed by Planned Community (P -C) District provisions. The project site currently has a zoning designation of Planned Industrial (PM). The project proposes to rezone the site to P -C District. According the City's Zoning Code, the purpose of the P -C District is to allow diversification of the relationships of various buildings, structures and open spaces in planned building groups while insuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and other provisions of TCC Chapter 2, Part 2, Section 9244. The City's P -C zoning district provides the mechanism for creating special land use regulations to best meet the needs of the project area. The proposed project would be consistent with the amended General Plan and Zoning Code designation and would not conflict with any policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The amended land use designations would be compatible with development patterns in the areas, including low density residential to the north, high density residential to the north east, northwest and south across 1-5, as well as Old Town commercial land use destination to the east of the project site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Sources: TCC Code § 9244. Would the project: c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Response: No Impact —The project site is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and there would be no impact. Project Design Features .& Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to land use and planning. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary because no significant impacts to land use and planning have been identified. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 99 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Response: No Impact — The project site is not utilized for mineral extraction, nor has it been identified as having important resources. There would be no impacts and no mitigation is required. Would the project: b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Response: No Impact— The project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally- or locally -important mineral resources, or within an area that has the potential to be underlain by regionally- or locally -important mineral resources. There would be no impacts and no mitigation is required. Source: City of Tustin General Plan (2013). Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans. Proarams. or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to mineral resources impacts. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 100 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI MINERAL RESOURCES �_S.._...,. ew.:Ss_ .�.._,...,...m.........,.x.....�.__..z ..... _.., A_.,.. .._v....,._ .w..-....Y.r ..<a.<..., ... .....e..,. ..d..rs. .. _.._...._. .......s ,.«.._._«. _ �.�..-. ... ....- _..,. . n.v...F Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Response: No Impact — The project site is not utilized for mineral extraction, nor has it been identified as having important resources. There would be no impacts and no mitigation is required. Would the project: b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Response: No Impact— The project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally- or locally -important mineral resources, or within an area that has the potential to be underlain by regionally- or locally -important mineral resources. There would be no impacts and no mitigation is required. Source: City of Tustin General Plan (2013). Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans. Proarams. or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to mineral resources impacts. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 100 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Mitigation Measures I. No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to mineral resources have been identified. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 101 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis XII NOISE Would the project: a) Expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards? b) Expose persons to, or generate, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) Expose people residing or working in the project area, where the project is located within an airport land use plan, to excessive noise levels? . f) Expose people residing or working in the project area, where the project is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, to excessive noise levels? Explanation of Checklist Responses Standards of Significance ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X Noise impacts are considered significant if they expose persons to levels in excess of standards established in local general plans or noise ordinances. The exterior noise standard for the City of Tustin multi -family residential uses is 65 A -weighted decibels (dBA) community noise equivalent level (CNEL) in usable outdoor space such as backyards, decks, patios, etc. If required, attenuation through setback and project perimeter barriers is anticipated to be used to reduce traffic noise to the 65 dBA CNEL goal. However, an inability to achieve this goal through the application of reasonably available mitigation measures could be considered a significant'impact. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 102 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Impacts may also be significant if they create either a substantial permanent or temporary increase. The term "substantial' is not quantified in CEQA guidelines. In most environmental analyses, "substantial' is taken to mean a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice, this is at least a +3 dB increase. Some agencies, such as Caltrans, require substantial increases to be +10 dB or more if noise standards are not exceeded by the increase. For purposes of this analysis, a +3 dB increase is considered a substantial increase. The following noise impacts due to project -related traffic would be considered significant: 1) If project traffic noise were to cause an increase by a perceptible amount (+3 dB CNEL).or expose receivers to levels exceeding city compatibility noise standards. 2) If future build -out noise levels were to expose on site sensitive receivers to levels exceeding compatibility standards of 65 dB CNEL exterior at any outdoor uses or 45 dB CNEL interior noise levels in any habitable space. General Plan. Noise standards for the City of Tustin are contained in the General Plan, Noise Element General Plan Table N-2 provides a land use matric of compatible uses (shown here as Table 4-8, Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix). The Noise Element of the General Plan contains noise compatibility standards for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. CNEL guidelines for specific land uses are classified into four categories: (A) "clearly compatible," (B) "normally compatible," (C) "normally incompatible," and (D) "clearly incompatible." If a project falls within Zone A or Zone B the project is considered compatible with the noise environment. The City of Tustin considers noise levels of up to 60 dB "clearly compatible" (Zone A) for residential use and levels of up to 65 dB to be "normally" compatible (Zone B). Normally compatible requires that new development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Typically, conventional construction with closed windows and a fresh air supply system or air conditioning will suffice. Zone C shows that substantial noise mitigation will be necessary, such as construction of noise barriers and incorporation of additional building sound insulation. However, projects in Zone C can be successfully mitigated. An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. Municipal Code. Noise standards are also contained in the Tustin City Code (TCC), Chapter 6, Noise Control. The TCC limits the noise level generated on a property that can cross to a neighboring property, primarily to minimize any adverse impact adjoining residential uses. Ordinance limits generally apply to "stationary" sources such as mechanical equipment, manufacturing activities, or vehicles operating on private property. Control of on -road transportation noise is pre-empted from local control. Because the City of Tustin cannot regulate noise generation by the source (traffic), it regulates the pattern of land use exposed to such noise through the Noise Element of the General Plan. Section 4614 of the TCC, shown in Table 4-9, provides noise ordinance limits which are stated in terms of a 30 -minute limit with allowable deviations from this 50th percentile standard. The louder the level becomes, the shorter the time becomes that it is allowed to occur. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 103 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Table 4-8 Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix LAND USE CATEGORIES CONBIUNTITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL Specified Lund use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption cult any buildings involved are of normal CNEL CATEGORIES USES <55 60 65 70 75 SO> RESIDEN'T'IAL SingleFauuly, Duplex, INfidtiple Fanllly A A B C C D D RESIDEI TIAL \Mobile Houle A A B C C D D COMMERCIAL Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging Regional, District A A B B C C D COMMERCIAL Commercial Retail, Bulk, Restam.uit, Regional, Village Movie Theater A A A A B B C District, Special CONWERC1AL Office Bttilding, Research and Develop - INDUSTRIAL nnent, Professional Offices, City Office A A A B B C D L\STITUTIONAL Building COAMNIERCIAL Amphitheater, Concert Hall Recreation, INSTITUTIC)NAL Auditoritmt, hIeethrg Hall B B C C D D D Civic Center COMMERCIAL Children's Antusenient Park, \Miniature Recreation Golf Course; Go -cat Track, Equestrian A A A B B D D Center, Sports Club CO)WNIERCIAL Automobile Service Station, Auto General, Special Dealership, Manufacturing, A A A A B B B INTDUSTRIAL,INSTIMMONAL Waehousing;Wholesale, Utilities ]INSTITC 0NAL Hospital, Church, Libnar,Schools' General Classroom A A B C C D D OPEN SPACE Parks A A A :B C D D OPEN SPACE Golf Cotuse, Cemeteries, Nahue Centeis Wildlife Reserves, lVildlife Habitat A A A A B' C C �AGRIIULTURE Agriculture A A A A A A A INTERPRETATION ZONE A Specified Lund use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption cult any buildings involved are of normal CLEARLY COMPATIBLE conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. ZONE B New constriction or developmentshould be undertaken only after deWled analysis of thenoise reduction NORINIALLY COMPATIBLE requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. ZONE C New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development NORMALLY INCOMPATIBLE does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design ZONE D New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. CLEARLY INCOXIPATIBLE Source: J.J. Van I Residential development of the project parcel could place potential noise constraints upon the remaining light industriaVcommercial uses to the east and west of the project site. As subsequently discussed, this "new" constraint is not anticipated to be a significant source of impact on these businesses because the uses are not typically noise generating land uses that would create a conflict with the proposed residences. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 904 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Tustin noise standards apply to all property within a designated noise zone as follows: Table 4-9. Tustin City Code Noise Standards Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 1 Residential 55 dB 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m 50 dB 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. 2 Commercial 60 dB anytime 3 Industrial 70 d6 anytime 4 Churches, Hospitals, Public Institutions 55 dB anytime 5 Mixed Use Properties 60 dB anytime Source: TCC Section 4614 - EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any residential, public institutional, professional, commercial or industrial property, either within or without the City, to exceed the applicable noise standards: (a) For a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; (b) Plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; (c) Plus 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; (d) Plus 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (e) Plus 20 dB(A) for any period of time. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four (4) noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. The City of Tustin limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. Construction activities that occur during allowable hours are exempt from noise standards. Would the project: a) Expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards? Response: Less than Significant with Mitigation — The City of Tustin Noise Element of the General Plan establishes noise requirements for indoor and outdoor residential uses. Both standards are based upon the CNEL Index and are 65 dB CNEL for exterior noise and 45 CNEL for interior noise. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 105 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and The proposed project would create noise during project construction, which would be short term in nature and project implementation and operation would create stationary noise sources within the project site in the long term. The City of Tustin limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. Construction activities that occur during allowable hours are exempt from noise standards. The noises associated with the ongoing operations of the project would include typical noise sources associated with residential land use. The principal source of offsite noise in the project area would be traffic on the freeway and local roadways. No significant impact is expected from noise because the proposed multifamily land use is not expected to generate higher levels of noise than the existing uses onsite, or the single-family dwellings across the street. Additionally, the most significant source of noise in the project vicinity is 1-5 freeway and traffic noise from W. 6th Street. Noise measurements were taken in order to document existing baseline levels in the area, with freeway traffic noise exposure being a concern for proposed units closest to 1-5. Onsite noise measurements were made on January 21-22, 2016, for 24+ hours to better isolate any possible noise constraint upon the lay -out of the proposed project. The location of each meter is shown in Figure 15, Noise Meter Locations; the long-term readings resulting CNEL are shown in Table 4- 10 and the short-term measurement results are shown in Table 4-11. The meter locations were selected based on the proposed site plan, including where residences are planned in relation to 1-5, surrounding streets, and the proposed location of the community recreation area. One meter was placed at the cul-de-sac closest to 1-5, and one meter was placed along the 6th Street project frontage at 420 W 6th Street. Both meters measured hourly average readings (Leq) which were then used to calculate the 24-hour weighted CNEL for comparison with City standards. Because of unique traffic patterns, i.e., rush hour congestion severely reducing travel speeds, the 24-hour noise pattern is disrupted, from more typical suburban exposures. In particular, the noisiest hours of the day are 6-7 a.m., and 9 a.m. to noon. The ten -fold artificial weighting of pre -7 a.m. noise levels: in the CNEL metric makes the 6-7 a.m. reading the most dominant measurement. Airplanes and jets landing at John Wayne Airport as well as other short- term single noise events were measured, by the long-term meters and accounted for the in the 24-hour weighted CNEL. Table 4-10. Long -Term Monitoring Results (Resultant CNEL) Measurement Meter 1 Meter 2 Parameter 24 -Hour CNEL 73.1 63.1 A supplemental noise measurement was made on January 25, 2016, to further refine the site noise distribution and to confirm the repeatability of the 24-hour readings near 1-5. Four 15 -minute increments were selected as follows (dB): City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 106 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Figure 15. Noise Meter Locations Table 4-11. Short -Term Noise Meter Measurements (dB) Meter No. and Location Leq Lmax Lmin ST Meter 1: Cul-de-sac at "B" SUI -5 68 74 62 ST Meter 1: (24-hour reading) * 68 76 64 ST Meter 2: "B" St (1/2 way 1-5/6t' St) 57 67 56 ST Meter 3: Custom Cabinet Shop 67 72 58 ST Meter 4: Self -Storage W of Site 66 72 62 *at same hour as short-term Outdoor Activity Areas The proposed residential units closest to 1-5 would be exposed to freeway traffic noise. The City of Tustin's acceptable noise/land use compatibility standard for exterior noise exposure in back yards, patios, pools, spas, common recreation areas is 65 dB CNEL. This noise level is exceeded close to 1-5. As shown in the Noise Impact Analysis, noise levels at the ground floor were modeled at 74 dB and 79 dB at the second and third floors. General Plan Table N-3, Interior and Exterior Noise Standards, note 4, specifically defines outdoor environments that must need the 65 dB CNEL limit. Outdoor environments are limited to rear yard of single-family homes, multifamily patios and balconies (with a depth of 6 feet or more) and common recreation areas. No rear yards, patios or balconies with a depth of 6 feet or more are planned for any of the residential units, particularly those along 1-5. Therefore, the patios and balconies are not the type of outdoor environments subject to the 65 dB CNEL (for units along the freeway). City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 107 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis The project's outdoor activity areas would be located along its W. 6th Street frontage. Existing noise was measured at 63 dB CNEL along W. 6th Street, which indicates that the outdoor recreational area would meet the City's exterior noise standard. Therefore, a less than significant noise impact would occur at the proposed project's outdoor activity areas. Interior Areas The basic freeway noise constraint is that the code -mandated interior standard of 45 dB CNEL must be met. As discussed above, noise levels at the ground floor were modeled at 74 dB CNEL and 79 dB CNEL at the second and third floors, respectively. The proposed project includes project design features (PDFs), which will be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), that ensure that residential interiors meet the City's interior 45 dB CNEL noise standard. The proposed project includes a noise wall along its frontage with 1-5 and structural noise attenuation features in order to meet the City's interior 45 dB CNEL noise standard. A 20 -foot noise wall along the 1-5 freeway would be constructed within the project property line (PDF -2). The freeway is sloped such that the southeast end of the project site is 9.5 feet below freeway grade, and at the southwest portion of the site, there is a 4 -foot depression in relation to the freeway. Thus, at project grade, a 20 -foot noise wall would provide 10.5 feet of effective shielding from freeway noise along the southwest perimeter. At the southeast end of the site, a 20 -foot wall would provide 16 feet of noise protection from freeway noise. See Figure 9, Sound Wall. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires architectural structural noise attenuation features to ensure the City's 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise standard is met. Based on existing noise levels, all units would need to meet a noise level reduction (NLR) of 25 dB. Achieving an NLR of 25 dB is relatively easy with standard California Building Code (CBC) requirements, such mandatory dual - paned windows for energy conservation in new; residential construction. With a 20 -foot sound wall, a NRL of 25 dB would be achieved through standard building practices at the first and second floor units. Enhanced structural noise attenuation features with a reduction of 35 dB would be required at the third story units. Interior standards would be met as long as windows are closed. As required by the CBC, and outlined in PDF -1, the proposed project would install heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) units in all residential units because window closure is a necessary condition to meet the interior noise exposure standard. As part of the Noise Impact Analysis, noise levels after implementation of PDF -2 was calculated. Noise at each of the three building levels was calculated separately, as ground floor receptors would experience the maximum benefit of a noise wall and third story receptors receiving the least. After noise levels were calculated, the effect of structural noise attenuation features required by Mitigation Measure N-1 was measured to ensure the project can meet the City's interior noise standards. The Noise Impact Analysis demonstrates that PDFs and proposed mitigation measures can effectively reduce the loudest noise and would result in interior noise levels in the range of 38.8 to 41.1 dB CNEL, which are within the City's 45 dB CNEL residential interior noise standard (see Noise Impact Analysis page 19, Tables 7 and 8). To ensure that these PDFs and mitigation measures adequately reduce interior noise levels, the project applicant/developer shall be required to provide a final acoustical analysis that demonstrates that adequate noise protection exists to meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise threshold for all for residences. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires that a final acoustical study be _ prepared that demonstrates that the interior noise levels in habitable rooms shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL, as defined by Title 24, Part 2, of the CBC. If necessary, the project applicant/developer shall provide structural components with higher STC ratings to ensure that the 45 dB CNEL City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 108 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis threshold is met. With implementation of PDF -2 and mitigation measure N-1, a less than significant noise impact would occur at the proposed project's interior habitable areas. Existing Nearby Areas Conversion of light industrial uses to residences could create a noise constraint on remaining office and light industrial uses east and west of the project site. Whereas the surrounding land uses to east and west of the project site currently must meet Noise Zone 2 or 3 standards relative to existing project site uses, the proposed project would convert the site to a residential use subject to Noise Zone 1 noise limitations. Tustin noise standards apply to all property within a designated noise zone are shown in Table 4- 9 above. Conversion of the project site to residential uses could impose noise constraints on the self -storage use to the west and the light -industrial uses to the east. However, noise measurements indicated that adjacent uses create negligible noise levels and their operations would not be impacted if residential uses are developed on the project site. Light industrial/commercial uses to the east (glass shop, mechanical equipment, repair, etc.) have their offices facing S. B Street, while their rear roll -up doors face away from the project, which is shielded by the buildings themselves. The insurance agency and the church on the east side of S. B Street across the street from the project site are not significant noise generators of concern for the residential use. Any residential use on the project site is further not a new limitation to the adjacent light industrial/commercial uses because the single-family homes on the north side of west 6th Street are already Noise Zone 1. Given the existing noise environment that is dominated by the 1-5 freeway, the current noise constraints placed on non-residential uses on the project site'and adjacent properties due to the existing single-family homes, and the nature of the offsite uses, which are not significant noise generators, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, noise conflicts between the existing non-residential uses that would remain ori adjacent properties after development of the residential project, would not result in significant impacts and no mitigation is required. Source: Appendix H, Noise Impact Analysis (Giroux & Associates, 2016). Would the project: b) Expose persons to, or generate, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Response: Less than Significant Impact — Groundborne vibration and groundborne noise could originate from earth movement during the construction phase of the proposed project. Construction activities may result in short term impacts to the noise environment including groundbourne vibration and noise. However, the project's construction activities do not include activities known to induce strong vibration effects, such as those produced by tunneling or blasting. Vibration Noise Construction activities generate ground -borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground -borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Vibration related problems generally occur due to City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 109 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis resonances in the structural components of a building because structures amplify groundborne vibration. Within the "soft" sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped out. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors (FTA 2006). Ground -borne vibration related to human annoyance is generally related to velocity levels expressed in decibel notation (VdB), the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of VdB is as follows: 65 VdB —threshold of human perception 72 VdB — annoyance due to frequent events 80 Vd13 — annoyance due to infrequent events 94-98 VdB — minor cosmetic damage To determine potential impacts of the project's construction activities, estimates of vibration levels induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented in Table 4-12. Table 4-12. Approximate Vibration Levels Induced by Construction Equipment Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)* Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 75 feet 100 feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 78 75 Loaded Truck 86 80 77 74 Jackhammer 79 73 69 67 Small Bulldozer 58 52 43 46 * (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006) The onsite construction equipment that would create the maximum potential vibration is a large bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 81 VdB at 50 feet from the source. The closest sensitive uses are approximately 75 feet from the closest project perimeter, across 6th Street. By 75 feet the vibration level dissipates to 78 Vd13 which is within the threshold of human perception, and would be within the threshold of annoyance if it occurred frequently. However, large bulldozers and loaded trucks would only be used intermittently during a short period of time during demolition, which is scheduled to last approximately 20 days and because heavy equipment is mobile, it would only operate at the project perimeter near 6th Street for a short period of time. Existing traffic noise from 1-5 and 6th Street would help mask vibration noise. As discussed above, TCC 4617 states that noise associated with construction is exempt from the noise standards -if the allowable hours are limited to the daytime. This limitation of construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. would be effective since it would prohibit construction noise during the hours when people normally sleep and would prohibit construction noise during the early morning and evening when people are typically within their home and more sensitive to noise effects. Therefore, noise impacts from construction vibration would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Structural Vibration Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. A vibration descriptor commonly used to determine structural City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 110 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis damage is the peak particle velocity (ppv) which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, usually measured in in/sec. The range of such vibration is as follows in Table 4-13: Table 4-13. Human Response to Transient Vibration Average Human Response ppv (in/sec) Severe 2.00 Strongly perceptible 0.90 Distinctly perceptible 0.24 Barely perceptible 0.03 Source: Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013 According to Caltrans, the threshold for structural vibration damage for modern structures are 0.5 in/sec for intermittent sources. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1990) identifies maximum vibration levels for preventing damage to structures from intermittent construction or maintenance activities for residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls to be 0.4-0.5 in/sec. The damage threshold criterion of 0.2 in/sec is appropriate for fragile buildings. Old Towne Tustin Cultural Resources District is located north of the project site, across 6th Street. The closest fragile buildings are approximately 75 feet from the project boundary on 6th Street. To be conservative, for the purpose of this analysis and because residential structures across 6th Street are in a historic district and could be considered fragile, the 0.2 in/sec damage threshold for older fragile buildings is used. Below this level there is virtually no risk of building damage. Table 4-14 shows that the predicted vibration levels generated by construction equipment would be 0.089 in/sec at 25 feet and 0.017 at 75 feet, which is well below levels that could create structural damage in fragile buildings (i.e., 0.2 in/sec). Therefore, vibration impacts from would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Table 4-14. Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction Equipment PPV at 25 ft (in/sec) PPV at 50 ft (in/sec) PPV at 60 ft (in/sec) PPV at 75 ft (in/sec) PPV at 100 ft (in/sec) Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.000 Source: Giroux & Associates, 2016 Source: Appendix H, Noise Impact Analysis (Giroux & Associates, 2016). Would the project: c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? City of Tustin -Initial StudyAQigated Negative Declaration Page 111 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Response: Less than Significant Impact - Long-term noise impacts from the proposed project would be primarily from project -related traffic on roadways adjacent to the project site. Table 4-15 summarizes the calculated 24-hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along project adjacent roadway segments. Two timeframes were evaluated; existing conditions with and without project, and year 2035 with and without project. The noise analysis utilized data from the project's Traffic Study (Appendix H). As shown in Table 4-15, no segments would exceed the +3 dB CNEL threshold. The largest project noise increase would be on S. B Street, south of 6th Street. These noise increases occur at the project's driveways along 6th Street and would not impact any existing sensitive use because even under the 2035 plus project scenario, noise levels are less than 53 dB CNEL and well within the recommended 65 dB CNEL residential noise compatibility threshold. One roadway segment would exceed the +3 dB threshold. However, this segment on S. B Street between the project's north driveway and the project's south driveway, is adjacent to light industrial uses and City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 112 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 Table 4-15. Traffic CNEL in dBA at 50 Noise Impact Analysis feet from Centerline Roadway Segment Existing Existing + Project 2035 2035+ Project Pacific Main -6th 53.6 53.4 53.6 53.6 S of 6th 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 South B/ N of Main 55.3 55.2 55.3 55.3 Main -6th 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.3 6th -N Driveway 49.7 52.0 1 49.7 52.0 N Drivewa -S Driveway 49.7 52.3 49.7 52.3 Main St/ W of Pacific 62.5 62.5 64.2 64.2 Pacific -South B 62.1 62.1 64.0 64.0 E of B 62.1 62.1 63.7 63.7 EI Camino Real/ N of 6th 65.3 65.3 65.3 65.3 S of 6th 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 6th/ W of Pacific 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 E of Pacific 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 W of W Driveway 60.2 60.2 60.2 60.2 W Driveway -Center Drive 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.6 E of Center Drive 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.6 W of East Drive 54.9 53.5 54.9 53.6 E of East Drive 54.9 53.6 54.9 53.9 W of South B 55.2 47.9 55.2 48.6 E of South B 56.8 54.3 56.8 54.3 W of EI Camino Real 57.7 57.5 57.7 57.6 E of EI Camino Real 54.0 53.6 54.0 53.6 W of Newport 57.6 55.4 57.6 55.9 Newport/ N of 6th 69.2 69.2 69.4 69.4 S of 6th 69.3 69.1 69.5 69.3 N of EI Camino Real 69.4 69.3 69.4 69.4 EI Camino Real -1-5 NB Ramp 70.1 70.0 70.6 70.6 1-5 NB Ramp -1-5 SB Ramp 69.9 1 69.9 1 71.1 71.1 S of SB Ram '69.7 1 69.7 1 70.5 70.5 As shown in Table 4-15, no segments would exceed the +3 dB CNEL threshold. The largest project noise increase would be on S. B Street, south of 6th Street. These noise increases occur at the project's driveways along 6th Street and would not impact any existing sensitive use because even under the 2035 plus project scenario, noise levels are less than 53 dB CNEL and well within the recommended 65 dB CNEL residential noise compatibility threshold. One roadway segment would exceed the +3 dB threshold. However, this segment on S. B Street between the project's north driveway and the project's south driveway, is adjacent to light industrial uses and City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 112 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis would not impact any existing sensitive use. In addition, the 2035 plus project scenario is less than 56 dB CNEL, which is well within the recommended residential noise compatibility threshold. Noise from the adjacent freeway would also mask this noise impact. Several segments are predicted to experience a noise decrease because the project would generate fewer trips during peak traffic hours compared to existing conditions. Therefore, project traffic noise impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Source: Appendix H, Noise Impact Analysis (Giroux & Associates, 2016). Would the project: d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Response: Less than Significant Impact—The nearest sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the project site are the residential uses across 6th Street, approximately 75 feet away. Development of the project may result in an audible short-term and intermittent increase in noise levels related to grading and construction. No sources of short-term or intermittent noise sources are proposed that would be associated with the on-going operations of the proposed residential project. The City Noise Ordinance is codified in the TCC, and recognizes the potential increase in noise associated with any construction project and provides a specific exemption for such noise. The TCC limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. TCC Section 4617 states that noise associated with construction is exempt from the noise standards if the allowable hours are limited to the daytime. This limitation of construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. would be effective since it would prohibit construction noise during the hours when people normally sleep and would prohibit construction noise during the early morning and evening when people are typically within their home and more sensitive to noise effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Would the project: e) Expose people residing or working in the project area, where the project is located within an airport land use plan, to excessive noise levels? f) Expose people residing or working in the project area, where the project is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, to excessive noise levels? Response: No Impact — John Wayne Airport is located 4.24 miles southwest of the project site. The project site is not within the John Wayne Airport Land Use Plan. Airplane overflight does occur in the project area; however, the noise associated with the overflights do not result in measurements that exceed the City's noise standards. There are no other private airfields or airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, a private airstrip is not proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to excessive noise levels associated City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 113 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis with operations at a private airstrip or helipad; no impacts would result from excessive noise generated by a private airstrip. There would be no impact. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans. Proarams. or Policies ►iva]x, The following PDF is incorporated into the project by the applicant, and would reduce impacts related to noise. This action would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PDF -2: Noise Wall The project shall provide a minimum 20 -foot high sound wall along the project's interface with Interstate 5, adjacent to the southern property boundary. � =) The following measures are standard conditions of development and existing plans, programs, or policies (collectively referred to as PPPs) that apply to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to noise. These actions would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PPP -1: Construction Hours Refer to section I. Aesthetics for the text of this PPP. Mitigation Measures N-1 Structural Noise Attenuation and Final Acoustical Report. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residences adjacent to the freeway (Interstate 5), the Project Applicant/ Developer shall submit a final acoustical report to the City of Tustin Director of Development Services, or designee, that demonstrates that the interior noise levels in all habitable rooms shall not exceed 45 A -weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), as defined by Title 24, Part 2, of the California Building Code. If necessary, particularly for third -floor units, the Project Applicant/Developer shall provide structural components with higher STC ratings to ensure that the 45 dB CNEL interior threshold is met. Structural noise attenuation features for third -floor units are outlined in the "Building Requirements for a Minimum Noise Level Reduction (NRL) of 35 dB" provided in Appendix B of the project's Noise Impacts Analysis (Giroux & Associates, 2016; provided as Appendix H of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) 1 City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 114 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis - - Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f �Xlll POPULATION AND HOUSING �y � z �.;.. ,a 4 r .�-....� ._ .. ............�. », _.i:,._ _,.w.... .......:..........v:.:..�.— _._.. s,.u_.._ .. N_5... _ ...... u..w_..-., ..G„X .... . ......... o-.....w......_......-.-.....J_r»...n.. ..-._... _.. _ . w_ ..G,_ v� _.._..x Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth ❑ ❑ X ❑ in an area, either directly or indirectly? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Response: Less Than Significant Impact — The proposed project includes the development of a residential community consisting of 140 townhomes, which may slightly increase the residential population in the City. According to the General Plan, the proposed project would generate 2.24 persons per dwelling. Therefore, buildout of the project would increase population by an estimated 314 persons. The population of the City of Tustin is 75,540 and is forecast to increase from 81,300 in 2020 to 82,900 in 2035. The addition of 314 new residents would be approximately 0.4 percent of the estimated City's population now, in 2020 and 2035. The project proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of the project site from Industrial to Planned Community (PC) Residential, which would allow a maximum of 20.6 du/ac. The proposed project would include approximately 20.6 du/ac. In addition, the increase in population resulting from the proposed project is not considered significant because it only comprises a small portion (less than 1 percent) of the total population of the City and does not represent a substantial increase in population. In addition, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Plan, mandated by the California State Housing Element law as part of the process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan, has quantified a range of housing needs by income groups for each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The proposed project would help to meet the housing needs of the City of Tustin. Source: California Department of Finance; General Plan (Land Use Element, Table LU -2). California Department of Finance (CDF). 2014, May. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 115 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Cities, Counties, and the State, January, 2011- 2014. http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view. php. Would the project: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Response: No Impact —The project would replace a 183,430 -square -foot light industrial office park with 140 residential units. The property contains no residential structures and there would be no need to construct replacement housing. There is no impact associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or substantial numbers of people. No further analysis of this issue is required. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to population and housing impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no population and housing impacts have been identified. 1 City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 116 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact - V XIV.-, PUBLIC: SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for: Fire protection? Response: Less than Significant Impact — Fire services for Tustin are provided by Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The OCFA is a regional fire service agency that provides structure fire protection, emergency medical and rescue services, hazardous materials inspections and response, and public education activities to almost 1.7 million residents in 23 cities, and all unincorporated areas, in the County. The OCFA consists of 7 divisions, 9 battalions, 71 fire stations, 951 firefighters, 6 executive chiefs, and 248 professional staff members. In addition, the OCFA has 192 authorized reserve firefighters. Response times in the City vary based on the level of emergency; however, the response time goal is for the first unit to arrive on scene 7 minutes and 20 seconds from receipt of the call, 80 percent of the time. Three fire stations are strategically located throughout the City of Tustin, providing primary response for fire suppression and emergency medical services to the community. Station 37 and Station 21 are the closest to the project site. Fire Station 37 is located at 15011 Kensington Park Drive, approximately 1.9 miles (6 minutes) from the project site. Fire Station 21 is located at 1241 Irvine Blvd., approximately 1.5 miles (5 minutes) away. City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 117 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 Fire protection? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Other public services/facilities? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Explanation of Checklist Responses a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for: Fire protection? Response: Less than Significant Impact — Fire services for Tustin are provided by Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The OCFA is a regional fire service agency that provides structure fire protection, emergency medical and rescue services, hazardous materials inspections and response, and public education activities to almost 1.7 million residents in 23 cities, and all unincorporated areas, in the County. The OCFA consists of 7 divisions, 9 battalions, 71 fire stations, 951 firefighters, 6 executive chiefs, and 248 professional staff members. In addition, the OCFA has 192 authorized reserve firefighters. Response times in the City vary based on the level of emergency; however, the response time goal is for the first unit to arrive on scene 7 minutes and 20 seconds from receipt of the call, 80 percent of the time. Three fire stations are strategically located throughout the City of Tustin, providing primary response for fire suppression and emergency medical services to the community. Station 37 and Station 21 are the closest to the project site. Fire Station 37 is located at 15011 Kensington Park Drive, approximately 1.9 miles (6 minutes) from the project site. Fire Station 21 is located at 1241 Irvine Blvd., approximately 1.5 miles (5 minutes) away. City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 117 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Project compliance with requirements set forth in the City's Building Regulations (Article 8 of the TCC), which references the City -adopted California Fire Code, 2013 Edition, would provide fire protection for people and structures, as well as emergency medical services on site. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.16, Traffic and Transportation, the proposed project would not result. in a significant traffic impact to any study area intersections. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair emergency response vehicles, and average response times in the area would remain within acceptable response time limits. As a standard condition of approval, the project would be required to prepare a fire master plan, required by OCFA prior to issuance of a building permit. The fire master plan identifies standard design features, including the design of fire department connections. (See PPP -6 below). The proposed project is a residential community, which would replace a 183,430 square -foot industrial park. The removal of 183,430 square -feet of industrial park uses and addition of. 140 residential units would result in an increased demand for fire protection services compared to existing conditions. OCFA currently serves the industrial uses onsite and would continue to serve the project site, when it is developed with residential uses. No new facilities would be required to be constructed to accommodate the proposed residential project. The proposed project would be designed to comply with all Fire Department access requirements and California Fire Code requirements, would not impair emergency response vehicles or increase response times, and would not substantially increase calls for service, thereby triggering the need for new or altered facilities. OCFA requires all developers to enter into a secured fire protection agreement with OCFA to ensure the availability of adequate fire protection services. The agreements specify a developer's pro -rata fair -share funding for capital improvements necessary to establish, and maintain adequate fire protection facilities, equipment, and personnel. PPP -7 is a City of Tustin standard condition and stipulates that the developer must enter into the secured fire protection agreement prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed project. Implementation of PPP-7would reduce potential impacts related to the project's incremental contribution to cumulative regional demand for fire protection services to a less than significant level. Police protection? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The project site is served by City of Tustin Police Department, located .7 mile southwest of the project site at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780. The removal of 175,000 square feet of industrial park uses and addition of 140 residential units would not result in increase in demand for police protection services. The Tustin Police Department might receive a different mix of service calls, but the proposed residential project is not anticipated to require or result in the construction of new or physically altered police facilities Therefore, the proposed project would receive adequate police protection service, and would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Schools? Response: 1 City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 118 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Less Than Significant Impact — The project site is located'within the boundaries of the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). The elementary, middle, and high school campuses closest to the site are Estock Elementary School (grades K-5; 1.1 mile away), Columbus Tustin Middle School (grades 6-8; 1.3 mile away), and Tustin High School (grades 9-12; 0.7 miles away). The proposed project would introduce 140 new attached single-family two- and three- bedroom units. The sizes of these residential units are generally smaller than the typical single-family detached homes with an equivalent number of bedrooms. TUSD estimates that 41 new students would be generated by the proposed project (see Table 4-16 below). The need for additional services is addressed through compliance with the school impact fee assessment. The project would be required to pay school impact fees in accordance with Senate Bill 50 (SB 50). SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction's ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project's impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code Section 17620. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. The State Legislature has declared that the payment of those fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts generated by new development, per Government Code Section 65995. Since the project must pay their appropriate impact fees, it will mitigate the impacts associated with its activities. No significant impact upon TUSD is anticipated as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. Source: Fee Justification Report for Residential and Commercial / Industrial Development, Tustin Unified School District, April 2016. Parks? Response: Less Than Significant Impact —See Section 15 Recreation for analysis. Other public services/facilities? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) has a network of 33 libraries throughout the County, and one of the OCPL branches is located in the City of Tustin. The Tustin Branch Library is located at 345 E Main St, Tustin, CA 92780, approximately 0.6 miles northeast of the project site. According to the Growth Management Element of the Orange County General Plan, the County's standards for library service are one 10,000 sf branch library facility per 50,000 residents, or if appropriate, one 15,000 square -foot regional library per 75,000 residents. Tustin Library, opened in 2009, is a 32,000 square -foot library with a book capacity of City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 119 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 Table 4-16 TUSD Student Generation Grade Level Generation Rates Proposed Students K-5 0.1610 23 6-8 0.0636 9 9-12 1 0.0661 1 9 Source: TUSD Fee Justification Report, February 2016, Appendix C The need for additional services is addressed through compliance with the school impact fee assessment. The project would be required to pay school impact fees in accordance with Senate Bill 50 (SB 50). SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction's ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project's impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code Section 17620. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. The State Legislature has declared that the payment of those fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts generated by new development, per Government Code Section 65995. Since the project must pay their appropriate impact fees, it will mitigate the impacts associated with its activities. No significant impact upon TUSD is anticipated as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. Source: Fee Justification Report for Residential and Commercial / Industrial Development, Tustin Unified School District, April 2016. Parks? Response: Less Than Significant Impact —See Section 15 Recreation for analysis. Other public services/facilities? Response: Less than Significant Impact — The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) has a network of 33 libraries throughout the County, and one of the OCPL branches is located in the City of Tustin. The Tustin Branch Library is located at 345 E Main St, Tustin, CA 92780, approximately 0.6 miles northeast of the project site. According to the Growth Management Element of the Orange County General Plan, the County's standards for library service are one 10,000 sf branch library facility per 50,000 residents, or if appropriate, one 15,000 square -foot regional library per 75,000 residents. Tustin Library, opened in 2009, is a 32,000 square -foot library with a book capacity of City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 119 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and 209,000 volumes. As of the census of 2010, Tustin had a population of 75,540, Therefore, the OCPL is currently meeting the County's standard for library size for the City. Demands for library service are generated by the population in a library's service area. The project would increase area residents by 248 persons requiring 4.96 square feet (or 0.2 square foot per person) of library space. The project would not create an additional need for library service. Furthermore, authorized by Government Code Section 66001(e), the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted resolution No. 13-062 with respect to the Development Fee program for Branch Libraries, stating that those facilities have been constructed and the fee program is no longer needed. Therefore, impacts to public libraries would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs No PDFs are applicable to public services. OO PPP -6: Fire Master Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant or responsible party shall submit a fire master plan (service code PR145) to the Orange County Fire Authority for review. Approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. PPP-7:Secured Fire Protection Agreement. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any residences, the designated site developer shall enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority. The Secured Fire Protection Agreement shall specify the developer's pro -rata fair -share funding of capital improvements necessary to establish adequate fire protection facilities and equipment, and/or personnel. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no public services impacts have been identified. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 120 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016. 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact �[ XU RECREATION C_.w.a..n..+...v.,..........,......v—..a,x......,..,__m.a,.......:. m...=..L._.'u....>..m s, ro.__.a...., .. ..h_.va.........a. vw. ,e. . ,.w�.......,->..+....... .M......_...._._._.G, fig. �..:a._. e ........ =5 .. ...... w.. �.,.... �._.... Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ X ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? b) Require the construction or expansion ❑ ❑ X ❑ of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1 Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Response: Less Than Significant Impact — The proposed increase in residents would not result in the substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities. TCC Section 9331d was adopted to implement the provisions of the Quimby Act (State of California Planning and Zoning Law, Section 66477), which allows the legislative body of a. city or county to require the dedication of land for park facilities and/or the payment of in -lieu fees for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the approval for a final tract map or parcel map for certain subdivision. The TCC requires the dedication of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, calculated at the rate of 0.0067 parkland acres per dwelling unit. The proposed project would add 140 units and approximately 314 residents and would be subject to the dedication of 0.94 acres of park facilities and/or the payment of in -lieu fees for park and recreational purposes. The proposed project includes development of a public park fronting on W. 6th Street, including a seat wall area, a landscape and lawn area, and a dog station, which would be dedicated to the City, publically accessible, but maintained by the homeowner's association. The project also includes a 0.17 -acre recreational area with a pool, BBQ, and clubhouse that would be available only to residents of the proposed project and their guests. City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 121 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analvsis In addition to the provision parkland facilities onsite, the project would be responsible for the payment of in -lieu fees for park and recreational purposes in lieu of dedication in compliance with TCC Section 9331 d, as determined by the City. Although implementation of the proposed project would cause an incremental increase in demand for parks, this increase would be reduced to a less than significant level by payment of park fees and by the inclusion of public and private recreational areas onsite. Therefore, impacts to parks and parkland facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no impacts to recreational facilities have been identified. 1 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 122 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016. 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analvsis a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ X ❑ ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion ❑ ❑ X ❑ management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ X ❑ patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to ❑ ❑ X ❑ a design feature or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ X access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ X ❑ programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 1 Explanation of Checklist Responses Threshold of Significance City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 123 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis The City of Tustin intersection evaluation methodology and significance criteria is based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections and intersections. under Caltrans jurisdiction, the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology (HCM 2010) was used. , Signalized Intersections. The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the intersection's level of service (LOS). The intersection as a whole and its individual turning movements can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (A through F), with LOS A indicating free-flow traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. At signalized intersections, LOS was calculated using the ICU methodology. LOS at signalized intersections is measured based on the sum of the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of the critical movements. Table 4-17 shows the relationship between v/c ratio and LOS for signalized intersections. Table 4-17. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections using ICU Methodology Level of General Description Service . V/C Ratio (Signalized Intersections) A <_0.60 Free Flow B 0.61 to <_ 0.70 Stable Flow (slight delays) C 0.71 to _< 0.80 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D 0.81 to <_ 0.90 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E 0.91 to <_ 1.00 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F >1.00 Forced flow (jammed) , The LOS at freeway ramp intersections was also calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology, as this methodology is preferred by Caltrans. Table 4-18 shows the relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections. Table 4-18. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections using HCM 2010 Methodology Level of General Description Service Delay (seconds/vehicle) (Signalized Intersections) A <10 Free Flow - B >10 to 20 Stable Flow (slight delays) C >20 to 35 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D >35 to 55 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E >55 to 80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F >80 Forced flow (jammed) Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. Unsignalized Intersections. LOS at unsignalized intersections is classified by two intersection types: all -way stop -controlled and two-way stop -controlled. LOS for unsignalized intersections was calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 methodology. All -way, stop -controlled intersection LOS.is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all of the movements, much . City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 124 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way, stop -controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is because the performance of a two-way, stop -controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop - controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. With this in mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop -controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion. Table 4-19 shows the relationship between vehicle delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections (both all -way and two-way, stop -controlled). Table 4-19. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Two -Way and All -Way Stop Level of Service Average Control Delay (seclveh) A 0-10 B >10 - 15 C >15 - 25 D >25 - 35 E >35 - 50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. Future Traffic Forecasts. Buildout Year 2035 without -project traffic volumes were obtained from the County's OCTAM model. Transpo received model data from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and then post -processed the data for peak hour turning movements. East 6th Street and South B Street were not included in the model as it is mostly historic residential use and not much future growth is expected in this area. Significance Criteria. The City has adopted a performance standard of LOS D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) for all signalized intersections with the exception that LOS E is acceptable at designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) -identified intersections. There are no designated CMP intersections within the project study area; therefore, LOS D is applied as the maximum acceptable LOS at all study area intersections. According to City guidelines, for ICU greater than the acceptable level of service, mitigation of the project contribution is required to bring the intersection back to no -project conditions or better if project contribution is 0.02 or greater for all other intersections in the study area. The City does not have any significance criteria for unsignalized intersections that are operating at unsatisfactory LOS E or F without the project. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 125 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Response: Less Than Significant Impact — The proposed project would replace 183,430 square feet of industrial uses with 140 for -sale multifamily (townhome) dwelling units. The vehicle trip generation for the project was developed using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (9th Edition, 2012) for Land uses 230 — Residential Condominium/Townhouse for the proposed project and 130 — Industrial Park for the existing uses. The industrial park uses would be an acceptable assumption as an industrial park can contain multiple small businesses including office uses. Table 4-20 shows the trip generation of the project during the AM and PM peak hours and on a daily basis as compared with the existing use. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Transpo Group, May 2016; Appendix 1), as shown in Table 4-20, the'existing industrial use generates more trips than proposed residential use. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a net total of 439 fewer daily trips (439) including 89 fewer trips (-89) during the AM peak hour and 83 fewer trips (-83) during the PM peak hour. Only outbound traffic during the AM peak hour and inbound traffic during the PM peak hour are greater with the proposed use. The study intersections are shown in the TIA (Appendix I herein; Figure 1, Site Vicinity and Study Intersections). Table 4-21 provides a comparison between the existing without and with -project conditions for the weekday peak hours. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study1mitigated Negative Declaration Page 126 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 Table 4-20. Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates Condominium' DU 5.81 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 Industrial Parke TSF 6.83 0.67 0.15 0.82 0.18 0.67 0.85 Project Trip Generation Proposed Project (Condos) 140 DU 813 10 51 62 49 24 73 Existing Industrial Park 183.43 TSF -1253 -123 -27 -150 -33 -123 -156 Total Trip Generation -439 -113 24 -89 16 -99 -83 TSF =Thousand Square Feet 'Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012. Land Use Code 230 - Condominium 2TripratesfromtheInstituteofTransporationEngineers,TrlpGeneration,9thEdition, 2012. Land Use Code 130 -Industrial Park. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Transpo Group, May 2016; Appendix 1), as shown in Table 4-20, the'existing industrial use generates more trips than proposed residential use. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a net total of 439 fewer daily trips (439) including 89 fewer trips (-89) during the AM peak hour and 83 fewer trips (-83) during the PM peak hour. Only outbound traffic during the AM peak hour and inbound traffic during the PM peak hour are greater with the proposed use. The study intersections are shown in the TIA (Appendix I herein; Figure 1, Site Vicinity and Study Intersections). Table 4-21 provides a comparison between the existing without and with -project conditions for the weekday peak hours. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study1mitigated Negative Declaration Page 126 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Table 4-21. Existing and Existing With -Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service ' Level of Service, based on Intersection Capacity Utilizatic n (ICU) or HCM forstop controlled intersections zVolurre-t-apacityratlo or delayfor stop controlled Intersectlo ns As shown in Table 4-21, all study area intersections will continue to operate at satisfactory LOS under the With -Project conditions. At some intersections, the proposed residential use is expected to add fewer trips than the existing industrial use, which were included in the January 2016 traffic counts. Therefore, some intersections are expected to operate with improved V/C or delays during the With -Project conditions. No project impacts are forecast under the Existing With -Project conditions. Therefore, no mitigation would be required. Table 4-22 provides a comparison between the Buildout Year 2035 without and with -project conditions for the weekday peak hours using the City's ICU methodology. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 127 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 Control Existing AM Peak PM Peak Existing With -Project AM Peak PM Peak VIC or Delay Change AM PM VICor VIC or VIC or VIC or Intersection LOS' DLiay' LOS' Delay' LOS' Delay' LOS' Delay' 1. Pacific Streel/West Main Street Signal A 0.521 A 0.411 A 0.522 A 0.408 0.001 -0.003 2. South B Street/West Main Street Signal A 0.570 A 0.454 A 0.567 A 0.454 -0.003 0.000 3. Pacific Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A 8.2 A 7.8 A 8.1 A 7.8 -0.100 0.000 4. South B StreetWest 6th Street All Way Stop A 9.3 A 9.1 A 9.2 A 9.1 -0.1 0.0 5. t3 Camino Real/15th Street Signal A 0.405 A 0.471 A 0.384 A 0.471 -0.021 0.000 6. West Drivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop B 13.7 B 14.4 13.7 14.4 7. Center Drivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop A 9.2 A 8.9 9,2 8.9 B. East Dr'Ivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop A 8.9 A 8.5 8.9 8.5 9. North Driveway/South B Street 1 Way Stop A 8.8 A 9.0 8.8 9.0 10. South Driveway/South B Street 1 Way Stop A 8.7 A 9.0 8.7 9.0 ' Level of Service, based on Intersection Capacity Utilizatic n (ICU) or HCM forstop controlled intersections zVolurre-t-apacityratlo or delayfor stop controlled Intersectlo ns As shown in Table 4-21, all study area intersections will continue to operate at satisfactory LOS under the With -Project conditions. At some intersections, the proposed residential use is expected to add fewer trips than the existing industrial use, which were included in the January 2016 traffic counts. Therefore, some intersections are expected to operate with improved V/C or delays during the With -Project conditions. No project impacts are forecast under the Existing With -Project conditions. Therefore, no mitigation would be required. Table 4-22 provides a comparison between the Buildout Year 2035 without and with -project conditions for the weekday peak hours using the City's ICU methodology. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 127 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Table 4-22. Buildout Year 2035 Without and With -Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service 2Volume-tocapachy ratio or delay forstop controlled Intersections As shown in Table 4-22, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS under the Buildout Year 2013 With -Project conditions. At some intersections, the proposed residential use is expected to add fewer trips than the existing industrial use which was included in the 2035 OCTAM model data. Therefore, some intersections are expected to operate with improved WC or delays during the With -Project conditions. No project impacts are forecast for the Buildout Year 2035 With -Project scenario. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Source: Appendix I, Traffic Impact Analysis (Transpo Group, Inc., 2016). Would the project: c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Response: No. Impact - The maximum height of the proposed project's buildings would be 42 feet, which would not impact air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. There would be no impact. Would the project: d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? Response: Less Than Significant Impact - Internal circulation within the project site has been designed to meet the City's design standards. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Therefore, related to increased hazards, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Would the project: e) Result in inadequate emergency access? City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 128 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 Control Buildout AM Peak PM Peak BuildoutWith-Project AM Peak PM Peak VIC or Delay Change AM PM VIC or VIC or LOS, LOSE VIC or VIC or LOSE LOSE Intersection Delay= Delay: Delay= Delay, 1. Pacific Street/West Main Street Signal B 0.676 A 0.550 B 0.677 A 0.547 0.001 -0.003 2. South B Street/West Main Street Signal B 0.682 A 0.579 B 0.679 A 0.579 -0.003 0.000 3. Pacific Street/West 6th Street AD Way Stop A 7.7 A 7.8 A 7.6 A 7.8 -0.1 0.0 4. South B Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A 8.8 A 9.0 A 8.7 A 9.1 -0.1 0.1 5. B Carrino ReaV6th Street Signal A 0.395 A 0.465 A 0.376 A 0.456 -0.019 -0.009 6. West Drivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop B 13.7 B 14.4 13.7 14.4 7. Center Drivew ay/Wast 6th Street 1 Way Stop A 9.2 A 8.9 9,2 8.9 8. East Drivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop A 8.9 A 8.5 8.9 8.5 9. North Drivew ay/South B Street 1 Way Stop A 8.8 A 9.0 8.8 9.0 10. South Drivew ay/South B Street 1 Way Stop A 8.7 A 8.9 8,7 8,9 2Volume-tocapachy ratio or delay forstop controlled Intersections As shown in Table 4-22, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS under the Buildout Year 2013 With -Project conditions. At some intersections, the proposed residential use is expected to add fewer trips than the existing industrial use which was included in the 2035 OCTAM model data. Therefore, some intersections are expected to operate with improved WC or delays during the With -Project conditions. No project impacts are forecast for the Buildout Year 2035 With -Project scenario. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Source: Appendix I, Traffic Impact Analysis (Transpo Group, Inc., 2016). Would the project: c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Response: No. Impact - The maximum height of the proposed project's buildings would be 42 feet, which would not impact air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. There would be no impact. Would the project: d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? Response: Less Than Significant Impact - Internal circulation within the project site has been designed to meet the City's design standards. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Therefore, related to increased hazards, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Would the project: e) Result in inadequate emergency access? City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 128 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Response: No Impact — The proposed project site would have adequate emergency access. The project site would provide emergency access from four full -access driveways and two emergency -vehicle - only driveways along East 6th Street, as well as two full -access driveways along B Street. The onsite roadway and driveways have been designed in accordance with the City of Tustin and OCFA design standards and the final tract map would be subject to review by the Public Works Department and approval by the City Council. By following the design standards for streets and the TCC and through the process of review and approval by the City, emergency access would be maintained. Related to emergency access, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Would the project: >� Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Response: Less Than Significant Impact — The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation, including bicycle use and transit facilities. Transit service in the project study area is provided by the OCTA. The project site is served by OCTA routes 66 (Huntington Beach to Irvine via McFadden Avenue and Walnut Avenue) and 71 (Yorba Linda to Balboa via Tustin Avenue, Red Hill Avenue, and Newport Boulevard). Pedestrian facilities in the project area include sidewalks and crosswalks. There is one Class I bike trail approximately 0.3 miles from the project site, along Newport Avenue between EI Camino Real and Irvine Boulevard. Development of the proposed 140 -unit residential development would not interfere with existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Source: City of Tustin General Plan (2013) Circulation Element. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to transportation and traffic. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no impacts to transportation and traffic have been identified. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 129 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE. ,-SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ X ❑ requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ X ❑ new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause adverse environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ X ❑ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ X ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ X ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? D Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ X ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ X ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 130 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Response: Less than Significant Impact — The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which includes the City as a Permittee. That NPDES permit implements federal and state law governing point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the United States. Implementation of the proposed project would only nominally increase wastewater generation, thus, nominally increasing the demand for wastewater treatment; refer to Response 4.17.b. Therefore, given the residential nature and scope of the proposed development, project implementation would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Impacts would be less than significant. Would the project: b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause adverse environmental effects? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Response: Less Than Significant Impact — Water service Refer to Response Section IX.b. Impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater service Wastewater service in the vicinity of the project site is provided by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). OCSD prepared a will -serve letter dated December 1, 2015 in which the nearest sewer lines were identified to be an 8 -inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) located below W. 6th Street, and a 10 -inch VCP located below S. B Street. OCSD indicated the project could be served by construction of two new 8 -inch laterals, one to each of the lines on W. 6th Street and S. B Street. OCSD has confirmed the project would be permitted to connect to its wastewater treatment system, and that the discharge of wastewater from the property would not result in a violation of OCSD's RWQCB permit requirements. No off-site facilities other than sewer laterals are required to service the project. Impacts would be less than significant. Would the project: c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Response: Less Than Significant Impact — The project would include the development of onsite drainage facilities and would not include the construction of offsite storm drainage facilities. Refer to Response IX.d. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 131 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Would the project: d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve, the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Response: Less Than Significant Impact — The project site is within the service area of the City of Tustin Public Works Department, Water Services Division. The Water Services Division prepared a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which provides information on the present and future water resources and demands and assesses water resource needs for the utility. According to the UWMP, the main sources of water supply are groundwater pumped from wells within the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County through East Orange County Water District. The UWMP reported current water demand to be 13,000 acre-feet per year; consisting of 11,110 acre-feet of groundwater and 1,890 acre-feet of imports, and projects a 7 percent increase in population by the year 2035. Accompanying the increase in population would be a 17 percent increase in demand for water, including the addition of over 1,200 new residential accounts. The UWMP determined that the City is capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2015 and 2035, taking into account the projected increase in demand. The project provides new residential units that are within the total increase in demand anticipated by the UWMP, and the demolition of the existing commercial buildings would result in a reduction in water use from that facility. In addition, the City of Tustin Public Works Department concluded in a will serve letter dated December 1, 2015 that they are capable of meeting the water demands of the project. Based on these factors, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact involving water supply. Senate Bill 610 SB 610 requires a detailed report regarding water availability and planning for additional water supplies be included with the environmental document for specified projects. Under SB 610, water supply assessments are required to be included in environmental documentation for certain projects, as defined in Water Code 10912[a], subject to CEQA. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires a written verification of sufficient water supply. All projects that meet any of the following criteria require the water availability assessment: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 sq ft of floor space; • A proposed hotel and motel having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or an industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than • 650,000 sq. ft. of floor area; • A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 132 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis The proposed project is a 140 -unit residential development and does not satisfy the criteria outlined above; thus, a less that significant impact would occur. Senate Bill 221 While SB 610 primarily affects the Water Code, SB 221 principally applies to the Subdivision Map Act. The primary effect of SB 221 is to require an applicant of every applicable tentative map subdivision to verifying that the public water supplier (PWS) has sufficient water supply available to serve it. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires a written verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 applies to any subdivision, defined as: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units (if the PWS has more than 5,000 service connections); or • Any proposed development that increases connections by 10 percent or more (if the PWS has fewer than 5,000 connections). The project does not satisfy the criteria outlined above, thus, preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, in order to verify that sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing entitlements/resources, is not warranted and a less than significant impact would occur. Would the project: fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Response: Less than Significant Impact — In 2014, about 93 percent of the solid waste landfilled from the City of Tustin was disposed of at the Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill in the City of Irvine. This landfill has a maximum permitted tonnage of 11,500 tons per day and residual capacity of nearly 6,800 tons per day. It is permitted to operate through the year 2053, though it has adequate capacity to continue operations to 2065. In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), in order to "reduce, recycle, and re=use solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible." AB 939 established a waste management hierarchy: Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, Transformation, and Disposal. Under AB 939 and subsequent legislation, jurisdictions are required to achieve a 50 percent diversion rate of garbage from landfills. The City of Tustin has adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, which includes policies addressing source reduction, recycling, composting, special waste, public education and information, disposal facility capacity, funding, and integration.3 CR&R Waste & Recycling Services, which collects solid waste from the City of Tustin, provides residential customers with a black bin for solid waste and a blue bin for recyclable materials. Participation in the City's recycling programs during project construction and operation would ensure that the project would not conflict with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 3 See City of Tustin Source Reduction and Recycling Element. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 133 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis TCC Sections 4351 et seq. require diversion of construction and demolition debris in conformance with California Green Building Standards Code Section 5.408. A minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris must be diverted from landfills. This requirement is implemented through preparation and implementation of a Waste Reduction & Recycling Plan (WRRP), which must be approved by the City's Public Works Department prior to issuance of permits for construction, demolition, grading, or landscaping activities. A security deposit is placed with the City at the time of WRRP approval; failure to comply with the waste diversion requirements in the WRRP results in forfeiture of the deposit. Based on the programs in effect to limit the generation of waste, and the availability of capacity at the local landfill to service the project, there are less than significant impacts related to solid waste. Project Design Features 8r Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to utilities and service systems have been identified. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to the utilities and service systems have been identified. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 134 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 1 1 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: LTJ ❑■ n P- ❑■ X L X a X FM ❑■ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant with Mitigation — The proposed project is an infill development project located in an urbanized area of the City. The project site is currently occupied by an industrial park consisting of 11 buildings, paving and landscaped areas. The project site is not populated or used by any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status, and does not contain habitat that would support sensitive species. The project site is not within or adjacent to the City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 135 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis NCCP/HCP Habitat Reserve. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. As discussed in Section V above, there are no historical resources located within the project site. The records search confirmed that no cultural resources have been recorded on the project site. In addition, due to the development of the project site and previous disturbances associated with the construction and operation of the existing site use, the potential for encountering paleontological and archeological resources is considered low. However, in the event that cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground -disturbing activities, implementation of mitigation measures C-1 and C-2 would ensure that impacts to cultural and paleontological resources remain less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Would the project: b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable ",means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact — Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a period. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 (a) and (b), states: (a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.4 As discussed above, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact under any impact area, including Air Quality, Cultural Resources, GHG, Noise, Public Services or Traffic and Transportation. There are currently no significant projects in the entitlement process or under development within the vicinity of the project site. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant with Mitigation —As described in Sections I through XVII, above, prior to mitigation, the project has potentially significant impacts in the areas of, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous materials and Noise. With the implementation of the mitigation measures provided in this Initial Study, these impacts are reduced to below a level of 4 CEQA Guidelines, sections 15130(a) and (b) City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 136 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis significance. There are no project impacts which remain significant and unavoidable following implementation of mitigation measures. In addition, for environmental issue areas that were not found to be significantly impacted by the project and therefore do not include mitigation measures, the implementation of project design features and City, standards, and guidelines would ensure that there would be no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Proiect Design Features & Existina Plans. Proarams, or Policies Refer to PDFs and PPPs from Item I (Aesthetics), Item III (Air Quality), Item V (Cultural Resources), Item VI (Geology and Soils), Item VIII (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), Item IX (Hydrology and Water Quality), Item X (Land Use and Planning), Item XII (Noise), Item XIV (Public Services), Item XVI (Transportation and Traffic), and Item XVII (Utilities and Service Systems). These PDFs and PPPs are applicant -initiated actions or existing plans, programs, or policies which effectively reduce potential environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures Refer to mitigation measures from Item V (Cultural Resources), Item VI (Geology and Soils), Item XII (Noise), and Item VIII (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). These mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts resulting from project implementation have been presented in the relevant sections of this Initial Study. As described above, the implementation of these mitigation measures has been found to be adequate to reduce all potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance. City of Tustin -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 137 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 1 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 139 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS PRC Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of AB 3180) mandates that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs: The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the Project or conditions of Project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during Project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the Project at the request of a Responsible Agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Project, that agency shall, if so requested by the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. A public agency shall provide the measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of Project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other Project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or Project design. Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or MND, a Responsible Agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the Project, shall either submit to the Lead Agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the Project, or refer the Lead Agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a Lead Agency by a Responsible Agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the Project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a Project with that requirement shall not limit that authority of the Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a Project, or the authority of the Lead Agency, to approve, condition, or deny Projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. 5.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City to ensure that all mitigation measures, project design features, and plans, policies and procedures adopted as part of the proposed project would be carried out as described in this IS/MND. Table 5-1 lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this IS/MND and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure. 1 City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 140 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 i 1 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 141 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 -- 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program PPP -2 TABLES -1 MITIGATION MONITORINGAND,I2EPORTING PROGRAM:: , ~ Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Developer/Construction Community Permits Responsibility/ Oversight of showing compliance with the TCC Section 8102, Coordination Contractor Development Dept. Verification Compliance/ (N102) (2), which requires a minimum one foot- Verification candle of light on the private drives and parking -AESTHETICS'- -Project Desi n -Features _ ~ None. Policies, Pians, and Procedures " ° PPP -1 Project construction hours will be limited to the Construction hours. Project City of Tustin Ongoing N/A hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays Developer/Construction Community through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and Contractor Development Dept. 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. PPP -2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Lighting plan. Project City of Tustin Prior to Building N/A applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan Developer/Construction Community Permits showing compliance with the TCC Section 8102, Contractor Development Dept. (N102) (2), which requires a minimum one foot- candle of light on the private drives and parking surfaces and .a minimum of one-quarter foot- candle of light on the walking surfaces. The lighting plan is to be overlaid onto a tree landscape plan. The photometric plan must also show no light spillage pursuant to TCC Section 9271 hh. Miti ition=Measures': None. AIR QUALITY. Pro'ect Desi g n Features" " PDF -1 Theapplicant/developer shall install u upgraded air pg Air filtrations stems. y Project it City of Tustin ti Prior to Building N/A filtration systems in all. residential units. Air Developer/Construction Community Permits filtration devices shall be rated MERV13 or higher. Contractor Development Dept. Ventilation systems in residential units shall meet the following minimal design standards: City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 142 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .x.;.. ", - � TABLE 571" MITIGATION, MONITORING AND, REPORTING PROGRAM'.° ; Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification ■ A MERV13 or higher rating; ■ At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air; ■ At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and ■ At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the buildings' heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) air filtration system shall be required. Ensure that the CC&R's and other property documents (1) require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected buildings for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building include funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and replacements of the filters, as needed. Policies, -Plans; and -Procedures j City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 143 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 5-7 A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification PPP -3 Fugitive dust. Project City of Tustin Ongoing Possible The project will comply with South Coast Air Developer/Construction Community coordination with Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402 Contractor Development Dept. SCAQMD (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The project developer will require construction contractors and subcontractors to employ the following enhanced dust control measures during construction to minimize particulate matter (PM -10 and PM -2.5) emissions: 1. Suspend the use of all construction equipment during first -stage smog alerts. 2. Apply soil stabilizers such as hay bales or aggregate cover to inactive areas. 3. Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. 4. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. 5. Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times/day. 6. Cover all stock piles with tarps. 7. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly. 8. Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. 9. Trenches shall be left exposed for as short a time as possible. 10. Identify proper compaction for backfilled soils in construction specifications. 11. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 12. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. 13. Provide water spray during loading and City of Tustin - Initial StudWitigated Negative Declaration Page 144 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Number I Measure I Monitoring 14. Minimize in -out traffic from construction zone. None. Implementation Responsibility 1 Responsibility/ Oversight of Verification Compliance/ Coordination MM B-1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the Community Nesting Bird Survey Project City of Tustin Prior to grading N/A Development Department shall verify that the Developer/Construction Community permit. following note is included on the contractor Contractor Development Dept. specifications to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): "To avoid impacts on nesting birds, vegetation on the project site should be cleared between September 1 and February 28. If vegetation clearing occurs inside the peak nesting season (between March 1 and August 31), a pre - construction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. If City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 145 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program : TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONIT,ORINGAND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification the Biologist does not find any active nests within the impact area, then vegetation clearing/construction work will be allowed. If the Biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the Biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity. Construction activities would be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified Biologist determines that the nest has been abandoned." CULTURAL RESOURCES: .,Project Desi n Featu'ies.� r .., None. '�Policies, Pbtis,°and Procetluces PPP -4 Should human remains be discovered during Discovery of human Project City of Tustin Ongoing Possible project construction, the project would be required remains. Developer/Construction Community coordination with to comply with State Health and Safety Code Contractor Development Dept. NAHC and Section 7050.5, which states that no further County Coroner. disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the human remains until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely. Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours City of Tustin - Initial Study1mitigated Negative Declaration Page 146 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 r � i 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • TABLE 5-1a; ' MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM�� Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification of notification by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Miti ation'Measures MM C-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Activity: Project City of Tustin Prior to grading N/A Applicant/Developer shall provide a letter to the Archaeological Developer/Construction Community permit. City of Tustin Community Development Monitoring Contractor Development Dept. Department, or designee, from a qualified professional archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications for - Archaeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A stating that the Applicant/Developer has retained this individual and that the archeologist shall provide on-call services in the event archeological resources are discovered. The archeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference to establish procedures for archeological resource surveillance. In the event a previously unrecorded archaeological deposit is encountered during construction, all activity within 50 feet of the area of discovery shall cease and the City shall be immediately notified. The archeologist shall be contacted to flag the area in the field and determine if the archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(8)). If the find is considered a "resource" the archaeologist shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 147 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 - - 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 5,-1; • ,«'MITIGATIONMONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification Guidelines 15064.5 and .15126.4. If unique archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Applicants expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the archaeologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The archaeologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. Excavation as a treatment option will be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. MM C-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Paleontological Project City of Tustin Prior to grading. N/A Applicant/Developer shall provide a letter to the Monitoring Developer/Construction Community City of Tustin Community Development Contractor Development Dept. Department, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County, stating that the Applicant/Developer has retained this individual and that the paleontologist shall provide on-call services in the event resources are discovered. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. In the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, ground -disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. -The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 148 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program _TABLE 6 ;;•:; 'MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate adverse impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the City. Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. MM C-3 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, a Native American Project City of Tustin Prior to grading. N/A qualified Native American monitor shall be Monitoring Developer/Construction Community retained by the Applicant/Developer to provide Contractor Development Dept. professional Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils i.e., previously undisturbed soil 18 - City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 149 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 5-1 .. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,'. Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification inches or more below the surface). The Native American monitor from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, shall be selected by the Applicant/Developer and verification of retention of the Native American monitor shall be provided to the City of Tustin Community Development Department on tribal letterhead, including the monitor's name and contact information. The Native American monitor and a City of Tustin Community Development Department designee shall be present at the pre - grading conference to establish procedures for Native American resource surveillance. The Native American monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities of native soil (i.e., previously undisturbed soil 18 -inches or more below the surface) including but not limited to post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:, a Project Design Features None. Policies, Plans, and Procedures " PPP -5 In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the SWPPP Project City of Tustin Prior to grading proposed project shall prepare a Stormwater WQMP Developer/Construction Community permit. Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Contractor Development Dept. Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 150 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 151 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 MITIGATION.MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.': Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification • The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. • The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. • A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. PPP -6 The project would comply with NPDES WQMP Homeowner's City of Tustin During operation requirements for control of discharges of Association Community sediments and other pollutants during operations Development Dept. of the facility through preparation and or designee. implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in effect for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit application. Mitt anon Measures City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 151 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • TABLE Sri' 4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification MM G-1 All grading operations and construction shall be Geotechnical Project City of Tustin City Prior to grading conducted in conformance with the conformance Developer/Construction Engineer, or permits. recommendations included in the geotechnical Contractor designee documents prepared by GeoTek, Inc. (included in Appendix D of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration). Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the City of Tustin City Engineer, or designee, prior to the start of grading to verify that requirements developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, as well as the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final report subject to review by the City Engineer, or designee, prior to the start of grading activities. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS " Project'Diesi n Features p, None. Policies, Plans, and Procedures None. Miti 'anon asues ° .. MM H-1 During construction, all soil identified with Soils testing. Project City of Tustin Prior to building petroleum hydrocarbons, as shown in area B4 in Developer/Construction Community permits. Figure 1 of the Phase II investigation, shall be Contractor : Development Dept. remediated or removed from the site. Following completion of demolition activities on all or part of the site, a qualified hazardous materials specialist City of Tustin - Initial StudyANtigated Negative Declaration Page 152 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 r 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 5-1 ' MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification shall conduct soil gas testing at the location of the residential structures proposed on the site, as recommended by the Phase II investigation. If any testing sites reveal contamination in excess of the EPA Region 9 Residential Regional Screening Level thresholds, measures to minimize intrusion of pollutants into residences shall be applied as determined by the hazardous materials specialist. NOISE Pro'ect Desi n Features PDF -2 The project shall provide a minimum 20 -foot high Sound wall Project City of Tustin Prior to building sound wall along the project's interface with construction. Developer/Construction Community permits. Interstate 5, adjacent to the southern property Contractor Development Dept. boundary. Policies,°Plans, and Procedures None. Miff anon Measures :. MM N-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Structural Noise Project City of Tustin Prior to building residences adjacent to the freeway (Interstate 5), Attenuation and Final Developer/Construction Community permits. the Project Applicant/ Developer shall submit a Acoustical Report. Contractor Development Dept. final acoustical report to the City of Tustin Director of Development Services, or designee, that demonstrates that the interior noise levels in all habitable rooms shall not exceed 45 A -weighted decibels (d BA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), as defined by Title 24, Part 2, of the California Building Code. If necessary, particularly for third -floor units, the Project Applicant/Developer shall provide structural components with higher STC ratings to ensure that the 45 dB CNEL interior threshold is met. Structural noise attenuation features for third -floor units are outlined in the "Building Requirements for City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 153 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program . ,TABLE 5.1 MITIGATION'MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification a Minimum Noise Level Reduction (NRL) of 35 dB" provided in Appendix B of the projects Noise Impacts Analysis (Giroux & Associates, 2016; provided as Appendix H of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) PUBLIC SERVICES .. Pro'ectDesinFedtures None. Policies, Pians, and Procedures PPP -6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant Fire Master Plan Project City of Tustin Prior to grading Orange County or responsible party shall submit a fire master plan Developer/Construction Community permit. Fire Authority (service code PR145) to the Orange County Fire Contractor Development Dept. Authority for review. Approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. PPP -7 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any Secured Fire Project City of Tustin Prior to grading Orange County residences, the designated site developer shall Protection Agreement Developer/Construction Community permit. Fire Authority enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement Contractor Development Dept. with the Orange County Fire Authority. The Secured Fire Protection Agreement shall specify the developer's pro -rata fair -share funding of capital improvements necessary to establish adequate fire protection facilities and equipment, and/or personnel. Mitigation Measures , None. This page intentionally left blank City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 154 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 1 APPENDICES 1 Appendices available on the attached CD and at the City of Tustin Community Development Department. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Elaine Dove; Senior Planner (714) 573-3136 edove(@-tustinca.org 1 This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 City of Tustin Appendices for Initial Study (IS) / Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Vintage Lofts Residential Project Lead Agency: City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Project Applicant: Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appendix A: Planned Community District Regulations 1 1 Prepared for the City of Tustin, California Submitted for Review: July 13, 2016 Intracorp SoCal-1 LLC 1 1 Figure1: Local Vicinity........................................................................................................................................................................3 Table1: Proposed Home Types.......................................................................................................................................................5 Table2: Parking Requirements........................................................................................................................................................7 Figure 2: Conceptual Development Plan..................................................................................................................................10 Figure 3: Conceptual Sixth Street Elevations..........................................................................................................................10 Figure5: Typical Paseo Concepts................................................................................................................................................12 Figure 6: Recreation Center and Public Park Concept.........................................................................................................13 Figure 7: Conceptual Monumentation Signage.....................................................................................................................14 City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations Table of Contents Vintage Planned Community District Regulations..................................................................................................................2 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................................2 1.1. Project Objectives.......................................................................................................................................................2 1.2. Project Setting...............:..............................................................................................................................................2 1.3. Existing Conditions.....................................................................................................................................................3 1.4. Key issues.......................................................................................................................................................................4 2. STATISTICAL SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................................4 2.1. Melrose Place................................................................................................................................................................4 2.2. Veranda Court..............................................................................................................................................................5 3. LAND USE REGULATIONS...................................................................................................................................................5 3.1. Purpose and Intent.....................................................................................................................................................5 3.2. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses...................................................................................................5 3.3. Development Standards..........................................................................................................................................5 3.4. Open Space...................................................................................................................................................................6 3.5. Fences and Walls....................:....................................................................................................................................6 3.6. Signage.......................................................................................................................................:...................................7 3.7. General Parking Requirements..............................................................................................................................7 3.8. Private Drives................................................................................................................................................................8 3.9. Other Development Standards..............................................................................................................................8 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION............................:....::..............................................................................8 4.1. Responsibility....................................:..........................................................................................................................8 4.2. Interpretations.............................................................................................................................................................8 4.3. Modifications................................................................................................................................................................9 4.4. Subdivisions..................................................................................................................................................................9 4.5. Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Other Discretionary Actions...................................................9 4.6. Amendment to District Regulations....................................................................................................................9 4.7. Enforcement..................................................................................................................................................................9 4.8. Severability Clause......................................................................................................................................................9 4.9. Design Review..............................................................................................................................................................9 5. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS.........................................................................................................................10 Figure1: Local Vicinity........................................................................................................................................................................3 Table1: Proposed Home Types.......................................................................................................................................................5 Table2: Parking Requirements........................................................................................................................................................7 Figure 2: Conceptual Development Plan..................................................................................................................................10 Figure 3: Conceptual Sixth Street Elevations..........................................................................................................................10 Figure5: Typical Paseo Concepts................................................................................................................................................12 Figure 6: Recreation Center and Public Park Concept.........................................................................................................13 Figure 7: Conceptual Monumentation Signage.....................................................................................................................14 City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations Vintage Planned Community District Regulations 1. INTRODUCTION The Vintage Planned Community District Regulations represent the orderly plan to develop a new high- quality residential community in the City of Tustin. This section outlines the project objectives, project setting, existing conditions, and key ways in which the Vintage Planned Community implements the City's General Plan vision and improves the quality of life in the City. 1.1. Project Objectives The regulations set forth in this set of District Regulations for the Vintage Planned Community District have been established to satisfy the Planned Community District requirements of the Tustin City Code and to provide diversification among the relationship of uses, buildings and structures in planned building groups. These regulations provide direction for the orderly development of 140 multifamily residential units on an existing 6.81 acre industrial site in the City of Tustin. The application of these regulations and development standards are intended to achieve the following major objectives: • Encourage the appropriate use of land within the City. • Create a harmonious residential development that protects the health, safety and general welfare of the community and provide the flexibility needed to create a quality environment. • Develop a collection of high-quality multifamily homes that appeal to a diverse market of homebuyers, promote the site's potential, and enhance the character of the site and adjacent land uses. • Revitalize older industrial development to maintain a quality urban environment adjacent to Old Town Tustin, and reposition the current site into a more attractive residential project compatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhood. • Provide access to open space and recreation with the provision of on-site facilities. • Improve the city-wide urban design and pedestrian environment along Sixth Street and B Street through site design, building orientation, and landscaping, and by creating a uniquely identifiable neighborhood. • Incorporate sustainable design strategies, including water -efficient landscaping and energy-saving appliances. Development within the Vintage Planned Community shall occur consistent with these Planned Community District Regulations, including the Conceptual Development Plans in Section 5.0. 1.2. Project Setting The Tustin Vintage project is a 6.81 acre site located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and B Street in the City of Tustin, just north of Interstate 5 (1-5/Santa Ana Freeway). Regional Location The City of Tustin is located in central Orange County, and is bordered by Irvine to the south and east, unincorporated portions of the County of Orange and the City of Orange to the north, and Santa Ana to the south and west. The City encompasses 11.082 total square miles, with a population of approximately 75,000 residents (2016). Access to the Vintage site is provided via 1-5 and SR -55 (Costa Mesa Freeway), which intersect directly southwest of the project area.. City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations 1 r—� Figure 1: Local Vicinity Local Context The Vintage site is located just west of the Old Town Commercial area in Tustin, which is characterized by retail, professional offices, and service-oriented businesses serving Old Town Tustin. To the north of the project area is a single-family residential neighborhood, which encompasses several historic homes. These homes are located within the boundaries of Tustin's Cultural Resources District, which was created to ensure the maintenance, preservation, and enhancement of Tustin's Old Town area and existing single family zoning within the area. Existing vehicular access to the site is provided along Sixth Street to the north and B Street to the east. 1.3. Existing Conditions Property on the site currently serves an array of uses including sign and electronics light manufacturing facilities for signs, as well as a church, self -storage facility, and a number of other similar uses. None of the existing structures will be retained as part of the project, and demolition of any existing on-site structures will occur before project grading begins City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations General Plan Under the Tustin General Plan, the project site is designated as an Industrial land use, which permits industrial and office uses, such as wholesale businesses, light manufacturing, storage, distribution and sales, research and development laboratories, and service commercial businesses with a max FAR of 0.5. Zoning In the City of Tustin's Zoning Ordinance, the project area is designated as a "Planned Industrial" zone, which allows for various light industrial and manufacturing uses. The PM zone implements the Industrial general plan land use designation. 1.4. Key issues The land uses and design standards for the PCD align with Tustin General Plan goals to: • Achieve balanced development that accommodates existing and future needs for housing and community facilities. • Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses in the community, the City's circulation network, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints and the City's unique characteristics and resources. The development types proposed in these regulations are compatible with the historic and architecturally significant residential properties which lie adjacent to the project area. • Revitalize older industrial developments to maintain a quality urban environment, and create more complimentary uses in between the historic district and the freeway. • Improve city-wide urban design by creating uniquely identifiable neighborhoods that connect with the best parts of the community, and provide for both public and private open space. • Promote economic expansion and diversification of the Old Town District. The integration of residential uses in Old Town provides increased market support for retail and commercial uses, and improves the vitality of the district. • Provide new for -sale market rate housing options in the City of Tustin. Z. STATISTICAL SUMMARY The Vintage project includes two townhome product types (Melrose Place and Veranda Court) that have been designed to blend harmoniously with the surrounding neighborhood and the existing single-family homes along Sixth Street. The project supports a range of unit sizes with three- and four-bedroom floor plans that meet the housing needs of the community. The Vintage project allows for the development of 140 townhome residential units. Table 1 outlines the proposed product details. 2.1. Melrose Place Melrose Place homes range in size from 1,700 to 2,300 square feet, utilizing four different creative floorplans. A total of 92 Melrose Place units are proposed. Melrose Place units are located along Sixth Street and B Street, generally in groups of 4 to 8 units per building, and are 2-3 stories tall, with a maximum building height of 42 feet. All Melrose Place units include two -car attached garages (side-by-side) accessed from private drives. City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations 2.2. Veranda Court Veranda Court homes range in size from 1,400 to 1,700 square feet, featuring three separate floorplans. Veranda Court homes are proposed in packs of four (for a total of 48 units) and are generally located along the project's southern boundary parallel to 1-5. All Veranda Court units are three stories, with a maximum building height of 42 feet. All Veranda Court units include two -car attached garages (side-by-side) accessed from private drives. Table 1: Proposed Home Types Melrose Place 92 1,700 SF — 2,300 SF 4 — 8 units/building Veranda Court 48 1,400 SF —1,700 SF 4 — 5 units/building 3. LAND USE REGULATIONS The land use regulations and development standards contained within this document act as a principle part of the controlling mechanism for implementation of the Planned Community District designation. Standards set forth in this Section will ensure that development within the Vintage Planned Community proceeds in a consistent and appropriate manner. 3.1. Purpose and Intent To accommodate the proposed development's variety of home types, variations from the City zoning regulations are necessary. The City's Planned Community zoning district (P -C) provides the mechanism for creating special land use regulations to best meet the needs of the project area. These custom-tailored regulations support the project's integration into the existing neighborhood and help create a more pedestrian -friendly environment along Sixth Street and B Street. For these reasons, a zone change from Planned Industrial (as described in Section 1) to Planned Community (P -C) is proposed. 3.1 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in the Vintage project area: • Dwelling, multiple • Home occupations All uses not specifically listed above are prohibited in the project area. Additionally, temporary uses are subject to provisions of Tustin City Code. 3.3. Development Standards The development standards contained in this Planned Community (P -C) district document solely apply to the subject site and supersede all provisions, standards, and requirements of Tustin City Code, except in instances where the district regulations remain silent. If a conflict arises between the regulations contained in this code and the City's Municipal Code, then the standards in this chapter shall take precedence. • Gross Acres: 6.81 acres • Gross Density: 20.6 du/ac • Lot Coverage: 45% City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations • Minimum front yard setback: 5 feet • Minimum interior side yard setback: 3 feet • Minimum corner side yard setback: 5 feet • Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet • Minimum building to building separation: 10 feet • Maximum Building Height: Two stories, 30 feet. Three stories, 42 feet. 3.4. Open Space The Vintage community presents a complete landscape program with ample private and common open space to serve the active and passive recreation needs of its residents. Private open space will be maintained by the property owner and common open space will be perpetually owned and maintained,by the Homeowners Association. Private Open Space Private open space provides individual outdoor areas where residents can enjoy themselves in relative privacy. These spaces may take the form of yards, patios, or balconies and be designed to allow residents to relax, gather, garden, and/or eat in an outdoor environment. Vintage requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private open space per unit; the actual amount of private open space provided per unit ranges from 80 square feet to 200 square feet. Common Open Space Vintage also provides common open space in the form of a Public Park, recreation area, and pedestrian paseos. A minimum of 300 square feet of common open space is required per unit. The Public Park, fronting on Sixth Street, has an informal "garden" aesthetic to fit the existing streetscape character. The park features a seat wall area with central decorative feature, lawn area, and dog waste station. The recreation area, located just south of the park, features an 880 square -foot clubhouse that provides social space, changing space and restrooms. Additional features of the recreation area include an 800 square -foot pool, cabanas and loungers, tables and chairs, raised planters with built in seating, and a built- in BBQ. The clubhouse, pool, and associated features shall meet accessibility standards. The pedestrian paseos provide passive open spaces where people can walk, sit or gather in small groups are located between residential buildings. The project's paseos include outdoor seating (chairs and coffee tables), gathering space (fire table and chairs), and ambient lighting (string lights overhead). Landscaped parkways are located throughout the community, providing an additional amenity for residents looking to take a leisurely walk with their family or pet. "No outlet" signage will be installed at the entrance of all alleys to convey paseo access is for residents only. 3.5. Fences and Walls Vintage is designed to blend harmoniously with the existing single family neighborhood, and as such, the project features only a limited number of fences and walls. The intent is for the community to feel open and welcoming, while still providing the necessary protection from 1-5 and security for its recreational facilities, residents and guests. City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations Noise WaliAdjacent to I-5 The community will be protected from the noise of 1-5 by a 20 -foot sound wall running the length of its southern boundary, adjacent to 1-5. The freeway is sloped such that the south end of the project site is 9.5 feet below the freeway's grade, and at the northern portion of the site, 4 feet below the freeway's grade. Thus, when viewed from the residential side, the noise wall is 20 feet, but when viewed from 1-5, the noise wall would only appear to be 10.5 feet in height at the southern edge and 16 -feet high at the northern edge. Freeway Security Fencing A freeway security fence will be installed on-site to provide protection between the freeway and the project and to provide access to the space between the freeway and the sound wall adjacent to 1-5. The allowable Freeway Security Fence height shall be up to and including 8 feet 6 inches. Recreation Area Security Fencing The recreation area will be protected with a 6 -foot tall wrought iron security fence. The design of the fence will be integrated into the site design to ensure it does not distract from the high-quality landscape design and architecture of the project. Private Front Yards In some areas of the community, units have private front yards; private open space is delineated on the architectural open space exhibit to mark the difference between personal private space belonging to a specific unit (and maintained by that unit) and common open space accessible to the community (maintained by the homeowner's association). 3.6. Signage Monumentation identifying the project will be sited within the project site boundary on the southwest corner of Sixth Street and B Street, in compliance with the Tustin City Code. Signage may read "Vintage at Old Town Tustin"; final signage content and design will be provided by the City prior to issuance of building permits. 3.7. General Parking Requirements A minimum of two (2) enclosed garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit (280 covered spaces). In addition, a minimum of 0.25 guest spaces per unit is required (35 uncovered guest spaces). Table 2: Parking Requirements 0011, Melrose Place 92 184 23 Veranda Court 48 96 12 Total 140 280 35 On-site, the project provides the required 280 covered parking spaces and exceeds the required guest spaces by actually provided 69 guest spaces (34 more than required); overall, the project provides 349 parking spaces on-site. Based on these figures, the project is actually providing nearly two times the required guest spaces to ensure the project adequately meets the needs of the community. City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations Parking area dimensions, locations and access shall conform to the City's design review criteria on file in the Community Development Department. At a minimum, garages shall be 20'x20' inside clear dimension. Each residential garage shall be designed and constructed to be electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) ready. Open parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet wide by 19 feet deep including any bumper overhang. Up to a two (2) foot overhang may be permitted into a landscape planter or sidewalk area provided the sidewalk has sufficient width to comply with accessibility requirements. In the guest parking area, at least one space shall be EVCS ready. 3.8. Private Drives Private drives with no guest parking (parallel or pull -in) within the travel way shall have a minimum travel way width of 20 feet curb face -to -curb face. Private drives with on -street (private drive) guest parking shall have a minimum travel way width of 26 feet. Sidewalks are not required within private drives, but are provided to create key pedestrian connections within the community. Sidewalks, where provided, shall be designed in accordance with Standard B102 of the City's Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drains, and On -Site Private Improvements, and shall be subject to compliance with applicable accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 24 of the California Building Code as locally amended, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. 3.9. Other Development Standards Any development standards which are not specifically identified within the District Regulations shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the Tustin City Code. 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Administration of the provisions of these regulations shall be undertaken by the City of Tustin in accordance with the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, the Tustin General Plan and the Tustin City Code. Other documents have been prepared and processed concurrently with the adoption of the Vintage District Regulations, including a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Change, and Development Agreement. 4.1. Responsibility The Community Development Department of the City of Tustin shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of provisions of these regulations. 4.2. Interpretations If ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate application of provisions contained in these District Regulations, the Community Development Director shall make the appropriate determination. In making a determination, the Director shall consider the following, but not by way of limitation: • Prior administrative interpretation of similar provisions; • General intent and purpose of these District Regulations; • Provisions contained in the General Plan; and, • Other provisions of the Tustin City code where standards do exist. Any decision of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission. City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations 4.3. Modifications The characteristics and amenities of the Vintage Planned Community are to be implemented through adoption of development plans. Any modifications to the approved development plans shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Tustin City Code. 4.4. Subdivisions All divisions of land shall be processed in accordance with the Tustin City Code and State Subdivision Map Act. 4.5. Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Other Discretionary Actions All applications shall be processed in accordance with the Tustin City Code. 4.6. Amendment to District Regulations Any amendment to these District Regulations contained herein which change the allowed uses within the development, impose any regulation upon property not therefore imposed, or removes or modifies any such regulation shall be initiated and processed in the same manner set forth in the Tustin City Code for amending the Zoning Code. 4.7. ]Enforcement The District Regulations are adopted by Ordinance and are therefore subject to penalty provisions of the Tustin City Code. Specifically, violations of land use or development standards shall be subject to penalty provisions and citation procedures of the Tustin City Code, in addition to the City's authority to seek civil litigation in a court of law. 4.8. Severability Clause In any pan,:, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of these Development Regulations is held to be invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, these decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of these District Regulations. The Tustin City Council hereby declares that these District Regulations and each part, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that one or more portions of the District Regulations may be declared invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable. 4.9. Design Review The Vintage project is subject to the City of Tustin's Design Review requirements, as outlined in Tustin City Code Section 9272, Design Review. The intent of the Design Review process is to ensure high-quality exterior design, development and maintenance of structures, landscaping, and general appearance. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Community Development Director shall approve, at a minimum, the site plan, elevations, and landscaping for such development. The decision of the Community Development Director shall be final, unless appealed in writing to the Planning Commission, by the procedure specified in Tustin City Code Section 9294. Development shall commence within one year of approval, otherwise, a new evaluation and review shall be required prior to any development, unless otherwise authorized by the Community Development Director. City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations 5. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS The following pages identify the conceptual development plans included in the original development application. The conceptual exhibits are provided for reference only, and minor modifications are acceptable without a change to these District Regulations so long as the original intent and purpose is maintained. See the Tentative Tract Map and Architectural Package for complete details on the Vintage project area. Figure 2: Conceptual Development Plan Figure 3: Conceptual Sixth Street Elevations VINTAGE - n.cov —'— _ City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations 1 1 1 �I 1 Figure 4: Conceptual Architecture Styles C'19 City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations W, O C rte+ 3 I"f TD D) 7 3 fD o- r) n 0 3 3 C 7 0 LA rt fD IQ C DJ at O 7 to TYPICAL 'MELROSE PLACE' PASEO SHADE TOLERANT PLANTING STRING LIGHTS — TREES WITH STRING LIGHTS — ENHANCED PAYING — — OUTDOOR SEATING — - POTTED PLANTS - FIRE PIT GATHERING SPACE r ` �, sem. TYPICAL 'VERANDA COURT' PASEO ITI n O --I C LA ct 7 C 7 a fD d 7 fD o- r) n O 3 3 C 7 `G rh -t n K I'D (D La C D) r7 O 1 Ln PUBLIC PARK PLANTING DG PATH TURF ENHANCED PAVING DECORATIVE FEATURE DOG WASTE STATION SEAT WALL NO MOW GRASS RECREATION AREA BUILT IN BBQ POTTED PLANTS POOL ENHANCED PALING WROUGHT IRON FENCE RAISED PLANTER 4Vj BENCH ry Figure 7: Conceptual Monumentation Signage City of Tustin Vintage Planned Community District Regulations 1 1 Appendix B. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses 1 C] AIR QUALITY and GHG IMPACT ANALYSES 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Giroux & Associates 1800 E. Garry Avenue #205: Santa Ana, Calif..92705 Prepared for: Environment I Planning I Development Solutions Attn: Konnie Dobreva 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200, Irvine, CA 92714 Date: February 17, 2016 Project No.: P16 -006A i IMETEOROLOGICAL SETTING REGIONAL CLIMATE The climate of Tustin, technically called a Mediterranean -type climate, is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate afternoon breezes, and generally fair weather. Temperatures near the project area average a very comfortable 63°F year-round. Summer afternoons are typically in the middle 80s and winter mornings drop to the low- to mid-40s. About 45 summer days reach 90 degrees F, and five days per year may drop to 32 degrees, but significant extremes of temperature are rare in the project area. Rainfall in the Los Angeles Basin varies considerably in both time and space. Rainfall amounts vary from an average of 10 to 18 inches as a function of local exposure and topography. Tustin averages 14.6 inches of rain during a normal year. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid -latitude storms from late November to early April with summers often completely dry. Light rain (0.1" in 24 hours) falls on 20 days during a normal year with 10 days in the moderate (0.5" in 24 hours category). Winds blow primarily from southwest to northeast by day and from northeast to the southwest at night in response to the regional pattern of onshore flow by day and offshore flow at night. Average wind speeds are 5 mph average in the Tustin area, reaching 6-8 mph in the afternoon but dropping to near calm conditions (1-3 mph) at night. The net effect of local airflow in terms of air pollution is that daytime ventilation is good and any locally generated air pollutants will be rapidly dispersed by the strong daytime turbulence. At night, however, pooling of cool air in low elevations combined with light winds does allow for air stagnation in protected areas, especially near area freeways with elevated pollution levels. In addition to winds that control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal, Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high-pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine/subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is relatively clean, but becomes progressively more polluted as sources continue to add pollution from below without any dilution from above. Air arriving at Tustin during warm season marine flow conditions has undergone limited photochemical reactions, but not to its fullest extent possible. Summer smog levels in Tustin are much lower than in inland valleys of the basin such as the San Gabriel or the Pomona - Walnut Valleys. Summer air quality is only moderately degraded compared to the severe degradation found farther inland within the air basin. A second inversion type forms on clear, winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the surface while the air aloft remains warm. This process forms radiation inversions. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. During the long nocturnal drainage flow from land to sea, the exhaust pollutants continually accumulate within the shallow, cool layer of air near the ground. Central Orange County thus may experience elevated levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides because of Vintage Lofts AQ -I- this winter inversion condition. With ongoing vehicular improvements, clean air standards are generally not exceeded during nocturnal stagnation periods as they were 10-20 years ago. Both types of inversions occur throughout the year to some extent, but the marine inversions are very dominant during the day in summer, and radiation inversions are much stronger on winter nights when nights are long and air is cool. The governing role of these inversions in atmospheric dispersion leads to a substantially different air quality environment in summer near the project area than in winter. 1 L', Vintage Lofts AQ -2- 1 AIR QUALITY SETTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS) In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1.. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects. EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate. EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM -2.5"). New national AAQS were adopted in 1997 for these pollutants. Planning and enforcement of the federal standards for PM -2.5 and for ozone (8 -hour) were challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health -based standards did not require preparation of a cost -benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their required attainment schedules. Such attainment -planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8 -hour ozone standard. EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of communities to "non -attainment" for the 8 -hour ozone standard. Vintage Lofts AQ -3- Table 1 Ambient /-lifr Quality �Sfaandardsi" Vintage Lofts AQ -4- 1 1 Averaging Califomia Standards' National Standards'' ' Pollutant Time Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary3;s Secondary 31e Method'T Ozone {03)s 1 HourA D9 ppm t180m') tl,ravk3?et Fluorescence Spectrophotometry24 -Famrosanitine tlttrawotet 8 f lour ?.qo ppm (137ugfm') ti 070 pprii (t37 pg�rn'); Pl ttort etry PrimaryS%tdaxd Annual 0.030 ppm Respirable 24 How 501xy'm3 (tor certain areas)t° t5o Ugfm' Inertial Separation Particulate Gra r}metric or Attem Same as Primary Standard and Gravimetric AnnaBeta Matter (PM10)$ Ajitheitc Meaft 20 Pgfm' — Analysis Fine Particulate " 24 Hour' Afcxnic Rt — ' , 35 p9r?n Pumary estandard Inertial Separation Matter and GravimQUic " . Ar alys Annual 12ltgim' 'Gravrnetdcor 120laglm' 1?'p9?m' PM2 5)s" . Artihmec Mean : 6e#a AtfecszraUisn Average 1 Harr 20 ppm (23 ntgtm') Visibility 35 pprn (40 mglni, — F3eta Attena&ition and.y Carbon Reducing 8 How Non-Msperst Transmittance W4 ` Non-Uspersive thmugh Filter Tape liatiOttal Monoxide 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mgife) infrared Photometry 9 ppm (10 ) — Infrared Photometry (CO) (NOIR) (NDIR) 8 Hou (Lake Tall) &fin (7 n'i _ — Hydrogen 1 Hour w 0A3 m 42 ( �1 Ntrogen 1 Hrstrr" .. (}.i8pnt (338,1m) 0 4lyppr (28 ppm}) IoD ppb,(t68 pCrm'j See footnotes on next page ... For more inibrmation please call AR&PIO at (919 322-2990 California :lir Resources Board, (10/Ulf� Dioxide Gas°Phase C,as'Ptse. Annual" _ 0 030 plan (57'{ gfm) 0 4753 ppm (1 pgim } ' i0 ( � �IiSHT1V1e8r.Cttce ruititmeiic t Primary Stand rd , Vintage Lofts AQ -4- 1 1 1 Harr 0.2.5 ppin (655 WWW) 75 ppb (1996 V — Sulfur Dioxide Ultraviolet` uIr"Giet FWescence; 3 Hour — - —0.5 ppm (13tA(Sgim3) (SOz)is Fluorescence Spectrophotometry24 -Famrosanitine Haar 0.04 ppm (105 OWni`) 0.14 ppm (for certain areas) — shod) Annual 0.030 ppm Arithmetic Mean _ (tor certain areas)t° — 30 Day v 71 Y Ftgh.vaiume t 5 tigim ii ra u , Leddt x tsar [ruarter Afcxnic Rt (tor, cetata areais)t2Same a Satttp9er arbS,A�t.�n c Rolling 3114106 h 015 yg/1rt Primary Standard Average Visibility F3eta Attena&ition and.y Reducing 8 How See footnote 13 Transmittance W4 ` Particle$rd thmugh Filter Tape liatiOttal Sulfates 2A Haw' 25uiym';° to ;raw �' Stan t18rd3 ; Hydrogen 1 Hour w 0A3 m 42 ( �1 Ultraviolet Fluorescence Chlor deft 24 Haar. - 0 4lyppr (28 ppm}) Ghromat See footnotes on next page ... For more inibrmation please call AR&PIO at (919 322-2990 California :lir Resources Board, (10/Ulf� Vintage Lofts AQ -4- 1 1 LI :S1 Table I (continued) 1. California standards for ozone, carbon Monoxide (except 94tour Lake Tahoe). sulfur dioxide (I and 24 hour). nitrogen dioxide, and particulate natter (NNIMEN-1275, and visibility redix*particles), are values ' that are not tQbeexceeded. .All others are not to be equaled of exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed iathe Table of Standards in Section 70200 ofTitle 17 of the California Code of Regulations. I National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest Shour concentration measured at each site in a year;, averaged over three years. is equal to or less than the standard. for PIM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected to of days per calendar year with a 24-hour auera. ge concentration above 150 jiglint is equal to or less than one -For PM23, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent, of the daily concentrations, averaged over three ye -ars, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U& EPA for further clarification and current national policies, 3. Concentration expressed fast in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of25C and a reference pressure of760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference terripmtureof25*C and a refermcepressureof760torr ppm in this table refers, to ppm by volume, or micromoles ofpollutant per Mole ofgas. 4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the safisfactionofthe ARB to give equivalent results at or near the let el of the air quality standard may be used; 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin otsafety To protect the public beahh. 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any kmonm or anticipated adverse effects of pollutant, 7- ReIcrence method as described by the U.S. EPA. An "'equivalent method- of measurement may be used but must halt ;a "consistent relationship to the reference methocr'aud must be approved by the U.& EPA. 8. On October 1. 2015, the national 8 -hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm, 9, On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primaty standard was lowered from 15 pglmto 12,0 p v plms. The existing national 24- hour PIX12-5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 p9t-1. as was the annual secondary standard of 15 pg;ml. The existing 24-hour PMIO standards (primary and secondary) of 150 p&i' also were retained. The form of theanmW primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 )tars. 10. To attain the 1-h= national standard, the 3 -year avemgepf the annual PSI percentile of the I -hour daily Maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the stand: 'ii'&eiiiits of puts per billion (Ppb). California standards are in units of puts per million (ppm): To directly compare the national 1 -hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case,.the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0:100 ppm. 11. On June 2, 2010, a nest= I -hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were rewked. To attain the I -hour national standard. the 3 -year average ofthe ammat 99th percentile of the I -hour daily Maximum concentrations at each site mast not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 S6, national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in eMcr until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the, 1971, standards remain in eftect until implementation plans to attain or Maintain the 2010 standards are approved, Note that the 1 -hour national standard is in units ofparts per billion (ppb). California standards are, in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1 -hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0W5 ppin. 12. The ARB has identified lead and viavl chloride as'to\icair comaminams' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determit". These actions allots for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants, 13. The national standard for lead was revised on October l5, 2008 to a telling 3 -mouth average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 p9l'in, as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one }ear after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nortattammem for, the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard terimms in effect until ituplemerimionplaus to aftit or nWtuam thi 2003 stan&,ud are approved. 14. In IPSP, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10 -utile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30 -toile visibility standard to instrunientil equivalents, which ,are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0:07 perlWometer" for the statei%ide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. For more informa tion please callARD-FIGat (916) 32 2-1991D Ca lifornin Ak Resources Board (1011115) Vintage Lofts AQ Table 2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Carbon Monoxide • Incomplete combustion of fuels and other • Reduced tolerance for exercise. (CO) carbon -containing substances, such as motor • Impairment of mental function. exhaust. • Impairment of fetal development. • Natural events, such as decomposition of . Death at high levels of exposure. organic matter. • Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina). Nitrogen Dioxide • Motor vehicle exhaust. • Aggravation of respiratory illness. (NO2) • High temperature stationary combustion. • Reduced visibility. • Atmospheric reactions. • Reduced plant growth. • Formation of acid rain. Ozone • Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with • Aggravation of respiratory and (03) nitrogen oxides in sunlight. cardiovascular diseases. • Irritation of eyes. • Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. • Plant leaf injury. Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve construction. • Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Fine Particulate Matter • Stationary combustion of solid fuels. • Reduced lung function. (PM -10) • Construction activities. • Aggravation of the effects of gaseous • Industrial processes. pollutants. - • Atmospheric chemical reactions. • Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory diseases. • Increased cough and chest discomfort. • Soiling. • Reduced visibility. Fine Particulate Matter • Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, • Increases respiratory disease.. (PM -2.5) equipment, and industrial sources. • Lung damage. • Residential and agricultural burning. • Cancer and premature death. • Industrial processes. • Reduces visibility and results in surface • Also, formed from photochemical reactions soiling. of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Sulfur Dioxide . Combustion of sulfur -containing fossil fuels. • Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, (SO2) • Smelting of sulfur -bearing metal ores. emphysema). Industrial processes. • Reduced lung function. • Irritation of eyes. • Reduced visibility. • Plant injury. • Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002. Vintage Lofts AQ . -6. 1 r. 1 1 Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM -2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in 2002. The State PM -2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only requires continued progress towards attainment. Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard for an 8 -hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for the federal 8 -hour standard. The California 8 -hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than the federal 8 -hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of non - attainment. During the same re-evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that is more stringent than the corresponding federal standard, and strengthened the state one-hour NO2 standard. As part of EPA's 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial modification of federal clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM -2.5 were strengthened, a new class of PM in the 2.5 to 10 micron size was created, some PM -10 standards were revoked, and a distinction between rural and urban air quality was adopted. In December, 2012, the federal annual standard for PM -2.5 was reduced from 15 µg/m3 to 12 µg/m3 which matches the California AAQS. The severity of the basin's non -attainment status for PM -2.5 may be increased by this action and thus require accelerated planning for future PM -2.5 attainment. In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8 -hour standard. A new 8 -hour ozone standard was adopted in 2015 after extensive analysis and public input. The adopted national 8 -hour ozone standard is 0.07 ppm which matches the current California standard. It will require three years of ambient data collection, then 2 years of non - attainment findings and planning protocol adoption, then several years of plan development and approval. Final air quality plans for the new standard are likely to be adopted around 2022. Ultimate attainment of the new standard in ozone problem areas such as Southern California might be after 2025. In 2010 a new federal one-hour primary standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was adopted. This standard is more stringent than the existing state standard. Based upon air quality monitoring data in the South Coast Air Basin, the California Air Resources Board has requested the EPA to designate the basin as being in attainment for this standard. The federal standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2) was also recently revised. However, with minimal combustion of coal and mandatory use of low sulfur fuels in California, SO2 is typically not a problem pollutant. Vintage Lofts AQ -7- BASELINE AIR QUALITY Existing and probable future levels of air quality around the project area can best be best inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the SCAQMD at the Anaheim monitoring station. This station measures both regional pollution levels such as smog, as well as primary vehicular pollution levels near busy roadways such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Pollutants such as particulates (PM -10 and PM -2.5) are also monitored at Anaheim. Table 3 is a 6 -year summary of monitoring data for the major air pollutants compiled from this air monitoring station. From this data the following conclusions regarding air quality trends can be drawn: a. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels occasionally exceed standards. All state and federal ozone standards have been exceeded 1 percent or less of all days in the past six years. Measurements from more recent years demonstrate progressively improved ozone levels in the area. While ozone levels are still occasionally elevated, they are much lower than 10 to 20 years ago. b. Respirable dust (PM -10) levels occasionally exceed the state standard on approximately two percent of measured days. The less stringent federal PM -10 standard has not been exceeded in the last six years. c. The federal ultra -fine particulate (PM -2.5) standard of 35 µg/m3 has been exceeded on less than one percent of measurement days in the last six years. d. More localized pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, etc. are very low near the project site. There is substantial excess dispersive capacity to accommodate localized vehicular air pollutants such as NOx or CO without any threat of violating applicable AAQS. Although complete attainment of every clean air standard is not yet imminent, extrapolation of the steady improvement trend suggests that such attainment could occur within the reasonably near future. 1 Vintage Lofts AQ _8_ 1 Table 3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2009-2014) (Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded, and Maximum Levels During Such Violations) (Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard/samples taken) Pollutant/Standard 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Ozone 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 0 1 0 0 0 2 8 -Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 2 1 1 0 0 6 8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 1 1 0 0 0 4 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.093 0.104 0.088 0.079 0.084 0.111 Max. 8 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.077 0.088 0.072 0.067 0.070 0.081 Carbon Monoxide 8- Hour > 9. ppm (S,F) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 8 -hour Conc. (ppm) 2.7 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.1 Nitrogen Dioxide 1 -Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.068 0.073 0.074 0.067 0.082 0.076 Inhalable Particulates (PM -10) 24-hour> 50 µg/m3 (S) 1/56 0/57 2/57 0/61 1/59 2/61 24-hour > 150 µg/m3 (F) 0/56 0/57 0/57 0/61 0/59 0/61 Max. 24 -Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 62. 43. 53. 48. 77. 85. Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM -2.5) 24 -Hour > 35 µg/m3 (F) 4/334 0/331 2/352 4/347 1/331 6/xx Max. 24 -Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 64.5 31.7 39.2 50.1 37.8 56.2 xx data not yet available Source: South Coast AQMD Air Monitoring Station Data Summary, Anaheim Station (3176) Vintage Lofts AQ -9- AIR QUALITY PLANNING The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM -10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air -sheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 4. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM -10 and PM -2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint" in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health -based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM -10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal one- hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8 -hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated. With re -designation of the air basin as non -attainment for the 8 -hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the one-hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8 -hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to "slip" from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM -2.5 standard. Because projected attainment by 2021 requires control technologies that do not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary "bump -up" from a "severe non -attainment" area to an "extreme non -attainment" designation for ozone. The extreme designation will allow a longer time period for these .technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on "black -box" measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump -up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non -attainment designation from "severe -17" to "extreme." This reclassification sets a later attainment deadline (2024), but also requires the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls. Vintage Lofts AQ -10- 1 1 1 Table 4 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in tons/day) Pollutant 2012a 20156 20206 2025b 2030 NOx 512 451 357 289 266 VOC 466 429 400 393 393 PM -10 154 155 161 165 170 PM -2.5 68 67 67 68 170 x2012 Base Year. bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of CEPAM In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA has disapproved part of the SCAB PM -2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA has stated that the current attainment plan relies on PM -2.5 control regulations that have not yet been approved or implemented. It is expected that a number of rules that are pending approval will remove the identified deficiencies. If these issues are not resolved within the next several years, federal funding sanctions for transportation projects could result. The 2012 AQMP included in the ARB submittal to EPA as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) is expected to remedy identified PM -2.5 planning deficiencies. The federal Clean Air Act requires that non -attainment air basins have EPA approved attainment plans in place. This requirement includes the federal one-hour ozone standard even though that standard was revoked almost ten years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the one- hour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now required to develop an AQMP for the long since revoked one-hour federal ozone standard. Because the 2012 AQMP contains a number of control measures for the 8 -hour ozone standard that are equally effective for one-hour levels, the 2012 AQMP is believed to satisfy hourly attainment planning requirements. AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2012 AQMP was adopted in early 2013. An updated AQMP must therefore be adopted in 2016. Planning for the 2016 AQMP is currently on-going. The current attainment deadlines for all federal non -attainment pollutants are now as follows: Vintage Lofts AQ 8 -hour ozone (70 ppb) Annual PM -2.5 (12 µg/m3) 8 -hour ozone (75 ppb) 1 -hour ozone (120 ppb) 24-hour PM -2.5 (35 µg/m3) 2032 2025 2024 (old standard) 2023 (rescinded standard) 2019 The key challenge is that NOx emission levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to be met. Unless additional NOx control measures are adopted and implemented, attainment goals may not be met. The proposed project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing residential projects. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth -accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less -than -significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project -specific basis. 1 1 Vintage Lofts AQ -12- IAIR QUALITY IMPACT STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Air quality impacts are considered "significant" if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they "substantially" contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact. Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: a. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). d. Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Primary Pollutants Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non -attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM -10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction. Secondary Pollutants Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based upon a Vintage Lofts AQ -13- specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact. Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Table 5 Daily Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 PM -2.5 55 55 Sox 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. Additional Indicators In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows: • Project could interfere withthe attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project's build -out year. • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. Vintage Lofts AQ -14- I I CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTS CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model by which to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a variety of land use projects. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although exhaust emissions will result from on and off-site equipment, the exact types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. Estimated construction emissions were modeled using CaIEEMod2013.2.2 to identify maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during project construction. The proposed project entails construction of 148 condo/townhomes. Construction was modeled in CalEEMod2013.2.2 primarily using default construction equipment (with the addition of several pieces of equipment and a lengthened demolition phase) and schedule for a project of this size schedule as shown in Table 6. Table 6 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet Phase Name and Duration Equipment Demo (20 days) 1 Concrete Saw 2 Dozers 3 Excavators, 2 LoaderBackhoes Grading (20 days) 10,000 cubic yards 1 Grader 1 Excavator 1 Dozer 1 Scraper 3 LoaderBackhoes Construction (230 days) 1 Crane 3 LoaderBackhoes 3 Forklifts 1 Gen Set 1 Welder Paving (20 days) 2 Pavers 2 Paving Equipment 2 Rollers Vintage Laos AQ -15- Utilizing this indicated equipment fleet and durations shown in Table 6 the following worst case daily construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are listed in Table 7. To ensure a worst case condition, paving activities were assumed to overlap with construction. Table 7 Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM -10 PM -2.5 2017 Unmitigated 5.6 64.1 45.9 0.1 11.8 6.3 Mitigated 5.6 64.1 45.9 0.1 6.6 4.2 2018 Unmitigated 58.2 24.8 23.9 0.0 2.8 1.8 Mitigated 58.2 24.8 23.9 0.0 2.8 1.8 SCAQlVID'Tliresholds- 75 100 554 150 150 55 Even with overlap of paving and grading activities, peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. The only mitigation measure modeled is as follows: • Exposed surfaces will be watered three times per day during grading activities Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24-hour per day, 365 days per year, 70 -year lifetime exposure. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of construction -related diesel emissions relative to health risk due to the short period for which the majority of diesel exhaust would occur. Health risk analyses are typically assessed over a 9-, 30-, or 70 -year timeframe and not over a relatively brief construction period due to the lack of health risk associated with such a brief exposure. LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions -based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and. the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee in February 2005. Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional. For the proposed project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital or convalescent facility. 1 Vintage Lofts AQ -16- 1 LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM -10 and PM -2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LSTs are only applicable to on-site emissions. Emission sources included in Table xx include on -road construction crew commute, vendor deliveries and truck haul for earthworks and demolition material LST screening tables are available for 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 meter source -receptor distances. For this project the most stringent 25 -meter source -receptor distance was used because of the residences directly across West 6`h Street. The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre sites for varying distances. Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, the following tables should be used to determine the maximum daily disturbed -acreage for comparison to LSTs. Table 8 Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage per Equipment Type Equipment T e Acres/8-hr-da Crawler Tractor 0.5 Graders 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.5 Scrapers 1.0. Based on this table, the proposed project will result in 2.0 disturbed daily acre during peak construction grading activity: (1 dozer x 0.5 + 1 grader x 0.5 +1 scraper x 1.0 = 2.0 acres disturbed). The following thresholds and emissions in Table 9 are therefore determined (pounds per day): Vintage Lofts AQ 17- Table 9 LST and Proiect Emissions (pounds/day) LST 2 acre/25 meters Central Orange County CO NOx PM -10 PM -2.5 MaxiOin=Ste,Emssions 75 Demolition Unmitigated 34 43 11 3 Mitigated 34 43 5 2 Gradin Unmitigated 33 48 9 6 Mitigated 33 48 5 4 Construction Unmitigated 18 26 2 2 Miti ated 18 26 2 2 Paving Unmitigated 15 20 1 1 Mitigated 15 20 1 1 Construction and Paving Overlap Unmitigated 33 48 2 2 Mitigated 33 48 2 2 CaIEEMod Output in Appendix The source of the construction emissions used for the LST analysis in Table 9 is off-road construction equipment that operates on the project site. By comparison, the emissions shown in Table 7 represent the regional value and include on -road emissions that occur on roadways away from the site (i.e., employee commuting and vendor deliveries). On -road emissions are excluded from the LST analysis in Table 9. Therefore, the thresholds in Table 7 apply to regional emissions resulting from a project (inclusive of off and on -road sources) while the LST analysis only examines what a sensitive use adjacent to the site would experience. As a result, the values shown in Table 9 may be lower than those shown in Table 7. LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As seen above, emissions will meet the LST for construction thresholds with the application of the following mitigation measure: • Exposed surfaces will be watered three times per day during grading activities LST impacts are less -than -significant with the application dust suppression measures (watering 3 times per day) pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Operational emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod2013.2.2 for an assumed project build -out year of 2018 as a target for full occupancy. The project would generate 860 daily trips using trip generation numbers provided by the project traffic consultant. In addition to mobile sources from vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of "area source" air pollution to be generated from on-site energy consumption (primarily landscaping) and from off-site electrical generation (lighting). These sources represent a minimal percentage of the total project NOx and Vintage Lofts AQ -18- CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion of such emissions adds negligibly to the total significant project -related emissions burden as shown in Table 10. Wood burning fireplaces may not be installed in new construction unless natural gas service is unavailable within reasonable distance. Such service is assumed to be available within the proposed project. Therefore, this measure is a matter of compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445 and not discretionary mitigation. However, the CalEEMod model still considers restriction of wood burning as a possible mitigation measure and was therefore analyzed as such. Table 10 Daily Operational Impacts Source: CalEEMod2013.2.2 Output in Appendix *assumes use of natural gas heaths for residential use As seen in Table 10, the project would not cause any operational emissions to exceed their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Operational emission impacts are judged to be less than significant. No impact mitigation for operational activity emissions is considered necessary to support this finding. That finding is further strengthened by noting that the calculated emissions are based upon an assumption that all project -related trips are "new" trips. In reality, the existing site uses generate almost as much daily traffic as the proposed project. Since regional air pollution emissions are proportional to average daily trips (ADT), the margin of safety between project impacts and the basin -wide CEQA significance thresholds is substantially larger than suggested by the modeling results in Table 10. The project is adjacent to a freeway, Interstate 5 (I-5). Diesel trucks generate diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known carcinogen. All vehicles (except perhaps all -electric) emit combustion by- products with known adverse health effects. The emissions from the 1-5 have the potential to result in impacts within the project that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold for cancer risk. A separate health risk analysis has been prepared to address this issue (Health Risk Assessment Report, Tustin Vintage Lofts Project, City of Tustin, California, EPD Solutions, Inc., March 5, 2016). It should be noted that the Court of Appeals (S213478, 2/17/15, California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District) has recently ruled as follows: Vintage Lofts AQ .19- Operational Emissions (lbs ay) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM -10 PM -2.5 Area * 3.9 0.1 12.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 Energy 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 2.5 6.1 29.1 0.0 6.3 1.8 Total 6.5 6.8 41.6 0.0 6.5 2.0 SCAQMD Threshold 55� 55',­,,!",550. Y50:.`� :, 150 1' 55 � Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod2013.2.2 Output in Appendix *assumes use of natural gas heaths for residential use As seen in Table 10, the project would not cause any operational emissions to exceed their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Operational emission impacts are judged to be less than significant. No impact mitigation for operational activity emissions is considered necessary to support this finding. That finding is further strengthened by noting that the calculated emissions are based upon an assumption that all project -related trips are "new" trips. In reality, the existing site uses generate almost as much daily traffic as the proposed project. Since regional air pollution emissions are proportional to average daily trips (ADT), the margin of safety between project impacts and the basin -wide CEQA significance thresholds is substantially larger than suggested by the modeling results in Table 10. The project is adjacent to a freeway, Interstate 5 (I-5). Diesel trucks generate diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known carcinogen. All vehicles (except perhaps all -electric) emit combustion by- products with known adverse health effects. The emissions from the 1-5 have the potential to result in impacts within the project that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold for cancer risk. A separate health risk analysis has been prepared to address this issue (Health Risk Assessment Report, Tustin Vintage Lofts Project, City of Tustin, California, EPD Solutions, Inc., March 5, 2016). It should be noted that the Court of Appeals (S213478, 2/17/15, California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District) has recently ruled as follows: Vintage Lofts AQ .19- Under what circumstances, if any does the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000 et. seq.) require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users of a proposed project? In light of CEQA's text, statutory structure,.and purpose, we conclude that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. The proposed project would not exacerbate existing environmental hazards. As discussed above, all construction and operational air quality impacts are found to be less than significant. The project will negligibly add ADT to the I-5 Freeway. The only conceivable exacerbation to the existing toxic air contaminant (TAC) environment would be from heavy equipment diesel exhaust, which was found to be below SCAQMD thresholds in the "Construction Activity Impacts" section above. As a project design feature (PDF -1), the proposed project would provide upgraded air filtration systems, which shall be rated MERV 13 or higher. The health risk assessment determined that the net reductions from the filtration system would result in the risks being lowered to less than 10 in one million, the SCAQMD cancer risk significance threshold. Therefore, impacts related to emissions from I-5 would be less than significant. The health risk assessment has been provided to the City as an information item for land use decision making, but is not a CEQA required analysis condition. L 1 Vintage Lofts AQ -20- 1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MINIMIZATION Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Nevertheless, emissions minimization through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the non -attainment status of the air basin and proximity to existing residential uses. Recommended measures include: Fugitive Dust Control • Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas. • Prepare a high wind dust control plan. • Address previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 2-3 times/day). • Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in -out traffic from construction zone • Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non -attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. Combustion emissions control options include: Vintage Logs AQ _Zt_ GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on - road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California's reputation as a "national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship." It will have wide- ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide-ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Major components of the AB 32 include: • Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions. • Requires immediate "early action" control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources. • Mandates that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. • Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25-40%, from business as usual, to be achieved by 2020. • Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants. Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry -specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been Vintage Lofts AQ -22- 1 1 developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on -and off- road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off-site electricity generation and non -company owned mobile sources. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or, • Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project -related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility. Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to "select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate." The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CaIEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis. The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated;, the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise. On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO2 equivalent/year. In September 2010, the SCAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds GHG Working Group released revisions which recommended a threshold of 3,500 MT CO2e for residential use projects. This 3,500 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis. In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold of significance, project related GHG emissions in excess of the guideline level are presumed to trigger a requirement for enhanced GHG reduction at the project level. Vintage Lofts AQ -23- PROJECT RELATED GHG EMISSIONS GENERATION Construction Activity GHG Emissions The project is assumed to be built in approximately two years.. During project construction, the CalEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO2e emissions identified in Table 11. Table 11 Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e) CalEEMod Output provided in appendix SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30 - year lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less -than -significant. Project Operational GHG Emissions The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion from consumption to annual regional CO2e emissions are summarized in the CaIEEMod2013.2.2 output files found in the appendix of this report. The total operational and annualized construction emissions for the proposed project are identified in Table 12. Table 12 Proposed Uses Operational Emissions Consumption Source CO2e Year 2017 579.0 Year 2018 22.8 Total 601.8 Amortized 20.1 CalEEMod Output provided in appendix SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30 - year lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less -than -significant. Project Operational GHG Emissions The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion from consumption to annual regional CO2e emissions are summarized in the CaIEEMod2013.2.2 output files found in the appendix of this report. The total operational and annualized construction emissions for the proposed project are identified in Table 12. Table 12 Proposed Uses Operational Emissions Consumption Source Area Sources 34.7 Energy Utilization 309.6 Mobile Source 1,126.4 Solid Waste Generation 31.0 Water Consumption 67.4 Construction 20.1 - Guidelirie`Threshold 3;500 . Exoeeds Threshold?. w a ?x No_ Vintage Lofts AQ -24- 1 1 -7 L—. 1 1 Total project GHG emissions are substantially below the proposed significance threshold of 3,500 MT suggested by the SCAQMD. Hence, the project will not result in generation of a significant level of greenhouse gases. CONSISTENCY WITH GHG PLANS, PROGRAMS AND POLICIES The City of Tustin has not yet developed a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The County has not adopted regulations for the purpose of reducing GHGs applicable to this project. The applicable GHG planning document is AB -32. As discussed above, the project is not expected to result in a significant increase in GHG emissions. As a result, the project results in GHG emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,500 ton threshold. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. Vintage Lofts AQ -25- 1 CALEEMOD2013.2.2 COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUT • DAILY EMISISONS • ANNUAL EMISSIONS 1 1 Vintage Lofts AQ -26- CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Page 1 of 23 The Lofts Orange County, Summer Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM Lanclsllses _ Size_ ! _ Metnc Lot 4crea a =':' a Flgor'SurfaceArea.- P.o'utaton nh tY`' „x ;,• E'� ,G �-.,, a.`'t ^` _ 9$,a , J 4 } - s� - - '.� p..n . ` '� Condo/Townhouse 148.00 Dwelling Unit 6.75. 148,000.00 423 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Climate Zone 8 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4Intensity 0.029 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 Operational Year 2018 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM Project Characteristics - Land Use --6.75 acres Construction Phase -extended demo, overlap paving and construction Off-road Equipment - Construction: 1 crane, 3 forklifts, 1 gen set, 3 TTB, 1 welder Off-road Equipment - demo: 1 concrete saw, 3 excavators, 2 dozers, 2 TTB Off-road Equipment - Grading: 1 excavator, 1 grader 1 dozer, 3 TTB, 1 scraper Demolition - 175500 sf demo Grading - 10000 CY Vehicle Trips - 5.81 trips day Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - - Area Mitigation - tblConstructionPhase .............................Y----.----..------------------ tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate PhaseEndDate 1/26/2018 11 i 4-------------------- 2/9/2018 3/9/2018 -------- 12/31/2017 -----------------------------4••------------. tblConstructionPhase --- -----. PhaseStartDate Y-------------------- 1/1/2018 ------- i 2/10/2018 -----------------------------Y---•-------------- tblConstruction Phase ----------- PhaseStartDate ------------------------------- 1/13/2018 -------------------------- 12/2/2017 ............................. tblGrading ----------------------------- AcresOfGrading T------------------ 25.00 --------- 10.00 ----------------------------- tblGrading --------------------------- Material Exported ------------------- 1 ------®----T ............. .... ------- ---- --- tblLandUse ' LotAcreage 0.00 i 9.25 10,000.00 6.75 ----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipmentLoadFactor ----------.---------------- -------------------- 0.48 1 ------.-. 0.48 --------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ............................. OffRoadEquipmentType ---- ....... ...................... tblProjectCharacteristics _----------------------------- OperationalYear - ------------------- 2014 Scrapers --------- 2018 ---------------------------- tblVehicleTrips _----------- -- ------------- ST TR i Y------------------ 1 7.16 i --------. 5.81 ............................. tbNehicleTrips T-------------- -------------- SU_TR 4------------------- y 6.07 ---. ---. 5.81 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTri s 4 ----------------------------- WD_TR 4------------------------------4-------------------------- 6.59 5.81 2.0 Emissions Summary 1 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Page 3 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 2017 5.5688 64.1508 45.9056 0.0893 9.5005 2.9485 ' 11.7782 3.7276 2.7469 ' 6.2767 1 0.0000 ' 8,945.147 ' 8,945.147 ' 1.4114 0.0000 ' 8,974.787 , = A 9 ; 9 ; 4 , , i ` PM2.§ ,Bio -CO2 2018 58.2387 ' 24.8141 23.9001 0.0448 1.2960 1.5208 ' 2.8168 0.3457 1.4292 ' 1.7749 + _ ______i_______, ______-_______� 0.0000 ' 4,068.827 4,068.827 ' 0.6905 0.0000 T 4,083.328 CO2eSO2 1 2 , 2 1 PM10 PM1Q Total �rtPM2:5� ' Total 63.8076 88.9649 69.8056 0.1341 10.7966 4.4693 14.5950 4.0733 4.1761 8.0516 1 0.0000 13,013.97 13,013.97 2.1019 0.0000 13,058.11 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.80 0.00 35.22 50.56 0.00 51 51 0.00 55 Mitigated Construction 2017 5.5688 ' 64.1508 ' 45.9056 ' 0.0893 4.2315 ' 2.9485 • 6.6384 ' 1.6682 ' 2.7469 ' 4.2173 + 0.0000 ' 8,945.147 ' 8,945.147 ' 1.4114 0.0000 ' 8,974.787 i 9 9 4 i, i , ______, ______, 2018 58.2387 ' 24.8141 ' 23.9001 ' 0.0448 1.2960 ' 1.5208 ' 2.8168 ' 0.3457 ' 1.4292 ' 1.7749 + 0.0000 ' 4,068.827 ' 4,068.827 ' 0.6905 0.0000 ? 4,083.328 2 , 2 , , 1 Total 63.8076 88.9649 69.8056 0.1341 5.5276 4.4693 9.4552 2.0139 4.1761 5.9922 0.0000 ' 13,013.97 1 13,013.97 2.1019 1 0.0000 1 13,058.11 51 51 55 R- OG',', -'x = CO , = Fugive `Exhaust ` ` PM2.§ ,Bio -CO2 NBio CO2 Tca_CO2 CH4,' N20 CO2eSO2 PM10 PM1Q Total �rtPM2:5� $ _ Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.80 0.00 35.22 50.56 0.00 25.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx :V CO SO2 ,^ Fugitive khJui PM10 Fugitiv@ iist', PK4;t.,5Total NbioCO2 -Total CO2 M 1,0 5 j,NB 1,76taVQ02 _CO2 Category Ib/day 0 Area 42.4079 1.1267 86.6875 0.1190 11.3726 11.3726 11.3708 11.3708 1,386.303 2,685.985: 4,072.289 4.1560 0.0941 4,188.734 9 7 7 6 ------------------ --- ------ ------- ------- -------------------------------------- ------- ------- -------- I ----------------------- Energy (T.TCE2 67!i�4 0.2516 3.7700e- 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 754.9154 754.9154 0.0145 0.0138 759.5097 003 9 -------------- --------------- -------------- ------- -------------- ---------------- ------- ------- 4 -------- ------- 4 obile 2.4833 6.0530 29.0770 0.0865 6.2085 0.0910 6.2995 1.6566 0.0839 1.7404 7,047.312 7,047.312 - 0.2567 7,052.702 A 2 2 2 A Total 7.7710 116.0162 0.2093 6.2085 11.5114 17.7199 1.6566 11.5025 13.1591 Mobile 2.4833 6.0530 29.0770 0.0865 6.2085 0.0910 6.2995 1.6566 0.0839 1.7404 7,047.312 7,047.312 0.2567 7,052.702 A 2 2 2 4.4271 0.1079 1112,000,94-1 6.4377 6.7871 E9604 0.0910 6.2085 0.3845 6.5910 1.6566 0.3756 2.0321 0.0000 10,644.91 11,38:.303 1 110,488.21 34 111,874.51 73 1 1 65 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx :V CO SO2 ,^ Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitiv@ ,=Exhaust ,I PM2,51T661 M 1,0 5 j,NB 1,76taVQ02 Category i6/d'ay N, IbId' Area 3.8852 0.1427 12.3106 6.4000e- 0.2458 0.2458 0.2439 0.2439 0.0000 -2,842.6912,842.691 0.0759 0.0517 2,860.315 004 6 6 5 ----Energy ---- ---------------- ------- ------- --------------------- r ---0T.0692 0.5914 0.2516 3.7700e- 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 754.9154 754.9154 0.0145 0.0138 759.5097 003 ------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ----------------------------------------------- Mobile 2.4833 6.0530 29.0770 0.0865 6.2085 0.0910 6.2995 1.6566 0.0839 1.7404 7,047.312 7,047.312 0.2567 7,052.702 A 2 2 2 A Total 6.4377 6.7871 41.6393 0.0910 6.2085 0.3845 6.5910 1.6566 0.3756 2.0321 0.0000 10,644.91 10,644'91 0.3470 07;0675610,6752 1 93 93 74 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase 1 -Demolition ROG NOx CO " S02 Fugltive Exhaust °= PM10 Fifgifive' Ezlaust PM2'5 &o CO2; NBio CO2 Total CO2 " CH4 N20 CO2e y; :Building Construction 12/25/2017 1/12/2018 ' , I 5' , 230' 1 -------------------------------:-----------------------I-------- PM70 Total* Z5;--- PM25 :Paving 112/2/2017 '12/31/2017 ' 1 5' , 20' , I11------.-..------•---•5 �---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5:Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating 2/10/2018 :3/9/2018 5• 20: ,,'.P Percent 85.68 12.66 64.11 56.55 0.00 96.66 62.79 0.00 96.74 84.56 100.00 -1.49 10.35 92.16 39.27 11.07 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase 1 -Demolition :Demolition 1/1/2017 :1/27/2017 1 51 201 ----- --------------------------------------------------I------------,------------,------------------*------------------------ 2 -Grading -Grading 1/28/2017 :2/24/2017 5: 20: --------------------------------II --------------- -------- 1 ------------ ;------------ 4 -------- 4--------T------------------------- 3 :Building Construction :Building Construction 12/25/2017 1/12/2018 ' , I 5' , 230' 1 -------------------------------:-----------------------I-------- , I , 1 4 -Paving :Paving 112/2/2017 '12/31/2017 ' 1 5' , 20' , -------------------------------- I11------.-..------•---•5 �---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5:Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating 2/10/2018 :3/9/2018 5• 20: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 299,700; Residential Outdoor: 99,900; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM Demolition :Concrete/industrial Saws 1 i 8.00 81: 0.73 --------------------------------------------------------h----------------1-------------h------------ Demolition ----------a----------- ---------- -- __r......____ I---------- I------------- . Grading 71 18.00- : Excavators 31 8.00: 162: 0.38 -------------------------------------------------------h---------------- L-.-------,- ------------h------------ --------- ----- Demolition -Rubber Tired Dozers 21 8.00: 255: 0.40 ----------- ---------------------- --------------------h----------------i-------------h--------------- t----------- 4------------r---------- Grading- :Scrapers 11 6.00, 361: 0.48 ------=----=------------------------------------------ ---h-------- -------- ----------- -------------------- h 0.00• 14.70 6.90, 20.00 -LD Rix -HDT_Mix Grading :Excavators 1� 8.00- 162', 0.38 ----------------=---------`------------------------------h-------------- Grading -Graders 11 h 8.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers. 11 8.00, 255: 0.40 .--- -------h---------------- ------------ h ----------- -� Grading •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 31 8.00, 97: 0.37 ------------ -------------------------------------------- h -----------------------------h------------ - Building Construction 1 7.00 226 0.29 --------------------------------------------------------h----------------1-------------h---------- Building Construction Forklifts 31 8.00- 89' 0.20 ---------------------------- ---------------------------h------------------------- ---h---------- - Building Construction :Generator Sets 11 8.00. 84: 0.74 ----------------------------:---------------------------h----------------I-------------h-------------- Building •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes -------------- Construction 31 7.00- 97: 0.37 ----------------------------:---------------------------h---------------- -------------h------------ __-------- -------------- Building Construction 9 :Welders �11 8.00 46: 0.45 -----_----------------------- Paving - --------------------------------------------' •Pavers ------------h------------ -------_-- 9 21 8.00 125: 0.42 ---------------------------- --------------------------- h ----------------a ------------- h------------ -- PavingPaving Equipment 21 8.00. 130: 0.36 --------------------------------------------------------h----------------' --------------- Paving Rollers 21 8.00 80: 0.38 - - - - - ---- - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - 11 t-------------------------- 11 T----------------4-------------T--------------P ........... ... Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1'- 6.00- 78, 0.48 ,Trips and VMT Demolition 6i 15.00- 0.001 798.00- 14.70 6.90,- 20.00;LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix 1HHDT .................--------------- ,.....----- I-----------' ----------a----------- ---------- -- __r......____ I---------- I------------- . Grading 71 18.00- 0.001 1,250.00 14.70 6.901- 20.00,LD_Mix �HDT_Mix 1HHDT .................---------------- F----------I......---- L-.-------,- ---------- __r__... ----------I---------- I --------------I-------- ----- Building Construction 91 107.00- 16.001 0.00. 14.70 6.90-, 20.00,LD_Mix HDT_Mix 1HHDT ---------------------------- ---h----------I-----------I ---------- t----------- 4------------r---------- Paving 61 15.00 0.001 0.00. 14.701 6.901, 20.001LD_Mix gHDT_Mix . 1HHDT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --�--------------a-----------f---------T---------T•----------{-----------r---------}-------------4----------� - -- - - - - - - - Architectural Coating 1 21.00, 0.00- 0.00• 14.70 6.90, 20.00 -LD Rix -HDT_Mix HHDT CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 7 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM Fugitive Dust 8.6377 0.0000 8.6377 1.3078 0.0000 1.3078 i 0.0000 0.0000 SO2 ,: A PM10 ` :Exhaust''vA A Bio=CO2 NBio CO2 Off -Road 4.0482 42.6971 33.8934 0.0399 2.1252 2.1252 1.9797 1.9797 i 4,036.467 4,036.467 1.1073 14,059.7211 A 4 4 PM10 PM1b Total „Fugitive PM2 5 a PM2 5 i , , , ' i , r Total 4.0482 42.6971 33.8934 0.0399 8.6377 2.1252 10.7629 1.3078 1.9797 3.2876 F 4,036.467 4,036.467 1.1073 4,059.721 Hauling 0.6877 10.0837 7.6200 0.0293 0.6952 0.1513 0.8465 0.1904 0.1392 0.3296 i -2,909.139 2,909.139 0.0206 2,909.572 t 5 ; 5 ; ' 5 i Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 n 1 Worker 0.0474 0.0611 0.7511 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1500e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0600e- 0.0455 + 163.6094 163.6094 7.4300e- 163.7653 003 ; ; 003 ; ; 003 ; i ; 003 ; 4 4 10.1447 8.3711- 1 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 ,: Fugitive Exhaust PM10 ` :Exhaust''vA PM2 5 Total Bio=CO2 NBio CO2 Total CO2 CH4 t- s N20;°; . . CO26', PM10 PM1b Total „Fugitive PM2 5 a PM2 5 , r CategoryIb/day F Ib/day r Hauling 0.6877 10.0837 7.6200 0.0293 0.6952 0.1513 0.8465 0.1904 0.1392 0.3296 i -2,909.139 2,909.139 0.0206 2,909.572 t 5 ; 5 ; ' 5 i Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 n 1 Worker 0.0474 0.0611 0.7511 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1500e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0600e- 0.0455 + 163.6094 163.6094 7.4300e- 163.7653 003 ; ; 003 ; ; 003 ; i ; 003 ; , Total0.7351 10.1447 8.3711- 0.0314 0.8628 0.1525 1.0153 0.2348 0.1403 0.3751 3,072.748 0.0281 3,073.337 13,o72.748 9 9 9 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 . Page 8 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Fugitive Dust • • 3.3687 0.0000 • 3.3687 • 0.5101 0.0000 0.5101 + 0.0000 0.0000 A A , ":TPM10 .. _ ... _ _ . - •, A •,____��7�������.,�������7����������_�-___-----------y , --------------- Off -Road 4.0482 42.6971 • 33.8934 • 0.0399 • • 2.1252 • 2.1252 • 1.9797 1.9797 +0.0000 -------------- ___------------ • 4,036.467 4,036.467 • 1.1073 • :4,059.7211 A , - Total• - '1 771, i ` ' Total 4.0482 42.6971 33.8934, 0.0399 3.3687 2.1252 5.4939 0.5101 1.9797 2.4898 1 0.0000 4,036.467 4,036.467 1.1073 4,059.721 category Ib/day Ib/day 4 4 1 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Fugitive -°Exhaust ":TPM10 Fugfive Exhaustu PM2:5 Bio-:CO21 rC�25 - Total• - '1 771, ` y , category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.6877 ! 10.0837 • . 7.6200 0.0293 0.6952 0.1513 0.8465 • . 0.1904 0.1392 • 0.3296 + • 2,909.139 • 2,909.139 •� 0.0206 • • 2,909.572 + , , , 5 , 5 , , 5 --------------- Vendor •� 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 '� 0.0000 • 0.0000 + 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000, • • 0.0000 + , , , Worker 0.0474 0.0611 • 0.7511 • 2.0400e- 0.1677 • 1.1500e- 0.1688 • 0.0445 1.0600e- • 0.0455 163.6094 • 163.6094 • 7:4300e- • • 163.7653 003 ; ; 003 ; ; ; 003 ; + ; ; 003 , ' ' Total 0.7351 10.1447 8.3711 0.0314 0.8628 0.1525 1.0153 0.2348 0.1403 0.3751 3,072.748 3,072.748 0.0281 9 9 1 13,073.337 9 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.3 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 9 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM Fugitive Dust 6.6089 0.0000 6.6089 3.3760 0.0000 3.3760 + 0.0000 0.0000 S02� of 6v! FugiIt Exhau fJ�10, " ist w,P F,ugitiv'e a Ezhausta�a PM2,5 T,olal , - NBio- CO2 Off -Road 4.4347 48.2824 33.0682 0.0410 2.5324 2.5324 2.3298 2.3298 + 4,191.893 4,191.893 1.2844 4,218.866 + , , , 8 , 8 , , 0 PM70 a r PM [0 Total _ FM2 5 PM2 5 4 „4 , ' Total 4.4347 48.2824 33.0682 0.0410 6.6089 2.5324 9.1413 3.3760 2.3298 1 5.7058 1 �� Won-�� 4,191.893 4,191.893 1 1.2844 1 4,218.866 Hauling 1.0773 15.7952 11.9360 0.0459 1.0889 0.2371 1.3260 0.2982 0.2180 0.5162 i 14,556.922 4,556.922 1 0.0323 :4,557.6011 1 8 8 , n , 1 , , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - 1, , Worker 0.0569 0.0733 0.9013 2.4400e- 0.2012 1.3700e- 0.2026 0.0534 1.2700e- 0.0546 1 196.3312 - 196.3312 8.9100e- - 196.5184 003 ; ; 003 ; ; 003 ; + ; 003 ; ' Total 1.1341 8 8 0.0484 1.2901 0.2384 0 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROS �NOx �� CO S02� of 6v! FugiIt Exhau fJ�10, " ist w,P F,ugitiv'e a Ezhausta�a PM2,5 T,olal BioCO2r. NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 #a N20 CO2e PM70 a r PM [0 Total _ FM2 5 PM2 5 4 „4 Category ,' �� Won-�� Ib/day s x o ' k Hauling 1.0773 15.7952 11.9360 0.0459 1.0889 0.2371 1.3260 0.2982 0.2180 0.5162 i 14,556.922 4,556.922 1 0.0323 :4,557.6011 1 8 8 , n , 1 , , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - 1, , Worker 0.0569 0.0733 0.9013 2.4400e- 0.2012 1.3700e- 0.2026 0.0534 1.2700e- 0.0546 1 196.3312 - 196.3312 8.9100e- - 196.5184 003 ; ; 003 ; ; 003 ; + ; 003 ; ' Total 1.1341 15.8685 12.8374 0.0484 1.2901 0.2384 1.5285 0.3515 0.2193 0.5708 4,753.254 4,753.254 0.0412 11 1 1 1 1 114,754.119 5 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 3.3 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG tJOx CO SO2" Fugitive Exhaust PM10 ,: Fugihve° °Exh`aust i PM254s Bio G02 NBioyCO2 Tota1CO2 '[E CH4 N20'`CO2e ` PM70' PM�10€ PM10 Total QM2 5 PM2 5` Total r Category Iblday� lbldfiy ` �" X ji Fugitive Dust 2.5775 0.0000 2.5775 1.3167 0.0000 1.3167 + 0.0000 0.0000 Category _ s T Ib/tlayA Off -Road 4.4347 48.2824 33.0682 0.0410 2.5324 2.5324 2.3298 2.3298 + 0.0000. 4,191.893 4,191.893 1.2844 4,218.866 a 8 8 , 0 ' ' Total 4.4347 48.2824 33.0682 0.0410 2.5775 2.5324 5.1099 1.3167 2.3298 3.6465 0.0000 4,191.893 1.2844 Worker • 0.0569 0.0733 0.9013 2.4400e- 0.2012 ' 1.3700e- 0.2026 0.0534 -1.2700e- 0.0546 + 196.3312 - 196.3312 - 8.9100e- 196.5184 4,218.866 ' Total 1.1341 15.8685 12.8374 0.0484 1.2901 0.2384 1.5285 0.3515 1 14,191.893 8 8 1 1 1 0 Mitigated Construction Off -Site RQG NOx CO " >S02 Fugitive,` A,Exhaust ;P,M10 Fugitrve.r Exhaust,` PM25Total Bio -W2 NBio-CO2 TotaiCO2 CH4 =' N20'k: CO2e,°,'` PM70' PM10 Total PM25 Category _ s T Ib/tlayA Ib/day Hauling 1.0773 15.7952 11.9360 0.0459 1.0889 0.2371 1.3260 0.2982 0.2180 0.5162 -4,556.922 4,556.922 0.0323. :4,557.6011 ,. , + , , , 8 8 + , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , , , Worker • 0.0569 0.0733 0.9013 2.4400e- 0.2012 ' 1.3700e- 0.2026 0.0534 -1.2700e- 0.0546 + 196.3312 - 196.3312 - 8.9100e- 196.5184 •, , i , , , 003 , , 003 , , 003 + , , 003 , ' Total 1.1341 15.8685 12.8374 0.0484 1.2901 0.2384 1.5285 0.3515 0.2193 0.5708 4,753.254 4,753.254 0.0412 1 1 1 1 14,764.119 5 CoUEEModVersion: OaEEMod2013�.2 3.4 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 11 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx" CO S02 -" Fugitive Exhaust PM10,' Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bi& co�' NBio- CO:� --Total CO21 CHf--- N20 co2e'- PM -10' Total Total 'Ib daY 70 Off -Road 3.1024 26.4057 18.1291 0.0268 1.7812 1.7812 1.6730 1.6730 -2,639.805 2,639.805 0.6497 -2,653.449 Total 3.1024 26.4057 18.1291 0.0268 1.7812 1.7812 Id 1.6.730 1.6730 2,639.805 2,639.805 0.6497 2,653."9 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site PM -10' Total Total Id Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1291 1.2592 1.5385 3.46OOe- 003 0.1000 0.0196 0.1196 0.0285 0.0180 0.0465 341.3267 341.3267 2.39OOe- 003 341.3 Total 0.4671 1.6947 6.8965 0.0180 1.2960 0.0278 1.3238 0.3457 0.0256 0.3712 1,508.406 1,5098.406 0.0554 1,50 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 3.4 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site -,. ROG , NO C0 SO2. Fugitive Exhaust ` PM10 `Fugitive Exhaust •- PM2.5 Bio -CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO21 CH4• N20 CO2e _ • = PM10 PM10 '." ,' Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Ib/day _ a' b/da Cate9oryr Ib /day Ibi/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A , , , •' , - Vendor 0.1291 1.2592 1.5385 3.4600e- 0.1000 0.0196 0.1196 0.0285 0.0180 0.0465 + 341.3267 341.3267 2.3900e- 341.3768 a , 003 , , , , � , t , ,• 003 Off --Road 3.1024 26.4057 18.1291 0.0268 1.7812 1.7812 1.6730 1.6730 + 0.0000 2,639.805 2,639.805 0.6497 2,653.449 0.0180 1.2960 0.0278 1.3238 0.3457 0.0256 + 3 , , 0 1,508.406 0.0554 1,509.569 ' 9 , Total 3.1024 26.4057 18.1291 0.0268 1.7812 1.7812 1.6730 1.6730 0.0000 2,639.805 0.6497 2,653.449 12,639.805 3 3 1 1 1 0 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Fugitive , . Exhaust - .� PM10. ' Fugdive,,, .,Exhaust �, PM2.5,Total Bio -,CO2 NBio CO2 Total CO2 -CH4" ,- N20 CO2e z� PM10 Pm I0 Total PM25 PM25; Cate9oryr Ib /day Ibi/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A , , , •' , - Vendor 0.1291 1.2592 1.5385 3.4600e- 0.1000 0.0196 0.1196 0.0285 0.0180 0.0465 + 341.3267 341.3267 2.3900e- 341.3768 a , 003 , , , , � , t , ,• 003 Worker 0.3380 0,4355 5.3580 0.0145 - 1.1960 - - + 8.1700e- 1.2042 - 0.3172 7.5500e- 0.3247 i 1,167.080 1,167.080 0.0530 1,168.192 , , , , , , 003 , , , 003 , + 2 , 2 , , , 7 , A , , , , Total 0.4671 1.6947 6.8965 0.0180 1.2960 0.0278 1.3238 0.3457 0.0256 0.3712 1,508.406 1,508.406 0.0554 1,509.569 9 9 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 13 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM Off -Road 2.6687 23.2608 17.5327 0.0268 1.4943 1.4943 1.4048 1.4048 1 2,609.939 2,609.939 0.6387 2,623.351 i 1 0 0 i i 7 Total 2.6687 23.2608 17.5327 0.0268 1.4943 1.4943 1.4048 1.4048 , 11 2,609.939 2,609.939 0.6387 2,623.351 0 0 7 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ., , i , , , •' _''' --' -�+------_;_______; Vendor ------;-- ----------------- 0.1209 1.1559 1.4605 3.4500e- 0.1000 0.0185 0.1185 0.0285 0.0170 0.0455 + _' _' _ __�__-----'+-------r---------_____•� 335.5318 335.5318 2.3700e- _'''' _ - 335.5817 003 a 003 ; ------ i , , , , , Worker -- 0.3085 0.3974 4.9069 0.0145 1.1960 8.0700e- 1.2041 0.3172 7.4800e- 0.3247 + 1,123.356 1,123.356 0.0494 1,124.394 003 , 003 , + , + 4 4 , , , 7 1 ' Total 0.4294 11 1.5533 6.3674 0.0180 1.2960 0.0265 1.3225 0.3457 0.0245 0.3701 1,458.888 1,458.888 1 0.0518 1 1,459.976 3 3 4 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction On -Site Off -Road 2.6687 23.2608 17.5327 0.0268 1.4943 1.4943 1.4048 1.4048 + 0.0000 2,609.938 2,609.938 0.6387 2,623.351 a , a 9 9 7 Total 2.6687 23.2608 17.5327 0.0268 1.4943 1.4943 1.4048 1.4048 1 0.0000 ' 12,609.938 1 2,609.938 0.6387 12,623.351 9 9 7 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exfiaust PM10 Fugitive ' ' l xhaust `PM2 5 Total Bio CO2' NBio CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 i CO2e r PM10= PM10 Tptal PM2 5 PM2 5 Category cr7b/day ! Ib/day �' r '. Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000+ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 �A ., , , , , , , , , , i , , , , , _ Vendor 0.1209 1.1559 1.4605 3.4500e- 0.1000 0.0185 0.1185 0.0285 0.0170+ 0.0455 + 335.5318 335.5318 2.3700e- 335.5817 , , , 003 , , , , , i , , 003 , --- , , i , , _ _ _ _ ...... �������-------------�---------------.,-------�-------.,-------7-------7.-------y.......,------------------------------T ------- Worker 0.3085 0.3974 4.9069 0.0145 1.1960 8.0700e- 1.2041 0.3172 - 7.4800e- 0.3247 + 1,123.356 1,123.356 0.0494 + 1,124.394 003 , , 003 , + 4 , 4 , ; 7 A , Total 0.4294 1.5533 6.3674 0.0180 1.2960 0.0265 1.3225 0.3457 0.0245 0.3701 1,458.888 1,458.888 0.0518 1,459.976 11 3 3 4 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 3.5 Paving - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 15 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM Total 11 1.9074 1 20.2964 1 14.7270 1 0.0223 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 1.1384 1 1.1384 1.0473 1 -1.0473 I 2,281.058 1 2,281.058 1 0.6989 1 12,295.7361 8 8 0 �ROG '.'A'Nox, CO SO2 «z F6bitivi"l Exhaust PM10 -Fdgi Oe Exhddst '5,7' WIS 'P '.,CO2 ' Bio -CO2' -C NBIo 021 ----Total CO2 CH4� N20 a PM10 Pm 10� Total PM2.5 I.PM2:5'T6tal piyi 2.5 %Toti .1 , I Category Ib/day lb/day lbfcldy Off -Road 1.9074 20.2964 14.7270 0.0223 1.1384 1.1384 1.0473 1.0473 , 2,281.058 2,281.058 0.6989 2,295.736 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A A 8 8 0 A A A ------------------- - - - - - - - ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------------- * ------- ------- ------------- A - - - - - - - ------- Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - --- A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 Total 11 1.9074 1 20.2964 1 14.7270 1 0.0223 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 1.1384 1 1.1384 1.0473 1 -1.0473 I 2,281.058 1 2,281.058 1 0.6989 1 12,295.7361 8 8 0 ROG, NOX, CO SO2. -'Fugitive- EAaqst, :IPMI 9 Fugitive ausf�-. Bio -,CO2 1 NBi6-,CO2 otal co2: CH4� N20 C626' pl�l 0 Total P�M2.5- I.PM2:5'T6tal piyi 2.5 Cafeg ory'� lb/day lbfcldy Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A A I A 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - --- A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 omocl 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A A 7 ---------------------- -------------- --------------- -------------------------------- 1 -------------- --------------- Worker 0.0474 0.0611 : 0.7511 2.0400e- 003 0.1677 1.1500e- 003 0.1688 0.0445 1.0600e- 003 0.0455 1 A 163.6094 163.6094 7.4300e- 003 163.7653 1 A 3 Total 0.0474 0.0611 0.7511 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.1500e- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0600e- 0.0455 163.6094 163.6094 7.4300e- 163.7653 003 003 003 003 CaEEModVersion: CaEEMod.2013-2-2 Page 1Gof23 Date: 2h7/2O1G8:44AM 3.5 Paving - 2017 Mitigated Construction Qn-Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG s02 Fugitivo 'Exhaust 'Exhqu�(, PM2.5,Tpta B!o-'CO2 N�io�,CpfTotalco�j��,�PH4 N20-- ",CO2e PM PM2.5 AL ay. 1.9074 20.2964 14.7270 0.0223 1.1384 1.1384 1.0473 1.0473 A 0.0000 -2,281.058 2,281.058 - 0.6989 2,295.736 P.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a . 0000 W.Wer 6TZ7 0.0611 0.7511 2.04OOe- 0.1677 1.1500.- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0600e- 0.0455 A 163.6094 163.6094 7.43OOe- 163.7653 003 003 003 A 003 Total 0.0474 0.0611 0.7511 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.15OOe- 0.1688 0.0445 1.06OOe- 0.0455 163.6094 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 . 003 003 Total 1.9074 20.2964 14.7270 0.0223 1.1384 1.1384 1.0473 1.0473 1 0.0000 12,281.058 1 2,281.058 1 0.6989 1 2,295.7361 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG s02 Fugitivo 'Exhaust AL ay. lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00m. 0.0000 A P.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a . 0000 W.Wer 6TZ7 0.0611 0.7511 2.04OOe- 0.1677 1.1500.- 0.1688 0.0445 1.0600e- 0.0455 A 163.6094 163.6094 7.43OOe- 163.7653 003 003 003 A 003 Total 0.0474 0.0611 0.7511 2.0400e- 0.1677 1.15OOe- 0.1688 0.0445 1.06OOe- 0.0455 163.6094 163.6094 7.43OOe- 163.7653 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: Ca[EEMod.2013.2.2 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 17 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Ro G" N x ''CO ----S02 '[FOgitive, Fugitive Fxhiust PM10 Fugitive 'Exhaust- PM2.5 Total _'Blo_ lo- 02 - c02e" _PM10 1"Exhausf F�M I Totpj';�' PM2. Pm 'Total A' "0 Cate gory - lb/daa Y, lb/dai., Category Archit. Coating 57.8796 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 A - - - ------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------------- --------------- -------------- --------------- Worker 0.06060.0780 0.9630 2.8500e- 0.2347 1.5800e- 0.2363 0.0623 1.4700e- 0.0637 A 220.4718 220.4718 9.7000e- 220.6756 003 003 003 A 003 A A Total 0.0606 ---Off-Road ----------------------------------------- 2.8500e- ----------------- - - - - - - -------------------------------- 0.2363 - - - - - - - 0.2986 2.00581.85422.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 A 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 220.6756 003 A 003 003 003 003 A Total 58.1782 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Ro G" NOx COSO2.-Exh Fugitive Fxhiust I PNlIV,:'I �ugiti�4", .-Exhaust a] PM2:5 Tot. o_ �Bi CO2, NBio-,Cq? Total CO2 - c02e" MID, Pmj�'. -Total PM2.5zt "0 Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000{ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9 ------------------- ------- -------------- ------- ------- ------- ----------------------- ------- --------------------- ------- ------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 . 0000 A - - - ------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------------- --------------- -------------- --------------- Worker 0.06060.0780 0.9630 2.8500e- 0.2347 1.5800e- 0.2363 0.0623 1.4700e- 0.0637 A 220.4718 220.4718 9.7000e- 220.6756 003 003 003 A 003 A Total 0.0606 0.0780 0.9630 2.8500e- 0.2347 1.5800e- 0.2363 0.0623 1.4700e- 0.0637 220.4718 220.4718 9.7000e - 220.6756 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOX0 C SO2 'Fdgitive Exhaust,'I PM10,:, I FugiNb ExhiUst' I PM2.5`rol:61 COF-],NBlo- CO2 Total Total CO21 -��'CH� 1- N20- !:;02 PM10 To'? I 'j' PM2.5-,� I 'A _�W�5 ,Bio- '-Category" lb/day,, lb?d6y., Archit. Coating 57.8796 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3 A (5d Road - -- ------- 0298 6 -----2.0058- -1-8-5-4-2 2.9700e- --------- 7-0-1-5-0-6-11-0 ----- I ------- I ------- -------- a ------- --------------------- --------------- .1506 0.1506 0.1506 A 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 003 A Total 58.1782 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700s. 0.0606 0.1506 0.1506 2.8500e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 0.0637 282.0102 220.4718 11 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile :R9G." :,NQX CO .SO2 -],'f4giUe Exhaust PM10" Fugii:77. Exhaust_-- ] Bio- CO2 -1 WBio-'CO2 Total CO2 CH4 1- N20- 002e PIM110Total 'j' 'A ''be .. =category Ib/day lb/d6 Y Hauling 0-0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ----------- ------- ------- I ----------------------- -------------------------------------- ...... - - - - - - - -- - Vendor, 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000...;-------4-------7-------0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------------- -- ------- ---------- --- ------- ------ --------------- ": Worker 0.0606 0.0780 0.9630 2.8 0.2347 1.58OOe- 0.2363 0.0623 1.4700e- 0.0637 220.4718 220.4718 9.70OOe- 220.6756 9- 003 003 003 003 Total 0.0606 0.0780 0.9630 2.8500e- 0.2347 1.5800e- 0.2363 0.0623 1.4700e- 0.0637 220.4718 220.4718 9.7000:7220.6756 003 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Page 19 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM N - ROG. • _ Ox _ ' co �°"SO2 _ Fugitive ' Exhaust PM10 °. Fugitive r Exhaust;- PM2.5 Total '-Bio-CO2 =t 'NBio= CO2 Total.0O2 CH4 . - N20 CO2e ': 4r3PM10 ` PM10 t Total .PM2 5 PM2 5�� , 'Category. ., , , e. y-.. Ib/day . '• Ib/day Mitigated 2.4833 6.0530 29.0770 0.0865 6.2085 • 0.0910 • 6.2995 1.6566 0.0839 1.7404 i -7,047.312 7,047.312- 0.2567 • 7,052.702 + 2 2 2 .. A Unmitigated • 2.4833 6.0530 29.0770 0.0865 6.2085 0.0910 6.2995 1.6566 0.0839 1.7404 7,047.312 • 7,047.312 0.2567 • 7,052.702 2 2 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information Averag Daily Trip Rate ��: _ - Unmi6gated� �,_, Mitigated Land Use=a Weekdaye ° . Saturday Sunda `s Y Annual VMT Annual VMT. Condolrownhouse 859.88 859.88 i 859.88 2,938,341 2,938,341 Total 859.88 859.88 1 859.88 2,938,341 2,938,341 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% =.Trip Pu`rpose's% f s', a Land,Use H W"or'C-W " H=S or C C ,H -O or C -NW H -1N or C -1N H -S or C -C H-O`or C-N1N Primary Diverted Pass by Condo/Townhouse 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 LDA LDT1' �'°.LDT2a .n` ; MDV, LHD1. LHD2 -, �MHD. HHD „LOBUS 'UBUS '. �MCY _ : SBUS. 0.510011 • 0.056836 • 0.192178 • 0.151564 • 0.041643 : 0.005905' 0.015642 • 0.015146 : 0.001440 • 0.002149 : 0.004721 • 0.000504 • 0.002262 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: Ca[EEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG, ROG 0- T PWO :PM10 F�u6iiiw i,' PM2;5 �:Exhauot'. Ph PM?1516tal Co� NBio- 'CO2 TO!i I CO2 -",-'-CH4: C626"', --,Category Ib/day P M2 5 NaturalGas 0.0692 0.5914 0.2516 3.7700e- 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 754.9154 754.9154 0.0145 0.0138 759.5097 Mitigated 003 - ........ - - ------------------------ N NaturalGas - I ------- I ------ ------- I - - - - - - - ------ ------ ------- ------- - - - - - - - --------- -------------- 0.0692 0.5914 0.2516 3.7700e- 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 754.9154 754.9154 0.0145 0.0138 7 -759.5697 Unmitigated 003 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated N16tura lGa ROG Fugitiver. -,'Exhapit �CO2-' CO2 r#toi�q,02 N20, I '-'CO2e­ s'.Use P M2 5 Land Use kBTU/Yr. av 16/dday Condorrownhous 6416.78 0.0692 0.5914 0.2516 3.77OOe- 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 754.9154*: -754.9154 0.0145 0.0138 759.5097 e 003 Total 0.0692 0.5914 0.2516 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 754.9154 754.9154 0.0145 0.0138 759.5097 .3.7700e- 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Page 21 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use only Natural Gas Hearths aturp N _lGa ROG NO X -CO SO2 Fugitive ExKadif, I PM 10,:' ygitlye, J Exfiad� 2.5 Total Bio- CO2lota a -ICO2 :t -_N CO26�t,` a a 10 P41 0 p PM2 .5'Y -F PM2.5,, Categbry- -7,S Ab/clay� ,,I ,and Use kl§TY!/�i ' 'lb/Ja Mitigated 3.8852 0.1427 12.3106 6.4000e- 0.2458 0.2458 0.2439 0.2439 AA 0.0000 2,842.691 2.842.691 0.0759 0.0517 2,860.315 004 a Conclorrownhous 6.41678 1: 0.0692 0.5914 0.2516 3.77OOe- 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 754.9154 754.9154 0.0145 0.0138 759.5097 1 a &: ------ ------ ------- ------- --------------------------- 003 Unmitigated -- Z 1.1267 86.6875 0.1190 11.3726 11.3726 11.3708 11.3708 • 1,386.303 2,685.985 4.072.289 4.1560 0.0941 3 a 9 7 7 6 Total 0.0692 0.5914 9.2516 3.7700e- 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 0.0478 754.9154 754.9154 0.0145 0.0138 003 11759.5097 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use only Natural Gas Hearths ROG'-�! N �,� I :'f �C CO SO2 Exl�aust Fugiti�e, Exhaust" PM2.53661 Bio- CW Total -C 10 P41 0 PM2 .5'Y Categbry- -7,S Ab/clay� Mitigated 3.8852 0.1427 12.3106 6.4000e- 0.2458 0.2458 0.2439 0.2439 AA 0.0000 2,842.691 2.842.691 0.0759 0.0517 2,860.315 004 a 6 6 5 A -------------------------- ------ ------ ------ --4079 ------ ------ ------- ------- --------------------------- --- Unmitigated -- Z 1.1267 86.6875 0.1190 11.3726 11.3726 11.3708 11.3708 • 1,386.303 2,685.985 4.072.289 4.1560 0.0941 -4,18i.ii4" 9 7 7 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Page 22 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM ROG NOx CO S02 `= Fu itive g Exhaust P -M10 - Fu itive g Exhaust PM2.5 Total = Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 'CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM.10 Total PM2 5' 3 PM2.5 = m SubCategory , ., .� ._ a�' lb/day Ib/daya- ;a Consumer 2.93040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' ' ' 0.0000 + � 0.0000 � � ' 00 0.00 � Products i Hearth 38.7813 0.9840 74.3910 ' 0.1184 11.3055 11.3055 ' 11.3037 ' 11.3037 : + + 1,386.303 2,664.000 4,050.303 g 4.1342 0.0941 4,166.291 + . + Landscaping 0.3791 0.1427 12.2965 6.4000e- ' 0.0671 0.0671 0.0671 0.0671 + 21.9857 21.9857 0.0218 22.4433 004 + + .+ Architectural 0.3172 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 Coating + ' ' Total 42.4079 1.1267 86.6875 0.1190 11.3726 11.3726 11.3708 11.3708 1,386.303 2,685.985 4,072.289 4.1560 0.0941 4,188.734 9 7 7 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated Page 23 of 23 Date: 2/17/2016 8:44 AM 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad 10.0 Vegetation ROG `.. . NOx CO Q' _ ,SO2 Fugitive Exhaust„ PM10 Fugitive ' Exhaust ''a PM2.5 Bio "CO2 NBio CO2 _T,otal "CO2 CH4 �'. N20 . , CO*M P 10 PMI :' Total nPM2.5 PM2.`5 x' -"Total_ -_ .w r E SubCategory, r -lb Ib/day r Consumer 2.9304 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 Products ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' + + Hearth 0.2586 1.00OOe- 0.0141 0.0000 0.1786 0.1786 0.1768 0.1768 i 0.0000 2,820.705 2,820.705 0.0541 0.0517 2,837.872 005 ; , ; , + 9 ; 9 , 2 ., i 3 , i , + , , , Landscaping 0.3791 0.1427 12.2965 6.4000e- 0.0671 0.0671 0.0671 0.0671 + 21.9857 21.9857 0.0218 22.4433 004 , , , , , + , , + + , Architectural 0.3172 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 Coating' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , , , , , , , + + , , , Total 3.8852 0.1427 12.3106 6.4000e- 0.2458 0.2458 0.2439 0.2439 0.0000 0.0759 0.0517 2,860.315 004 1 12,842.691 6 12,842.691 6 1 5 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Page 1 of 28 The Lofts Orange County, Annual Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM Land Us6s Size :M tn*c ' Lot/c"reag-e,"Floor Sbti ce,Area' on Population Condo/Townhouse 148.00 Dwelling Unit 6.75 148,000.00 423 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) Climate Zone 8 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity (IbiMWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data 2.2 Precipitation Feoq (Days) 30 Operational Year 2018 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 28 Project Characteristics - Land Use - 6.75 acres Construction Phase - extended demo, overlap paving and construction Off-road Equipment - Construction: 1 crane, 3 forklifts, 1 gen set, 3 TTB, 1 welder Off-road Equipment - demo: 1 concrete saw, 3 excavators, 2 dozers, 2 TTB Off-road Equipment - Grading: 1 excavator, 1 grader 1 dozer, 3 TTB, 1 scraper Demolition - 175500 sf demo Grading - 10000 CY Vehicle Trips - 5.81 trips day Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM ;' Table Name' `, Column Na64 Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/26/2018 3/9/2018 -----------------------------. tblConstructionPhase ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------- ---------------- PhaseEndDate 2/9/2018y+ 12/31/2017 ----------------------------- _ tblConstructionPhase ----------------------------- Y -----------------------------I------------•-•-•--.------ PhaseStartDate 1/1/2018 1 2/10/2018 ------------------------------ tblConstructionPhase �------------------------------ -------------------------- PhaseStartDate 1/13/2018 i 12/2/2017 ----------------------------- _ tblGrading ----------- 7................. T ----------------------------- ---- --------- AcresOfGrading 25.00 t ----------10.00 ----------------------------- _..-.----------------- tblGradi ------- T ----------------------------- ---...- ---.... --------- -ng MaterialExported 0.00 10,000.00 I ----------------------------- : ------------------..-..----- T----------------------------- -------------- --------- +- tblLandUse LotAcreage 9.25 6.75 ----------------------------------------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ -------------- --------- LoadFactor 0.48 1 0.48 ----------------------------- _----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment T----------------------------- .......................... OffRoadEquipmentType + Scrapers ............................. tblProjectCharacteristics -------- ----------. ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- OperationalYear 2014 + 2018 ----------------------------- _ tbNehicleTrips .............................. r.----------------------------- --- ---------- i ---------5.81 ST TR 7.16 ----------------------------- _ ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- ------------ tblVehicleTrips SU—TR 6.07 + 5.81 -----------------------------' ----------------------------------------------------------- --- - - --------- tblVehicleTrips WD TR 6.59 5.81 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG: 'NOx CO SO2_,'j Fugitive FAaust PIM19' 1'-Fugitiye I Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 INBio--CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 902e 1� PMJ 0 Pm10 Total PM2.5, PM2.5 Total I I., Year 0'00 0.00 0.00 0.00 on yr 0.00 15.66 30.80 0.00 MT/Y r 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Year.tons C, y MT/yr ; MT/ ­ 2017 0.5167 4.4904 3.8148 6.7100e- 0.3154 0.2609 0.5762 0.0905 0.2440 0.3345 A 0.0000 576.8947 576.8947 0.0991 0.0000 578.9758 003 003 A A ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- ------- ------- 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 ------- 1 A -------- - - - - - 4 2018 0.5979 2018 0.5979 0.1455 0.1474 2.8000e- 8.6700e- 9.1300e- - 0.0178 -- --------- 2.3100e- 8.6700e- * 0.0110 A 0.0000 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- 22.7292 - 22.7292 3.4600e- - - - - - - 0.0000 -- - - - - - - - 22.8019 004 003 003 004 003 003 1 A 003 003 A A 003 A A I I Total 1.1146 4.6360 Total 1.1146 4.6360 3.9623 6.9900e- 0.3240 0.2700 0.5940 0.0928 0.2527 0.3455 1 0.0000 599.6239 1 599.6239 0.1026 0.0000 601.7777 003 003 Mitigated Construction -,ROG,° NOX. ,CO SO2" =Fugitive`, ,Exhaust., Pm 10-1, a Exhaust,; s PM2.5Total al -Bio�-0O2 NBio- 2 co Tbtal=2 CH4 N20,� -",CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PIV12.5 PM2.,51 Total Percent 0'00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.71 0.00 15.66 30.80 0.00 8.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Year.tons C, y MT/yr ; MT/ ­ 2017 0.5167 4.4904 3.8148 6.7100e- 0.2223 0.2609 0.4832 0.0619 0.2440 0.3059 0.0000 576.8943 576.8943 0.0991 0.0000 578.9774 003 A ----------------------------------------------------------- 4 ------- 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- At ------- --------------- 4 I 2018 0.5979 0.1455 0.1474 2.8000e- 8.6700e- 9.1300e- - 0.0178 -- 2.3100e- -- 8.6700e- 0.0110 A 0.0000 ---------------- 22.7291 22.7291 3.4600e- 0.0000 ------- 228019 004 003 003 003 003 1 A 003 A Total 1.1146 4.6360 3.9622 6.9900e. 0.2310 02700 0.5010 0.0642 0.2527 0.3169 1 0.0000 599.6235 599.6235 0.1026 0.0000 601.7772 003 ROG NOX. - co SO2�-."' Fugitive 'Ekha'ust PMI0 F'gitive u Exhaust PM2.5,' ',Bld-�-CQ2 NB!oCO2 Total CO2 CHCKI N20 CO26'_ 'OM10 PNIIIO Total PM2.5 'PM2.5,- Total Percent 0'00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.71 0.00 15.66 30.80 0.00 8.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational `--ROG NOx d C0 ` SO2 ^ Fugitive Exhaust ' PM1,0 `;Fugitive' ExhaustPM2.5 Total ' Bia CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 = a N20 ; �CO2e PM10. PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2 5 `. ;Category "ons/yr .. .,' i, Area �� 1.1248 0.0301 ' 2.4670 ' 1.5600e- ' ' 0.1497 ' 0.1497 ' ' 0.1497 ' 0.1497 + 15.7204 32.7024 ' 48.4228 ' 0.0494 ' 1.0700e- ' 49.7900 003 ' ' ; ; ; ' 1 ' ' ' 003 ; , + , Energy 0.0126 ' 0.1079 ' 0.0459 ' 6.9000e- ' ' 8.7300e- ' 8.7300e- ' ' 8.7300e- ' 8.7300e- + 0.0000 308.1445 ' 308.1445 ' 0.0108 ' 4.0300e- ' 309.6219 004 ; ; 003 ; 003 ; ; 003 ; 003 i ; ; 003 + , Mobile 0.4505 ' 1.1860 ' 5.2643 ' 0.0152 ' 1.1100 ' 0.0166 ' 1.1266 ' 0.2966 ' 0.0153 ' 0.3119 + 0.0000 ' 1,125.524' 1,125.524' 0.0423 ' 0.0000 ' 1,126.413 + , , , + 2 2 3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 13.8196 0.0000 13.8196 0.8167 0.0000 30.9707 + , + , Water ' ' ' ' ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' ' 0.0000 0.0000 + 3.0592 55.2583 ' 58.3175 ' 0.3168 7.9400e- ' 67.4322 A ' ' 003 Total 1.5880 1.3240 7.7772 0.0175 1.1100 0.1750 1.2850 0.2966 0.1737 0.4703 32.5993 1,521.629 1,554.228 1.2360 0.0130 1,584.228 4 7 0 CaIEEMod Version: Ca[EEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 28 Date: 2/1712016 8:47 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase IRQG NOX Co SO2 Fugiti V e Exh66st-, PM10 -,Fugit(ve, Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 Total CO2 CH4, .,N20 CO2e PM10 PM10- I Total PN12.5 PM2 .5 1 jNBio-Co2j,Total,CO2j '4� Category MT/yr Area 0.6433 0.0178 1.5372 8.000Oe- 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 A 0.0000 34.4794 7 34.4794 3.0800e- 5.9000e- 34.7260 005 003 004 -- ------------------------- ------- ------- --------------- - ----------------------------- Energy 0.0126 0.1079 0.0459 6.9000e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 8.7300 8.7300e- A ------- -------I ----------------------------- 00000 308.1445 308.1445 0.0108 4.0300e- 309.6219 004 003 003 003 003 A A 003 ------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------7----------------7- ------- 1 -------- A --------------- ------- --------- Mobile 0.4505 1.1860 5.2643 0.0152 1.1100 0.0166 1.1266 0.2966 0.0153 0.3119 0-.-00-0-0- 1.125.524 1,125.524 0.0423 0.0000 1,12.6..41-3. 30.32 A 2 2 3 ----------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ --------------- A - - - - - - -r------4-------------- ...... . Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ;-------T A 13.8196 0.0000 13.8196 0.8167 0.0000 10.82 : -------------------- ------- ------ - 9 ------------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- -A Water A --- ----------------------- --- -------- ...... - 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3. 05-92 55.2583 58.3175 0.3167 7.93OOe- 67.4273 0.90 A A 003 3.76 A Total 1.1064 1.3117 6.8474 0.0160 1.1100 0.0359 1.1459 0.2966 0.0346 0.3312 16.8788 1,523.406 1,540.285 1.1896 0.0126 1 4 3 1 11,569.159 1 - 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase R G o NOx Co > �§02 Fugitive,, Exhaust ,i'PMIO 'Fugitive �gxlhaust PM2 5�� - 'Blo-0O2!'NBi&CO2 Total CO2 H4 N26, CO2e, 0 f '4� Percent 30.32 0.93 11.95 8.47 0.00 79.48 10.82 0.00 -80.08 29.58 48.22 -0.12 0.90 3.75 3.76 0.95 I Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 1 •Demolition :Demolition 1/1/2017 :1/27/2017 5: 20-, -------•------------------------------------------------1------------; -------------------- -------- ------------------------ T - 2 -Grading :Grading :1/28/2017 :2/24/2017 5: 20: -------' -------I----- , , T 3 :Building Construction :Building Construction :2/25/2017 '1/12/2018 5: 230' -------' ----- I----- 4 •Paving :Paving 12/2/2017 :12/31/2017 5: 20: •------- ------------------------- ; ------------------------+------------Y------------I------- 11-------- 11 ------------------------- 5 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating :2/10/2018 :3/9/2018 5: 20: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 299,700; Residential Outdoor: 99,900; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws i 1 i 8.00- 81; 0.73 IHHDT - F----------- 4---------- --------------------- Demolition -Excavators ; 31 8.00, 162: 0.38 ------------------------- -----------------F-----------------1-------------F--------------'-- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------- F ----------------------------- .•- F -----------I- ...............--------------.........'----------F----------- Demolitio Demolition •Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.00; 255; 0.40 ----------------------------?---------------------------F----------------1------------- F- -------------- -------------- Grading :Scrapers • 1 6.00, 361 • 0.48 - ------------------------------------------- ----- ----------------------- --------- - F ------------ -- --------- 0.001 11_ Gradir-ig-;Excavators 8.00 162 0.38 - - - _ _ _ - - _ � 0.00 • 0.00 • 14.70 - 6.90 • 20.00 - LD_Mix ; HDT_Mix Grading ;Graders 11 8.00, 174: 0.41 ---------------------- --- -----------=--------------------F------------- --- 1-------------F-------------- -------------- Grading' Rubber Tired Dozers .1 i 8.00 255 0.40 Grading ;Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3.� 8.00 97; 0.37 --------------------------------------------------------F----------------1-------------F------------- --- - - Building Construction :Cranes 1 i 7.00, 226: 0.29 ----------------------------"I---------------------------F----------------1-------------t-------------- ---- Building Construction ;Forklifts 31 8.00; 89; 0.20 -----------------•--------------------------------------F----------------- _- F - ------------�-- - Building Construction ;Generator Sets 1 i 8.00, 84; 0.74 -------------------------------------------------------- H---------------- 1------------- F -------------I------------.__ Building Construction •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 31 7.00, 97; 0.37 - Building Construction ;Welders ; 11 8.00; 46; 0.45 ------------------------ ------------------ --------------- H---------------- F-=------------r- Paving -Pavers 21 8.00 125: 0.42 ------------------ --...-------------------------------F-----------------------------F--------------� Paving :Paving Equipment 21 8.00; 130: 0.36 - ---------•--=---------------------------------- --------------- �- Paving ;Rollers 21 8.00; 80; 0.38 --- ----------------------------- --------- ------ Architectural Coating ;Air Compressors 1 6.00• 78, 0.48 Trips and VMT Demolition 6i 15.00• 0.001 798.00• 14.70 6.90: 20.001LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix IHHDT ----------------•---------------,---------- 1 ---------- F----------- 4---------- --------------------- Grading 71 18.00• 0.001, 1,250.00• 14.70 6.90• 20.001LD_Mix •HDT_Mix IHHDT .•- F -----------I- ...............--------------.........'----------F----------- 4-------- -- �---.____.____ I---------- I--------------I-------- BuildingConstruction 91 107.00 16.001 0.00 14.70 6.90-, 20.001LD_Mix 1HDT Mix jHHDT 1----------- ----------------�--------------- I ----------+----------F----------- 1---------- I--------------I-------- 4---------- ------------- Paving 61 15.00• 0.001 0.00. 14.70 6.90: 20.001LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix IHHDT --------------------------------- +------------------------------f----------+----------r---------}-------------4 --------------------- Architectural Coating ; 1 • 21.00 • 0.00 • 0.00 • 14.70 - 6.90 • 20.00 - LD_Mix ; HDT_Mix ; HHDT CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 8 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM Unmitigated Construction Off -Site :120G ,. CO, S02 Fu itive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio02 NBi- CO2Total CO2NOx CHC' -f] N20 CO2eROG u. ". PM10.- PM 10 Total - PM2.5. PM25 `= Category- tons/yr. ; MTtyr a, Qategory` Fugitive Dust Hauling 7.1700e- 0.1061 0.0853 2.9000e- 6.8400e- 1.5100e- 8.3600e- 1.8800e- 1.3900e- 3.27OOe- + 0.0000 26.3648 26.3648 1.9000e- 0.0000 26.3688 003 ; ; 004 003 ; 003 ; 003 ; 003 ; 003 ; 003 i ; ; 004 ; 0.08640.0000 0.0864 0.0131 0.0000 0.0131 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 Total 7.6400e- 0.1068 0.0925 3.1000e- A 1.5200e- 0.0100 2.3200e- 1.4000e. 3.7200e- 0.0000 27.7917 27.7917 2.6000e- 0.0000 i i 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 Off -Road 0.0405 0.4270 0.3389 4.000Oe- 004 0.0213 0.0213 0.0198 0.0198 1 i 0.0000 36.6182 36.6182 0.0101 0.0000 36.8292 Total 0.0405 0.4270 0.3389 4.000Oe- 0.0864 0.0213 0.1076 0.0131 0.0198 0.0329 0.0000 36.6182 36.6182 0.0101 0.0000 36.8292 004 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site :120G NOx CO SO2 °: ' -Fugitive Exhaust. PM10 . Fugitive Exhaust- PM2.5 Total B1iom=2 NBio= CO2 Total CO2 � CH4 .' N20 u. -. PM,10: PM10 ta Tol PM2.5 P , M2 5 a, Qategory` -ton -, Hauling 7.1700e- 0.1061 0.0853 2.9000e- 6.8400e- 1.5100e- 8.3600e- 1.8800e- 1.3900e- 3.27OOe- + 0.0000 26.3648 26.3648 1.9000e- 0.0000 26.3688 003 ; ; 004 003 ; 003 ; 003 ; 003 ; 003 ; 003 i ; ; 004 ; i + Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A A Worker e- 6.9000e- 7.2100e- 2.000Oe- 1.6500e- 1.000Oe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- + 0.0000 1.4268 1.4268 7.000Oe- 0.0000 1.4283 004 004 003 ; 005 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 004 ; 005 ; 004 i ; 005 ; 1 Total 7.6400e- 0.1068 0.0925 3.1000e- 8.4900e- 1.5200e- 0.0100 2.3200e- 1.4000e. 3.7200e- 0.0000 27.7917 27.7917 2.6000e- 0.0000 27.7970 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site :ROG NOX Co so2Fugitive Fugitive Exhaust PMJO Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5-rotal M64002 NBio-772 CO2 1,TotaIC92 CH4, 2_0� CO2e -A PM10 PM19 Total PM2:5 PM2.5° p 7-G 'category ton* IVIT/yr, Hauling 7.1700e- 0.1061 0.0853 2.9000e- 6.8400e- 1.5100e- 8.36OOe- 1.8800e- 1.3900e- 3.2700e- A 0.0000 26.3648 26.3648 1.9000e- 0.0000 26.3688 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 AA 004 4 4 4 & Fugitive Dust 0.0337 0.0000 0.0337 5.1000e- 0.0000 5.1000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 --- -------------- ------------------------------------------ ------- ---------------- --------------- ----------------------------- Off -Road -Road 0.0405 0.4270 0.3389 4.000Oe- 0.0213 0.0213 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 36.6182 36.6182 0.0101 0.0000 36.8291 004 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 'A 005 Total Total 0.4270 0.3389 4.000Oe- 0.0337 0.0213 0.0549 5.1000e- 0.0198' 0.0249 0.0000 36.6182 36.6182 0.0101 0.0000 36.8291 27.7970, F0405 003 004 004 ( 003 003 003 003 1 004 Mitigated Construction Off -Site -JOG 'NOx CO,_ 'SO2-_ Fugitive Exhaust PM10, fugitive Exhaust- PM2.5To 810-CQ2' NbicCO2 1,TotaIC92 CHC,].­�N20 o- 2 e, -A PMIP PM2 5PM2. 7-G 'category IVIT/yr, Hauling 7.1700e- 0.1061 0.0853 2.9000e- 6.8400e- 1.5100e- 8.36OOe- 1.8800e- 1.3900e- 3.2700e- A 0.0000 26.3648 26.3648 1.9000e- 0.0000 26.3688 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 AA 004 4 4 4 & ------------------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- 4 ------- 4 ------- 4 ----------------- ----------------------- ------ ------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000, 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.00(0 -7-------------- --------------------------------------- --------------- ............. ------------------------------- --- Worker •7.T&Tde- I 6.9000e- 7.2100e- 2.000Oe- 1.65OOe- 1.000Oe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- A 0.0000 1.4268 1.4268 7.00OOe- 0.0000 1.4283 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 'A 005 A Total 7.6400e- 0.1068 0.0925 3.1000e- 8.4900e- 1.5200s- 0.0100 2.32008. 1.4000e- 3.7200e- 0.0000 27.7917 27.7917 2.6000e- 0.0000 27.7970, 11 003 004 ( 003 003 003 1 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 3.3 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Npi'; -CO FugitWe I i,�aust' PMIO kFugitive,.1 t Exhaust M2.5 Total Bio -,902 IN!Bio- CO21 Total CO2 CH !q2 0 -c 02e F -'PM10 A PMIO,-- Total PM2 5 I'- PM2.5z ],NBio-CO2 Category r V "V v 2 ' Fugitive Dust Y r f 0.0661 0.0000 0.0661 0.0338 0.0000 0.0338 A 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0112 0.1662 0.1336 4.6000e- 0.0107 2.3700e- 0.0131 2.9400e- 2.1800e- 5.1200e- 0.0000 41.2983 41.2983 2.9000e- 0.0000 41.3045 004 003 003 003 003 004 A A --- Vendor 0.0000 6TITC70 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---- -------------------------- -------------- -------------------------------- ....... ------- ------- ------ --------------- W-Ow.1- -5--60-0-0e- 8.3000e- 8.6500e- 2.00OOe- 1.9800e- 1.00OOe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.00OOe- 5.4000e- A 0.0000 1.7122 1.7122 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.7139 A A -------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- 0.1670 Off -Road 0.0444 0.4828 0.3307 4.1000e- 0.0253 0.0253 004 0.0233 0.0233 0.0000 38.0282 38.0282 0.0117 0.0000 36.2729 3.4600e- 2.1900e- 5.6600e- 0.0000 43.0105 43.0105 3.7000e- 0.000-0 43.0184 004 003 Total 0.0444 0.4828 0.3307 4.1000e- 0.0661 0.0253 0.0914 0.0336 0.0233 0.0571 0.0000 38.0282 38.0282 0.0117 0.0000 38.2729 004 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site CH PM10 Pm Total PM25 Plhaust`417,M2�.5-'T ],NBio-CO2 ' ory, Category Y r f M T yr Hauling 0.0112 0.1662 0.1336 4.6000e- 0.0107 2.3700e- 0.0131 2.9400e- 2.1800e- 5.1200e- 0.0000 41.2983 41.2983 2.9000e- 0.0000 41.3045 004 003 003 003 003 004 1 3 1 .3 1 ----------- ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - --------------------------------- - - - - - - - --- Vendor 0.0000 6TITC70 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---- -------------------------- -------------- -------------------------------- ....... ------- ------- ------ --------------- W-Ow.1- -5--60-0-0e- 8.3000e- 8.6500e- 2.00OOe- 1.9800e- 1.00OOe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.00OOe- 5.4000e- A 0.0000 1.7122 1.7122 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.7139 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 A 005 A Total 0.01118 0.1670 0.1422 4.8000e- 0.0127 2.3800e- 0.0151 3.4600e- 2.1900e- 5.6600e- 0.0000 43.0105 43.0105 3.7000e- 0.000-0 43.0184 004 003 003 003 003 I 004 CoEEModVeroion: CmEEyWod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 28 Date: 2/17/201G8:47AM 3.3 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site CO s Fugitive.- Exhaust 'I 'do a eIg Hauling 0.0112 0.1662 0.1336 4.60OOe- 0.010T 2.37OOe- 0.0131 2.94OOe- 2.1 800e- 5.1200e- 0.0000 41.2983 41.2983 2.90OOe- 0.0000 41.3045 004 003 003 003 003 004 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004- 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Fugitive Dust 0.0118 0.1670 0.1422 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0132 0.0000 0.0132 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3,7000e. 0.0000 43.0184 11 004 003 003 003 Off -Road 0.0444 0.4828 0.3307 4.10OOe- 0.0253 0.0253 0.0233 0.0233 004 004 A 0.0000 38.0282 38.0282 0.0117 0.0000 8.i729 Total 0.0444 0.4828 0.3307 4.10OOe- 0.0258 0.0253 0.0511 0.0132 0.0233 0.0365 1 0.0000 38.0282 38.0282 0.0117 0.0000 38.2729 004 Mitigated Construction Off -Site eIg Hauling 0.0112 0.1662 0.1336 4.60OOe- 0.010T 2.37OOe- 0.0131 2.94OOe- 2.1 800e- 5.1200e- 0.0000 41.2983 41.2983 2.90OOe- 0.0000 41.3045 004 003 003 003 003 004 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004- 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 0.0118 0.1670 0.1422 4.8000e. 0.0127 2.38OOe- 0.0151 3.46OOe- 2.19OOe- 5.6600e- 0.0000 43.0105 43.0105 3,7000e. 0.0000 43.0184 11 004 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.4 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 12 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM Off -Road 0.3413 2.9046 1.9942 2.9500e- 0.1959 0.1959 0.1840 0.1840 i 0.0000 263.4270 263.4270 0.0648 0.0000 264.7885 003 Total 0.3413 2.9046 1.9942 2.9500e- 0.1959 0.1959 0.1840 0.1840 0.0000 263.4270 263.4270 0.0648 0.0000 264.7885 003 s Unmitigated Construction Off -Site RO,G NOx t* CO 502 Fugitive; Exhaust " x; PN110 ; Fugitive ; `iExiiaustw P.M2.5Tota1 Bio -CO2 NBio CO2 Tptal CO2 = CH4 x N20" R 'CO2e , PM10 Total PM �PM1U Category, �' tonslyr* MT[yr k.t r x r r Hauling �� 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i : + ------- ----•----- -------------------------------------------- -------------�-------------- Vendor 0.0151 0.1445 0.1965 3.8000e- 0.0108 2.1600e- 0.0130 3.0900e- 1.9900e- 5.0800e- + 0.0000 33.9402 33.9402 2.4000e- 0.0000 33.9452 004 ; ; 003 ; 003 : 003 003 i : 004 .i �. ------------------ -------+---------------4-------4-------4-------4-------4-------.*-------y-----------------------Y---------------------- Worker 0.0365 0.0541 0.5654 1.5300e- 0.1292 9.000Oe- 0.1301 - 0.0343 - 8.3000e- 0.0351 + 0.0000 111.9587 111.9587 5.2900e- 0.0000 112.0697 003 ' ' 004 ' : ' 004 : i ' 003 i Total 0.0517 0.1986 0.7618 1.9100e- 0.1401 3.0600e- 0.1431 0.0374 2.8200e- 0.0402 0.0000 145.8989 145.8989 5.5300e- 0.0000 146.0150 11 003 003 003 1 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 3.4 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Off -Road 0.3413 2.9046 1.9942 2.9500e- 0.1959 0.1959 • 0.1840 0.1840 + 0.0000 263.4267 263.4267 �. 0.0648 0.0000 264.7882 i , , , , 003 Total F0.3413 2.9046 1.9942 2.9500e- 0.1959 0.1959 0.1840 0.1840 0.0000 263.4267 263.4267 0.0648 0.0000 264.7882 003 - Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02-, ` Fugiti3g , `Exhaust PIvt10 PM2,5 Total Bio=CO2` NBo CO2 Total CO2' : CH4 ' N20` EQ2e 'y PM1D PM10 Total M2 5 PM2 5� Category ions/yr MTlyr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0:0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0151 0.1445 0.1965 3.8000e- 0.0108 2.1600e- 0.0130 3.09006- 1.9900e- 5.0800e- + 0.0000 33.9402 33.9402 2.4000e- 0.0000 33.9452 , , , , , , , , i , , , , 004 ' , , 003 003 , 003 , 003 + , , 004 ------.---...,------- 4_______.,_______.,_m_____-____________-_-_______-_______-_______r_______y.--.-_____-_______r______-__e____-------- Worker •� 0.0365 0.0541 0.5654 1.53000- 0.1292 9.00000- 0.1301 0.0343 8.3000e- 0.0351 + 0.0000 111.9587 111.9587'- 5.2900e- 0.0000 112.0697 003 ; ; 004 ; ; 004 ; + ; ; 003 Total 0.0517 0.1986 0.7618 1.9100e- 0.1401 3.0600e- 0.1431 0.0374 2.8200e- 0.0402 0.0000 145.8989 145.8989 5.53000- 0.0000 146.0150 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 14 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM Unmitigated Construction Off -Site * ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust0M10 Fugitive ;Exhaust PM2.5 - Bio xCO2' NBio CO2 PM2;5 Total Bio=CO2 NBin 602 Total COZ CH4 N20 "? , CO2e =t; 5� . �..-PM25 �' 7ota1 P7 � s � PM10 Total} PMZ 5 PM2 5 r' (}F„ 3' ,:ia *t+;7 Category Category _ d 1 tonsfyr MT!y * :' s ` w r" A A i aw Off -Road 0.0133 • 0.1163 0.0877 • 1.3000e- • • 7.4700e- 7.4700e- • • 7.0200e- • 7.0200e- 0.0000 • 11.8385 11.8385 • 2.9000e- • 0.0000 • 11.8993 004 ; 003 ; 003 ; ; 003 ; 003 1 ; ; 003 ; I I i Total 0.0133 0.1163 0.0877 1.3000e- 6.5000e- 7.4700e- 7.4700e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 7.0200e- 7.0200e- 0.0000 11.8385 11.8385 2.9000e- 0.0000 11.8993 005 003 004 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site * ROG NOX x CO E . SO2 - :Fugitive `Exhaust PM10 ,k',[,Fugitive Exhaust ; PM2;5 Total Bio=CO2 NBin 602 Total COZ CH4 N20 "? , CO2e =t; `� t PM10 - PM10 Total} PMZ 5 PM2 5 r' 3' ,:ia *t+;7 Category Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 A i A A i ------ _„______________,____________________________,_______-_______-_______-_______y - ---_______4_______r______,_______T------- Vendor •• 6.4000e- • 6.0300e- • 8.5300e- • 2.000Oe- • 4.9000e- • 9.000Oe- 5.9000e- 1.4000e- • 9.000Oe- • 2.3000e- f 0.0000 1.5165 1.5165 • 1.000Oe- 0.0000 • 1.5168 004 ; 003 ; 003 005 ; 004 ; 005 ; 004 004 ; 005 ; 004 1 ; 005 ; _ i Worker 1.5100e- • 2.2400e- 0.02357.0000a 5.8700e- 4.000Oe- • 5.9100e- 1.5600e- • 4.000Oe- • 1.6000e- + 0.0000 4.8982 4.8982 2.2000e- • 0.0000 • 4.9029 003 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 003 ; 003 ; 005 003 i ; ; 004 ; A Total 2.1500e- 8.27OOe- 0.0320 9.000Oe- 6.3600e- 1.3000e- 6.5000e- 1.7000e- 1.3000e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 6.4148 6.4148 2.3000e-0.0000 6.4197 003 003 005 003 004 003 003 004 003 1 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site RQG NOx CO 802 ` ,Fugitive ExhaustFugihverc rPM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2 5 Total Bio "CO2 NBio "CO2 Total CO2 CH4 = N20 `; CO2e. fes' 7 z y a PM10PM10 PM10 Total k PM2 5 PM2 5 h � . b vn. Category�� tons/yr r x. �MTIyr a MTlyr t s K � s Off -Road 0.0133 0.1163 0.0877 �� 1.3000e- 7.4700e- 7.4700e- 7.0200e- 7.0200e- A 0.0000 11.8385 11.8385 2.9000e- 0.0000 11.8993 004 ; ; 003 ; 003 ; 003 ; 003 i ; ; 003 Total 0.0133 0.1163 0.0877 1.3000e- Vendor •� 6.4000e- 6.0300e- 8.5300e- 2.00OOe- 4.9000e- 9.00OOe- • 5.9000e- 1.4000e- 9.00OOe- 2.3000e- +' 0.0000 -1.5165 1.5165 1.00OOe- 0.0000 1.5168 7.4700e- 7.4700e- Worker 1.5100e- 2.2400e- 0.0235 7.00OOe- 5.8700e- • 4.00OOe- 5.9100e- 1.5600e- 4.00OOe- 1.6000e- + 0.0000 4.8982 4.8982 2.2000e- 0.0000 4.9029 7.0200e- 7.0200e- 0.0000 11.8385 11.8385 2.9000e- 0.0000 11.8993 1.3000e- 6.5000e. 1.7000e- 1.3000e- 004 6.4148 003 003 0.0000 003 003 003 003 003 003 004 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO s< SO2 Fugitive ' Exhaust rPM10 Fugitive Exhaust `[PWZ516tal &o=.G02 NBiO CO2 Total CO2 CH4:'` N20 ! w;CO2e " z y a PM10`_ PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 �' h � . b vn. Cat 5, ° }k ' re ions(yr r MTlyr t s � s 1 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i a i Vendor •� 6.4000e- 6.0300e- 8.5300e- 2.00OOe- 4.9000e- 9.00OOe- • 5.9000e- 1.4000e- 9.00OOe- 2.3000e- +' 0.0000 -1.5165 1.5165 1.00OOe- 0.0000 1.5168 004 ; 003 ; 003 ; 005 ; 004 ; 005 ; 004 ; 004 005 ; 004 + ; ; 005 ; i - - i Worker 1.5100e- 2.2400e- 0.0235 7.00OOe- 5.8700e- • 4.00OOe- 5.9100e- 1.5600e- 4.00OOe- 1.6000e- + 0.0000 4.8982 4.8982 2.2000e- 0.0000 4.9029 003 ; 003 ; ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 003 005 ; 003 i ; ; 004 ; Total 2.1500e- 8.2700e- 0.0320 9.00OOe- 6.3600e. 1.3000e- 6.5000e. 1.7000e- 1.3000e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 6.4148 6.4148 2.3000e. 0.0000 6.4197 003 003 005 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.5 Paving - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 16 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM Off -Road 0.0191 0.2030 0.1473 2.2000e- 0.0114 0.0114 0.0105 0.0105 + 0.0000 20.693420.6934 6.3400e- 0.0000 20.8266 Fugitive,' Exhaust 004 , , + ,-'Exhaust' , 003 ., , , , , , ,. NBio- CO2 Total CO2 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 AA PM10 PM10 Total t?M2 5 PM2 5 ' Total 0.0191 0.20300.1473 2.2000e- 0.0114 0.0114 0.0105 0.0105 0.0000 20.6934 20.6934 6.3400e- 0.0000 20.8266 u� 004 Category tons/yr� MTIyr _x 4 1 003 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG "'NO CO SO2 Fugitive,' Exhaust PM10,r< < Fugitive ,-'Exhaust' PM2.5 Total Bio=rG02` NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4" PM10 PM10 Total t?M2 5 PM2 5 u� Category tons/yr� MTIyr _x 4 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ----------------------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ., , i , , , i - ---_... ...________ _______________________ ______________________.,_______-a______.r_______y-..--__,_______-_______.r______�_______----.--- Worker -- 4.7000e- : 6.9000e- 7.2100e- 2.000Oe- 1.6500e- 1.000Oe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- + 0.0000 1.4268 1.4268 7.000Oe- 0.0000 1.4283 004 004 ; 003 ; 005 003 005 ; 003 ; 004 005 ; 004 i 005 ; A Total 4.7000e- 6.9000e- 7.2100e- 2.000Oe- 1.6500e. 1.000Oe- 1.6600e- 4.4000e. 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.4268 1.4268 7.0000e. 0.0000 1.4283 11 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 CaEEModVension: CaEEMod.2013.2.3 Page 17of28 Date: 2U7/201G8:47AM 3.5 Paving - 2017 Miticiated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site Off -Road 0.0191 0.2030 0.1473 2.20OOe- 0.0114 0.0114 0.0105 0.0105 0.0000 20.6934 20.6934 6.34OOe- 0.0000 20.8265 004 003 PM Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ry Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0191 0.2030 0.1473 2.2000 0.0114 0 0114 0.0105 0.0105 0.0000 20.6934 20.6934 6.3400e. 0.0000 =.82651 11 0040 004 1 1 005 : 005 1 003 004 004 003 1 Mitigated Construction Off -Site PM ry Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 k 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0 0.000.0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.7000 7.2100 2.00OOe- 1.6500 1.0000 .6.9000 004 003 005 003 005 , 003 004 005 004 004 005 11 004 004 1 1 005 005 1 003 004 004 005 1 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 18 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM r ROG , NOx CO SO2 '; Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugihve t sExF�aust.. PM2 5 Total Bio-"CO2-_NBi -,CO2 °TotaI NBi6�-0O2 pwi 10 Total PM2.5 PM2,5 arm a 'M10 F - en -w 611 W Archit. Coating 0.5788 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 T ------------------- ------- ------- -------------- ------- -------------- --------------- ------------------------------ --------------- Off-Road 2.9900e- • 0.0201 0.0185 3.000Oe- • 1.5100e- • 1.5100e- 1.5100e- • 1.5100e- 1 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.5584 003 005 003 - 003 003 003 004 Total 0.5818 0.0201 0.0185 3.000Oe- 1.5100e- 1.51000- A ----------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ------------ - ' 1.5100e. 1.5100e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.4000e. 0.0000 2.5584 Total 5.9000e- 8.8000e- 9.2200e- 005 2.3100e- 003 003 6.1000e- 003 003 1.9227 1.9227 004 0.0000 1.9245 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site p NBi6�-0O2 10 Total PM2.5 PM2,5 arm a -w T 4,ry Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000• 0.0000 • 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 A A A ----------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ------------ - ' ,- -------- --------------- Vendor 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 A 0.00-W 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 A A A -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Worker... 5.90OOe- 8.80OOe- • 9.22OOe- 3.00OOe- : 2.3100e- • 2.000Oe- : 2.3200e- : 6.1000e- • 1.000Oe- 6.3000e- A 0.0000 1.9227 1.9227 9.000Oe- 0.0000 • 1.9245 004 004 003 005 1 003 005 3 003 j 004 005 004 AA 005 3 1 1 A 3 Total 5.9000e- 8.8000e- 9.2200e- 3.000Oe- 2.3100e- 2.000Oe- 2.3200e- 6.1000e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 1.9227 1.9227 9.0000e- 0.0000 1.9245 004 003 1 003 1 004 005 1 005 1 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Mitigated Construction On -Site Archit. Coating 0.5788 ROG 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ::Fugitive Exhaust` PM2 5 Total Bio CO2: i tal CO2€ ;Toel - ,. ;420: << CO2e, PM16'PM�O i „PM2 5"` PM2 5 Off -Road 2.9900e- 0.0201 0.0185 3.000Oe- 1.5100e- 1.5100e- 1.5100e- 1.5100e- + 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.5564 003 ; ; 005 ; 003 ; 003 003 ; 003 + ; ; 004 ; - �aCategory tonstyr MTlyr+ � s i Ss Total 0.5818 0.0201 0.0185 3.000Oe- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 1.5100e- 1.5100e- 0Oe Worker •� 5.9000e- • 8.8000e- 9.2200e- 3.000Oe- 2.3100e- 2.00-" 2.3200e- 6.1000e- -1.000Oe- 6.3000e- + 0.0000 1.9227 1.9227 9.000Oe- - 0.0000 1.9245 . 004 ; 004 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 003 ; 004 ; 005 ; 004 + ; ; 005 1.5100e- 1.5100e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.4000e. 0.0000 2.5584 2.3200e- 6.1000e- 1.000Oe- 6.3000e- 0.0000 005 1.9227 9.000Oe- 003 .003 F004 003 003 005 003 005 004 004 005 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx' CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 ::Fugitive Exhaust` PM2 5 Total Bio CO2: NBio CO2 tal CO2€ ;Toel ECH4 ,. ;420: << CO2e, PM16'PM�O fiota� „PM2 5"` PM2 5 a. - �aCategory tonstyr MTlyr+ � s i Ss Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : + 0Oe Worker •� 5.9000e- • 8.8000e- 9.2200e- 3.000Oe- 2.3100e- 2.00-" 2.3200e- 6.1000e- -1.000Oe- 6.3000e- + 0.0000 1.9227 1.9227 9.000Oe- - 0.0000 1.9245 . 004 ; 004 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 003 ; 004 ; 005 ; 004 + ; ; 005 i i Total e- 8.8000e- 9.2200e- 3.000Oe- 2.3100e- 2.0000e- 2.3200e- 6.1000e- 1.000Oe- 6.3000e- 0.0000 1.9227 1.9227 9.000Oe- 0.0000 1.9245 F004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Page 20 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM Mitigated 0.4505 1.1860 5.2643 0.0152 1.1100 0.0166 1.1266 0.2966 0.0153 0.3119 a 0.0000 1,125.524 -1,125.524 - 0.0423 - 0.0000 - 1,126.413 A 2 2 3 a Unmitigated 0.4505 1.1860 5.2643 0.0152 1.1100 0.0166 1.1266 0.2966 0.0153 0.3119 0.0000 1,125.524 1,125.524 0.0423 0.0000 1,126.413 2 2 3 4.2 Trip Summary Information 3° »Avera e`Dail Tri`Ratey Unmitigated` 4 f ` Mitigated ro �M.n -L' 4, Land Use Weekday,k Saturday Sunday Anrival UMT Annual UMT >'* _ : iA uti.. `� � ,. <. z „ ,. m > >i- : ...,..w v ✓+::. ..... „' �. k.-, "�- - Tv&� . C� ";fi . '{'P "V- Condo/Townhouse Condo/Townhouse ■ _ 859.88 859.88 i 859.88 2,938,341 2,938,341 Total 859.88 859.88 859.88 . - 2,938,341 2,938,341 4.3 Trip Type Information OL MII@S a mo, `' • r rTrl C ose uo--,-z'xp t� RN TIN111,17 Land Use or C -C H 0=or C N11�I H W or<C W H °S or C -C H O o C NW , Pnnary D�verted Pass by Condo/Townhouse 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 LDA '°= LDT1 LDT2 MDV ' z I HD1 °LHD2^ 3 u•MHD uy HHDu' OB US r UBUS °MCY SBUS r1 I MHS 0.510011 ■ 0.056836 : 0.192178' 0.151564 : 0.041643' 0.005905 : 0.015642' 0.015146 : 0.001440 : 0.002149 : 0.004721 ' " 0.000504 : 0.002262 §-P ApWV Detail Historical Energy Use: N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 183.1598 183.1598 8.4200e- 1.7400e- 183.8766 Mitigated003 + ' , 003 + , Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 183.1598 183.1598 8.4200e- 1.7400e- 183.8766 Unmitigated g ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , , , , , , , ' ' , , + + ' ' ' ' 003 003 , , , .. + , , , , NaturalGas 0.0126 0.1079 0.0459 6.9000e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- + 0.0000 124.9847 124.9847 2.4000e- 2.2900e- 125.7454 Mitigated , , , 004 , , 003 , 003 , , 003 , t 003 + , , , , , 003 , 003 ...........-_e- e__ ____T_____T_���__�._____�_;.......�______------------------------ + , -7 ... NaturalGas T______T______T_a •� 0.0126 0.1079 0.0459 6.9000e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 0.0000 124.9847 124.9847 2.4000e- 2.2900e- 125.7454 Unmitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 5.2 Energy by Land Use - Natura[Gas Unmitigated Condo/Townhous ; 2.34213e +: 0.0126 0.1079 0.0459 6.9000e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e - e +006 - 8.7300e- 8.7300e- + 0.0000 124.9847 124.9847 2.4000e- 2.2900e- 125.7454 +; ; ; ; 004 ; ; 003 ; 003 ; ; 003 ; 003 i 003 003 ; TotalI 11 0.0126 1 0.1079 1 0.0459 16. 004 e 8.7300 003 e 1 8.7300e- e l 8.7300 003 e I 8 7003 e 1 0.0000 1124.9847 1124.9847 12'4003 ® 1 2.2900e- e 1125 7454 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Page 22 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM Condo/Townhous 2.34213e 1- 0.0126 0.1079 0.0459 6.9000e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- �8.7300e- 0.0000 124.9847 124:9847 2.4000e- 2.2900e- 125.7454 e +006 i; 004 ; 003 ; 003 ; 003 003 A ; 003 003 ' ' i ' Total 0.0126 11 0.1079 0.0459 6.9000e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 8.7300e- 0.0000 124.9847 124.9847 2.4000e- 2.2900e- 125.7454 004 003 003 003 003 1 003 003 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Condo/Townhous - 640045 +- 183.1598 8.4200e- 1.7400e- 183.8766 e +; ; 003 ; 003 ; Total 183.1598 8.4200e- 1.7400e- 183.8766 1 11 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Condo/Townhous 640045 +: 183.1598 8.4200e- 1.7400e- 183.8766 e i; ; 003 ; 003 ; +, Total 183.1598 8.4200e- 1.7400e. 183.8766 11 003 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use only Natural Gas Hearths v, ` ROG NOx r CO 4 SO 2 FgG Ehaust ' „Total , Fug�hve ;.ExhausY.�t O2- aTM10 1,14-4--'l-N2 CO2e` "PM2.5Tota; a PM1 ` � :Categoryy tonslyr MTlyr ` J Mitigated •� 0.6433 0.0178 1.5372 B.000Oe- 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 + 0.0000 34.4794 34.4794 3.0800e- 5.9000e- 34.7260 + 005 , , , , , , + , , 003 , 004 , Unmitigated • 1.1248 0.0301 2.4670 1.5600e- 0.1497 0.1497 0.1497 0.1497 15.7204 32.7024 48.4228 0.0494 1.0700e- 49.7900 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Page 24 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM Architectural 0.0579 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating , ; , ; + , ; Consumer 0.5348 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.4848 0.0123 0.9299 1.4800e- 0.1413 0.1413 0.1413 0.1413 + 15.7204 30.2093 45.9297 0.0469 1.0700e- 47.2450 003 ' ; ; ' ' ; i ; ; ' 003 Landscaping 0.0474 0.0178 1.5371 8.000Oe- 8.3900e- 8.3900e- 8.3900e- 8.3900e- + 0.0000 2.4931 2.4931 2.4700e- 0.0000 2.5450 005 ; 003 ; 003 003 ; 003 i ; ; 003 ; + Total 1.1248 0.0301 2.4670 1.5600e- 0.1497 0.1497 0.1497 0.1497 15.7204 32.7024 48.4228 0.0494 1.0700e- 49.7900 003 003 CmEEModVersion: Om|EEMod.2Oi3.2.2 Page 25of2B Date: 2/17/20168:47AM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Mitigated ~ ounro ' umm ' 7y3Ooe- 67.4e73 � | | mm � '_''''____'-___�--- onmm«o�u ~ s�xro ' uo1oo ' ru400~ ' 67.432 Consumer 0.5348 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 005 003 003 003 003 003 Architectural 0.0579 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating a Total 0.6433 0.0178 1.5373 8.00OOe- 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0,0000 34.4794 34.4794 3.08OOe- 5.9000e. 34.7260 005 1 003 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Mitigated ~ ounro ' umm ' 7y3Ooe- 67.4e73 � | | mm � '_''''____'-___�--- onmm«o�u ~ s�xro ' uo1oo ' ru400~ ' 67.432 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 26 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Condorfownhous 9.6428 / 1- 58.3175 0.3168 7.9400e- 67.4322 e 6.07915 i. ; 003 Total 58.3175 0.3168 1 7.9400e- 1 67.4322 11 003 Mitigated Condorrownhous 9.6428 / +- 58.3175 0.3167 7.9300e- 67.4273 e 6.07915 i. ; 003 ; A. Total 58.3175 0.3167 7.9300e- 67.4273 11 003 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 27 of 28 CategoMNear Mitigated 13.8196 0.8167 0.0000 30.9707 Unmitigated •• 13.8196 0.8167 0.0000 30.9707 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated_ I Condorrownhous • 68.08 13.8196 0.8167 0.0000 30.9707 I e + Total 13.8196 0.8167 0.0000 30.9707 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 28 of 28 Date: 2/17/2016 8:47 AM 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Condorrownhous 68.08 is 13.8196 0.8167 0.0000 30.9707 e A. Total 1 11 13.8196 1 0.8167 1 0.0000 1 30.9707 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type ' wtfurraberP, Hours/bay ' Days/Year Horse Pow 777 uel Type; 10.0 Vegetation Appendix C: Cultural Constraints Technical Memorandum 1 1 1 1 Cultural Resources Technical MemVA "11 to.. 111 for the W. 6th Street Vintage Lofts Project in Tustin, Orange County, California Prepared for: EPD Solutions, Inc. 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200, Irvine, CA 92614 Authors: Lynn Furnis and Dalia Mokayed Principal Investigator and Principal Architectural Historian: Lynn Furnis Registered Professional Archaeologist February 2016 APN No. 401-341-04 Cogstone Project Number: 3190-05 Type ojStudy: Cultural resources assessment Buildings: 420-426 W. 6`h St., 420-A W. 6`h St., 420-B W. 6`h St., 424 W. 6`h St., 428 W. 6`h St., 430 W. 6`h St., 436 W. 6`h St., 640-646 B St., 690-694 B St. USGS Quadrangle: Tustin, Calif. Total Area: 6.79 acres Key Words: Mid -20`h century light industrial buildings, Tustin Freeway Commerce Center 1518 West Taft Avenue Field Offices Orange, CA 92865 San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Oakland Office (714) 974-8300 Federal Certifications 8(a), SOB, EDWOSB State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE cogstone.com Toll free 888-333-3212 Vintage Lofts Cultural TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY......................................................................................................................................IV INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSEOF STUDY....................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION..........................................................................................................:.....................................2 PROJECTPERSONNEL......................................................................................:............:..............................................2 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................................4 SITEHISTORY..........................................................................:.............................:..................................................6 SOURCESCONSULTED...........................................................................................................................................6 SURVEY RESULTS .................................. ................................................................... 8 BUILDING 424 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04).........................................................................................................10 BUILDING428 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04).........................................................................................................10 BUILDING 430 W. 6T" ST. (APN 401-341-04)...........................................................................................................12 BUILDING 436 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04).........................................................................................................14 BUILDING 420-426 W. 6TH STREET (APN 401-341-04)...........................................:...............................................16 BUILDING 420-A W. 6TH ST (APN 401-341-04).....................................................................................................16 BUILDING 420-B W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04).....................................................................................................17 BUILDING 640-646 B ST. (APN 401-341-04)...........................................................................................................17 BUILDING 690-694 B ST. (APN 401-341-04)...........................................................................................................18 SIGNIFICANCEEVALUATION............................................................................................................................19 CRITERION A CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES..............................................................................19 CRITERION B CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES...............................................................................19 CRITERION C CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES...............................................................................19 CRITERION D CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES..............................................................................19 INTEGRITY................................................................................................................................................................20 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................................20 RECOMMENDATION.............................................................................................................................................20 REFERENCESCITED.............................................................................................................................................21 APPENDIXA. QUALIFICATIONS.......................................................................................................................22 1 1 1 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE1. PROJECT VICINITY........................................................................................................................................1 FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION......................................................................................................................................3 FIGURE 3. MAP OF PROJECT BUILDINGS........................................................................................................................9 FIGURE 4. BUILDING 424 W. 6TH STREET, NORTHWEST ELEVATION, VIEW TO SOUTHEAST.........................................11 FIGURE 5. BUILDING 428 W. 6TH STREET, NORTHWEST CORNER, VIEW TO SOUTHEAST................................................11 FIGURE 6. BUILDING 428 W. 6TH STREET, NORTHEAST ELEVATION, VIEW TO SOUTHWEST...........................................12 FIGURE 7. BUILDING 430 W. 6TH STREET, NORTH ELEVATION, VIEW TO SOUTH...........................................................13 FIGURE 8. BUILDING 430 W. 6" STREET, SOUTH ELEVATION, VIEW TO NORTHWEST...................................................13 FIGURE 9. BUILDING 436 W. 6TH STREET, NORTH ELEVATION, VIEW TO SOUTH...........................................................14 FIGURE 10. BUILDING 436 W. 6TH STREET, EAST ELEVATION, VIEW TO NORTHWEST...................................................15 FIGURE 11. BUILDING 436 W. 6TH STREET, EAST ELEVATION OF 1961 STRUCTURE, VIEW TO NORTHWEST ..................15 FIGURE 12. BUILDING 420-426 W. 6TH STREET, NORTH ELEVATION, VIEW TO SOUTHWEST.........................................16 FIGURE 13. BUILDING 640-646 B STREET, EAST ELEVATION, VIEW TO WEST..............................................................17 FIGURE 14. BUILDING 690-694 B STREET, EAST ELEVATION, VIEW TO WEST..............................................................18 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN A ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS OF THE APE.............................................................7 TABLE 2. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN A ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS.....................................................8 ff Vintage Lofts Cultural EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document is an assessment of cultural resources located within the commercial/ light industrial complex located at W. 0 and B Streets in Tustin, California. The proposed Project involves construction of new residential buildings and the demolition of all existing buildings on the 6.79 acre property. Cogstone completed a search for archaeological and historical records within a one-half mile radius of the Project Area at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton on February 9, 2016. Results indicate that 14 cultural resources investigations have been completed previously within a one-half mile radius of the Project Area. One study intersected the 6.79 -acre Project boundaries, along the I-5 length, but no sites were recorded within the Project Area during that investigation. The previous investigations resulted in the recording of four cultural resources, including one prehistoric isolate, one single family residence, one single story commercial building, and numerous historic buildings within one historic district (Old Towne Tustin). The district borders encompass the north side of W. 6th Street, just north of the Project Area: Due to the completely developed, built -upon, and paved status of the Project Area, an archaeological survey was not conducted. An architectural survey of the Project Area, however, was completed on February 10 and 11, 2016, and included nine historic -age buildings on the property. Two were not included as they are not yet 45 years old. The buildings have been evaluated for eligibility for listing on the California.Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).. The historic buildings at 420-426 W. 6th St., 420-A W. 6th St., 420-B W. 6th St., 424 W. 6th St., 430 W. 6th St., 428 W. 6th St., 436 W. 6th St., 640-646 B St., and 690-694 B St. were evaluated and recommended not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, as they do not meet significance criteria nor retain sufficient integrity.'. No mitigation is required for this project. If unanticipated discoveries are encountered during construction excavations, all work must halt until the resource can be evaluated ,by a qualified archaeologist. Work may resume immediately a minimum of 50 feet from the discovery. iv 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF STUDY Vintage Lofts Cultural This cultural constraints document is an assessment of cultural resources located within the commercial/ light industrial complex located at W. 6h and B Streets in Tustin, California to determine if they are historic in age, if they are historically significant, and what potential impacts to them may be indicated by the proposed Project. The proposed Project involves construction of new residential buildings which will replace all existing buildings, requiring the demolition of all 11 existing buildings on the property. The Project Area, encompassing the Tustin Freeway Commerce Center, is 6.79 acres in extent. Through review of aerial photographs, and by means of a field visit, building recording, and evaluation, Cogstone has examined the buildings in question (Figure 1). Project Area .baa Historic Lofts, Tustin IN 0 2.5 S Kilometers City of Tustin, 1 111 I_I I I A Orange County, CA Q Project Area 0 2.5 S Miles ii l i i i l 1:300,000 1 in = 5 miles Figure 1. Project Vicinity Vintage Lofts Cultural PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is located in unsectioned land within Township 5S and Range 9W (San Bernardino Base Meridian) of the Tustin, Calif. 7.5-muinute series USGS topographic map (Figure 2). The proposed Project entails the construction of residential lofts at 420 W. 6"' Street, requiring the demolition of all 11 existing buildings within an existing light industrial/commercial complex. Currently, the 6.79 -acre Project site is completely developed, consisting of -11 buildings and structures currently occupied by numerous businesses, as well as paved parking lots. PROJECT PERSONNEL Cogstone Resource Management Inc. (Cogstone) conducted the cultural resource study reported herein. Molly Valasik was the Project Manager for the Project. Lynn Furnis served as Principal Architectural Historian, supervising all fieldwork and writing much of the report. She holds an M.A. in Anthropology from the University of Nevada, Reno. Ms. Furnis has 13 years of experience in California and 25 years in Nevada. Dalia.Mokayed, architect and historic preservation specialist, assisted with the architectural survey. Ms. Mokayed holds a Certificate in Heritage Conservation from the University, of Southern . California, School of Architecture, a Certificate in Urban Planning from the University. of Aleppo, Syria, Faculty of Architecture, and a B:Sc. in Architecture from the University of Aleppo, Syria. She has two years of architectural and historic preservation experience working in California, with ten years' experience working in Syria. . Sarah Nava conducted the cultural records search and Native American Heritage Council (NAHC) consultation for Sacred Lands. Ms. Nava earned her B.A. degree in Archaeology from California State University, Long Beach and possesses a GIS Certification from Southwestern Community College. Andre Simmons produced the maps and served as GIS expert. He received an M.A. in Anthropology from California State University, Fullerton in 2015 and a B.A. in Anthropology and History from California State University, Fullerton in 2010, with an A. Adn History from Citrus College, in Glendora, California in 2007. Andre Simmons is a qualified archaeologist and cross -trained paleontologist with six years of experience in survey, monitoring, faunal analysis, and excavation. Simmons has worked in Southern California conducting archaeology for six years, with four years of GIS experience, producing maps, databases, and doing geospatial analysis for four years. He is certified in GIS. Short resumes of staff are provided (see Appendix A). 1 2 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural Figure 2. Project Location Vintage Lofts Cultural REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT Cultural resources management work conducted as part of The Historic Lofts Project must comply with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (California 2005), and any potential historic and prehistoric resources that might exist within the proposed Project Area of Potential Effect (area) would have to be evaluated under these guidelines. Enacted in 1971, CEQA and the guidelines direct lead agencies to determine whether an archaeological site is a "historically significant" cultural resource. The term "historical resources" shall include the following: (1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical Vintage Lofts Cultural resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.10) or §5024.1 (CEQA 15064.5). In addition to having significance, cultural resources must have integrity for the period of significance under consideration. The period of significance is the date or time span within which significant events transpired, or significant individuals made their important contributions. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource's period of significance. Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources -and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR, if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. The term "unique archaeological resource" has the following meaning under CEQA: An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. (3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historical event or person [Public Resources Code §21083.2(g)]. A Project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource is a Project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Effects on cultural properties that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources can be considered adverse if they involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural SITE HISTORY The Tustin Freeway Commerce Center, as the complex is currently known, has been in existence since 1961, when the first four buildings were constructed (Orange County 2015). It is not known if the name of the complex was the same or different at that time. The four buildings, all located at the west end of the complex and parcel, are apparent on a 1963 aerial photograph as well as on a 1965 7.5 minute topographic quad (NETR 1963; USGS 1965). These are 55 years old and are designated as 424 W. 6th St., 428 W. 6th St., 430 W. 6th St., and 436 W. 6th St. in this report and on attached site forms. Prior to 1961, citrus or other fruit trees were cultivated on the property (NETR 1946, 1952). Along the north side of W. 6t' Street and further north from there, an older neighborhood has stood since at least the early 1900s. By 1972, five more buildings were added to the complex, some of them being added on to the ends of the older structures (NETR 1972). These buildings, at least 44 years old, include buildings 420- 426 W. 6th St., 420-A W. 6th St., 420-B W. 6th St., 640-646 B St., and 690-694 B St. Between 1972 and 1974, the final two buildings were added to the complex, here designated as 418 W. 6"' St. and 620-630 B St. (NETR 1972; USGS 1974). They are between 42 and 44 years old. By 1980, a few narrow storage spaces with loading doors and docks were added in between existing buildings, forming additions of more recent age. According to a 1991 brief commercial real estate announcement, the Tustin Freeway Commerce Center was "completely refurbished during the past two years" (Los Angeles Times 1991). The remodeling was designed by architect Chet Van Fossen of Newport Beach, California. The complex currently is embellished by massive, pagoda -like, Asian roof elements over each suite main entryway, as well as at some building corners. It is not known if these elements were added in 1991 or later. One building occupant — Brian Gass — states that he remembers seeing the "Chinese" elements at the south flank of the complex as his family drove by on the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) when he was five years old (42 years ago, or 1974). It is likely that Building 430 W. 6`l' Street, which has a steep, pagoda -like shape, provided that impression, as well as a free-standing sign adjacent to it and next to the freeway with a similar shape. The roofs may have been covered in something other than their current materials prior to 1991. The complex was sold in 2001 to the Guthery Development Company and has since changed hands a few more times (CoStar 2001). SOURCES CONSULTED - A search for archaeological and historical records was completed by Cogstone archaeologist, Sarah Nava at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton on February 9, 2016. The search included a one-half mile -radius around the approximately 6.75 -acre Project Area. Results indicate that 14 cultural resources investigations have been completed previously within a one- half mile radius of the Project Area (Table 1). One study intersected the 6.79 -acre Project boundaries, along the I-5 length, but no sites were recorded within the Project Area during that investigation. i F� Vintage Lofts Cultural Table 1. Previous Studies within a One -Half Mile Radius of the APE Report Author Title Year Distance No. OR- from Project 00760 Romani, John Archaeological Survey Report for the Route 5/ 1982 0.25 F. Route 55 Interchange in the Cities of Tustin and Santa Ana, Orange County, California Pm 29.0/31.0; R8.8/ R10.6 00814 Romani, John Historic Property Survey Route 1-5 Santa Ana 1982 0.5 F. Transportation Corridor, Route 405 in Orange County to Route 605 in Los Angeles County Pm 21.30/44.38; 0.00/6.85 00896 Paden, Beth Letter Report of Archaeological Survey of the 1988 0.5 Colco Project at Walnut Street and Newport Ave. 01655 Mason, Roger Cultural Resources Survey Report for a Pacific Bell 1997 0.25 D. Mobile Services Telecommunications Facility: Cm 001-15, in the City of Tustin, Ca. 01902 Caltrans? Historic Property Survey 070RA-133 1985 0.5 01940 Webb, Lois M. Historic Property Survey 07 -ora 5/55 P.m. 1979 0.5 and Huey, 29.0/31.0; R8.8/r10.6 Tustin and Santa Ana Orange Gene County California 07209 4791401 02256 Demeak, Carol Cultural Resources Assessments for Orange County 1999 0.25 R. Sanitation Districts 03277 Casen, George The Proposed Project Is the Widening and General 1985 0.5 A., Romani, Improvement of Interstate Route 5 John, and Between Route 405 and Route 55 in Orange Webb, Lois 03493 Takano, Tustin Historical Resources Survey Update 2001 0.5 Gerald, T. 03678 Bonner, Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit 2007 0.25 Wayne H. Results for Royal Street Communications, LLC Candidate LA2526D (Presbyterian Church), 225 West Main Street, Tustin, Orange County, California 03952 Billat, Lorna McFadden CA2306- New Tower Submission 2010 0.25 Packet 04229 Wallace, Archaeological Survey Report the 1-5 (SR -55 to 2012 0.5 James and SR57) HOV Lanes Improvement Project County of Dietler, Sara Orange, California 04292 Meiser, M.K., Historic Property Survey Report, improvements to 2012 0.5 Wallace, Interstate 5 (1-5) between State Route 55 and State James, and Route 57 Deitler, Sara McKenna, Tustin High School, Tustin, Archaeological 0.5 4295 Jeanette Records Search 2013 Vintage Lofts Cultural The previous investigations resulted in the recording of four cultural resources, including one prehistoric isolate (a metate and a pestle), one single family residence (the 1887 Sherman Stevens House), one single story commercial. building (the Artz Building), and numerous historic buildings within one historic district (Old Towne Tustin) (Table 2). The district borders include the north side of W. 6"' Street, just north of the Project Area. The Historic, Resources Inventory (HRI) was reviewed for all listings located within a one-half mile radius of the Project Area. These are the same as the historic district and buildings returned by the record search. Table 2. Previously Recorded Resources within a One -Half Mile Radius Primary Address Site Description Date Distance No. P-30- Recorded from Project 000301 Prehistoric isolate (metate and some shell) 1971 0.5 160206 228 W. Main Historic single family residence (1887 1982 0.5 Street Sherman Stevens House 162095 150-158 W. Main Historic single -story commercial building 1993 0.25 Street (the Artz Building) 162471 Historic district (Old Towne Tustin) 2001 0.25 SURVEY RESULTS An architectural survey of the Project Area was conducted' on February 10 and 11, 2016.by Lynn Furnis. and Dalia Mokayed, Cogstone Architectural Historians. The commercial/ light industry complex is. composed of 11 large buildings, each divided into multiple suites (Figure 3). The individual buildings have been constructed at different times within the past 55 years. The first four were constructed in 1961. These are 55 years old and are designated as 424 W. 6th St., 428 W. 6th St., 430 W. 6th St., and 436 W. 6th St. in this report. By 1972, five more buildings were added to the complex, some of them being added on to the ends of the older structures (NETR 1972). These buildings, at least 44 years old, include buildings 420-426 W. 6th St., 420-A W. 6th St., 420-B W. 6th St., 640-646 B St., and 690-694 B St. Between 1972 and 1974, the final two buildings were added to the complex, here designated as 418 W. 6th St. and 620-630 B St. (NETR 1972; USGS 1974). They are between 42 and 44 years old. By 1980, a few narrow storage spaces with loading doors and docks were added in between existing buildings, forming additions of more recent age. The Tustin Freeway Commerce Center as a whole presents a homogeneous, unified exterior presence composed of 11 buildings with flat roofs, concrete elevations, and embellished with elaborate cobalt blue glazed ceramic tiles covering Asian -style roof elements above most main entryways of each suite, as well as on some corners of buildings. Building 430 W. 6t` Street is significantly different from the others. Most of them are single -story buildings. In many areas, free-standing walls, utility enclosures, and. wall treatments at main or side entryways are also present that are decorative as well as functional, composed of decorative, pierced concrete block and bricks. Most front doors and most windows on the buildings 1 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural Figure 1. Map of Project Buildings Vintage Lofts Cultural are composed of glass, set in aluminum frames. The windows that are movable are casement types and presumably are original. The elaborate glazed tile roof elements appear modern in age. They may date to the 1991 refurbishment. All of the buildings are connected in the complex by paved lanes and parking lots. Landscaping, with low brick planters, trees along W. 6�h and B streets, and shrubs and trees near streetside buildings provide greenery and atmosphere for the outer faces of the complex. The interior areas of the complex have less landscaping. The four original buildings are all located in the west part of the complex. Each building is described below, individually, in order by age. BUILDING 424 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04) Constructed in 1961, Building 424 W. 6"' Street is a rectangular plan building, one-story in height, facing northwest, and oriented northwest -southeast (Figure 4). Its northwest elevation is on one vertical plane, with an off -center main entryway above which is a massive, ornate Asian -style, pagoda -like roof, supported by one ornate wrought iron support and an ornate concrete block enclosure to the south and west of the front door. The door is a single glass door with glass light on its north side and above the door. On the north half of the elevation, an exterior set of metal stairs and landing provides access to an upper metal door, leading to aloft or mezzanine inside. There are three large fixed windows across this facade. The south elevation is a long, plain expanse with one large loading/ access door in the east half, as the only fenestration. It is closed by means of a metal, roll -up door. An asphalt -covered, low ramp leads to the door from the adjacent parking lot. A series of low, screened vents pierces the base of the elevation. At its east end, this original 1961 building abuts Building 418 W. 6"' Street, a newer building added on between 1972 and 1974. BUILDING 428 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04) Constructed in 1961, Building 428 W. 6"' Street is a long, rectangular plan building, one story in height, that abuts Building 430 W. 6"' Street on its west end and Building 420-A W. 6`h Street on its east end (Figure 5). It faces both northwest and northeast, with multiple shops and businesses occupying its space. It is oriented northwest -southeast. At its northwest corner, it is graced with one main front entryway and the massive, ornate Asian -style, pagoda -like roof above it. The roof is supported by two ornate wrought iron supports and several brackets. Its door is a single glass type with glass lights on its north side and above the door. There are two large fixed windows across this fagade, each flanked by movable casement windows. The northeast elevation is long and pierced with numerous person -sized glass. and metal access doors as well as two large loading doors and docks. Access to entry doors is by means of sets of concrete steps and small landings, with metal handrails. There are six large fixed windows across this elevation, also set with side casement windows in many cases. Near the center of the elevation is a decorative panel of four large, impressed diamond shapes. These are found only on the oldest buildings in the complex. Adjacent to the diamonds is a metal access door, steps, and a concrete block enclosure around the steps, as well as a simple metal awning above the door. A few trees and brick planters are set along the northeast elevation, providing some relief from concrete surfaces. 10 1 1 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural A Figure 4. Building 424 W. 6th Street, northwest elevation, view to southeast Figure 5. Building 428 W. 6th Street, northwest corner, view to southeast 11 I' I Vintage Lofts Cultural 77 Figure 6. Building 428 W. 6"' Street, northeast elevation, view to southwest BUILDING 430 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04) 1 Building 430 W. e Street is different from all the other buildings at the complex. It is two stories in height, with a hip -on -gable, medium -pitched roof, covered in composition shingles. It is a 1961 structure, that from the beginning, abutted Building 436 W. 6t' Street'and Building 428 W. 6`'' Street, both of which are simpler, more utilitarian buildings. Its front elevation (north) is tall and mostly glass for two stories, with four wide steps of ornate stone and colored infill paving that appears original to the 1960s providing access to a wide ornate walkway. A courtyard is formed by the open space created by the juncture of the three buildings and the space is landscaped with trees and low plants. The rear (south) of this building faces the I-5 Freeway. That elevation is a split-level affair, with large metal support columns and several concrete surfaces, as well as painted facing bricks across the west half of the first floor. Windows across the upper rear story are square and in single and triplet groupings. They appear to be replacement windows. Windows on the first floor are three-part, with central fixed pane, sided by casement windows. An ornate, exterior metal stairway provides access to the east end of the second floor. The roof line of this building may be one original element suggesting an Asian theme even in the oldest days of the complex. 1 12 i i 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural Figure 7. Building 430 W. 6"' Street, north elevation, view to south Figure 8. Building 430 W. 6`s Street, south elevation, view to northwest 13 Vintage Lofts Cultural BUILDING 436 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04) The fourth building from 1961 is Building 436 W. 6"' Street. It is now composed of two large bays, the largest and most southern being the original 1961 component. This section was a simple, single -story, rectangular plan building, facing north and oriented north -south. By 1972, the second rectangular bay was added to the first. Today it comprises the front of the building, being single -story in height, facing north, and oriented east -west. As with all other complex buildings, it is fitted with the Asian -style roof elements over the front entryway on 6t' Street, as well as above its southeast corner entryway and loading dock. Figure 9. Building 436 W. 6"' Street, north elevation, view to south 1 Both sections of the .building retain similar large windows as the other buildings, with fixed center panes and casement side panes. The main entryway is mostly glass, with brick facing decorative columns. The east elevation of the original 1961 segment is decorated with eight impressed diamond elements. Otherwise, it is quite plain with a few of the same type windows as the front, until the expanse of wall within the Building 430 W. 6t' Street courtyard is reached. There the concrete block wall is set with three-dimensional patterned blocks that form projecting triangles. As with most of the complex's buildings, the side of this building is surrounded by parking spaces and a paved lane. 1 14 1 1 - Vintage Lofts Cultural Figure 10. Building 436 W. 6`h Street, east elevation, view to northwest Figure 11. Building 436 W. 6`h Street, east elevation of 1961 structure, view to northwest 15 Vintage Lofts Cultural BUILDING 420-426 W. 6TH STREET (APN 401-341-04) Between 1963 and 1972, five more buildings were added to the complex. Building 420-426 W. 6`i' Street is one of these (Figure 12). It is a single -story, rectangular plan building, facing north and oriented east west, composed of concrete, with a flat roof. It is fitted with the same ornate Asian -style roof elements of glazed tile, with wrought iron supports as the previously described buildings. Glass and aluminum main entryways for each suite are similar, beneath the pagoda roofs, with the north elevation punctuated between by three-part windows with casements on the sides. Some of the suites are accessed by three- step stoops, faced on the street sides with bricks, while those to the west are at ground level. Concrete block utility enclosures stand near the center of the north elevation. The west elevation is more plain, with one raised, glass main suite entryway, a metal solid door at center and several three-part windows. The glazed tile roof element continues around from the north elevation to the west, as a simple, short pent roof. The east elevation is extremely plain, with two windows and no doors. The south elevation of this building is largely obscured by a long narrow, odd -shaped loading bay and dock that was added to it sometime between 1972 and 1980. Figure 12. Building 420-426 W. 6'h Street, north elevation, view to southwest BUILDING 420-A W. 6TH ST (APN 401-341-04) 1 Between 1963 and 1972, Building 420-A W. 6'h Street was constructed. At its west end, it abuts Building 428 W. 6t' Street. It is similar in configuration and size to Building 428 W. 6d' Street, with several large. loading doors, loading docks, and three-part windows piercing its north elevation. It is a single -story building, roughly rectangular in plan, north -facing and oriented east -west. The impressed diamond 16 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural elements found on older buildings are also found on this one, on its north and east elevations. At its northeast corner, the characteristic Asian roof , ornate columns, and ornate hand -railing of metal graces a raised stoop that provides access to the main glassed entryway and extends along north and east elevations on the corner. The east elevation has a large loading door and dock, a small metal access door and four windows. A few trees, hedges, and smaller plants are planted adjacent to this building, with loading areas, parking spaces, and an informal lunch area for laborers also characterize the building's front fagade. BUILDING 420-B W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04) Between 1963 and 1972, Building 420-B W. 6`h Street was constructed. At its west end, it abuts Building 428 W. 6`h Street. Across its north flank, it abuts Building 420-A W. 6`h Street. It is irregular in shape, filling a large space between Building 420-A W. 6`h Street and the I-5 freeway. It functions similarly to its immediate neighbor, sporting a large loading door and dock, as well as metal access doors. It is a single - story building, east -facing and oriented east -west. It has no Asian roof elements. Its east elevation is beneath a wide roof that spans a large parking and loading space between this building and the one to the east -- 690-694 B Street. BUILDING 640-646 B ST. (APN 401-341-04) Constructed between 1963 and 1972, this building is a two-story structure, rectangular in plan, north and east facing, and oriented east -west (Figure 13). The northeast corner is recessed, fitted with exterior metal and concrete staircase and deck, for access to the second floor. The building is fitted with Asian - style, glazed style roof elements on three corners, including on the second floor. Windows are a mix of large, fixed, one -pane, two -pane and three -pane windows, each of the last with one casement window. At its south elevation, this building abuts Building 690-694 B Street. Figure 13. Building 640-646 B Street, east elevation, view to west 17 Vintage Lofts Cultural . BUILDING 690-694 B ST. (APN 401-341-04) Also constructed between 1963 and 1972, Building 690-694 B Street abuts Building 640-646 B Street along the former's north side (Figure 14). It is single -story in height, with a flat roof, and is trapezoidal in plan. It faces east, onto B Street and is oriented east -west. The two suite entrances on the east elevation are elaborate, with Asian roof elements, raised platforms of concrete in front of each doorway, with brick, and ornate concrete block wall treatments in addition to large glass panels, glass doors and transoms. There are several large fixed windows in the east facade, as well as a few casement types. One small loading door pierces the wall near the south end. Parking spaces are present to the east of the elevation, with small trees planted along B Street, adjacent to the sidewalk. Figure 14. Building 690-694 B Street, east elevation, view to west 18 1 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION Due to the similarities in the architecture of the buildings within the Tustin Freeway Commerce Center complex, the complex is here evaluated as one entity. CRITERION A CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The nine historic -age buildings that comprise the Tustin Freeway Commerce Center represent a commercial/ light industrial complex that largely dates from 1961 and from 1972. It is a common type of building group that continues to exist within southern California and within Orange County, in particular. The complex, even in its 1961 iteration of four buildings, is not known to be associated with events important in history, at national, regional, or local levels. The buildings are, therefore, not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A. CRITERION B CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The nine historic -age buildings that comprise the Tustin Freeway Commerce Center represent a commercial/ light industrial complex that largely dates from 1961 and from 1972. The complex, even in its 1961 iteration of four buildings, is not known to be associated with persons important in history, at national, regional, or local levels. The buildings are, therefore, not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B. CRITERION C CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The complex of buildings represents a common group of commercial, light industrial buildings from the middle to the third quarter of the twentieth century. It is a fairly ordinary example of such a complex, though now fitted with more modern, extraordinary elements that are not original to the buildings. The buildings do not represent the work of a master or an especially good example of a type. Many complexes of this type and era remain in the area and in southern California, generally. Architecturally, the complex is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C. CRITERION D CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES None of the resources are archaeological; this criterion does not apply. 1 19 Vintage Lofts Cultural INTEGRITY The complex retains its integrity of location, setting, and association, but has lost its integrity of feeling, materials, workmanship, and design. The buildings retain their original plan configurations but have been altered by additions and remodeling. Many of their, windows and doors are original, as well as exterior wall materials. A 1991, or later, refurbishment apparently entailed the adding of the elaborate Asian -style glazed tile roof elements, along with their wrought iron supports, and brick and ornate concrete block embellishments. Much has been altered within the complex to modernize and homogenize building exteriors. There are many replacement windows on Building 430 W. 6th Street. The exterior staircase at the rear of that building is likely a later addition. A number of doorways on the first floor, rear elevation have been blinded, as well. CONCLUSION The results of the cultural resources literature and records search at the SCCIC indicated that there are no known archaeological or built environment historical cultural resources within the Project Area. Four historic resources were recorded within a one-half mile radius for the Project Area. Nine newly -recorded resources -- sites 420-426 W. 6th St., 420-A W. 6th St., 420-B W. 6th St., 424 W. 6th St., 430 W. 6th St., 428 W. 6th St., 436 W. 6th St., 640-646 B St., and 690- 694 B St. were identified within the Project Area. The Tustin Freeway Commerce Center is not recommended eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Places as it does not meet any of the four critieria. RECOMMENDATION No mitigation is required for this project. If unanticipated discoveries are encountered during construction excavations, all work must halt until the resource can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Work may resume immediately a minimum of 50 feet from the discovery. 20 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural REFERENCES CITED CoStar 2001 A Little Piece of Tustin, in CoStar Group, accessed online at http://www.costar.coin/News/Article/A-Little-Piece-of-Tustin/31066 on February 12, 2016. Los Angeles Times 1991 Focus: Tustin Freeway Commerce Center, in The Los Angeles Times, September 20, 1991, accessed online atlittp://ai-ticles.latimes.com/1991-09-20/business/fi-2708 1. tustin-freewa- commerce on February 12, 2016. NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC) 1946 Aerial photograph of Project area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on February 5, 2016. 1952 Aerial photograph of Project area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on February 9, 2016. 1963 Aerial photograph of Project area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on February 9, 2016. 1972 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on February 9, 2016. 1980 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on February 9, 2016. 1994 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on February 9, 2016. 2002 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on February 9; 2016. 2004 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on February 9, 2016. Orange County 2015 Property Report for APN 401-341-04, on file with EDP, provided by LPS Data Services, November, 2015. USGS (United States Geological Survey) 1965 USGS 7.5 min Tustin, Calif. topographic quad, (NE 1/4 Santa Ana 15 min. quadrangle), United States Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 1974 USGS 7.5 min Tustin, Calif. orthophotoquad, Orange County Board of Supervisors, United States Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 1 21 APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS Vintage Lofts Cultural 22 1 1 1 c ® one PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY -HISTORY EDUCATION Vintage Lofts Cultural MOLLY VALASIK, RPA Archaeology Supervisor/ Cross -Trained Paleontologist GIS Supervisor 2009 M.A., Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 2006 B.A., Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS Ms. Valasik is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with six years of professional and academic archaeological field and research experience. She meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeology, and is a skilled professional who is well -versed in the compliance procedures of CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA and in working with a variety of federal, state, and local agencies throughout California. Her responsibilities as Archaeology Supervisor range from field supervision of survey and monitoring crews and organizing and working with Native American monitors, to overseeing laboratory analyses, resource recordation, cataloguing and preparations for curation. Ms. Valasik has also completed more than 24 hours of paleontological field training and has logged four years as a dual monitor for Cogstone. In addition to serving as an Archaeology Supervisor and Project Manager, she is GIS proficient and supervises mapping at Cogstone. In her role as a GIS specialist, sheyoutinely digitizes data, manages databases, and creates high resolution maps for technical reports. The in-house capabilities of Cogstone's GIS department include ESRI's ArcGIS software and Trimble GPS units that efficiently integrate archaeological and paleontological studies. Ms. Valasik uses ArcGIS to manipulate, analyze, and interpret data from many sources, including aerial photography, satellite imagery, digital elevation models, and topographic maps. SELECTED PROJECTS Rose Creek Bike Trail, San Diego, San Diego County, CA. Prepared archaeological Phase I assessment including record search, Native American consultation, survey, impact analysis and recommendations for new 2 -mile bike trail along creek. Sub to Nasland Engineering. Principal Investigator. 2013 Bikeway Gap Closure Project, San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, CA. Prepared an initial assessment of cultural and paleontological resources constraints to determine the potential effects on resources of bikeway improvements throughou the city of San Juan Capistrano. Conducted archaeological and paleontological record searches, Native American consultation and prepared maps. The Project involves seven bikeway gap connections. Sub to Environmental Intelligence. GIS Specialist and Co -Author. 2013 Laguna Coast Wilderness Park, Lizards Trail Improvements, OC Parks, Laguna Beach, Orange County, CA. Cogstone completed a record search, Sacred Lands search, NAHC consultation, and cultural resources Phase I pedestrian survey of the 1.2 -mile project area. Submitted a technical report for this trail improvement project, which will open an unauthorized mile segment for public use, to fulfill CEQA requirements. Sub to Michael Baker/RBF Consulting. GIS Specialist and Author. 2014 Peters Canyon Off -Street Bikeway Lighting Improvement, City of Irvine/ Caltrans District 12, Orange County, CA. Literature and Sacred Lands searches, extended Native American consultation, hydrogeological study of San Diego Creek Watershed, survey, and technical reports (HPSR and ASR) for improvements to lighting along existing bikeway. NHPA Section 106 compliance. Sub to RBF. Archaeologist. 2014 I-405 Freeway Trail Lighting Improvements Project, City of Irvine/ Caltrans District 12, Orange County, CA. Literature and Sacred Lands searches, extended Native American consultation, hydrogeological study of San Diego Creek Watershed, survey, and technical reports (HPSR and ASR) for improvements to lighting along existing bikeway. NHPA Section 106 compliance. Sub to RBF. Archaeologist. 2014 Westminster Boulevard Roadway and Bike Lane Improvements, Caltrans District 12, Seal Beach, Orange County, CA. Literature and Sacred Lands searches, Native American consultation, survey, and technical reports (HPSR and ASR) for roadway and bicycle lane improvements. NHPA Section 106 compliance. Archaeologist. 2013-2014 23 Vintage Lofts Cultural COaStone PALEONTOLOGY-ARBNAEOLOOY-HISTORY LYNN FURNIS, RPA Principal Architectural Historian EDUCATION 1999 M.A., Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno 1972 B.A., Anthropology, University of California at Davis SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS Ms. Furnis is a Registered Professional Archaeologist, historical archaeologist and architectural historian with 45 years of experience in the western United States. [California (15 years), Nevada (25 years) and Alaska]. She meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Ms. Furnis is a skilled professional who is well -versed in the compliance procedures of CEQA, Section 106 of the NHPA and in working with a variety of federal, state, and local agencies. As an architectural historian, she has recorded hundreds of historic buildings and authored major architectural survey reports. Studies of built -environment resources include archival research, field investigation, significance criteria and determinations, assessment of impacts/effects, and management plans. She has experience evaluating and recommending historic properties for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. Coursework completed in World Architecture, Anthropology of Architecture, Vernacular Architecture, and a workshop on The Identification of Mid -Twentieth Century Buildings. SELECTED PROJECTS Historical Sites Preservation, Veterans Affairs Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. The undertakings involve eleven projects, divided into two construction phases for improvements to the campus. Cogstone reviewed prior reports and site records, conducted Section 106 Native American consultation, conducted consultation to develop a NAGPRA POA for all the projects and updated survey and evaluation of 19 buildings. One National Register -listed prehistoric archaeological site, the Puvungna Indian Village, is known on the campus. The appropriate DPR 523 record forms were completed. Architectural Historian. 2014 Rose Creek Bike Trail, SANDAG, San Diego, CA. Conducted a cultural resources constraints analysis for construction of a new 2 -mile bike trail. Prepared a Historic Resources Evaluation Report. The scope and size of the Architectural APE for the project changed over time, so a maximum of 17 buildings of historic age were recorded and evaluated for CEQA and Section 106 requirements, none was considered eligible for NRHP listing. Cogstone also prepared an ASR/HPSR set of technical reports. Sub to Nasland Engineering. Architectural Historian. 2013-2014 Blossom Plaza Mixed -Use Development, Forest City Development, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA. The project involves development of a mixed-use project adjacent to the Chinatown Gold Line Metro station. Records search, archaeological resources monitoring and artifact recovery of construction excavation on block containing portions of the Zanja Madre, historic Italian and other businesses and residences and a 19th Century hotel. Consulted with SHPO regarding the Unanticipated Discovery of the Zanja Madre brick conduit. Principal Archaeologist/Project Manager. 2014 South Access to Golden Gate Bridge—Doyle Drive P3 Project, FHWA/Caltrans District 4, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, San Francisco, CA. Cultural resources monitoring of road replacement impacting this National Historic Landmark --the Presidio of San Francisco, National Park Service -Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Work areas include the previously demolished Pan Pacific International Exposition buildings from 1915 and Presidio military installation remains. Coordinating with architectural consultants monitoring building vibration and assisting with field photography to document any damages during construction. Discoveries have included isolated artifacts, building remains, foundations, wood stave conduits and the railroad track. NHPA Section 106/CEQA compliance. Sub Flatiron. Project Manager. 2014-2015 24 1 Vintage Lofts Cultural c ® tone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY -HISTORY DALIA MOKAYED Architect and Historic Preservation Specialist Education 2015 University of Southern California, School of Architecture, Certificate in Heritage Conservation 2002 University of Aleppo, Syria, Faculty of Architecture, Certificate in Urban Planning 2001 University of Aleppo, Syria, Faculty of Architecture, B.Sc. in Architecture SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS Ms. Mokayed possesses comprehensive knowledge and experience in Heritage conservation. She is familiar with Heritage conservation legislation, policies and terminology, has knowledge and experience in city strategic planning and development, has more than 10 years of experience in Heritage conservation, and rehabilitation projects in the Middle East, and has experience in documenting historic buildings and producing building plans. She is also very knowledgeable about architectural design, plans, elevations and landscape drawings. Her expertise includes knowledge regarding informal settlements management and development. SELECTED PROJECTS Presonomics http://www.presonomics.org/, July 1, 2015 - Now Research Internship, An online internship position with a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the economic benefits of saving historic places. The first major initiative is to find all worldwide publications related to preservation economics and then organize them into one free online resource called the Presonomics Open Access Repository (POAR). City of Los Angeles, CA, March 2012- November 2012 Internship position in Code studies, Urban Planning Department, City of Los Angeles. Ms. Mokayed worked with the team on upgrading urban planning codes that govern LA parks. Her job was to research park codes in other cities in California, to compare it to "Quimby" law in the City of Los Angeles, and to find solutions to make the law more applicable and useful. City of Aleppo, Syria, 2002-2011 Co -Coordinator of Urban Development Program in cooperation with German Technical Cooperation (GIZ), City of Aleppo, Syria, Sept. 2008-2011 Ms. Mokayed worked to advance and implement the three subcomponents of the Aleppo Project: (1) the City Development Strategy for Aleppo; (2) Development related to the Informal Settlements; and (3) Rehabilitation of the Aleppo Old City. As part of this project, she served on the team producing the City Development Strategy (Madinatuna), with emphasis on the heritage, the urban spatial development, and the informal settlements of Aleppo. She was also a member of the planning team working on the development plan for the informal settlements with emphasis on urban planning, architecture, and social participatory field work. 25 Vintage Lofts Cultural coa—stone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY- HISTORY SARAH NAVA Archaeologist and GIS Education 2008 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach, 2008, Honor Roll 2013 Archaeology Field Program, PCIAP, California State University, Northridge, 2013, RPA Scholarship Recipient 2013 Completion of GIS Certification Program, Southwestern Community College, Honor Roll SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS Ms. Nava has a diverse background demonstrating skills in all areas of cultural management, i.e.; monitoring, survey, excavation, lab, data entry, and GIS. She has completed over 120 hours of cultural resource management workshops and has presented research data and conclusions at professional conferences. SELECTED PROJECTS Crew Chief, Section 110 Intensive Archaeological Inventory on Ranges at Naval Air Weapons (HAWS) China Lake; Conduct Section 110 archaeological inventory and site recording; Primary Client: Cultural Resource Analysts, Ultimate Client: NAVFAC Atlantic Division, August 24th, 2015 to Present Geospatial Technician, FY14 Section 110 Archaeological Evaluations and Eligibility Investigations on Ranges at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Kern County, CA; Produced maps depicting evaluations at seven prehistoric sites; June 15th, 2015 to November 26t1.2015 Crew Chief, FY 14 Section 110 Archaeological Surveys and Site Recordation as Supplemental, Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore, California; Conduct Section 110 archaeological survey and site recording; Client: NAVFAC Southwest Division, July 21", 2015 to July 31St 2015 Geospatial Technician, Desert Quartzite Solar Project, Palo Verde Mesa, Riverside County, CA; Site sketch maps and site location maps Client: First Solar; May 26th, 2015 to July 20th, 2015 Archaeological Field Technician, Emergency Archaeological Data Recovery at CA -LAN -2768, Marina del Rey, Los Angeles County, California; Laboratory Activities (wet screening, artifact sorting, artifact data entry; Client: Tishman Speyer; May 11t1, 2015 to June 11th, 2015 26 C tone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY -HISTORY Vintage Lofts Cultural ANDRE-JUSTIN C. SIMMONS Archaeologist EDUCATION 2015 M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton 2010 B.A., Anthropology and History, California State University, Fullerton, graduated cum laude 2007 A. A., History, Citrus College, Glendora, CA SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS Andre Simmons is a qualified archaeologist and cross -trained paleontologist with field experience in survey, monitoring, faunal analysis, and excavation. Simmons also has expertise in laboratory preparation and analysis gathered from internships at CSUF and volunteer experience at the Page Museum at the La Brea Tar Pits. Simmons has worked in Southern California conducting archaeology for six years, with four years of GIS experience, producing maps, databases, and doing geospatial analysis for four years. He is certified in GIS. SELECTED PROJECTS Bodie Hills FY14-15 Cultural Resources Survey, Desert Restoration Project, Bureau of Land Management, Bishop Field Office, Mono County, CA. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory survey of 2,721 acres of BLM land identified for vegetation management. Work includes records search, intensive pedestrian survey, archaeological resource inventory and NRHP site evaluations, and a technical report. The survey area is located between the Town of Bridgeport and Lee Vining. Field Director. 2014-2015 Bodie Hills FY13-14 Cultural Resources Survey, Desert Restoration Project, Bureau of Land Management, Bishop Field Office, Mono County, CA. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory survey of 3,500 acres of BLM land identified for vegetation management near Bridgeport. Performed all GIS work, produced all maps and uploaded the GIS data to the BLM system. The project involved recordation of over 40 new archaeological sites, updated conditions assessment of 17 previously recorded sites and provided initial NRHP eligibility recommendations to Principal Investigator. GIS Specialist. 2013-2014 Gas Training Facilities, Pacific Gas & Electric, Fairfield, Vacaville, Winters, Solano and Yolo Counties, CA. Performed background research, records searches, and produced GIS maps and figures. Cogstone conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the potential project -related effects on paleontological resources during construction of three proposed PG&E Gas Training Facilities. These studies were conducted in compliance with the CEQA. Sub to Cardo Entrix. Technician/GIS Specialist. 2014 Shady Creek Medical Center, Southern California Edison, Irvine, Orange County, CA. Prepared GIS maps and review dailies documenting archaeological monitoring during construction to replace and relocate electrical facilities in support of the medical center development. Ground -disturbing activities include removing six lattice towers; excavating for 11 tubular steel pole footings; excavating for 12 underground vaults; excavating approximately 2,200 linear feet of trench; removing and replacing four pole -top switches and their poles; and replacing a fifth pole -top switch without removing its pole. GIS Technician. 2014 Rio Hondo -Saugus 220kV Idle Line Removal, Southern California Edison, Angeles National Forest and Private Property, Los Angeles County, CA. Paleontological assessment that included a records search and recommendation for mitigation monitoring during removal of —2.5 miles of idle transmission line and 13 towers along with the associated foundations and hardware. Sub to Compass Rose. Field Technician/GIS Specialist. 2014 1 27 Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Report 1 1 1 1 PROJECT No. 1400 -CR GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 420 W. 6T" STREET TUSTIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR INTRACORP COMPANIES 4041 MACARTHUR BLVD., SUITE 250 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92618 PREPARED BY GEOTEK, INC. 710 EAST PARKRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE 105 CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92879 GEOTEK FEBRUARY I, 2016 GeoTek, Inc. 710 E. Parkridge Avenue, Suite 105, Corona, California 92879-1097 (951) 710-1160 Office (951) 710-1167 Fax www.geotekusa.com February 1, 2016 Project No. 1400 -CR Intracorp Companies 4041 Mac Arthur Blvd., Suite 250 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Ms. Jennifer L. Chirco-Coker Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 420 W. 6`h Street Tustin, Orange County, California Dear Ms. Chirco-Coker: We are pleased to provide the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed development located at 420 W. 6`h Street in Tustin, Orange County, California. This report presents the results of our evaluation, discussion of our findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction. In our opinion, site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoTek, Inc. Edward H. LaMont CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/16 Principal Geologist Paul Hyun Jin Kim PE 77214, Exp. 06/30/17 Project Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file) tx\Projects\1351 to 1400\1400CR Intracorp Companies 420 W. 6th Street Tustin1400CR W. 6th Street Tustin GEO.doc 1 H INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6w Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES......................................................................................................1 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................1 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................................. 2 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................... 2 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION...................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................................................. 2 3.3 PERCOLATION TEST INFORMATION................................................................................................................. 2 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS....................................................................................................3 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING....................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................... 4 4.2.1 Alluvium................................................................................................................................................4 4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER....................................................................................................... 4 4.3.1 Surface Water....................................................................................................................................... 4 4.3.2 Groundwater.........................................................................................................................................4 4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY........................................................................................................................... 5 4.4.1 Faulting.................................................................................................................................................5 4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters.................................................................................................................... 5 4.5 LIQUEFACTION.............................................................................................................................................. 6 4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS............................................................................................................................. 7 S. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 7 5.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................................................7 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................................... 7 5.2.1 General................................................................................................................................................. 7 5.2.2 Site Clearing and Preparation................................................................................................................. 8 5.2.3 Removals.............................................................................................................................................. 8 5.2.4 Engineered Fill....................................................................................................................................... 8 5.2.5 Shrinkage and Bulking........................................................................................................................... 9 5.2.6 Trench Excavations and Backfill ............................................................................................................. 9 5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................ 9 5.3.1 Conventional Slab and Shallow Foundation Design Criteria...................................................................... 9 5.3.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations........................................................................................ 12 5.3.3 Retaining Wall Design and Construction............................................................................................... 13 5.3.4 Soil Corrosivity..................................................................................................................................... 15 5.3.5 Soil Sulfate Content............................................................................................................................. 16 5.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION......................................................................................................................... 16 5.4.1 General...............................................................................................................................................16 5.4.2 Concrete Mix Design........................................................................................................................... 16 5.4.3 Concrete Flatwork............................................................................................................................... 16 5.5 5.4.4 Concrete Performance......................................................................................................................... POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION......................................................................................................... 16 17 5.5.1 Irrigation............................................................................................................................................. 17 ir� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange CountV, California Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.5.2 Drainage............................................................................................................................................. 18 5.6 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................... 18 6. INTENT.............................................................................................................................................................19 7. LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................................................19 8. SELECTED REFERENCES............................................................................................................................20 ENCLOSURES Figure I — Site and Boring Location Map Appendix A — Logs of Exploratory Borings ADpendix BB — Results of Laboratory Testing Appendix C — Liquefaction Evaluation Output Summary Appendix D — General Earthwork Grading Guidelines 1 Ell GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page I 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions in the immediate vicinity of proposed site construction. Services provided for this study included the following: ■ Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site; ■ Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of 7 exploratory borings; ■ Percolation (infiltration) testing; ■ Laboratory testing of soil samples collected during the field investigation; ■ Review and evaluation of site seismicity; and ■ Compilation of this geotechnical report which presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for this site. 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The trapezoid -like shaped 7.43± acre site is located on the south side of W. 6`h Street between the intersections with S. B Street and Pacific Street in the city of Tusitin, Orange County, California. The site is currently developed with several multi -tenant commercial buildings. Asphalt drive aisles and parking is developed between the buildings. Some minor landscaping is provided throughout the property. The site is relatively level with an approximate total relief across the site of up to 3 feet, sloping down toward the south. The site is bounded to the east by S. B Street, to the south by the Interstate 5 freeway, and to the north by W. 6`h Street. The adjacent property to the west is developed with a warehouse - type commercial building. The west adjacent building is situated approximately 3 feet from the property line. "C� GE_OTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County. California Page 2 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on the conceptual plans provided, the proposed development will consist of the construction of 74, two- and three-story residential units and 68 loft -type units, up to four - stories in height. A pool, clubhouse and open space areas are also planned. Streets as well as alleyways are planned throughout the proposed development. Specific structural information was not provided to us. It is anticipated that the proposed buildings will be of wood framed construction. Minimal cuts and fills would likely be required for site development and major slope and retaining wall construction is not anticipated. No basements or below grade building structures are anticipated. 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for this investigation was conducted on January 13, 2016 and consisted of excavating seven exploratory borings with the aid of a truck -mounted drill rig to depths of 12 to 51 %2 feet. Two of the borings (B-4 and B-7) were utilized for percolation tests. The borings were drilled within the proposed development as shown on the attached Site and Boring Location Map (Figure 1). An engineer from our firm logged the excavations and collected soil samples for use in subsequent laboratory testing. The logs of the exploratory borings are included in Appendix A. 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed samples collected during the field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the materials encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the engineering design and analysis. Results of the laboratory testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendices A and B. 3.3 PERCOLATION TEST INFORMATION As requested, GeoTek performed percolation (infiltration) tests within the subject site at the approximate locations indicated in Figure I. Percolation testing was conducted to an 'P� GEOTEK 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 3 approximate depth of 27'/2 feet and 46%2 feet below existing grade (bgs) within test locations I- 2 and 1-I, respectively (see Figure 1). The boring diameters were each approximately 8 inches. Approximately 2 inches of gravel was placed on the bottom of each infiltration boring excavation. A 3 -inch diameter perforated PVC pipe, wrapped in filter sock was placed in the boring excavations and the annular space was filled with gravel to prevent caving within each boring. The borings were then filled with water to pre-soak the hole. The holes were allowed to pre-soak overnight and the percolation test was performed the next day. The results were converted to an infiltration rate via the Porchet Method as per Technical Guidance Document by the County of Orange. Based on the results of our testing, the test locations have an infiltration rate of approximately 0.9 and 4.9 in/hr at locations 1-1 and 1-2, respectively. Note that variations may occur within the site and with depth. We recommend that an appropriate factor of safety be applied to account for these conditions. 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING The site is situated in the Peninsular Ranges province, which is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. Basically, it extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, approximately 900 miles south to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest -southeast oriented fault blocks. Three major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone trend northwest -southeast and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province. More specific to the property, the site is located in an area geologically mapped to be underlain by alluvial materials (Morton and Miller, 2006). .r� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 4 4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in this section. Based on our site reconnaissance, our exploratory excavations and review of published geologic maps, the area investigated is locally underlain by engineered fills and alluvial materials. 4.2.1 Alluvium Alluvium was observed in all the borings. The alluvium generally consists of loose to dense sand with variable amounts of silt, gravel and cobbles. Deeper portions of the alluvium also consisted of sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay. 4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER 4.3.1 Surface Water If encountered during the earthwork construction, surface water on this site is the result of precipitation or possibly some minor surface run-off from the surrounding areas. Overall site area drainage is in an easterly direction. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer. 4.3.2 Groundwater Water was not encountered in our exploratory borings. Historic high groundwater is approximately at 40 feet bgs based on the review of seismic hazard zone report for the Tustin quadrangle. It is possible that seasonal variations (temperature, rainfall, etc.) will cause fluctuations in the groundwater level. Additionally, perched water may be encountered in discontinuous zones within the overburden. The groundwater levels presented in this report are the levels that were measured at the time of our field activities or as indicated in the referenced sources. It is recommended that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the site at the time of the construction activities to determine the impact, if any, on the construction procedures. _'f� GEOT.EK 1 1 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 5 4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 4.4.1 Faulting The geologic structure of the entire California area is dominated mainly by northwest -trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within a State of California designated "Alquist-Priolo" Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest zoned fault is the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone, located approximately 10'/4 miles to the southwest and the Whittier Fault, located approximately I I''/i miles to the northeast. 4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters The site is located at approximately latitude: 33.7393°N and longitude: -117.8271°W. Site spectral accelerations (Ss and Si), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class "D" site, were determined from the USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards Program, U.S. Seismic Design Maps for Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Ground Motion Response Accelerations for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude/Longitude. The results are presented in the following table: ­SITESEISMIC11,ARAMETERS Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, 1.480g Ss Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, 0.544g S, Site Coefficient for Site Class "C", Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient for Site Class "C", Fv 1.5 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.480g Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SM5 Maximum Considered Earthquake- Spectral 0.816g Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM, 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.9878 Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, Soy 5% Damped Design Spectral , Response 0.5448 Acceleration Parameter at I second, So, Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism. "C" G E O T E K INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W 6th Street. Tustin Orange County California Page 6 4.5 LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake - induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has developed, the effects can propagate upward into overlying non -saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. The -factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures. The subject site is not mapped within a zone of potentially liquefiable soils by the Department of Conservation (CGS). However, the boundary for the liquefaction zone is located along the south property line. In order to evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction at this site, we performed an analysis utilizing the LIQUEFYPRO computer software program. For this analysis, we utilized a groundwater depth of 40 feet (historic high from the CGS Seismic Hazard Report) and a ground acceleration of 0.537g (USGS seismic design maps). The mean magnitude was estimated utilizing the USGS 2008 Interactive Deaggregations website. The USGS interactive website requires an estimate of the shear wave velocity for the upper 30 meters of the site (Vs30) and the geographic location of the site. Based on the results of the seismic survey, we have utilized a Vs30 = 275 m/s which corresponds to Soil Site Class D. The website provides a mean magnitude of M = 6.6. Cohesive soils are considered liquefiable if they possess a plastic index less than 12 (PI<12) and the in-situ water content is greater than 0.85 times the liquid limit (w>0.85LL) and are below the groundwater table. The results of this analysis indicate that the clayey soils between a depth of about 50 to 51 V2 feet below grade are not liquefiable because they possess a plastic index greater than 12 or in-situ moisture content less than 0.85LL. The results of the analysis indicate that the subsurface soils between 40 feet and 45 feet are potentially susceptible to liquefaction upon the application of the design earthquake. Based on the analysis performed, we a total estimated seismic -induced settlement of approximately I inch with an estimated V2 inch of differential settlement across a 40 feet span. Due to the "P� G E O.T E K INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange CountV, California Page 7 relative thickness of the overlying non -liquefiable soils, surface manifestations resulting for soil liquefaction are not likely. We recommend that the structural engineer evaluate the seismic - induced settlement and determine the impact on the existing and/or proposed improvements. The output file from the analysis is provided within Appendix C. 4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during our investigation. Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as a seiche and tsunami are considered to be negligible due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water. S. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL The proposed development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into design and construction. The testing indicates that the upper earth materials are subject to moderate collapse (soil collapse of approximately 2.5 %) upon saturation. Due to the moderate collapse potential, we recommend that the upper 5 feet of earth materials be removed and replaced as engineered fill. Due to its sandy nature, the surbsurface soils are considered in the "very low" expansion range. 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS 5.2.1 General Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Tustin, the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix D outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix D. Overexcavation and recompaction is recommended below 'P� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February. I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 8 foundation elements to provide a uniform bearing material and to remove the soils with higher collapse potential. 5.2.2 Site Clearing and Preparation Site preparation should commence with removal of deleterious materials and vegetation and the demolition of the existing improvements. Demolition should include removal of existing buildings, floor slabs, foundations and other below -grade construction. Existing underground utilities should either be properly capped off at the property boundaries and removed or be re- routed around the new development. All soils disturbed by the demolition and clearing operations should be removed and stockpiled on-site for future use as engineered fill. All debris and deleterious materials generated by the site stripping and demolition operations should be legally disposed off-site. 5.2.3 Removals The upper 5 feet of the existing earth materials should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. At a minimum, 3 feet of engineered fill should be provided below the bottom_ of the proposed footings and floor -slabs. The lateral extent of removals should extend at least 5 feet outside the footings and floor - slabs, or a distance equal to the depth of overexcavation below the bottom of the structural elements, whichever is greater. A minimum 2 feet of engineered fill should be provided below and beyond pavement subgrade. A representative of this firm should observe the bottom of all excavations. Upon approval, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, moistened to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). 5.2.4 Engineered Fill On-site materials are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are free from vegetation, roots, and other deleterious material. Rock fragments greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be incorporated into engineered fill. Engineered fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% (ASTM D 1557). The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to 95%. ."C� GEOTEK 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 9 5.2.5 Shrinkage and Bulking Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, subsidence, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography. Shrinkage and subsidence are primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive effort achieved during construction, depth of fill and underlying site conditions. For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of up to 5 to 15 percent may be considered for the materials requiring removal and recompaction. Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of site earthwork construction. Subsidence on the order of 0.1 feet may occur. 5.2.6 Trench Excavations and Backfill Trench excavations should conform to Cal -OSHA regulations. The contractor should have a competent person, per OSHA requirements, on site during construction to observe conditions and to make the appropriate recommendations. Utility trench backfill should consist of sandy soil with a "very low" expansion potential and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (as determined per ASTM D 1557). Where applicable, based on jurisdictional requirements, the top 12 inches of backfill below subgrade for road pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. jetting of trench backfill is not recommended. If soils to be used as backfill have dried out, they should be thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches. 5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary foundation design criteria for on -grade slabs, conventional foundations and deepened foundations are presented in this report. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. 5.3.1 Conventional Slab and Shallow Foundation Design Criteria Preliminary design criteria for a conventional foundation system, in general conformance with the 2013 CBC, are presented for the proposed mixed-use structure. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. A summary of our preliminary conventional foundation design recommendations is tabulated below: GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 10 GFOTFC14NICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN . . DESIGN PARAMETER 0<EI<20 Foundation Depth or Minimum Perimeter Beam 18 Depth (inches below lowest adjacent grade) Minimum Foundation Width (inches)* 12 Minimum Slab Thickness (inches) 4 (actual) Sand Blanket and Moisture Retardant 2 inches of sand ** overlying moisture vapor Membrane Below On -Grade Building Slabs retardant membrane overlying 2 inches of sand ** Minimum Slab Reinforcing 6"x6" — W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric placed in middle of slab Minimum Reinforcement for Continuous Two No. 4 reinforcing Bars, one placed near the Footings, Grade Beams and Retaining Wall top and one near the bottom Footings Presaturation of Subgrade Soil Minimum of 100% of the optimum moisture (Percent of Optimum/Depth in Inches) content to a depth of at least 12 inches prior to placing concrete * Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2013 CBC ** Sand should have a Sand Equivalent of at least 30 It should be noted that the above recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the slab and beam reinforcement based on actual loading conditions. The following criteria for design of foundations should be implemented: 5.3.1.1. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous footings 18 inches deep and 12 inches wide, and pad footings 24 inches square and 18 inches deep. This value may be increased by 300 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth and 200 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 5.3.1.2 The recommended allowable bearing capacity is based on a total post -construction settlement of one (1) inch. Differential settlement of up to one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 40 feet could result. 5.3.1.3 Spread footings for an individual structure should be tied together in two orthogonal directions with either reinforced grade -beams and/or continuous footings to provide a more rigid and monolithic shallow foundation system. 'r' GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page I I 5.3.1.4 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 psf for footings founded in engineered fill. A coefficient of friction between engineered fill and concrete of 0.40 may be used with dead load forces. The top foot of passive resistance at foundations should be neglected unless the ground surface around the foundation is covered by concrete or pavement. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one- third. 5.3.1.5 A grade beam, 12 inches wide by 18 inches deep (minimum), should be utilized across large openings. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. 5.3.1.6 A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs -on -grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these systems are provided in the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2 and the 2013 CBC Section 1907.1 and ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also meet the requirements of ASTM E 1643. A portion of the vapor retarder design should be the implementation of a moisture vapor retardant membrane. It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g. stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. Although the CBC specifies a 6 mil vapor retarder membrane, it is GeoTek's opinion that a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. The membrane should consist of Stego wrap or the equivalent. Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and environmental conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water .and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e., GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6w Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 12 thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level. Consideration should be given to consulting with an individual possessing specific expertise in this area for -additional evaluation. Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate, moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarders should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, Post -Tensioning Concrete Institute, ASTM and California Building Code requirements and guidelines. GeoTek recommends that a qualified person, such as the flooring contractor, structural engineer, and/or architect be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. That person (or persons) should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures as deemed appropriate. In addition, the recommendations in this report and our services in general are not intended to address mold prevention, since we along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in areas of mold prevention. If specific recommendations are desired, a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted. 5.3.1.7 We recommend that control joints be placed in two orthogonal directions spaced approximately 24 to 36 times the thickness of the slab in inches. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks and should be reviewed. by the project structural engineer. 5.3.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations 5.3.2.1 Isolated exterior footings should be tied back to the main foundation system in two orthogonal directions. . 5.3.2.2 To reduce moisture penetration beneath the slab on grade areas, utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge. 1 "C� GEOTE-K 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 13 5.3.2.3 Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab -on -grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement. 5.3.3 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 5.3.3.1 General Design Criteria Recommendations presented in this report apply to typical masonry or concrete retaining walls to a maximum height of up to 6 feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. Retaining wall foundations should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into engineered fill and should be designed in accordance with Section 5.3.1 of this report. Structural needs may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer. All earth retention structure plans, as applicable, should be reviewed by this office prior to finalization. The seismic design parameters as discussed in this report remain applicable to all proposed earth retention structures at this site, and should be properly incorporated into the design and construction of the structures. Earthwork considerations, site clearing and remedial earthwork for all earth retention structures should meet the requirements of this report, unless specifically provided otherwise, or more stringent requirements or recommendations are made by the designer. The backfill material placement for all earth retention structures should meet the requirement of Section 5.3.3.4 in this report. In general, cantilever earth retention structures, which are designed to yield at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the height of the earth retention structure to the base of its footing, may be designed using the active condition. Rigid earth retention structures (including but not limited to rigid walls, and walls braced at top, such as typical basement walls) should be designed using the at -rest condition. In addition to the design lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharges due to improvements, such as an adjacent building or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the earth retention structures. Loads applied within a I:I (h:v) projection from the surcharge on the stem and footing of the earth retention structure should be considered in the design. "C� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street. Tustin, Orange County, California Page 14 Final selection of the appropriate design parameters should be made by the designer of the earth retention structures. 5.3.3.2 Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 6 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, adjacent structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions. * The design pressures assume the backfill material has an expansion index less than or equal to 20. Backfill zone includes area between back of the wall to a plane (1:1 h:v) up from bottom of the wall foundation (on the backside of the wall) to the (sloped) ground surface. 5.3.3.3 Restrained Retaining Walls We anticipatethat the basement retaining walls may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for at -rest conditions based on a level backfill condition. This does not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, adjacent structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions. 5.3.3.4 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to help prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a four (4) -inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent) embedded in a minimum of one (1) cubic foot per linear foot of 3/4- to [-inch clean crushed rock or an approved equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or an approved equivalent). The '_C� GEOTEK 1 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page IS drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the wall is undesirable. Retaining wall backfill should be placed in lifts no greater than eight (8) inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. The wall backfill should also include a minimum one (1) foot wide section of 3/4- to I -inch clean crushed rock (or an approved equivalent). The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from a back drain to within approximately 12 inches of the finish grade. The upper 12 inches should consist of compacted on-site soil. As an alternative to the drain rock and fabric, Miradrain 2000, or approved equivalent, may be used behind the retaining wall. The Miradrain 2000 should extend from the base of the wall to within 2 feet of the ground surface. A perforated pipe should be placed at the base of the wall in direct contact with the Miradrain 2000. The Miradrain fabric at the base of the Miradrain 2000 panel should be wrapped around the perforated pipe to prevent soil intrusion into the pipe. The presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of the wall designs. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. 5.3.3.5 Other Design Considerations ■ Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate. ■ No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders. ■ The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts, and backfill materials should be approved the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative. 5.3.4 Soil Corrosivity The soil resistivity at this site was tested in the laboratory on one sample collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing (minimum Resistivity = 2,400 ohm -cm) indicate that the on-site soils are considered "severely corrosive" to buried ferrous metal in accordance with current standards used by corrosion engineers. We recommend that a corrosion engineer be consulted to provide recommendations for the protection of buried ferrous metal at this site. C� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County. California Page 16 5.3.5 Soil Sulfate Content The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory for one on-site soil sample. The results indicate that the water soluble sulfate result is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered "not applicable" (negligible) as per Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318. 5.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 5.4.1 General Concrete construction should follow the 2013 CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide quality control testing of the concrete during construction. 5.4.2 Concrete Mix Design As indicated in Section 5.3.7, no special concrete mix design is required by Code to resist sulfate attack based on the existing test results. However, additional testing should be performed during grading so that specific recommendations can be formulated based on the as - graded conditions. 5.4.3 Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork is often one of the most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, being considered "non-structural" components. Cracking of these features is fairly common due to various factors. While cracking is not usually detrimental, it is unsightly. We suggest that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself. Flatwork may consist of 4 -inch thick concrete and the use of reinforcement is suggested. The project structural engineer should provide final design recommendations. 5.4.4 Concrete Performance Concrete cracks should be expected.. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially unnoticeable to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time. I 'P� GEO.T.EK 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6w Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 17 One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. GeoTek suggests that control joints be placed in two orthogonal directions and located a distance apart approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness. 5.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION 5.5.1 Irrigation Control of irrigation water is a necessary part of site maintenance. Soggy ground, near -surface perched water, or seeps may result if irrigation water is excessively or improperly applied. All irrigation systems should be adjusted to provide the minimum water needed to sustain landscaping and prevent excessive drying of the soils. Generally significant runoff during an irrigation cycle indicates excessive irrigation, while soils which dry to a depth of more than several inches between irrigation cycles indicate inadequate irrigation. Adjustments should be made for changes in the climate and rainfall. Irrigation should stop when sufficient water is provided by precipitation. It is important to avoid repeated wetting and drying of the slope surface, which may cause the soil to crack, loosen and/or slowly move laterally (creep) downslope. Landscaping and irrigation will reduce repeated wetting and drying of the slopes. It is important to maintain uniform soil moisture conditions adjacent to the structure to reduce soil expansion and shrinkage that can cause cracking to the structure. Irrigation should be utilized to prevent the soils from drying to a depth more than several inches. Broken, leaking or plugged sprinklers or irrigation lines should be repaired immediately. Frequent inspections of the irrigation systems should be performed. It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type of landscaping should be avoided. If used, then extreme care should be exercised with regard to the irrigation and drainage in these areas. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or subdrains may be necessary and advisable. "C� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W 6th Street Tustin Orange County, California Page 18 5.5.2 Drainage The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground adjacent to the footings. Soil areas within 10 feet of the proposed structure should slope at a minimum of 5 percent away from the building, if possible unless the area is paved. Paved areas are to be sloped at 2 percent away from the structure. Roof gutters and downspouts should discharge onto paved surfaces sloping away from the structure or into a closed pipe system which outfalls to the street gutter pan or directly to the storm drain system. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved areas and not be blocked by other improvements. It is the owner's responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season. 5.6 , PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to observe and document for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should have GeoTek perform at least the following duties: ■ Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials. ■ Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. ■ Evaluate the'suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary. ■ Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test the fill for field density, relative compaction and moisture content. ■ Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials. Observed retaining wall subdrain. If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over "C� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 19 the project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained 6. INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored that is shown on the Boring Location Flap (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client's needs, our proposal (Proposal No. P -I 100 115) dated November 2, 2015 and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 7. LIMITATIONS Our findings are based on site conditions observed and the stated sources. Thus, our comments are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. GeoTek has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. Since our recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been 'f� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 20 derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty of any kind is expressed or implied. Standards of care/practice are subject to change with time. 8. SELECTED REFERENCES American Concrete Institute '(ACI), 2006, Publication 302.2R-06, Guide for Concrete Slabs That Receive. Moisture Sensitive Flooring Materials. 2010, Publications 360R-10, Guide to Design of Slabs -On -Ground. Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 "California Building Code," 3 volumes. California Division of. Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, Califonria, SHZR-012. GeoTek, Inc., In' -house proprietary information. Morton and Miller, 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangles, USGS, OF -2006-1217, Scale I :100,000. Seismic Design Values for Buildings(http://geohazards.usgs.gov/desi.enmaps/us/application.ahp). 1 GEOT.EK 7 1 1 LEGEND B-7 +Approximate Location of Soil Boring 11-2 Approximate Location of Percolation (Infiltration) Test Intracorp Companies 420 W. 6t' Street N City of Tusint Orange County, California GeoTek Project No. 1400 -CR Figure I Site and Boring Location Map E 0 T E APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 420 W. 6th Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR 'r� GEOTEK 1 1 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County. California Page A- I A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES The Modified Split -Barrel Sampler (Ring) The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1 -inch high, thin brass rings with an inside diameter of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140 -pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. The Split -Spoon Sampler (SPT) During the sampling procedure, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The SPT for soil borings is performed by driving a split -spoon sampler with an outside diameter of 2 inches into the undisturbed formation located at the bottom of the advanced borehole with repeated blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler for three consecutive 6 -inch intervals were recorded, and the sum of the blow counts for the last 12 inches of penetration is a measure of the soil consistency. Samples were identified in the field, placed in sealed containers and transported to the laboratory for further classification and testing. Bulk Samples (Large) These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. B - BORING LOG LEGEND The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the log of boring: SOILS USCS Unified Soil Classification System f -c Fine to coarse f -m Fine to medium GEOLOGIC B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip C: Contact line ........... Dashed line denotes USCS material change Solid Line denotes unit / formational change Thick solid line denotes end of boring (Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the log of boring) GEOTEK CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: Intracorp 420 W. 6th Street 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY - DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 1409/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 1 1 1 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o Boring No.: B-1ai o A MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS p 6" asphalt over 3" base, with petromat layer at 1/2" SM Silty f SAND, light brown to brown, slightly moist, loose 4 7.5 109.4 5 6 5 — 4 -- — SP --- — ----------------------------------------------------- f SAND, light brown to brown, slightly moist, loose ------- 4.7 -- 103.0 — —------------ — 6 6 5 m -f SAND 3.1 102.3 e 7 o— — 5 --- SM --------------- ----- - ------ ---- ----- -- ------------ ----- --- ------ Silty f SAND, light brown and tan, slighty moist, medium dense ---- 6.2 ---- 106.2 — — — II 12 -- 3 ---- --- ML --- ——-------------- —----- —------ — --------------- -------------- f Sandy SILT, brown, slightly moist, firm ------ 11.7 ------- ---------------------- 3 3 20 — ... _ ------ 4 ------------------------------ SP -- ------------------------------------------- m -f SAND, light brown, slightlymoist, medium dense ------- 5.6 ------- ------ — — — — — 8 7 Boring Terminated at 21.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 25 30 ZSample type: © —Ring ®—SPT Z—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery Q —Water Table to U AL = Atterberg Limps EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test J Lab testing: SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLIENT: Intracorp PROJECT NAME: 420 W. 6th Street PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR LOCATION: Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem HAMMER: 140N/30" LOGGED BY: R. Hanker OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/1312016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o c= E y ` a � Boring No.: B-2 a it. o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ; 0 5" asphalt over 4.5 base with petromat layer at 1/2" ML Sandy SILT, light brown, sligthly moist, firm, trace gravel 3 13.2 112.1 --y ----------------------------------- — ---------------- -------- ------- ----------------------------- —L-- 12 ------- ------ SM --------------------------- Siltym-f SAND, brown, slightly miost, medium dense, trace gravel 5 5 brown to light brown, loose 7.0 97.3 Fines = 36% 5 5 _------- 3 ________ ________ SM _______________________________________________________________________________—______—_____ f Sandy SILT, reddish brown, slightly moist to moist, firm ------------------ 15.9 100.3 _____________________________ Fines = 59% 3 5 10– 3 SP – – -----=----------------- m -c SAND, tan to brown, slightly moist, loose -------- 3.1 -------- 101.1 ---------------------------- 6 7 5 -- --------- 2 --------------------------------------------1 ML —9 Y — — -------- ----------------------------- SII f SAND, brown, SII htl molst t0 mOISt, (Dose ------- 13.9 -------- ---------------------------- Fines = 47% 3 2 20 --------------------------------- — ----------------- — -------------- — — ------ — ---------------------- --- -------------- — ----- — --------------- — --- 4 SP m -c SAND, tan to light brown, slightly moist, medium dense 3.4 6 9 Boring Terminated at 21.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. 1 No Ground Water Encountered 25 30 Z : mg —SPT —Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk —No Recovery Q —Water Table Sample type --B LU W AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysls RV= R -Value Test Lab LU testing: SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Inmatorp DRILLER: 2R Drilling 420 W. 6th Street DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem 1400 -CR HAMMER: 140#130' Tustin, CA LOGGED BY: R Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME7S DATE: 1#13#2016 1 1 1 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing E e" o Boring No.: B-3 a i u E o s $$ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ; 0 4.5" asphalt over 4" base with petromat layer at 112" SP m -c SAND, tan to light brown, slighty moist, medium dense, trace gravel 6 II 2.7 105.3 15 5 9 trace cobbles 3.8 113.3 16 23 I I increased gravel and cobble content 4.3 16 (sample disturbed) 20 10 I6 dense 3.1 104.3 I8 40 15 5 medium dense 3.4 Fines 4% 9 14 20 7 3.4 12 13 25 9 dense 2.9 16 29 30 - ------ - CL Ty -9 -------9--- ------- - - ----------- Sil CLAY, li ht brown, slightly moist to moist, firm ------ 18.5 --------- 25; P------ --------- 10 LL -25; PL -I5; PI - lo z 3 ZSample type: 91 —Ring M—SPT Z—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk 1:1—N,? Recovery Q —Water Table LU Wss AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Amlysls RV = R -Value Test Lab -j testin SR = Sulfatellkesiskivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 1 1 1 I I F 1.., -9 , — Intratorp 420 W. 6th Sweet 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hanks Cody/George CME 75 111312016 CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: Laboratory Testing PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: I I F 1.., -9 , — Intratorp 420 W. 6th Sweet 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hanks Cody/George CME 75 111312016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 5 Boring No.: B-3 (Cont.) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 30 (see previous page) 35 -- --------- 4 ------ --------- SM — ------ — -------------------------------- — ------ — ---------------------------------- — ----- Silty f SAND, brown, slighty moist, medium dense, trace gravel ------------------ 9.0 ----------------------------- Fines = 28% 7 7 40 -- ----�--- j -----------__---------------1------------ iFm-cSAN ------------9- _y -- o"--------------------------------------- wth Gravel, brown,lihtImist,medium dense --1_- -- 6 -------- — ---------------------------- 12 7 45 -- --------- 4 --------- ------- ------------------------------9 SM ------------------------------ — ------ — ----------------------- Silty f SAND, brown, slihtly moist to moist, medium dense ------ 12.7 --------- --------------------------- 7 so — -- -------- i ------------------ CL -------------------------------------------- — ---------------- — -------- — --------------------- Silty CLAY, mottled light brown and grey, moist, firm, some fine sand in tip ------------------ 29.6 --------- --24----------- LL --;I, C=PI=17 3 of sample 4 Boring Terminated at 51.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 55 60 Z0 le type: —Ring _SPT Z_Srnall Bulk Large Bulk —No Recovery 5Z —Water Table LU — AL = Atterberg Limits El = Expansion Index SA = Save Analysis RV = R -Value Test Lab testono SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density CLIENT: Intracorp PROJECT NAME: 420 W. 6th Street PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR LOCATION: Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 21K Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#130° RIG TYPE: DATE: R Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1 1 1 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o e E 0 Boring No: B-4 d d u o g 3 � E o — 9 O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ; 0 sp m -c SAND, tan, slightly moist, dense, some cobbles and gravel 24 4.2 107.4 25 26 5 17 (sample disturbed) 2.0 24 26 12 (sample disturbed) 2.2 23 17 10 I5 2.5 116.2 20 27 J IS IS 2.8 23 28 20 12 2.6 17 IB 25 -- ------ 6 ------ ------ SP -------------------------- —--y------------------------------------------------------- m -c SAND, dark tan, slightly moist, medium dense -----.2 -- 3 --------- --------- ------------------- 10 10 30— — ------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -- --------- --------- -------------- -- 3 ML Cla aySILT, dark brown, sli htl moist, stiff y 9 y 12.5 5 5 ZSample W type: ° —Ring M —SPT Z—Small Bulk ®--Large Bulk 0 ---No Recovery �_ —Water Table W AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test Lab testis¢: � SR = Sullate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 1 1 1 1 1 Inrsacorp 420 W. 6d1 Street 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: R. Hanks DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Cody/George HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/1312016 CLIENT: SAMPLES PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: 1 1 Inrsacorp 420 W. 6d1 Street 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: R. Hanks DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Cody/George HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/1312016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing d E �o Boring No.: B-4 (Cont.) d a z' e E .2 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ; 30 (see previous page) 35 — 5 ---- ---------- sM ---------------------—–------- –---- –-------- —--------------- -------------- Siltyf SAND, brown, slig hl moist, medium dense -------- 8.3 -------- -------------------------- 5 5 40- – – ---- --------------------- -- 3 ML f Sandy SILT, light brown, slightly miost to moi moist, stiff, trace clay 17.6 3 6 45 — 13 — -sm-- SM ---ty -- ,---- wn,- --g- y moist, --medium edium------------------------------------- Sil f SAND, brown, sli htl moist, medium dense --8.3- 8.3 -------- --------------------------- 7 -------- SPSAND, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tan, slighlly moist, medium dense ---------- ------ ---------------------------- Boring Terminated at 46.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 5o 55 60 Z Sample tv"oe: —War Table 91 —Ring M —SPT Z—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery S te w 0 wLab AL = Aaerberg U.I. EI = Expansion Index SA = Sleve Analysis RV = R -Value Test testing• SR = Sulfate/Resisidviry Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density CLIENT: Intratorp PROJECT NAME: 420 W. 6th Street PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR LOCATION: Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/1312016 1 1 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing EBoring = d No.: B-5 a °ae v a ; o O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 0 6" asphalt over 3" base with petromate layer at 1/2" 5P m -f SAND, brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense, some gravel 4 6.0 108.8 9 13 5 — Is — — sP -------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. SAND with Gravel and Cobbles, tan, slightly moist, medium dense 1.9 ------- 1 1 1.8 --------------------- 19 20 8 m -c SAND 1.8 103.3 17 25 10 — 2o — — sP — –-------------------------- 9 ----- – —-------------------- c SAND with Gravel and Cobbles, tan, sli hi moist, dense ----------------- 1.8 ------------------- 30 (sample disturbed) 40 Refusal at 12' (Large rock suspected) Boring Terminated at 12 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 15 20 25 30 Z Sample type: —ng N —SPT Z—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery —Water Table Ri w W . AL = Anterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sl— Analysis RV = R -Value Test L Lab testlne: SR = Su#ate/Resisidviry Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 1 1 1 1 GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Intracorp DRILLER: 2R Drilling 420 W. 6th Street DRILL METHOD: Hollow Scem 1400 -CR Tustin, CA HAMMER: 140#/30" LOGGED BY: R. Harks OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1113/2016 CLIENT: SAMPLES PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: 1 1 GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Intracorp DRILLER: 2R Drilling 420 W. 6th Street DRILL METHOD: Hollow Scem 1400 -CR Tustin, CA HAMMER: 140#/30" LOGGED BY: R. Harks OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1113/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing a cZ E u o Boring No.: B-6 6 o F 'E. Z o g 12 O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 0 4" asphalt over 4.5' base with petromat layer at 1/2" 5P -SM f. SAND with Silt, light brown, loose slightly moist 5 r- a 3.3 119.6 Fines = 13% 6 5 5 4.8 104.9 6 8 10 3 slightly moist to moist 10.5 113.5 4 6 15 -- -------- 4 ----------------------------------- ML — ---------------------------------- — ------ — -------------------------------- Clayey SILT, brown, slighlty moist to moist, stiff -------- 15.6 -------- -------------------------- -- 4 6 20 3 firm 20.5 3 5 Boring Terminated at 21.5 Peet Boring backfilled with excavated soils, No Ground Water Encountered 25 30 ZSample w type: N —Ring N—SPT ®—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery �_ —Water Table AL = Accerberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test Lab testing SR = Sullacelftesisidviry Test SH =Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD =Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING CLIENT: Intracorp DRILLER: 2R Drilling PROJECT NAME: 420 W. 6th Street DRILL METHOD: Hollow Seem PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR HAMMER: 1401/30' LOCATION: Tustin, CA LOGGED BY: R. Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 7S DATE: 111312016 1 1 1 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing w E r a Boring No.: B-7 a o d s O r MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 0 SM Silty f SAND, brown, slighly moist to moist, loose, trace gravel 4 10.6 99.8 4 6 5 4 decrease gravel content 10.6 110.8 5 7 6 m -f SAND, trace gravel 3.8 101.9 6 5 10— 4 — ML ------------------------------------------------------ f Sandy SILT, brown, slightly moist, stiff ------- 14.1 ------- 98.9 ------- ------_-------- Fines - 62% 5 6 IS 3 firm 14.3 3 4 20 -- --------- 3 ------ ---- SM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Silty m -f SAND, tan to brown, slightly moist, medium dense ------- 7.1 -------- --------------------- — Fines = 20% 6 9 25— I I — 5P ------------------------------------------------- ---- ------ m -c SAND, tan, slightly moist, medium dense ----- 1.8 ----- ------ — — — — II I3 Boring Terminated at 27.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 30 ZSample type: ® —Ring I —SPT Z—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery —Water Table LU WAL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test J Lab testing: SR = SulfatelResisiuviry Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 1 1 1 1 1 1 n APPENDIX B RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING 420 W. 6'h Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR 'P�� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County. California Page B-1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING Atterberg Limits Laboratory testing to determine the liquid and plastic limits was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318. The results of the testing are included in the boring logs in Appendix A. Classification Soils were classified visually in general accordance to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D 2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of borings in Appendix A. Consolidation Consolidation testing was performed on selected samples of the site soils according to ASTM Test Method D 2435. The results of this testing is presented in Appendix B. Moisture -Density Relationship Laboratory testing was performed on one sample collected during the subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the soil type was determined in general accordance with test method ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. The results are included in Appendix B. Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Content Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed by others in general accordance with California Test No. 417. Resistivity testing was completed by others in general accordance with California Test No. 643. Testing to determine the chloride content was performed by others in general accordance with California Test No. 422. The results are included in Appendix B. 1 ,r_lr_, GEOTEK 1 1 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 --f-- Seating Cycle • Loading Prior to Inundation �— Loading After Inundation --,k-- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D M5 BY: PK Lab: DI NO.: 1400 -CR Date: 01/16 CONSOLIDATION REPORT Sample: B-7 @ 5' 420 W. 6th Street Tustin, California In n Plate C-1 I 1 1 1 1 1 G t 0 T E. 14t, MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Client: Intracorp Companies Project: Tustin Location: 420 W. 6th Street Material Type: Silty f SAND Material Supplier: Material Source: B-1 Sample Location: 0-5' Job No.: 1400 -CR Lab No.: Corona Sampled By: Date Sampled: Received By: Date Received: Tested By: Date Tested: Reviewed By: Date Reviewed: Test Procedure: ASTM 1557 Oversized Material (%): 0.0 140 135 130 LL a 125 120 Z W 0 115 110 Method: A Correction Required: MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE no • DRY DENSITY (pcf): * CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf): ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf) * S.G. 2.7 * S.G. 2.8 o S.G. 2.6 Poly. (DRY DENSITY (pcf):) OVERSIZE CORRECTED ZERO AIR VOIDS 105 .' Poly. (S.G. 2.7) 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Poly. (S.G. 2.8) MOISTURE CONTENT, Poly. (S.G. 2.6) MOISTURE f7ENSITY RELATIONSHIPVALUES Maximum Dry Density, pcf 125.0 @ Optimum Moisture, % 10.0 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, % MATERIAE DESCRIPTION Grain Size Distribution: Atterber Limits: % Gravel (retained on No. 4) Liquid Limit, % • Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200) Plastic Limit, % • Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200) Plasticity Index, % Classification: Unified Soils Classification: AASHTO Soils Classification: Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants Geotechnical, Environmental, and Civil Engineering GeoTek, Inc. 710 East Parkridge Avenue, Suite 105 Corona, California 92879 Client: Intra Corp. W.O.: 1400 -CR Project: Tustin Corrosivity Test Results Date: January 26, 2016 QCI Project No.: 16-167-001 q Summarized by: KA Sample Sample- �� pH .', Chlorides 'Sulfate '� C. 417-, Resistivity ID Depth CT -532 _ CT -422.:: o (% By CT -532 (643) Feet (643.) (ppm) Wei ht (ohm -cm) B-1 0-5' 7.19 42 0.0145 2400 576 East Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION OUTPUT SUMMARY 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR I 'p� GEOTEK -LIQ,'.,UA *EF C,.TiON. ANALYSIS ..'.Intracorp: Tipstin, Dale No d, -.3 W Magn'4046=6.6 A-cce1era.uon=0.--537g Shear Stress GeoT,,elr,-1 ,.4- nm- 14ZCR;- 1 1 1 APPENDIX D GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR "C� GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-1 420 W 61h Street. City of Tustin Orange County California 'Project No. 1400 -CR GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those procedures. General Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the California Building Code, CBC (2013) and the guidelines presented below. Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading. Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified. 2. Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor's overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor's personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor's responsibility to properly compact the fill. 3. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation. 4. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES. APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-2 420 W 6' Street City of Tustin Orange, County California Project No. 1400 -CR 5. In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill. More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials. 7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows: a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. 8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete. Site Clearing I. All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area. 2. Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials. This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers. 3. Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative. Treatment of Existing Ground I. Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-3 420 W. 6`' Street. City of Tustin. Orange County. California Project No. 1400 -CR 2. In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative. 3. Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 4. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. 5. Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Fill Placement I. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report). 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to - obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre -watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates. b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557. 4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; C) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative. S. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated suitable for rock disposal. On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested. 6. In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable GEOTEK 1 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-4 420 W. 61 Street. City of Tustin. Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill. Slope Construction I. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. 2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary. 3. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. 4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction. S. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization. UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractors responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors' methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures. Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that "worked" on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience. I. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench. 'r� GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-5 420 W. 6`" Street. City of Tustin. Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR 2. Flooding and jetting are not -typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is typically limited to the following uses: a) shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and, b) as bedding in pipe zone. The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction. 3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation. Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade. 4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a I:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil. 5. Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractors procedures. A probing rod would be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the contractors attention. JOB SAFETY General Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job` sites. The following summaries are safety considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's responsibility. However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects. I. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractors regularly scheduled safety meetings. 2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site. 3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. "C� GEOTEK 1 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-6 420 W. 6' Street. City of Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non -encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow. This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN 'r� GEOTEK Test Pit Spoil pile SIDE VIEW 50 ft Zone of Traffic Direction Non -Encroachment Vehicle Test Pit Spoil parked here pile 10 0 of Non -Encroachment Encroachment 50 it Zone of Non -Encroachment PLAN VIEW 'r� GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-7 420 W 6`' Street. City of Tustin Orange County California Project No. 1400 -CR Slope Tests When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location. Trench Safety It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL -OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill. All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which; I. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2. exit points or ladders are not provided, 3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal. Procedures In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor's representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project GEOTEK 1 1 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-8 420 W. 6t' Street. City of Tustin. Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non -encroachment. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non -encroachment. >G` , GEOTEK Appendix E1: Preliminary WQMP 1 1 1 1 WQ 16-34E Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Project Name: Vintage TTM 17993 420 W. 6th Street Tustin, California Prepared for: Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. 4041 MacArthur Blvd., STE. 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 955-2370 Prepared by: Engineer Dane P. McDougall Registration No. C 80705 6 Orchard Suite 200 Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 916-3800 Date Prepared: February 2016 Revised: April 2016 July 2016 Q -P 0h y� `T O a a ti¢ 1 WQ 16-34E Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Project Name: Vintage TTM 17993 420 W. 6th Street Tustin, California Prepared for: Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. 4041 MacArthur Blvd., STE. 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 955-2370 Prepared by: Engineer Dane P. McDougall Registration No. C 80705 6 Orchard Suite 200 Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 916-3800 Date Prepared: February 2016 Revised: April 2016 July 2016 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6t' Street k Project Owner's Certification ; Planning Application No. ;TBD TBD ! Grading Permit No. (If applicable) Tract/Parcel Map and ~-TTM 17993 Building Permit No. TBD Lot(s) No. -------- --- ----- -- --- Address of Project Site and APN (If no address, specify Tract/Parcel Map and Lot Numbers) APN: 401-341-04 This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. by C&V Consulting, Inc.. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of the plan. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan, including the ongoing operation and maintenance of all best management practices (BMPs), and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non -point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors -in -interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. Owner: Title Company Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Address 4041 MacArthur Blvd., STE. 250, Newport Beach, CA, 92660 Email Telephone # 949-762-2535 I understand my responsibility to implement the provisions of this WQMP including the ongoing operation and maintenance of the best management practices (BMPs) described herein. Owner Signature Date Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Owner's Certification Page i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Preparer (Engineer): Dane McDougall Title Project Manager PE Registration # C 80705 Company C&V Consulting, Inc. Address 6 Orchard, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Email dmcdougaH@cvc-inc.net Telephone # (949) 916-3800 I hereby certify that this Water Quality Management Plan is in compliance with, and meets the requirements set forth in, Order No. R8-2009-0030/NPDES No. CAS618030, of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Preparer —[Date Signature Place Stamp Here IntraCorp SoCal-1, LLC. Owner's Certification Page ii Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 61h Street Contents Page No. Section I Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance .......... 1 Section II Project Description.................................................................................. 3 Section III Site Description........................................................................................ 9 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs)...................................................... 13 Section V Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs................................. 25 Section VI BMP Exhibit (Site Plan).......................................................................... 27 Section VII Educational Materials............................................................................. 28 Attachments Attachment A................................................................................... Educational Materials Attachment B..................................................................................Site and Drainage Plan Attachment C .... ......................................................................... TGD Worksheets & Figures Attachment D.................................................................................TGD Reference Exhibits Attachment E............................................................................ BMP Fact Sheets & Details Attachment F............................................................................. 2 -Year HCOC Calculations Attachment G..............................................Geotechnical & Infiltration Evaluation Report Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Table of Contents Page Hi 1 'J C Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Section I Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance Provide discretionary or grading/ building permit information and water quality conditions of approval, or permit issuance, applied to the project. If conditions are unknown, please request applicable conditions from staff. Refer to Section 2.1 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) available on the OC Planning website (ocplahning.net). Project Infomatlon a, a a Permit/ Application No. F Grading or Building ;TBD Permit No. TBD (If applicable) (If applicable) Address of Project Site (or 420 W. 6th Street Tract Map and Lot ` Tustin, CA Number if no address) and APN ' APN: 401-341-04 Water Quality Corditlons of3Approval orTssuance t9 1. Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). If the WQMP has been determined to be a Priority WQMP, it shall identify Low Impact Development (LID) principles and Best 4 Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to retain storm water and treat predictable pollutant run-off. The Priority WQMP shall identify: the implementation of BMPs, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance Water Quality association, lessees, etc.), and reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. Conditions of Approval i. Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the or Issuance applied to applicant shall submit a deposit of $2,700.00 to the Public Works Department for the estimated cost of reviewing the WQMP. this project. ' 3• Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall record a "Declaration of (Please list verbatim.) "Covenant Restrictions" or and Agreement Regarding o & M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality BMPs. Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification", whichever is applicable, with the County Clerk Recorder. These documents shall bind current and future owner(s) of the property regarding implementation and maintenance of the structural and non-structural BMPs as specified in the approved WQMP. 4. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section I Page 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section I Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Section II Project Description II.1 Project Description Provide a detailed project description including: • Project areas; • Land uses; • Land cover; • Design elements; • A general description not broken down by drainage management areas (DMAs). Include attributes relevant to determining applicable source controls. Refer to Section 2.2 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for information that must be included in the project description. Description of Proposed Protect All significant redevelopment projects, where significant redevelopment is defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of the facility, or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public Development Category =health and safety. (From Model WQMP, Table 7.11-2; or -3): = If the redevelopment results in the addition or replacement of less than 50 % of the impervious area on-site and the existing development was not subject to WQMP requirement, the numeric sizing criteria discussed in Section 7.11-2.0 only applies to the addition or replacement area. If addition or replacement accounts for 50 percent or more of the impervious area, the Project WQMP requirements apply to the entire development. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Area (ft2): 296,775 = Number of Dwelling Units: 140 ................................................ ------------------------------------------------------- Pervious Project Area =------------------------------------------------------- Area Percentage (acres or sq ft) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-Project Conditions = 0.39 ac = 6% ---------------------------------------- _ __------------- Post-ProjectConditions = 1.20 ac = 18% . ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II --------------- ------------------------------------------------- SIC Code: N/A ----------------------------------------------------------------- Impervious Area (acres or sq ft) _ Percentage ................................ --------------------------- 6.42 ac = 94% ------------------------------------------- 5.61 ac 82% ----------------------------------- <--------------------------- Page 3 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In its existing condition, the project site is relatively flat with site elevations ranging from 126.7 feet above mean sea level to about 123.2 feet above mean sea level. Surface flow from the site is directed into 2 ft wide concrete v -gutters that run West to East to a driveway on B street. Flows are carried along B Street to an inlet at the end of B Street which directs flows into an open concrete lined V - Channel that parallels the interstate 5 freeway near the south most end of the Drainage _project site. Patterns/ Connections = In its proposed condition, underground storm facilities will be installed onsite. The street slopes onsite will convey the flows to several grate inlets. Surface flows will be directed into an area drain piping system or into onsite curb and gutters Which will convey the flow to an infiltration detention pipe system. When the detention pipes fill to capacity the storm drain system will overflow to a parkway culvert in B Street which will then gutter flow to the inlet at the end of B Street and match existing flow patterns. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II Page 4 1 1 1 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Narrative Project Description: (Use as much space as necessary.) ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The information detailed in this report is based on preliminary engineering design only. The total site acreage consists of approximately 6.81 acres of a residential condominium development. The existing site is currently occupied by commercial retail and office space with an asphalt parking lot surrounding the building. All related buildings, improvements, and utilities will be removed during demolition of the site. The proposed residential development will consist of 140 condominium units making up 27 buildings in total. Each residential condo unit varies from 2 to 3 stories. The residential development proposes two building types each with 3 possible unit types. Each unit will be equipped with water and sewer services. Also attributed to each unit will be a washer/dryer connection and 2 -car garage. Trash services are individually picked up. Each unit will have two bins - one for trash and one for recyclables, which will be stored in the unit's garage. In addition to the garage parking, there will be an additional 64 open guest spaces provided. Building, walkway/flatwork and driveway coverage is approximately 167,18o sf or 56% of the total site. Private drive aisles coverage is approximately 77,058 sf or 26% of the total site. The remaining 52,537 sf is open space landscaping area which makes up 18% of the total site. The improvements which this residential project proposes include private drive aisles, parking areas, clubhouse with outdoor pool and cooking areas hardscaped and landscaped areas. The clubhouse will have a City standard Trash Enclosure Which will house (1)-4 yd Trash Bin and (1)-96 gal. cart for recyclables. The site shall be accessed via 2 main entries and 3 court entries on 6th Street and 2 main entries on B Street. Drive aisles and parking areas will consist of asphalt pavement and portland concrete cement (PCC) sidewalks/flatwork. Landscaping will be incorporated in open space areas including vegetation and street trees. The project site will be serviced by an on-site "public" domestic water and on-site "private" sanitary sewer system. The water system will be looped with connections with existing facilities on 6th Street and B Street. The sewer system will also connect with existing facilities along 6th Street and B Street. BMP selection for storm water runoff treatment has been described in Section N of this report. Implementation of BMPs will be consistent with the addressing of pollutants of concern generated by residential use. No car washing or outdoor storage will be incorporated on this project. The proposed pool located near the Clubhouse will drain to the sanitary sewer system. At this time, long term maintenance is planned to be handled by a Homeowner's Association (HOA) During entitlement, these details may change per the City's request and will be re -addressed during final engineering. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II Page 5 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street II.2 Potential Stormwater Pollutants - Determine and list expected stormwater pollutants based on land uses and site activities. Refer to Section 2.2.2 and Table 2.1 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for guidance. Pollutants of,Concern . Check One for each: = x E=Expected to Pollutant concern Additional Information and Comments N=Not Expected to be of concern Suspended -Solid/ Sediment A I E ® $ N ❑ Nutrients E ® N ❑ Heavy Metals ` E ❑ N i v Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) E ® N ❑ Pesticides ! E ® N ❑ _.-..._.._.-.._.__.-__. —..---------- __._._..----..-----__.__._._._._._._.__. Oil and Grease E ® N ❑ e t Toxic Organic Compounds E ❑ N I Trash and Debris f 1 E ® N ❑ 's Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II Page 6 1 F� 1 1 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street II.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Determine if streams located downstream from the project area are potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts. Refer to Section 2.2.3.1 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for North Orange County or Section 2.2.3.2 for South Orange County. ® No - Show map ❑ Yes - Describe applicable hydrologic conditions of concern below. Refer to Section 2.2.3 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Per Section 5.3.1 of the Technical Guidance Document, the following calculations were developed: 1. (V 2 -year, post/ V 2 -year, pre) 51.05 (34,191 cf/44,027 cf) = 0.785 1.05V* 2. (TC 2 -year, pre / TC 2 -year, post) 51.05 (13.04 min/15.9 min) = 0.825 1.05v"* *Reference Attachment F for time of concentration nomograph and volume information for the 2 - year storm event. The project site does not consider HCOCs as supported by the calculations above. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II Page 7 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street IIA Post Development Drainage Characteristics Describe post development drainage characteristics. Refer to Section 2.2.4 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). In its proposed condition, underground storm facilities will be installed onsite. The street slopes onsite will convey the flows to several grate inlets. Surface flows will be directed into an area drain piping system or into onsite curb and gutters which will convey the flow to an infiltration detention pipe system. When the infiltration pipes fill to capacity, the storm drain system will overflow to a parkway culvert in B Street which will then gutter flow to the inlet at the end of B Street and match existing flow patterns. II.5 Property Ownership/ Management Describe property ownership/ management. Refer to Section 2.2.5 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). The property is controlled by Intracorp SoCal-i, LLC. A homeowners association will be formed to be responsible for the long term maintenance of the project's Best Management Practices and all common areas. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II Page 8 1 1 1 —1 L 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Section III Site Description III.1 Physical Setting Fill out table with relevant information. Refer to Section 2.3.1 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Name of Planned Community/Planning City of Tustin Area (if applicable) 420 W. 6th Street Location/ Address Tustin, CA 92780 General Plan Land Use Existing land use: commercial and retail offices space Designation Proposed land use: Residential Zoning Planned Community (P -C) Code 9244 (Proposed) Acreage of Project Site 6.81 ac Predominant Soil Type I Per TGD, Figure XVI -2a, NRCS Hydrologic Soils Groups the site is located within soil type B. III.2 Site Characteristics Fill out table with relevant information and include information regarding BMP sizing, suitability, and feasibility, as applicable. Refer to Section 2.3.2 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Site Characteristics° Precipitation Zone The site falls under the 0.75" zone per the TGD, Figure XVI -1, Rainfall 11 Zones map. The site topography is fairly flat and sheet flows from west to east. Topography The elevation ranges from approximately 126.7 to 123.2 above mean sea level. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section III Page 9 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street In its existing condition, the project site is relatively flat with site elevations ranging from 126.7 feet above mean sea level to about 123.2 feet above mean s sea level. Surface flow from the site is directed into 2 ft wide concrete v- gutters that run West to East to a driveway on B street. Flows are carried along B Street to an inlet at the end of B Street which directs flows into an open concrete lined V -channel that parallels the interstate 5 freeway near the i Drainage I south most end of the project site. Patterns/ Connections In its proposed condition, underground storm facilities will be installed onsite. The street slopes onsite will convey the flows to several grate inlets. Surface flows will be directed into an area drain piping system or into onsite curb and gutters which will convey the flow to an infiltration detention pipe system. When the detention pipes fill to capacity the storm drain system will overflow to a parkway culvert in B Street which will then gutter flow to the inlet at the end of B Street and match existing flow patterns. Per the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by GeoTek, Inc. dated February 1, 2016 (see Attachment G for full report): "The site is situated in the Peninsular Ranges province, which is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. Basically, it extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, approximately 900 miles south to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the i west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the I east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially i a series of northwest -southeast oriented fault blocks. Three major fault zones Soil Type, Geology, and are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Infiltration Properties Fault zone trend northwest -southeast and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province. More specific to the property, the site is located in an area geologically mapped to be underlain by alluvial materials (Morton and Miller, 2006)." "Alluvium was observed in all the borings. The alluvium generally consists of loose to dense sand with variable amounts of silt, gravel and cobbles. Deeper portions of the alluvium also consisted of sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay." "Water was not encountered in our exploratory borings. Historic high groundwater is approximately at 40 feet bgs based on the review of seismic Hydrogeologic i hazard zone report for the Tustin quadrangle. (Groundwater) Conditions E I It is possible that seasonal variations (temperature, rainfall, etc.) will cause fluctuations in the groundwater level. Additionally, perched water may be i encountered in discontinuous zones within the overburden. The groundwater Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section III Page 10 1 1 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section III Page 11 levels presented in this report are the levels that were measured at the time of our field activities or as indicated in the referenced sources. It is recommended that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the site at the time of the construction activities to determine the impact, if any, on the construction procedures." ^� _ *"As requested, GeoTek performed percolation (infiltration) tests within the subject site at the approximate locations indicated in Figure i. Percolation s testing was conducted to an approximate depth of 2'71/2 feet and 461/2 feet below existing grade (bgs) within test locations I2 and I-1, respectively (see Figure 1). The boring diameters were each approximately 8 inches. Approximately 2 inches of gravel was placed on the bottom of each infiltration boring excavation. A 3 -inch diameter perforated PVC pipe, wrapped in filter sock was placed in the boring excavations and the annular space was filled with gravel to prevent caving within each boring. The borings were then filled with water to pre-soak the hole. The holes were allowed to pre-soak overnight { and the percolation test was performed the next day. Geotechnical Conditions The results were converted to an infiltration rate via the Porchet Method as (relevant to infiltration) per Technical Guidance Document by the County of Orange. Based on the results of our testing, the test locations have an infiltration rate of approximately o.9 and 4.9 in/hr at locations I-1 and I-2, respectively. Note that variations may occur within the site and with depth. We recommend that an appropriate factor of safety be applied to account for these conditions." t Please note that the City and Developer have agreed to perform additional percolation (infiltration) tests at the proposed BMP locations for the Final WQMP, during Final Engineering; once the existing structures on site have been razed and access to these proposed BMP locations become available. `s * See Attachment G for soils report and referenced figures In the existing condition, no off-site drainage enters the property as the Off -Site Drainage property boundary to the east is bound by an existing building, to the south by the Interstate 5 freeway, and to the north and east by 6th Street and B Street respectively. In its proposed state, the project will mimic these conditions. i The proposed development is designed to convey runoff mostly via surface drainage to drain inlets in the courts. Additional runoff in landscape areas will be conveyed via small area drain systems which will direct flows into the Utility and Infrastructure ' underground storm drain system. The storm drain system then overflows to a Information series of curb cores on B Street which then flows to an inlet at the end of B F Street and into an open concrete lined V -channel which runs parallel with the Interstate 5 Freeway. Proposed water and sewer utilities will connect to the respective mainlines located within 6th Street and B Street. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section III Page 11 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street III.3 Watershed Description Fill out table with relevant information and include information regarding BMP sizing, suitability, and feasibility, as applicable. Refer to Section 2.3.3 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological The project is not located within any known Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) or Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). Significant Areas Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section III Page 12 1 1 1 Onsite flows are conveyed south via B Street into an inlet at the end of B Street which connects to an open concrete lined V -channel which parallels the Interstate 5 freeway. Flows then travel south east in the channel and into an underground storm drain facility beneath Newport Ave, which then Receiving Waters directs the flow south west until it converges with the Santa Ana - Santa Fe Channel, which then flows south east and into the Peters Canyon Channel. The Peters Canyon Channel flows south west and joins with the San Diego Creek, which flows south west and outlets into Upper Newport Bay, then ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. _ ._.._.._..-- -- ----- -----..___._.-.-..._................._ ._.__._..----- ----------...-..-.._.._..-- Peters Canyon Channel is listed for DDT, Indicator Bacteria, pH, and Toxaphene. 303(d) Listed Impairments San Diego Creek is listed for Fecal Coliform, Nutrients, Pesticides, s Sedimentation/Siltation, Selenium, and Toxaphene. Upper Newport Bay is listed for Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Metals, Nutrients, PCBs, Pesticides, Sediment Toxicity, and Sedimentation/Siltation. Applicable TMDLs TMDLs listed for the Upper Newport Bay include Copper, Indicator Bacteria, Nutrients, Pesticides, and Sedimentation/Siltation. Anticipated and Potential Pollutants of Concern for Attached Residential Pollutants of Concern for Development is Suspended Solid/Sediments, Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus), the Project Nutrients (Oxygen Demanding Substances), Pesticides, Oil & Grease and Trash & Debris. Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological The project is not located within any known Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) or Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). Significant Areas Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section III Page 12 1 1 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) IV. 1 Project Performance Criteria Describe project performance criteria. Several steps must be followed in order to determine what performance criteria will apply to a project. These steps include: • If the project has an approved WIHMP or equivalent, then any watershed specific criteria must be used and the project can evaluate participation in the approved regional or sub - regional opportunities. (Please ask your assigned planner or plan checker regarding whether your project is part of an approved WIHMP or equivalent.) • Determine applicable hydromodification control performance criteria. Refer to Section 7.11- 2.4.2.2 of the Model WQMP. • Determine applicable LID performance criteria. Refer to Section 7.11-2.4.3 of the Model WQMP. • Determine applicable treatment control BMP performance criteria. Refer to Section 7.11-3.2.2 of the Model WQMP. • Calculate the LID design storm capture volume for the project. Refer to Section 7.11-2.4.3 of the Model WQMP. (NOC Permit Area only) Is there an approved WIHMP or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility criteria or if there are opportunities identified for implementing LID on regional or sub -regional basis? YES ❑ NO If yes, describe WIHMP feasibility criteria or N/A regional/sub-regional LID opportunities. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 13 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Project Performance Criteria If HCOC exists, list applicable hydromodification control s Per Section II.3 of this WQMP, HCOCs are not considered. performance criteria. (Section 7.II-2.4.2.2 in MWQMP) s List applicable LID performance i Per 7.II-2.4.3.2 of the Model WQMP, the available LID Treatment BMPs to be utilized it in reducing the post-development impacts include infiltration, harvest and use, criteria (Section t evapotranspiration, or biotreat/biofilter, of the 85th percentile of a 24-hour storm 7.II-2.4.3 from i event. MWQMP) 3 i t E E Per 7.II-3.2.2 of the Model WQMP, if the LID performance criteria is not feasibly met List applicable by retention and/or biotreatment, then sizing of onsite treatment control BMPs are treatment control i required. Sizing of these treatment control BMPs will include, if applicable, any Water tQuality credits as calculated per the Technical Guidance Document. If the additional BMP performance t required volume can be met, and has a medium to high effectiveness for reducing the criteria (Section ;primary POCs, the project is considered to be in compliance; a waiver application and 7.I1-3.2.2 from participation in an alternative program is not required. MWQMP) s If the cost of providing treatment control BMPs greatly outweighs the pollution i control benefits, a waiver of treatment control and LID requirements can be requested. s (Simple Method) Calculate LID design storm capture volume 1 DCVPRop = (0.75 x 0.82 + 0.15) x 0.75 x 6.81 ac x 43560 sf/ac x 12 in/ft for Project. = 14,183 CF 1 Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV - Page 14 1 i li, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street IV.2. Site Design and Drainage Describe site design and drainage including • A narrative of site design practices utilized or rationale for not using practices; • A narrative of how site is designed to allow BMPs to be incorporated to the MEP • A table of DMA characteristics and list of LID BMPs proposed in each DMA. • Reference to the WQMP "BMP Exhibit." • Calculation of Design Capture Volume (DCV) for each drainage area. • A listing of GIS coordinates for LID and Treatment Control BMPs (unless not required by local jurisdiction). Refer to Section 2.4.2 in the Technical Guidance Document (lGD). The site will be comprised of one drainage management area. The decision to utilize a single drainage management area for the entire site was based on a separately prepared hydrology report and represents historic flow paths. Refer to the Site & Drainage Plan in Attachment B. In its proposed condition, underground storm facilities will be installed onsite. The street slopes onsite will convey the flows to several grate inlets. Surface flows will be directed into an area drain piping system or into onsite curb and gutters which will convey the flow to an infiltration detention pipe system. Filter inserts will be installed on all catch basin and curb inlets to pretreat flows prior to out letting into the underground detention pipe system. The infiltration pipe system is comprised of 533 ft. of perforated 6o" ADS pipe installed into a 5.5' gravel bed. Flows will collect in the infiltration detention pipe system and will The infiltration pipe has been sized to accommodate more than the required design capture volume (1403.27 CF) Volume of pipe=1o,456 CF Volume of gravel bed around pipe = 23,76o cf -10,456 cf =11174 cf * 0.40 (Void Ratio) = 447o CF Total Volume captured by proposed infiltration detention pipe system =15,783 CF See Attachment C for more detailed sizing calculations. When the detention pipes fill to capacity the storm drain system will overflow to a parkway culvert in B Street which will then gutter flow to the inlet at the end of B Street and match existing flow patterns. Drainage Area No. Area (ac) DCV (cf) Proposed BMPs (DMA) 1 6.81 15,783 (INF -7) INF -7, Underground Infiltration, MP -52, Drain Inserts 6.81 15,783 Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 15 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street IV.3 LID BMP Selection and Project Conformance Analysis Each sub -section below documents that the proposed design features conform to the applicable project performance criteria via check boxes, tables, calculations, narratives, and/or references to worksheets. Refer to Section 2.4.2.3 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for selecting LID BMPs and Section 2.4.3 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for conducting conformance analysis with project performance criteria. IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) If required HSCs are included, fill out applicable check box forms. If the retention criteria are otherwise met with other LID BMPs, include a statement indicating HSCs not required. Name Included? Localized on -lot infiltration ❑ Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection) ❑ Street trees (canopy interception) ❑ Residential rain barrels (not actively managed) ❑ Green roofs/Brown roofs ❑ Blue roofs ❑ Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design) ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 16 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Identify infiltration BMPs to be used in project. If design volume cannot be met, state why. Name Included? Bioretention without underdrains ❑ Rain gardens ❑ Porous landscaping ❑ Infiltration planters ❑ Retention swales ❑ Infiltration trenches ❑ Infiltration basins ❑ Drywells ❑ Subsurface infiltration galleries French drains ❑ Permeable asphalt ❑ Permeable concrete ❑ Permeable concrete pavers ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Show calculations below to demonstrate if the LID Design Storm Capture Volume can be met with infiltration BMPs. If not, document how much can be met with infiltration and document why it is not feasible to meet the full volume with infiltration BMPs. The proposed development will utilize an underground infiltration system. The system will provide a total volume of 15,783 cf which is well over the required DCV drawdown volume of 1403 cf and the simple DCV of 14,183 cf. Refer to Attachment C for BMP calculations. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 17 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs If the full Design Storm Capture Volume cannot be met with infiltration BMPs, describe any evapotranspiration and/or rainwater harvesting BMPs included. Name Included? All HSCs; See Section IV.3.1 ❑ Surface -based infiltration BMPs ❑ Biotreatment BMPs ❑ Above -ground cisterns and basins ❑ Underground detention ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Show calculations below to demonstrate if the LID Design Storm Capture Volume can be met with evapotranspiration and/or rainwater harvesting BMPs in combination with infiltration BMPs. If not, document below how much can be met with either infiltration BMPs, evapotranspiration, rainwater harvesting BMPs, or a combination, and document why it is not feasible to meet the full volume with these BMP categories. Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs are not applicable to this project. Required treatment volume will be met through the use of infiltration BMPS which are higher in the preferred BMP hierarchy. Additionally, the required demand for feasible use of Evatranspiration/Rainwater Harvesting BMPs will not be met by this project as shown in the following `Worksheet J' from the Technical Guidance Document. WorksheetJ: Summary of Harvested Water Demand and Feasibility 1 What demands for harvested water exist in the tributary area (check all that apply): 2 Toilet and urinal flushing ✓❑ 3 Landscape irrigation ✓❑ 4 Other: El Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 18 1 1 1 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street 5 What is the design capture storm depth? (Figure 111.1) d 0.75 inches 6 What is the project size? A 6.81 ac 7 What is the acreage of impervious area? For projects with both toilet flushing and indoor demand IA 5.61 ac 8 What is the minimum use required for partial capture? (Table 3422* gpd X.6) 9 What is the project estimated minimum wet season total daily 3324** gpd use? 10 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 9 > Line 8?) NO For projectsonly - . demand 11 What is the minimum TUTIA for partial capture? (Table X.7) 92 12 What is the project estimated TUTIA? 74*** 13 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 12 > Line 11?) NO For projects with only irrigation demand 14 What is the minimum irrigation area required based on 4.71**** ac conservation landscape design? (Table X.8) 15 What is the proposed project irrigated area? (multiply 1.2 ac conservation landscaping by 1; multiply active turf by 2) 16 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 15 > Line 14?) NO Provide supporting assumptions and citations for controlling demand calculation: *Per Technical Guidance Document Table X.6, wet season demand for a project with 0.75 in design capture storm depth is 610 gpd/imp acre. 61ogpd/imp acre * 5.61 imp acre = 34zz **Approximate daily toilet use 2604 gpd (From X.1 of Technical Guidance Document) +'720 gpd for daily landscaping demand (from Table X.5 of Technical Guidance Document) = 3324 gpd *** Assuming 3 residents per condo unit (3 residents per household assumption from Orange County Facts & Figures Report prepared by Center for Demographic Research, December 2015) we will have 4zo toilet users (3 residents * 14o units). This project's minimum TUTIA ratio would be: 56o toilet users / 5.61 impervious acres ='74 < 92 ****Per Table X.8 from Technical Guidance Document, minimum irrigated area for this project is o.84 acres per imp. Acre. o.84 irrigated ac/imp. acre * 5.61 imp. acre = 4.71 irrigated acres. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 19 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street 1 IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs If the full Design Storm Capture Volume cannot be met with infiltration BMPs, and/or evapotranspiration and rainwater harvesting BMPs, describe biotreatment BMPs included. Include sections for selection, suitability, sizing, and infeasibility, as applicable. Name Included? Bioretention with underdrains ❑ Stormwater planter boxes with underdrains ❑ Rain gardens with underdrains ❑ Constructed wetlands ❑ Vegetated swales ❑ Vegetated filter strips ❑ Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems ❑ Wet extended detention basin ❑ Dry extended detention basins ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ 1 Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 20 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Show calculations below to demonstrate if the LID Design Storm Capture Volume can be met with infiltration, evapotranspiration, rainwater harvesting and/or biotreatment BMPs. If not, document how much can be met with either infiltration BMPs, evapotranspiration, rainwater harvesting BMPs, or a combination, and document why it is not feasible to meet the full volume with these BMP categories. Biotreatment BMPs are not applicable to this project. Required treatment volume will be met with the use of infiltration BMP which is higher in the hierarchy of preferred BMPs. IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs Describe hydromodification control BMPs. See Section 5 of the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Include sections for selection, suitability, sizing, and infeasibility, as applicable. Detail compliance with Prior Conditions of Approval (if applicable). `Hydromodification- Control BMPs BMP Name BMP Description N/A N/A IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs Describe regional/sub-regional LID BMPs in which the project will participate. Refer to Section 7.11- 2.4.3.2 of the Model WQMP. Regioinal/Sub-Regional LIDBMPs N/A Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 21 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street 1 IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs Treatment control BMPs can only be considered if the project conformance analysis indicates that it is not feasible to retain the full design capture volume with LID BMPs. Describe treatment control BMPs including sections for selection, sizing, and infeasibility, as applicable. Treatment. Control BMPs BMP Name BMP Description N/A N/A 1 1 Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 22 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street IV.3.8 Non-structural Source Control BMPs Fill out non-structural source control check box forms or provide a brief narrative explaining if non- structural source controls were not used. Non Structuralource`,Control BMPs m Check One Identifier Name If not applicable, state brief Included Not reason Applicable N1 Education for Property Owners, ® ❑ Tenants and Occupants ------------------- N2 --------------------------------------------------- Activity Restrictions ------- ------ -------- rl........ --------------------------------------------- ------------------- N3 ------------------------------------------------------ Common Area Landscape ------------------------------------- ® ❑ ------------------•-------------------------- Management ................... N4 ..................................................... BMP Maintenance ..................................... ® ❑ ............................................. ------------------- N5 -----------------------••----•......------------........................................... Title 22 CCR Compliance (How ® ❑ -•••-••••••-------•••••---•--•-••••••••---•-- development will comply) ------------------- N6 ------------------------------------------------ -- Local Industrial Permit Compliance ------------------------------------- ❑ ® -- ----------- -------- Residential project ------------------- N7 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ❑ ------------------ ® --------------------------------------------- No hazardous materials Spill Contingency Plan expected onsite ------------------- NS ------------------- ---------- -------- - - - -- - Underground Storage Tank ............................................. ❑ ® No storage tanks onsite Compliance -------------------------------------------- N9 I ------------------------------ Hazardous Materials Disclosure ----------------- ❑ -------------------- ® --------------------------------------------- No hazardous materials Compliance expected onsite ................... N10 .............................................. .... Uniform Fire Code Implementation­ mplementation ..................................... ® ❑ ------------------- N11 ------------ --------------------------------------- -- - - -- Common Area Litter Control -------®.............. �........ ...... ------------- N12 ------------------- -- - --- - Employee Training ------- ®....,. ........ -------- ------------------- N13Residential ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- ❑ -------------------- ® --------------------------------------------- project; no loading Housekeeping of Loading Docks docks onsite .......... ...... N14 .... ...................... ................ p........ ection Com.. mon Area Catch Basin Ins ..................................... ® ❑ ...................... .---------------------- ------------------- ---------------------------------••------------------ Street Sweeping Private Streets and ..................................... ®ElParking ............................................. Lots L ---------------------------- --- - -- Retail Gasoline Outlets ❑ .... -------- .............•.. ---•••- No proposed gasoline outlet Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section Iv Page 23 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs Fill out structural source control check box forms or provide a brief narrative explaining if structural source controls were not used. Structural Source Control'BMPS Check One If not applicable, state brief Included Not Identifier Name Lide reason Applicable S1 storm drain system stenciling ® ❑ and signage Design and construct outdoor material ❑ No proposed outdoor storage S2 storage areas to reduce pollution introduction areas Design and construct trash and waste 53 storage areas to reduce pollution ❑ ® Individual unit trash collection introduction Use efficient irrigation systems & S4 landscape design, water conservation, ® ❑ smart controllers, and source control S5 Protect slopes and channels and ❑ ® No slopes/channels proposed. provide energy dissipation Incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories ® ❑ (from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit) S6 Dock areas ❑ ® Residential project; No docks S7 Maintenance bays ❑ ® Residential project; No maintenance bays S8 Vehicle wash areas ❑ ® No proposed vehicle wash areas S9 Outdoor processing areas ❑ ® No proposed outdoor processing areas S10 Equipment wash areas ❑ ® No proposed equipment wash areas S11 Fueling areas ❑ ® Residential project. No proposed fueling areas S12 Hillside landscaping ❑ ® Project not located within hillside area. S13 Wash water control for food ® ❑ preparation areas S14 Community car wash racks ❑ ® No proposed community car wash areas. 1 Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section Iv Page 24 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street IV.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (If Applicable) IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits Determine if water quality credits are applicable for the project. Refer to Section 3.1 of the Model WQMP for description of credits and Appendix VI of the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for calculation methods for applying water quality credits. Description of Proposed Project :F m 0 Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits (Select all that apply): -------- --------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----------------_-------------- — ❑Redevelopment ❑Brownfield redevelopment, meaning ❑ Higher density development projects which projects that reduce the redevelopment, expansion, or reuse of real include two distinct categories (credits can only overall impervious property which may be complicated by the be taken for one category): those with more footprint of the project presence or potential presence of hazardous than seven units per acre of development (lower site. ; substances, pollutants or contaminants, and ', credit allowance); vertical density Which have the potential to contribute to developments, for example, those with a Floor adverse ground or surface WQ if not to Area Ratio (FAR) of 2 or those having more redeveloped. than 18 units per acre (greater credit allowance). ---------------- -- ------ --- ----- ----- -------------------- ❑ Mixed use development, such as a ❑ Transit -oriented developments, such as a g ❑- Rede--velo--pment- — pro--jects- - combination of residential, commercial, mixed use residential or commercial area in an established historic industrial, office, institutional, or other land E designed to maximize access to public c district, historic uses which incorporate design principles that : transportation; similar to above criterion, but preservation area, or similar can demonstrate environmental benefits that where the development center is within one E significant city area would not be realized through single use c half mile of a mass transit center (e.g. bus, rail, including core City Center projects (e.g. reduced vehicle trip traffic with light rail or commuter train station). Such areas (to be defined through the potential to reduce sources of water or air projects would not be able to take credit for E mapping). pollution). both categories, but may have greater credit assigned ------ ---_----- -------------- —_................................... ❑ Live -work ❑In -fill projects, the ❑Developments with developments, a variety of conversion of empty lots dedication of Developments developments designed to and other underused spaces El undeveloped portions to Developments in historic support residential and = into more beneficially used in a city center = districts or ` vocational needs together - s aces such as residential parks, preservation :area. :historic g p areas and other pervious : similar to criteria to mixed or commercial areas. uses. ;preservation use development; would not e be able to take credit for both categories. --------- ------------------------------�---------------- - Calculation of Water Quality The entire DCV for the project is being treated by a LID BMP. Water quality credits will Credits not be used. (if applicable) Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 25 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information Describe an alternative compliance plan (if applicable). Include alternative compliance obligations (i.e., gallons, pounds) and describe proposed alternative compliance measures. Refer to Section 7.11' 3.0 in the Model WQMP. N/A 1 1 Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 26 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Section V Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs Fill out information in table below. Prepare and attach an Operation and Maintenance Plan. Identify the funding mechanism through which BMPs will be maintained. Inspection and maintenance records must be kept for a minimum of five years for inspection by the regulatory agencies. Refer to Section 7114.0 in the Model WQMP. 4 ,.MP ,BInspection, Maintenance z ti dd btl { 0; 1Gt' Mmimum is T Reponslble�P��a� a BMP Maintenances Frequency of Party(s)'� u �Actl "ities,'Required ActiuIt les., „ T - Education for Property WQMP to be a part of Title As needed for property Owners, Tenants, & HOA and individual Documents as part of sales and once a year Occupants (N1) and homeowners purchase. HOA to give for reporting to (N12) yearly report to residents. residents. CC&Rs provided at time of CC&Rs provided with Activity Restrictions sale and will identify property sales. Issue HOA activity restrictions for letters of non - (N2) property and the compliance, as needed neighbourhood. by HOA. HOA or appointed Property management company to provide maintenance of Common Area landscaping to meet Regular maintenance g once a week and Landscape HOA current water efficiency monthly inspections to Management (N3) and keep plants healthy determine deficiencies. and bio areas maintained with proper soil amendments. HOA or appointed Regular maintenance Property management company to provide once a week and BMP Maintenance (N4) HOA monthly inspections maintenance of BMPs per determine the requirements of the d deficiencies WQMP HOA or appointed Common Area Litter Property Management Regular maintenance HOA Company to provide Control (N11) maintenance and to empty once a week. common area trash cans. Common Area Catch HOA or app appointed Implemented as HOA Property Management Basin Inspection (N14) Company to provide needed. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section v Page 27 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. section v Page 28 1 1 1 maintenance and to inspect for obstruction and build-up HOA or appointed Street Sweeping Property Management Regular street Private Streets and HOA Company to provide sweeping once a Parking Lots (N15) maintenance of Private month. Streets. HOA or appointed Property Management Regular maintenance Efficient Irrigation Company to provide once a week and Systems & Landscape HOA maintenance of landscaping to meet monthly inspection to Design (S4) current water efficiency determine deficiencies. standards, and keep plants healthy. HOA or appointed Inspection performed property management annually and before company to provide and after every rainy Underground maintenance of the season. Cleaning to be Infiltration System HOA system. Inspect to asses done at discretion of (INF -7) accumulated sediment or Intracorp SoCal-1, any blockage of perforated LLC. Maintenance piping after storm events. should be scheduled Repair as needed during dry season. 11 Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. section v Page 28 1 1 1 1 fl Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Section VI BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) VIA BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) *See WQMP Exhibit in Attachment B VI.2 Submittal and Recordation of Water Quality Management Plan Following approval of the Final Project -Specific WQMP, three copies of the approved WQMP (including BMP Exhibit, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and Appendices) shall be submitted. In addition, these documents shall be submitted in a PDF format. Each approved WQMP (including BMP Exhibit, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and Appendices) shall be recorded in the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's Office, prior to close-out of grading and/or building permit. Educational Materials are not required to be included. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section VI Page 29 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Section VII Educational Materials Refer to the Orange County Stormwater Program (ocwatersheds.com) for a library of materials available. Please only attach the educational materials specifically applicable to this project. Other materials specific to the project may be included as well and must be attached. Education Materials: Residential Material (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Applicable Business Material (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) 7Applicable The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door ® Tips for the Automotive Industry ❑ Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers ❑ Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar ❑ Tips for the Home Mechanic ® Tips for the Food Service Industry ❑ Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use ® Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business ❑ Household Tips ® Other Material Check If Attached Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste ® Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North County) ® ❑ Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) ❑ Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (South County) ❑ ❑ Tips for Maintaining a Septic Tank System Responsible Pest Control ® ❑ Sewer Spill ❑ ❑ Tips for the Home Improvement Projects ® ❑ Tips for Horse Care ❑ ❑ Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ® ❑ Tips for Pet Care ® ❑ Tips for Pool Maintenance ® ❑ Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardscape Drains ® ❑ Tips for Projects Using Paint ® ❑ Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section VII Page 30 1 1 1 Attachment A Educational Materials For Education Materials, please visit Orange County Public Works website below: https://cms.ocqov.com/gov/`pw/­­`watersheds/­­­publiced For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455) or visit www.ocwatersheds.com To report a spill, call the Orange County 24 -Dour Nater Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at 1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455) . For emergencies, dial 911. The tips contained in this brochure provide useful information to help prevent water pollution while using, storing and disposing of paint. If you have other suggestions, please contact your city's stormwater representatives or call the Orange County Storm -water Program. Printed on Recycled Paper P R E 'V E N T I O IN, Paint can cause significant damage to our environment. Whether you hire a contractor or do it yourself, it is important to follow these simple tips when purchasing, using, cleaning, storing and disposing of paint. Purchasing Paint Measure the room or object to be painted, then buy only the amount needed. Whenever possible, use water-based paint since it usually does not require hazardous solvents such as paint thinner for cleanup. Painting ■ Use only one brush or roller per color of paint to reduce the amount of water needed for cleaning. Place open paint containers or trays on a stable surface and in a position that is unlikely to spill. Always use a tarp under the area or object being painted to collect paint drips and contain spills. Cleaning J Never clean brushes or rinse paint containers in the street, gutter or storm drain. For oil-based products, use as much of the paint on the brushes as possible. Clean brushes with thinner. To reuse thinner, pour it through a fine filter (e.g. nylon, metal gauze or filter paper) to remove solids such as leftover traces of paint. For water-based products, use as much of the paint on the brushes as possible, then rinse in the sink. Collect all paint chips and dust. Chips and dust from marine paints or paints containing lead, mercury or tributyl tin are hazardous waste. Sweep up and dispose of at a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center (HHWCC). Storing Paint ■ Store paint in a dry location away from the elements. ■ Store leftover water-based paint, oil-based paint and solvents separately in original or clearly marked containers. ■ Avoid storing paint cans directly on cement floors. The bottom of the can will rust much faster on cement. ■ Place the lid on firmly and store the paint can upside- down to prevent air from entering. This will keep the paint usable longer. Oil-based paint is usable for up to 15 years. Water-based paint remains usable for up to 10 years. Alternativeslo Disposal ■ Use excess paint to apply another coat, for touch-ups, or to paint a closet, garage, basement or attic. ■ Give extra paint.to, friends or family. Extra paint can also be donated to a local theatre group, low-income housing program"or school. ■ Take extra paint to an exchange program such as the "Stop & Swap" that allows you to drop off or pick up partially used home care products free of charge. "Stop & Swap" programs are available at most HHWCCs. ■ For HHWCC locations and hours, call (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfills.com. D* osing of Paint ■ Never put wet paint in the trash. For water-based paint: ■ If possible, brush the leftover paint on cardboard or newspaper. Otherwise, allow the paint to dry in the can with the lid off in a well -ventilated area protected from the elements, children and pets. Stirring the paint every few days will speed up the drying. ■ Large quantities of extra paint should be taken to a HHWCC. ■ Once dried, paint and painted surfaces may be disposed of in the trash. When setting a dried paint can out for trash collection, leave the lid of£ so the collector will see that the paint has dried:5',` For oil-based paint. ■ Oil-based paint is a household hazardous waste. All leftover paint should be taken to a HMkTCC. Aerosol paint: ■ Dispose of aerosol paint cans at a HHWCC. spills ■ Never hose down pavement or other impermeable surfaces where paint has spilled. ■ Clean up spills immediately by using an absorbent material such as cat litter. Cat litter used to clean water-based paint spills can be disposed of in the trash. When cleaning oil-based paint spills with cat litter, it must be taken to a HHWCC. ■ Immediately report spills that have entered the street, gutter or storm drain to the County's 24 -Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at (714) 567-6363 or visit www.ocwatersheds.com to fill out an incident reporting form. P R O J E C T�.. P R E V E N T I O N For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455) or visit www. ocwatersheds. com To report a spill, call the Orange County 24 -Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at 1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455). For emergencies, dial 911. The tips contained in this brochure provide useful information to help prevent water pollution. If you have other suggestions, please contact your city's stormwater representatives or call the Orange County Stormwater Program. wM Printed on Recycled Paper Pool Maintenance ■ Do not store items such as cleaners, batteries, All pool water discharged to the curb, gutter or automotive fluids, paint products, TVs, or computer monitors uncovered outdoors. Take permitted pool drain from your property must meet the following water quality criteria: them to a HHWCC for disposal. ■ ■ ■ The residual chlorine does not exceed 0.1 mg/L (parts per million) . The pH is between 6.5 and 8.5. The water is free of any unusual coloration. ■ There is no discharge of filter media or acid cleaning wastes. Some cities have ordinances that do not allow pool water to be discharged to the storm drain. Check with your city. Landscape and Hardscape Drains The following recommendations will help reduce or prevent pollutants from your landscape and hardscape` ;. drains from entering the street, gutter or storm drain. Unlike water that enters the sewer (from sinks and toilets), water that enters a landscape or hardscape drain is not treated before entering our creeks, rivers, bays and ocean. Household Activities ■ Do not rinse spills of materials or chemicals to any drain. ■ Use dry cleanup methods such as applying cat litter or another absorbent material, then sweep it up and dispose of it in the trash. If the material is hazardous, dispose of it at a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center (HHWCC). For locations, call (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfiHs.com. ■ Do not hose down your driveways, sidewalks or patios to your landscape or hardscape drain. Sweep up debris and dispose of it in the trash. ■ Always pick up after your pet. Flush waste down the toilet or dispose of it in the trash. 1 Yard Maintenance ■ Do not overwater. Water by hand or set automated irrigation systems to reflect seasonal water needs. ■ Follow directions on pesticides and fertilizers (measure, do not estimate amounts) and do not use if rain is predicted within 48 hours. ■ Cultivate your garden often to control weeds and reduce the need to use chemicals. Vehicle Maintenance ■ Never pour oil or antifreeze down your landscape or hardscape drain. Recycle these substances at a service station, a waste collection center or used oil recycling center. For locations, contact the Used Oil Program at 1 -800 - CLEANUP or visit www.CLEANUP.org. ■ Whenever possible, take your vehicle to a commercial car wash. ■ If you do wash your vehicle at home, do not allow the washwater to go down your landscape or hardscape drain. Instead, dispose of it in the sanitary sewer (a sink or toilet) or onto an absorbent surface such as your lawn. ■ Use a spray nozzle that will shut off the water when not in use. r For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455) or visit www.ocwatersheds.com To report a spill, call the Orange County 24 -Hour Nater Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at 1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455). For emergencies, dial 911. s VIZThe tips contained in this brochure provide useful° 4�; information to help prevent water pollution. If d r VP R O E C t you have other suggestions, please contact youre %X77, g city's stormwater representatives or call the Orange County Stormwater Program." 'r= PREYENTI`0 e C Printed on Recycled Papert� Pool Maintenance All pool water discharged to the curb, gutter or permitted pool drain from your property must meet the following water quality criteria: The residual chlorine does not exceed 0.1 mg/L (parts per million) . The pH is between 6.5 and 8.5. The water is free of any unusual coloration. There is no discharge of filter media or acid cleaning wastes. Some cities have ordinances that do not allow pool water to be discharged to the storm drain. Check with your city. Landscape and Hardscape Drains The following recommendations will help reduce or prevent pollutants from your landscape and hardscape . , , drains from entering the street, gutter or storm drain. Unlike water that enters the sewer (from sinks and toilets), water that enters a landscape or hardscape drain is not treated before entering our creeks, rivers, bays and ocean. Household Activities ■ Do not rinse spills of materials or chemicals to any drain. ■ Use dry cleanup methods such as applying cat litter or another absorbent material, then sweep it up and dispose of it in the trash. If the material is hazardous, dispose of it at a Household Hazardous Ulnste Collection C.entPr (HT-MTCIC) _ Fnr lnrntinns_ ■ Do not store items such as cleaners, batteries, automotive fluids, paint products, TVs, or computer monitors uncovered outdoors. Take them to a HHWCC for disposal. Yard Maintenance ■ Do not overwater. Water by hand or set ■ ■ automated irrigation systems to reflect seasonal water needs. Follow directions on pesticides and fertilizers (measure, do not estimate amounts) and do not use if rain is predicted within 48 hours. Cultivate your garden often to control weeds and reduce the need to use chemicals. Vehicle Maintenance ■ Never pour oil or antifreeze down your landscape or hardscape drain. Recycle these substances at a service station, a waste collection center or used oil recycling center. For locations, contact the Used Oil Program at.1-800- CLEANUP or visit www.CLEANLT.org. ■ Whenever possible, take your vehicle to a commercial car wash. ■ If you do wash your vehicle at home, do not allow the washwater to go down your landscape or hardscape drain. Instead, dispose of it in the sanitary sewer (a sink or toilet) or onto an absorbent surface such as your lawn. ■ Use a spray nozzle that will shut off the water when not in use. Never let any pet care products or washwater run off your yard and into the street, gutter or storm drain. Tushing Your Vets Even biodegradable soaps and shampoos can be harmful to marine life and the environment. ■If possible, bathe your pets indoors using less -toxic shampoos or have your pet professionally groomed. Follow instructions on the products and clean up spills. ®If you bathe your pet outside, wash it on your lawn or another absorbent/ permeable surface to keep the washwater from running into the street, gutter or storm drain. Plea Vontrol ■ Consider using oral or topical flea control products. ■ If you use flea control products such as shampoos, sprays or collars, make sure to dispose of any unused products at a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center. For location information, call (714) 834-6752. My You should Pick Up After Your Pet It's the law! Every city has xs`� an ordinance ; � IT requiring you� :z to pick up after your pet. Besides beings . a nuisance, pet waste can lead to water pollution, even if you live inland. During rainfall, pet waste left outdoors can wash into storm drains. This waste flows directly into our waterways and the ocean where it can harm human health, marine life and the environment. As it decomposes, pet waste demands a high level of oxygen from water. This decomposition can contribute to killing marine life by reducing q the amount of #2' � dissolved oxygen available to them.: , Have fun with your pets, but please be a responsible petEM owner by taking , care of them and the environment. ® Take a bag with you on walks to pick up after your pet. ■Dispose of the waste in the trash -or in a toilet. P R E V E N 7 1 0 N Never allow gardening products or . polluted water to enter the street, gutter or storm drain. General Landscaping Tips ■ Protect stockpiles and materials from wind and rain by storing them under tarps or secured plastic sheeting. ■Prevent erosion of slopes by planting fast-growing, dense ground covering plants. These will shield and bind the soil. ■Plant native vegetation to reduce the amount of water, fertilizers, and pesticide applied to the landscape. ■Never apply pesticides &am or fertilizers when rain is predicted within the next 48 hours. Garden & Lawn Maintenance ■Do not overwater. Use irrigation practices such as drip irrigation, soaker hoses or micro spray systems. Periodically inspect and fix leaks and misdirected sprinklers. ■ Do not rake or blow leaves, clippings or pruning waste into the street, gutter or storm drain. Instead, dispose of green waste by composting, hauling it to a permitted landfill, or recycling it through your city's program. ■ Use slow-release fertilizers to minimize leaching, and use organic fertilizers. ■ Read labels'and use only as directed. Do not over apply pesticides or fertilizers. Apply to spots as needed, rather than blanketing an entire area. ■ Store pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals in a dry covered area to prevent exposure that may result in the deterioration of containers and packaging. ■ Rinse empty pesticide containers and re -use rinse water as you would use the product. Do not dump rinse water ' - down storm drains. Dispose of empty containers in the trash. ■ When available, use non-toxic alternatives to traditional pesticides, and use pesticides specifically designed to control the pest you are targeting. For more information, visit www.ipm.ucdavis.edu. ■ If fertilizer is spilled, sweep up, the spill before irrigating. If the spill is liquid, apply an absorbent material such as cat litter, and then sweep it up and dispose of it in the trash. ■ Take unwanted pesticides to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center to be recycled. Locations are provided below. lean beaches ° @ff7AX_1q and. -healthy- creeks, rivers, bays and ocean. are important to Orange County. However, many common activities can lead to water pollution if you're not careful. Dome improvement . projects and work sites must o bca maimainled to ensure -that,, . building materials do not' -enter the°street, gutter or storm drain. Unlike water in sanitary sewers: (from sinks°and toilets),`,ikater irstorm drains W n,ot treated a before entering 'our Waterways. You would never. dump building materials into the ocean, Aso don't let them. enter°,the storm drains.. Follow these tips to help prevent water pollution..• t�� ` A -kA Hchln PY'!ku,l lf 1 1-,Qr)11 �ll��llil/lYl• �3 tTips , , • %-aii uic Orange County 24 -Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at 1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455) . For emergencies, dia1911. Improvement Projects P R . O 4-__*, C, T P hor WRI Home improvement projects can cause significant ■ When permanently removing large quantities of damage to the environment. Whether you hire Paint soil, a disposal location must be found prior to a contractor or work on the house yourself, it ■ Measure the room or object to be painted, then buy excavation. Numerous businesses are available to is important to follow these simple tips while only the amount needed. handle disposal needs. For disposal options, visit P P p www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS. renovating, remodeling or improving your home: General Construction ■ Schedule projects for dry weather. ■ Keep all construction debris away from the street, gutter and storm drain. ■ Store materials under cover with temporary roofs or plastic sheets to eliminate or reduce the possibility that rainfall, runoff or wind will carry materials from the project site to the street, storm drain or adjacent properties. Building Materials ■ Never hose materials into a street, gutter or storm drain. ■ Exposed piles of construction material should not be stored on the street or sidewalk. ■ Minimize waste by ordering only the amount of materials needed to complete the job. ■ Do not mix more fresh concrete than is needed for each project. ■ Wash concrete mixers and equipment in a designated washout area where the water can flow into a containment area or onto dirt. ■ Dispose of small amounts of dry excess materials in the trash. Powdery waste, such as dry concrete, must ■ Place the lid on firmly and store the paint can upside- down in a dry location away from the elements. ■ Tools such as brushes, buckets and rags should never be washed where excess water can drain into the street, gutter or storm drain. All tools should be rinsed in a sink connected to the sanitary sewer. ■ When disposing of paint, never put wet paint in the trash. ■ Dispose of water-based paint by removing the lid and letting it dry y in the can. Large �- amounts must be taken to a Household' Hazardous Waste Collection Center, (HHWCC). tt g_ ■ Oil-based paint is.a household hazardous. waste. All leftover paint should be taken to a HHS-VCC. ■ For HHWCC locations and hours, call (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfills.com. Erosion Control ■ Schedule grading and excavation projects for dry weather. ■ When temporarily removing soil, pile it in a contained, covered area where it cannot spill into the street, or obtain the required temporary encroachment or street closure permit and follow the conditions instructed by the permit. ■ Prevent erosion by planting fast-growing annual and perennial grasses. They will shield and bind the soil. Recycle ■ Use a construction and demolition recycling company to recycle .n lumber, paper, cardboard, metals, masonry (bricks, concrete, etc.), carpet, plastic, pipes (plastic, `, ��AV metal and clay), drywall, rocks, dirt and green waste. J ■ For a listing of construction and demolition recycling locations in your area, visit www.ciwmb.ca.gov/recycle. Spills ■ Clean up spills immediately by using an absorbent material such as cat litter, then sweep it up and dispose of it in the trash. ■ Immediately report spills that have entered the street, gutter or storm drain to the County's 24 -Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at (714) 567-6363 or visit www.ocwatersheds.com to fill out an incident reporting form. be properly contained within a box or bag prior to disposal. Call your local trash hauler for weight and P R 0 J E c r size limits. pOHLI'f10VL P EtEV EN710N Did you know that just one quart of oil can pollute 250,000 gallons of water? A clean ocean and healthy creeks, rivers, bays and beaches are important to Orange County. However, not properly disposing of used oil can lead to water pollution. If you pour or drain oil onto driveways, sidewalks or streets, it can be washed into the storm drain. Unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks and toilets) , water in storm drains is not treated before entering the ocean. Help prevent water pollution by taking your used oil to a used oil collection center. Included in this brochure is a list of locations that will accept up to five gallons of used motor oil at no cost. Many also accept used oil filters. Please contact the facility before delivering your used oil. This listing of companies is for your reference and does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement of the company. Please note that used oil filters may not be disposed of with regular household trash. They must be taken to a household hazardous waste collection or recycling center in Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Irvine or San Juan Capistrano. For information about these centers, visit www.oclandfiBs.com. I For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455) or visit www.watersheds.com. For information about the proper disposal of household hazardous waste, call the Household Waste Hotline at (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfills.com. REcYc I.F. USFn OTT. For additional information about the nearest oil recycling center, call the Used Oil Program at 1 -800 -CLEANUP P R O J E C T POBLAIO" Please do not mix your oil with other or visit www.cleanup.org. P R E V E 4 t O N substances! OTP113 Rev 8103 �' A& printed on recycled paper NORTH � 0 E The Ocean Begins'at Your °Front Door' P R O J E C T POBLAIO" Please do not mix your oil with other or visit www.cleanup.org. P R E V E 4 t O N substances! OTP113 Rev 8103 �' A& printed on recycled paper NORTH Anaheim Kragen Auto Parts #1582 Cypress Kragen Auto Parts 04133 Firestone Store #2736 USA 10 Minute Oil Change All Seasons Tire and Auto Center, Inc. 3420 W Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 AutoZone #5521 904 W Orangethorpe Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832 1071 S Beach Blvd., La Habra, CA 90631 8100 Lampson Ave.. Stanton, CA 92841 817 S Brookhurst St., Anaheim, CA 92804 (714)828-7977() 5471 Lincoln Ave., Cypress, CA 90630 (714)526-3570( ) (562)691-1731( ) (714)373-4432() (714)772-60900 CIWMB#: 301-04103 (714)995-4644( ) CIWMB#: 30-C-06256 CIWMB#:30.0-01169 CIWMB#: 30-C-05909 CIWMB#: 30 -C -D3177 CIWMB#: 30-C-00836 Pep Boys 9613 Pep Boys #642 Kragen Auto Parts #1569 Westminster AutoZone 93317 10912 Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 Big O Tires 1530 S Harbor Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92832 1621 W Whittier Blvd., La Habra, CA 90631 AutoZone #5543 423 N Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 (714)638-0863() 6052 Cerritos Ave., Cypress, CA 90630 (714)870.0700( ) (562)90&2538() 6611 Westminster Blvd., Westminster, CA 92683 (714)776-07870 CIWMB#: 30-C-01756 (714)826-63340 CIWMB#:30-C-01755 CIWMB#. 30-C-04076 (714)898-2898( ) CIWMB#. 30-C-05263 CIWMB#: 30-C-04245 CIWMB#. 30-C-04964 Pep Boys 0663 Sunnyside 76 Car Care Center Pep Boys #997 AutoZone #5226 3030 W Lincoln Anaheim, CA 92801 Econo Lube N'Tune 9213 2701 N Brea Blvd., Fullerton. CA 92835 125 W Imperial Hwy., La Habra, CA 90631 AutoZone #5544 2145 W Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 (714)8264810() 5497 Cerritos Ave., Cypress, CA 90630 (714)256-0773() (714)447-0601() 8481 Westminster Blvd., Westminster, CA 92683 (714)533-65990 CIWMB#: 30-C-03417 (714)761-04560 CIWMB#: 30-C-01381 CIWMB#: 30-C-04026 - (714)891-35110 CIWMB#: 30-C-04604 CIWMB# 30-C-06240 CIWMB#: 30.0-04966 Pep Boys #809 Garden Grope SpeeDee Oil Change &Tune -Up ' Bedard Automotive 8205 E Santa Ana Cyn Rd., Anaheim, CA 92808 Jiffy Lube #851 76 Pro Lube Plus 1580 W Imperial Hwy., La Habra, CA 90631 City of Westminster Corporate Yard 3601 E M'valoma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 (714)974-0105() 4942 Lincoln Ave., Cypress, CA 90630 9001 Trask Ave., Garden Gmve, CA 92844 (562)697-3513() 14381 Olive St, Westminster, CA 92683 (714)528-1380() CIWMB#: 30-C-03443 (626)9659689O (714)393-05900 (714)895-2876(292 ) CIWMB# 30-C-02205 CIWMB#: 30-C-08182 CIWMB4:30-C-05276 Los Alamitos CIWMB#: 30-C-02008 Pick Your Part Jiffy Lube #1740 - Classic Chevrolet 1235 S Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804 M & N Coastline Auto &Tire Service AutoZone #5527 3311 Katella Ave.. Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Honda World 1001 Weir Canyon Rd., Anaheim, CA 92807 (714)527.1645() 4005 Ball Rd., Cypress, CA 90630 13190 Harbor Blvd., Garden Grove, CA 92843 (562)596-1827() 13600 Beach Blvd., Westminster, CA 92683 ' (714)283-54000 CIWMB#: 30-C-03744 (714)826-1001() (714)636-5665() CIWMB#:30-C-03529 (714)890-8900() .. CIWMB#: 30-C-05223 CIWMB#: 30-C-04387 CIWMBtt. 30-C-04760 CIWMB#: 30-C-03639 PK Auto Performance - - Midway City ' Econo Lube N'Tune 04 3106 W. Lincoln Ave.. Anaheim, CA 92801 Masterlube #103 David Murray Shell Bolsa Transmission Jiffy Lube #1579 3201 W Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 (714)826-2141() 5904 Lincoln Cypress, CA 90630 12571 Vly View St., Garden Grove, CA 92845 8331 Boise Ave., Midway City, CA 92655 6011 Westminster Blvd.. Westminster, CA 92683 (714)821-01280 CIWMB#: 30-C-05628 (714)82&23230 (714)B98A170O (714)799-61580 _ (714)899-27270 CIWMB#., 30-C-01485 CIWMB#:30-C-01071 CIWMB#: 30-C-00547 CIWMB#: 30-C-05/68 - _ CIWMBfk. 30-C-02745 Quick Change Lube and Oil EZ Lube Inc - Savl Ranch 943 2731 W Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 Masterlube #104 Express Lube & Wash Placentia John's Brake & Auto Repair 985 N Weir Canyon Rd., Anaheim, CA 92807 (714)821-4464() 5971 Ball Rd., Cypress, CA 90630 8100 Lampson Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92841 Advanced Auto & Diesel 13050 Hoover St., Westminster, CA 92683 (714)5551312O CIWMB#. 30.0-04363 (714)220-15550 (909)316-82610 _ 144 S Bradford Placentia, CA 92870 (714)379-20880 CIWMB#: 30-C-06011 CIWMB#: 30-C-04682 CIWMB#. 30-C-06544 (714)99&8222() CIWMB#-. 30C-05617 Saturn of Anaheim CIWMB#: 6 30-06242 -•.! Firestone Store #7107 1380 S Auto Center Or,. Anaheim, CA 92806 Metric Motors of Cypress Firestone Store #7180 Kragen Auto Parts #0762 1200 S Magnolia Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 (714)648-2444() 6042 Cerritos Ave., Cypress, CA 90630 10081 Chapman Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92840 Castnees Auto Service 6562 Westminster Blvd., Westminster, CA 92683 (949)598-5520() CIWMB# 30-C-06332 (714)8214702( ) (714)530-4630( ) 214 S. Bradford Ave., Placentia, CA 92870 (714)898-0810( ) CIWMB#. 30C-05743 CIWMB#:30-C-05157 CIWMB#:30-C-01224 - (714)528-1311() - _. . I , CIWMB#:30-C-02590 - " Sun Tech Auto Service _ CIWMB# 30-C-06452 - Great Western Lube Express 105 S Stale College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 Fullerton Firestone Store #7111113 - Midway City Sanitary District 125 N Brookhumt St.. Anaheim, CA 92801 (714)9551389O - AutoZone 02898 13961 Brookhurst St., Garden Grove, CA 92843 Econo Lube N'Tune 14451 Cedanveod St, Westminster, CA 92683 (714)254-13000 CIWMB#. 30-C-06455 146 N. Raymond Ave., Fullerton, CA 92831 (714)590.2741O - 100 W Chapman Ave., Placentia, CA 92870 (714)893.3553( ) . -. CIWMB#: 30-C-05542 (714)870-9772( ) CIWMB#: 30-C-03690 (714)524-0424( ) CIWMB#: 30-C-01626 Vonic Truck Services CIWMB#: 30C-04488 CIWMB#: 30-C-06454 HR Pro Auto Service Center 515 S Rose St., Anaheim, CA 92805 Jiffy Lube #1991 .. ... , - Pep Boys #653 3180 W Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 (714)533-3333() AutoZone #5522 13970 Harbor Blvd., Garden Grove. CA 92843, Fairway Ford 15221 Beach Blvd., Westminster, CA 92683 (714)7614343() CIWMB#: 30-C-01142 1801 Oangethorpe W. Fullerton, CA 92833 (714)554-0610() 1350 E Yorba Linda Blvd., Placentia. CA 92870 (714)893-8544( ) CIWMB#: 30-C-05927 (714)870.8286( ) CIWMB#. 30-C-05400 (714)524-1200() CIWMB#: 30-C-03415 Anaheim Hills CIWMB#: 30-C-06062 CIWMB# 3DC-01863 , Im Newman Automotive Services Anaheim Hills Car Wash & Lube Kragen Auto Parts #1251 Varba Linda 1507 N Slate College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 5810 E La Palma Ave., Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 AutoZone #5523 13933 N Harbor Blvd., Garden Grove, CA 92843 Seal Beach AutoZone 05545 (714)635-2392() (714)777-6605() 102 N Euclid Fullerton, CA 92832 (714)5543780() M & N Coastline Auto & Tire Service 18528 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, CA 92886 CIWMB#: 30-C-01482 CIWMB#. 30-C-01387 (714)870.8286() CIWMB#: 30-C-02663 12239 Seal Beach Blvd., Seal Beach, CA 90740 (714)970.8933( ) CIWMB#.30-C-04755 (714)826-1001( ) CIWMB#:30-C-04971 Jiffy Lube #1028 Brea Kragen Auto Parts #1555 CIWMB#: 30-C-04433 2400 W Bail Rd., Anaheim, CA 92804 Firestone Store 027A9 EZ Lube #17 9851 Chapman Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92841 Econo Lube N'Tune (714)761-5211() 891 E Imperial Hwy., Brea. CA 92821 4002 N Harbor Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92835 (714)741.8030() Seal Beach Chevron 22270 La Palma Ave., Yorba Linda, CA 92887 CIWMB#: 30-C-00870 (714)529.8404() (714)871-9980() CIWMB#: 30-C-04079 12541 Seal Beach Blvd., Seal Beach. CA 90740 (714)692-8394() CIWMB#: 30-C-01221 CIWMB#: 30-C-03741 (949)495-0774(14 ) CIWMB#,. 30-C-06513 , Jiffy Lube #1903 Nissan of Grarden Grove CIWMBtt. 30-C-06425 2505 E Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 Oil Can Henry's Firestone Store #27EH 9670 Trask Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92884 EZ Lube Inc. 441 (714)772-4000() 230 N Brea Blvd., Brea, CA 92821 1933 N Placentia Ave., Fullerton, CA 92831 (714)537-0900( ) Stanton 17511 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, CA 92886 CIWMB#: 30-C-05511 (714)990.1900() (714)993-7100() CIWMB#. 30-C-06553 AutoZone #206 (714)556-1312() CIWMB# 30-C-04273 CIWMB#: 30-C-02122 11320 Beach Blvd., Stanton, CA 9D680 CIWMB#.30-C-05739 Jiffy Lube #2340 Toyota of Garden Grave (714)895-7665() 2181 W Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 Buena Park Fox Service Center 9444 Trask Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92844 CIWMB#: 30-C-04563 Firestone Store #2773 (714)533-1000() Firestone Store #71F7 1018 W Orangethorpe Fullerton, CA 92833 (714)8955595() - 18500 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, CA 92886 CIWMB#. 30C-04647 6011 Orangethorpe Buena Park, CA 90620 (714)879-1430() CIWMB#: 30C-06555 Joe's Auto Clinic (714)779-1966( ) (714)670.7912O CIWMB# 30.0-02318 11763 Beach Blvd., Stanton, CA 90680 CIWMB# 30-C-01222 Kragen Auto Parts 01303 CIWMB#: 30C-01218 La Habra (714)891-7715( ) 1088 N State College Blvd.. Anaheim, CA 92806 Fullerton College Automotive Technology AutoZone #5532 CIWMB#: 30C-03253 Jiffy Lube #1532 (714)956-7351() Firestone Store #71T8 321 E Chapman Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832 1200 W Imperial Hwy., La Habra, CA 90631 .16751 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, CA 92886 30-03438 CIWMB#:C 8600 Beach Blvd., Buena Park, CA 90620 (714)992-7275() (562)6945337() Kragen Auto Parts #1742 (714)528-2800( ) (714)827-5300() CIWMBit: 30C-03165 CIWMB#. 30-C-04784 11951 Beach Blvd., Stanton, CA 90680 CIWMB#: 30C-03777 Kragen Auto Parts #1399 CIWMB#. 30-C-02121 - (714)799-7574( ) 2245 W Ball Rd., Anaheim, CA 92804 Kragen Auto Parts #0731 Burch Ford CIWMB#. 30-C-05231 Mike Schultz Import Service (714)490.1274() Kragen Auto Parts 91204 2978 Yorba Linda Fullerton, CA 92831 = 201 N Harbor Blvd., La Habra, CA 90631 4832 Eureka Ave„ Yorba Linda, CA 92886 CIWMB#,. 30-C-04094 5303 Beach Blvd., Buena Park, CA 90621 (714)9964780() . (562)691-3225() ScherTim 020 (714)528-4411( ) (714)9941320() CIWMB# 30C-02628 CIWMB#: 30-C-05179 7000 Katella Ave., Stanton, CA 90680 CIWMB# 30-C-04313 Kragen Auto Parts#1565 CIWMB#: 30-0-02623 , (714)892.99240 2072 Lincoln Ave.. Anaheim, CA 92806 _ - CIWMB#: 30.0-05907 (714)502-6992() _ _ CIWMB#: 30C -D4078 This information was provided by the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Key Steps to Follow: St 1: Correctly identify the pest (insect, weed, rodent, or disease) and verify that it is actually causing the problem. This is important because beneficial insects are often mistaken for pests and sprayed with pesticides needlessly. Three life stages of the common lady Consult with a beetle, a beneficial insect. Certified Nursery Professional at a local nursery or garden center or send a sample of the pest to the Orange County Agricultural Commissioner's Office. Determine if the pest is still present — even though you see damage, the pest may have left. Steffi 2: Determine how many pests are present and causing damage. Small pest populations maybe controlled more safely using non - pesticide techniques. These include removing food sources, washing off leaves with a strong stream of water, blocking entry into the home using caulking and replacing problem plants with ones less susceptible to pests. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) usually combines several least toxic pest control methods for long-term prevention and management of pest problems without harming you, your family, Unir� or the environment. Cali ornia Ste 3: If a pesticide must be used, choose the last toxic chemical. Obtain information on the least toxic pesticides that are effective at controlling the target pest from the UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program's Web site at www. ipm. ucdavis. e du. Seek out the assistance of a Certified Nursery Professional at a local nursery or garden center when selecting a pesticide. Purchase the smallest amount of pesticide available. Apply the pesticide to the pest during its most vulnerable life stage. This inforlation can be found on the pesticide label. Step 4: Wear appropriate protective clothing. Follow pesticide labels regarding specific types of protective equipment you should wear. Protective clothing should always be washed separately from other clothing. Ste 5. -Continuously monitor external conditions when applying pesticides such as weather, irrigation, and the presence of children and animals. Never apply pesticides when rain is predicted within the next 48 hours. Also, do not water after applying pesticides unless the directions say it is necessary. Apply pesticides when the air is still; breezy conditions may cause the spray or dust to drift away from your targeted area. In case of an emergency call 911 and/or the regional poison control number at (714) 634-5988 or (800) 544-4404 (CA only). For general questions you may also visit www.calpoison.org. Steffi 6. -In the event of accidental spills, sweep up or use an absorbent agent to remove any excess pesticides. Avoid the use of water. Be prepared. Have a broom, dust pan, or dry absorbent material, such as cat litter, newspapers or paper towels, ready to assist in cleaning up spills. Contain and clean up the spill right away. Place contaminated materials in a doubled plastic bag. All materials used to clean up the spill should be properly disposed of according to your local Household Hazardous Waste Disposal site. Step /: Properly store and dispose of unused pesticides. Purchase Ready -To - Use (RTU): products to avoid storing large concentrated quantities of pesticides. Store unused chemicals in a locked cabinet. Unused pesticide chemicals may be disposed of at a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center. Empty pesticide containers should be triple rinsed prior to disposing of them in the trash. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center P R o, E C T (714) 834-6752 PO41t4f10t1 www.oclandfills.com PREVENTION Before Buying Pest Conhr01_ Products • Identify the pest. • Decide if pest control prgifgcsaiettie best control measure or if there are alternatives availabl'eS<<. • Are integrated pest management juitlelines available for this pest? • Read the product label Is the pest list oo�the�Iabehr Isitthe best pr, Before Mixing 1(ou $prayer �� • Read the label`ca efblly"�ffi • Buy only enough.p sttcide�totreattfaearea affected by the • Check the weather end ion tapplyif' it's windy or about to ra�irr • Measurethe area you'retreating. • Calculate how much spray to mix. • Wear long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes and any other protective equipment listed on the label and follow all the label precautions. • Be prepared for spills and know how to clean them up. When You're Ready To Spray • Mix and load spray in an area where any spilled pesticide wil I not be able to drain or be washed away into storm drains, ditches, streams, ponds or other bodies of water. • Mix sprayer on grass, not the sidewalk or driveway. • Mix only as much as needed. When You're Spraying • AVOID spraying in or near storm drains, ditches, streams, and ponds! • Leave an untreated strip around these areas to protect the water. When You're done • Never dump leftovers down any drain; Save for a future application. • Triple -rinse sprayer and apply rinsewater to treated area. • Take any old or unwanted pesticides to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center (714) 834-6752. li.Fest, Coafto I I Products. it'sit To Do t! RK lwiVf wm ad dintitntto unnecessary w1iter sources, Ins _ 'j�finn CS1 iuittof faucets. hoot vaim- for — pa*st 1 icon t kft ef f f ition 40 washed into 6m, Datta up 6ehfis that ' 19t1� Yt�1map. hIf {f 5i of #ng plants - Net km et plod t;ov +> ast sittlg >} Wit:* fiafl� the � cif your house, since it € att'act , With Integrated Pest Management (IPM), homeowners use common sense and nature to make it difficult for pests to survive. IPM techniques include cultural practices (such as mulching to prevent weeds), encouraging natural enemies (good bugs), andjudicious use of pest control products. • First, identify your pest problem. To find the best solution, you need to pin down the problem. Consult gardening books, your county cooperative extension office or your local nursery. • Decide how much pest control is necessary. If you can live with some pest damage, you can avoid intensive pest control product treatments. Ralim fnbn fr fro rxdm VIst0. ciftftQ tho ohn to tenni week Nho com 9adW ttft, Real1hyEndYde ed few,d twaiwArlat moons inhs r o I son] nu tta& or ap+:nirrp I r ads, I insectpll Sts: • Choose an effective option. Try various types of controls first: washing bugs off plants, pruning diseased parts of plants. If you need to use pest control products, choose one that targets the problem and poses the least hazard. • Finally, it's easier to prevent pests than to control them. Think ahead This brochure gmtributed in order to reduce the impacts of pesticides on water quality. It was produced with support from the Orange County Storm Water Program, the Coalition for Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship (CURES) and a 319(h) grant from the State Water Resources Control Board. Orange County Storm Water Program Participants: Anaheim Public Works/Engineering ............................... (714) 765-5176 Brea Engineering............................................................. (714) 990-7666 Buena Park Public Works ................................................ (714) 562-3655 Costa Mesa Public Services ........................................... (714) 754-5248 Cypress Engineering ........................................................(714) 229-6752 Dana Point Public Works.................................................(949) 248-3562 Fountain Valley Public Works ................................ (714) 593-4400 x347 Fullerton Engineering Dept ............................................. (714) 738-6853 Garden Grove Development Services ........................... (714) 741-5554 Huntington Beach Public Works ..................................... (714) 536-5432 Irvine Public Works........................................................... (949)724-6515 La Habra Public Services ................................................ (562) 905-9792 La Palma Public Works ..........................................(714) 523-1140 x102 Laguna Beach Municipal Services ................................. (949) 497-0711 Laguna Hills Engineering .................................................(949) 707-2600 Laguna Niguel Public Works ........................................... (949) 362-4337 Lake Forest Public Works ............................................... (949) 461-3480 Los Alamitos Community Dev ............................... (562) 431-3538 x301 Mission Viejo Public Works ............................................. (949) 470-3095 Newport Beach Public works .......................................... (949) 644-3311 Orange Public Works ....................................................... (714) 744-5551 Placentia Engineering...................................................... (714) 993-8131 San Clemente Engineering .............................................(949) 361-6100 San Juan Capistrano Engineering .................................. (949) 493-1171 Santa Ana Public Works .................................................. (714) 647-3380 Seal Beach Engineering ........................................ (562) 431-2527 x318 Stanton Public Works ............................................. (714) 379-9222 x204 Tustin Public Works Engineering .................................... (714) 573-3150 Villa Park Engineering..................................................... (714) 998-1500 Westminster Public Works Eng.............................(714) 898-3311 x215 Yorba Linda Engineering ....................................... (714) 961-7170 x174 O.C. Storm Water Program ..................1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455) 24 Hour Water Pollution Hotline ................................ (714) 567-6363 or as hbyk@pfrd.co. orange. ca.us Chemical and Hazardous Material Spill Emergencies ...................... 911 Other Important Phone Numbers: For Additional Brochures ......................1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455) UC Masters & Coop Extension ....................................... (714) 708-1646 ucmastergardeners@yahoo.com O.C. Household Hazardous Waste Information ............ (714) 834-6752 or www.oc.ca.gov/IWMD Information on agriculture chemicals, pesticides and possible alternatives, O.C. Agriculture Commissioner ........... (714) 447-7115 Original graphics developed with support from: Coalition For Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship (CURES) Western Crop Protection Association (WCPA) Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) ,�.... s,•a rte., � -^, t-�':,--`�s�--.�v o.. .��a .u..aah...a. Do yourfiart to prevent • , water pollution in our :g creeks, rivers, bays and ocean:... f . Glean beaches and healthy creeks, rivers, bays and ocean are important to Orange County: However, not properly d sposing of household hazardous wastecan lead to water pollution. ;Batteries, electronics paint, oil,, gardening chemicals, cleaners and other: hazardous materials cannot be thrown in the trash. Thev also Must i✓ver be paled or thrown into wa ds, sidcValkks, driveways, gutters or streets. Rain or other -'water could wash the materials, into the storm E � drain and ` NEVER DISPOSE eventually : to our waterways I OFHOUSEHOLD end the ocean. ` HAZARDOUS .In addition. ep. 'lzardous WASTE IN THE waste must not TRASH, STREET, be poured in the sanitary. GUTTER, sewers (sinks,STORM DRAIN and toilets) . OR SEWER. Help Prevent Ocean Pollution: I 114 1 For more information, 1 1 1 ry please call the T ®� 1 1 • - ORANGE COV" Leftover household products that contain corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive ingredients are considered to be "household hazardous waste" or "HHW." HHW can be found throughout your home, including the bathroom, kitchen, laundry room and garage. Disposal of HHW down the drain, on the ground, into storm drains, or in the trash is illegal and unsafe. Proper disposal of HHW is actually easy. Simply drop them off at a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center (HHWCC) for free disposal and recycling. Many materials including anti freeze, latex - based paint, motor oil and batteries can be recycled. Some centers have a "Stop & Swap" program that lets you take partially used home, garden, and automobile products free of charge. There are four HHWCCs in Orange County: Anaheim:..................1071 N. Blue Gum St Huntington Beach:......... 17121 Nichols St Irvine: ............................ 6411 Oak Canyon SanJuan Capistrano:... 32250 La Pata Ave Centers are open Tuesday -Saturday, 9 a.m.- 3 p.m. Centers are closed on rainy days and major holidays. For more information, call (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfiRs.com. Common household hazardous wastes ■ Batteries ■ Paint and paint products ■ Adhesives ■ Drain openers ■ Household cleaning products ■ Wood and metal cleaners and polishes ■ Pesticides ■ Fungicides/wood preservatives ■ Automotive products (antifreeze, motor oil, fluids) .. . ■ Grease and rust solvents ■ Fluorescent lamps ■ Mercury (thermometers & thermostats) ■ All forms of electronic waste including computers and microwaves ■ Pool & spa chemicals ■ Cleaners ■ Medications ■ Propane (camping & BBQ) ■ Mercury -containing lamps ■ Television & monitors (CRTs, flatscreens) Tips for household hazardous waste ■ Never dispose of HHW in the trash, street, gutter, storm drain or sewer. ■ Keep these materials in closed, labeled containers and store materials indoors or under a cover. ■ When possible, use non -hazardous products. ■ Reuse products whenever possible or share with family and friends. ■ Purchase only as much of a product as you'll need. Empty containers may be disposed of in the trash. ■ HHW can be harmful to humans, pets and the environment. Report emergencies to 911. I �'p I � k0l�w ATERMEFFORTR ` Program has teamed w the0=151Wc' TheOran County Stormwter ° flkmiripat Water District of Orange County (ff1lUDOC) and the Unrversky l�Q..:� of Catifom'is Cooperative Extension Program (UCCE) to dcwetop this ow v+taL U . Pollution �a+ + -. _ titi a Palluton-. pamphlet. F� Low Impact OeveLopmenk (LIO) and sustainable water use prevents i ¢ r, ,uw � � ^+^T� �:' crater poLLution and conserves water for dripI and reuse. Reducing your water use and the amount of water fLowing from your home. '�` ', r y protects the environment and saves you money, '?- �^ � y PolluL I Thank you for making water protection �. a priority!: ' .o Solullon dTr'` .r.�.�IlLkC.:�y 50- yi For more in o Mahon. « please visit www.ocwatersheds •"` o Polon com/pubUced/ J s ..xt: t• `i eom Solutron� S,^'{4 •r'R ♦ wes,wmwdoc_,1+ret+ w J i2 t' n s^ �� N� .?i wunu.uccemgcom i A- o Solution wez ttrc�„�i,�t`r' ` `,i To report a spill, call the Orange County 24-Nour Water PottuSon� r Pr�ention Reporting Hotline «� `e +V.,Solutloe,�'" k _ «,. at 1 -677 -99 -SPILL \ (t-877-697-7Y55J 8 0.• i _ ua.aA..._ss�"4ry��r�`j�( 3.!'s�'�"�A:•ian �,n u-:li?`�`""..r f �� ' 5- Thwu io �, ��" � t - me mea�P.,uan water l,n* - -of s .r1,e n Ca'f—i. ro, the — w the U,,?— .. F-�r�Ciy Plant and flat�rve H�.2'Fhofos _ U—Iy • cN11' {`T•iyt n .MIui1011 �,IIIM'}'' ` _ .Sw M; Where Does Water Runoff Go? Stormus ter, orwaterfrom rainfall events, and runoff from outdoorwater use such as sprinklers and hoses flows from homes drectly into catch basins and the storm drain system After entering the storm drain, the water flows untreated into streams, rivers, bays and ultimately the Pacific ocean. Ruraff can come from lawns, gardens, driveways, sidewalks and roofs. As it flows over hard, impervious surfaces, it picks up pollutants. Some pollutants cared by the water mi include trash, pet waste, pesticdss, fertif¢er, motor oil and more. Rain Gardens OPTIOnS FOR RRInLURTER Rah game yauaw ranci',p he Tected from your race HRRVESTI(1G RfiO REUSE _ dew rut into alandoapecarea Vegetation an tai in b .y the uc"Un sbiiw lefoW ofwav r, afewfor nitr tion.rto .�' the sci Plante dsolpads eanti ,a,ppoil o-isfarri RaurWs:st han•'e ngi agroai xayt ve tie ro vru. ff. 2y tgzr. a a +plant o law,:an err ns non or+enr u�ciutc-adreda.;ed a srr..:ainsd el y.ar arch rrnnrmal 2adt oval:mgaton. waist use, o h r est yao a_n x inrotp TFMe pisms we emote` L the semi and cl.rrst. e` Seutl em: ra ,rec; t,e runaf'from to and rker spews to rain barrels.. Carcoma, requira lass Ovate, and can reduce yourwater bol. Rain gart'rns aro a=o:sr Opti^_n; fess%r^'uae r unarf as tw_8 as . ,.r.,,,�nanram,nn Downspout Water Conservation Pollullon not only impairs the water Quality for habitat and recreation, it can also reduce .. the wateravailaNe for reuse, Runoff allowed to soak into the ground is cleaned as it percolates through the soil, replenishing depleted groundwater sLq)pfles. Groumkvater ' ? provides apploArnately50% of the total water for drinking and other indoor household = ar s activities in north and central Omnge County. When land is covered with roads, parking _ ; lots; homes, etc, there is less land to take in the water and more hard surfaces ever which thewatercan flow:`: ' �"Inprange County,"6070%ofwater;used by resrdeMs arM businesses goes to irgafion e:.. .. �� Q � ��. 4e 'r • � arid other outdoor uses. Reusing ramony rewaterto irgale our lawn not duces6te Ingact ofwaterpogLdmfromruraff,butitalsoisagreatwayloconsemmrprecims water va... �.. Rain Gardens OPTIOnS FOR RRInLURTER Rah game yauaw ranci',p he Tected from your race HRRVESTI(1G RfiO REUSE _ dew rut into alandoapecarea Vegetation an tai in b .y the uc"Un sbiiw lefoW ofwav r, afewfor nitr tion.rto .�' the sci Plante dsolpads eanti ,a,ppoil o-isfarri RaurWs:st han•'e ngi agroai xayt ve tie ro vru. ff. 2y tgzr. a a +plant o law,:an err ns non or+enr u�ciutc-adreda.;ed a srr..:ainsd el y.ar arch rrnnrmal 2adt oval:mgaton. waist use, o h r est yao a_n x inrotp TFMe pisms we emote` L the semi and cl.rrst. e` Seutl em: ra ,rec; t,e runaf'from to and rker spews to rain barrels.. Carcoma, requira lass Ovate, and can reduce yourwater bol. Rain gart'rns aro a=o:sr Opti^_n; fess%r^'uae r unarf as tw_8 as . ,.r.,,,�nanram,nn Downspout Disconnection/Redirection 7Y onne hnc e ns,. us frre p pt: '11ring armingto the a -r [nrorent tu:eff from fans,. rin_ ' ? Pollutan•sto theam anon once uiscanne. ed ,do :sr is f`4 car, be rodi-ten to ran gerdme or other vegetated meas or be ' conracied to s rain bonaL Rain"" els >"u - r' n pare me- ran-vete- a',cu e:nr I rJs.apr, n.gad n C ..,y of rair barrels nd for your home will da—d nr,;,. arra p° m,f nro2 and ra n•rll mcar-1 srrB tE fn r h..rg your r .sl— 7 mate sure r;ry( r ott. olphrre :e t Gas ,an over,,., tube to arlovor as _ „✓' 4 moi. water in con out and ccrtriector if you Wish to rcrne t mula.A, b_t?lo to add capacity of erten storage. ',,bosQu!to gro:Yh pr«mentan is very i;ryipttantxhen instaiing arainbanal. Theb:stwaytopreventnesquitDbree<ngis c .e,vi.%te entry po;^:Is by enzmina a:, do -rings are seated liuhtiy. If those atesads are u^s —sful, prowct, are avalale to ill inex.0 o larvae, but that are henrlass !u animals arxJ humans. Rsgular a,.^pEiaatiun ci (has-pmducis is 001,antiai. Please Yfs!! fne Orange Couahy teegter Control website for nate mfcunstion at ers,�tor:cd.or¢'rnc'D� tas::.ei-p. Bercr ma tyng Yocr yard h instoil a rain yaden, please wnselt y.. loot huilcnn end/x plarring d-par!merfs to en<aae yeur gammon plan to, parlineet baikling cal—,arid -erences Beci7dea coloo and cirviances. serits:orts —e a..s....afom also hnre,ud-frias`cr r,d ma acafons. if ;our F^.+*�j is in hill areas ormcludes ny rued soms,prcasu sect profias.,ional adore before p e—dirg nth char yes. For i Dm: iron an t -r to di.orciecta dawnaoc-a or 1. inet.11 and n -Marra banvl r ran garden a: ya�r hone, pl-arae sae the i_os Anyelea Rzinwatar Har estng Program, AHom.•mers Y. -T, Guide, idaven ber 2008 at xxla!:i va ma: .,€�ngam; OTHER UJRTER conSERVaon RnD POLLUTIOn PREVEnTIOn TEGHAIOUES Native Vegetation and Maintenance 'CaVIcnin=namely plants or nahvii t el -lion can. signi!icantly -&—water use, T hese p,anls of i mg -'re t la s e-tliznrs and postkides, wHoh am tea a:gnifioont iwiiutarts found in Craiffe County, watarways. Reptzcng water'trmt;l plants and crass Pits wit, water effciein nat:as is e gray`, way to sa:•e •water and reduce the med for polentany harmful posUcides and Mass nee the Cay for a FnenGarden ;u;De produced or hs R,rue Sita Yater i7:_tr...t cf Southern c_E.orria and aeeonated r3ot,hsr,f i m h city-rc:cs Ora caaicg.nf CeNorni. fr rpt p1wirts andchair gaiden rsou•cas at Weed Free Yards 5"r_z:; a -e tie �saas They Oen repridues, gwcity and rob you yard It, o_h veru and irrintanto. Freed vourvam t,yh d pons bier It you use re b c des to cn rcr t e vea,13, use only the ao--tt6 nTRriended an The Jobs[ arid r rwertil 'Fir. is fa;eaot N lh n the next 48 hems. Soil Amendments Soil amendments such as green :,ante {erg, grass eBpp'L^s, compost, etcg can be z sq;;i:`.cant seuree of nutricrSs and can help k -.r the soil near the mots o` plants s maisL Haees-, they pan asusa ahaa! booms it L F f get role cur --,-mays, i fi �h fed uess the amount of cxyg•;n in the water arid;m{,acts meet equate orgar,"i It is Inpartant to attloly sasl areend:nantc more than 48 It— prix to Preteeted rainfall. \ /� \ \� \: / � The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Follow these simple steps to help reduce water pollution: Household Activities EDo not rinse spills with water. Use dry cleanup methods such as applying cat litter or another absorbent material, sweep and dispose of in the trash. Take items such as used or excess batteries, oven cleaners, automotive fluids, painting products and cathode ray tubes, like TVs and computer monitors, to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center (HHWCC) NFor a HHWCC near you call (714) 834-6752 or visit %ivmoclandfi]ls.com. ZDo not hose down your driveway, sidewalk or patio to the street, gutter or storm drain. Sweep up debris and dispose of it in the trash. Automotive ETake your vehicle to a commercial car wash whenever possible. If you wash your vehicle at home, choose soaps, cleaners, or detergents labeled non-toxic, phosphate- free or biodegradable. Vegetable and citrus -based products are typically safest for the environment. 0 D not allow washwater from vehicle washing to drain into the street, gutter or storm drain. Excess washwater should be disposed of in the sanitary sewer (through a sink or toilet) or onto an absorbent surface like your lawn. ®Monitor your vehicles for leaks and place a pan under leaks. Keep your vehicles well maintained to stop and prevent leaks. ■Never pour oil or antifreeze in the street, gutter or storm drain. Recycle these substances at a service station, a waste oil collection center or used oil recycling center. For the nearest Used Oil Collection Center call 1-800-CLEANTUP or visit wxaiv.1800cleanup.org. Pool Maintenance ® Pool and spa water must be dechlorinated and free of excess acid, alkali or color to be allowed in the street, gutter or storm drain. ®When it is not raining, drain dechlorinated pool and spa water directly into the sanitary sewer. N Some cities may have ordinances that do not allow pool water to be disposed of in the storm drain. Check with your city. Landscape and Gardening MDo not over -water. Water your lawn and garden by hand to control the amount of water you use or set irrigation systems to reflect seasonal water needs. If water flows off your yard onto your driveway or sidewalk, your system is over -watering. Periodically inspect and fix leaks and misdirected sprinklers. 13Do not rake or blow leaves, clippings or pruning waste into the street, gutter or storm drain. Instead, dispose of waste by'composting, hauling it to a permitted landfill, or as green waste through your city's recycling program. ■Follow directions on pesticides and fertilizer, (measure, do not estimate amounts) and do not use if rain is predicted within 48 hours. NTake unwanted pesticides to a HHWCC to be recycled. For locations and hours of HHWCC, call (714) 834-6752 or visit N4,i-titiv.oclandfills.com. 'rash MPlace trash and litter that cannot be recycled in securely covered trash cans. EWhenever possible, buy recycled products. INRemember: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Pet Care IMAlways pick up after your pet. Flush waste down the toilet or dispose of it in the trash. Pet waste, if left outdoors, can wash into the street, gutter or storm drain. IN If possible, bathe your pets indoors. If you must bathe your pet outside, wash it on your lawn or another absorbent/permeable surface. -to- keep the washwater from entering the street, gutter or storm drain. MFollow directions for use of pet care products and dispose of any unused products at a HHWCC. . Did You Know? Sources of Non -Point Source Pollution The Effect on the Ocean ■Most people believe that the largest source of water pollution in urban areas comes from specific sources such as factories and sewage treatment plants. In fact, the largest source of water pollution comes from city streets, neighborhoods, construction sites and parking lots. This type of pollution is sometimes called "non -point source" pollution. ®There are two types of non -point source pollution: stormwater and urban runoff pollution. ® Stormwater runoff results from rainfall. When rainstorms cause large volumes of water to rinse the urban landscape, picking up pollutants along the way. ®Urban runoff can happen any time of the year when excessive water use from irrigation, vehicle washing and other sources carries trash, lawn clippings and other urban pollutants into storm drains. Mere Does It Go? ®Anything we use outside homes, vehicles and businesses — like motor oil, paint, pesticides, fertilizers and cleaners — can be blown or washed . into storm drains. ■A little water from a garden hose or rain can also send materials into storm drains. ® Storm drains are separate from our sanitary sewer systems; unlike water in sanitary sewers. (from sinks or toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways. a ■Automotive leaks and spills. ■ Improper disposal of used oil and other engine fluids. ® Metals found in vehicle exhaust, weathered paint, rust, metal plating and tires. ■ Pesticides and fertilizers from lawns, gardens and farms. ■ Improper disposal of cleaners, paint and paint removers. ® Soil erosion and dust debris from landscape and construction activities. N Litter, lawn clippings, animal waste, and other organic matter. ® Oil stains on parking lots and paved surfaces. Non -point source pollution can have a serious impact on water quality in Orange County. Pollutants from the storm drain system can harm marine life as well as coastal and wetland habitats. They can also degrade recreation areas such as beaches, harbors and bays. Stormwater quality management programs have been developed throughout Orange County to educate and encourage the public to protect water quality, monitor runoff in the storm drain system, investigate illegal dumping and maintain storm drains. Support from Orange County residents and businesses is needed to improve water quality and reduce urban runoff pollution. Proper use and disposal of materials will help stop pollution before it reaches the storm drain and the ocean. California Environmental Protection Agency www.calepa.ca.gov • Air Resources Board www.arb.ca.gov • Department of Pesticide Regulation www.cdpr.ca.gov • Department of Toxic Substances Control www.dtsc.ca.gov • Integrated Waste Management Board www.ciwmb.ca.gov • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment www.oehha.ca.gov • State Water Resources Control Board www.waterboards.ca.gov Earth 911- Community -Specific Environmental Information 1 -800 -cleanup or visit www. 1 800cleanup. org Health Care Agency's Ocean and Bay Water Closure and Posting Hotline (714) 433-6400 or visit www.ocbeachinfo.com Integrated Waste Management Dept. of Orange County (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfills.com for information on household hazardous waste collection centers, recycling centers and solid waste collection O.C. Agriculture Commissioner (714) 44777100 or visit www.ocagcomm.com Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook Visit www.cabmphandbooks.com UC Master Gardener Hotline (714) 708-1646 or visit www.uccemg.com The Orange County Stormwater Program has created and moderates an electronic mailing list, to facilitate` communications, take questions and exchange ideas among its users about issues and topics related to stormwater and urban runoff and the implementation of program elements. To join the list, please send an email to ocstorrnwaterinfo-join@list.ocwatershcds.com Aliso Viejo . . .......... ..... ..... (949) 425-2535 Anaheim Public Works Operations ........ (714) 765-6860 Brea Engineering . ............ .. ... (714) 990-7666 Buena Park Public Works ... ..... . . ... (714) 562-3655 Costa Mesa Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 7545323 Cypress Public Works ........... ..... (714) 229-6740 Dana Point Public Works ......... ..... (949) 248-3584 Fountain Valley Public Works ...... .. ... (714) 593-4441 Fullerton Engineering Dept ............. (714) 738-6853 Garden Grove Public Works ..... .... ... (714) 741-5956 Huntington Beach Public Works ....... .. (714) 536-5431 Irvine Public Works ... ..... ......... (949) 724-6315 La Habra Public Services .............. (562) 905-9792 La Palma Public Works ............... (714) 690-3310 Laguna Beach Water Quality... .. ....... (949) 497-0378 Laguna Hills Public Services ..... ....... (949) 707-2650 Laguna Niguel Public Works .. ......... (949) 362-4337 Laguna Woods Public Works.. . ........ . (949) 639-0500 Lake Forest Public Works ... . .. . . .... . (949) 461-3480 Los Alamitos Community Dev.. . ......... (562) 431-3538 Mission Viejo Public Works ... .... ..... (949) 470-3056 Newport Beach, Code & Water Quality Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . .(949) 6443215 Orange Public Works .. .... . .... . .... (714) 532-6480 Placentia Public Works ...... ......... (714) 993-8245 Rancho Santa Margarita .......... .... (949) 635-1800 San Clemente Environmental Programs . . . . . (949) 361-6143 San Juan Capistrano Engineering .. . . . . . . . (949) 234-4413 Santa'Ana Public Works ....... . ...... (714) 647-3380 Seal Beach Engineering .. , ........ (562) 431-2527 x317 Stanton Public Works.. . . .. .. (714) 379-9222 x204 Tustin Public Works/Engineering. (714) ' 573-3150 Villa Park Engineering . ... .. .... .... . (714) 998-1500 Westminster Public Works/Engineering (714) 898-3311 x446 Yorba Linda Engineering ....... .... (714) 961-7138 Orange County Stormwater Program . . .. . . . (877) 897-7455 _ Orange County 24 -Hour WaterP.ollution Problem Reporting Hotline 1 -877 -89 -SPILL (1-877-897-7455) On-line Water Pollution Problem Reporting Form -W"W W. O C W a t e r S h e d S C O m R O J E C T R E V E N T 1 0 N t t B SITE DESIGN BMP'S. P�u4an s - s47.ic - em .�-,' rtawis erre Mmvvr saw- stc mw.,wu (2Km s -ser M) — — we nu. oecmv SITE AND DRAINAGE PDAN TENTATIVE TRACT 17993 - -H STREET- _ `'iXT �*��R��� , + e... Attachment C TGD Worksheets & Figures 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet Infeasibility Criteria,� Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk for 1 groundwater related concerns? Refer to Appendix X VII (Worksheet 1) for guidance on groundwater -related infiltration feasibility criteria. Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk of increasing risk of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? (Yes if the answer to any of the following questions is yes, as established by a geotechnical expert): • The BMP can only be located less than 50 feet 2 away from slopes steeper than 15 percent X • The BMP can only be located less than eight feet from building foundations or an alternative setback. • A study prepared by a geotechnical professional or an available watershed study substantiates that stormwater infiltration would potentially result in significantly increased risks of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 3 Would infiltration of the DCV from drainage area violate X downstream water rights? Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.occvatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx 1 1 Partial Infeasibility Criteria Yes No Is proposed infiltration facility located on HSG D soils or 4 the site geotechnical investigation identifies presence of soil X characteristics which support categorization as D soils? Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Is measured infiltration rate below proposed facility' 5 less than 0.3 inches per hour? This calculation shall be X based on the methods described in Appendix VII. Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Would reduction of over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial uses, such as 6 change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or X increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? Provide citation to applicable study and summarize findings relative to the amount of infiltration that is permissible: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Would an increase in infiltration over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream 7 beneficial uses, such as change of seasonality of X ephemeral washes or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? Provide citation to applicable study and summarize findings relative to the amount of infiltration that is permissible: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.occvatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx 1 1 1 Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) Infiltration Screening Results (check box corresponding to 'result) Is there substantial evidence that infiltration from the project would result in a significant increase in I&I to the sanitary sewer that cannot be sufficiently mitigated? (See Appendix XVII) 8 Provide narrative discussion and supporting evidence: No Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. --------------------------------------------------------------------- If any answer from row 1-3 is yes: infiltration of any volume is not feasible within the DMA or equivalent. 9 Provide basis: No Summarize findings of infeasibility screening ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If any answer from row 4-7 is yes, infiltration is permissible but is not presumed to be feasible for the entire DCV. Criteria for designing biotreatment BMPs to achieve the maximum feasible infiltration and ET shall apply. 10 No Provide basis: Summarize findings of infeasibility screening -------------------------------------- -------- - – — If all answers to rows 1 through 11 are no, infiltration of the 11 full DCV is potentially feasible, BMPs must be designed to Infiltration is Feasible infiltrate the full DCV to the maximum extent practicable. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III .1, d inches d= 0.75 inches Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHsc (inches) dHsc= 0 inches 2 Worksheet A Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder= 0.75 inches 3 dremainder inches Line 1 — Line 2 - Step 2:r Calculate the DCV 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A acres A= 6.81 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, im unitless imp 0.82 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= 0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C 0.765 Calculate runoff volume, Vdeogn= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x Vdesign cu -ft 4 1/12 14183.27 Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of.the DCV„ ,Step 3a:�Determine•design ,infiitration' rate's . Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasun;d (in/hr) Kmeasured= In/hr 1 (Appendix VII 0.9 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Srinal Sfinal= 2 unitless 3 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdes n = Kmeasuredl Sfinal Kdesign= 0.3 In/hr :Step 3b: Determine'rrillnimum BMP footprint 4 Enter drawdown time, T max 48 hours T= 44.67 Hours Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within Amax feet 5 the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesi n x Tx 1/12 1.12 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq -ft), Amin = Amin= sq -ft 6 V desi n/ dmax 12663.63 Worksheets from Orange Countij Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets zvww.oc.vatersheds. com/WQMP.aspx 1 Worksheet C: Capture Efficiency Method for Volume -Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs -Step ,1c Determine the design capture storm depth :used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure 111.1, d (inches) d= 0.75 inches 2 Enter calculated drawdown time of the proposed BMP based T= 44.67 hours on equation provided in applicable BMP Fact Sheet, T (hours) Using Figure 111.2, determine the "fraction of design capture 3 storm depth" at which the BMP drawdown time (T) line XJ= 1.0 achieves 80% capture efficiency, Xf 4 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHSC dHsc= - inches (inches) (Worksheet A) Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHsc, 1'z 5 (Worksheet A) Yz - o /0 Using Figure 111.2, determine the fraction of "design capture 6 storm depth" at which the drawdown time (T) achieves the Xz= - equivalent of the upstream capture efficiency(YZ), Xz Calculate the fraction of design volume that must be provided 7 by BMP, fraction = X, - Xz fraction= 1.0 8 Calculate the resultant design capture storm depth (inches), dfracuon= 0.75 inches df,ction= fraction x d Step 2: Calculate the DCV "- 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 6.81 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.82 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.765 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dg ction x A x 43560 x udestgn cu -ft 4 (1/12)) 14183.27 s Supporting Calculations Describe system: 60' ADS Pipe with perforated bottom (underground infiltration pipe gallery) with gravel bed to facilitate infiltration. 4,320 (16' X 270') sf gravel bed footprint See following sheets for graphical operations and additional supporting calculations Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets wzvzv.oczvatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet C: Capture Efficiency Method for Volume -Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs Provide drawdown time calculations per applicable BMP Fact Sheet: Graphical Operations 100 — — a vdo Time --2,�h r 80% 700/ �. ds ,60°- r ter- Z t .x 9 .W 50° i i C6 40% - ' 7 ! --�-- - - _� - - _ -72=hr 1� ---96-hr 120-hr i--�----�--- � m 1 ter —240 -hr ----3607hr - 720 -hr U:0 0:2 0.4 0:6 0Z 1.0` 1.2 1.14 1-.6' 'I.8 2,0 Fraction.of Design Capture Storm Depth Provide supporting graphical operations. See Example 111.6. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.oc vatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx 1 Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet (: Assigned . Factor, Productr(pY Factor. Category _ Factor, Description Weight (w) Value (v)', w x v lSoil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.5 I 1 Predominant soil texture 0.25 2 0.5 A Suitability I Site soil variability 0.25 1 0.25 Assessment Depth to groundwater / impervious ......... 0.25 1 ............ .............. 0.25 layer Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = Ep 1.5 Tributary area size 1 0.25 2 0.5 i Level of pretreatment/ expected 0.25 3 0.75 ! sediment loads B Design 1 Redundancy 0.25 1 .25 Compaction during construction 0.25 2 0.5 .................. Design Safety Factor, SB = Ep ... _,- .........- ...................... ............. -.... ........... -- 2 -- - - _....._................ Combined Safety Factor, STOT= SAX SB 3 Measured Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, KM 0.9 (corrected for test -specific bias) Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KDESIGN = STOT / KM 0.3 in/hr Supporting. Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: Refer to percolation test section of Geotechnical Evaluation report performed by GeoTek, Inc. dated February 1, 2016 and the Additional Percolation Test Information letter prepared by GeoTek Inc. date April 13, 2016. i i Note: The minimum combined adjustment factor shall not be less than 2.0 and the maximum combined adjustment factor shall not exceed 9.0. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets wzvw.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx KMEASURED 0.9 STOT 3 KDESIGN 0.30 in/hr d 0.75 in DCVSIMPLE 14183.27 cf DCV Constant Drawdown AFOOTPRINT 4320 sf dSYSTEM 13.40 in T 44.67 hr Xl 1 (from Graph) XZ 0 X1- XZ 1 dFRACTION 0.75 in ATOTAL 6.81 ac imp 0.82 C 0.765 DCV 14183.27 cf dSYSTEM 39.40 in T 131.33 hr 2.94 (Estimated vs Calculated Drawdown) PIPE PIPE 5 ft ApIpE 19.63 sf LpIpE 533 ft VPIPE 10465.43 CF GRAVEL AFOOTPRINT 4320 sf Void Ratio 0.4 H 5.5 ft WTOTAL 15783.26 > 14183.27 cf DCV Constant > 14183.27 cf DCV Simple 1 1 1 Attachment D TGD Reference Exhibits 1 1 z � _ ., r� � � � � � �� „• � TLEGEND � . � �'"'` d City Boundaries (� ,,�`trr "` y g ASoils BSoils O O e A - r C Soils `fq } `�: ,...:1 D Soils e e _ • s �"`-� za. ,•.~ } { `" s qy, " Soils Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) c �r`c I ! ,.a' '' ' �� 'w c Soil Survey - soil_ra678, Orange County 8 Western Riverside ill! "� 11 cr7•:- a,.. ;tr ;1 .�, azn -">E -cr S,.,r ,� - Date of publication: 2006-02-08 �i a c s A"- � �.: hlp h,+ o ., rveY rres.usda.govlY-6applHomePage.h;m . E , yy , ".. � r7 P: Y"'' am s' •r v �;. , 3� � ,°a. �';a; '.. � s a „+". o.,p er• a r. ;! 'moi-`+� i +e.r, a, rr J Irk" �, r„ ,-<-�. A i r'z / l �„ cy �' . �, .+�,�''" , yi"�•, .:.. rv..*i` c>i' t nu..rmazrn ez, J°l ; "nS; ,'''' ='; ri `fig;,., ,,'y "�n !' ,'� �"• s•. 1111-15 V-11- 3y€ . ,�' -'. 3-,a "° a!a _ •$. a `,,.x.�� _ Q rY"'IE s ,..,.a"`/ ;,¢ 'z fi 1^g,,a,,, S. ,,,f V '� G"`-.•` '�he ,-"-P� t f 0N�Sj i� l'F eti' �i Y�'� ' 3 O CS w e4';, i ",:,. c'4 # s Y "*e - rl✓" G.C,»�,,' s.. �'4 i"',,^- 1-42 z ¢z n'„.r apko K 41 At OY Q. ..a�cz`� � 'r t p y • Wa a 2.5 s to I` ® Mometers Mles `,p, _ 0 1B 3fi 72 .„ _ ,_ _ ,F ` ' s 9aei4c _ .' . y. Fain XV1 2a moi. a,_ ,•.. �� � � >, ..:�1 � �r, - �MC3dC�C�4 r c 6T Ld a ..6x. o- s•+r�ahrr: PaaJlh • � u '�, ,fig w740++.w rmw 1a ce d h t + p4 iM� t �,y �� ^•* LEGEND City Boundaries g Hydrologic Soil Groups D Solis source 0 Q f " D So€Is. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) .� Soil Survey - soil m678, Orange County & Western Riverside CIJS .q t R Date of publication: 2006-02-08 �} httR IM.'ebsoi:survey.rras usda govlapp/NomePage h;m [a`� o � < p o" Ir _. MJ LEGEND � a a �. «, :� v., �_. -��� '• d City Boundaries ga- _ m. tik. n k4 °°v y F FlJ VU Seismic Hazards Potential Landslide Area I HI �.. .�. h k' "a`' v f'_x ✓ "k �'" Source Seismic Hazard Zone Maps g t• `"� ',a:� rLxi f -_"` r ta Division of Mines and Geology, California Geology Survey, Publication Date: 2005; Data Downloaded 02-09-2011 }�'N s _�. http:!ivri�w.ccnser+anon.ca.go�': gs!shzpiFagesitrdex.aspx z s (". '� t �. � v'u .&.. =3a : --p. as ; k� er •-,, a fe s: 73, OFM- , <i. 477 J naAli°� ccI i• }., Orr - LS �_ Z z • a. F3 _ ,: •.. ✓6'rn F 'k� . Ne _d.Sr # '::: n>., � .>` , .. .. �.'.€�.' . " .. ...... ld�, � .�: �'+x. . �` ..... � _ ', sv.. R O M ® _ �MC3dCC'4 40 CMG34Ci1CG3 LLMN.5DOO e. LEGEND OCWD Groundwater Basin Protection Boundary � G� +�oun ares - CityB - - ♦ Infiltration Constraintsel, 3 Q �'♦t = 1 Constraint Q O 2 Overlapping Constraints 3 Overlapping Constraints GQ 4 Overlapping Constraints Q a �„a�+ #c� a i rte- "5 `•1-� - ^"'Aa�� im °: as, p i3 f'� ^�� Analysis Layers Included: 1. Hydrologic Soil Group D, 2. Landslide Q Hazard Zone, 3. Groundwater Protection Areas 4. Approximate - ): € a Selinium Area, 5. Depth to Groundwater <= 5' s Note: Screening datasets are not exhaustive. The applicant should , i _t �, ♦� always conduct a review of available site information Y 4i �, relative to infiltration constraints as part of assessing the feasibility of L �.� � stormwater infiltration. & Source; I Infiltration Constraint Analysis PACEIGeosyntec s.�,.. Iwo k7 P U: ,°av�`S ti' �j ` 0 � �"'c^'*,� E ♦Y Nun1 g Bra 3 '� ,%..re. �. J .? � {' h 7 -, ®O ♦e 't� �-',. lJ Q ` ^�" � c ♦ ti' � `meq,' i � � 1 1 1 1,x, \3, \� m o m 6 r m A Gq d '41 El NINE MEM ME $ \ cn �a a a m am o k y i UJ #/i qhs o^ v ------------------ 'n Ti D V ,J PACEW Advanced W—Enof—ing DRAM E COUNTY UNTY WATERSHED UV AS ER KAMM ORANGE CO. CA MI M PIORT DAV( NEWPORT COASTAL STREAMS 'n Ti D V ,J 1 1 1 Attachment E BMP Fact Sheets & Details TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES INF -7: Underground Infiltration Underground infiltration is a vault or chamber with an open bottom that used to store runoff and percolate into the subsurface. A number of vendors offer proprietary infiltration products that allow for similar or enhanced rates of infiltration and subsurface storage while offering durable prefrabricated structures. There are many varieties of proprietary infiltration BMPs that can be used for roads and parking lots, parks and open spaces, single and multi -family residential, or mixed-use and commercial uses. ;Feasibility Screening Considerations • Infiltration bains shall pass infeasible screening criteria to be considered for use. s➢ In vault Recharge vault, Underground Infiltration Source: http://www.contech-cpi.com • Underground infiltration galleries pose a potential risk of groundwater contamination; pretreatment should be used. ,Opportunity Criteria • Soils are adequate for infiltration or can be amended to provide an adequate infiltration rate. • Appropriate for sites with limited surface space. • Can be placed beneath roads, parking lots, parks, and athletic fields. • Potential for groundwater contamination can be mitigated through isolation of pollutant sources, pretreatment of inflow, and/or demonstration of adequate treatment capacity of underlying soils. • Infiltration is into native soil, or depth of engineered fill is <_ 5 feet from the bottom of the facility to native material and infiltration into fill is approved by a geotechnical professional. • Tributary area land uses include mixed-use and commercial, sngle-family and multi -family, roads and parking lots, and parks and open spaces. High pollutant land uses should not be tributary to infiltration BMPs. OC Specific Design Criteria and Considera% ons Placement of BMPs should observe geotechnical recommendations with respect to geological ❑ hazards (e.g. landslides, liquefaction zones, erosion, etc.) and set -backs (e.g., foundations, utilities, roadways, etc.) ❑ Minimum separation to mounded seasonally high groundwater of 10 feet shall be observed. ❑ Minimum pretreatment should be provided upstream of the infiltration facility, and water bypassing pretreatment should not be directed to the facility. ❑ Underground infiltration should not be used for drainage areas with high sediment production potential unless preceded by full treatment control with a BMP effective for sediment removal. ❑ Design infiltration rate should be determined as described in Appendix VII. ❑ Inspection ports or similar design features shall be provided to verify continued system performance and identify need for major maintenance. XIV -43 December 20, 2013 1 1 1 1 1 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES For infiltration facilities beneath roads and parking areas, structural requirements should meet H-20 load requirements. Computingllndergro`und Infiltrafron DevrcezS�zenx Underground infiltration devices vary by design and by proprietary designs. The sizing method selected for use must be based on the BMP type it most strongly resembles. • For underground infiltration devices with open pore volume (e.g., vaults, crates, pipe sections, etc), sizing will be most similar to infiltration basins. • For underground infiltration devices with pore space (e.g., aggregate reservoirs), sizing will be most similar to permeable pavement. • Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Stormwater Technical Manual, Chapter 5: httpV/www.laschools.org/employee/desi/i fs-studies-and- reports/download/white paper report material/Storrn_ Water _ Technical_ Manual_ 2009-opt- red.p df?version_id=76975850 XIV -44 December 20, 2013 Introduction For the past several years, the use of smooth interior corrugated high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe has been a viable alternative for the control of stormwater quality through underground systems. Typically, stormwater has either been infiltrated through perforated pipe or detained in solid pipe and then discharged at a controlled rate to the local storm sewer system or tributary. In both situations, the design did not provide for the potential reuse of stormwater. There is a growing demand for the construction industry to provide for resource reuse. In some situations, the reuse is being driven by a regulatory requirement. In many cases, the reuse of resources can provide an economic benefit. This is especially applicable to stormwater in areas where water resources are at a premium. Water reclamation should be considered in situations where infiltration is not feasible due to site constraints. This document provides information on the installation, storage capacity and system layouts for rainwater harvesting systems using ADS HDPE pipe cisterns. HDPE Pipe Cisterns ADS HDPE N-12 pipe is the building block of our cisterns. The Specifications section of the Drainage Handbook provides additional information on pipe dimensions and properties. The pipe has a smooth inner wall and a corrugated outer wall. The smooth inner wall combines superior hydraulics and the ability to resist abrasion and corrosion. The corrugated outer wall provides the strength necessary to withstand heavy traffic loads with varying cover heights. In addition to pipe, the ADS cistern uses specially designed manifolds and other fittings to complete the pipe component of the cistern. ADS can assist with system layout including pipe and necessary components for the cistern. System Layout A typical cistern layout includes at least one inlet into the system. This inlet can be on the cistern manifold as shown below or can be done on a lateral. Further, the inlet can be accomplished via a pre -fabricated stub or with a reducer and tee fittings in the system corner. Both inlet types are shown below. When designing system inlets, attention should be given to the hydraulic grade line of the site to limit or prevent conveyance system surcharging. The outlet of the cistern should be directed to a reinforced concrete manhole. The manhole should be reinforced to limit the effects of vibration from the pump system. The outlet invert should be the same as the pipe invert elevation to ensure that the entire system is able to drain. An underdrain should be installed within the stone backfill of the cistern. The invert of the underdrain should be at the bottom of the stone backfill envelope. The underdrain from the stone backfill should be directed to the outlet manhole so that the stone backfill can be completely drained. The outlet manhole serves multiple purposes. In addition to acting as an outlet structure, the manhole also houses a discharge pump (designed by others) to remove stormwater from the cistern. Installing a pump within the system piping or pumping directly from piping is not recommended for hydraulic reasons. The manhole should be located outside the footprint of the thermoplastic liner as shown in the detail below. The outlet manhole will also include the cistern overflow. It is recommended that an overflow be incorporated into the System in the event that the cistern is not completely emptied between storm events. If the cistern is not completely empty and there is no overflow, the potential exists for the entire system to be surcharged and flooding could occur. The invert of the overflow should be set at the top of the cistern. 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD. HILLIARD, OH 43026 (800) 821-6710 www.ads.-pipe.com 1 ATN701 © ADS 2009 1 3 F fig t� t/}3 k a r �,_...� { �. K"""` nip :% +� 3 }i i (^x+{ sa€g €@(�i �l "' , 11 .a'�z K3 .6. 4'fi2�q{ 0. y an l )i.1 ici'VY libi. IAL�ii?Siiit[�i9�F iF `'t�- a �E4 TECHNICAL NOTE' TN 7.01 Rainwater Harvesting with HDPE Pipe Cisterns January 2009 ,�'"i:yw*W 3.`W i w _ 3 Introduction For the past several years, the use of smooth interior corrugated high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe has been a viable alternative for the control of stormwater quality through underground systems. Typically, stormwater has either been infiltrated through perforated pipe or detained in solid pipe and then discharged at a controlled rate to the local storm sewer system or tributary. In both situations, the design did not provide for the potential reuse of stormwater. There is a growing demand for the construction industry to provide for resource reuse. In some situations, the reuse is being driven by a regulatory requirement. In many cases, the reuse of resources can provide an economic benefit. This is especially applicable to stormwater in areas where water resources are at a premium. Water reclamation should be considered in situations where infiltration is not feasible due to site constraints. This document provides information on the installation, storage capacity and system layouts for rainwater harvesting systems using ADS HDPE pipe cisterns. HDPE Pipe Cisterns ADS HDPE N-12 pipe is the building block of our cisterns. The Specifications section of the Drainage Handbook provides additional information on pipe dimensions and properties. The pipe has a smooth inner wall and a corrugated outer wall. The smooth inner wall combines superior hydraulics and the ability to resist abrasion and corrosion. The corrugated outer wall provides the strength necessary to withstand heavy traffic loads with varying cover heights. In addition to pipe, the ADS cistern uses specially designed manifolds and other fittings to complete the pipe component of the cistern. ADS can assist with system layout including pipe and necessary components for the cistern. System Layout A typical cistern layout includes at least one inlet into the system. This inlet can be on the cistern manifold as shown below or can be done on a lateral. Further, the inlet can be accomplished via a pre -fabricated stub or with a reducer and tee fittings in the system corner. Both inlet types are shown below. When designing system inlets, attention should be given to the hydraulic grade line of the site to limit or prevent conveyance system surcharging. The outlet of the cistern should be directed to a reinforced concrete manhole. The manhole should be reinforced to limit the effects of vibration from the pump system. The outlet invert should be the same as the pipe invert elevation to ensure that the entire system is able to drain. An underdrain should be installed within the stone backfill of the cistern. The invert of the underdrain should be at the bottom of the stone backfill envelope. The underdrain from the stone backfill should be directed to the outlet manhole so that the stone backfill can be completely drained. The outlet manhole serves multiple purposes. In addition to acting as an outlet structure, the manhole also houses a discharge pump (designed by others) to remove stormwater from the cistern. Installing a pump within the system piping or pumping directly from piping is not recommended for hydraulic reasons. The manhole should be located outside the footprint of the thermoplastic liner as shown in the detail below. The outlet manhole will also include the cistern overflow. It is recommended that an overflow be incorporated into the System in the event that the cistern is not completely emptied between storm events. If the cistern is not completely empty and there is no overflow, the potential exists for the entire system to be surcharged and flooding could occur. The invert of the overflow should be set at the top of the cistern. 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD. HILLIARD, OH 43026 (800) 821-6710 www.ads.-pipe.com 1 ATN701 © ADS 2009 1 1 1 s F ' ) (� �11 i ill) .,t Ily e r a n U—Vv 4 m t�'•i, uci+E i.•ei r.{r eLid 3 Y s,r ,• , d- _ s N,7 ` a.�7d �a " r " 74 Lastly, the outlet manhole can also include a vent from the system. System venting is recommended to allow adequate airflow through the cistern and equalize air pressures within the cistern. If not vented, there can be issue with cistern pressures under some circumstances. In the sample layout shown below, the system includes a 4 -inch HDPE vent line leading from the cistern to the outlet manhole. To prevent backflow into the cistern through the vent, it is recommended that the vent be located above the crown of the overflow pipe. The use of a vent is recommended for installations in which the cistern is encased within the thermoplastic liner. For cisterns that are not completely encased within the thermoplastic liner, the use of a vent is at the engineer's discretion. INLE INLET Figure 1 Example Cistern Layout 4"H 12 PE THERMOPLASTIC LINER 2 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD. HILLIARD, OH 43026 (800) 821-6710 www.ads-pipe.com ATN701 © ADS 2009 Storm Drain Signage SD -13 Description Design Objectives Maximize Irifiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious. Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutant§ Collect and Convey Waste materials:dumped'into storm drain inlets can have severesimpacts on receivingarid. ground watem.,;Posting notices regarding discharge prohibitions at storm drain inlets can prevent waste dumping. Storm drain signs and stencilsare:highly visible,.source.controls.that. are typically; placed directlyadjacent to storm drain inlets. Approach The stencil or affixed sign contains a brief statement that prohibits dumping of improper materials into the urban runoff conveyance system. Storm drain messages have become a popular method of alerting the public about the effects of and the prohibitions against waste disposal. Suitable Applications Stencils and signs alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged to the storm drain. Signs are appropriate in residential, commercial, and industrial areas, as well as any other area where contributions or dumping to storm drains is likely. Design Considerations Storm drain message markers or placards are recommended at all storm drain inlets within the boundary of a development project. The marker should be placed in clear sight facing toward anyone approaching the inlet from either side. All storm drain inlet locations should be identified on the development site map. Designing New Installations The following methods should be considered for inclusion in the project design and show on project plans: ■ Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language. Examples include "NO DUMPING c ,LLICIM A S OPAiWA 0 January 2003 California Stormwaber BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Developmentand Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook,;.com 1 1 1 SD -13 Storm Drain Signage — DRAINS TO OCEAN' and/or other graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. ■ Post signs with prohibitive language and/or graphical icons, which prohibit illegal dumping at public access points along channels and creeks within the project area. Note - Some local agencies have approved specific signage and/or storm drain message placards for use. Consult local agency stormwater staff to determine specific requirements for placard types and methods of application. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. If the project meets the definition of "redevelopment", then the requirements stated under " designing new installations" above should be included in all project design plans. Additional Information Maintenance Considerations ■ Legibility of markers and signs should be maintained. If required by the agency with jurisdiction over the project, the owner/operator or homeowner's association should enter into a maintenance agreement with the agency or record a deed restriction upon the property title to maintain the legibility of placards or signs. Placement ■ Signage on top of curbs tends to weather and fade. ■ Signage on face of curbs tends to be worn by contact with vehicle tires and sweeper brooms. Supplemental Information Examples ■ Most MS4 programs have storm drain signage programs. Some MS4 programs will provide stencils, or arrange for volunteers to stencil storm drains as part of their outreach program. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Developmentand Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Efficient Irrigation SD -12 Design Objectives Q Maximize Infiltration El Provide Retention El Slow Runoff. Minimize]mpeniious. Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Description Irrigationwater. provided.to landscaped areas may result in excess .irrigation.water being conveyed into'stormvvater drainage' systems. Approach' Project plan designs :for development and redevelopihent should include application methods of irrigationwater that minimize.runo ff of:excess;irrigation water into the stormwater conveyance system. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single-family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.) Design Considerations Designing New Installations The following methods to reduce excessive irrigation runoff should be considered, and incorporated and implemented where determined applicable and feasible by the Permittee: ■ Employ rain -triggered shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation. ■ Design irrigation systems to each landscape area's specific water requirements. ■ Include design featuring flow reducers or shutoffvalves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines. ■ Implement landscape plans consistent with County or City water conservation resolutions, which may include provision of water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for short cycles), etc. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 1 1 1 [1 SIS -12 Efficient Irrigation ■ Design timing and application methods of irrigation water to minimise the runoff of excess irrigation water into the storm water drainage system. ■ Group plants with similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Choose plants with low irrigation requirements (for example, native or drought tolerant species). Consider design features such as: - Using mulches (such as wood chips or bar) in planter areas without ground cover to minimise sediment in runoff - Installing appropriate plant materials for the location, in accordance with amount of sunlight and climate, and use native plant materials where possible and/or as recommended by the landscape architect - Leaving a vegetative barrier along the property boundary and interior watercourses, to act as a pollutant filter, where appropriate and feasible - Choosing plants that minimize or eliminate the use of fertilizer or pesticides to sustain growth ■ Employ other comparable, equally effective methods to reduce irrigation water runoff. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of" redevelopment' must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under "designing new installations" above should be followed. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Developmentand Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Drain Inserts MP -52 Description Drain inserts are manufactured filters or fabric placed in a drop inlet to remove sediment and debris. There are a multitude of inserts of various shapes and configurations, typically falling into one of three different groups: socks, boxes, and trays. The sock consists of a fabric, usually constructed of polypropylene. The fabric may be attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet holds the sock. Socks are meant for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed of plastic or wire mesh. Typically a polypropylene "bag" is placed in the wire mesh box. The bag takes the form of the box. Most box products are one box; that is, the setting area and filtration through media occur in the same box. Some products consist of one or more trays or mesh grates. The trays may hold different types of media. Filtration media vary by manufacturer. Types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbon. California Experience The number of installations is unknown but likely exceeds a thousand. Some users have reported that these systems require considerable maintenance to prevent plugging and bypass. Advantages ■ Does not require additional space as inserts as the drain inlets are already a component of the standard drainage systems. ■ Easy access for inspection and maintenance. ■ As there is no standing water, there is little concern for mosquito breeding. ■ A relatively inexpensive retrofit option. Limitations Performance is likely significantly less than treatment systems that are located at the end of the drainage system such as ponds and vaults. Usually not suitable for large areas or areas with trash or leaves than can plug the insert. Design and Sizing Guidelines Refer to manufacturer's guidelines. Drain inserts come any many configurations but can be placed into three general groups: socks, boxes, and trays. The sock consists of a fabric, usually constructed of polypropylene. The fabric may be attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet holds the sock. Socks are meant for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed of plastic or wire mesh. Typically a polypropylene "bag" is placed in the wire mesh box. The bag takes the form of the box. Most box products are Design Considerations ■ Use with other BMPs ■ Fit and Seal Capacity within Inlet Targeted Constituents ✓ Sediment ✓ Nutrients ✓ Trash ✓ Metals Bacteria ✓ Oil and Grease ✓ Organics Removal Effectiveness See New Development and Redevelopment Handbook -Section 5. California Stormwater `4 Quality Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 3 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 1 1 1 MP -52 Drain Inserts one box; that is, the setting area and filtration through media occurs in the same box. One manufacturer has a double -box. Stormwater enters the first box where setting occurs. The stormwater flows into the second box where the filter media is located. Some products consist of one or more trays or mesh grates. The trays can hold different types of media. Filtration media vary with the manufacturer: types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbon. Construction/Inspection Considerations Be certain that installation is done in a manner that makes certain that the stormwater enters the unit and does not leak around the perimeter. Leakage between the frame of the insert and the frame of the drain inlet can easily occur with vertical (drop) inlets. Performance Few products have performance data collected under field conditions. Siting Criteria It is recommended that inserts be used only for retrofit situations or as pretreatment where other treatment BMPs presented in this section area used. Additional Design Guidelines Follow guidelines provided by individual manufacturers. Maintenance Likely require frequent maintenance, on the order of several times per year. Cost ■ The initial cost of individual inserts ranges from less than $10o to about $2,000. The cost of using multiple units in curb inlet drains varies with the size of the inlet. ■ The low cost of inserts may tend to favor the use of these systems over other, more effective treatment BMPs. However, the low cost of each unit may be offset by the number of units that are required, more frequent maintenance, and the shorter structural life (and therefore replacement). References and Sources of Additional Information Hrachovec, R., and G. Minton, 2001, Field testing of a sock -type catch basin insert, Planet CPR, Seattle, Washington Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee, Evaluation of Commercially -Available Catch Basin Inserts for the Treatment of Stormwater Runoff from Developed Sites, 1995 Larry Walker Associates, June 1998, NDMP Inlet/In-Line Control Measure Study Report Manufacturers literature Santa Monica (City), Santa Monica Bay Municipal Stormwater/Urban Runoff Project - Evaluation of Potential Catch basin Retrofits, Woodward Clyde, September 24,1998 2 of 3 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Drain Inserts MP -52 Woodward Clyde, June 11, 1996, Parking Lot Monitoring Report, Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. i 1 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 3 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 1 1 1 Attachment F 2 -Year HCOC Calculations I NTR-002 Tustin, CA HCOC Calculations 2 -Year, 24 hour storm even volume and Time of Concentration calculations were derived from the Orange County Hydrology Manual. The following equations were utilized: V2 -YEAR= C(D)(A) C = Runoff Coefficient D = Mean Precipitation Depth for 24 Hours A = Area C = 0.90(ai), for Intensities (1) less than or equal to FP a; = Ratio of Impervious areas to total area FP = Infiltration Rate for Pervious areas = 0.30 * Refer to Orange County Hydrology Manual Section C.6.4 Intensity: I(t) = a(tb) a = 5.702 t = 1440 minutes (24 hours) b = -0.574 I(t = 1440) = 5.702(1440-0.174) = 0.0877 Depth: l D(t) = a(tb) a = 0.095 t = 1,440 minutes (24 hours) b = 0.426 D(t = 1440) = 0.095(1,440 0.426) = 2.104 in Existing Conditions a; = 0.94 C = 0.90(0.94) = 0.846 A = 6.81 ac (296,817 sf) V2 -YEAR -PRE= 0.846(2.104 in)(296,817 sf)(1 ft/12 in) = 44,027 cf Proposed Conditions a; = 0.82 C = 0.90(0.82) = 0.738 A = 6.81 ac (296,817 sf) V2 -YEAR -POST= 0.738(2.104 in)(296,817 sf)(1 ft/12 in) = 38,407 cf 1 I I I L4 ORANGE COUNTY' HYDROLOGY MANUAL LIMITATIONS, T -C _100 10..00 -90 -900 -80 00 Y.a -70 -700 30, r ,0 300 %w-350 l-- 600 E s 50 L4 ORANGE COUNTY' HYDROLOGY MANUAL LIMITATIONS, -500 i. Maximum length = i000 Poet o. 0. 40 CL_ Y.a 400 30, 300 %w-350 200 25 E0- g I00 0 _ so 60 300 E 30 20 io 19 _950 1V i$- I7 J, 116 c. C 15 3 14 200 13 _j(U Undeveloped 0 c 0 Fol r Cover V -10 0 'i 150 0; -9 Cc E 20 .2 Single Family -7 100 � 5 L4 ORANGE COUNTY' HYDROLOGY MANUAL LIMITATIONS, i. Maximum length = i000 Poet 2: Maximum area a 10 Acret 0. Y.a '400 300 200 N 0. E0- g I00 0 _ so 60 40 E 30 • 06 io 10 Q (L K 'PI i 4. Undeveloped 3 Good Cover , Undeveloped 0 c -14 Fol r Cover Undeveloped 0 'i .4 41 -Poor Cover _to Cc 20 .2 Single Family %;j -r uuf#4%4 Commercial (Paved), KEY L C -K -V PI Development 80- Apartment 75- Mobile Home 6.5- Condominium - 60 -Single Family -.5,000 ft Lot 40- Single Family -l/4 AcreL Lot 20- Single Family- I Acre Lot 15 -Developed Open Space 10 - Single , Famlly41/2, Acre Lot WE 14 --1" I fn 5 16 17 E 18 --4 E 35,- 40, - TIME, OF - CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBARE L A 11 Attachment G Geotechnical Evaluation Report 1 1 1 GeoTek, Inc. 710 E: Parleridge Avende, Suite 105, Corona; California 92879=1097 (951) 710-1160 Office (95 I) 710-.I 167, Fax wwkgeotekuta coin April 13, 2016 Project No. 1400 -CR Intracorp Companies 4041 Mac Arthur Boulevard, Suite 250 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Ms. Jennifer L. Chirco-Coker Subject: Additional Percolation Test Information Proposed Residential Development 420 W. 6' Street Tustin, Orange County, California Reference: See Page 3 Dear Ms. Chirco-Coker: GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is presenting additional geotechnical information to our previously reported percolation testing that was performed on the property. Based on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map prepared by C&V Consulting dated February 12, 2016, the proposed BMP is located along the south property line that will be extended to a depth of 10 feet. Based on our boring logs (Borings B-2, B-3 and B -T), sandy silt with variable amounts of silty sand to sand were observed within the upper 10 feet of earth materials. The previously reported percolation testing was performed within boring B-4 at a depth of 40/2 feet below the ground surface (bgs) with the presence of some cohesive soils (i.e. silty sand and sandy silt) and yielded a converted infiltration rate of 0.9 in/hr. The materials observed within boring B-4 are of the same nature of the near surface materials in the vicinity of the proposed BMP. We recommend that the same infiltration rate of 0.9 in/hr can be applied to the currently proposed BMP location along the south property line. Additionally, the same infiltration rate can be applied to the remaining portions of the property to a depth of 10 feet. However, if desired by the governing agency, additional tests can be performed once the existing structures are razed and access to the proposed BMP location is available. Note that variations may occur within the site and with depth. We recommend that an appropriate factor of safety be applied to account for silting of the basin bottom over time. GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS Intracorp Companies Project No. 1400 -CR Additional Percolation Test Information April 13, 2016 Tustin, Orange County. California Page 2 The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoTek, Inc. Edward H. LaMont CEG 1892, Exp. 7/31/16 Principal Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee via email Paul Hyun Jin Kim PE 77214, Exp. 6/30/17 Project Engineer G:\Projects\1351 to 1400\1400CR Intracorp Companies 420 W. 6th Street Tustin\1400CRAdditional Percolation Test Information.doc GEOTEK 1 1 1 1 Intracorp Companies Project No. 1400 -CR Additional Percolation Test Information April 13, 2016 Tustin, Orange County, California Page 3 REFERENCE GeoTek, Inc., 2016, "Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Proposed Residential Development, 420 W. 6`' Street, Tustin, Orange County, California," Project No: 1400 -CR, dated February 1. ,C -3r., GEOTEK PROJECT No. 1400 -CR GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 420 W. 6T" STREET TUSTIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR INTRACORP COMPANIES 4041 MACARTHUR BLVD., SUITE 250 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92618 PREPARED BY GEOTEK, INC. 710 EAST PARKRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE 105 CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92879 'G, GEOTEK FEBRUARY I, 2016 1 1 1 1 GeoTek, Inc. 7 1 E. Parkridge Avenue, Suite 105, Corona, California 92879-1097 (951) 710-1160 Office (95 1) 710-1167 Fax wwwgeotekusa.com February 1, 2016 Project No. 1400 -CR Intracorp Companies 4041 Mac Arthur Blvd., Suite 250 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Ms. Jennifer L. Chirco-Coker Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 420 W. 6t' Street Tustin, Orange County, California Dear Ms. Chirco-Coker: We are pleased to provide the results. of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed development located at 420 W. 6" Street in Tustin, Orange County, California. This report presents the results of our evaluation, discussion of our findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction. In our opinion, site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoTek, Inc. aAuA-'2C- Edward H. LaMont CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/16 Principal Geologist Paul Hyun Jin Kim PE 77214, Exp. 06/30/17 Project Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file) G\Projects\1351 to 1400\1400CR Intracorp Companies 420 W. 6th Street Tustin1400CR W. 6th Stree4 Tustin GEO.doc INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES......................................................................................................1 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................1 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................................1 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................................. 2 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................... 2 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION...................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................................................. 2 3.3 PERCOLATION TEST INFORMATION................................................................................................................. 2 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS.................................................................................................... 3 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING....................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................... 4 4.2.1 Alluvium................................................................................................................................................ 4 4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER....................................................................................................... 4 4.3.1 Surface Water....................................................................................................................................... 4 4.3.2 Groundwater.........................................................................................................................................4 4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY........................................................................................................................... 5 4.4.1 Faulting.................................................................................................................................................5 4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters.................................................................................................................... 5 4.5 LIQUEFACTION.............................................................................................................................................. 6 4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS............................................................................................................................. 7 S. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 7 5.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................................................7 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................................... 7 5.2.1 General.................................................................................................................................................7 5.2.2 Site Clearing and Preparation................................................................................................................. 8 5.2.3 Removals.............................................................................................................................................. 8 5.2.4 Engineered Fill....................................................................................................................................... 8 5.2.5 Shrinkage and Bulking........................................................................................................................... 9 5.2.6 Trench Excavations and Backfill ............................................................................................................. 9 5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................ 9 5.3.1 Conventional Slab and Shallow Foundation Design Criteria...................................................................... 9 5.3.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations........................................................................................ 12 5.3.3 Retaining Wall Design and Construction............................................................................................... 13 5.3.4 Soil Corrosivity..................................................................................................................................... 15 5.3.5 Soil Sulfate Content............................................................................................................................. 16 5.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION......................................................................................................................... 16 5.4.1 General...............................................................................................................................................16 5.4.2 Concrete Mix Design........................................................................................................................... 16 5.4.3 Concrete Flatwork...................... :........................................................................................................ 16 5.4.4 Concrete Performance......................................................................................................................... 16 5.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION......................................................................................................... 17 5.5.1 Irrigation............................................................................................................................................. 17 GEOTEK 1 I- i INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.5.2 Drainage............................................................................................................................................. 18 5.6 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................... 18 6. INTENT.............................................................................................................................................................19 7. LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................................................19 8. SELECTED REFERENCES............................................................................................................................20 ENCLOSURES Figure I — Site and Boring Location Map Appendix A — Logs of Exploratory Borings Appendix B — Results of Laboratory Testing Appendix C — Liquefaction Evaluation Output Summary Appendix D — General Earthwork Grading Guidelines GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W 6th Street, Tustin Orange County California Page I 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions in the immediate vicinity of proposed site construction. Services provided for this study included the following: ■ Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site; ■ Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of 7 exploratory borings; ■ Percolation (infiltration) testing; ■ Laboratory testing of soil samples collected during the field investigation; ■ Review and evaluation of site seismicity; and ■ Compilation of this geotechnical report which presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for this site. 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The trapezoid -like shaped 7.43± acre site is located on the south side of W. 6t' Street between the intersections with S. B Street and Pacific Street in the city of Tusitin, Orange County, California. The site is currently developed with several multi -tenant commercial buildings. Asphalt drive aisles and parking is developed between the buildings. Some minor landscaping is provided throughout the property. The site is relatively level with an approximate total relief across the site of up to 3 feet, sloping down toward the south. The site is bounded to the east by S. B Street, to the south by the Interstate 5 freeway, and to the north by W. 6t' Street. The adjacent property to the west is developed with a warehouse - type commercial building. The west adjacent building is situated approximately 3 feet from the property line. "C� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 2 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on the conceptual plans provided, the proposed development will consist of the construction of two- and three-story townhomes. A pool, clubhouse and open space areas are also planned. Streets as well as alleyways are planned throughout the proposed development. A sound wall is planned along the south portion of the property. Specific structural information was not provided to us. It is anticipated that the proposed buildings will be of wood framed construction. Minimal cuts and fills would likely be required for site development and major slope and retaining wall construction is not anticipated. No basements or below grade building structures are anticipated. 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for this investigation was conducted on January 13, 2016 and consisted of excavating seven exploratory borings with the aid of a truck -mounted drill rig to depths of 12 to 51'/z feet. Two of the borings (B-4 and B-7) were utilized for percolation tests. The borings were drilled within the proposed development as shown on the attached Site and Boring Location Map (Figure 1). An engineer from our firm logged the excavations and collected soil samples for use in subsequent laboratory testing. The logs of the exploratory borings are included in Appendix A. 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed samples collected during the field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the materials encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the engineering design and analysis. Results of the laboratory testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendices A and B. 3.3 PERCOLATION TEST INFORMATION As requested, GeoTek performed percolation (infiltration) tests within the subject site at the approximate locations indicated in Figure I. Percolation testing was conducted to an GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 3 approximate depth of 27%2 feet and 46%2 feet below existing grade (bgs) within test locations I- 2 and 1-1, respectively (see Figure 1). The boring diameters were each approximately 8 inches. Approximately 2 inches of gravel was placed on the bottom of each infiltration boring excavation. A 3 -inch diameter perforated PVC pipe, wrapped in filter sock was placed in the boring excavations and the annular space was filled with gravel to prevent caving within each boring. The borings were then filled with water to pre-soak the hole. The holes were allowed to pre-soak overnight and the percolation test was performed the next day. The results were converted to an infiltration rate via the Porchet Method as per Technical Guidance Document by the County of Orange. Based on the results of our testing, the test locations have an infiltration rate of approximately 0.9 and 4.9 in/hr at locations 1-1 and 1-2, !` respectively. Note that variations may occur within the site and with depth. We recommend that an appropriate factor of safety be applied to account for these conditions. 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING 1 The site is situated in the Peninsular Ranges province, which is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. Basically, it extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, approximately 900 miles south to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest -southeast oriented fault blocks. Three major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone trend northwest -southeast and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province. More specific to the property, the site is located in an area geologically mapped to be underlain by alluvial materials (Morton and Miller, 2006). 'Gr" GEOT.EK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street Tustin, Orange County, California Page 4 4.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in this section. Based on our site reconnaissance, our exploratory excavations and review of published geologic maps, the area investigated is locally underlain by engineered fills and alluvial materials. 4.2.1 Alluvium Alluvium was observed in all the borings. The alluvium generally consists of loose to dense sand with variable amounts of silt, gravel and cobbles. Deeper portions of the alluvium also consisted of sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay. 4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER 4.3.1 Surface Water If encountered during the earthwork construction, surface water on this site is the result of precipitation or possibly some minor surface run-off from the surrounding areas. Overall site area drainage is in an easterly direction. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer. 4.3.2 Groundwater Water was not encountered in our exploratory borings. Historic high groundwater is approximately at 40 feet bgs based on the review of seismic hazard zone report for the Tustin quadrangle. It is possible that seasonal variations (temperature, rainfall, etc.) will cause fluctuations in the groundwater level. Additionally, perched water may be encountered in discontinuous zones within the overburden. The groundwater levels presented in this report are the levels that were measured at the time of our field activities or as indicated in the referenced sources. It is recommended that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the site at the time of the construction activities to determine the impact, if any, on the construction procedures. "C� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street. Tustin, Orange County, California Page 5 4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 4.4.1 Faulting The geologic structure of the entire California area is dominated mainly by northwest -trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within a State of California designated "Alquist-Priolo" Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest zoned fault is the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone, located approximately 10'/4 miles to the southwest and the Whittier Fault, located approximately I I % miles to the northeast. 4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters The site is located at approximately latitude: 33.7393°N and longitude: -117.8271°W. Site spectral accelerations (Ss and Si), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class "D" site, were determined from the USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards Program, U.S. Seismic Design Maps for Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Ground Motion Response Accelerations for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude/Longitude. The results are presented in the following table: SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS - Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, 1.4809 Ss Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, 0.544g S, Site Coefficient for Site Class "C", Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient for Site Class "C", Fv 1.5 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.480g Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SM5 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 0.816g Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM, 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.987g Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, So: 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.544g . Acceleration Parameter at I second, So, Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism. "C� GEOTEK 1 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 6 4.5 LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake - induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which -can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has developed, the effects can propagate upward into overlying non -saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures. The subject site is not mapped within a zone of potentially liquefiable soils by the Department of Conservation (CGS). However, the boundary for the liquefaction zone is located along the south property line. In order to evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction at this site, we performed an analysis utilizing the LIQUEFYPRO computer software program. For this analysis, we utilized a groundwater depth of 40 feet (historic high from the CGS Seismic Hazard Report) and a ground acceleration of 0.537g (USGS seismic design maps). The mean magnitude was estimated utilizing the USGS 2008 Interactive Deaggregations website. The USGS interactive website requires an estimate of the shear wave velocity for the upper 30 meters of the site (Vs30) and the geographic location of the site. Based on the results of the seismic survey, we have utilized a Vs30 = 275 m/s which corresponds to Soil Site Class D. The website provides a mean magnitude of M = 6.6. Cohesive soils are considered liquefiable if they possess a plastic index less than 12 (PI<12) and the in-situ water content is greater than 0.85 times the liquid limit (w>0.85LL) and are below the groundwater table. The results of this analysis indicate that the clayey soils between a depth of about 50 to 51'/z feet below grade are not liquefiable because they possess a plastic index greater than 12 or in-situ moisture content less than 0.85LL. The results of the analysis indicate that the subsurface soils between 40 feet and 45 feet are potentially susceptible to liquefaction upon the application of the design earthquake. Based on the analysis performed, we a total estimated seismic -induced settlement of approximately I inch with an estimated %Z inch of differential settlement across a 40 feet span. Due to the 'r� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 7 relative thickness of the overlying non -liquefiable soils, surface manifestations resulting for soil liquefaction are not likely. We recommend that the structural engineer evaluate the seismic - induced settlement and determine the impact on the existing and/or proposed improvements. The output file from the analysis is provided within Appendix C. 4.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during our investigation. Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as a seiche and tsunami are considered to be negligible due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water. S. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL The proposed development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into design and construction. The testing indicates that the upper earth materials are subject to moderate collapse (soil collapse of approximately 2.5 %) upon saturation. Due to the moderate collapse potential, we recommend that the upper 5 feet of earth materials be removed and replaced as engineered fill. Due to its sandy nature, the surbsurface soils are considered in the "very low" expansion range. 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS 5.2.1 General Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Tustin, the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix D outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix D. Overexcavation and recompaction is recommended below 'r� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W 6th Street Tustin Orange County. California Page 8 foundation elements to provide a uniform bearing material and to remove the soils with higher collapse potential. 5.2.2 Site Clearing and Preparation Site preparation should commence with removal of deleterious materials and vegetation and the demolition of the existing improvements. Demolition should include removal of existing buildings, floor slabs, foundations and other below -grade construction. Existing underground utilities should either be properly capped off at the property boundaries and removed or be re- routed around the new development. All soils disturbed by the demolition and clearing operations should be removed and stockpiled on-site for future use as engineered fill. All debris and deleterious materials generated by the site stripping and demolition operations should be legally disposed off-site. 5.2.3 Removals The upper 5 feet of the existing earth materials should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. At a minimum, 3 feet of engineered fill should be provided below the bottom of the proposed footings and floor -slabs. The lateral extent of removals should extend at least 5 feet outside the footings and floor - slabs, or a distance equal to the depth of overexcavation below the bottom of the structural elements, whichever is greater. A minimum 2 feet of engineered fill should be provided below and beyond pavement subgrade. A representative of this firm should observe the bottom of all excavations. Upon approval, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, moistened to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). 5.2.4 Engineered Fill On-site materials are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are free from vegetation, roots, and other deleterious material. Rock fragments greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be incorporated into engineered fill. Engineered fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% (ASTM D 1557). The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to 95%. "C� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 9 5.2.5 Shrinkage and Bulking Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, subsidence, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography. Shrinkage and subsidence are primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive effort achieved during construction, depth of fill and underlying site conditions. For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of up to 5 to 15 percent may be considered for the materials requiring removal and recompaction. Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of site earthwork construction. Subsidence on the order of 0.1 feet may occur. 5.2.6 Trench Excavations and Backfill Trench excavations should conform to Cal -OSHA regulations.' The contractor should have a competent person, per OSHA requirements, on site during construction to observe conditions and to make the appropriate recommendations. Utility trench backfill should consist of sandy soil with a "very low" expansion potential and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (as determined per ASTM D 1557). Where applicable, based on jurisdictional requirements, the top 12 inches of backfill below subgrade for road pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. jetting of trench backfill is not recommended. If soils to be used as backfill have dried out, they should be thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches. 5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary foundation design criteria for on -grade slabs, conventional foundations and deepened foundations are presented in this report. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. 5.3.1 Conventional Slab and Shallow Foundation Design Criteria Preliminary design criteria for a conventional foundation system, in general conformance with the 2013 CBC, are presented for the proposed mixed-use structure. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. A summary of our preliminary conventional foundation design recommendations is tabulated below: 1 ,r� GEOTEK 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 10 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN DESIGN PARAMETER 0<EI<20 Foundation Depth or Minimum Perimeter Beam 18 Depth (inches below lowest adjacent grade) Minimum Foundation Width (inches)* 12 Minimum Slab Thickness (inches) 4 (actual) Sand Blanket and Moisture Retardant 2 inches of sand ** overlying moisture vapor Membrane Below On -Grade Building Slabs retardant membrane overlying 2 inches of sand ** Minimum Slab Reinforcing 6"x6" — W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric placed in middle of slab Minimum Reinforcement for Continuous Two No. 4 reinforcing Bars, one placed near the Footings, Grade Beams and Retaining Wall top and one near the bottom Footings Presaturation of Subgrade Soil Minimum of 100% of the optimum moisture (Percent of Optimum/Depth in Inches) content to a depth of at least 12 inches prior to placing concrete * Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2013 CBC ** Sand should have a Sand Equivalent of at least 30 It should be noted that the above recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the slab and beam reinforcement based on actual loading conditions. The following criteria for design of foundations should be implemented: 5.3.1.1 An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous footings 18 inches deep and 12 inches wide, and pad footings 24 inches square and 18 inches deep. This value may be increased by 300 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth and 200 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). Where overexcavation cannot be achieved, particularly along the property lines, an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf should be used. 5.3.1.2 The recommended allowable bearing capacity is based on a total post -construction settlement of one (1) inch. Differential settlement of up to one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 40 feet could result. "C� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6w Street, Tustin, Orange County. California Page 11 5.3.1.3 Spread footings for an individual structure should be tied together in two orthogonal directions with either reinforced grade -beams and/or continuous footings to provide a more rigid and monolithic shallow foundation system. 5.3.1.4 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 psf for footings founded in engineered fill. A. coefficient of friction between engineered fill and concrete of 0.40 may be used with dead load forces. The top foot of passive resistance at foundations should be neglected unless the ground surface around the foundation is covered by concrete or pavement. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one- third. Where overexcavation cannot be achieved, particularly along property lines, a passive pressure of 200 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psf with a coefficient of friction of 0.3 should be utilized. 5.3.1.5 A grade beam, 12 inches wide by 18 inches deep (minimum), should be utilized across large openings. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. 5.3.1.6 A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs -on -grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these systems are provided in the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2 and the 2013 CBC Section 1907.1 and ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also meet the requirements of ASTM E1643. A portion of the vapor retarder design should be the implementation of a moisture vapor retardant membrane. It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g. stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. Although the CBC specifies a 6 mil vapor retarder membrane, it is GeoTek's opinion that a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. The membrane should consist of Stego wrap or the equivalent. 1 'r� GEO.TEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 12 Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and environmental conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e., thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance - level. Consideration should be given to consulting with an individual possessing specific expertise in this area for additional evaluation. Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate, moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarders should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, Post -Tensioning Concrete Institute, ASTM and California Building Code requirements and guidelines. GeoTek recommends that a qualified person, such as the flooring contractor, structural engineer, and/or architect be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. That person (or persons) should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures as deemed appropriate. In addition, the recommendations in this report and our services in general are not intended to address mold prevention, since we along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in areas of mold prevention. If specific recommendations are desired, a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted. 5.3.1.7 We recommend that control joints be placed in two orthogonal directions spaced approximately 24 to 36 times the thickness of the slab in inches. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks and should be reviewed by the project structural engineer. 5.3.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations 5.3.2.1 Isolated exterior footings should be tied back to the main foundation system in two orthogonal directions. .'r� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 13 5.3.2.2 To reduce moisture penetration beneath the slab on grade areas, utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge. 5.3.2.3 Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab -on -grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed. at the time of concrete placement. 5.3.3 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 5.3.3.1 General Design Criteria Recommendations presented in this report apply to typical masonry or concrete retaining walls to a maximum height of up to 6 feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to.supersede the design by the structural engineer. Retaining wall foundations should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into engineered fill and should be designed in accordance with Section 5.3.1 of this report. Structural needs may govern and should be evaluated by the project structural engineer. All earth retention structure plans, as applicable, should be reviewed by this office prior to finalization. The seismic design parameters as discussed in this report remain applicable to all proposed earth retention structures at this site, and should be properly incorporated into the design and construction of the structures. Earthwork considerations, site clearing and remedial earthwork for all earth retention structures should meet the requirements of this report, unless specifically provided otherwise, or more stringent requirements or recommendations are made by the designer. The backfill material placement for all earth retention structures should meet the requirement of Section 5.3.3.4 in this report. In general, cantilever earth retention structures, which are designed to yield at least 0.001 H, where H is equal to the height of the earth retention structure to the base of its footing, may be designed using the active condition. Rigid earth retention structures (including but not limited to rigid walls, and walls braced at top, such as typical basement walls) should be designed using the at -rest condition. In addition to the design lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharges due to improvements, such as an adjacent building or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the earth GEO.TEK 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W 6th Street Tustin Orange County, California Page 14 retention structures. Loads applied within a I:I (h:v) projection from the surcharge on the stem and footing of the earth retention structure should be considered in the design. Final selection of the appropriate design parameters should be made by the designer of the earth retention structures. 5.3.3.2 Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 6 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, adjacent structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions. #, ACTI�IEsEARTH PRESSURES` . s Surface Slope ofetamed=; NEquivalent Fluid, Pressure ` 3 t Mateirials s r �ip (h v)Tx - 6?{ Level 30 2:1 45 * The design pressures assume the backfill material has an expansion index less than or equal to 20. Backfill zone includes area between back of the wall to a plane (H h:v) up from bottom of the wall foundation (on the backside of the wall) to the (sloped) ground surface. 5.3.3.3 Restrained Retaining Walls We anticipate that the basement retaining walls may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for at -rest conditions based on a level backfill condition. This does not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, adjacent structures, seismic events, or adverse geologic conditions. 5.3.3.4 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to help prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a four (4) -inch diameter "C� G"EOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 15 perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent) embedded in a minimum of one (1) cubic foot per linear foot of 3/4- to 1 -inch clean crushed rock or an approved equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or an approved equivalent). The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the wall is undesirable. Retaining wall backfill should be placed in lifts no greater than eight (8) inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. The wall backfill should also include a minimum one (1) foot wide section of 3/4- to I -inch clean crushed rock (or an approved equivalent). The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from a back drain to within approximately 12 inches of the finish grade. The upper 12 inches should consist of compacted on-site soil. As an alternative to the drain rock and fabric, Miradrain 2000, or approved equivalent, may be used behind the retaining wall. The Miradrain 2000 should extend from the base of the wall to within 2 feet of the ground surface. A perforated pipe should be placed at the base of the wall in direct contact with the Miradrain 2000. The Miradrain fabric at the base of the Miradrain 2000 panel should be wrapped around the perforated pipe to prevent soil intrusion into the pipe. The presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of the wall designs. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. 5.3.3.5 Other Design Considerations ■ Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate.. ■ No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders. ■ The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts, and backfill materials should be approved the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative. 5.3.4 Soil Corrosivity The soil resistivity at this site was tested in the laboratory on one sample collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing (minimum Resistivity = 2,400 ohm -cm) indicate that the on-site soils are considered "severely corrosive" to buried ferrous metal in accordance with current standards used by corrosion engineers. We recommend that a corrosion GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County. California Page 16 engineer be consulted to provide recommendations for the protection of buried ferrous metal at this site. 5.3.5 Soil Sulfate Content The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory for one on-site soil sample. The results indicate that the water soluble sulfate result is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered "not applicable" (negligible) as per Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318. 5.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 5.4.1 General Concrete construction should follow the 2013 CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide quality control testing of the concrete during construction. 5.4.2 Concrete Mix Design As indicated in Section 5.3.7, no special concrete mix design is required by Code to resist sulfate attack based on the existing test results. However, additional testing should be performed during grading so that specific recommendations can be formulated based on the as - graded conditions. 5.4.3 Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork is often one of the most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, being considered "non-structural" components. Cracking of these features is fairly common due to various factors. While cracking is not usually detrimental, it is unsightly. We suggest that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself. Flatwork may consist of 4 -inch thick concrete and the use of reinforcement is suggested. The project structural engineer should provide final design recommendations. 5.4.4 Concrete Performance Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially unnoticeable to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are ,r� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W 6th Street Tustin Orange County, California Page 17 difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time. One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a" relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. GeoTek suggests that control joints be placed in two orthogonal directions and located a distance apart approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness. 5.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION 5.5.1 Irrigation Control of irrigation water is a necessary part of site maintenance. Soggy ground, near -surface perched water, or seeps may result if irrigation water is excessively or improperly applied. All irrigation systems should be adjusted to provide the minimum water needed to sustain landscaping and prevent excessive drying of the soils. Generally significant runoff during an irrigation cycle indicates excessive irrigation, while soils which dry to a depth of more than several inches between irrigation cycles indicate inadequate irrigation. Adjustments should be made for changes in the climate and rainfall. Irrigation should stop when sufficient water is provided by precipitation. It is important to avoid repeated wetting and drying of the slope surface, which may cause the soil to crack, loosen and/or slowly move laterally (creep) downslope. Landscaping and irrigation will reduce repeated wetting and drying of the slopes. It is important to maintain uniform soil moisture conditions adjacent to the structure to reduce soil expansion and shrinkage that can cause cracking to the structure. Irrigation should be utilized to prevent the soils from drying to a depth more than several inches. Broken, leaking or plugged sprinklers or irrigation lines should be repaired immediately. Frequent inspections of the irrigation systems should be performed. It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type of landscaping should be avoided.. If used, then extreme care should be exercised with regard to 'r� GEO.TEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street Tustin, Orange County, California Page 18 the irrigation and drainage in these areas. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or subdrains may be necessary and advisable. 5.5.2 Drainage The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground adjacent to the footings. Soil areas within 10 feet of the proposed structure should slope at a minimum of 5 percent away from the building, if possible unless the area is paved. Paved areas are to be sloped at 2 percent away from the structure. Roof gutters and downspouts should discharge onto paved surfaces sloping away from the structure or into a closed pipe system which outfalls to the street gutter pan or directly to the storm drain system. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved areas and not be blocked by other improvements. It is the owner's responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season. 5.6 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to observe and document for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should have GeoTek perform at least the following duties: ■ Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials. ■ Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. ■ Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary. ■ Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test the fill for field density, relative compaction and moisture content. ■ Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials. ■ Observed retaining wall subdrain. 'P� GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W 6th Street Tustin Orange County. California Page 19 If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained 6. INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored that is shown on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client's needs, our proposal (Proposal No. P -I 100 115) dated November 2, 2015 and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 7. LIMITATIONS Our findings are based on site conditions observed and the stated sources. Thus, our comments are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. GeoTek has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. Since our recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to 'r� GEOTEK 1 INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 20 allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty of any kind is expressed or implied. Standards of care/practice are subject to change with time. 8. SELECTED REFERENCES American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Publication 302.2R-06, Guide for Concrete Slabs That Receive Moisture Sensitive Flooring Materials. 2010, Publications 360R-10, Guide to Design of Slabs -On -Ground. Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 "California Building Code," 3 volumes. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, Califonria, SHZR-012. GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information. Morton and Miller, 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangles, USGS, OF -2006-1217, Scale 1:100,000. Seismic Design Values for Buildings (http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php). 'P� GEOTEK B-7 Approximate Location of Soil Boring 11-2 Approximate Location of Percolation (Infiltration) Test Intracorp Companies 420 W. 6t' Street N Figure I City of Tusint Orange County, California Site and Boring Location GeoTek Project No. 1400 -CR Map -G E 0 T E K 11 1 1 1 APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR i GEOTEK INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February I, 2016 420 W 6th Street Tustin Orange County California Page A- I A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES The Modified Split -Barrel Sampler (Ringl The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1 -inch high, thin brass rings with an inside diameter of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140 -pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. The Split -Spoon Sampler (SPT) During the sampling procedure, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The SPT for soil borings is performed by driving a split -spoon sampler with an outside diameter of 2 inches into the undisturbed formation located at the bottom of the advanced borehole with repeated blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler for three consecutive 6 -inch intervals were recorded, and the sum of the blow counts for the last 12 inches of penetration is a measure of the soil consistency. Samples were identified in the field, placed in sealed containers and transported to the laboratory for further classification and testing. Bulk Samples (Large) These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. B - BORING LOG LEGEND The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the log of boring: SOILS USCS Unified Soil Classification System f -c Fine to coarse f -m Fine to medium GEOLOGIC B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip C: Contact line ........... Dashed line denotes USCS material change Solid Line denotes unit/ formational change Thick solid line denotes end of boring (Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the log of boring) 1 'r� GEOTEK 1 1 Intracorp 420 W. brh Street 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek,!iInc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem HAMMER: 140N30" LOGGED BY: R. Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/13/2016 CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: e LOCATION: 1 1 Intracorp 420 W. brh Street 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek,!iInc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem HAMMER: 140N30" LOGGED BY: R. Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing e E a € Boring No.: B -I m a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 0 6" asphalt over 3" base, with petromat layer at 1/2" sM Silty f SAND, light brown to brown, slightly moist, loose 4 7.5 109.4 5 6 „ , -------- 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SP f SAND, light brown to brown, slightly moist, ------------------------------- loose ----------------- 4.7 103.0 ----------------------------- 6 6 N 5 m -f SAND 3.1 102.3 7 10 __ 5 SM ry 9 – 9 ry------------------------------------------ Sil f SAND, light brown and tan, sli h moist, medium dense -------- 6.2 --------- 106.2 ------------------------------ II 12 Is– ------- 3 ------- ------- ML --------y --------------------9 -- — -------------- f Sand SILT, brown, slightly moist, firm = -------------- -------- 11.7 --------- ----------------------------- 3 3 20 — -------- --- ---- ---------------------------------- ----- — -------- ----------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 4 SP m -f SAND, light brown, slightly moist, medii m dense 5.6 e 7 Boring Terminated al i 21.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 25 30 Z Lou Sia l e type: El —Ring El —SPT Z—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery —Water Table AL = Atterterg Limits EI = Expanslon IndexSA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test Lab J testinvo SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density CLIENT - PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO: LOCATION: GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Intracorp DRILLER* 2R Drilling 420 W. 6th Street DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem 1400 -CR Tustin, CA HAMMER: 140#130' LOGGED BY: R. Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/13/2016 1 1 1 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing d Boring No.: B-2 o '#o d r '� r s o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 3 ° 0 5" asphalt over 4.5" base with petromat layer at 1/2" ML Sandy SILT, light brown, sligthly moist, firm, trace gravel 3 13.2 112.1 — ------------------------------------ —-------------- -------- --------- ------- --------------- --- —� --- 12 ------ ------- SM ----------------------------- Silrym-f SAND, brown, slightlymiost, medium dense, trace gravel 5 5 brown to light brown, loose 7.0 97.3 Fines = 36% 5 5 --------- 3 ------ ----- SM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- f Sandy SILT, reddish brown, slightly moist to moist, firm -------- 15.9 ------- 100.3 --------------------------- Fines = 59% 3 5 10 3 SP ------------------------------------------------------------------- m -c SAND, tan to brown, slightly moist, loose -------- 3.1 --------- 101.1 ------------------------------ 6 7 15 -- ------- 2 ------- ------- ML -- ---------------------9 -- —----------------------------------------------------- Silty f SAND, brown, slightly moist to moist, loose ------- 13.9 ------- --------------------------- Fines = 47% 3 2 20 4 --- SP —----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- m -c SAND, tan to light brown, slightly moist, medium dense ------- 3.4 --------- -: --------------- —------ --- 6 9 Boring Terminated at 21.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 25 30 ZSam pie type: —Ring –SPT ®—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery S —Water Table LU WAL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test J Lab testing: SR = Sulfatelikesisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 1 1 1 1 1 SAMPLES GeoTek, Inc. Laboratory Testing LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING CLIENT: Intracorp DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: R Hankes PROJECT NAME: 420 W. 6th Street DRILL METHOD: Hollow Sm. OPERATOR: Cody/George PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR HAMMER: 140#130" RIG TYPE: CME 75 LOCATION: Tustin, CA DATE: UIV2016 1 1 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o Boring No.: B-3 U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 0 4.5" asphalt over 4" base with petromat layer at 1/2" SP m -c SAND, tan to light brown, slighty moist, medium dense, trace gravel 6 2.7 105.3 11 IS 5 9 trace cobbles 3.8 113.3 16 23 11 increased gravel and cobble content 4.3 16 (sample disturbed) 20 10 16 Is dense 3.1 104.3 40 15 5 medium dense 3A Fines = 4% 9 14 20 7 3.4 12 13 i 25 9 dense 2.9 16 29 30 *. --- 3 ------ CL -- - - Silty CLAY, light brown, slightly moist to moist, - firm 18.5 LL -25; PL -I5; PI -lo 2 3 ZSample w type: Ej —Ring —SPT Z—Small Bulk �—Large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery -iz —Water Table wAL = Atterberg Limier EI = Expansion Index Lab SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test ,� testin¢• SR = Sulta[elResisidviry Test SH =Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD =Maximum Density CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: Intracorp 420 W. 6th Sweet 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER- 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#130" RIG TYPE: DATE: R Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 1 1 i SAMPLES Laboratory Testing aE Boring No.: B-3 (Cont.) o m v �s o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 30 (see previous page) 35 — 4 — — sM ------------- Sil f SAND, brown, sli h moist, medium ri — — 9 ri — -dense---------,----trace r-9 -------avel -- 9.0 -- 9.0 --------- -------FFines-=228% ---------- 8 7 7 40 -- --------- I3 ----- -------- SP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- m -c SAND with Gravel, brown, slightly moist, medium dense ----- 3.6 --------- ------------------------ 12 7 45 -- --------- 4 ------ ------- sM ----------------------- -- —----------------------------------------------------- Siltyf SAND, brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense ------ 12.7 --------- ----------------------------- 7 II so---- 3 ---- -- CL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Silty CLAY, mottled light brown and grey, moist, firm, some fine sand in tip ---- 29.6 --------- -- --- ------ -------- --- LL=41; PL=24; PI=17 3 of sample 4 Boring Terminated at 51.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 55 60 ZSample type: —Ring —SPT —Small Bulk ®—large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery Q —Water Table w wL AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test J ab testing: SR = SullaWResisidviry Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 1 1 i 1 1 1 LOGGED BY: R. Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/13/2016 GeoTek, linc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING , CLIENT: Inrracorp DRILLER: 2R Drilling PROJECT NAME: 420 W. 6th Street DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR HAMMER: 140#/30" LOCATION: Tustin, CA e — LOGGED BY: R. Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing ° r e •- e = a � Boring No.: B-4 a o e — S u o E S •, g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS m E ; o 0 SP m -c SAND, tan, slightly moist, dense, some cobbles and gravel 24 4.2 107.4 25 26 5 ,u� 17 (sample disturbed) 2.0 y 24 26 •_. 12 (sample disturbed) 2.2 23 17 10 I S 2.5 116.2 20 27 I S 15 2.8 23 28 20 12 2.6 17 IB i i 25 -- --------- ------------------------------------ — ---------— --y--------------- — — -------------- -------- ------- --------------------------- 6 SP m -c SAND, dark tan, slightly moist, medium dense 3.2 Ia 10 30 — ------------ -- ---y -----------------------------------y --------------------------------------------------- -------- — ---------------------- ----- 3 ML Cla aSILT, dark brown, sli htlmoist, stiff 12.5 5 5 ZSample w tvoe: M—Ring 15 —SPT Z—Small Bulk i ®—Large Bulk E] —No Recovery Q —Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index Lab SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test tostin¢• SR = SultatelResisidviry Test SH =Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD =Maximum Density CLIENT: Intratorp PROJECT NAME: 420 W. 6th Street PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR LOCATION: Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem HAMMER: 140#130" LOGGED BY: R. Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 111312016 1 1 1 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o r aE Boring No.: B-4 (Cont.) o – � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS � 30 (see previous page) 35 -- ------- 5 -------- ------- SM -- ---------------- I - IW-------------------------------------------------------- Sil f SAND, brown, slighlty moist, medium dense -------- 8.3 --------- ---------------------- 5 5 40 3 -------------------------- ML ------------------------------------------------------------------------ f Sandy SILT, light brown, slightly miost to moist, stiff, trace clay ------- 17.6 -------- ----------------- ----- 3 6 45– -- i3 -------- – 5M —------------------------------------------------------- Silty f SAND, brown, slightly moist, medium dense 8.3 ---- -------- —----- –--------- - 7 -------- SP –----------- ----------------------------- –---------------- --------------- -------------- N li hl ist ediu d s -------- -------- --------------------------- Boring Terminated at 46.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 50 55 60 S&mule type: —Ring ®—SPT —Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk —No Recovery NZ —WaterTable W w•. AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU Lab testing: SR = Sul(ate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 1 1 1 1 11 SAMPLES GeoTek, Inc. Laboratory Testing a = LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING CLIENT: Intracorp DRILLER: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: R Hankes PROJECT NAME: 420 W. 6th Sweet DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Cody/George PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR HAMMER: 140#130" RIG TYPE: CME 75 LOCATION: Tustin, CA MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS DATE: 1113/2016 1 11 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing a = E 0 Boring No.: B-5 u d 12 o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 0 6" asphalt over 3" base with petromate layer at 112" SP m -f SAND, brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense, some gravel F 4 6.0 108.8 9 13 f ` 15 ------ 5P --------------------------------------------------- 9 c. SAND with Gravel and Cobbles, tan, sl --------------------------------------- 'htly moist, medium dense --- 1.9 — -- 111.8 — ---------------------------- 19 20 8 m -c SAND 1.8 103.3 17 25 10 — 20 — sP c - ------ ---- ----------- --- - -- SAND with Gravel and Cobbles, tan, siighly --- ------- ------- — moist, dense 1.8 — 30 (sample disturbed) Refusal at 12' (Large rock suspected) Boring Terminated at 12 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered Is 20 i 25 30 Zmnle w tv"oe: �?'" —Ring —SPr —Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk No Recovery —Water Table V' LLJ b tAL = Atterberg Limits E1=Expansion Index LaostinQ: SA = Sieve Analysts RV= R -Value Test SR = SulfatelResisidviry Test SH =Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD =Maximum Density CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: Intracorp 420 W. 6th Sweet 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling DRILL METHOD: Hollow Seem HAMMER: 140#/30" LOGGED BY: R Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/13/2016 1 1 L SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o Boring No.: B-6 _ Z.6 u° a^e o s $ M MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 0 4" asphalt over 4.5" base with petromat layer at 112" spsM f. SAND with Silt, light brown, loose slightly moist 5 e 3.3 119.6 Fines = 13% 6 = 5 5 4.8 104.9 6 8 10 3 slightly moist to moist 10.5 113.5 4 6 5 — --------- 4 ------- ----------------------------------- ML — --------------- — ----- — ----------------- — ------ — -------------- Clayey SILT, brown, slighlty moist to moist, stiff ------- 15.6 -------- --------------------------- 4 6 20 3 firm 20.5 3 5 Boring Terminated at 21.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 25 30 0 Sample type: —Ring —SPT Z—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk ❑ —No Recovery Q —Water Table Z w WAL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R -Value Test ..1 Lab testier. SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density 1 1 L 1 1 Intratorp 420 W. 6th Street 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem HAMMER: 140#/30" LOGGED BY: R. Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/1312016 CLIENT: SAMPLES PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: Laboratory Testing LOCATION: 1 1 Intratorp 420 W. 6th Street 1400 -CR Tustin, CA GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: 2R Drilling DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem HAMMER: 140#/30" LOGGED BY: R. Hankes OPERATOR: Cody/George RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 1/1312016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 2 E F .n° € Boring No.: B-7 a o d e 0 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ; 0 SM Silty f SAND, brown, slighly moist to moist, loose, trace gravel a 4 10.6 99.8 4 w: 6 5 4 decrease gravel content 10.6 110.8 5 7 6 m -f SAND, trace gravel 3.8 101.9 6 - 5 10 r$ --------- 4 ------ -------- ML --- --------------------— ----------------------------------------------------- f Sand SILT, brown, slightlymoist, stiff -------- 14.1 --------- 98.9 ------------------------------ Fines = 62% Eli' 6 S 3 firm 14.3 3 4 20 -- --------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ------- -------- ----------------------------- 3 SM ---------------------------------------- Siltym-f SAND, tan to brown, slightly moist; medium dense 7.1 Fines = 20% 6 9 25 --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ------- -------- --------------------------- I l i SP m -c SAND, tan, slightlymoist, medium dense 1.8 13 Boring Terminated at 27.5 feet ' Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 30 0 Z w $ample type: r = —Ring 0 —SPT Z—Small Bulk ®—Large Bulk —No Recovery —Water Table wLab AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sim Analysis RV = R -Value Test testino• SR = SuI(a[elResisidviry Test SH =Shear Test HC= consolidation MD =Maximum Density APPENDIX B RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING 420 W. 6th Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR 'p� GEOTEK 1 i 1 1 n INTRACORP COMPANIES Geotechnical Evaluation SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING Atterberg Limits Project No. 1400 -CR February I, 2016 Laboratory testing to determine the liquid and plastic limits was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318. The results of the testing are included in the boring logs in Appendix A. Classification Soils were classified visually in general accordance to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D 2487). The soil classifications are shown on, the logs of borings in Appendix A. Consolidation Consolidation testing was performed on selected samples of the site soils according to ASTM Test Method D 2435. The results of this testing is presented in Appendix B. Moisture -Density Relationship Laboratory testing was performed on one sample collected during the subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the soil type was determined in general accordance with test method ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. The results are included in Appendix B. Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Conte Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate conten with California Test No. 417. Resistivity testing was California Test No. 643. Testing to determine the general accordance with California Test No. 422. The was performed by others in general accordance :ompleted by others in general accordance with chloride content was performed by others in results are included in Appendix B. GE0TEIK 0.1 0.00 1.00 2.00 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0. --f--- Seating Cycle • Loading Prior to Inundation —� Loading After Inundation --f-- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 IG -7 CHECKED BY: PK Lab: DI PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR Date: 01/16 CONSOLIDATION REPORT Sample: B-1 @ 2.5' 420 W. 6th Street Tustin, California 10.0 Plate C-1 1 1 1 1 1 0.1 0.00 r- 1.00 2.00 U) z 3.00 Y U 4.00 w J a. 2 5.00 Q U- 0 0 6.00 z w 7.00 w a o 8.00 Q 9.00 U) z 0 10.00 11.00 12.00 STRESS IN --;-- Seating Cycle • Loading Prior to Inundation A Loading After Inundation --�k-- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D CHECKED BY: PK Lab: DI PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR Date: 01/16 CO PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 LIDATION REPORT Sample: E-7 @ 5' 420 W. 6th Street Tustin, California 10.0 Plate C-1 ac - "GE, T i MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Client: Intracorp Companies Project: Tustin - Location: 420 W. 6th Street Material Type: Silty f SAND Material Supplier: Material Source: B-1 Sample Location: 0-5' Job No.: 1400 -CR Lab No.: Corona Sampled By: Date Sampled: Received By: Date Received: Tested By: Date Tested: Reviewed By: Date Reviewed: Test Procedure: ASTM 1557 Oversized Material (%): 0.0 140 135 130 LL a 125 120 Z W 115 C 110 105 Method: A Correction Required: MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE 100 ., .-.. -- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MOISTURE CONTENT, % no DRY DENSITY (pcf): * CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf): ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf) x S.G. 2.7 x S.G. 2.8 • S.G. 2.6 Poly. (DRY DENSITY (pcf):) OVERSIZE CORRECTED ZERO AIR VOIDS Poly. (S.G. 2.7) Poly. (S.G. 2.8) Poly. (S.G. 2.6) L2i I OISTUREaDENSI, YrREIATIONSHIP=-,,—,— S • # '!r Maximum Dry Density, pcf 125.0 @ Optimum Moisture, % 10.0 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pc f� @ Optimum Moisture, %� ar".�;MRTERIAL DESCRIP�,TION Grain Size Distribution: Atterberg Limits: Gravel (retained on No. 4) Liquid Limit, % • Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200) Plastic Limit, % • Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200) Plasticity Index, % Classification: Unified Soils Classification: AASHTO Soils Classification: L L� 1 Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants Geotechnical, Environmental, and Civil End GeoTek, Inc. 710 East Parkridge Avenue, Suite 105 Corona, California 92879 Client: Intra Corp. W.O.: 1400 -CR Project: Tustin B-1 Corrosivity T 0-5' Date: January 26, 2016 QCI Project No.: 16-167-001 q Summarized by: KA Results 42 I 0.0145 2400 APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION OUTPUT SUMMARY 420 W. 6"' Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR .G, GEOTEK 1 1 I. APPENDIX D GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR 'r� GEOYEK 1 1 1 1 1 1 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Intracorp Companies APPENDIX D Page D- I Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate imodification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those proceduresl. General i Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the California Building Code, CBC (2013) and the guidelines presented below. Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures ithe contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting. Grading Observation and Testing I. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading. Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified. 2. Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability, may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor's ove personnel are the only individuals particii and observation should not be conside properly compact the fill. 3. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fi by our representative prior to placing any our representative or office when such are level of efforts during grading. The contractor's g in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing as relieving the contractor's responsibility to key excavations, and subdrains should be observed 1. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify are ready for observation. 4. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm. GEO'TEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-2 420 W 6`h Street City of Tustin Orange County California Project No. 1400 -CR 5. In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill. More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials. 7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows: a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. 8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete. Site Clearing I. All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area. 2. Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials. This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers. 3. Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative. Treatment of Existing Ground I. Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-3 420 W. 6t' Street. City of Tustin. Orange County. California Project No 1400 -CR 2. In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative. 3. Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 4. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. 5. Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Fill Placement I. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report). 2. Material used in the compacting procesI should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is iin accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre -watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rati s. b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557. 4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of filpe-grained material to surround the rocks; i C) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative. 5. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated suitable for rock disposal. On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested. 6. In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocksa ie common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-4 420 W 6t' Street City of Tustin Orange County California Project No. 1400 -CR methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill. Slope Construction I. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. 2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary. 3. If fill slopes are built "at grade' using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. 4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction. 5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization., UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractors responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors' methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures. Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that "worked" on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience. I. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench. 1 GEOTEK 1 1 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Intracorp Companies 2. Flooding and jetting are not typically rei jetting may be used with select sand h typically limited to the following uses: a) shallow (12 + inches) under slab b) as bedding in pipe zone. The water should be allowed to dis: compaction. APPENDIX D Page D-5 mended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or g a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is trenches and, prior to pouring slabs or completing trench 3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as o erly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation. Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade. 4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a I:I projection from thel outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil. 5. Trench compaction testing is generally at frequency will be based on trench depth a be used to assess the consistency of con zones are found that are considered less the contractors attention. General Personnel safety is a primary concern on all considerations for use by all our employees c personnel are at highest risk of injury and poss company recognizes that construction activities contractor's responsibility. However, it is, imper accidents and potential injury. discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing the contractors procedures. A probing rod would `tion between tested areas and untested areas. If mpact than other areas, this would be brought to job sites. The following summaries are safety i multi-employer construction sites. On ground )le fatality on grading construction projects. The ill vary on each site and that job site safety is the tive that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safetylof our field personnel on grading and construction projects. I. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are di Jected to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings. I 2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site. 3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. I GEd7EK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-6 420 W 6`" Street City of Tustin Orange County California Project No. 1400 -CR In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non -encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow. This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN I Test Pit Spoil pile SIDE VIEW 50 ft Zone of Traffic Direction Non -Encroachment Vehicle Test Pit Spoil parked here pile 10 0 ft Zone of Non -Encroachment I 50 ft Zone of Non -Encroachment PLAN VIEW 1 G E O T E K GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Intracorp Companies Slope Tests APPENDIX D Page D-7 When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing. I The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location. Trench Safety It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL -OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill. All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which; I. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back , 2. exit points or ladders are not provided, i 3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal. I Procedures In the event that the technician's safety is jeopard Ized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor's representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. j In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-8 420 W 6' Street City of Tustin Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non -encroachment. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non -encroachment. ,G-,. GEO?EK 1 1 1 1 HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS STUDY HISTORIC LOFTS 420 W. 6th STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 Prepared For: INTRACORP SOCAL-1, LLC 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 250 Newport Beach CA, 92660 (949)757-8470 Prepared By: C&V Consulting, Inc. 6 Orchard Suite 200 Lake Forest, California 92630 (949) 916-3800 February 8, 2016 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICIES A. Vicinity Map B. Pre -Development Hydrology Study (50, 100 -Year Storm Event) C. Post -Development Hydrology Study (50, 100 -Year Storm Event) D. Soils Map List of Exhibits: 1. Existing Condition Hydrology Map 2. Proposed Condition Hydrology Map Executive Summary.................. .........................................i Acknowledgement and Signature Page .......................................ii I. Introduction .......................... .........................................1 II. Methodology .......................... .........................................1 III. Design Assumptions................. .........................................2 IV. Conclusion ............................ .........................................3 V. References........................................................................4 APPENDICIES A. Vicinity Map B. Pre -Development Hydrology Study (50, 100 -Year Storm Event) C. Post -Development Hydrology Study (50, 100 -Year Storm Event) D. Soils Map List of Exhibits: 1. Existing Condition Hydrology Map 2. Proposed Condition Hydrology Map Hydrology Study and Hydraulic Analysis For APN: 401-341-04 Tract No. 17993 61' Street Tustin ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE PAGE This Hydrology Study prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc. under the supervision of Dane P. McDougall, P.E. Dane P. McDougall, R.C.E. 80705 C&V Consulting, Inc. Date 1 1 1 LJ 1 Introduction• The proposed project site address is 420 W. 6th Strep Tustin, south-west corner of W 6th Street and S B St commercial developments, bordered to the North is I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway). The subject project site (6.8 acres) is planned condominium units to be constructed on traditiona flows via ribbon gutter and sheet flow into B Street south of B Street curb opening catch basins. Ultim path of drainage with new on site inlets draining the the same system Methodology / Rationale: Tustin, CA 92780 and is located in the City of A intersection bordered to the East and West by ;idential development, and to the South by the o be a residential housing comprised of 140 slab on grade. The subject site currently surface then entering the storm drain system through the tely the proposed flow will maintain this historic subject site and transferring flows subsurface into The proposed drainage area was analyzed by utilizing the Orange County Hydrology Manual. Each Drainage Area (DA) was divided as illustrated on the Proposed Hydrology Map (Exhibit 2). Each area was then analyzed for acreage, impervious cover, and Time of Concentration (Tc) per the Rational Method. The flows, expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs), were totaled at connections to the main storm drain lines. This information will *used in conjunction with Autodesk software to validate the hydraulic grade line and other flow characteristics of each section of pipe. The water runoff will flow and be conveyed in the detention system, which will outflow to the drywel are completely saturated, the high flows for the 50• overflow pipe system, and curb core out onto B -St: existing surface drainage pattern. It will then flow catch basin. i -site storm drain system, to the water quality for treatment and infiltration. Once the drywells mr storm event will outfall through a dedicated A. At which point, the drainage follows the the south end of the cul-de-sac, into an existing Design Assumptions: 1. The onsite drainage area was analyzed for the 50 and 100 -year storm event using Rational Method Analysis per the County of Orange Hydrology Manual. Since B Street is a ponding condition at the cul-de-sac, the design of the onsite pipes should be.designed for 50 year storm event. 2. The drainage area is located in Soil Groups B according to Soil Map B of the Hydrology Manual as shown in the Appendix. (Attachment A). 3. The rainfall intensity for all storm events varies according to Figure B-3 (page B-7) of the Hydrology Manual. 4. The infiltration rate for the pervious area, Fp, is 0.30 inches/hour per Table C.2 in Section C.6.4. of the Orange County Hydrology Manual. 5. The impervious area has been calculated to be 94% for the PRE -development condition. Determined finding the total proposed impervious area (6.41AC) and dividing by the total area of the site (6.80AC). 6. Storm drains and catch basins onsite will designed for a 50 -year storm event, which corresponds to the design requirements for the project. 7. The Hydrology Map attached to the back of this study is made part of the study. 8. Any pre-existing or post -development off -tract flow directed toward the proposed storm drain has been included in the total flow. **Note: Additional Calculation Assumptions Have Been Noted Throughout Report** 2 1 1 1 1 Conclusions: The results from this hydrology and hydraulic analysis l demonstrate the following: The drainage design for Tract No. 17993 has Control Standards and per City of Tustin req • The drainage system is designed to manage • The decrease in flow rate between Pre & Post decrease (0.27 cfs). 50 -Yr Event Summary: designed to meet the County of Orange Flood ff from a 100 -year storm. in a 100 -yr storm event is a 10.8% Pre -Development Q=21.48 cfs Tc = 10.67 min Flow Rate Post -Development Q=19.74 cfs Tc = 15.15 min Flow Rate 100 -Yr Event Summary: Pre -Development Q=25.1 cfs Tc = 10.1 min Flow Rate Post -Development Q=22.4 cfs Tc = 15.1 min Flow Rate The proposed development will ultimately decrease the runoff entering the existing catch basin on B - Street. The site will utilize Infiltration BMPs to capture and retain the water quality design capture volume. The underground detention system will be utilized to store the water quality volume to allow infiltration to recharge the groundwater. REFERENCES I 1. County of Orange, "Hydrology Manual" dated January 1999. 2. Water Surface and Pressure Gradient (WSPG) Hydraulic Analysis System Software, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Program No. F0515P, April 1979. 3. Advanced Engineering Software, HELE1 Hydraulic Elements I for Street Flooding and Catch . Basin Design, 1996 version. 4. Advanced Engineering Software, Rational Method, version 16.0 1 1 Vicinity Map 1 1 FIRST STREET J ¢ 0Z CITY OF UQ U TUSTIN } m MAIN ST w 5 SIXTH ST SITE 55 �� Ld ¢ o�P JW > ¢ P z ¢ cn ¢ Q MCFADDEN AVE VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCAFE 1 1 1 1 Hydrology Study (50,100 -Year Storm Event) ' PRE -DEVELOPMENT 1 INTR2E50.RES **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis prepared by: C&V CONSULTING INC CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANING AND SURVEYING WWW.CVC-INC.NET ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: INTR2E50.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:16 02/05/2016 - ------------------------------------------ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL* -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 50.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.50 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative FLOW -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable street Flow Depth) -(Top-of-curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO.NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA -ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ----------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 171.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 126.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 125.20 TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM TC(MIN.) = 6.130 * 50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.845 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 1.24 0.30 0.100 56 6.13 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.37 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.24 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.37 Page 1 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 1 INTR2E50.RES **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIMEITHRU SUBAREA««< --------------------------------------- -------- ----------------------------- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 125.20 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 123.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 601.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTERIHIKE(FEET) = 0.200 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.080 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = O.i01000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 * 50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.540 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL B 5.561 0.30 0.100 56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 13.32 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.21 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 FLOOD, WIDTH(FEET) = 47.00 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.54 TC(MIN.) = 10.67 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.56 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.80 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA_ AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.48 __» ERROR:FLOW EXCEEDS CAPACITY OFA CHANNEL WITH NORMAL DEPTH EQUAL TO SPECIFIED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEPTH. AS AN APPROXIMATION, TRAVEL TIME CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON FLOW DEPTH EQUAL TO THE SPECIFIED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEPTH. END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 47.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.56 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 1.78 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 772.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 TC(MIN.) = 10.67 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.80 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.48 1 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print1to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) INT2E100.RES **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis prepared by: C&V CONSULTING INC CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANING AND SURVEYING WWW.CVC-INC.NET ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY INTR-002 420 w 6TH STEEET-TUSTIN EXISTING CONDITION 100 YEAR STORM ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: INT2E100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:33 11/19/2015 - ------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL* -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.50 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL:CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS' 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 171.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 126.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 125.20 TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM TC(MIN.) = 6.130 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.506 SUBAREA TC AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp AP SCS TC LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) Page 1 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) J i INT2E100.RES COMMERCIAL B 1.241 0.30 0.100 56 6.13 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.11 1 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.24 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.11 I FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODEi 103.00 IS CODE = 91 ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIMEITHRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 125.20 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 123.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 601.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTERIHIKE(FEET) = 0.200 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.080 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.101000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.130 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA 1 Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) 1 (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL B 5.561 0.30 0.100 56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 15.15 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.51 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 47.00 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.9,9 TC(MIN.) = 10.12 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 20.52 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.80 AREA- AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA TOTAL Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 PEI AK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.09 ==>>ERROR:FLOW EXCEEDS CAPACITY,OF CHANNEL WITH NORMAL DEPTH EQUAL TO SPECIFIED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEPTH. AS AN APPROXIMATION, TRAVEL TIME CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON FLOW DEPTH EQUAL TO THE SPEiCIFIED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEPTH. END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) =i 47.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.15 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 2.08 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 772.00 FEET. ---------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 TC(MIN.) = 10.12 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.80 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.09 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 1 Hydrology Study (50,100 -Year Storm Event) ' POST -DEVELOPMENT 1 1 INT2 P5 ******************* RES RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTYIHYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis prepared by: C&V CONSULTING INC CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANING AND SURVEYING WWW.CVC-INC.NET I ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- FILE NAME: INT2P50.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:51 02/05/2016 -------------------------------------------'--------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL* -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 50.010 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.50 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: 1CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY !(FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 10.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:' j 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0,� (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPEI ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FORINITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 2911.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 126.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 126.30 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM TC(MIN.) = 12.441 * 50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.246 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) CONDOMINIUMS B 0.50 0.30 0.350 56 12.44 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.350 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 PEAK FLOWRATE(CFS) = 1.41 Page S You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print Ito novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) INT2P50.RES **************irir*irieieirie*irieirieieieiciririeieieie***irieieie**ir**it****ir*********ieir*********** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 81 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------_ »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< - ------------------------------------------------------ MAINLINE TC(MIN.) = 12.44 * 50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.246 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN CONDOMINIUMS B 2:34 0.30 0.350 56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.350 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.34 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.61 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.84 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR) = 0.11 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.03 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED'PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 122.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 120.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 457.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.92 . ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.03 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.94 TC(MIN.) = 14.39 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 748.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 10. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 237.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 127.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 126.20 TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM TC(MIN.) = 9.779 * 50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.720 SUBAREA TC AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS TC LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) CONDOMINIUMS B 0.50 0.30 0.350 56 9.78 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.350 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.63 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.63 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 81 Page 2 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (hftp://www.novapdf.com) INT2P50!. RES --------------------------------------I--------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< MAINLINE TC(MIN.) = 9.78 * 50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.720 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES),' (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN CONDOMINIUMS B 3.47, 0.30 0.350 56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.350 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.47 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.29 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.97 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.11 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.92 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 31 ------------------------------------------ ----------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)««< - - -------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 123.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 120.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 631.00 MANNING'S!N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.38 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 I NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.92 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.40 TC(MIN.) = 12.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 868.00 FEET. I --FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE) 102.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THEIMAIN-STREAM MEMORY««< ---------------- ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensit Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 12.92 12.18 3.285 0.30(1 0.11) 0.35 4.0 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 868.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q TC Intensity Fp(!FM) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 8.03 14.39 2.990 0.30( 0.11) 0.35 2.8 100.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 748.00 FEET. ! ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc IntensityFp(IFm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR(INCH'/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 20.41 12.18 3.285 0..30(10.11) 0.35 6.4 200.00 2 19.74 14.39 2.990 0.30(10.11) 0.35 6.8 100.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 I COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLIOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.41 TC(MIN!.) = 12.178 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.37 AREA-gVERAGED FM(INCH/HR) = 0.11 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 868.00 FEET. I Page 3 I You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print1to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) INT2P50.RES **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 31 --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ 7 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 118.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 231.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.O INCH PIPE IS 23.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.04 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 20.41 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.76 Tc(MIN.) = 12.94 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 1099.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 TC(MIN.) = 12.94 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.37 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR)= 0.11 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.350 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.41 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensit Fp(FM) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 20.41 12.94 3.174 0.30( 0.11) 0.35 6.4 200.00 2 19.74 15.15 2.903 0.30( 0.11) 0.35 6.8 100.00 ---------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 4 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 1 1 1 INT2P100.RES **************************************************************************** I RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTYIHYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering software (aes) ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis preparid by: C&V CONSULTING INC CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANING AND SURVEYING WWW.CVC-INC.NET ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: INT2P100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:44 02/05/2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL* -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.50 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: iCURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY I(FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 10.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum -Allowable street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0, (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPEADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print Ito novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR:INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 2911.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 126.810 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 126.30 TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM TC(MIN.) = 12.441 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.670 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS TC LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) CONDOMINIUMS B 0.50 0.30 0.350 76 12.44 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.350 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 PEAK FLOWRATE(CFS) = 1.60 Page Ii You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print Ito novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) INT2P100.RES FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< MAINLINE TC(MIN.) = 12.44 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.670 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN CONDOMINIUMS B 2.34 0.30 0.350 76 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.350 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.34 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.51 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.84 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR) = 0.11 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.11 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 122.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 120.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 457.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.01 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.11 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.90 TC(MIN.) = 14.34 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 748.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 237.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 127.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 126.20 TC = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM TC(MIN.) = 9.779 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.213 SUBAREA TC AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS TC LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) CONDOMINIUMS B 0.50 0.30 0.350 76 9.78 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.350 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.85 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.85 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201..00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 81 Page 2 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) INT2P100.RES ------------------------------------------7-------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< -------------------------------------------------------------------- MAINLINE TC(MIN.) = 9.78 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.213 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN CONDOMINIUMS B 3.47 0.30 0.350 76 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.350 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.47 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.83 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.97 AREA;AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR) = 0.11 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.68 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 31 ------------------------------------------=--------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (N,ON-PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 123.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 120.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 631.00 MANNING'SIN = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.46 1 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 14.68 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.36 TC(MIN.) = 12.14 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 868.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q TC Intensity Fp(IFM) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 14.68 12.14 3.722 0.30(10.11) 0.35 4.0 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 868.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q TC Intensity Fp(IFM) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH,/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 9.11 14.34 3.383 0.30(;0.11) 0.35 2.8 100.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 748.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q TC Intensit Fp(FM) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR� (INCH%HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 23.19 12.14 3.722 0.30( 0.11) 0.35 6.4 200.00 2 22.41 14.34 3.383 0.30( 0.11) 0.35 6.8 100.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 23.19 TC(MINI.) = 12.137 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.37 AREA-AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR) = 0.11 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 868.00 FEET. Page 3 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to printjto novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) INT2P100.RES FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE - 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------7--------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)««< ______________ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 118.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 231.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.28 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 23.19 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.73 TC(MIN.) = 12.87 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 1099.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 TC(MIN.) = 12.87 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.37 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR)= 0.11 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.350 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 23.19 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensit Fp(FM) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR � (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 23.19 12.87 3.600 0.30( 0.11) 0.35 6.4 200.00 2 22.41 15.07 3.288 0.30( 0.11) 0.35 6.8 100.00 ---------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 4 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 1 1 ,rte. b d.Sl\., hE:, _ .�\" 1r F'l fir.. � �:-"i.R' A , � � °"'£, 'ff� R" . `.�'�, '?:''• •,Fv-ei/-sf `v°y .. ry'# Y.,'� O n y _ li r �:' � .," f' a .:. >� \.t �� .,,'� yl'' ,`;:�'�1 *,.. x�L .+ �rs . `�- , � �'`.. � - , ry �`:.: x r. xz ... h� ,..os. � >,$,.-0� •..} ° �;, _, 1 :. ,, o '�, p ' i(,: •.,.. "� �_,�..n /1� s., .., >� ....a t.../�. �. ,-<^.`,. _. �♦. .{,^,,,,�:..�., `�r:-.7 e :r�t v2,.. �r'Srr 4�a�iy .�'!''S, ,4?a ��i,� k rr _ .. ,,,, � .. °,,c .., ;fv ,. .,�.-•3 .».'!��`'r.Tz :�, c �l`• ei�k �,' a �,:T � � 4 i'� ^/j�' aitic�°i`` :: "i '+b��n t;, c o ..a #` � y z. `a �� ,..�� � y,4,,.r � . ..� . �` •� t..r '' S•'.,1{:n'.w�' i ..;?; �s v , .„�.pir A = � -a€x t `;� i .�C< `,ra ta.^ .., "�:�, $�`'.n= � ':f; � „ -:M1� s,r •. ,,., »: f �.\. �,r+ q �.,-+�;4i4s'. l�g�� °`_"� �° s s 1.,�",-:� ,r 'L� ,s;. r �^- �;F„,�, _ k.`, ,;a'*,• '.�".i. ¢a` ',_. jy t .( I %,. :;fin k' "`� -� hT: a,-xq`y ei` ,,,,�a" 'k,•4,'r 'a �*> M#•;,. z'hl .`F' :¢.k ,:: x 3 w Y � t ,t i , y $t � x' �Y. y... .y ti^yY. „ wi ;` y e=.,'. 'ti ..,�' r,l� ..,. * a4` '. .�,� rb'.,' 'i '% � 5� fi.��; '� � ° µ� �a �F. z� �{' ��' • x •� t`r. �1`w ,�., ', r,4, f* ; a a,ta : ': . fi '`'� r', . � , �a . `�w"`�i,` .� > # xa„. �`s�,rt t ° .P , � y s= k 'i . � ' nr�'�+ t`f�t ' ��w ; 2>* ` f✓ r uy A �, a?rY'2 i ✓,r:;" .•�' a„�.:. =-«a � o r.Y" ` f= `i"y, =1; . e A^' ;��,<r•,' z�-.<,� ,r /`�; G`�*�<s' . � k.- , FY ` � �,. 'ft:"'. rr �,F . w�»`� si- r_`" k P '�"t", a ,e>. Kr=•*`-, , =i> �a� h _ r :, �, ,Y .' .,`��. �-�' a.,�� .' •k",'�,- `..r ,,,,. :. � ,� ��� � {? d,�,.a a�.'' �+« fir_ *� ,�,.,, v .r-,ra ,�`'",: �+F N's� .¢ �'��,�.a .� <`ti '� e C c4'i ��'r;�. e. r' ''�, �;?�` t' via„ .,' `"7 z eaa � �� ,�d �°s: x ,h r' � .:r♦,4, , �i <'� t ('. _,:w tm >< rt: 't.'lt.' �t `..4%•, ,t ' - +> '.s. s- '� '`°r ♦ z`-. °,. .a a x_ -.a ,¢q. "'�' :t .'� - � '� " � F" ,. Oak ..,Fti+ ,,y;.., �..... Y '��` ? ., '�t,`,;✓i�v'd� -.'... ": " ` _ `�`':ti'�4� 1 «�"39� _ °� r�'�,,�`,.:. ""t°`. � a ^,e .a .,.�+ ° Y .°,.`�5 . t'w` �\, ,;-;9;a5., s.< .� k.,, * r; . � <'\` ';� � ,,. -g,. �' 4 " � k t .�° '.e 3 r�" i S ♦ c 1, W.,, ,Ft ,,., x ,z Via., ``�i•3', �..,,„� �y+},."., "+`, i��.. avr - ��.. N;�..! �,k s i "., . �e , '�.., -�x ', � • �c ... ;..''fj#., x. "' � �. "`v. ..C{ ,:d x* o :t�-: s ,�„ax�a p r a .. r "`�` � "-r`2a +'fl ,.. ; ��`. �;'„ 3 7 a,p .k `�/% a � •*c4 ,;. 4 :�`x �'. � b r. -e ! ;.o � - i ..;.� F'+ `�S � ��• =�1 _",t- , i '�c`<s. , W '�-'<.. t�,;.� ;n � �'d" ,�..2 0 ;;a, . Ps,: ,5 '�^. 7 ,a#:-.; s ..--*� C � ~i�; .., ��:_ � .='. Win" z3"��.{,„� --^ " It_ �ar..�f< <,_�:a, �1•, 'kr k '-a •"` ae. ,�*.", � mF� +� >�, ..�- �� �e'r'�.,`... w,'d; -� �`r . ".���-,X:'�+,'.�>_ `:y:'t--:. -"fir' ..�. � ;... ,:. 1 r � :•rst',<.w .: ; �A ..,. ''..•c"`'. -;-"., s s<, r.. � ° . w- "� .6 �`:vs �� - Tri `3 ,r,r 4`,�s' 3 ur-�` ,,, . 'y, r��.,. ~ra , .:t, -.=^--`t �"� .ter-.. ® �'-."�. -fit ;,•� L :r dam. � . x. , • ,,�.a' . L ,1-'::._�. � r.,a;F, "� e , h �.. . ,.a'� # '-+,# y-�;� ,,.�° -�: �,;, .: a ,c "' = e: 45 s,%%r,-.- ,.i��z ,.�--,>,.-; _ �o'', ; �Yk .""t 'T' ;.�•-.,�a.-",.s� ,.. �.: �r, ". � {9`aa'. "�«.d . a^,:sYb... ,m a, ,> f;��.;, , 'T �r "' - ,..; ,.- ;. -. k t t. .:.:: x' o ,-:-•. , .,.. ":,, ,':=' .. ,:>... � .s; °Jt ,... ,f?.. ,._ t � t �' ;t. ..r§`2s� �� -..ti :„3c�y'j .,,-: .. .xr."$'�,i � i` .: �,,*,. ».�. Y..� � _- S+=.a-•s ° .: �,��.. �'9,... .'.. _'"r+..:: ” h- :..:+w - -a: "°' E'r. d� tt _ ar; �:'" & � '�tl ^, far w:"�w-a v* � h ._;={" ''�.:,. n :,a} x> •-?-'. � .``r '( K!5. i<a+,'i�4 m.., � �: \. ,�"'�`v' F e '^�'�.,. �.. �'n K'° y. a,''' y„•44i � �:' �`T' y � ,.���d^ .'.r. '�"" �. � 5*a'Y-- .:.- ., k..:. .aY,: :. s ..y.. ..et-<im e� �:; �•s-4� p `� j , �-� .r s� _,� P r. rr^ �a a v ..F ' a k .' ��`aT , . "y" � .,�. `, ..^�4' T.•,�* t"5�'r,'a- x"`S: .c..x., -: q-ti.C. r, :5.:.j . �s$ i ,J.', r rR. s =,ea. a � r ,�'r:` � ^�{.�` '2"... _ _ � � ,.�, . {' {. il`++' �,.d* ..: �;'.Y _'"y".. �.,«.s'.':.b c,•..'3' ey.. •':� ,. ,�i" y i' ,C� r..{',` „"r.A 4` �R $4 ,c,tv"K, §^. 'fY"e.:� °� •XY.�S .'gp' r 3..... �'°� 7 `£.i._�r. 4.%� � t . Sr'S` la'� r �; V,:�• fes, s'.`y - �T.a e ".3+iF:.?.d�v 't- - ±:.. d- �..` _..:'„1..4 ♦SI Y.....,_e a ... vi ', a.Yi j:..,.r;�;.n .A �, 't a.'k� ly„ ... gp. • - ' E:A! { <, l#�,.vlw, 5i, .'e. r•..� .'t' a'@+ a 's'. a' ^,x+, a ao:.i;yg 'P-i.wt >yY ° ,> ip„lyhR �*.ni";`. ..�,-k., "� d� "`ax-- _.,.. � . .,.} -�" r t • # „� � �:.. ,;�,r �i' S, .� a^ ,:=,a��„ o ` r �,.�c d'{" �>�?it' b -7t • -'�., �.�1 l °`� .i� '!� tz ,�>• *�.4�; �"4.. , 'S ..: e -�'fx,s ,:, a n�;e �, �'y.>,:s". t ==-:.. .., a rel ���,_''. -`� o -.., �,�'� r''1t ° � _ X`t .. x -.y-=- f r.- k n�� -♦ oaif, w�� >�. � •r: " fir -a ,e r••"" �� e"�; X!, .';r , "'-,. e • ¢4.. ;, � � s! '. �..,.� w'>� � ,ft's£.,,, 'U � :; �-g�� •`i'` r:`'� .., k . Vii. av S!, -, �,�, '~x, .a '., o" 5 qty .. �� ,,, n 'I -'$x ��-"`---€;. ��' :aC ° .: j -t _ ,"f '.,"a-,�.'.r o .�..i:,� i ,,7.4 .' :.,,., tJka'3•<''r'� ^+r;� alit &a' �'` ..4 '., . P �:_^rf. ..,. ` J�? } _ ` , - '� '�" a .::x` �S • [ � x •;...,". �,.p ; f+.>".,, , ,;1•tr s, o ..^dPf3 � , �.as'''"r. rs` ,rw'#` sa psi �'..r"- ° , ."ti .. ..:.*•_. a ,:: -r �.`:. ^�.; ;, � oa «a: .. _-y' �Y� � ; .-�;4a+ ° tY.re s ° ° ��`^' y- �', s a � .; 1'f,° �° k - �•:--. `':..." �.�' ,°"� x��Y+_.: o g .3!:;yt > few^ -n* <; � �_� - >� J °y;'':� 7. � 'f � <r,.; �� a`°n=="' aF� ��7� ��i:r. ':?', i:a a1� '9+ . � :.. , a.. , �q ,;{..,r-. a r..: a.et, . •�,: ., • :,; ,E�> t j j"iit-,�#u'.'.+ �'w. ` .;. .a -- - ,� +,< .r, f . ^" ice;=' ~a -5 n ,*•rte s' �m �'7 r''* ,. -5�. k -g,; -rY,i .`- 'ii -.�-f .{} a `1`,•�:c,. a� �f> fi��^,. ��� �-.� �.; ?y�` q�&} m a �TM,.:� ...�. ,�` �i � �- /. / g ' •,.f a�,.. �r ,� • -.A+i a c h •�,"�'°'- �_""^>c� '�� S .�t`x .�R ` =r:. ��'��.+� . � �z,� tr a �' t,. �.,,>l -c` 6`i g} 3'r-,� a," -: xr, • a } v' ° o-�. . °, i; y a `kn a �s �j."'""�Ce► ' t.:os 1 't-"' 1;.ifi`.... 'ry .,`' ; dt -:Fa az' .',s 8 x ,.,`•.":,'$ �..,,, :-'xz ,,,x'a' r, .t� "i:.,..',^' -k .s •t+* j":= + '{ a b r=°I .`.• ' 2 �','J _ �.. 3. °, o,4k y' *`Y`' '+"'` ,,• g r,"'". e a>'. �,5, a tg txr'• ,�,m_ -rS�;; .� � �. �i' .%. f,... ,,5 Y" �� '� x.: ° � i ,><h` y:..n'° '.,Po � �'...b ° • �U`r- y, i 'S a~ix;�' cS _ { 5 ',yr,Ny'�4 : #'" z c�'t ��'- ..,, : _ ~c�'. ..= ""�: ,*- z ✓ „r is°IY -ad`s � m'r�';T ,,u, ^� 4',. c .` - a / 4�n -! 'b '�s i'ri rY; �lv •'fa ^'r 7',`' r> a, a .: "'�, � ♦ <;�:-x ° - .,n'' ah" '- ! :'l� ,. �;'r'>fi �tf '''.`� P' o ,e, ,'"' 'v �, � Y � x t- �.� r x> •,+, �r r F - �# `a' -r Q 4 r` ��`� ria z t".. ,A. 'cv�`�a.'���p,-, °s e a ar s` t i ''t •£'mss �'.. � • ,-" '� ^-." ;{ ` s e ,x .� ' .�r'- ^x'R.. a �' • �,. : � a x`. i' amt 4"' p�k kt' ^' ` �:4 s ° s � a ` ,� r I k N ,z' rT"' <" �"`a •"°' ° s h a ! .� ,'k ir^' n ,y, s �' n t c. _ „y n.,7, ? ^ h d -e o : a • ma '� ✓ ' �i � ��- ,, �` +' �' ex`tlt �.a � $ r°,'' �����>., x t� �" a x 1 i yl ''� rr � `£ -•r• '5 �3+€'x., �x ^`rte,.. a' g>.7 ,,`- ':,ire t x 'r�'�• t ay� t '+ • :�-r,0..«„ .,, x s," .,ry � r>. '� ^�� 'r°g .-_r`" � � �," V ,x� ; ,� �.�, wg. a �`. is 4 "a .. , a'" r: 5 o a.. � `4 s>• 4+ :<� � s � :. -" 4 x � •' � z, `.. < �,< �a ,: fi- `�t"�':e,� � f;c 1 �rY <x t �C' �a w^ �',Sw` �` � :`a-Yi �' k. ,r! rx ,>"�'�=�"t�+ 2 ,"� ::K �' � 'n, ;«�++. �'�'"' b �h,. ate. ^- .� g'S �"''� a yf--tt�' >� �� �s'�1 ♦ , `",r �• # � � ""' � 'r z,�'� "�^ '4 ` � f .� +t.; ! r "�y" � ` `+c, .,'� e ,...., { c.,= a. s * , , a 1 �,, ,.•*, a °-" '•a�� `�` a` � F ' * ,> "'' " y"�� � ,y, as ^. z ',♦'t"'"'' r,.�mh✓ r,�� .,_ �*�'�t'����•_;�°�i. ay'so*�-' 4,-,`-�' ;e#-a,`°`'''";�`,"- ....�, :..e,� �e,�.:.°a ���.w� ^'.'�x'��5�„����. �v"s;�,A;���'��s�^.'"s� �,�r , " ,,„;e ire-.:,=#"`{� 'iia 'x.'i'kAv Xfi'"`. ” t 3x' ': :1:: 5 yi �..,,.. ,, ,w_ -r2 "K �".e".+�x,r,<, has x-,^�• a �i �aam .xa aa° �a ws— ¢ � a ,fir v ` a: � `` .>°i-,:';~. p rt`.. 5 �"- A.;:<.«,. � � ��" `� � � r �'; `testi „•-:'' �i k. � 4 4 �; , s � t^ .'{��'.' � �Yx. 2 '�, s'v: "r s. �:' � �..'. F. a ^. ... "� s -b- :� z 'xa✓� S;�'v`,,.r '.' r �, �. , 1• :•:•.. ...... t ;,� 'r, ,,,.. f "` x+ �,:. �. r' Y � �} x�;a. +, Z b .e_ y �'� +ara,�;: TS `^ f? i ,a' �' �`�: aws �' .y1 � ;;�#`,�sa'�'i��x� 4c>°'tom a �'� � � :Y.,r'S. '�� �, '•a i ,.»,� 'x °: i�'��`",^`,,.^• s��=r' s', '�'^:�� rpt � t,+ti „[a, ;t: '*� e� �� 'r'}.,� � n;�.. � c"� �;i�inh� `.e, G,'a`x.+c-Ei 'h r,-...� '� ,�, � h' .k+�t;' � r �c�,c•, ei5•�'s�' 'rad` �"` ¢"``�Rk' " "-'s'`��°.ia� . ......... «xi . If ,,., $s, -r'- �" €"iia' ° "tl� '..?' r _ •-r _n.`.1 %�C,{{:``� Y'•" a ,:. .,.c'` s „ ,S e `3`, �'r- °= a °a*x J;, ars"a; a -' a,� ` r^2 F � - �` af., � ,� dt...a° � - 1- "st �� +t,. �•� b ,s "4s.. } g';3_' rt. ,a .y^, i a ., s..t+ aC ♦�� a:.. � .*` � r1 0 °�� G �; ♦ � �i *.Sri . �{ �` - P't `��~<s� -.:i� 'r' I,x*r r"s. a'� "� � ��'!t a • •• a � 4k' ♦ �F �. ar G:.. �i rdr�-"{` r 4=' $j° „- , ♦ �f' ..� ♦ '' i i� ` r sour s, C `=f .4'N O. O' .4'..s'w_,.,;r :.°a .1; "tz:.+♦ .xe �.'.n .,e�'.u.5.i.�_ca3.... '.u..-,5'i"x_-. euc yin • au.ec caw, LIIQ OR a a VST04 yr�cyar amr ORANGE COUNTY LECErm "� wo �� W*� s s*wa ovso� sa man • sw awr[r a o k= cwn .ra Hraroloac CLASSCICATION 6 soar o xrwALOGC s0. a+an R9WI oMr a Ic.RWE cawrr,°{roaA O ANX C"TY•CALFOFNA HYDROLOGY mANuAL '^mm� saL mor comm, V"$M co "414 x•127' PLATE a 1 Existing Hy 1 x1 awua ws� M�aX .x onxua Mei a M,Xs o.m-XXX CFS— EQ--XM nm,� - roor awF bm m soap xo> X.XX=moa wnrr (a m mop GFS- CIBC aII 1fX s vos Tc-X.) ( MIN- 9E6COE�XXIILmOFImlR paulop IIOIE• AmYE ML 94 aG' P B Rii OPNfE mUV,YYWWL 1 1 R 1 MFA aXlpVRr m6mla lm. arm5al .�x� anww[MFAaMan m/YlYE MFA M M]i5 Im MmE MY9N LEGO 65.0 imE 6tWO1 0,a-X.XX CFS— 96YF.1 alar V. w Vaal) E(6-X.Xx—moi alar pm re smMj LOe=%.%x-mca arm (a m smn7 cFs- oec av a�+ gwFM Tc-%.) X MIN—aEQ WXfl1aVIlaF-laalX(W116j IaIF Al9YE Nl mt GaV B fFll WMCE mUM1Y LLVaNL i 1 HIL MANN CONS ULTIN.G PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT TusTIN, CALIFORNIA 92780 Prepared For: Intracorp Communities 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 December 3, 2015 Hillmann Project No: C3-6449 Your Property. Our Priority. 1745 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 110, Orange, CA 92868 Telephone (714) 634-9500 Fax: (714) 634-9507 www.HillmannConsultin2.com 1 1 i 1 1 1 H'ILLMANN C'ONSULTI'NG December 3, 2015 Ms. Jennifer Chirco-Coker Intracorp Communities 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessr 420 — 436 West 6th Street & 330 — 694 Tustin, California 92780 Hillmann Project Number: C3-6449 Dear Ms. Chirco-Coker: Hillmann Consulting, LLC, is pleased to provi Assessment of the above referenced property, with the scope and limitations of ASTM Pract E1527 standard published by the ASTM, and CFR Part 312. This report is for the exclusive use of the en shall have any right to rely on any service prior written consent. We appreciate the opportunity to provide envi questions concerning this report, or if we can Project Manager at (714) 634-9500. Very Truly Yours, Hillmann Consulting, LLC Gregory Shaffer Project Manager B Street the results of our Phase I Environmental Site his assessment was performed in accordance E 1527-13, which is the latest version of the ll Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Final Rule 40 named on the front cover, and no other party ided by Hillmann Consulting, LLC, without ntal due diligence services. If you have any you in any other matter, please contact the Larry Rockefeller Sr. Project Manager Your Property. Our Priority. Corporate Headquarters: 1600 Route 22 East, Suite #107, Union, NJ 07083 (908) 688-7800 Fax: (908) 686-2636 Toll free: (800) 232-4326 Office Locations: California, Massachusetts, NewjYork, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia 4.0 Hillmann Consulting LLC RECORDS REVIEW.................................................................................................................................14 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources...................................................................................................14 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... ..................................................... .... ............................................................. 1 Additional Environmental Record Sources................................................................................................17 1.1 Project Details Summary Table....................................................................................................................1 4.3 4.4 Physical Setting Sources............................................................................................................................18 Historical Use - Property and Adjoining Properties..................................................................................18 1.2 Findings Summary Table.............................................................................................................................2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.....................................................................................................................22 1.3 General Description, Current and Historic Property Use.............................................................................3 5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions......................................................................................................22 1.4 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions...........................................................................................................3 5.2 General Site Setting.....................................................................................................................................22 1.5 Recommendations........................................................................................................................................5 5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations........:.......................................................................................................24 2.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 7 INTERVIEWS............................................................................................................................................27 2.1 Purpose and Scope......................................................................................................................................:7 6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants..........................................................................27 2.2 Property Location/Legal Description...........................................................................................................9 6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials.........................................................................27 2.3 Significant Assumptions...............................................................................................................................9 NON -ASTM SCOPE CONCERNS.........................................................................................................28 2.4 Limitations and Exceptions..........................................................................................................................9 7.1 Asbestos -Containing Material (ACM).......................................................................................................28 2.5 Data Gaps.....................................................................................................................................................9 7.2 Lead -Based Paint........................................................................................................................................28 2.6 Special Terms and Conditions....................................................................................................................10 7.3 Radon.........................................................................................................................................................28 3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION.....................................................................................................12 7.4 Mold...........................................................................................................................................................28 3.1 Prior Reports and other Provided Documentation......................................................................................12 7.5 Wetlands.....................................................................................................................................................28 3.2 Title Records/Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations............................................................12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT.....................................................................29 3.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience.......................................................................................................12 REFERENCES................:.......................................:..................................................................................30 3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information...................................................................12 APPENDICES................................................:...........................................................................................31 3.5 Property Value Reduction due to Environmental Conditions..................................:.................................12 Appendix A Site Diagram/Vicinity Map 3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA..........................................................................................................13 Appendix B Site Photographs 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW.................................................................................................................................14 4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources...................................................................................................14 4.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources................................................................................................17 4.3 4.4 Physical Setting Sources............................................................................................................................18 Historical Use - Property and Adjoining Properties..................................................................................18 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.....................................................................................................................22 5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions......................................................................................................22 5.2 General Site Setting.....................................................................................................................................22 5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations........:.......................................................................................................24 6.0 INTERVIEWS............................................................................................................................................27 6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants..........................................................................27 6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials.........................................................................27 7.0 NON -ASTM SCOPE CONCERNS.........................................................................................................28 7.1 Asbestos -Containing Material (ACM).......................................................................................................28 7.2 Lead -Based Paint........................................................................................................................................28 7.3 Radon.........................................................................................................................................................28 7.4 Mold...........................................................................................................................................................28 7.5 Wetlands.....................................................................................................................................................28 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT.....................................................................29 9.0 REFERENCES................:.......................................:..................................................................................30 10.0 APPENDICES................................................:...........................................................................................31 Appendix A Site Diagram/Vicinity Map Appendix B Site Photographs Appendix C Questionnaires / User Provided Information Appendix D Historical Records Documentation Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation Appendix F Other Documents Appendix G Project Personnel Qualifications Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -i- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 - 436 West 6`h Street & 330 - 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 L 1 Hillmann Consulting LLC List of Abbreviations/Acronyms Hillmann may use the following abbreviations and acronyms for common terminology described in our report. Not all abbreviations or acronyms may be applicable to this report: ACM — Asbestos Containing Material AST — Aboveground Storage Tank ASTM — American Standard for Testing Materia CERCLA — Comprehensive Environmental Respon CERCLIS — Comprehensive Environmental Respon CESQG — Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity .� CORRACTS — Corrective Action Sites CREC — Controlled Recognized Environmental DNPL — Delisted National Priority List DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Contr, ENG — Engineering ERNS — Emergency Response Notification Syst FOI — Freedom of Information FOIA — Freedom of Information Act FOIL — Freedom of Information Letter HVAC — Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioninj HREC — Historic Recognized Environmental Cc IAQ — Indoor Air Quality INST — Institutional LBP —Lead -Based Paint LQG — Large Quantity Generator LUST — Leaking Underground Storage Tank MSDS — Material Safety Data Sheet NFA —No Further Action NFRAP —No Further Remedial Actions Planned NPDES — National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatii NPL —National Priority List RCRA — Resource Conservation and Recovery RCRIS — Resource Conservation and Recovery Ij REC — Recognized Environmental Condition RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD — South Coast Air Quality Management I SQG — Small Quantity Generator TSDF — Treatment Storage and/or Disposal Faci USEPA — United States Environmental Protection UST — Underground Storage Tank Compensation and Liability Act Compensation and Liability Information System System Agency System Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -ii Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hillmann Consulting, LLC (Hillmann), performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of 420 — 436 W. 6' Street and 330 — 694 B Street in Tustin, California (the "Property"). This assessment has been conducted in accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13 for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Final Rule 40 CFR Part 312. 1.1 Project Details Summary Table A summary of the pertinent details of the project is provided below: «z Q PROJECT UMIkYTABLE`" h Name of Clients r°'' Intracorp Communities Chent Project No N/A Client'Contacts; r Ms. Jennifer Chirco-Coker Description of.ProJect r Phase I Environmental Site Assessment "ProjectName.- "` 6th Street Tustin Street Address 420 — 436 West 61 Street & 330 — 694 South B Street City Tustin County `° Orange State ' California Tax ID/Parcel Number: 401-341-04 zonmgnDesiguahon ;' Industrial (4) -Approx Property Area a 6.748 Acres Approzuna- Building Area gym:{: 190,194 SF Ye�r'Built. 1964 General Lype;of Usage: Warehouse / Commercial Eroperty Owner Van Buren Plaza LLC Joan Marie Lumasag, Armondo Escamilla Ruis, KEITHCO Manufacturing, Inc. & Bernard Steel, Above & Beyond Balloons, Inc., Permlight Products, Alan Dwayne Piercy (Printing), Sandbox Marketing LLC, Christopher Occupants) 11 George Wheeler, Cabinet Makers, Synthetic Grass Store of California, Micro ` Com Inc., AT&T, Harris Histology Services, Advantage Manufacturing, SantaAna Cross Fit, HBP Dance Studio, Calvary Chapel Tustin, Vacant suites Assessment Per;`sonnel "�� Mr. Ryan Sokolovsky & Mr. Gregory Shaffer Property Contct Ms. Jennifer Chirco-Coker Property Escort(s):` Mr. Said Shokrian :Inspection Date ��- November 12 -18, 2015 Weather Condittons' Y Clear, 64 - 75 degrees F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -1- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 `" 420 — 436 West 6Street & 330' 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 1 Hillmann Consulting LLC 1.2 Findings Summary Table The following table summarizes the key findings of this assessment. This table, alone, does not constitute the complete assessment. The report must be reviewed in its entirety. User Provided Info X 3.0 Data Gaps X 2.5 Regulatory Review X 4.1 Historical Review X 4.4 Long term use of the Property for a variety of industrial operations Site Use including printing, REC Phase II 5.2 lithography, and manufacturing between the 1970s through the present 1 .. I9 -YY ­ "I j ' 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street,,1 Tustin, California V v✓ v Adjoining Properties X 4.1.2 5.2.8 Hazardous Materials X 5.3 Bulk Petroleum Storage X 5.3 Leaking pad -mounted transformer along 61 Street PCBs on the northem�portion of REC Phase II 5.3 the Property Waste / Discharges X 5.3 Asbestos Containing Potential for ACM on fi Compliance with Materials ACM Property regulations 7.1 Lead Based Paint (LBP) Potential for LBP on'S Compliance with 7.2 Property regulations Radon XM 7.3 .,; Mold X 7.4 Wetlands X 7.5 1 .. I9 -YY ­ "I j ' 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street,,1 Tustin, California V v✓ v Hillmann Consulting LLC 1.3 General Description, Current and Historic Property Use The Property consists of one irregularly shaped parcel on the southwest corner of W. 6t' Street and B Street. The site currently consists of three large commercial/industrial buildings with numerous tenants. The Property is located in a suburban developed area characterized by a mix of commercial properties, residences, and a mobile home park. The terrain of the Property appeared to be relatively flat. No natural surface bodies of water were observed. The Property was determined to have been first used as an orchard dating back to at least 1938. By 1963, the eastern portion of the Property appeared to be used as an orchard while the western portion of the Property appeared to have three large commercial buildings. Circa 1972, additional buildings were developed with one area under construction which was completed by 1977. The long term use of the Property for a variety of industrial operations including printing lithography, and manufacturing between the 1970s through the present is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property.- 1.4 roperty. 1.4 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions 1.4.1 Notable Findings Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Van Buren Plaza LLC, prepared by EMG Corporation and dated June 11, 2013. EMG Corp. observed that numerous businesses currently occupying the Property are involved in the use of hazardous materials and petroleum products in the form of lubricating oil, propane, compressed -gases, diesel fuel, and janitorial/maintenance supplies. The report concluded that "This Assessment revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) or Historic Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs) in connection with the Project. " The Property was identified on the HAZNET, RCRA-SQG, EMI, US AIRS, and EDR Historic Auto Station for multiple business operations that have existed at the Property. Large quantities of waste oil and mixed oils, total organic hydrocarbon gases and reactive organic gases, unspecified aqueous solutions, unspecified organic liquid mixture, unspecified solvent mixture, other inorganic solid waste, off -specification, aged or surplus organics, and photochemicals/photoprocessing waste, and unspecified oil -containing waste were all generated at the Property. The hazardous materials were then disposed off-site. No violations are reported in connection with operations at the Property. The historic automobile station operated at the Property in 1945. The Property is currently used as a commercial/industrial complex with more than thirty suites. Tenants at the time of the inspection consisted of Keithco Manufacturing, Permlight Products, Synthetic Grass Store of California, three cabinet makers, pool pump manufacturing, a dance studio, Harris Histology Services, AT&T cellular tower, printing studio, Sandbox Marketing, and vape sales and distribution. Several suites were also vacant. The facility at the Property stored numerous hazardous materials that varied in each tenant suite. In almost all suites, Hillmann observed general household cleaning products, stored in cabinets in either a breakroom, a kitchen, a janitor closet, or a restroom. Additionally, common water - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -3- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420-- 436 West 6`" Street & 330 — 694 South B Street, Tustin, California 1 1 Hillmann Consulting LLC based paint cans and buckets were found in most tenant spaces. For the warehouse spaces, forklifts are used to move merchandise and numerous forklift propane tanks were observed. Smaller propane tanks were also observed. Numerous 10 -gallon buckets of materials associated with pool pump manufacturing including paints, primers, and lubricants were located inside suites 624 and 624-A. Inside the histology suite, number 630, a fire cabinet stored acids and other hazardous materials. Next to the cabinet, a 10 -gallon container labeled xylene waste was observed. The printing and lithography suite, number 424, stored inks and dyes on a cabinet wall. 10 -gallon buckets of hydraulic fluid wero stored next to multiple compressors at the Property. Approximately ten (10) empty gas cans were observed in both the printing and motorbike online sales suites. Other substances 'observed throughout the tenant suites include Polymeric Isocyanate, Polyurethane Foam, welding gases, 10 -gallon plaster buckets, roof patch, high-temperature adhesive NS910, lubricants, antifreeze, cutting and grinding fluids, and vape liquid flavorings. These features do not appear to represent an environmental concern to the Property but should be removed and disposed of in connection with site development activities. Numerous drums were located in various suites throughout the Property. Drums were observed containing the following materials: antifreeze and. lubricant in Suite 420A, Polymeric Isocyanate and Polyether Polyol Resin in Suite 624, and Xylene in Suite 630. Drums which were not used for storage of hazardous materials generally contained metal shavings, glycerin, propylene glycol, equipment parts, and prepared microscope slides. An empty 55 -gallon drum was observed in the basement parking lot. A 55 -gallon drum of waste paints was stored next to a spray -paint booth inside suite 624 B Street. One (1) approximately 100 gallon diesel AST is attached to the emergency generator outside of the AT&T suite, near the cellular tower. No other evidence of any past or present underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) was identified on the subject Property. i One (1) pad -mounted transformer is located on the northern portion of the Property. Hillmann observed oily staining in the vicinity of the transformer. Considering the date of development, the transformer has the potential to contain PCBs. This suspected leaking transformer is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property. An exterior line dine runs across the basement (Suite 660) entrance underneath Suite 630 B Street. Interior floor drains were observed in most tenant suites in the men's and women's restrooms. Inside the vacant suite at 426 6th Street, floor drains were observed inside office rooms. A floor drain was observed next to a washing station inside suite 424-B 6th Street, currently occupied by a vape smoking manufacturing shop. One (1) sump pump is located in the underground parking garage underneath suites 624', 624-A, and 630 B Street. De minimis pavement staining was observed in the vicinity of the operational compressor and parking lot to the south of Suite 624 B Street. De minimis staining was observed on the pavement on the parking lot. No evidence of stained soils or stressed vegetation was identified on the Property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -4-11 Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 0 Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ jTustin, California . Hillmann Consulting LLC 1.4.2 Non -ASTM Scope Considerations Hillmann performed a Hazardous Materials Survey in conjunction with the Phase I ESA. The results of the survey will be provided in a report under a separate cover. Hillmann has also performed preliminary evaluations for ASTM "Non -Scope" items, such as radon, mold, and wetlands. Our observations and research did not identify any notable concerns. 1.4.3 Significant Data Gaps No data gaps that significantly impacted Hillmann's ability to identify RECs in connection with the Property have been identified. 1.4.4 Recognized Environmental Conditions Hillmann has performed a PhaseI Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 of the Property as described in Section 2 of this report. Any additions to, exceptions to, or deletions from this practice are also described in Section 2 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property, except for the following: Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs): • The long-term historic use of the Property .for light -industrial and manufacturing operations (including lithography and printing tenants) is considered to be a REC. • The observed leaking transformer along W. 6th Street is considered to be a REC due to the potential for the electrical fluid to contain PCBs. Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs): • No evidence of any CRECs in connection with the Property was identified. Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs): • No evidence of any HRECs in connection with the Property was identified. 1.5 Recommendations 1.5.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions Based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Hillmann_ recommends that a Phase II subsurface investigation be performed in order to determine if the past uses of the Property or the leaking transformer have impacted the subsurface of the Property. 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -5- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 1.5.2 Non -ASTM Considerations The following should be considered with regard ASTM considerations addressed by this report: • Compliance with all applicable rules and lead based paint at the Property. Hillmann Consulting LLC further investigation or management of Non - pertaining to the presence of ACM and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -6- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`" Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ 'Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Scope This assessment was conducted utilizing generally accepted Phase I ESA industry standards in accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13. The ASTM describes these methodologies as representing good commercial and customary practice in the United States of America for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. (CERCLA) and petroleum products. As such, this practice is intended to permit a user,to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the "landowner liability protections," or "LLPs"): that is, the practice that constitutes all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses the property consistent with good commercial and customary practice as defined at 42 U.S.C. §9601(35) (B). The primary goal of the processes established by ASTM E1527-13 is to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. The term recognized environmental condition (REQ is defined by the ASTM as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or at a property: (1) due to a 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. The ASTM has also defined the terms historical recognized environmental conditions and controlled recognized environmental conditions as two additional types of RECs. The term historical recognized environmental condition (HREQ is defined 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 (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls or engineering controls). The term controlled recognized environmental condition (CREQ is defined as a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to :the implementation of required controls. Conditions determined to be "de minimis conditions" are not considered to be RECs nor CRECs. De minimis condition is defined by the ASTM as a condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies." The chief components of this assessment are described as follows: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -7- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 J 1 i 1 Hillmann Consulting LLC • A non-invasive visual reconnaissance of the Property and adjoining properties in accordance with ASTM guidelines for evidence of RECs. • Interviews of past and present owners and occupants and state and local government officials, seeking information related to the potential presence of RECs at the Property. i • A review of standard physical record sources for available topographic, geologic and groundwater data. I • Review of standard historic record sources, i such as fire insurance maps, city directories, aerial photographs, prior reports and interviews, etc., to determine prior uses of the Property from the present, back to the Property's firstdeveloped use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier. • Review of standard environmental record databases, and additional environmental concerns with the Property, adjoining surrounding area. including federal and state environmental sources, to identify potential regulatory ies and properties located within the These methodologies are described as representing good commercial and customary practice for conducting an Environmental Site Assessment of a property for the purpose of identifying recognized environmental conditions. I 2.1.1 Non -ASTM Scope Considerations I In accordance with our contract agreement, Hillmann may have addressed the following potential environmental concerns that are outside of the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13 standard: j Asbestos -Containing Materials (ACM): A preliminary visual inspection for the presence of suspect ACM within the accessed areas of buildings on the Property. Lead -Based Paint (LBP): A preliminary visual inspection of the condition of painted surfaces in the accessed areas of buildings on the Property. 1 1 USEPA Designated Radon Potential: Review of general non -site specific data published by the USEPA regarding the potential for elevated indoor levels of radon gas to occur in the area of the Property. i Mold: A preliminary visual inspection within the evidence of systemic microbial problems, inc building materials or musty odors. Wetlands: A preliminary review of data pub regarding the presence or absence of mapped Wildlife Service wetlands data is typically p Resources, Inc. (EDR). ;d areas of buildings on the Property for visible mold growth, water damaged by the US Fish and Wildlife Service ids on the Property. The US Fish and I to Hillmann by Environmental Data Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 8-1 Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 0 Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California I I Hillmann Consulting LLC 2.2 . Property Location/Legal Description The Property is located at 420 — 436 West 6"' Street and 330 — 694 B Street in Tustin, California. The legal designation of the Property is Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 401-341-04. The Property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of West 6h Street and South B Street. The latitude and longitude of the Property is approximately North 33.7393 degrees, and West 117.8274 degrees. 2.3 Significant Assumptions The following significant assumptions are made: • Hillmann can neither warrant nor guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information obtained from EDR during the course of this. assessment. • Hillmann can neither warrant nor guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information that was obtained from ostensibly knowledgeable individuals, regulatory agency representatives or other secondary sources. Hillmann has assumed that the site operations at the time of the site visit reflect typical site conditions relative to potential environmental conditions and that no concealment of environmental conditions or releases by site owners or occupants has occurred. Likewise, Hillmann has also assumed that no areas of the Property with potential environmental concerns or RECs were concealed or otherwise not made known to us, intentionally or unknowingly, by the Property owners/occupants and/or site escort at the time of the site visit. • For the purpose of estimating the approximate direction of groundwater flow in the absence of site specific groundwater data, unless indicated otherwise, Hillmann has assumed that the gradient of groundwater flow follows the surface topography of the Property and immediate surrounding area. 2.4 Limitations and Exceptions 2.4.1 Limiting Conditions Hillmann was unaware of any significant limiting conditions at the time of the assessment. 2.4.2 Other Exceptions or Deletions: No exceptions or deletions from the ASTM Standard E 1527-13 are reported. 2.5 Data Gaps A data gap is defined by the ASTM as a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. A data gap is only significant if other information and/or professional experience Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -9- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California C 1 Hillmann Consulting LLC raises reasonable concerns involving `the data gap and the ability to determine the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions. � 'aJ "' , v �° Rata Gad s # x « .��.��anxnweslNo� r tg rticant `{7?. M � �,� Discussion � 44. �n �� 2� baa o �ymT Response to agency records No Any additional information indicative of a REC will be requests not received as of date forwarded upon receipt. of report. Completed environmental No An environmental questionnaire completed by the Property questionnaire was not returned. re resentative has been requested but not yet received. 2.6 Special Terms and Conditions Hillmann has prepared this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment using reasonable efforts in each phase of its work to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with hazardous substances, wastes and petroleum products at the Property. The methodology of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was consistent with the ASTM Standard Practice for E 1527-13. Findings within this report are based on information collected from observations made on the day of the site visit and from reasonably ascertainable information obtained from governing public agencies and private sources. This report is not definitive and should not be assumed to be a complete or specific definition of the conditions above or below grade. Information in this report is not intended to be used as a construction document and should not be used for demolition, renovation or other construction purposes. Hillmann makes no representation or warranty that the past or current operations at the Property are, or have been, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes. Findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our visual observations of the Property, the research finding's reasonably obtained, information provided by the Client, and/or a review of readily available and supplied drawings and documents. Hillmann relies completely on the information, whether written, graphic or verbal, provided by the subject Property contact(s) or as shown on any documents reviewed or received from the subject Property contact, owner or agent, or municipal source, and assumes that information to be true and correct. Although there may have been some' degree of overlap in the information provided by these various sources, Hillmann did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of all information reviewed or recei ed during the course of this assessment. Regardless of the findings stated in this report, conditions arising from facts that were conceals assessment was conducted. This report does not warrant against future oper operations or conditions present of a type or at a llmann is not responsible for consequences or withheld or not fully disclosed at the time the s or conditions, nor does it warrant against ion not investigated. The regulatory database report provided is based on an evaluation of the data collected and compiled by a contracted data research company. The report focuses on the Property and neighboring properties that could impact the i Property. Neighboring properties listed in Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -101- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„J Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC governmental environmental records are identified within specific search distances. The search distance varies depending upon the particular government record being checked. The regulatory research is designed to meet the requirements of ASTM Standard E 1527-13. The information provided in the regulatory database report is assumed to be correct and complete. Subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions implied by the surface observations and can only be reliably evaluated through intrusive techniques. Reasonable efforts have been made during this assessment to identify aboveground and underground storage tanks and ancillary equipment. "Reasonable efforts" are limited to information gained from visual observation of largely unobstructed areas, recorded database information held in public record and available. information gathered from interviews. Such methods may not identify subsurface equipment that may have been hidden from view due to parked automobiles and other vehicles, snow cover, vegetative growth, pavement, construction or debris pile storage or incorrect information from sources. Unless otherwise specified in Section 2.1 of this report, an ASTM Vapor Encroachment Screening of the Property utilizing the information collected during the course of this assessment is excluded from the scope of service for this assessment. Hillmann is not a professional title insurance firm and makes no guarantee, explicit or implied, that the records which were reviewed represent a comprehensive or precise delineation of past Property ownership or tenancy for legal purposes. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this report and the terms and conditions of the consulting services agreement between Intracorp Communities and Hillman Consulting, the consulting services agreement shall control. 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -11- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION 3.1 Prior Environmental Reports/Documen'tation Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Van Buren Plaza LLC, prepared by EMG Corporation and dated June 11, 2013. The :report made the following conclusions and recommendations: I • Businesses currently occupying the Property are involved in the use of hazardous materials and petroleum products in the form of lubricating oil, propane, compressed gases, diesel fuel, and janitorial/maintenance supplies. • The Property is listed on the RCRA-Generator and HAZNET databases. Regulated waste in the form of waste oil andi non -hazardous solids and liquid wastes are generated at the Property. No violations are found. • One (1) approximately 100 -gallon above ground storage tank (AST) is located at the Property at the time of the assessment. Available information indicates that the AST is used for storage of diesel fuel for an emergency generator. No indication of releases from the AST. I • "This Assessment revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) or Historic Recognized Environmental oConditions (HRECs) in connection with the Project. " 3.2 Title Records/Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations Review of title records is not included in the scope of work for this assessment project. No information regarding environmental liens or activity and use limitations was provided to Hillmann by the Client. 3.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience I No indication of any specialized knowledge or experience regarding the Property was reported to Hillmann by the Client. 3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information I No commonly known or specialized knowledge of the Property was reported to Hillmann by the Client. 3.5 Property Value Reduction due to Environmental Conditions No information was provided by the Client to Hillmann regarding a reduction of the Property value due to environmental problems or conditions. i I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -12L Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ +Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA It is Hillmann's understanding that the Phase I ESA was being performed in consideration of a pending real estate transaction involving the Property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -13- Hillmann'Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 Hillmann Consulting LLC 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW 4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources An EDR Radius Map report was obtained from Environmental Data Resources of Shelton, CT. The EDR Radius Map Report provided a search of standard environmental record sources in general accordance with the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13. Hillmann has reviewed the EDR Radius Map report and a summary of findings is presented in the following tables and report sections. Hillmann also reviewed the list of unmapped sites (referred to by EDR as "Orphan List" sites). Unmapped sites identified as falling within an applicable specific search distance or warranting discussion in the report, �f any, have been included in the information presented below. Detailed descriptions of the ' meaning and significance of the regulatory databases can be found in the EDR Radius Map Report in Appendix E. rch Pro a Add Total Listings Regulatory Database r - P Pro` ernes Within Search Distant Asted4 P. ,)Listed " `:D►stance,.'. Fed. NPL/Proposed NPL 1 -mile No No 0 Fed. Delisted NPL %z -mile ! No No 0 Fed. CERCLIS '/z -mile No No 0 Fed. CERC-NFRAP '/z -mile No No 0 Fed. RCRA CORRACTS 1 -mile No No 0 Fed. RCRA TSD '/z -mile No No 0 Fed. RCRA L G Site & Ad'. No No Fed. RCRA S G Site & Ad'. Yes No Fed. RCRA CES G Site & Ad'. No No Fed. ENG Control List Site No e kx �° w, � -� Fed. INST Control List Site No Fed. ERNS Site No State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Site 1 -mile No No 6 State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste '/z -mile No No 0 State/Tribal Leaking Stora a Tanks %-mile No No 18 State/Tribal Registered Storage Tanks Site & Ad''. No No State/Tribal Eng. Control List Site No " ; State/Tribal Inst. Control List Site No. = e. State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites %z -mile 1 No No 0 State/Tribal Brownfields %:-mile No No 0 Supplemental Databases Site & Ad". Yes No a a 4.1.1 Property Listings The Property was identified on the following databases: HAZNET — KeithCo MFG INC., 420 W. 6�" ST STE A. The HAZNET listing indicates that the following hazardous wastes were disposed of from the site in 2006: 7.92 tons of waste oil and mixed oil. Considering a lack of reported spills or releases, this listing is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property. RCRA-SQG, EMI, HAZNET — Foster Printing Company INC THE, 436 W. 6t' St. The RCRA- SQG listing indicates that the site has a small quantity generator with no violations found. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -14'7 Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC EMI listing indicates that between 1995 and 2009 total organic hydrocarbon gases and reactive organic gases were emitted into the air and tracked by the South Coast AQMD. The HAZNET listing indicates that the following hazardous wastes were disposed of from the site between 1993 and 2010: unspecified aqueous solution, unspecified organic liquid mixture, unspecified solvent mixture, other inorganic solid waste, off -specification, aged or surplus organics, and photochemicals/photoprocessing waste, and unspecified oil -containing waste. Considering a lack of reported violations or spill, these listings are not considered to be RECs in connection with the Property. RCRA-SQG, US AIRS, EMI, HAZNET — Smith Lithographic Arts, 424 W. Sixth St. The RCRA-SQG listing indicates that the site is a small quantity generator with no violations found. The US AIRS listing is not shown. EMI listing indicates that between 1995 and 2001 total organic hydrocarbon gases and reactive organic gases were emitted into the air and tracked by the South Coast AQMD. The HAZNET listing indicates that the following hazardous wastes were disposed of from the site between 1993 and 2007: other organic solids, photochemicals/photoprocessing waste, unspecified organic liquid mixture, and unspecified oil - containing waste. Considering a lack of reported violations or spill, these listings are not considered to be RECs in connection with the Property. EDR US Hist Auto Stat — Richfield Service Station, 320 W. 6t' St. The historical automobile station indicates that the business operated at the address in 1945. Considering the date of operation and the site has since been redeveloped, this listing is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property. 4.1.2 Adjoining Property Listings No listings for the adjoining properties were identified. 4.1.3 ASTM Search Distance Findings The following is a summary of the findings of the regulatory database review with regard to sites identified as located within the ASTM specified search distance surrounding the Property. In order to keep this report informative and yet concise, Hillmann has provided a brief discussion of the listed site(s) for each database category that appears most likely to impact the Property based on distance, topography and/or case status. A copy of the full EDR Radius Map Report, including available details of all listed sites, is included in Appendix E. Note that listings for the following databases, if identified, would be discussed above in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2: Registered Storage Tanks, Federal RCRA Generators, Federal and State INST and ENG Controls, ERNS. Federal NPL: No NPL listings were identified within a one -mile radius of the Property. Federal Delisted NPL: No DNPL listings were identified within a %Z -mile radius of the Property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -15- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 61" Street & 330 - 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 Federal CERCLIS: No CERCLIS listings Property. Federal CERCLIS-NFRAP: No of the Property. Hillmann Consulting LLC identified within a %2 -mile radius of the listings were identified within a %2 -mile radius Federal RCRA-CORRACTS: No CORRACTS listings were identified within a one -mile radius of the Property. i Federal RCRA-TSD: No TSD listings were idenitified within a %2 -mile radius of the Property. State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Sites: Six (6) SI-IWS listings were identified within a one -mile radius of the Property on the EnviroStor database. The closest listing is described as Xerox Corporation Facility at 2200 E. McFadden Street. This site is approximately 2,953 feet southwest and at a lower elevation relative to the Property. The listing indicates a "No Further Action" status as of 02/11/2009. The site type is noted as Evaluation. A Project Wide Inventory Project Report (INPR) was issued 02/11/2009. Considering distance and topographic relation, this site is not considered to be a REC in connection with the. Property. Due to status and/or distance, none of the other five listings represent a REC in connection to the Property. State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites: No SWT/LF listing was identified within a %2 -mile radius of the Property. State/Tribal leaking Storage Tanks: Eighteen (18) LUST listings were identified within a %2 - mile radius of the Property. The closest listing is described as UnoCal at 14011 Newport. This site is approximately 1,039 feet southeast and at a lower elevation relative to the Property. The listing indicates a status of "Completed — Case Closed" as of 06/01/1993. Other groundwater was potentially affected from gasoline at the address. A leak was first discovered during regulatory activities on 12/15/1989. Considering the status, topographic relation, and distance, this listing is not considered to be a REC in connection with the Property. Due to distance, status, hydraulic gradient or other reasons, none of the other seventeen listed facilities represent a REC to the Property. State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites: No VCP listing was identified within a '/2 -mile radius of the Property. State/Tribal Brownfields: No BROWNFIELDS ilistings were identified within a %2 -mile radius of the Property. Review of the sites identified within the ASTM s surrounding area sites that are considered to be a discussed otherwise previously in this section. parameters did not identify any nearby or in connection with the Property, unless as Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -16L Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ iTustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 4.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources 4.2.1 Supplemental Database Listings Hillmann reviewed the EDR Radius Map report for listings on supplemental databases that were searched in addition to the Standard Environmental Record Sources. Any property or adjoining property listings on such databases, if identified, would be discussed in Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. None of the other supplemental database listings identified by the EDR Radius Map report are considered to be a REC in connection with the Property. 4.2.2 Local Agency & Internet Research Hillmann performed a search of available local and municipal agencies for pertinent information pertaining to the Property, particularly with regard to potential environmental concerns such as petroleum storage tanks, storage and usage of hazardous substances and petroleum products, and/or known or suspected environmental contamination. Hillmann also conducted a cursory internet search of the Property address for information indicative of a REC. The following table summarizes the findings of the research: ' Source Inquiry" o� Type Outcome -aYIade ?° FOIA Response indicated no records found Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Yes Request for 420 W. 6t' Street. FOIA Response not received prior to report Orange County Fire Authority Yes Request completion. Department of Toxic Substances Control FOIA Response indicated no records found. TSC Yes Request Regional Water Quality Control Board FOIA Response indicated no records found. RW CB — Santa Ana Region 8 Yes Request FOIA Response indicated no records found._ Orange County Sanitation District Yes Re I quest Orange County Department of FOIA Response indicated no records found. Environmental Health — Online database Yes Request South Coast Air Quality Management Yes FOIA Response indicated Hillmann's request District SCAQMD Request is beina vrocessed. Orange County Geographical On-line No information indicative of a REC Information System GIS Yes search was identified. CA DTSC EnviroStor database Yes Internet The Property address was searched. No http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.ggy/gublic/ results for the Property were found. CA GeoTracker database The Property address was searched. No htt:// eotracker.waterboards.ca. ov/ Yes Internet results for the Property were found. The Property address was searched. Foster Printing Company Inc and Smith Lithographic Arts are listed as small generators of hazardous wastes USEPA Envirofacts search for "Quick Printing" and "Commercial http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.htmi Yes Internet printing." Various inspections were performed at both businesses, some resulting in violations and fines. Both sites have statues of "Permanently Closed." Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -17- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 1 1 F, L Hillmann Consulting LLC The historic use of the Property for printing and lithography as identified in the Envirofacts database is considered to be a REC. i 4.3 Physical Setting Sources 4.3.1 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map The USGS 7.5 minute series topographic maps covering the Property (Tustin, CA 2012) were reviewed. The maps indicated an approximate elevation at the Property of 125 feet above mean sea level. The topography indicated by the map appeared to be sloping downward to the south. The closest down gradient body of water appeared to be an unnamed channel, approximately one mile to the south. 4.3.2 Soils Based on USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) data summarized by the EDR Geocheck- Physical Setting Source Addendum, the soil type at the Property is classified as "Mocho." The Mocho designation is described as well drained, sandy loam with moderate infiltration rates. 4.3.3 Geology Based on geologic data summarized by the EDR Geocheck - Physical Setting Source Addendum, the geologic formation in the vicinity of the Property is described as a stratified sequence of the Cenozoic Era, Quaternary System, Quaternary Series. 4.3.4 Hydrology No site specific hydro -geologic data was available for the Property. i 4.4 Historical Use — Property and Adjoining Properties Hillmann has conducted research in order to help i identify the likelihood of past uses having led to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. Standard historical sources have been sought in an attempt to document the past uses of the Property as far back as it can be shown that the Property contained structures; or from the time the Property was first used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial or governmental purposes. 4.4.1 Fire Insurance Maps A search for Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the Property and surrounding area was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Shelton, Connecticut. EDR provided a Sanborn report stating fire insurance maps covering the Property were not found. i Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -18L Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ iTustin, California i On-line The Property address search returns www.google.com Yes search results for a variety of commercial/industrial businesses. Other: N/A The historic use of the Property for printing and lithography as identified in the Envirofacts database is considered to be a REC. i 4.3 Physical Setting Sources 4.3.1 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map The USGS 7.5 minute series topographic maps covering the Property (Tustin, CA 2012) were reviewed. The maps indicated an approximate elevation at the Property of 125 feet above mean sea level. The topography indicated by the map appeared to be sloping downward to the south. The closest down gradient body of water appeared to be an unnamed channel, approximately one mile to the south. 4.3.2 Soils Based on USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) data summarized by the EDR Geocheck- Physical Setting Source Addendum, the soil type at the Property is classified as "Mocho." The Mocho designation is described as well drained, sandy loam with moderate infiltration rates. 4.3.3 Geology Based on geologic data summarized by the EDR Geocheck - Physical Setting Source Addendum, the geologic formation in the vicinity of the Property is described as a stratified sequence of the Cenozoic Era, Quaternary System, Quaternary Series. 4.3.4 Hydrology No site specific hydro -geologic data was available for the Property. i 4.4 Historical Use — Property and Adjoining Properties Hillmann has conducted research in order to help i identify the likelihood of past uses having led to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. Standard historical sources have been sought in an attempt to document the past uses of the Property as far back as it can be shown that the Property contained structures; or from the time the Property was first used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial or governmental purposes. 4.4.1 Fire Insurance Maps A search for Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the Property and surrounding area was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Shelton, Connecticut. EDR provided a Sanborn report stating fire insurance maps covering the Property were not found. i Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -18L Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ iTustin, California i Hillmann Consulting LLC 4.4.2 City Directories Hillman obtained an EDR City Directory Abstract report to obtain data of historic city directory listings for the Property. The following is a generalized summary of the findings of City Directory Research: , YEARS ,,, .. s •. . a .< <ti R DESCRIPTION . SUMMARY Property Property: The Property is listed with numerous businesses including Harris Histology Services, Adjacent The adjoining properties are depicted as undeveloped land. FedEx Lending Corporation, Graymark International, Alpine Tutoring; Keithco Properties Manufacturing, Permlight Products, Wall Words, Inc., H&J Cabinets, Sandbox Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land. Marketing, The Cabinet Shop, Backyards 4 Less, Foster Printing Co., McKinlay Adjacent The adjoining property to the north is depicted as having various small Builders, Van Buren Plaza, LLC, Gear For Sports, Crowell & Associates, Suntel Properties structures. The adjoining properties to the east, south, and west are depicted Management Services, Inc., Advantage Electric Motors, Marie Courant Inc., Sola as undeveloped land. Worx, Clearwater Publishing & Studio, RT Travel & Incentives Inc., Smith Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land. Lithographic Arts Inc, Kawabunga Cooler Co., Dakota Printing, Cardinal 1972-2013 Environmental Cnsltnt Inc., Advantage MFG, Tonon Photocopy Service Inc., A Properties The adjoining property to the east is depicted as having a shopping center Automatic Pool Covers, Inx International Ink Co., Control III Germicide, Serilaire with multiple structures. The adjoining properties to the south are shaded to Medical Incorporated, Business Printing Center, Millworks, Gresean Industries depict orchards. The adjoining property to the west is depicted as having Incorporated, Electramation, Plasmachrome Corp., Associated Printing School, -among one small structure. others. Adjacent The adjoining properties are listed with numerous residential owners and various Properties: businesses including insurance companies, Chinmaya Mission, CPS Datacom, self - storage, Advanced Printing, Anchor Printing, churches, woodworking, Dup a Tape & Electronics, Professional Printers, dentists, and others. The long term use of the Property for a variety of industrial operations including printing, lithography, and manufacturing between the 1970s through the present is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property. 4.4.3 Historical Topographic Map Review Hillmann- obtained and reviewed an `EDR Historical Topographic Map Report' from EDR containing historic aerial photography of the Property and adjoining properties. The following interpretation of land usage was made by review of the maps: YEARS ,,, .. s •. . a .< <ti R DESCRIPTION . Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land. 1886, 1901, 1902 Adjacent The adjoining properties are depicted as undeveloped land. Properties Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land. 1932, 1935, 1948, 1949, Adjacent The adjoining property to the north is depicted as having various small 1950 Properties structures. The adjoining properties to the east, south, and west are depicted as undeveloped land. Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land. Adjacent The adjoining property to the north is depicted as having undeveloped land. 1964, 1965 Properties The adjoining property to the east is depicted as having a shopping center with multiple structures. The adjoining properties to the south are shaded to depict orchards. The adjoining property to the west is depicted as having one small structure. 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -19- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 0 Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 1 i Hillmann Consulting LLC 4.4.4 Aerial Photograph Review i Hillmann obtained and reviewed an "BDR Aerial Photo Decade Package Report" from EDR containing historic aerial photography of the Property and adjoining properties. In addition, Hillmann reviewed historic aerial photographs of the Property online at www.historicaerials.com. The following interpretation of land usage was made by review of the aerial photographs: YEARS Property The Property is depicted as having multiple large structures. Property Adjacent The adjoining property to the north is depicted as being shaded to indicate 1972 Properties undeveloped land. The adjoining property to the east is depicted to have a shopping center. The�adjoining property to the south is depicted as having a trailer park. The adjoining property to the west is depicted as having two Properties orchards and residences. small structures. Property Property The Property is depicted as having multiple large structures. Adjacent Adjacent The adjoining property to the north is depicted as being shaded to indicate 1981 Properties undeveloped land. The adjoining property to the east is depicted to have a shopping center. The; adjoining property to the south is depicted as having a trailer park. The adjoining property to the west is depicted as having four Property The eastern portion of the Property appears to be an orchard. The western small structures. Property The Property is depicted as developed land. 2012 Adjacent Properties The adjoining properties to the north, south, east, and west are shaded to denote general urban develo ment. 4.4.4 Aerial Photograph Review i Hillmann obtained and reviewed an "BDR Aerial Photo Decade Package Report" from EDR containing historic aerial photography of the Property and adjoining properties. In addition, Hillmann reviewed historic aerial photographs of the Property online at www.historicaerials.com. The following interpretation of land usage was made by review of the aerial photographs: YEARS ., n, TIDESCRIPON` Property The Property appearslto be an orchard. 1938 Adjacent The adjoining properties to the north, east, south, and west appear to be Properties orchards and residences. Property The Property appears; to be an orchard with a residence. 1946, 1952 Adjacent The adjoining properties to the north, east, south, and west appear to be Properties orchards and residences. Property The eastern portion of the Property appears to be an orchard. The western portion of the Propeappears to be three large commercial buildings. Adjacent The adjoining property to the north appears to be residential homes. The 1963 Property adjoining property to the east appears to be commercial buildings with associated parking lots. The adjoining property to the south appears to be orchards. The adjoining property to the west appears to be undeveloped land. Property The Property appears ito be developed with multiple commercial structures. Adjacent Property The adjoining property to the north appears to be residential homes. The adjoining property to the east appears to be commercial buildings with 1972, 1977, 1980 associated parking lots. The adjoining property to the south appears to be a trailer park. The adjoining property to the west appears to have one small commercial structure Property The Property appears'to be developed with multiple commercial structures. 1985 Adjacent Property The adjoining properties to the north appear to be residential homes. The adjoining property to the east appears to be commercial buildings with associated parking lots. The adjoining property to the south appears to be a trailer park. The adjoIining property to the west appears to be vacant land under development. , Phase I Environmental Site Assessment .-201 Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 1989, 1994, 2002, 2003, property The Property appears to be developed with multiple commercial structures. Adjacent The adjoining properties to the north appear to be residential homes. The 2004, 2005, property adjoining property to the east appears to be commercial buildings with 2009, 2010, associated parking lots. The adjoining property to the south appears to be a 2012 trailer park. The adjoining property to the west appears to be a small commercial building. 4.4.5 Petroleum/Natural Gas Well Review Hillmann reviewed historical record sources for evidence of historic petroleum and/or natural gas wells at the Property. In addition, Hillmann conducted a search of the property location on the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources Well Finder database (http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/ind6x.html). No record of any historical petroleum/natural gas wells at the Property was identified. 4.4.6 Historical Records Data Failure Historic land use data prior to 1938 was not readily available at the time of the assessment. The Property was determined by this assessment to have been first developed as orchards building dating back to 1938. It is Hillmann's opinion that no significant data gaps were encountered. 4.4.7 Summary of Historic Use Research The Property was determined to have been first used as an orchard dating back to at least 1938. By 1963, the eastern portion of the Property appeared to be used as an orchard while the western portion of the Property appeared to have three large commercial buildings. Circa 1972, additional buildings were developed with one area under construction which was completed by 1977. The long term use of the Property for a variety of industrial operations including printing, lithography, and manufacturing between the 1970s through the present is considered to be a .REC in connection -with the Property. The adjoining properties appear to have consisted of orchards and residences dating back to at least 1938. By 1963 the adjoining orchards were removed and replaced by the 5 Freeway, commercial buildings, and vacant land. By 1972 the adjoining property to the south was developed with a mobile home park. By 1985, the adjoining properties to the east and west were developed into their current configurations with commercial buildings. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -21- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 1 Hillmann Consulting LLC 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions The site reconnaissance consisted of visual an&or physical observations of the Property and improvements, adjoining properties as viewed from the Property boundaries and the surrounding area based on visual observations from adjaoentl public thoroughfares. Building exteriors were observed at ground level, unless otherwise indicated. Where applicable, Hillmann accessed and observed representative areas of building interiors to the extent they were made safely accessible with the cooperation of the site escort. The site reconnaissance was conducted by Mr. Gregory Shaffer and Mr. Ryan Sokolovsky between November 12"' and 1P. Weather conditions at the time of the assessment included a temperature range of approximately 64 degrees F to 75 degrees F with clear skies. Hillmann was escorted by Mr. Said Shokrian, the Property owner and manager. 5.1.1 Significant Inaccessible Areas I 1 Hillmann was unable to gain access to several areas at the Property including Suites 622 A and B (leased by AT&T and storing cell tower equipment) and the back warehouse space of Suite 690 (leased by Sonic Care, Inc., Power Recovery Ync., and Advantage Manufacturing, Inc.) 5.2 General Site Setting i 5.2.1 Site and Vicinity Characteristics! The Property consists of one irregularly shaped parcel on the southwest corner of W. 6"' Street and B Street. The site currently consists of three large commercial/industrial buildings with numerous tenants. The Property is located in a suburban developed area characterized by a mix of commercial properties, residences, and a mobile home park. 5.2.2 Topographic Characteristics I The terrain of the Property appeared to be relatively flat. No natural surface bodies of water were observed. f I 5.2.3 General Description of Structures I The Property is improved with three commercial/industrial buildings totaling approximately 190,194 SF of space. The buildings are set on a;slab-on-grade foundation with tilt up concrete walls and a flat roof. The interior consists of more than thirty (30) tenant suites which range from offices to large warehouses. Typical interior improvements consist of carpeting, vinyl floor, hardwood floors, carpeting, drywall, plaster, ceiling tiles, and spline ceiling. i I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -22- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 61h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California l Hillmann Consulting LLC 5.2.4 Sources of Heating and Cooling Heating and cooling systems vary by suite and consist of roof -mounted HVAC units, window - mounted air conditioners, and ceiling mounted space heaters. 5.2.5 _ Potable Water Source/Sewage Disposal System The Property is currently serviced by the municipal water and sewer systems. 5.2.6 Current Use(s) of the Property The Property is currently used as a commercial/industrial complex with more than thirty suites. Tenants at the time of the inspection consisted of Keithco Manufacturing, Permlight Products, Synthetic Grass Store of California, three cabinet makers, pool pump manufacturing, a dance studio, Harris Histology Services, AT&T cellular tower, printing studio, Sandbox Marketing, and vape sales and distribution. Several suites were also vacant at the time of Hillmann's site assessment. 5.2.7 Past Use(s) of the Property No obvious indication of past Property usage likely to have involved the use, treatment, storage, disposal or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products was observed at the time of the site visit. Please refer to Section 4.4 for findings of historical site use research. 5.2.8 Current Use(s) of the Adjoining Properties The following describes adjacent and abutting properties: No visual observations indicative of a potential environmental concern were noted of the adjoining properties. 5.2.9 Past Use(s) of the Adjoining Properties No indication of past uses of the adjoining properties was noted at the time of the site visit. Please refer to Section 4.4 for the findings of historical site use research. 5.2.10 Current/Past Uses of Surrounding Area The Property is located in suburban area of Tustin, California. The vicinity of the Property consists of a mix of single-family residential properties, commercial buildings, self -storage Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -23- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`" Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California N W. 6d' Street Residences E S. B Street Tustin Glass & Mirror, Blue Oval Truck Parts, LBT Packaging, Michael C. Lee Cabinetry, Alpha Office Products S Interstate 5 Mobile Homes beyond freeway w 550 61h Street Pouch Self -Storage No visual observations indicative of a potential environmental concern were noted of the adjoining properties. 5.2.9 Past Use(s) of the Adjoining Properties No indication of past uses of the adjoining properties was noted at the time of the site visit. Please refer to Section 4.4 for the findings of historical site use research. 5.2.10 Current/Past Uses of Surrounding Area The Property is located in suburban area of Tustin, California. The vicinity of the Property consists of a mix of single-family residential properties, commercial buildings, self -storage Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -23- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`" Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC facility, and mobile homes. No indications of past Property uses that differ substantially from current conditions were observed at the time of tl)e site visit. 5.3 Interior & Exterior Observations 5.3.1 Storage/Usage of Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products The facility at the Property stored various hazardous materials that varied in each tenant suite. In almost all suites, Hillmann observed general household cleaning products, stored in cabinets in either a breakroom, a kitchen, a janitor closet, or a restroom. Additionally, common water-based paint cans and buckets were found in most tenant � spaces. For the warehouse spaces, forklifts are used to move merchandise and numerous forklift propane tanks were observed. Smaller propane tanks were also observed. Numerous 10 -gallon buckets of materials associated with pool pump manufacturing including paints, primers, and lubricants. Inside the histology suite, a fire cabinet stored acids and other hazardous materials. Next to the cabinet a 10 -gallon container labeled xylene waste was observed. The printing and lithography suite stored inks and dyes on a cabinet wall. 10; gallon buckets of hydraulic fluid were stored next to compressors at the Property. Approximaiely ten (10) empty gas cans were observed in both the printing and motorbike online sales suites. No leaks or staining was observed in the vicinity of these items with the exception of de rninimis pavement staining in the vicinity of the compressors. i Other substances observed throughout the tenant suites include Polymeric Isocyanate, Polyurethane Foam, welding gases, 10 -gallon plaster buckets, roof patch, high-temperature adhesive NS910, lubricants, antifreeze, cutting and grinding fluids, vape liquid flavorings. These features do not appear to represent an environmental concern to the Property but should be removed and disposed of in connection with site development activities. 5.3.2 Drums Numerous drums were located in various suites throughout the Property. Drums were observed containing the following materials: antifreeze and lubricant in Suite 420A, Polymeric Isocyanate and Polyether Polyol Resin in Suite 624, and Xylene in Suite 630. Drums which were not used for storage of hazardous materials generally contained metal shavings, glycerin, propylene glycol, equipment parts, and prepared microscope slides. An empty 55 -gallon drum was observed in the basement parking lot. A 55 -gallon drum of waste paints was stored next to a spray -paint booth inside suite 624 B Street. No 'lleaks were observed below the drums storing hazardous materials. 5.3.3 Other Hazardous Substances/Peiroleum Products I Several small containers of hazardous substances were observed including a plastic container labelled as xylene waste. No other containers of hazardous substances or petroleum products were noted on the Property at the time of the site visit. i I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -24L Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 61h Street & 330 — 694 South B Street,, Tustin, California - Hillmann Consulting LLC 5.3.4 Unidentified Substance Containers No unidentified substance containers were noted at the time of the site visit. 5.3.5 Storage Tanks One (1) approximately 100 -gallon diesel AST is attached to the emergency generator outside of the AT&T suite, near the cellular tower. No staining or leaking was observed in the near vicinity of the generator. No other evidence of any past or present underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) was identified on the subject Property. 5.3.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) One (1) pad -mounted transformer is located on the northern portion of the Property. Hillmann observed oily staining in the vicinity of the transformer. Considering the date of development, the transformer has the potential to contain PCBs. This suspected leaking transformer is considered to be a REC in connection with the Property. 5.3.7 Odors A strong chemical odor was prevalent throughout the warehouse space of Suite 630. Flavoring and electronic cigarette odors were prevalent in Suites 644 and 424B where sales and mixing of electronic cigarettes flavors occur. An odor of wet paints and burnt metal was prevalent throughout the back warehouse area of suite 624 B Street and 624-A B Street. No other strong, unusual or pungent odors were noted on the Property. 5.3.8 Pools of Liquid No pools of liquid were noted at the Property. 5.3.9 Interior Stains or Corrosion De minimis staining was observed on the pavement in various locations at the Property. Hillmann observed stained concrete inside the paint booth, near the pump assembly line, next to old pump storage, and around equipment throughout the pool manufacturing warehouse. These tenant suites are situated above the underground basement utilized by the gym. Typical staining of concrete was observed in most warehouse spaces. No interior areas affected by corrosion were noted at the Property. These features do not represent an environmental concern to the Property. 5.3.10 Interior Drains/Sumps An exterior line runs across the basement entrance underneath Suite 630 B Street. Interior floor drains were observed in most tenant suites in men's and women's restrooms. Inside the vacant suite at 426 6t' Street, floor drains were observed inside office rooms. A floor drain was observed next to a washing station inside suite 424-B 61' Street, currently occupied by a vape Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -25- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`" Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC smoking manufacturing shop. One (1) sump pump is located in the underground parking garage underneath suites 624, 624-A, and 630 B Street. 5.3.11 Exterior Pits/Ponds/Lagoons No evidence of exterior pits, ponds or lagoons was identified on the Property in connection with waste treatment or disposal. 5.3.12 Stained Soil, Pavement/Stressed Vegetation De minimis pavement staining was observed in the vicinity of the operational compressor and parking lot to the south of suite 624 B Street. De minimis staining was observed on the pavement on the parking lot. No evidence of stained soils or stressed vegetation was identified on the Property. 5.3.13 On -Site Solid Waste Dumping/Fill Material No evidence of on-site solid waste dumping was rioted at the Property. 5.3.14 Wastewater No waste water discharges were noted at the Property. 5.3.15 Septic Systems No indication of septic systems was noted on the Property. 5.3.16 Wells No evidence of wells was noted at the Property. I I i Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -26= Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ iTustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 6.0 INTERVIEWS 6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants µTye „Nam,01 w a Summary AfihahonCTitle r �` P t� Property Owner Mr. Said Shokrian, Mr: Said Shokrian, Property owner, was interviewed Property Owner regarding the uses and conditions of the Property relative to this assessment and compliance with ASTM E1527-13. Pertinent information, where obtained, is referenced in the appropriate sections of the report. Property Occupants Not applicable On a suite by suite basis, Hillmann was able to interview individual building occupants. Pertinent information, where obtained, is referenced in the appropriate sections of the report. Past Owners, Not applicable Past owners/occupants of the Property were not available for Occupants, Operators interview at the time of the assessment. Owners/Occupants of Not applicable The Property was not an abandoned property with evidence of Adjacent or Nearby unauthorized uses or uncontrolled access; therefore, Properties interviews with adjacent or nearby property owners or occupants were not conducted. 6.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials Written and on-line requests for environmental records of the Property from State and Local governmental agencies are detailed in Section 4.2.2. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -27- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`" Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 Hillmann Consulting LLC 7.0 NON -ASTM SCOPE CONCERNS In accordance with our contract agreement, Hillmann has conducted preliminary evaluations of the following "Non -ASTM Scope Considerations" that are outside of the requirements of the ASTM E1527-13 standard: 7.1 Asbestos -Containing Material (ACM) i Hillmann performed an ACM Survey in conjunction with the Phase I ESA. The results of the survey will be provided in a report under a separaI te cover. 7.2 Lead -Based Paint i Hillmann performed a Lead-based Paint Survey in conjunction with the Phase I ESA. The results of the survey will be provided in a report under a separate cover. 7.3 Radon According to data compiled by the USEPA, as (summarized by the EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, the Property is located in an area with a low potential for radon concentrations that exceed current USEPA action guidelines. The Orange County is classified as a Zone 3 or `low risk' area for radon. Accordingly, radon is unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the Property. 7.4 Mold During the assessment, Hillmann conducted a preliminary inspection of the accessed areas of the building for evidence of excessive or amplified mold growth, or for conditions favorable for mold growth. No obvious evidence of excessive or amplified mold growth, or conditions favorable for mold growth, was observed on the Property during the site assessment. 7.5 Wetlands Based on a review of the EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, no NWI mapped wetlands were indicated at the Property. I I It is emphasized that the absence of NWI mapped wetland areas indicated by the EDR report does not necessarily rule out the potential presence of regulated wetland areas on or immediately adjoining the Property. A wetland delineation should be sought from a qualified firm if a more comprehensive determination regarding the presence or absence of wetlands on or adjacent to the Property is warranted. I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -28! Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 61" Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ I Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training and experience to assess a property of the nature, history and setting of the subject property. Hillmann has developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. Larry Rockefeller Environmental Professional 1 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -29- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 6`" Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 1 1 Hillmann Consulting LLC 9.0 REFERENCES i EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Environmental Data Resources, 2015 EDR City Directory Abstract Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2015 EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2015 EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, Environmental Data Resources, 2015 EDR Sanborn Map Report, Environmental Data Resources, 2015 1 Orange County's On-line Geographical Information System of Van Buren Plaza LLC, EMG Corporation, June 11, 2013 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -30i Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ ;Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 10.0 APPENDICES -. Appendix A Site Diagram / Vicinity Map Appendix B Site Photographs Appendix C Questionnaires / User Provided Information Appendix D Historical Records Documentation Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation Appendix F Other Documents Appendix G Project Personnel Qualifications CD of Phase I Appendices is available at the City of 1 Tustin. Contact Elaine Dove, Senior Planner, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA (714) 573-3136; edove@tustinca.org 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -31- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West 0 Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Appendix G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 1 1 HILL -MANN CONS ULT ING LIMITED PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT 420-436 WEST 6T11 STREET & 330-694 SouTH B STREET TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92780 Prepared For: Intracorp Communities 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Hillmann Project Number C3-6472 December 11, 2015 Written By: Hillmann Consulting, LLC Dan Louks Professional Geologist 4883 Your Property. Our Priority. 1745 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 110, Orange, CA 92868 Telephone (714) 634-9500 Fax: (714) 634-9507 Toll free: (800) 232-4326 www.HillmannConsulting.com 1 1 1 1 1 H I LLMANN CONSULTING December 11, 2015 Ms. Jennifer Chirco-Coker Intracorp Communities 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 420 West 6t' Street Tustin, California 92780 I Hillmann Project Number: C3-6472 . Dear Ms. Chirco-Coker: I Hillmann Consulting, LLC, is pleased to provide this Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report prepared for the above referienced Property. This report is for the exclusive use of the entities named on the front cover, its affiliates, designates and assignees, rating agencies, prospective bond holders and bond holders, and no other party shall have any right to rely on any service provided by! Hillmann Consulting, LLC, without prior written consent. We appreciate the opportunity to provide environmental due diligence services. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact our office at 714-634-9500. Very Truly Yours, Hillmann Consulting, LLC Brandon Clements Regional Director Your Property 1745 W. Orangewood Avenue Telephone (714) 634-9500 Fax: (714 Our Priority. Suite 110, Orange, CA 92868 634-9507 Toll free: (800) 232-4326 nsulting.com Hillmann Consulting LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND............................................................................................................1 2.0 GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY...................................................................................................................1 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................................................2 3.1 Laboratory Results.......................................................................................................................................2 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................3 5.0 LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - Summary of Soil Sampling Results TABLE 2 - Summary of Soil Gas Sampling Results LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 and 2 — Site Plan LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Site Photos APPENDIX B - Laboratory Reports APPENDIX C - Drilling Logs Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report i Hillmann Project C3-6472 420, West 6`" Street, Tustin, California 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION / BACKGRO Hillmann Consulting, LLC (Hillmann) conducted a Limted Phase II Subsurface Investigation at 420-436 West 6h Street and 330-694 South B Street, Tustin, California. The Property occupies about 6.748 acres and is located on the southwest corner of West 6t' Street and South B Street in a primarily commercial area of Tustin. The Property is utilized as a light industrial center that was first developed for commercial purposes in 1964. The Property includes three (3) large light industrial buildings divided into more than thirty (30) tenant suites. Current occupants include businesses 1 that perform light manufacturing, cabinet construction, a printing studio, and a dance studio. The layout of the site is depicted on Figure 1. The Property is being considered for redevelopment for residential purposes. In November 2015, Hillmann completed a Phase I Environmental Investigation for the Property. Results indicated the Property was used agriculturally until the mid-1960s when it was first developed for commercial and light industrial purposes. By 1977, the Property was developed into its current configuration. It has been occupied by a variety of light industrial tenants since that time. The past and current Property uses include printing, lithography, machining, and other light manufacturing operations, which were identified as recognized environmental conditions that justified preliminary subsurface investigation. In addition, a leaking electrical transformer was identified in the northern portion of the Property. The oils used in these types of transformers could contain PCBs, which could impact subs Iurface conditions and also pose a potential environmental liability. Based on these findings, Hillmann recommended conducting a subsurface investigation. I In December 2015, Hillmann completed a Lin Property that featured soil and soil gas sampl petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, and volatile c featured soil gas sampling which was considerer intrusion impacts for the proposed sensitive installation of twelve (12) soil borings across th soil gas sampling probes. Results indicated the insignificant or non-detectable levels of tarp commercial screening levels. However, two (2 current residential standards. In the event of r be required. 2.0 GEOLOGYMYDROGEOLOGY Based on the drilling logs, shallow soils beneath clayey sand from near surface to six (6) feet belov in this investigation. Groundwater was not encol Based on the GeoTracker website, groundwater v at a site located about 1,200 feet southeast of the Avenue, Tustin - Global ID T0605902280). De: drilling are presented in the drilling logs (Appen Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report 420 West 6`h Street, Tustin, California 1 ted Phase II Subsurface Investigation at the .ig to identify potential contamination from panic compounds (VOC). The investigation very important in determining possible vapor redevelopment. The investigation included site, and ten (10) of these were completed as soil and soil gas samples contained mostly ted contaminants that are below accepted samples had marginal results that exceed ievelopment, some additional sampling could he site consist primarily of silty sand, silt, and grade, the deepest interval explored by drilling ntered to the maximum depth of investigation. is present at about 52 feet below grade in 2012 ;ite (Ultramar Service Station, 14001 Newport ;riptions of the sediments encountered during .ix Q. Hillmann Project C3-6472 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION On December 2 and 3, 2015, Hillmann installed twelve (12) soil borings across the Property.. Borings B 17133 were installed in the former parking garage/basement at 624-630 South B Street. The subterranean area beneath the main building features a floor drain system that was targeted for investigation. Borings 134-137 were installed in the former lithography area of the site, and borings B8 and B9 were installed in a former machine shop area at 420A West 6t' Street. Each of these borings was completed as a soil gas sampling probe installed at maximum depth. Borings 1310-1312 were installed immediately adjacent to .the leaking electrical transformer observed during site inspection. Only boring B10 was used as a soil gas probe due to the close proximity of.these points. The locations of the borings and soil gas probes are indicated on Figure 1. The borings were installed using a hand auger tool and were completed to depths ranging from 3 to 6 feet below grade. During drilling, the soil column was logged by a California Professional Geologist and select samples were preserved for laboratory analysis. The samples were screened in the field for volatile emissions during drilling with a photo -ionization detector (PID) calibrated to hexane. Select samples were analyzed for carbon chain hydrocarbons corresponding to gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil weights (C4 -C12, C13 -C22, and C23 -C40 ranges, respectively) by EPA Method 8015M. The samples from borings B10-1312 were also tested for PCBs by EPA Method 8082. A&R Laboratories of Ontario, California analyzed the samples. After soil sampling, 10 of the 12 borings were completed as temporary soil gas probes with sampling tips set at maximum depth (ranging from 4.5 to 6 feet below grade). The probes consist of plastic micro -porous vapor implants that are approximately 2 inches long with a 0.5 -inch outside diameter, connected to 0.25 -inch outside diameter nylaflow tubing that extended above the surface. The annulus around the vapor implants was backfilled with approximately 0.5 feet of screen -washed #3 sand. The probes were sealed using bentonite placed immediately above the sand pack to provide a secure borehole seal. The probes were finished with gas-tight fittings at the surface pending vapor purging and sampling. After vapor sampling, each probe was extracted and the area was resurfaced with concrete. Following DTSC protocol, the soil gas sampling probes were allowed to equilibrate for at least 48 hours before collecting vapor samples. On December 7, 2015, the samples were collected and analyzed by a technician from A&R Laboratories mobile lab unit. Prior to vapor sampling, shut- in and leak tests were conducted on the probes. After purging three volumes through the system, vapor samples were collected from each probe using glass bulb containers and analyzed for VOC by EPA Method 8260B by the on-site mobile laboratory. 3.1 Laboratory Results Results of soil sampling indicated one soil sample (B4-1.5) had low but detectable levels of gasoline range hydrocarbons and diesel range hydrocarbons with 0.24 mg/Kg and 200 mg/Kg, respectively. None of the other soil samples had detectable levels of hydrocarbons. None of the samples had detectable levels of PCBs. The detected concentrations were compared to conservative Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) provided by EPA for Region 9 including Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report 2 Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 0 Street, Tustin, California 1 1 1 1 California. The RSL levels for total petroleum 1 categories that depend on the relative speciation source contaminant. In a commercial setting, the 3,500,000 mg/Kg, depending on the hydrocarboi known. In a residential setting the values range conservative of these values was used as the gui results are summarized in Table 1. The laborat( Appendix B. Results of soil gas sampling indicated four soil VOC. Two soil gas samples (SG6-5 and SG7-4) h and 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA), with maximur respectively. In addition, sample SG4-4.5 had 0.1 ug/L toluene. The detected concentrations were developed by EPA and modified by DTSC for u soil gas samples had levels greater than the comrr. PCE result slightly exceeds the residential stat of the other soil gas samples had detectable lev Table 2. The laboratory reports from soil samplit 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND Twelve soil borings and ten soil gas sampling p of soil sampling indicated a single isolated it Sample B4-1.5 had 200 mg/Kg diesel range standard for residential cases (82 mg/Kg). Hoi sample 134-5 did not have detectable levels of h of . impact. These results suggest that if the Pt additional sampling and limited mitigation may Results of soil gas sampling indicated four soil 1 none exceeded commercial RSL or DTSC guide exceed the conservative residential guideline and This investigation targeted those areas believed chemicals to the subsurface, and the objecti environmental liability associated with the Prope major liability, there are indications of minor co: action. In addition, there is the possibility that o a sensitive residential development. Neverthele., I assessment, there is not a reasonable justiftcati assessment of the entire site. There are a few possible issues that will need to be use. If the proposed residential development pi structures is complete, Hillmann recommends structure to ensure that the solvent concentrations: Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report 3 420 West 6`" Street, Tustin, California �drocarbons are divided into six non-descript )f aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons in the se screening levels range from 420 mg/Kg to species, which for this site is not specifically rom 82 mg/Kg to 230,000 mg/Kg. The most leline for comparison in each scenario. These ry reports from soil sampling are included in Ets samples had low but detectable levels of I detectable levels of tetrachloroethene (PCE) concentrations of 0.60 ug/L and 0.20 ug/L, ug/L 1,1,1 TCA, and sample SG94 had 0.17 nmpared to the Region 9 RSLs for soil gas in California. Results indicated none of the •cial guideline values, though the maximum lards. No other VOC was detected and none s of VOC. These results are summarized in are included in Appendix B. ATIONS es were installed across the Property. Results nce of shallow hydrocarbon contamination. rocarbons exceeding the most conservative er, the soil sample collected just below this ocarbons, indicating a limited vertical extent :rty is redeveloped for a more sensitive use required. samples had detectable_ levels of VOC, but -s. However, the maximum PCE result did y require additional vapor sampling. be most susceptible to spills or discharges of was only intended to identify significant Although this investigation suggests no such mination that could require additional limited ;r areas could be impacted which might affect based on the data and the results of the Phase for a complete subsurface environmental site •essed if the Property changes to residential -ds, and after demolition of the existing ional soil gas testing of each residential the stringent residential standards. Ifthere Hillmann Project C3-6472 are elevated levels of one or more solvents present, protection of the building foundations may be required with something like a liquid boot. A conservative estimate of where those areas could be based on the current information is provided in Figure 2. Finally, all or some of the soil identified with petroleum hydrocarbons within B4 will likely require removal. There is always a greater inherent risk to a buyer when acquiring industrial properties, and unfortunately, no amount of site investigation can eliminate all risk. 5.0 LIMITATIONS This Subsurface Investigation was performed in accordance with generally and currently accepted engineering practices and principles; however, the procedures and methodologies used in this investigation are not intended to meet all specific regulatory guidelines as this work was completed as a self-directed effort. Although the data in this report is indicative of subsurface conditions in areas investigated, no further conclusions regarding the absence or presence of subsurface contamination in other areas of the site should be construed or inferred other than those expressly stated in this report. The conclusions made are based on information obtained from field observations, independent laboratory analytical results, and from current and relevant Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. n L 1 Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report 4 Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 6`" Street, Tustin, California 1 1 1 TABLE 1 Summary of Soil Sampling Results (mg/Kg) I SampleJD .PCBs` TPHg C4 -C12 TPHd C13=C22 TPH=Oil C23 -C40' Sampled Decemberl 2 and 3, 2015 131-1.5 -- ND<0.2 ND<10 ND<20 131-5 -- ND <'I ND<10 ND<20 B2-5 -- ND<0.2 ND<10 ND<20 B3-5 -- ND<0.2 ND<10 ND<20 134-1.5 -- 0.24 200 ND<20 B4-4.5 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 135-1 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B5-5 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 136-2 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 137-2 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B8-2 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 1,D<20 B9-2 -- 1,D<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B10-2 ND <0.05 ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B10-6 ND <0.05 ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B11-3 ND <0.05 ND -5'0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B12-2 ND <0.05 ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B12-6 ND <0.05 ND<0.2 ND<10 ND<20 Residential$RSL -, ' y Commercial RSl" 420 „= 420:. ' 420 Notes: ND - Not Detected. Carbon Chain Hydrocarbon analysis includes Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) expressed as gasoline (g, diesel (d) and Oil. EPA Region 9 Regional Screening Levels (RSLsI are human health risk based screening levels used by EPA and DTSC to determine Health Risk in residential and commercial settings. Only the most conservative guideline based on hydrocarbon speciation is indicated. Please refer to lab report for complete results. TABLE 2 Summary of Soil Gas Sampling Results (ug/L) Sample_ID . , ;.'. 'Benzene . Toluene- Ethylbenzene . ,Xylenes PCE _ • 1,Y,14C' A ._OtherVOCs- Sampled December 7, 2015 SG1-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SG2-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SG3-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SG4-4.5 ND ND ND ND ND 0.16 ND SG5-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SG6-5 ND ND ND ND 0.11 0.11 ND SG7-4 ND ND ND ND 0.60 0.20 ND SG8-4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SG9-4 ND 0.17 ND ND ND ND ND SG10-6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SG10-6-Dup. ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Residential RSL . &0485*'' 155 :0.55 ` - 100''� 0:24* - 500 _ — CommercialRSL _ . A42*`_,': "-1,300'- 4.9 ;' _x'440. 131* 4,400 Notes: ND - Not Detected. EPA Region 9 Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are human health risk based screening levels used by EPA speck to Region 9 to determine Health Risk in residential and commercial settings. *-Values mod fled for California by DTSC HHRA Note 3. Screening levels for soil gas calculated using indoor air values and attenuation factors provided by DTSC. Please refer to laboratory report for complete results. Limted Phase II Subsurface Investigation Hillmann Project C3-6472 Report 420 West 6'" Street, Tustin, California L C FIGURES 430 6th Street LEGEND Soil Borings ® Soil Gas Sampling Probes HT LLAN N CONS-MUITO. G Leaking WEST 6th STREET Transformer B11 B10 SG10 01) B12 426 6th Street �N v at to r 428 6th Street to 0 B6/ '" L SG6 424 6th Street B7/ SG7 330 6th Street 1 620 B Street 630 B Street 624A Histology B Street ice. 133/ Bl/ GED I] yyx SG1 £ wsF 428 6th Street trench Drain V Drain r � 6246 i B Street B SG2 ParkingSGg Former 430 6th Street Machine Shop yyx £ wsF 428 6th Street d d V B9/ m CO rn r SG9 w 0 w ID %D 420B 6th Street 690 B Street I-5 Fwy 694 B Street N i APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET MMMMOMMIR 0 100 200 t m O V) FIGURE 1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CENTER 420-436 West 6th Street Tustin, California Leaking Transformer, B11 WEST 6th STREET SGI[T�b-w. --------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h12 r I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1426 6th Street 1 1 ct y I I 1 I ` 4�8 6th StrAet r N,ibi� -7- 330 6th :Str'eet 20 B 6treet I � 8 6th Street I 4 B9/ r r rSG9� 1 tp I I I I 1 I I I I i 1 NI 1 I I 1 I I 11 I I I�'pl I I BS I I I-.\ I I _-_� I I I I I I I I I I I SGS' I r` 1 1 1 B 1 S 6 , i---- 1 1 ¢30 B �treet ' 1 1 1 'Lilhortrarh' I 19 p y r ` 1624A I-----� Histologic_-� Street I ,r 09; I ; 424 617 Street SG3133' I BG ft i r , ,Trench 1 Brain 1 SG7 j` r I 1 ' 1 1 6 I B treat 1 I BZ`SQ2 7 1 I Former -43 , SGg `Mar�hine-Shop`` -i�6t�i Street — —�—`' Parl�riq B87 ` t M 2 O In LEGEND I-5 Fwy Soil Borings ` ® Soil Gas Sampling Probes Ar N 40 HILI MANN COr1SUT_TING e 0 C 1 r r r r r 1 jStreet--- 694 Br FIGURE 2 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CENTER 420-436 West 6th Street Tustin, California APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 100 200 r ` 4�8 6th StrAet r N,ibi� -7- cyn rr � rr B9/ r r rSG9� r m ' i ,a I� ��� i I I'D I'D r r 420B 6th Street` 694'65lreet r LEGEND I-5 Fwy Soil Borings ` ® Soil Gas Sampling Probes Ar N 40 HILI MANN COr1SUT_TING e 0 C 1 r r r r r 1 jStreet--- 694 Br FIGURE 2 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CENTER 420-436 West 6th Street Tustin, California APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 100 200 1 APPENDIX A Site Photos 1 r_," Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 6`h Street, Tustin, California 1 1 1 I SG1 lel SG2 flI 1 1 I I 1 APPENDIX B Laboratory Reports 1 1 Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West -6`h Street, Tustin, California A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California t� 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C " ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 - �- www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES Authorized Signature Name / Title (print) Signature / Date Laboratory ]ob No. (Certificate of Analysis No.) Project Name / No. Dates Sampled (from/to) Dates Received (from/to) Dates Reported (from/to) Chains of Custody Received Comments: CASE NARRATIVE Ken Zheng, President Ken 2hePr addant 1zro9/z01ats t3:04:13:oa:ts 1512-00044 INDUSTRIAL PARK 12/02/15 To 12/03/15 12/04/15 To 12/04/15 12/09/15 To 12/9/2015 Yes Page 1 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 1 Sample Condition_(s) All samples intact Positive Results (Organic Co'mr:ipou-n Is a Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL B4-1.5 C23 -C40 200 mgiKg 20 B4-1.5 Gasoline (C4 -C32) 0.24 mg/Kg 0.20 The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Miwhlologkel Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com otlice@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Page 2 of 10 12/09/15 Date Received 12/04/15 FDA# 2030513 74813 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 G073 2790 Date &Time Sampled 2122 @ 10:15 Date Reported 12/09/15 Date Received 12/04/15 Invoice No. 74813 Cust # G073 Permit Number Date &Time Sampled Customer P.O. @ 10:15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample`: 001` f B1-1.5 Date &Time Sampled 12/02/15 @ 10:15 [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 35508 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 82 %REC EPA 80158 50-150 12/05/15 JEN ! :Sample'' r 002 ' 'Bl -5 Date &Time Sampled 12/02/15 @" 10:40 ;.. Sample Matrix Soil ._.. .._..,.._... .......,... _,,.�. �`.�. .. ........... �..e�.»...«....°.-,aw..�a............,.... __M�. .._.A�. .. m,.,"..n ....... _.......,,».....__......�.. ......:...�......... :.....e_._,.. . ..,...._w.x,.a n ,,,.. ...�,..s-�...n.>.«. .. .k [TPH Gasoline C4-02] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN ;a [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 80 %REC EPA 8015B 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample:' 003,,' 003°.' 62 5 Date'&Time sampled 12/02/15 @, X11:10 Sample Matrix Soil [fPHGasoline C4-C12]_�....°� Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 35508 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 10 12/05/15 JEN i `f C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 86 Sample' 004. `s B3 6 �� %REC 77 EPA 8015B 50-150 Date & Time Sampled 12/05/15 12%02/15 JEN @ 11':50 . Sample Matrix Soil, The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH restlna Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiulogh:al Analysea and Research Page 3 of 10 A & R Laboratories -k t q� Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 ww.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/09/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/04/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74813 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 004 B3 5 x " Date'8 Time Sampled 12J02/15y 1 0.20 Sample Matnx.e.-_Boll KZ (Extractable Hydrocarbons] [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1 Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] JEN C23 -C40 200 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 Extraction Complete (Surrogate] EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 10 12/05/15 JEN 3-C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 20 12/05/15 JEN rrogate] 12:40 Sample Matnx Soll erphenyi(OTP) 85 %REC EPA 8015B 50-150 12/05/15 JEN [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) 0.24 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ (Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 200 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN (Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 82 %REC EPA 8015B 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 006 V`B4 `4:5'* Date &`Time Sampled 12/02/15, @ 12:40 Sample Matnx Soll [1 -PH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] EPA 80158 50-150 12/05/15 The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that It is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, far advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.ariaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Page 4 of 10 Date Reported 12/09/15 FDA# 2030513 12/04/15 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 74813 2790 G073 2122 Customer P.O. Date Reported 12/09/15 Date Received 12/04/15 Invoice No. 74813 Cost # G073 Permit Number Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech rP _. "Semple: 007 -B5 1 0-, -, Date &,Time Sampled 12/02J15 @" x1330 SampleMatnx Ml [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8615M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(0TP) 80 %REC EPA 8015B 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Semple' 008, yB5 5 W Date&Time Sampled 12/02/15 @ 14:00 p, Sample Matrix Soil [ITH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 35508 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 78 %REC EPA 8015B 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Si, 009 t B6, 2 ' DateATime Sampled p 12/03/15 @_ 9:30 `Sample Matnx Soil [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 79 %REC EPA 80158 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Serriple'- 010 87 2 uY Date & Time Sampled 12/03/15 @ "10:15 ,oSample Matnx: s Soil r The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research >� A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 =�"� �-fl<, s>:,. •,"mow^ www.arlaboratories.com office@allaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Page 5of10 Date Reported FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 G073 2790 Gasoline (C4 -C12) 2122 Date Reported 12/09/15 Date Received 12/04/15 Invoice No. 74813 Cust # G073 Permit Number Gasoline (C4 -C12) Customer P.O. mg/Kg Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech _._ �m �Sampl2:" 010 ..B7 2 �9 r 'r , Date &Time Sampled 12/03/15 @ 10:154 Sample Matrix Sod [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Date 8t Time Sam led 1@ 03/15', 11.00' ,Sample Matrix Soil . _�....- �.. .. _ Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 Extraction Complete [Extractable Hydrocarbons] EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 20 12/05/15 JEN 1.3�-C3-C40<20 rrogat.]rphenyl(OTP) mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] 80 %REC EPA 8015B 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 011 Date 8t Time Sam led 1@ 03/15', 11.00' ,Sample Matrix Soil . _�....- �.. .. _ r . ...... _ ,... ,..... a_ ✓v �_ .. [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 35508 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 85 %REC EPA 8015B 50-150 12/05/15 JEN The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratorics.com Page 6 of 10 Result FDA# 2030513 Method LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 RL 2790 Tech 2122 a Sample: 013 `810 2 `x I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust # Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/09/15 12/04/15 74813 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech a Sample: 013 `810 2 `x Date &Time Sampled 12/03/15 @ 13:30 SampleMatnx [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10. mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23-040 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 80 %REC EPA 80158 50-150 12/05/15 JEN [PCBs] Ultrasonic Extraction Complete EPA 3550 1 12/05/15 JEN Aroclor 1016 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1221 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Arodor1232 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1242 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1248 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1254 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1260 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ [Surrogates] Tetrachloro-m-xylene 80 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ Decachlorobiphenyl 81 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ SBftlpl2[ 014 • 610 6 ^ Date &Time Sampled 12/03/15 @ X14:30 ''Samp1e Matrix _ Soil [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23-040 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 76 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN [PCBs] The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that It Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories �. Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 �s 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR - WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 5:. Page 7 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/09/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/04/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74813 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 0,14 '-'1310-6 Date 8'Time Sampled 12%03/15 @ ,14:30 Sample Matrix,Sail con tlnuedM m.s®. w,ew,. u.........._«...�._.... _.., .•tom....,... v. .._..w ....... ., ...-u.....,.a di �e r...>c. ..a.._.... ............ .,... x..... A ....n �......, ..5 ..... _ _... _. _ _ . v_. _ . ..... .. � ._ . .... _ Ultrasonic Extraction Complete EPA 3550 1 12/05/15 JEN Aroclor 1016 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1221 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1232 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ 1242 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ or1248 Fc�or <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ lor 1254 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1260 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ [Surrogates] Tetrachloro-m-xylene 79 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ Decachlorobiphenyl 82 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ 'SBrT1ph : 015'' 3 Date&Time Sampled 12/03/15 @ 1520 FSample Matrix:, Soll [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 35508 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 80 %REC EPA 80158 50-150 12/05/15 JEN [PCBs] Ultrasonic Extraction Complete EPA 3550 1 12/05/15 JEN Aroclor 1016 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1221 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1232 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1242 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ clor1248 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ 1or1254 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ clor 1260 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Cheml®I and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 8 of 10 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAF#'S 2789 951-779-0310FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY - MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/09/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/04/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74813 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Tetrdchloro-m-xylene 82 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ Decachlorobiphenyl 85 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ Sample' 016 612 2 h ,,'';,'Date'&Sampled 12/03/15 @ 16:00 Sample Matnx [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 3550B 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 81 %REC EPA 80158 50-150 12/05/15 JEN [PCBs] Ultrasonic Extraction Complete EPA 3550 1 12/05/15 JEN Aroclor 1016 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1221 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1232 <0.050 nri EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1242 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1248 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1254 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1260 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ [Surrogates] Tetrachloro-m-xylene 80 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ Decachlorobiphenyl 81 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ T.Sample• 017 "812-6 ` Date&Time Sampled: w 12/03/15 @ 16:15` SampleI atnx,Soit:,_.-�- [TPH Gasoline C4 -C12] Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microblologhal Anatysea and Research . Page 9 of 10 R Laboratories a v Formerly MicrobacSouthern Caltfornia FDA# 2030513 { 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA Ci 10261 ONTARIO CA 91761 ELAP# s 2789 n r 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/09/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/04/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74813 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 017 B12-61 DF = Dilution Factor B1 = BOD dilution water is over specifications . The reported result may be biased high. Date &Time Sampled 12/03/15 @ -16:15 b Sample Matnx: Soil E = Estimated value; Value exceeds calibration level of instrument. Qua] = Qualifier H = Analyte was prepared and/or analyzed outside of the analytical method holding time Tech = Technician - , contlnuetl a Extraction Complete EPA 35508 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 8015B 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] erpheny,(OTP) 82 %REC EPA 80158 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Bs] Iras onic Extraction Complete EPA 3550 1 12/05/15 JEN Aroclor 1016 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1221 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1232 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1242 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1248 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1254 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ Aroclor 1260 <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ [Surrogates] Tetrachloro-m-xylene 86 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ Decachlorobiphenyl 84 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 50-150 12/06/15 KZ Respectfully Submitted: 16" ` A Ken Zheng - Lab Director QUALIFIERS ABBREVIATIONS B = Detected in the associated Method Blank at a concentration above the routine RL. DF = Dilution Factor B1 = BOD dilution water is over specifications . The reported result may be biased high. RL = Reporting Limit, Adjusted by DF D = Surrogate recoveries are not calculated due to sample dilution. MDL = Method Detection Limit, Adjusted by DF E = Estimated value; Value exceeds calibration level of instrument. Qua] = Qualifier H = Analyte was prepared and/or analyzed outside of the analytical method holding time Tech = Technician Matrix Interference. = Analyte concentration detected between RL and MDL. = One or more quality control criteria did not meet specifications. See Comments for further explanation. = Customer provided specification limit exceeded. The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that It is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation consulting chemical and Mluobiologlcal Analyses and Research Page 10 of 10 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAN's 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES As regulatory limits change frequently, A & R Laboratories advises the recipient of this report to confirm such limits with the appropriate federal, state, or local authorities before acting in reliance on the regulatory limits provided. For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President at office@arlaboratories.com. 1 The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research -� A & R Laboratories p> Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD • COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES Page 1 of 2 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT GSA ENGINEERING 1512-00044 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Date Reported 12/09/2015 Date Received 12/04/2015 Date Sampled 12/02/2015 Invoice No. 74813 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Customer # G073 Customer P.O. � � EP�i 80158 ,*,. " .+a` : 1 a Ir k- � � s �' ' �,. a " T" i , 4. r- a '-.-,. a Method # a e .' ts. " a Skil,_ �' QC Reference # ,, 51510 Date Analyzed. 12/5/2015 Technician: JEN Sarople5 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 Results Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS %DUP LCS %RPD SPIKE SPIKE SPIKE BLKSRR%F LCS %REC LCS %RPD SPIKE °/aRPD BLKSRR%REC %REC %DUP %RPD EC C13 -C22 89 85 5 82 78 5 70-130 0-25 0-25 c-Terphenyl (OTP) 85 50-150 QC Reference # 51509 Date Analyzed: 12/5/2015 Technician: KZ pies �' 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 sults Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS %DUP LCS ^/aRPD SPIKE SPIKE SPIKE LCS %REC LCS °/aRPD SPIN %RPD %REC %DUP °/aRPD Gasoline (C4 -C32) 95 92 3 89 85 5 70-130 0-25 0-25 Method # a.s:L QC l—�fikrgpq# 51512 Date Analyzed: 12/6/2015 Technician: I¢ Semples 013 014 015 016 017 Results Control Ranges BLK,SRR%R BLKSRR%REC I EC Decachlorobiphenyl 75I 50 -150 Tetrachloro-m-xylene 78 50-150 QG Reference # "j 51512 Date Analyzed: 12/6/2015 Technician: IQ Samples 013 014 015 016 017 Results Control Ranges LCS ^/,REC LCS %DUP LCS 0/,RPD SPIKE SPIKE SPIKE LCS %REC LCS %RPD SPIKE ^/aRPD %REC %DUP °/aRPD Aroclor 1016 85 82 4 79 78 2 70-130 0-25 0-25 No method blank results were above reporting limit Respectfully Submitted. Ken Zheng - President trany feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President at office@arlaboratories.com. www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com I CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD - COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES GSA ENGINEERING Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT 1512-00044 Date Reported 12/09/2015 Date Received 12/04/2015 Date Sampled 12/02/2015 1 1 Page 2 of 2 A & R Laboratories FDA# 2030513 Formerly Microbac Southern California LA City# 10261 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ELAP#'s 2789 ONTARIO, CA 91761 2790 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2122 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com I CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD - COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES GSA ENGINEERING Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT 1512-00044 Date Reported 12/09/2015 Date Received 12/04/2015 Date Sampled 12/02/2015 1 1 0 S. Grove Ave., Ste C, Ontario, CA 91761 165 -IMAIN OF CUSTODY Tel: 951-779-0310 / 909-781-6335 Fax: 951-779-0344 E-mail: office 0 arlaboratories.corn A & R Work Order #: I Page of Client Narnp- 14-dMonAlw., co"Jiumw Chilled 4'lntact 11 Seal 77 Analyses Requested 1 TurnAround Time Requested Rush 2 24 46 Hours E-mail .2 cu a 0 0 0 0 Ic c\1 - Q< Lu .2 M = Q> 0 >< Lu I_ ca C) cm - r<1 w ca (D — Lf) GO LL :� --I C2 — Lo co U_ ::5 __J -9 . - cc I<L w M C\I co co I<L w -2 cu C) �6 a< - Lu 7a — o ZE < c�- cD cD Zi5 w 0 I Ul ai Address L410W 43,g, o&w6f 0) 1 a Report A Attention M -L641 Phone ; Phone Fax: Fax: # Sa pled By J. Project No./ Name f?q,44?_ Pro;ct Sit 620-08JA Lab #1 (LO use) Client Sample ID Sample Collection Date Time Eel Time Matrix Type Sample Preserve No., type* & container Remarks pa :5S 11; 10 1.5' Li'd 410 Ci 16 Jp 6 - 30 if hr 0'o is] 0— 13, 3* 14134 - ----- ------ ---- 7" Ri�Mnquishe(Company a DateTime 171V J. V0.0 Dat6 Time Re d B company fV=_7_� A I I-Te�e,)vecl By Sompa Date /Z' Di�oe ' Time / -3 ' ; 4,) - Note: Samples are discarded 30 days after results are. report6d unless other arrangements are made. Matrix Code: DW=Drinking Water SL=Sludge GW=Ground 'Nater SS=Soil/Sediment WVV=Wasle Water AR=Air SD=Solid Waste PP=Pure Product Preservative Code 10=1ce SH=NaOH HC=HCI ST=Na2S20z HN=HNO3 HS=H2SO4 I Sample Container Types; T=Tedlar Air Bag B= Brass Tube E= EnCore G=Glass Container P=Plastic Bottle ST= Steel Tube V=VOA Vial �n 1650 S. Grove Ave., Ste C, Ontario, CA 93761 CHAIN OF C T Tel: 951-779-0310 / 909-781-6335 Fax: 951-779-0344 E-mail: office 0 arlaboratories.com A & R Work Order#: —< Page !�=-of � Client Name teI a% ) J 0'/"!✓ f'so / --flvc Crilued L7 Seal Analyses Requested Tum Around Time Requested Rush 812 2448 Hours ormal E-mail X O 0 �i o to ¢ a W X 0 o C\!o ¢ < W cs In �003� L J I _ n J ¢ Co < W co Co d til k U s Co < W X w P o oCm (o o < W o v CU iz o ca c Address45-��ilntact /r��1= v� �� Report Attention �i Phone #/` y)�6 3+`� � Fax: # Sam I d By Project �> � No/ Name, Project Site L13,0 -13V &24 _W6 96P, Lab #� tLabuse) I Client _ r. Sample tv r2- Z Sample Collectioni (Matrix lype 5011, Sample Preserve Vf$ No., type* &size �{ container Remarks Date 124AS Time 1-7 1�� ��' ;� �. a •� R inqu' a Coojm%any *r'• Relin i .ed Comp ny Date �f�� Date Time Time Receive y Company l e ved By Gompa Date 7i J�a� �t Time Time S Note: Samples are discarded 30 days after results are reported unless other arrangements are made. Matrix Code: DW=Drinking Water SL=Sludge GW=Ground Water SS=Soil/Sediment WW=Waste Water AR=Air SD=Solid Waste PP=Pure Product Preservative Code IC=Ica SH=NaOH HC=HCl ST=Na2S203 HN=HNO3 HS=H2SO4 Sample Container Types: T=Tediar Air Bag B= Brass Tube E= EnCore G=Glass Container P=Plastic Bottle ST= Steel Tube V=VOA Vial w Page 1 of 32 NO A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 5. 'GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA Cary# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAF#'s 2789 �- � 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2122 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES Authorized Signature Name / Title (print) Signature / Date Laboratory Job No. (Certificate of Analysis No.) Project Name / No. Dates Sampled (from/to) Dates Received (from/to) Dates Reported (from/to) Chains of Custody Received Comments: Subcontracting organic Analyses No analyses sub -contracted All samples intact CASE NARRATIVE Ken Zheng, President — V Ken Meng, Pm M08120 15 11:24:5:24:5 3 1512-00045 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA 12/07/15 To 12/07/15 12/07/15 To 12/07/15 12/08/15 To 12/8/2015 Yes Posit ve Kesulcs (vrga is ;ompounas) s - Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL SG -".S 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.16 pg/L 0.10 SG -94.0 Toluene 0.17 pg/L 0.10 SG -6-5.0 0,1-Tdchlaroethane 0.11 pg/L 0.10 SG -6-5.0 Tetrachloroethene 0.11 pg/L 0.10 SG -74.0 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.20 pg/L 0.10 SG -74.0 Tetrachloroethene 0.60 pg/L 0.10 1 The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 2 of 32 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA Ci13 ty# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#ys 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Semple 001 SG -4-4 5 Dak77'7e &Time Sampled A� 12/07/15 @ 9:53 " -°Sample. Matrix: Soil Vapor:- Purge VolumeSampled _.. [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Benzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Bromobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromochloromethane <0.30 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.30 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone(MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ sec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.30 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ +Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ' Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for adverilslrg or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Santtallon Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research .. A & R Laboratories �ry21111 RFormerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S: GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 '' -° www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Page 3 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qua[ Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 001'SG-4-4.51,� s " Date 8t Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ 9 53 Sample Matnx Soil Vapor. Purge Volume Sampled: 3 contmuedy ti ..... 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Iis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ons-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Hexachlorobutadiene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2-Hexanone <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Isopropylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Methylene Chloride <0.1 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIRK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Naphthalene <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ n-Propylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Styrene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ etrachloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ oluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,3-Tdchlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In par[, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Tasting Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Mlu blologiral Analyses and Research I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES Page 4 of 32 EPA 8260B A & R Laboratories 0.10 12/07/15 Formerly Microbac Southern California 13 pg/L 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 0.10 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAN's 2789 DAN LOUKS 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 12/07/15 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 Invoice No. I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES I EPA 8260B CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1512-00045 pg/L EPA 82608 y GSA ENGINEERING 0.10 Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS pg/L Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 EPA 8260B Cust # G073 12/07/15 KZ, Permit Number pg/L Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech 1,2,4-Tdchlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Trichlorofluoromethane Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1, 2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5 -Tri methyl benzene Vinyl Chloride m,p-Xylenes o, -Xylene [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] Isopropanol (IPA) [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane Toluene -D8 Bromofluorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 0.16 pg/L EPA 82608 y 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ, <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 100 %REC EPA 8260B 98 %REC EPA 82608 104 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 70-130 12/07/15 70-130 12/07/15 KZ KZ KZ KZ KZ KZ KZ KZ KZ KZ [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 Benzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 Bromobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 Bromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that It is not to be reproduced, wholy or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 5 of 32 r g�Hr� A & R Laboratories M Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LACity# 10261 ONTARIO CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 ' 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 ,w www.ariaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES t FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA VNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TEA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone(MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ I-Butylbenzene ec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ert-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L - EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ns-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2-Dichloropropane 1,3 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ -Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting .Chemical and Mlcrobiologkal Analyses and Research I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample, 002, -'SG -51-5.0, Sample Matnx. a =Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: , .`3 -....continued 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropylbenzene 4-Isopropyltoluene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIRK) Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) Naphthalene n-Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,2,3-Tdchlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 <0.1 <1.0 <0.10 <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 EPA Page 6 of 32 Date,&'Time'Sampled: w A & R Laboratories @ - 10:30 , Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 pg/L ONTARIO, CA 91761, ELAP#'s 2789 0.10 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 pg/L www.arlaboratories.com otlice@arlaboratories.com 2122 0.10 I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample, 002, -'SG -51-5.0, Sample Matnx. a =Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: , .`3 -....continued 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropylbenzene 4-Isopropyltoluene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIRK) Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) Naphthalene n-Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,2,3-Tdchlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 <0.1 <1.0 <0.10 <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 EPA Date,&'Time'Sampled: w 12/07%15 @ - 10:30 , i pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 82608 1 010 12/07/15 KZ L 1,2,3-Tnchloropropane <0.10 pg/L Trichlorofluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ' Trichlorotriflucroethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that It Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval born the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Santtation consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Page 7 of 32 �I A & R Laboratories 2030513 T# Formerly Microbac Southern California 10261 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C 2789 ONTARIO, CA 91761 2790 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2122 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Page 7 of 32 Date Reported FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 G073 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: ' 002 SG -5-5.0 '" " Date&Time"Sampled: - '{ 12/07/15 @. 10.304 Sample Matrix: .. Soil Vapor a Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .continued, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Vinyl Chloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ IVp-Xylenes Xylene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ OC Vapor Sampling Tracer] Isopropanol (IPA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane 108 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 102 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 115 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ -7- Sample: :Sample: 003 SG -8-4.b`-' ` � _ w . Date & Time, Sampled. ,' • • 12/07/15 @ 10:51 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor_- Purge Volume Sampled: 3 w [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Benzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Bromobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone (MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Iiec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ rt-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ rbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other aaompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that It Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES Page 8 of 32 A & R Laboratories I Formerly Microbac Southern California FD 13 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 I ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 1512-00045 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR WASTES I CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample. 003 SG -8-4.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 10:51' i. Sample Matrix:. Soil Vapor ` Purge Volume Sampled: 3 V - continued Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.30 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on th1s, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that It Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyzes and Research Page 9 of 32 A & R Laboratories . Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LACity# 10261 0 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 <0.10 Permit Number EPA 82608 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. 12/07/15 KZ Si Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Isopropyltoluene ethylene Chloride Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) Naphthalene n-Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Trichlorofluoromethane Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1, 2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5 -Tri methylbenzene Vinyl Chloride m,p-Xylenes 1 Xylene OC Vapor Sampling Tracer] opropanol(IPA) Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that It Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemkal and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951479-0344 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL - SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 Page 10 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 Acetone 2790 pg/L EPA 8260B 2122 10 12/07/15 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample 003 SG 8-4 0 Date&Time Sampled ., , 12/07/15 @: 30:5f Sample Matrix:-,,,,, Vapor. Purge Volume Sampled 3 continued [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane Toluene -D8 Bromofluorobenzene 91 %REC EPA 82608 103 %REC EPA 8260B 82 %REC EPA 8260B [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Benzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Bromobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromochloromethane <0.30 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone(MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ sec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 .12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation consulting chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 11 of 32 A & R Laboratories " Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAN's 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 w.y ,J a..�r's'* 2122 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qua[ Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample' 004eµ SG 9r4 0 Sample Mat... -Boll Vapor Date &Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ 113 2, u Purge Volume Sampled: 3 continued Dibromochloromethane r <0.10 pg/L m EPA 82608 _ 1 0.10 _ 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ J,ibrDmomethane 2ichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 3-ichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Hexachlorobutadiene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2-Hexanone <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Isopropylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloride <0.1 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) Ietethylene <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ hyl-t-butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Page 12 of 32 12/08/15 FDA# 2030513 12/07/15 LA City# 10261 74805 ELAP#'s 2789 G073 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cost # G073 Permit Number Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Naphthalene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ n-Propylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Styrene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Tetrachloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Toluene 0.17 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-Tdchlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.30 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorofluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3,5-Tdmethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Vinyl Chloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ m,p-Xylenes <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ o -Xylene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] Isopropanol (IPA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane 106 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 97 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 98 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ ;Sampler 005 SSG 1 5 0 Date 8t Tme Sampled , 12/07/15 @, ` -12:04- Sample hlatnx Soil Vapor ` n Purge Volume Sampled 3 , _ _. _ . .,.�5_ .. _ _ _ _ _. . _ � � � .� . � � _ ._ _ _,x_ .._ J The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that It is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation consulting chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 Page 13 of 32 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech _m «- Sample: 005 SG 1-5 0 Date& Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ 12 04 ! Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor } �. Purge Volume Sampled: 3 2 .....continued [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ enzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ romobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ romochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone (MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ sec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ I2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon wnditlon that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes wlthout approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech _m «- Sample: 005 SG 1-5 0 Date& Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ 12 04 ! Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor } �. Purge Volume Sampled: 3 2 .....continued [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ enzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ romobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ romochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone (MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ sec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ I2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon wnditlon that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes wlthout approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES Page 14 of 32 A & R Laboratories I Formerly Microbac Southern California 13 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 I ONTARIO, CA 91761 FLAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 1512-00045 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR WASTES I CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample 005 SG -1-5.0:' �- .. a Date &Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:04 I Sample` Matnx: `� Soil Vapor ! : Purge Volume Sampledi 3 , .....continued Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 "0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82605 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.30 pg/L EPA 8260B . 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82605 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Hexachlorobutadiene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82605 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2-Hexanone <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Isopropylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4•Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Methylene Chloride <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIRK) <3.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Naphthalene <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ n-Propylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Styrene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Tetrachloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ' Toluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that It Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 15 of 32 A & R Laboratories R j iys Formerly Microbac Southern California * �WE ' FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE. SUITE C LA City# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 SLAPffls 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane ,1,2 -Trichloroethane richloroethene ,2,3 Ti ichloropropane Trichlorofluoromethane Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1, 3,5 -Tri methylbenzene Vinyl Chloride m,p-Xylenes o -Xylene [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] Isopropanol (IPA) [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane Toluene -D8 Bromofluorobenzene Sample: 006,' SG-: Sample Matrix: SoII Yap ` Purge Volurne Sarrip [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) Benzene romobenzene romochloromethane romodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 111 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ 101 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ 97 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Date 8c Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ 12:31 <10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that It is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 Page 16 of 32 FDA# 2030513 a LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech -7 Sarriple' 006. SG -2-5 0 a Date;& Time Sampled _ 12/07/15 ' @ ' 12:31 { Sample Matnx Soll Vapor' Purge Volume Sampled 3 Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone(MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ sec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.6 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.30 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.30 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloropropane , <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation consulting chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Date&Time Sampled:';,,' 12/07/15 @ '1231 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Purge�Volume Sampled: _`�3 Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 .....continued Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA 1,3-Dichloropropane Customer P.O. pg/L Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample:, 006SG-2-50 Date&Time Sampled:';,,' 12/07/15 @ '1231 Sample Matrix, Soil Vapor Purge�Volume Sampled: _`�3 .....continued 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ is-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ iisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Hexachlorobutadiene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2-Hexanone <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Isopropylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Methylene Chloride <0.1 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Naphthalene <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ n-Propylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Styrene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Tetrachloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Toluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-TNchlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4-Tdchlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ nchloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ richloroFluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 18 of 32 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microhac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE SUITE C i AVE., LA Citylt 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD • COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045- GSA 512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number pg/L Customer P.O. 82608 Analysis Result Qua] Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample- .006 SG -2-S.0 J Sample Matrix: Soll Vapor ,s',` Purge Volume Sampled:, 3 ...continued Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5 -Tri methylbenzene Vinyl Chloride m,p-Xylenes o -Xylene [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] Isopropanol (IPA) [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane Toluene -DB Bromofluorobenzene Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 104 %REC EPA 82608 101 %REC EPA 8260B 96 %REC EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 1 0.10 12/07/15 1 0.10 12/07/15 1 0.050 12/07/15 1 0.20 12/07/15 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ KZ KZ KZ KZ KZ 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 70-130 12/07/15 KZ 70-130 12/07/15 KZ 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample 007. SG -3-S.0 Date &.Tirne Sampled: 12/07/15 @. 12.53 Sample Matrix: ' Soil Vapor ' Purge Volume Sampled: ° 3 - [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Benzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Bromobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromochloromethane. <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone(MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ sec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other amompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories �117Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 HJT » 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2�:�,gy-4 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 Page 19 of 32 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene lh�.roethane horoform hloromethane 2-Chlorotoluene 4Chlorotoluene Di bromoch loromethane 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1, 2-D ibro mo-3-Chloropropa ne Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis -1,2-D ichloroethene trans -1,2-D ichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene cis -1,3-D ichloropropene ians-1,3-Dichloropropeneiisopropyl Ether (DiPE) thylbenzene <1.0 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 <0.050 2790 EPA 82608 2122 0.050 12/07/15 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene lh�.roethane horoform hloromethane 2-Chlorotoluene 4Chlorotoluene Di bromoch loromethane 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1, 2-D ibro mo-3-Chloropropa ne Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis -1,2-D ichloroethene trans -1,2-D ichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene cis -1,3-D ichloropropene ians-1,3-Dichloropropeneiisopropyl Ether (DiPE) thylbenzene <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 ug/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that It is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR - WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech 3 Sam P Samp Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropylbenzene 4-Isopropyltoluene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) Naphthalene n-Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,2,3-Tdchlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Trichlorofluoromethane Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1, 2,4-Tdmethylbenzene 1,3, 5-Trimethyl benzene Vinyl Chloride m,p-Xylenes o -Xylene [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] me'Sampled 12/07/15 @ 12:53 <0.10 Page 20 of 32 EPA 8260B A & R Laboratories 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 EPA 82608 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 12/07/15 KZ ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 EPA 8260B 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 12/07/15 KZ www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 EPA 8260B CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR - WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech 3 Sam P Samp Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropylbenzene 4-Isopropyltoluene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) Naphthalene n-Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,2,3-Tdchlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Trichlorofluoromethane Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1, 2,4-Tdmethylbenzene 1,3, 5-Trimethyl benzene Vinyl Chloride m,p-Xylenes o -Xylene [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] me'Sampled 12/07/15 @ 12:53 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.1 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation consulting Chemical and Microblulogkal Analyses and Research C 1 Page 21 of 32 A Boz R Laboratories , ' Formerly Microbac Southern California o FDA# 2030513 1650S ' 650S: GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample` 007 SG 3-5 0 Date & Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ 12-53 Sample Matrix: , . Soil Vapor;' Purge Volume Sampled: 3 �! ....continued _ Isopropanol (IPA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane 110 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ oluene-D8 104 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ romofluorobenzene 99 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample' 008xSG-6=5'0 Date &TimeSampled 12/07/15 @ J3;27 f Sample Matnx: = Soil Vapor! - Purge Volume Sampled.. „ . 3_ [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether CfAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Benzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Bromobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t -Butanol CBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone(MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ sec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ lh'oroform hloromethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ -Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that It Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 22 of 32 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA C# 13 10261 h� ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAN's 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.coin ofce@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech SBmplg 008 SG-&S.0 Date&Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 13:27 . Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor, �. Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued +Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.30 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Hexachlorobutadiene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2-Hexanone <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Isopropylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ +Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Methylene Chloride <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ , +Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIRK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sa itatlan Consulting Chemlml and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California t 1650 S. GROVE AVE. SUITE C 6 ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com ofce@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Page 23 of 32 Date Reported FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 G073 2790 <0.050 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805- Cust # G073 Permit Number <0.050 Customer P.O. EPA 8260B Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Naphthalene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ n-Propylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Irene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Tetrachloroethene 0.11 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Toluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.11 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorofluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Vinyl Chloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ m,p-Xylenes <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ o -Xylene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] Isopropanol (IPA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane 102 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 98 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ romofluorobenzene 92 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ ampler 009 ' SG 7-4.0 Date & Time Sampled 12%07/15 @ 13140,^ Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor' The data and Information on this, and other amompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microblologl al Analyses and Research Page 24 of 32 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAN's 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344. 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Datej& Time Sampled -7'v 12/07/15 @ 13.40 ° a - [VOCs by GCMSI Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Benzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Bromobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone(MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ sec-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane _<0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ t Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that It Is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation consulting Chemical and Mlcrobiologkal Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com ofce@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 Page 25 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cost # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: - 009 SG -.7-40. • 'Date&Time Sampled = 12/07/15 @ 13:40 I Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor-<< i Purge Volume Sampled: -3 .....continued 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ I2is-1,2-Dichlaroethene ns-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ,-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-l,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Hexachlorobutadiene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2-Hexanone <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Isopropylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Methylene Chloride <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Naphthalene <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ n-Propylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Styrene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 0.60 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ioetrachloroethene luene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that It is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemi®i and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 Page 26 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 - ELAP#'s 2789 12/07/15 2790 j. Sample.Matnz:, Soil.Vap6i - ,.- 2122 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cost # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech i Sample 009 -,SG-7-4'0, - Date &Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ .13 40 j. Sample.Matnz:, Soil.Vap6i - ,.- •-oma PurgeVolume Sampled 3 ,�, , :continued_ __ __���__ .� _._ - �_-• ---__���__._�_____ _ _�-__ Acetone __T__��' pg/L 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene . <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorofluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4-Tdmethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3,5-Tdmethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Vinyl Chloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 11 0.050 12/07/15 KZ m,p•Xylenes <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ o -Xylene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] Isopropanol (IPA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane 105 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 99 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 95 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample 010, SG -10-6.'0 - Date&Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ 14:20 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor_ '> i Purge Volume Sampled .3_._._ [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10. 12/07/15 KZ Benzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Bromobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and information on this, and other aaompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Tasting Food Sanitation ConsuRing chemical and Mlcroblologkal Analyses and Research Page 27 of 32 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 7 � 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAPhys 2789 x 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 Q"° www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 I CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech E Sample: 010 ° SG 10=6 0.4 Date & Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ `34.20 r Sample Matrix Soil Vapor •- Purge Volume Sampled r ..continued,,, _ Bromomethane <0.20 Ng/L EPA 82608 1� 0.20 -'12/07/15 �KZ t -Butanol CrSA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone (MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ t!r utylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ -Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ -Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ i,ans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2 Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 3-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 28 of 32 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com ofce@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Samp010 SG 10-,6 0 le Date' &Time Sampled 1 12/07/15 @ 11:20 Sample Matnx Sail Vapor'$ Purge Volume Sampled 3 , contrnued_ 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ DiisopropylEther (DiPE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethyibenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Hexachlorobutadiene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10' 12/07/15 KZ 2-Hexanone <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Isopropylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B. 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Methylene Chloride <0.1 pg/L EPA 82606 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone(MIBK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Naphthalene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ n-Propylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B _ 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Styrene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Tetrachloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Toluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-Tdchlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-Tdchloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorofluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other amompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that It Is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanftetion Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research 1 I Page 29 of 32 =t A & R Laboratories x Formerly MicrobaSouthern Californiafi FDA# 2030513 MU 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA City# 10261 l ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 r -tet, 14,��a zlzz www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES I FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES Sample Matrix Soil Vaporw- I CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 g Cust # G073 w Permit Number °l ..�. Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA <0.10 Customer P.O. EPA 82608 Analysis Result Qua[ Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample' 010 ' SG 10-6 0 Date & Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ ,14 20 Sample Matrix Soil Vaporw- Purge Volume Sampled: 3 a F g contln_ued; w °l ..�. 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Vinyl Chloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ ,p -Xylenes <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ -Xylene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ OC Vapor Sampling Tracer] Isopropanol (IPA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane 104 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 97 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 101 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample' 011, SG -10=6.0 DUP Date &Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ 14-20' Sample Matrix Soil Vapor 4 x Purge Volume Sampled 3,_ _. [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone <10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 10 12/07/15 KZ t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Benzene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Bromobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromodichloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromomethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ t-Butanol(TBA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ 2-Butanone (MEK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ F-Butylbenzene rt -Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ arbon Disulfide <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, far advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 30 of 32 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 x 1650 S. GROVE AVE.,SUITE C LA City# 10261 w ONTARIO, CA 91761 _ ELAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Carbon Tetrachloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ Chlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloroform <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Chloromethane <0.20. pg/L EPA 82606 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 2-Chlorotoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Chlorotoluene <0.30 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromochloromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromcethane(EDB) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dibromomethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2,2-Dichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Ethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ I Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analysed and Is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 31 of 32 13 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LACityfi 10261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAPPs 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratoriea.com office@arlaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD • COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING Date Reported 12/08/15 DAN LOUKS Date Received 12/07/15 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ Invoice No. 74805 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Cust # G073 Permit Number Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: -011 SG 10-60-DUP Date&Time Sampled 12/07/15 @ 14:2o> i Sample Matrix:_. Soil Vapor I Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued ... I Hexachlorobutadiene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 2-Hexanone <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Isopropylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ ethylene Chloride <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 KZ Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Naphthalene <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ n-Propylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Styrene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Tetrachloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Toluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorofluoromethane <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Vinyl Chloride <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 KZ m,p-Xylenes <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ Xylene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ OC Vapor Sampling Tracer] opropanol(IPA) <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition that it is not to be reproduced, wholly or in part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH TesUng Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research Page 32 of 32 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern California FDA# 2030513 1650 S. GROVE SUITE C AVE., LA City# 10261261 ONTARIO, CA 91761 ELAP#'s 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@ariaboratories.com 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number t'` 3-A" Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer P.O. Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech ..--...-_ - _ --- _..... .. .-. --_"_ ..- - ' -- - " - Z I Sample:'. 011, SG-10-6.'O=DUP' Date Time Sampled: -, -"-12/07/15 @ 14:20 'Sample Matrix[ Soil �• : _ PurgeVolume Sampled: 3 continued [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane 99 %REC EPA 82608 Toluene -D8 99 %REC EPA 8260B Bromofluorobenzene 101 %REC EPA 82608 t'` 3-A" Respectfully Submitted: Ken Zheng - Lab Director QUALIFIERS B = Detected in the associated Method Blank at a concentration above the routine RL. 91 = BOD dilution water is over specifications . The reported result may be biased high. D = Surrogate recoveries are not calculated due to sample dilution. E = Estimated value; Value exceeds calibration level of instrument. H = Analyte was prepared and/or analyzed outside of the analytical method holding time I = Matrix Interference. J = Analyte concentration detected between RL and MDL. Q = One or more quality control criteria did not meet specifications. See Comments for further explanation. S = Customer provided specification limit exceeded. 70-130 12/07/15 70-130 12/07/15 70-130 12/07/15 ABBREVIATIONS DF = Dilution Factor RL = Reporting Limit, Adjusted by DF MDL = Method Detection Limit, Adjusted by DF Qual = Qualifier Tech = Technician As regulatory limits change frequently, A & R Laboratories advises the recipient of this report to confirm such limits with the appropriate federal, state, or local authorities before acting in reliance on the regulatory limits provided. For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President atoffice@arlaboratories.com. The data and Information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon condition that it Is not to be reproduced, wholly or In part, for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory. USDA -EPA -NIOSH Testing Food sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research KZ KZ KZ 1 GSA ENGINEERING PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD • COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT 1512-00045 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA �� .. Method # EPA 82608' Qq_Re_ferenp8#_LJ 51476 Date Analyzed: 12/7/2015 Technician: KZ .lee 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 Page 1 of 1 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 7 A & R Laboratories Date Received Formerly Microbac Southern California Date Sampled F 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C Invoice No. ONTARIO, CA 91761 Customer # 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 Customer P.O. www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com GSA ENGINEERING PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD • COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT 1512-00045 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA �� .. Method # EPA 82608' Qq_Re_ferenp8#_LJ 51476 Date Analyzed: 12/7/2015 Technician: KZ .lee 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 Page 1 of 1 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/2015 Date Received 12/07/2015 Date Sampled 12/07/2015 Invoice No. 74805 Customer # G073 Customer P.O. 101 7 t 70-130 ResultsI Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS %DUP LCS %RPD BLKSRR%R LCS %REC LCS %RPD BLKSRR%REC EC 1,1-Dichloroethene 85 96 11 Benzene 94 98 4 Bromofluorobenzene 0-25 Chlorobenzene 118 101 7 Dlbromofluorometha 70-130 70-130 luene 104 97 7 luene-DB chloroethene 108 95 13 96 113 93 No method blank results were above reporting limit Respectfully Submitted. 70-130 0-25 70-130 0-25 70-130 70-130 0-25 70- 130 70-130 0-25 70-130 70-130 0-25 Ken Zheng - President For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Jenny Jiang, Project Manager at 951.779.0310. You may also contact Ken Zheng, President at office@arlaboratories.com. 1 ® - - _.-C.HA.1-N-_ F, -GUSTO CUSTODY_ 1650 SvGrove_Ave..,_Ste_C,.__.Ontario,.-CA-.9-1761-.----- ...__._ . Order _ A'& R Work Order Tel: 951-779-0310 / 909-781-6335 Fax: 951-779-0344 % _,. /%� U E-mail: office Oarlaboratories.com 1 UC ) Page E of J__ Client Name � " ❑Chilled Analyses Requested Turn Around E-mail .,, Time Requested Y v`o-el Addres Intact n ❑ Rush , G; O *Sea] CD 0) CLa� L E 812 2448 Report tentian Phone 10� �� -� 3�Q Sampled By X X a� o o Hours - Fax: # ra _ o O E -- o s < ai ots c ¢ Project P oject SiteN x o o o v ❑ Normal No./ Name ''VL. AZ U W (5 o m Q o m u) o a W CD �? Lab #I Client Sample Collection Matrix Sample No., type* o o m ¢ 04 Lo o jj (0 " — — q o a (Lab use) Sample le I D �+ SI7g of 2 , , m p Date Time Type Preserve container a ? ZD � C o<_ _ I 'R arks W W J J W W W W PV _V 5C-7-1- q,,3 I! 122 —s--0 l ; -� SG 6 �•o i �-�� -to 5G-10- 6.o 1412-,,) l Relinquishe N Relinquished By -Company Date Date imRe Time e' - d By oany Received By Company 11 Da 1 7 DatTime Time ; ';3 (Vote: Samples are discarded 30 days after results are reported unless other arrangements are made. Matrix Code: DW=Drinking Water SL=Sludge GW=Ground Water SS=Soil/Sediment WW=Waste Water AP,=Air SD=Solid Waste PP=Pure Product Preservative Code IC=Ice SH=NaOH HC=HCI ST=Na2S203 HN=HNO3 HS=H2SO4 ` Sample Container Types: T=Tedlar Air Bag B= Brass Tube E= Encore G=Glass Container P=Plastic Bottle ST= Steel Tube V=VOA Vial ri 1 1 APPENDIX C Drilling Logs Phase 11 Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West e Street, Tustin, California DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER Bl PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA DATE DRILLED December 2, 2015 SURFACE ELEVATION SCREEN: DIA. CASING: DIA. DRILLING COMPANY DRILLER Neil / Dan Hillmann LENGTH LENGTH OWNER PROJECT NUMBER TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH TO WATER 5 Feet SLOT SIZE TYPE DRILL METHOD Hand Auger LOG BY Dan Louks **0 I-tI LLMAN N CON S'U.LT,ING DEPTH,- (FEET),,, � WELLCONSTPID -(PPM) . • : - SAMPLES - SOIL_' CLASS °: .;. (USCS) =, ` DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION-_ . (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) - w. PIPE ;TILL: ' NUMBER � _ � � BLOW . = 1.5 <1 131-1.5 ML Sandy SILT; brown, low plasticity, very fine grained, no odor. 5 <1 Bl -5 CL Silty CLAY; brown, low plasticity, slightly moist no odor. Install -Soil Gas Probe SG1 at 5feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Sea] with bentonite to surface. 1 1 1 1 DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER B2 PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 61h Street, Tustin, CA DATE DRILLED December 2, 2015 SURFACE ELEVATION SCREEN: DIA. CASING: DIA. DRILLING COMPANY DRILLER Neil / Dan Hillmann LENGTH LENGTH OWNER PROJECT NUMBER TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH TO WATER 5 Feet SLOT SIZE TYPE DRILL METHOD Hand Auger LOG BY Dan Louks FII.LLMANN CONS-U.LTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID = (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL° CLASS • NSCS) DESCRIPTION%SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES PIPE n FILL NUMBER'; . .., BLOW 5 <1 132-5 ML Sandy SILT; brown, low plasticity, very fine grained, some clay, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG2 at 5feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Seal with bentonite to surface. HIL.LMANN CO.NSULTING DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER 133 PROJECT Light Industrial Center OWNER LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED December 2, 2015 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER 5 Feet SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger DRILLER Neil / Dan LOG BY Dan Louks DEPTH, (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) . SAMPLES ` SOIL` . -CLASS (USCS) ' ",:.DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL NUMBER. ; BLOW 5 <1 133-5 ML Sandy SILT; brown, low plasticity, very fine grained, some clay, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG3 at 5feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Sea] with bentonite to surface. 1 1 1 DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA DATE DRILLED December 2, 2015 SURFACE ELEVATION SCREEN: DIA. CASING: DIA. DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILLER Neil / Dan 134 LENGTH LENGTH OWNER PROJECT NUMBER TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH TO WATER 4.5 Feet SLOT SIZE TYPE DRILL METHOD Hand Auger LOG BY Dan Louks f �� H LLMAN`N CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID, (PPM), SAMPLES SOIL:, CLASS,- (I&S)..' DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL. NUMBER BLOW 1.5 4.9 134-1.5 CL Silty CLAY; brown, low plasticity, some very fine sand, very slight petroleum odor. 4.5 <1 134-4.5 SW Gravelly SAND; light brown, very fine to fine grained, loose, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG4 at 4.5feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Seal with bentonite to surface. DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA DATE DRILLED December 2, 2015 SURFACE ELEVATION SCREEN: DIA. CASING: DIA. DRILLING COMPANY DRILLER Neil / Dan B5 Hillmann LENGTH LENGTH OWNER PROJECT NUMBER TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH TO WATER 5 Feet SLOT SIZE TYPE DRILL METHOD Hand Auger LOG BY Dan Louks HILLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID ; (PPM) SAMPLES �, ~ ',SOIL-:,, CLASS (USCS) ° ..DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION ' (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL . -NUMBER BLOW 1 3.2 135-1 SM Silty SAND; light brown, very fine grained, very slight petroleum odor. 5 <1 135-5 SM Silty SAND, light brown, very fine grained, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG5 at 5feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Seal with bentonite to surface. 1 1 1 DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA DATE DRILLED December 3,201S SURFACE ELEVATION SCREEN: DIA. CASING: DIA. DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILLER Neil / Dan 136 LENGTH LENGTH OWNER PROJECT NUMBER TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH TO WATER 5 Feet SLOT SIZE TYPE DRILL METHOD Hand Auger LOG BY Dan Louks 400 1-IJLLMAN N CONSULTING DEPTH' (FEET)(PPM)t WELL CONST PIDM SAMPLES SOIL - " CLASS (USC DESCRIPTION/SOIh CLASSIFICATION, (COLOR, TEXTURE; STRUCTURES), ,'PIPE FILLS NUMBER BLOW 2 <1 136-2 SM Silty SAND, light brown, very fine grained, 5% fine gravel, no odor. 5 <1 SM Silty SAND, light brown, very fine grained, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG6 at 5feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Seal with bentonite to surface. DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER B7 PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA DATE DRILLED December 3, 2015 SURFACE ELEVATION SCREEN: DIA. CASING: DIA. DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILLER Neil / Dan LENGTH LENGTH OWNER PROJECT NUMBER TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH TO WATER 4 Feet SLOT SIZE TYPE DRILL METHOD Hand Auger LOG BY Dan Louks HILLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH. (FEET) , WELL CONST - PID (PPM) " SAMPLES. " "'. SOIL.' CLASS (U SCS) m DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE `, .FILL NUMBERS;BLOW, 2 <1 137-2 SM Silty SAND, light brown, very fine grained, 5% fine gravel, no odor. 4 <1 SM Silty SAND, light brown, very fine grained, 5% fine gravel, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG7 at 4feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Seal with bentonite to surface. 1 1 7 1 t-1 LL'MAN .N CONSUL I N G DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER 138 PROJECT Light Industrial Center OWNER LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED December 3, 2015 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER 4 Feet SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger DRILLER Neil / Dan LOG BY Dan Louks DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST. ; " .PID' (PPM) _ " SAMPLES;;, , SOILS . CLASS-. ` (USCS)'�; DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE, FILL NUMBER'S BLOW 2 <1 138-2 SC Clayey SAND; light brown, very fine sand, some silt, no odor. 4 <1 SC Clayey SAND; light brown, very fine sand, some silt, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG8 at 4feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Seal with bentonite to surface. OPS HIL.LMAN N C.O.N5ULTING DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER B9 PROJECT Light Industrial Center OWNER LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED December 3, 2015 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER 4 Feet SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger DRILLER Neil / Dan LOG BY Dan Louks DEPTH' (FEET) �.' WELLCONST PID (PPM) ; " SAMPLES SOIL; .- CLASS; a• (USCS), N DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION :(COLOR, TEXTURE;.STBUGTURES) . . .-PIPE . -:FILL'. NUMBERS' BLOW 2 <1 139-2 SM Silty SAND; tan, very fine grained, loose, no odor. 4 <1 SM Silty SAND; tan, very fine grained, loose, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG9 at 4feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Seal with bentonite to surface. L 1 1 1 DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER B10 PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA DATE DRILLED December 3, 2015 SURFACE ELEVATION SCREEN: DIA. CASING: DIA. DRILLING COMPANY DRILLER Neil / Dan Hillmann LENGTH LENGTH OWNER PROJECT NUMBER TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH TO WATER 6 Feet SLOT SIZE TYPE DRILL METHOD Hand Auger LOG BY Dan Louks s� HILLMANN C:0,NSULT.ING DEPTH' (FEET) - WELL CONST ° PID (PPM) SAMPLES - R SOIL ; ' CLASS DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR; TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) ,' PIPE . ' FILL NUMBER;: BLOW �.,.-(USCS) 2 <1 B10-2 ML Sandy SILT; very fine sand, some clay, low plasticity, no odor. 4 <1 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine grained, some clay, slightly moist, no odor. 6 <1 B10-6 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine grained, some clay, slightly moist, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG10 at 6feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. Seal with bentonite to surface. DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER PROJECT Light Industrial Center 1311 LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA DATE DRILLED December 3, 2015 SURFACE ELEVATION SCREEN: DIA. CASING: DIA. DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILLER Neil / Dan LENGTH LENGTH OWNER PROJECT NUMBER TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH TO WATER 3 Feet SLOT SIZE TYPE DRILL METHOD Hand Auger LOG BY Dan Louks HILLMAN N CONSULTING DEPTH'S (FEET) WELL -'CONST PID (PPM) `SAMPLES, '`SOIL`,= CLASS (USCS) DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE �, FILL NUMBER=, BLOW 3 <1 1311-3 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine grained, some clay and gravel, slightly moist, no odor. Refusal at 3 feet. 1 1 1 1 1 �r HIL LMANN CO:NS'ULTING DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER B12 PROJECT Light Industrial Center OWNER LOCATION 420-436 West 6th Street, Tustin, CA PROJECT NUMBER DATE DRILLED December 3, 2015 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO WATER SCREEN: DIA. LENGTH SLOT SIZE CASING: DIA. LENGTH TYPE DRILLING COMPANY Hillmann DRILL METHOD Hand Auger DRILLER Neil / Dan LOG BY Dan Louks 6 Feet 2<1 B12-2 I I SM I Silty SAND; brown, very fine grained, some clay, slightly I I I I moist, no odor. 6 I I I <1 I B12-6 I I SM I Silty SAND; brown, very fine grained, some clay, slightly moist no odor. Appendix H: Noise Impact Analysis 1 7 1 1 Project No.: P16 -004N NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Giroux & Associates 1800 E Garry St., #205 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Prepared for: Environment I Planning I Development Attn: Konnie Dobreva 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92714 Date: February 17, 2016 NOISE SETTING Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally considered to be unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound pressure levels. Although decibels are most commonly associated with sound, "M' is a generic descriptor that is equal to ten times the logarithmic ratio of any physical parameter versus some reference quantity. For sound, the reference level is the faintest sound detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum human sensitivity more heavily in a process called "A -weighting," written as dB(A). Any further reference in this discussion to decibels written as "M' should be understood to be A -weighted. Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called LEQ), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Ldn (day - night) or the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL metric has gradually replaced the Ldn factor, but the two descriptors are essentially identical. CNEL-based standards are generally applied to transportation -related sources because local jurisdictions are pre-empted from exercising direct noise control over vehicles on public streets, aircraft, trains, etc. The City of Tustin therefore regulates the traffic noise exposure of the receiving property through land use controls. GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion's amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as railroads or vibration -intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity and the rate of change of the speed is described as the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. Tustin Lofts Noise 1 1 1 During construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. This type of vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage. The units for PPV velocity is normally inches per second (in/sec). Another vibration descriptor, often used for describing annoyance levels, is presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. In this study, all PPV and RMS velocity levels are in in/sec and all vibration levels are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. NOISE STANDARDS Noise standards for the City of Tustin are contained in the General Plan, Noise Element and in the Tustin City Code, Chapter 6, Noise Control and are provided in Figure 1. The Noise Element of the General Plan contains noise compatibility standards for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. CNEL guidelines for specific land uses are classified into four categories: (A) "clearly compatible," (B) "normally compatible," (C) "normally incompatible," and (D) "clearly incompatible." Tustin Lofts Noise Figure 1 Tustin Noise Compatibility Standards LAND USE CATEGORIES CO\1\IL NM- NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL Specified Lind use is satisfactory; based upon the assurnption that any buildings involved are of normal CNEL CATEGORIES USES <55 60 6.5 70 is 80> RESIDENTIAL Seigle Fainly, Duplex, Multiple Fanily A A B C C D D RESIDF1\7rLAL Mobile Hone A A B C C D D CO\L\iERCIAL Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging Regional, District A A B B C C D COINUMERCIAL Commercial Retail, Bank„ Restaurant, Regional, Village Movie Theater A A A A B B C District, special COMMERCIAL Office Building, Research and Develop - INDUSTRIAL dent, Professional Offices, Citv Office A A A B B C D Building INSTITUTIONAL COINWERCIAL Amphitheater, Concert Hall Recreation LNSTITT TONAL Auditoritun Meeting Hall B B C C D D D Civic Center COMMERCIAL Children's Auutsenient Park, \liniature Recreation Golf Course, Go -curt Track, Equestriwi A A A B B D D Center, Sports Club CONI\MRCML Automobile Service Station, Auto General, Special Dealership, Manufacturing, A A A A B B B Warehousing, Wliolesale, Utilities NTDUSTP.IAL, INSTIrCiTIONAL IN'STITL'I70\AL Hospital, Church Library Schools' General Classroom 4 A B C C D D OPE q SPACE parks A A A B C D D OPS SPACE Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers A A A A B C C Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat AGRICULTURE Agriculture A A A A A A INTERPRETATION ZONE A Specified Lind use is satisfactory; based upon the assurnption that any buildings involved are of normal CLEARLY COMPATIBLE conventional construction without ariv special noise insulation requirements. ZONE B Newconstruction or development should be undertaken only of ter detailed analysis of the noise reduction NOR.\G1LLY COMPATIBLE requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction. with closed Windows and fresh air supply sy stems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. ZONE C New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If ncue construction or development NORMALLY INCOMPATIBLE does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design ZONE D New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE Source: J.J. Van Houten {r Associates CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE ELEDVIENT GENERAL PLAT' 17 NOVEMBER 20, 2013 Tustin Lofts Noise n 1 J r_ � The City of Tustin considers noise levels of up to 60 dB "clearly compatible" for residential use and levels of up to 65 dB to be "normally" compatible. Normally compatible requires that new development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Typically, conventional construction with closed windows and a fresh air supply system or air conditioning will suffice. An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use, including single-family dwelling units. Conventional construction practices, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning normally suffice. The City of Tustin noise ordinance limits the noise level generated on a property that can cross to a neighboring property, primarily to minimize any adverse impact adjoining residential uses. Ordinance limits generally apply to "stationary" sources such as mechanical equipment, manufacturing activities, or vehicles operating on private property. Control of on -road transportation noise is pre-empted from local control. Because the City of Tustin cannot regulate noise generation by the source (traffic), it regulates the pattern of land use exposed to such noise through the Noise Element of the General Plan. Section 4614, shown in Table 1, of the City of Tustin Municipal Code, provides noise ordinance limits which are stated in terms of a 30 -minute limit with allowable deviations from this 50th percentile standard. The louder the level becomes, the shorter the time becomes that it is allowed to occur. For example, the Lso is the level exceeded 50% of the measurement period of thirty minutes in an hour. The larger the deviation, the shorter the allowed duration up to a never -to - exceed 20 dB increase above the 50th percentile standard. The applicable requirement is a function of the time of day. This project is considered to be within Noise Zone 1 such that a Lso daytime standard of 55 dB and Lso nighttime of 50 dB is required. Residential development of the project parcel could place potential noise constraints upon the remaining commercial uses to the east and west. As subsequently discussed, this "new" constraint is not anticipated to be a significant source of impact on these businesses because the uses are not typically noise generating land uses that would create a conflict with the proposed residences. The City of Tustin limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. Construction activities that occur during allowable hours are exempt from noise standards. Tustin Lofts Noise Table 1 Tustin noise standards apply to all property within a designated noise zone as follows: Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 1 Residential 55 dB 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m 50 dB 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. 2 Commercial 60 dB anytime 3 Industrial 70 dB anytime 4 Churches, Hospitals Public Institutions 55 dB anytime 5 Mixed Use Properties 60 dB antime Source: Tustin Municipal Code Section 4614: EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any residential, public institutional, professional, commercial or industrial property, either within or without the City, to exceed the applicable noise standards: (a) For a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; (b) Plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; (c) Plus 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; (d) Plus 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (e) Plus 20 dB(A) for any period of time. . In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. Tustin Lofts Noise 1 1 BASELINE NOISE LEVELS Noise measurements were taken in order to document existing baseline levels in the area, with freeway traffic noise exposure being a critical concern for proposed units closest to I-5. On-site noise measurements were made on January 21-22, 2016, for 24+ hours to better isolate any possible noise constraint upon the lay -out of the proposed project. The location of each meter is shown in Figure 2 and the long-term measurement results are shown in Table 2. Meter locations were selected based on the proposed site plan, including where residences are planned in relation to the I-5 and surrounding streets and the proposed location of the community recreation building. One meter was placed at the cul-de-sac closest to I-5, and one meter was placed along the 61h Street project frontage at 420 W 6th Street. Both meters measured hourly average readings (Leq) which were then used to calculate the 24-hour weighted CNEL for comparison with City standards. Because of unique traffic patterns, i.e., rush hour congestion severely reducing travel speeds, the 24-hour noise pattern is disrupted from more typical suburban exposures. In particular, the noisiest hours of the day are 6-7 a.m., and 9 a.m. to noon. The ten -fold artificial weighting of pre -7 a.m. noise levels in the CNEL metric makes the 6-7 a.m. reading the most dominant measurement. A supplemental noise measurement was made on January 25, 2016, to further refine the site noise distribution and to confirm the repeatability of the 24-hour readings near I-5. Four 15 -minute increments were selected as follows (dB): Table 2 Long -Term Noise Readin s Location Leq Lmax Lmin Cul-de-sac at `B" St/I-5 68 74 62 24-hour reading)* 68 76 64 "B" St 1/2 way I-5/6th St 57 67** 56 Custom Cabinet Shop 67 72 58 Self -Storage W of Site 66 72 62 *at same hour as short-term **jet landing at JWA The freeway was directly visible without a wall from the self -storage lot west of the site. The speed of the traffic dramatically affects noise generation. This is evident in the noise measurements, which show the reduced noise levels during high traffic period when freeway speeds are the slowest. Since traffic noise models cannot readily replicate travel speed variations over a 24-hour period, the establishment of a measured calibration factor (model vs measurement) is critical in developing an accurate noise loading prediction. Tustin Lofts Noise Figure 2 ST=Short Term Meters LT=Long Term (24-hour) Meters Tustin Lofts Noise 1 1 1 1 1 Table 3 Modeling Results Noise Short Term (ST) Measured Noise Levels (dBA) 1:00 to 2:00 P.M. Tustin Lofts Noise Table 4 Long Term (LT) Noise Measurements Existing Hourly Leq's Time Interval Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 ST Meter 1 68 74 62 70 68 67 66 ST Meter 2 59 67 56 60 58 57 56 ST Meter 3 57 72 58 70 67 66 65 ST Meter 4 66 72 62 67 66 65 64 Tustin Lofts Noise Table 4 Long Term (LT) Noise Measurements Existing Hourly Leq's Time Interval Legs LT Meter 1 Legs LT Meter 2 14:00-15:00 68.4 61.8 15:00-16:00 67.3 60.8 16:00-17:00 66.4 63.5 17:00-18:00 64.6 61.8 18:00-19:00 64.1 64.7 19:00-20:00 66.6 59.3 20:00-21:00 68.3 59.5 21:00-22:00 67.7 60.0 22:00-23:00 67.6 56.6 23:00-24:00 66.6 57.2 0:00-1:00 64.5 49.5 1:00-2:00 62.8 47.8 2:00-3:00 61.7 47.3 3:00-4:00 62.2 46.8 4:00-5:00 65.1 51.0 5:00:6:00 68.1 52.3 6:00-7:00 69.0 54.8 7:00-8:00 68.3 61.7 8:00-9:00 68.2 61.8 9:00-10:00 69.1 59.7 10:00-11:00 69.3 65.8 11:00-12:00 69.0 61.9 12:00-13:00 68.4 61.4 13:00-14:00 67.9 61.4 Resultant CNEL Measurement Parameter Meter 1 Meter 2 24 -flour CNEL 73.1 63.1 NOISE IMPACTS NOISE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Noise impacts are considered significant if they result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c.. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Noise impacts are considered significant if they expose persons to levels in excess of standards established in local general plans or noise ordinances. Unless there is an exterior component to the proposed restaurant, exterior noise levels are not considered to be a factor in project development. The exterior noise standard for the City of Tustin multi -family residential uses is 65 dBA CNEL in usable outdoor space such as backyards, decks, patios, etc. If required, attenuation through setback and project perimeter barriers is anticipated to be used to reduce traffic noise to the 65 dBA CNEL goal. However, an inability to achieve this goal through the application of reasonably available mitigation measures could be considered a significant impact. Impacts may also be significant if they create either a substantial permanent or temporary increase. The term "substantial' is not quantified in CEQA guidelines. In most environmental analyses, "substantial" is taken to mean a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice, this is at least a +3 dB increase. Some agencies, such as Caltrans, require substantial increases to be +10 dB or more if noise standards are not exceeded by the increase. For purposes of this analysis, a +3 dB increase is considered a substantial increase. The following noise impacts due to project -related traffic would be considered significant: 1. If project traffic noise were to cause an increase by a perceptible amount (+3 dB CNEL) or expose receivers to levels exceeding city compatibility noise standards. 2. If future build -out noise levels were to expose on site sensitive receivers to levels exceeding compatibility standards of 65 dB CNEL exterior at any outdoor uses or 45 dB CNEL interior noise levels in any habitable space. Tustin Lofts Noise 10 1 1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE SIGNIFICANCE Temporary construction noise impacts will vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by demolition activities, then foundation work followed by construction and paving activities. Demolition and construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used which changes during the course of the project. Construction noise tends to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by demolition and/or earth -moving sources and later for finish construction. Figure 3 shows the typical range of construction activity noise generation as a function of equipment used in various building phases. The earth -moving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Spherically radiating point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance, or about 20 dB in 500 feet of propagation. The loudest earth -moving noise sources may therefore sometimes be detectable above the local background beyond 1,000 feet from the construction area. An impact radius of 1,000 feet or more pre -supposes a clear line -of -sight and no other machinery or equipment noise that would mask project construction noise. With buildings and other barriers to interrupt line -of -sight conditions, the potential "noise envelope" around individual construction sites is reduced. Construction noise impacts are, therefore, somewhat less than that predicted under idealized input conditions. As discussed, the City's Municipal Code limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. The Municipal Code Section 4617 states that noise associated with construction is exempt from the noise standards if the allowable hours be limited to the daytime. This limitation of construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. would be effective since it would prohibit construction noise during the hours when people normally sleep and would prohibit construction noise during the early morning and evening when people are typically within their home and more sensitive to noise effects. In addition, noise levels would be temporary and intermittent and comply with time of day requirements. The closest sensitive uses are the homes across 6t' Street. These homes are 75 feet from the closest project perimeter. Although construction noise impacts may be noticeable at the adjacent residences and possibly viewed as a temporary nuisance, impacts would be less than significant. Tustin Lofts Noise 11 Figure 3 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet 70 80 90 100 Compactors (Rollers) Front Loaders CD c Backhoes Tractors UJ w Scrapers, Graders 2 E Pavers U E Trucks m c Concrete Mixers c Concrete Pumps a Cranes (Movable) E 2 Cranes (Derrick) O Or Pumps � ca Q Generators Compressors Pneumatic Wrenches c CL a. Jack Hammers and Rock Drills E '= - Cr w Pile Drivers (Peaks) Vibrator 0 Saws Source. EPA PB 246717, Em nonmentai Proteclio n Agency, December 33,1971,'Noise from Construe ion Equiprtent and Operations.' Tustin Lofts Noise 12 1 1 1 1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY VIBRATION Construction activities generate ground -borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground -borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building because structures amplify groundborne vibration. Within the "soft" sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped out. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors (FTA 2006). Structural Vibration Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures. Because vibration is typically _not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance. A vibration descriptor commonly used to determine structural damage is the peak particle velocity (ppv) which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, usually measured in in/sec. The range of such vibration is as follows in Table 3: Human Severe Table 3 D to Transient Vibration Over the years, numerous vibration criteria and standards have organizations, and governmental agencies. There are no Administration standards for vibration. 0.90 0.24 0.03 Manual, 2013. been suggested by researchers, Caltrans or Federal Highway According to Caltrans, the threshold for structural vibration damage for modern structures are 0.5 in/sec for intermittent sources, which include impact pile drivers, pogo -stick compactors, crack -and -seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1990) identifies maximum vibration levels for preventing damage to structures from intermittent construction or maintenance activities for residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls to be 0.4-0.5 in/see. The damage threshold criterion of 0.2 in/sec is appropriate for fragile buildings. To be conservative, for the purpose of this analysis and because structures across 6ffi Street are located in a historic district, the 0.2 in/sec damage threshold for older fragile buildings Tustin Lofts Noise 13 is used. Below this level there is virtually no risk of building damage. Table 4 shows that the predicted vibration levels generated by construction equipment. Table 4 Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction PPVPPV X PPV PPV PPV E, m ment�� at 75 ft (m/sec) 9 , P at 25ft Cm/sec) at 50 ft (in/sec) rat 60�ft�(n/sec) at100 ft(n/sec) , za - . - a Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.000 Source: FHWA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment The closest sensitive uses are approximately 75 feet from the closest project perimeter, across 6u' Street. Table 4 shows that the predicted vibration levels generated by construction equipment would be 0.024 in/sec, which is well below levels that could create structural damage in fragile buildings (i.e., 0.2 in/sec). Though not a sensitive use, portions of the existing self -storage facility are 25 feet from the closest demolition activities. The appropriate vibration threshold for this use would be 0.4-0.5 in/sec. However, even a large bulldozer will not exceed this threshold. In addition, vibration from traffic along the adjacent I-5 freeway would mask most project construction activity. Human Annoyance Ground -borne vibration related to human annoyance is generally related to velocity levels expressed in decibel notation (VdB), the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows: 65 VdB - threshold of human perception 72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events 80 Vd13 - annoyance due to infrequent events 100 VdB - minor cosmetic damage Note: "Frequent events" is defined as more than 70 events per day. "Infrequent events" is defined as fewer than 70 events per day. To determine potential impacts of the project's construction activities, estimates of vibration levels induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented in Table 5. 1 Tustin Lofts Noise 14 1 Table 5 Approximate Vibration Levels Induced by Construction Eauinment * (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006) The on-site construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration is a large bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 81 VdB at 50 feet from the source. By 75 feet, the distance to residences across 6ch Street, the vibration level dissipates to 78 VdB which is below the damage threshold but could be within the threshold of human perception. However, traffic from the I-5 and 60' Street would help mask project vibration noise. Additionally, heavy equipment is mobile and would only operate at the project perimeter for a short period of time. Vibration impacts are less than significant PROJECT -RELATED VEHICULAR NOISE IMPACTS Long-term noise concerns from the development of residential uses at the project site center primarily on mobile source emissions on project area roadways. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108). The model calculates the Leq noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site-specific traffic volumes, distances, roadway speeds, or noise barriers. The typical Orange County day -night travel percentages and auto -truck vehicle mixes is then applied to convert one-hour Leq levels to a weighted 24-hour CNEL. Table 6 summarizes the calculated 24-hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along project adjacent roadway segments. Two time frames were evaluated; existing conditions with and without project, and year 2035 with and without project. The noise analysis utilized data from the project traffic analysis prepared for this project. No segments will exceed the +3 dB threshold. The largest project -related noise increases are on South B Street, south of 6th Street. These noise increases occur at the project's north and south driveway, and will not impact any existing sensitive use. In addition, even with the 2035 plus project scenario, noise levels are less than 53 dB CNEL, well within the recommended residential noise compatibility threshold. Noise from the adjacent freeway will also mask this noise impact. Several segments are predicted to experience a noise decrease because the project generates fewer trips during peak traffic hours. Therefore, project traffic noise impacts are considered to be less - than -significant. Tustin Lofts Noise 15 Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)* Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 75 feet 100 feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 78 75 Loaded Truck 1 86 80 77 74 Jackhammer 79 73 69 67 Small Bulldozer 58 1 52 1 43 1 46 * (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006) The on-site construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration is a large bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 81 VdB at 50 feet from the source. By 75 feet, the distance to residences across 6ch Street, the vibration level dissipates to 78 VdB which is below the damage threshold but could be within the threshold of human perception. However, traffic from the I-5 and 60' Street would help mask project vibration noise. Additionally, heavy equipment is mobile and would only operate at the project perimeter for a short period of time. Vibration impacts are less than significant PROJECT -RELATED VEHICULAR NOISE IMPACTS Long-term noise concerns from the development of residential uses at the project site center primarily on mobile source emissions on project area roadways. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108). The model calculates the Leq noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site-specific traffic volumes, distances, roadway speeds, or noise barriers. The typical Orange County day -night travel percentages and auto -truck vehicle mixes is then applied to convert one-hour Leq levels to a weighted 24-hour CNEL. Table 6 summarizes the calculated 24-hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along project adjacent roadway segments. Two time frames were evaluated; existing conditions with and without project, and year 2035 with and without project. The noise analysis utilized data from the project traffic analysis prepared for this project. No segments will exceed the +3 dB threshold. The largest project -related noise increases are on South B Street, south of 6th Street. These noise increases occur at the project's north and south driveway, and will not impact any existing sensitive use. In addition, even with the 2035 plus project scenario, noise levels are less than 53 dB CNEL, well within the recommended residential noise compatibility threshold. Noise from the adjacent freeway will also mask this noise impact. Several segments are predicted to experience a noise decrease because the project generates fewer trips during peak traffic hours. Therefore, project traffic noise impacts are considered to be less - than -significant. Tustin Lofts Noise 15 Table 6 Near -Term Traffic Noise Impact Analysis WNF.T, in dRA at 50 feet from Centerline) Roadway Segment Existing Existing + Project 2035 2035+ Project Pacific Main -6th 53.6 53.4 53.6 53.6 S of 6th 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 South B/ N of Main 55.3 55.2 55.3 55.3 Main -6th 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.3 6th -N Driveway 49.7 52.0 49.7 52.0 N Drivewa -S Driveway 49.7 52.3 49.7 5 2. 31 Main St/ W of Pacific 62.5 62.5 64.2 64.2 Pacific -South B 62.1 62.1 64.0 64.0 E of B 62.1 62.1 63.7 63.7 El Camino Real/ N of 6th 65.3 65.3 65.3 65.3 S of 6th 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 6th/ W 'of Pacific 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 E of Pacific 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 W of W Driveway 60.2 60.2 60.2 60.2 W Driveway -Center Drive 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.6 E of Center Drive 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.6 W of East Drive 54.9 53.5 54.9 53.6 E of East Drive 54.9 53.6 54.9 53.9 W of South B 55.2 47.9 55.2 48.6 E of South B 56.8 54.3 56.8 54.3 W of El Camino Real 57.7 57.5 57.7 57.6 E of El Camino Real 54.0 53.6 54.0 53.6 W of Newport 5T6 55.4 57.6 55.9 Newport/ N of 6th 69.2 69.2 69.4 69.4 S of 6th 69.3 69.1 69.5 69.3 N of El Camino Real 69.4 69.3 69.4 69.4 El Camino Real -I-5 NB Ramp 70.1 70.0 70.6 70.6 I-5 NB Ramp -1-5 SB Ramp 69.9 69.9 71.1 71.1 S of SB Ramp 69.7 69.7 70.5 70.5 Tustin Lofts Noise 16 1 1 1 1 Table 6 (continued) Project -Related Noise Impact (CNEL in dBA at 50 feet from Centerline) Roadway Segment Existing 2035 Pacific Main -6th -0.2 0.0 S of 6th 0.0 0.0 South B/ N of Main -0.1 0.0 Main -6th 0.0 0.2 6th -N Driveway -2.3 2.3 N Drivewa -S Driveway 2.6 2.6 Main St/ W of Pacific 0.0 0.0 Pacific -South B 0.0 0.0 E of B 0.0 0.0 El Camino Real/ N of 6th 0.0 0.0 S of 6th 0.0 0.0 6th/ W of Pacific 0.0 0.0 E of Pacific 0.0 0.0 W of W Driveway 0.0 0.0 W Driveway -Center Drive 0.0 0.0 E of Center Drive 0.0 0.0 W of East Drive -1.4 -1.3 E of East Drive -1.3 -1.0 W of South B -7.3 -6.6 E of South B -2.5 -2.5 W of El Camino Real -0.2 -0.2 E of El Camino Real -0.4 -0.4 W of Newport -2.2 -1.7 Newport/ N of 6th 0.0 0.0 S of 6th -0.2 -0.2 N of El Camino Real -0.1 0.0 El Camino Real -I-5 NB Ram -0.1 0.0 I-5 NB Ramp -1-5 SB Ramp 0.0 0.0 S of SB Ramp 0.0 0.0 Tustin Lofts Noise 17 ON-SITE NOISE EXPOSURE Freeway traffic noise exposure is the primary constraint for proposed units closest to I-5. The City of Tustin acceptable noise/land use compatibility standard for exterior noise exposure in back yards, patios, pools, spas, common recreation areas is 65 dB CNEL. The noise contours shown in the Noise Element of the General Plan demonstrate that this level is substantially exceeded close to I-5 (Figure N-1, General Plan, 2012). However, the scale of this figure (in appendix) does not allow for precise resolution of noise contour details at a project level. Modeled traffic volumes are published by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The freeway was modeled with 279,000 vehicles per day of which 8,554 are heavy duty trucks. Modeling output is provided in the appendix. Because of unique travel behavior features observed from on-site measurements, the standard noise prediction model was compared to measurement data and was used to evaluate future noise exposures, including the effects of the existing K -rail on the freeway side and the retaining wall on the project site. The hourly on-site measurement of 69 dB Leq was 4 dB quieter than the model prediction for the freeway frontage. However, the calculated 24-hour CNEL of 73 dB was 4 dB higher than even the noisiest hour of the day. These calibration factors allow for the use of the noise prediction model to calculate future project site noise exposure even with a complicated pattern of traffic geometry and hourly speed distributions. Model PeakModel Leq to CNEL Over Growth Net CNEL Hour dB Predicts Factor Ground Floor 73 +4 -4 +1 74 dB 2nd/3`d Floor 78 +4 -4 +1 79 dB The analysis suggests that ground floor residential exposure would be considered "normally incompatible" with freeway noise and that upstairs exposure would be "clearly incompatible" for residential use if there were any planned outdoor recreational uses within the nose impact zone. However, no rear yards, patios or balconies with a depth of 6 feet or more are planned within this zone (General Plan Table N-3, 2012). The basic freeway noise constraint is that the code -mandated interior standard of 45 dB CNEL must be met. A 20 -foot noise wall along the project's property line with I-5 freeway would be constructed within the project property line to reduce noise impacts. The freeway is sloped such that the southeast end of the project site is 9.5 feet below freeway grade, and 4 -foot below freeway grade at the northwest end. Thus, at project grade, a 20 -foot noise wall would provide 10.5 feet of effective shielding along the southern perimeter. At the northwest end of the site, a 20 -foot wall would provide 16 - feet of noise protection. On-site buildings are planned to be three levels. Noise at each level was calculated separately, as ground floor receptors would experience the maximum benefit of a noise wall and third story receptors receiving the least. I-5 traffic was modeled separately for the northbound and southbound lanes. The following summarizes the results of noise modeling for the southernmost and northernmost project areas Tustin Lofts Noise 18 1 1 (worst and best case). To account for future area growth, a 1 dB factor was added to existing noise levels. Table 7 Effective 10.5 -Foot Wall (9.5 -feet Below Grade) Southern Area Receptor Noise from I- Noise from I- Combined Build -Out Height (ft) 5 Northbound 5 Southbound North and Noise Level Lanes Lanes Southbound (dB CNEL) dB CNEL dB CNEL dB CNEL Ground Level 5 64.1 62.3 66.2 67.2 2nd Story 15 66.8 65.8 69.3 70.3 3`d Story 25 72.4 71.7 75.1 76.1 Table 8 Effective 16 -Foot Wall (4 -feet Below Grade) Northern Area Receptor Noise from I- Noise from I- Combined Build -Out Height (ft) 5 Northbound 5 Southbound North and Noise Level Lanes Lanes Southbound (dB CNEL) dB CNEL dB CNEL dB CNEL Ground Level 5 62.7 61.5 65.2 66.2 2nd Story 15 64.8 64.5 67.7 68.7 3rd Story 25 68.0 71.1 72.8 73.8 With a 20 -foot sound wall, structural noise attenuation features at units closest to the freeway must be able to achieve a noise level reduction (NLR) of 25 dB at the ground floor and second story units and 35 dB at third story units. The entire project will need to meet an NLR of 25 dB at all units. Achieving an NLR of 25 dB is relatively easy with the mandatory dual -paned windows and other California Building Code requirements. A NLR of 35 dB requires more substantial noise protection. Generic acoustical packages for these noise protection targets are included in Appendix B. These structural noise attenuation features effectively reduce the loudest noise shown on Tables 7 and 8, and would result in interior noise levels in the range of 38.8 to 41.1 dB CNEL, which are within the City's 45 dB CNEL residential interior noise standard. Along the 6th Street project frontage, the measured CNEL was 63 dB. Although such a level is not a constraint on residential development and associated outdoor recreational uses, any residential use along 6th Street is considered "noise impacted" by virtue of exceeding the 60 dB CNEL noise threshold. Confirmation of the ability to meet the 45 dB CNEL interior standard is required for any residential uses in a noise impacted area. Standard building practice, along with the option to close windows will easily meet this requirement. A window closure option requires provision of supplemental ventilation for any affected rooms. Tustin Lofts Noise 19 Conversion of light industrial uses to residences could create a noise constraint on remaining office and light industrial uses east and west of the project site. Whereas the residual uses currently must meet Noise Zone 2 or 3 standards relative to existing project site uses, the proposed development would become a Noise Zone 1 development, which could impose noise constraints on the 'self - storage use. However, the self -storage facility to the west creates negligible noise levels that would not be impacted by the existing residential use. Furthermore, background noise, such as that generated I-5 traffic would mask noise coming from the self- storage facility. Commercial uses to the east (glass shop, mechanical equipment, repair, etc.) have their offices facing B Street while the rear roll -up doors are shielded by the buildings themselves. The insurance agency and the church on the east side of B Street across the street from the project site are not significant noise generators of concern for the residential use. Any residential proximity noise constraint is further not a new limitation to the adjacent uses because the single family homes on the north side of west 6' Street are already Noise Zone 1. Given the existing noise environment that is dominated by the I-5 freeway, the current noise constraints placed on non-residential uses on the project site and adjacent properties due to the existing single family homes, and the types of residual off-site uses which are not significant noise generators, noise conflicts between the existing non-residential uses that would remain on adjacent properties after the project is built and the proposed project would not be anticipated. 1 Tustin Lofts Noise 20 1 SUMMARY AND MITIGATION The project noise impact study indicates a less -than -significant noise impact from project -related traffic on project vicinity receptors. Project -related traffic will not substantially worsen traffic noise levels on any roadway and many roadways will experience a decrease in traffic noise. Exterior recreational noise standards would only apply if there were any planned outdoor recreational uses within the noise impact zone. However, no rear yards, patios or balconies with a depth of 6 feet or more are planned in this area. The planned community recreation area is sufficiently screened by the proposed buildings and the planned freeway wall to reduce the noise levels to below the maximum exterior standard.. The interior noise standard is 45 dB CNEL. A sound minimum 20 -foot sound wall will be provided along the project's boundary with the freeway (Interstate 5). Structural noise attenuation features at units closest to the freeway must be able to achieve a noise level reduction (NLR) of 25 dB at the ground floor and second story units, and 35 dB at third story units closest to I-5. The entire project will need to meet an NLR of 25 dB at all units. Documentation of intra -unit sound isolation in party wall or floor/ceiling assemblies shall be included in a final acoustical report required as part of plan check. Short-term construction noise intrusion will be limited by conditions on construction permits requiring compliance with the City of Tustin Ordinance. The allowed hours of construction are of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is not permitted on any national holiday or on any Sunday. Tustin Lofts Noise 21 ON-SITE NOISE EXPOSURE Appendix A 1. Figure N-1 from General Plan 2. Noise Modeling Results First Story Third Story 3. Noise Wall Modeling Results Tustin Lofts Noise 1 C 1 I I I Figure N-1 from General Plan t.:� City of Tustin sphere of Iutlurnce Planning Area SOURCE: I.J. Van Houtanuid Associates, July 1993 NOTE: Noise Contours depicted within MCAS Tustin Specific. Plan. Inlay change based on final roadway alignment selected. Figure N- I TUSTIN Future (2010) Communiry Noise Equivalent Level JCNEL) Contours for the GENERAL PLAN Tustin Planning Area Tustin Lofts Noise Short Term ST Measured Noise Levels (dBA) 1:00 to 2:00 P.M. Long Term (LT) Noise Measurements Existing Hourly Leq's Time Interval Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 ST Meter 1 68 74 62 70 68 67 66 ST Meter 2 59 67 56 60 58 57 56 ST Meter 3 67 72 58 70 67 66 65 ST Meter 4 66 72 62 67 66 65 64 Long Term (LT) Noise Measurements Existing Hourly Leq's Time Interval Leqs LT Meter 1 Leqs LT Meter 3 14:00-15:00 68.4 61.8 15:00-16:00 67.3 60.8 16:00-17:00 66.4 63.5 17:00-18:00 64.6 61.8 18:00-19:00 64.1 64.7 19:00-20:00 66.6 59.3 20:00-21:00 68.3 59.5 21:00-22:00 67.7 60.0 22:00-23:00 67.6 56.6 23:00-24:00 66.6 57.2 0:00-1:00 64.5 49.5 1:00-2:00 62.8 47.8 2:00-3:00 61.7 47.3 3:00-4:00 62.2 46.8 4:00-5:00 65.1 51.0 5:00:6:00 68.1 52.3 6:00-7:00 69.0 54.8 7:00-8:00 68.3 61.7 8:00-9:00 68.2 61.8 9:00-10:00 69.1 59.7 10:00-11:00 69.3 65.8 11:00-12:00 69.0 61.9 12:00-13:00 68.4 61.4 13:00-14:00 67.9 61.4 Resultant CNEL Measurement Parameter Meter 1 Meter 3 24 -Hour CNEL 73.1 63.1 Tustin Lofts Noise -1 1 1 Distance to Receiver Distance to Wall Wall Base Height Receiver Pad Height Height of Receiver Hard or Soft Site Height of Wall Vehicle Height Net Receiver Height Net Wall Height Direct LOS Height Effective Wall Height Direct Distance (CD) Indirect Distance (CI) Difference (D) Fresnel Adjusted Reduction (NLR) Modeling Example The Lofts Far Lane 195 195.00 197.61 197.34 125 2.333 2.551 Type -4 12.60 Auto -4 79.90 Medium Trucks 5 Day Evening Heavy Trucks Hard -5.91 -5.91 -5.91 71.89 20 -5.91 63.49 -5.91 -5.91 Auto Med Truck Hvy Truck Type 0 2.3 8 Auto 1 -1.3 -7 Medium Trucks 16.00 13.70 8.00 Heavy Trucks 0.64 -0.83 -4.49 16.00 13.70 8.00 195.00 195.00 197.61 197.34 2.606 2.333 2.551 2.283 12.90 12.60 50 ft Reference SPL Day Evening Night CNEL 77.80 69.40 74.80 79.90 Attenuated SPL Day Evening Night CNEL -5.91 -5.91 -5.91 71.89 -5.91 -5.91 -5.91 63.49 -5.91 -5.91 -5.91 68.89 =- -1.14 -1.14 -1.14 74.05 Resulting Noise Levels Medium Heavy 24-hour 195.13.; . Auto Truck Truck CNEL 196.84 Total Attenuated Noise 58.99 50.89 57.09 61.54 1.719 1.683 11.79 20 15 iWall 10 - r \ kivy_Truck,i � 0 Receiver 150 200 2 0 -5 Distance (ft) Tustin Lofts Noise 80.00 75.00 M 70.00 D 65.00 J W V 60.00 55.00 50.00 0 5 10 15 Wall Height (ft) The Lofts Near Lane Distance to Receiver 125 50 ft Reference SPL Distance to Wall 55 Type Day Evening Night CNEL Wall Base Height -4 Auto 77.80 Receiver Pad Height -4 Medium Trucks 69.40 Height of Receiver 5 Heavy Trucks 74.80 Hard or Soft Site hard 79.90 Height of Wall 20 Attenuated SPL Med Hvy Auto Truck Truck Type Day Evening Night CNEL Vehicle Height 0 2.3 8 Auto -3.98 -3.98 -3.98 73.82 Net Receiver Height 1 -1.3 -7 Medium Trucks --3.98 -3.98 -3.98 65.42 Net Wall Height 16.00 13.70 8.00 Heavy Trucks -3.99 -3.99 -3.99 70.81 Direct LOS Height 0.44 -0.57 -3.08 0.79 0.79 0.79 75.98 Effective Wall Height 16.00 13.70 8.00 Resulting Noise Levels Medium Heavy 24-hour Direct Distance (CD) 125.00 125.01 125.20 Auto Truck Truck CNEL Indirect Distance (CI) 128.87 128.27 127.17 Total Attenuated Noise 59.81 51.89 58.66 62.66 Difference (D) 3.865 3.263 1.972 Fresnel Adjusted 3.783 3.193 1.930 Reduction (NLR) 14.01 13.53 12.15 20 15 f �/ Wall E10 '• '' ' Hvy, T.ryek 0 Receiv r 50 100 1 0 -5 Distance (ft) Tustin Lofts Noise 80.00 75.00 Z 70.00 m 65.00 LLI v 60.00 55.00 50.00 0 5 10 15 Wall Height (ft) 1 1 1 The Lofts Noise Appendix B NEW CONSTRUCTION ACOUSTICAL DESIGN GUIDE (Noise level reduction (NLR) acoustical packages) _WleiRdpot Vk03-1:6 NEWCONSTRUCTION ACOUSTICAL, DESIGN GUIDE, Pfepared For CITY Or HIGH POINT 211. S. Hamilton,Stredt HighRoint, NC .2-7-261. :Prepardd, 6y C-lin-t:MorroW 66rEhrlich 'y h rl c Vi 1 R6 m . AA. b,46 WyleAc oustics Group. WY,LE LABORATORIES 200 1 1 Jefferson .Davis Highway Suite 701 Amirigton,'-Virginia 22202 WN 47764) Mjarch200. 3 Acoustical Guide 1.0 Introduction-..... 1-1 J '. ,I Background ~.~.... ................................... _~^_....__...~-~.......................... 1-1 1.2 HOW toJJsOThis Guide ....... ................ ........................................... .................... 14 2.1 QnDs.,Used |nAcoustics .... i ................................................_~_..~.-.^~.,~^~...~.,.....~2-4 2.2 ,...._~",~^~.^..^^-`.,-`-'^"~^~~~~~^-^ ~°~^~~~~'"^-~-'~^~~'2-3 23 Sound lmsu>ath»ntoReduce Noise .......................... _.^=............................... ............ 2-4 3.0 Building Elements............................... .......................................... 3-1 ' 3.1 EvaluatihoConstruction Materi8Lsand Methods .;................... *................... .................. 3 ^~~....-,^..~._._^~-.--.-+^_~`~_^~_"~.-~,~���� -`- _-r-''-~~'-~~-^'`-,,^~"~^',-~','~,._^'^--r'^`'^_---~^`~`'r,^°~~''-'^ 3.4 Doors ..............................._.~.~,...~~~._'_.~.~_._..,__'.-.,_,.........,..~__~_3-* 3.5 Walls and Ceilings ................... .................................................................................. 3�7 3.7Basements,and Crawl Spaces ........ ................ � �.,8 Ventilation .^.~+~.~-~~*............... ,~^~°~._,"^3-11' 4.0 Material Selection Chart .......... .................................. ,~..,...�.._.~.�~ 5,0 Umitations .__--.~~....,~~~~-.-^^~.-^~..,._/_._..^-..,-~...-.'+~.^~~,,~~^`~-..~-°` Text,. ..............................................,..~_._..~_,��,".~.,Ar1 Appendix A Noise Level Redu�bon ............ ..... .... A"1 Appendix'_� � _'-............................... '.-,_._,-~ ~.d.p~..~.^~~'~.~~.^^~~.~~~~. Testing Laboratories .~~_^`^..^~~-,~.-°.,..`^C-4 Appendix0, Gkogsary....°,_~....^,,_....,,._~,..,~..,.....~..,-,.~-~..._.~.,~..~.~,b-1 ��� WR 03-20 Neai Cbristruction Acoustical Design Guide, Marck-2663; 1 List of F gures Figure ,Na: 2-1; Pictorial Representation of'5ound Transmission Through Built': Construction....... .,;.. .....2-5 2 2 Sound-Transmission'Paths;.Into- Dwelling;Intetiors.�.,.. ..... ..2-6 3-1 TyplcaG.Aluminum Dual !WindowDetail......................... ..::»............. ..... _... . .....3-3 3-2, Constructiaff=Features of,Acoust ca[ Window ......:............ ......:................... . ....-.. ,......3-3 3-3:. Sliding Glass Dooe DetaH:...... ....:..:::...............,.............. .................,............ .. .3-6 374- Staggered ,Wood Stud -.Construction :.........:...........:........, .,........,......... ..........,.... 3-8 3-5 Built-in-�Place Gabie.Baffie: .... .. ..,.,..,. 3-& Corited1ling, Ndise Entering Thraugh_'Ducts In AtticaSpace....................;.....;... ..... :..: 3-� List of Tables Table W. 2-I Typical',STC Ratings;for•Common Construction Elements;:... ...... ......... ..2.8 3 1 AcousticalWa11 Designs, and STCRatings....... .. ... . 3-9 3-2 ..Material Thickness -and R4alue fdr:Common Insulat'rtg 1 Residences located near'airports experience many" economic and transportation benefits of thel ,faciIty, but are Unfortunately exposed to signiflcantamounts ,otalecraft noise'.. However, using. proper construction techniques and materials, mlnimizes='the impact, of aircraft noise -and reduces interference with regular indoor activlties�.. The High. Point internationalAirport has developed tills New,Construction: Acoustical design Guide -to assist. builders,- planning officials, building inspectors, �and homeowners, in ipratkn ncorp g,specific,noise level reduction features. into the-desions:ofnewhomes. These, features: will belp, to.:ensqre that;. new,, homes in the Airport vicinity provide an,, adequate noise level reduction to protect occupants. from undesirable noise impacts. For homes located In areas with high noise levels, standard building methods,, even those that -.are designed for thermal efficie'-ficy, are normally inadequate to protect inhabitants from external noise. For this reason, building design and construction methods. 'm1a'y,ha`v-e to be � modified for nolse-sensitiV&,roomSj such as bedrooms; living" and family -rooms. These spaces are referred to, as the habitable rooms, in a house. 'Standard design and, construction methods can typically, be. used for non -habitable rooms, such as:.garag.esj mo.drooms, -and' breezeways, , unless they ,o pen.,dire ctly, to habitable I l'rooms without interior doors in between the rooms. This Design Guide' provides recommendations for the design,, of" dwelling's" in the,,vj,cjnity.:, of the :a airport that may be constructed in thefuture. Itis-,meatlt10 be used in,conionctionwitO a noise overlay zone that Wyle Laboratories, has devel6ped for the 'Planningc,grid, Development pment Department of the City of High Point., This Guide, was developed f r new, homes; different materials and "techniques. would be appropriate when renovating housetjo achieve the noise level reduction goals. Construction guidelines are presented f6r.'ffie-nolisiall level -reductions (NLRB) of 2.5, 30, and -35 decibels. 2. How to Use this Guide This guide has'been developed to be used by a variety of different professionals, -.as: well as Ely Interested homeowners. This guide is recommended for the following peqpile:. • Planning Officials • PlanReviewers • Building, Inspectors • Builders 0 Homebuyers/Homeowners WR,03-10, New tonstructlon.AcckusMcal DeslgmGulde March"200 - 3: SectId.fi.s.2XTkrough 3 The main design guide sections include a brief overview of sound ,transmission: paths into a .home- a: discussion of basic design principles, and subsections for each building element .including walls, windows;_ ­_ .- doors,ceilings,,_attics, floors, basements, crawlspaces, and ventilation -systems. :The building- elementsubsections include text, tables; and design det.a,ii.dr.ja,w,ir)gsto,.i-llustrate v Opus,options for noise control. Sectlon4o'0 Specific design modifications', are presented- in -a' s6liktlon chart. De.si ns't-hat achieve noise level reductions (NLR) of 2.5, 30 and 35 dB are liste8.' The table in Section 4.0 tells the .sound ratings of building ,materials that are needed -to achieve the NLR design goals. Section 5. U 'This, section discuss I es some of -the assumptions, used in developing the proposed design methods, as well as factors that would affect the accuracy of NLR predictions. ,Appendix t - of The first append[k provides a summary, -design and construction methods necessary to ,.achieve NLRB o.f'.25, 30, and 35 dB. Once the reader is familiar with this'Gulde, Appendix A can be -used as a stancf=alone.reference ifCimplementing the designs. Appendices,13 and C will be useful to builders, as they provide. information on many acoustical, Product ,manufacturers,:.And certified test,laboratories:.. Appendix,,D is a glossary that will' -b -usefulto all', parties. This.Guide seeks to provide. clear, unambiguous direction that is: practical and' can be, implemented with, minimum additional cost. However, construction quality is- especially Amportant.for'.maintaining. the acoustical integrity of a,design. For example,. even a good -Window, if not, installed properly, will allow -asign"ificant amount of noise into the building. High-quality construction standards are absolutely essential for these techniques to work 'efi,ectively. The design packages ib'Seictl'on 4.0 -and. Appendix A address typical home sizes, 'and styles::. The -noise- analysis used here makes assumptions about the number of exterior doors and the size of the windows :with respect to the floor area. Unusual homes may require more specialized analysis- to ensure compliance. For .example, very small rooms with normal windows have a larger window -to -floor space, ratio and may allow more nolseAntrusion than. average sized rooms. Similarly, rooms with very large windows ora room with several windows and exterior doors may also allow more noise.to enter. Unusually large windows' would require better acoustical performance -than is indicated in this report, in "orderIo meet, 'the noise level reduction goals. The .use of "cathedral ceilings is strongly, discouraged for homes exposed to aircraft noise because the attic normally acts as a noisebuffer. Conversely, homes I with large wrap-aroun.d: porches may provide shielding from noise that the -Gulde 'will not anticipate. For these reasons,, homes. with unique, features: or With, I 1-4 VvA.6 . a 1 wAe.. W11 03-10,,,- 140%4 COnstr.,uctio,h,,Acoustical,-Desigii,Gtiide Mardi,,2003 di'mensicin's :that differ significantly feom the average may require, the services of an k,,,, acoustics consultant or acoustics-knoWledgea6le: architect in order, to, ensure.adequAte noise A reduction. uals differ in their response. to noise. In .an aircraft ,no.ise7affected . neighborhood., a Individuals number, ot,re.sidents are vee ,.annoyed by aircraft overfli6h"tsi.;while.,,qL.iite a" l'bW others are nal. If properly implem.entedi.-the recommehdationt,,in this, -,Guide Wfil-reduce noise inside the home to. levels that most people will Find =acteptbble,., -Th6_.aifblanias will still be discernible; sound insulation is not sound eliminatJon. Peopjei" will know that a plane is passing overhead but,, with the techniques. outlined in this, Guide, the noise should not be so loud. that it interferes With normal daily indoor actfviilos. Those indvidu6ls, hoWevbr; wh6, are.t most sp.p Neverthelgss, the number.of sensitive to none;. may continue, to be, , h6it I y reduced by the people who perceive. unacceptable indoor e evdls can. be signint6ilti, use of proper construction techniques. a 1 wAe.. WR -03-10 New constetecitonmAcoustical Desion,Gul-de March, 2003r. 2.0Nbise .Coantroi Basics A "nu mber of different metrics:. (measures) have been ,developed to- express various -aspects of"acoustics'. It is important to understand -several of them in order'to make the best use of 'alis: Guide: Aircraft :noise is generally"expressed lin terms fof its A -weighted sdund level; In units called "decibel's:" Strictly speaking; the decibel" unit should be. abbreviated. only by "di3" However, For, clarity "dBA" ;and "'dB(A)° are .often used to highlight the fact that the sound level Measurement has- een A -weighted (this4eighting system is described below). The;;noise=..exposure,_in areas around airports, is expressed in terms of `the.Day-Night-Average- Sound Level, which -is abbreviated by "DNL" in text. and "Ldn" in equations. DNL 'is a measure of`th'e average A -weighted sound level of all -aircraft flights, occurring in 6,24 -hour period' wiith .nighttime operations being counted more heavily as described below: The. unit: oFDNL is .also-the>decibel. The,-sound'`insulation properties.:of;build'a construction materials are described by'Sound Transmiss can "Los's (TL). or Sound Transmission Class. ;(STT.. These measures ;of sound ` insulation are -also described below. A Wei heed -:Sound Level. - ' _ .- . The two- most obvious characteristics of sound are !Duel and frequency. Level is essentiaify a measure�of loudness that refers• to how; much. energy ar power a sound has when .we ,hear it. Frequency is essentially a measure of'pitch. A deep voiced baritone singer: has a. lower frequency (or pitch):than a soprano voice,though they, may be equally; loud„ Hertz (abbreviated 3Hz), s. -the unit used :to. indicate: frequency and is equal to the number oftsound. waves (cycles) per second. For reference, middle C on "a piano has a .frequency of.exactly 256: Hz. The man ear can detect:sound. frequencies ;ranging from."about, 20 Hz to about. 15,'000 Hz�Feo le do not hear all sounds over this- wide range of frequencies equally R Well, 'Tile human ear,is most sensitive to;, ou'nds.in'the 1000 to 6000 -Hz range. In.orcler to r`eflect`the.differences in hearing sensitivity to..different- frequencies, :sounds are usually described in terms of A -weighted sound levels. When a sound is A -weighted, sound', levels measured in the 1000 to 6000 Hz frequency range are increased by a specified amount .toy account for the 'fact that the: ear perceives "them 'as louder compared to other frequencies. Similarly, sound levels measured at frequencies outside this range.are.reduced because the,ear'ls less sensitive, in. those regions. 1 WR 03-10 New Cbristrot-fion Acoustical, Design Guide= mamh 2063 Aircraft ' noise exposure In a. community is usually described in -terms of noise contour maps. These 'Indicate- bands or zones around airfields where, the average noise level can be expected to fall within the ranges specified by the contour ''lines. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) states that- areas with a noise exposure of"DNL 65 dB. and higher are signifcantly"'Imp4cted by noise., Most noise: maps�shdw'contour levels of DNL 65 013, and above in -,S,dB:incremerits. The acoustic metric used is the Day -Night Average Sound Level (PNL or Ldn ).. This is P cumulative measure of the_ noise exposure during a, 247-hourralendai­day. AIO,dB I penalty is,: added: to ",noise events occurring between 10:00 Pm. and 71*00, _a,m, to reflect their greater, intrusiveness and :potential -for disturbing sleep. The DNL is,the result of averaging the -A-weighted sound pressure- levdI over,24 hours for aircraft, activities taking place on an average day. The average day is determined by analyzing flight activity over the period of onefull year. This gives an indication of -the year-round average noise exp osur6 for the community. mmunity, Sound Transmission Loss (TL)l This Is. the Physical measure which describes the sound insulation value of a building element sut6 as a ""Wind ot�v or wall. Values. of, TL are,,aetermfirddln acoustical"Iaboratones u'rider'ccintroll6d testing metfi6di prescribed by'thia Amerl��6, Sciciety''fdr 6dilrid and 4 ­ Materials (ASTM). Thee TL is 'expressed In decibels' "irid " the � greater_ , the �sound 'insulation, the, higher the TL, Value 'and the, less-sou,nd', w . III betransmitt4,d,'t.4r6u g,h,, the building Material. TL values are, determined for different freq pency _,rapges,,a,a.d' give,, an indication of` how a building product responds­8iff6re`ntjy"to sounds at , different. , .-firequen'des. ass� j(STC )2 Sound Transmissldn C 1 )2 Since working - with a series of TL measurements for differ frequ6fides on be §criptor base-s hps��be I cumbersdry�e,, a sin le -number �dia' based on.tfieYL,Vblu' been" developed. This rating method is called the- Sound Transmission Class (STC). As w I Ith the,TL, the greaterthe STC rating for a construction method or 'component, the, higher the sound -insulation. Originally;" STC ratings were developed as a single -number descriptor for the. TL of, Interior office or,apartment walls for -typical office noise -and speech spectra. Now,, they are'used for ,exterior, building components as well. - Most acoustical materials 'and components are c6mmonlVspedified in'torms oftheir STC "ratings. Typical tests to determine,TL are described in American r Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E90, STC it described in ASTM Standard E4,13. Zo2 Te SYR 03-10 New Construction'Acousticai'Design ,Guide March 2003 2.2 Aircraft Roite Interference With Activities The problem of aircraft noise "has been recognized and studied in this country since the 'I950s. 950s. Opinioa -surveys indicate- that interference- -with tdie-'Phone usage, listening to television andr'zidio, and conversation invoke1he most complaints,. However,, after a home has been sound insulated, residents notice -improvements in their,ability to, carry- out these normal activities as well. as to fall asleep ..and ,tonceritrate.. 'Fears of permanent hearing damagefrom flyovers have been shown to be unfounded. A large number of studies- on the physical, mental, and emotional health+ effects of aircraft noise exposure have led to the general conclusion that residences near airports are not .exposed to NO enough sound levels to warrant concern, The.principal effect of aircraft 'noise on airfield neighbors Is..annoyance, caused by interference with, daily activities. Airdrift Noisetharactetistics .Noise Intrusion from aircraft activities is perceived as more disturbing than other kinds of noisebecause of two primary characteristics. Unlike many other community noise sources, such as highway noise, which tend to be fairly constant, aircraft noise consists of sporadic Individual noise events with a distinct rise and fall pattern. . People do not., in general, respond to these events,"asjyst another component of'the ," their day- to-day lives. Some. people, get., to the noise, but many others feel that each individual flyov-r,,evdVis recognizable -and , disturbing,, h :the-n;6i'se'1'evdI experienced, ka particular r dw"eilfrigw1il depend on its location re"lativ , eAo,the aircraft flight paths and the mode of ongoing aircraft operations (arrivals or departures). For homes very near the airport, the second quality that makes,airc.raft noise more intrusive isits,higher level, or loudness, than other types sof community noise. , :Aircraft Sound Spectrum 'The, noise produced by modern aircraft contains acoustical oustical energy over a wide frequency range. The audible noise includes many sounds from a low-ftequency "rumble" to a high - frequency "whine." The exact character depends on the aircraft type, and the operation performed (takeoff, landing, or ground run-up). Low -frequency noise (below 500 Hz) penetrat&s W�alls', toofs,'doors, and windows much more"efficibritly than does high -frequency noise. Higher frequencies (above 1000, Hz), however, .are carried through cracks, and vents better. Also, people',hpar higher frbqueh ' sound better, the human ear being. more sensi- e . frequency til�a`bovd-i- 0­06Hz. th,pri 'below. Since aircraft noise. differs' somewhat from other types of comrnunity noise, it is important to identify the characteristics .of the noise se that sound it! I sulat . !on is protecting I against. Most materials and construction methods are more effective at insulating in one. part, of. the frequency spectrum than in others. Knowing the noise characteristics -"helps in choosing the best materials for sound, insulation. This Guide has been designed specifically to protect against aircraft: noise rather than highway noise or some other problem. Most of the sound, energy from aircraft .operations is found at lower frequencies; Whiie� this energy is below the most 'sensitive region of people's hearing range, it can be heard vvFill 'Z-3 _,. M 7177- W11,03-10. NeW nstru on'Acousticat DesfgwGuide March -2003 A 4 _W enough' to be annoying and it -can cause. disturbing structural Vibration in'a dwelling. Section 2:4 discusses'the process by which sound is transmitted into a dwelling interior. 2..3 Total "soundproofing" of the;d:weliingi such that° aircraft -operations are not:heard : is usually not practical: or cost-effective.: The: goal -,far residential °sound insulation ,is to -reduce. the dwelling interior nolse:.l'evels duetoaircraft operations to an acceptabl'e'levei, that;is, a level where it no longer interferes :with daily activities. Interior Noise Objectives The Federal ,Aviation . "Administration (FAA) 'has . established' ,guidelines for the noise, level reduction that a home' must providein order to- be comfortable' in the presence of aircraft noise. The FAR land -use compatibility table recommends that a h'orne exposed to a DNL of 65 to 70 dB should provide,at least 25 dB of NLR, and a home exposed to a DNL of 70to 75 de should provide at least 30 'dB of NLR. The use of other MR goals1may"be appropriate in many cases, especially if a noise metric other than DNL is used at that airport. Room, Varlations� ic the, outside watis (depending on their ,constr ctiori), a inside the room _(from, the various furnishicigs}' to r Will be. Expected Dwelling Noise Level"Reducti[ n the absorp".within the,,room, as V h� .mine, what, 0l interior noise level 'An acoustically wall -insulated; home with windows and doors kept closed can "provide -30 to 35 dB of NLR whereas more •typical, uncniodified designs might provide 20- to 25 dB �'df NLR. Experience has proven. that the objectives discussed here are reasonable when construction materials end methods'follow "the guidelines presented in Secdons "3 0 ,an , 0 Providing more than 40 dB of noise level, reductionis not usually practical for a, typical residence. Of course,.: sound 'insulation will not have any effect on outdoor activities, The advantage of sound insulation is that it provides a refuge from external aircraft noise,levels. In general, it is'more efficient and cost effective to take acoustic performance into account at the, start when designing `and building a home. Remodeling a .pre=existing home :is far more costly and time consuming than anticipating and building usirig,`good'sound "insulation techniques. This Guide wars developed for new homes, different itiaterials and techniques vi+ould be, appropriate Mien renovating houses to achieve the NLR goals: �' 'le WR 63-10, NewConstrvctlory Acoustical Design quide March"2063 of Basilr. Sotind-IngtilatiortCon�eptsr Sound Transmission In order to effectively examine. noise - control measures for dwib I 4ingi ft is „helpful to understand how sound travels from, the 'exten . or",to the , interior' of "tho"house. i This, happens in one of two basic ways: through 'the ,sol.lo-,stru.ctural,el)em,,ents:and directly through the air.. Figure 24, ill'ustta, tes the sound transmissibn'through a Wall constructed with a 'brick, exterior, studframing, ihterjor�,,fin ish., wall,, and absorb.en t. material, in t he cavity. joel&,01 Swind N THPOUC.1i cwry, Fiquire,Z-I. Pictorial Representation, of $ound'Transml - ssidn' Through Suilt-Construction The ,:sound %transmission startswithnoise -A the :wall exterior. Some of this sound. energy will 'be; reflected away and some, will. make the. wall vibrate. The vibratingwall radiates sound .-Into, the airspace,, which in turn, sets the, interior finish surface vibrating, with some energy lost in the` airspace. This finish surface then. radiates sound into the dwelling interior. As, the figure shows, some vibrational energy also bypasses the `air cavity by traveling through the studs and edge connections,., (7pei legs irr the dwelling, which provide air'ibfiltration, paths through .Wihd6Ws,-'V.e'nts and p leak's '-�allbw "so Wid-16-travel directly into the interior:' 'Thi's is a,'very common,- and often ov6rldokdd, s.oUtce,zof:'no.isie'ihtr.t,isi-,6'n. Basic.611y., Sny,wayAhat air,enters z.'hbrne, sound will also'enter, Z-5: le WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Flanking is. a similar concept and' usually refers to sound passing around a wall.. Examples of common flanking paths include: air ducts,, open. ceiling or.attiic plenums, :continuous side walls and floors, joist and crawlspaces. Figure 2-2 displays the three different major paths for noise transmission into a dwelling: air infiltration through gaps and cracks, secondary elements such as windows and doors, and primary building elements.such as walls and the roof. Open Chlnm y Roof S Crackg wtndow' E* Wail Door r-__ Crack Open Ventilator 711AZE, MAJOR. PATEIS FOR NOISE TRANSMISSION: GAPS AND CRACKS WINDOWS AND DOORS. WALLS ANL7 .ROOF: Figure 2-2. Sound. Transmission Paths Into Dwelling Interiors Low -frequency sound is most ,efficiently 'transmitted through solid structural. elements such as walls, roofs, doors, and windows.. High frequencies travel best through the airgaps. Within these broad categories, different building materials have different responses based on the frequency pf;the incident sound and varying abilities to insulate against sound.: Reducing Transmitted Sound The amount of sound energy transmitted through a wall, roof,, or floor can be limited in several ways. First, all air infiltration gaps, -openings,. and possible flanking.. paths;must be eliminated wherever possible.. This is the single most important, 'but Occasiionally overlooked, step in noise level reduction. This includes keeping windows and doors closed and putting baffles on open-air vents. Some materials reflect more of the incident sound, 2-6 m' el e WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 200,3! A converting less of it into vibrational energy. The. mass of the exterior and interior panels influences how much sound will pass through .them. The more mass a structural element has -the more energy it takes to set Jt, into vibration, so using heavier building elements generally blocks more noise. Then, absorption in the air cavity, resilient mounting of interior finish panels,, and mounting the exterior and interior panels on different studs can Further reduce the sound transmitted to, the room. The primary approaches for improving sound isolation are: 1..-E.11minati,on•of openings and flanking paths. 2.-.'-. Using higher STC windows, and doors: 3 ' Adding.'mass to walls.or ceilings.. 4 :Isolation of panel elements through increasing their separation, mounting the interior and, exterior panels on different studs, or resiliently mounting the interior panels. 5. -Adding absorptive materials between the studs or joists. Acoustical Design The most important, or controlling; sound paths must be identified 'in order to know how to modify a dwelling design to meet a specified noise criterion.. The ideal sound .insulation design.would focus on those elements that transmit the most acoustical energy into a�room. This: eliminates _any weak links in the building's insulation envelope.: Windows, generally allow more noise intrusion than walls; as more of the wall area is taken up With windows, the, overall ,noise- protection decreases. Thls effect is significant .even for massive wall materials, -,such, as brick. Intuition suggests hat a brick wall. would protect better against sound than siding and this is,true when these- materials alone. are: compared. But, putting a weak window or an especially large window into a brick wall will cause the overall .construction to perform very poorly since noise enters through the weakest .path. On, the other hand, installing a high -STC window in a siding wall will give: much better noise level reduction than -building. a weak window into a, brick wall. The STC rating, defined in Section 2.1, is a measure of .the material's ability to insulate against sound;' the higher the STC rating, the better the insulator. Proper use of STC ratings .will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.1. Table 2-1 gives a brief list of typical STC ratings for common building elements. Much of the variability for -walls .and roofs is, due to the type of, interior finish, the type of -studs or' joists, and whether there is insulation in the stud or joist cavities. The ratings in Table 2-1 cannot be used directly to estimate noise level reduction because they do not account for the presence of other elements or the areas of each element. In most.. cases, after making sure that openings remain sealed, the windows are the controlling sound path. Using acoustical windows typically does, more to improve the. sound insulation performance than any other design modifications. Exterior doors typically require higher STC ratings: Depending on the NLR goal, other elements may become important in meeting specific no level reduction goals. In some cases, ceilings and exterior walls may reciulfe. special construction as well, particularly in the higher DNL noise zones. Treatments for:these:paths and others are discussed in Sections 3:2 through'3.9 of this Guide. . -~`^~ � � - WR ' '- Table, 2-1. Typical STC Ratings for Common Construction Elements LARiUE ELEMENTS EXTERIOR 'WALLS 34-39 Aluminum or Wood Siding Stucco App. .46 Brick 54-56 Vented Attic App. 45 FLOQRS Slab Over 60 Vented Crawlspace App. 48 Basement 'App. 48 SMALLELEMENTS WINDOWS C wood Steel or,fi berg lass 22-28- ' A.olgicatesgr,oai6raolund)pa,ulation` a'Good 'oond���.L Problem Areas Sound intrusion, problems �irecommonly caused by: 1' Building construction components, and configurations not providing sufficient sound insulation. 2~ building elements, such as windows, doors, walls, nnofs/ andOoons chosen and combined in an unbalanced way so that -some ports Ore.much vveaker, sound insulators: then others. 3. Unintended openings or sound -flanking paths caused by innproperinsta||aQon of construction elements. Insulation While homes which are well insulated thermally often 'perfonn well acoustically, thermal insulation is not always a :good indicator of sound insulation. Many thermal Windows provide Otda sound Insulation when compared to walls or acoustical vvkidows'and are frequently, the weak link in the building envelmpe. However, thermal treatments usually � WR 03-10 Hew. Construction Acoustical Deslqn,Guide March --2003 77", eliminate air infiltration and. may serve .to improve the acoustical performance of a dwelling for that reason. The presence- of insulation in walls ,or Ceilings; is far ^more Important than the type of the insulation. Shielding The,'Jag_t,concept to consider Is, shielding.. This, refers to -the fact that the, side of'the-,dwel.ling which faces away from the flight path" 6nd"d,o I I es not have .an open linerdif-sight to it Will be protected somewhat from the ndise-. The' shielding'may be as Muth as 10 dB in some cases, though values, on the order of 5 dB are more common. Sides of the house facing directly toward the flight,. path are unshi6lded. Sides which face the.flight` track,.at an angle, maybenefit from 'sortie minor,sh'ielding effects. Sqmkim'es, however, sound is refected off nearby buildings in such a way as to counteract the shielding benefits. Shielding Must be examined on a case-by-case basis and the possibility of -aircraft straying from the usual flight, path must.be-taken into account..before,.assuming q consistent shielding effect.. ln%gerieral, a new -dwelling should be oriented" on'the - lot so -that bedrooms: and TV -viewing rooms face away from the flight track.' This will eliminate, the need to add extra sound insulationcomponents to protect these noise=sensitive living areas. 2-9 034e I WR 03;10 Ne'W:C6iistrttaioti,Acioiugticdl, Design Oulde Mai6h,,`2003 3.0 Building ellenents. This sectiont, provides specific guidelines for modifying standard construction designs and practices to meet the need for aircraft., sound insulation in new homes. A general discussion "ofconstruction materials and Methods 'is -given in SOaction'11., 5,ectibris -3.2 through 3.9 address techniques for u 179i.win'90W§v'walls and ceilings, attics, _:—1 h0q,f-s', HVAC rhitcellangoUs el6menist 3.1 EVail.Uatittg':Con.strutt-i.'OtiMateirials a'nd Midthbds Informed Use of STC,:Radi7gs STC ratings are the most common . on measures of acoustical performance given by manufacturers: of building, materials._ For t this reason, itis,important to understand how to i important use iing ',t i evaIuatiE!,.,c6nstr uction materials . I and.sysierns _5 7C ra I s 0�_ Two different construction methods or components may have i I dentlical.STC ratings and yet may block aircraft noise diffoently'because � or their response at different ,frequencies. One method or component may, perform better than another at. some- important, frequencies. Selecting a construction method or component from a,group onlyori-the basis of, the::Ihighest STC rating, may not provide the, intended sound: insulation. 'This. is'because the STCrating doe,s not take into t6,account-t'e.st`r6d"g; 16W -fre-quency. nature .of aitctaftnoi'sdThis guide has taken the .abllibV oFtypicdproducts o bibkaircrak noise-into:accouht.The recommended listed, 16, i��ctioh �'d ratings)' were materials4.0 an t eir C rat''' '6]uae r frequency evaluated foquen"y . response, prior, to f6rmuIaUn'gthe design packages. C001nthg Bu-ildi0q,816ments As mentioned ea.rlieri the, acoustical performance of the building depends on the combined performahces of each of the elements. The final result depends on the. transmission loss (or STC) and the relative surface areas, of -the elements. if any of the components ts has- . poor insulation properties the overall performance can be seriously weakened. This, is Why it is important to focus on the weaker- elements and to. consider the relative areas, of the components. As a rule-ofrthumb, ifa, Weaker element will be included in, the. assembly, its size should be kept to a minlmurn. For example; if a. pane of glass, is to be used for a vision panel in'a door,. it should be kept small and should be. constructed of insulated glazing. Simil ariy, very large Windows degrade the noise level reductioh of an otherwise effective brick wall. If a cathedrM ceiling is Included, it -should be designed so,that there, is a larger-than-.standard air 1 space between the ceiling and the roofing system, and this'space must be insulated. In ,Iddjtion; slightly higher STC. ratings should be used, for windows, and doors than indicated in Section 4,.0. Sensible compr6ml , ses, can be made to preserve the noise level reduction of the home without sacrificing aesthetics, provided the principles explained` in this GOide are employed 3-1 7777_" 77 -77 WR 03-10 New, construaion,Acoustical Design Guide :March 003 J.2 Sealing and Weatherstripping Good weatherstripping and caulking 'around: windows and doors Is crucial to effective sound insulation, The STC '.rating of the overall assembly can vary by as much as 2 t 4 dB, depending on perimeter infiltration. For these, assemblies, any perimeter leakage will degrade the performance of the window or door andcan be the controlling factor in the noise isolation. This is generally not an issue with, construction, but. homeowners must understand the importance of maintain ing,,We.athdrstrippin'g 11n ­good condition. For- acoustical purposes, compressible neo' is preferred - over felt or , neoprene -"a other fibrous -types. Neoprene: is not as porous and compresses better against the window or door frame. Also, felt. and: fibrous, weathierstrippihg, materials tend' to deteriorate more, quickly than neoprene and -must be replaced more often. PRIOR= Options Overview Tire exterior windows, are usually one z0f �the weakest elements in the dwelling's sound insulation performance. Improving the acoustical properties of the windows is; one of the simplest ways of lowering the over-all sound transmission into the house. Design modification options include using thicker glass and Wider --airspaces between the= panes of glass. Specialized -acoustical windows provide,maximumsound insulation, and should be 'S used in the loudest environments, as specifiedin ection 4-.Q. Acoustical Performahce Thethicker, high-quality` insulated glass units -should, be ?/4 inch to l'inch 1hick and, for"thei best noise level reduction, should incorporate at least one. lite (pant) of 1,amincited glass; preferably 114 inch thick. Laminated glass provides significaritly better transmission loss than. standard, float glass. Tempered gjass is also acoustically superior tostaridaed glass,.but:is not nearly as effective,cls laminated glass. Off4he'shelf tiferrhopane units are. typically available with ratings ranging from STC 24 to 29, and upgraded acoustical units with thicker glass may provide ratings as high as ST ' C 30 to 36. Figure 3-1 shows a typical window installation with the..;rnost important features highlighted'.. Acoustical windows, differ significantly from ordinary residential windows,. The design of an acoustical windowhas a greater frame depth-, the glass lites are heavier, and the weatherstripping and seals are more substantial. Most importantly, they, have additional lites. The two most common types of acoustical windows are a double- pane window with ' h a storm unit attached,, or an assembly mbly of two double pane windows connected together. All of these measures are necessary to pro"Vide the high degree of sound insulation required for the windoW assembly. 'Figure. 3-2rshows .schematically the features of an acoustical window. Proprietary windows with STC ratings, of. 39 to 48. are available, in =a va.ri.ety of styles and finishes, including, aluminum, and vinyl. Information an specialized' acoustical windows is available in Appendix A. They are considerably more expensive. ypical n th.aatypical residential windows. 1 1 1 7 7777, WR,03-10 New.:ConstructiomAcoustical Desiqn,Gulde Mbrth2003 Figure 3-1. tyoicauAjuln1num 6u4j. Windowbetail REMOVA849, DUALSASE lridiiebtentua,tion',., y AVIDE AIR SPACE (Greater than 2r Jjjehcs) Thermal:and sound: resistmice. DOUBLE -FRAME DT SIGN Separate Vrirne�nnd, storm sash and frames givc,,double erWliolml6ntal protection, NOW -HART) GING AcoutrhdAL SCILNNT THICK GLASS (monoliffitc or laminated) - CHANNEL GLAZING Neoprene cdge sa,gaskets, custdons. glass"reusable. SCALED THERMO-BARRIER Tbe"core"oft lie window, No air w water, iefiks. Tri si ilates'.maintains; structural in'tegrity wfthou'i fallure, EXISTING OR MODIFIED BILL Figure 3-2. Construction Features of Acoustical Window 3-3 uT e WR 03-10 NeW-Construction.Acousticat Design-GuideMarch 1003, Thermal Performance Insulated glass Windows are recognized to block. the, transmission of -heat (in winter or summer) much more effectively than single pane glazing. Increasing the thickness of the glass.and the air -space, as recommended for noise � . level reduction,, further improves their them Oal performance. Beccius - e of the above-mentioned 'design features; plus the common Inclusion of thermal barriers at the frames,. acoustical windows. 1jerfdrm.exceptibri'ally well as thermal barriers. They :allow approxi - maitely one-tenth tile air infiltration of a, typical 70>ypar-aid double -hung wood, window with single pane glass:. The R7value, (a., measure of thermal resistance) for acoustical, windows I is, - -or`com^lJahs6r),,thp R7yalues 0 PC 4 ff �the shelf single pane and " double pane windows are. R=1 and R-3, respectively. ifistolMdon C6hsideradons For the, windows to provide the- required noise reduction they must remain tightly closed. Ways to maintain ventilation will be discussed in Section 3.8. It Is important to note, however, that this, requirement precludes'thle use of'jalousie or louvered windows in a -sound in . sulation design. Double -hung, single -hung, horizontal sliding; casement, fixed, and awning/hopper windows_ are,a)l acqeptablejor noise reduction, provided they. have- the req pjr 8 STC rating' Other considerations when preparing wid'dQw.',spe'cificatiOnt include, maintainlability,. warranty,, man ufactd'ria��i, setv16e, and p_roperJh'st6Il6tion. It is possibl.e1b, Install, the `best tightly enough, air infiltration will acoustical window 'j,r'hprpiperly_ 1�` it bet: not fit �tig nes . s. a ngwi 'to m' window nit anti In significantly`I , 1 , , reduce 'the effective St _irti o' -s 611 �U b m�ziieh6l such as . rglas the void around the window wit a ow -mass fi6e s1s. w1paccepta, 10. Continbous wood blocking infill is; howeveri acceptable., �3.4 Do-olirs -000ns -Overview Doors -are cbmparable-to windows ows In..'the amount of sound they allow to entdr'the dwelling. Many typical residential doors require modification or,substitution to provide the necessary protection from aircraft noise. As, with I h windows, there are specialized acoustical units available, as well :as acoustical storm doors. T6e'following factors are important in evaluating doors for'sourid insulation: • Door composition: hollow. core- wood solid core Wood, insulated metal or r fiberglass,:sliding glass". core materla , additional internal insulation,. etc. Dodr'Welght"(can be estimated by pull -weight),. Presence and type ofAxed. Window panels. Quality of seals and. weatherstripping, and how fightlythey sea[. 3o-'41 %4A WR 03-10 New=Constructiqn-Acoustical. Design Guide IM16rch,211)03 The options.f6r improving, the noise level reduction of residential doors include: Installation of a tightly Fitting storm door with thick, (or laminated) glass; or use of a -specialty acoustical storm door.. Installation of a secondary French, door. Use of thickler, glass in sliding glass doors or specialty acoustical sliding, glass doors. Standard Doors Standard entrance, doors can be. 'expected to have'ratings of STC 21 to 27. STC requirements are outlined in -Section 4.0 for eathAype of door (swinging and sliding doors). Glass'panels in the primary door can reduce the sound insulation by 3 to 5 dB, depending on the thickness of the I.ite-and the surface area,. The thinner the,glass and the larger the area it covers, the more it decreases the sound insulation of the, door. When, vision panels are required, it is.best to keep them small and use insulated, glass, units with thick glass. Swinging Storm Doors ExteVnial storm doors are common in many parts of 'the country .arid' can improve the STC rating by 3 to 10 dB. In order for storm doors to be effective- forso.und, insulation, they should incorporate: thick glass (ideally 1/4-inch4hick laminated, glass,) and have a, heavy re. Storm doors must be mounted 'year- round. Replacing thq '1 CO, g ass panel witha, screen insert In -the summer months will r 6duce the sound insulatl6n'i'ed'oFe th­ home considerably but many homeoWr(ers me " wish to exercise,Jhis option for d y peno s When aircraft -activity is light. A list of, acoustical storm door ,sOp liers"is" iricluded'inAppeh d I' B. p x Acoustical Swinging Doors Acoustical doors, with atypical rating of STC 30 to 40, are similar in appearancet6standard entrance doors. However, due to the high cost of acoustical doors, it is often preferable instead to,use more typical residential doors with acoustical storm doors. Because of their,specialized, Construction and superior sealing design they provide a very noticeable improvement in Poise reduction. While meta!` doors are available, wood doors are preferred by most homeowners since they.are more like.'standard, doors, Whether metal or wood,- the ,internal construction of" acoustical doors,differs subst6l ntlally from standard ddors. Layering of materials, along with added absorption and mass, increases their Weight to 'approximately 12 to� 14 lbs per square foot To elirninate, sound flanking between the closed door and :the jamb, acoustic doors are designed with special fixed acoustical seals, at the sides and 'top. A,drop seal along the bottom activated by a cam rod When the door is -dosed it sometimes used to make fight contact with the threshold. in other cases, fixed bottom, seals that contact a raised threshold or saddle are used. Also, because of their.extt-a, Weight,, acoustical doors usually require reinforcement of the door frame and heavy-duty mounting hardware and ball- bearing hinges. Manufacturers often provide customized frames with their acoustical doors. 3"Sm?Ae I laba=i-l" fiF WR 03-10 New ,Cohstructlo6 Acaustical'DeAign, Guide March:266j, Sliding Glass Doofs There are two options -for improving thesoubdorinsy(at1bg propizi-tiesoUsliding'.. glass dooes: 'using acoustical units.,,- or using primary and' secondary doors. The, disadvantages of acoustical si . iding glass doors -are that they -,are very-exp.ensive, Very heavy, and can have a high :threshold. The disadvantages -of- using,°primary and."secondary-sliding glass -doors have, to,opgn. - A w two doors, to lea - ve the -:bui.1dIn,g,,zrid r that -the Awoftames--would not. fit, in zthe width of �za.- typical 2stud This sarne secondary;,door concept can be, used with, French doors. , Of course, the -installer must' ensure that. -'there As rio conflict in the operation and opening hardware of the two door sets. Good Weatherstripping should be installed on both doors.. Rittzilling a, secondary door generally requires building a second frame positioned to mount the -door approximately 2 to 3 inches away from the-primary..door. This dual -door assembly hat proven successfut in that it raises , the STC: rating by 5 to 7 dB,., Figure 3-3 shows system' of two S1.1dirfg glass doors: with door mounted outside, of the, typical the, -secondary door: .1posit ion, METAL FLASH I ING,AT HEAD I,,X .4,' TRIM �2,..X- HEAO-'S1,OPED wi, MAX`,: :SEALANT- TYR CONTINUOUS 2 X JAMB 'AT,w�rwrn NEW 'SLIDING GLASS DOOR ATTACHED TO FA(KIE DOOR WITH 8= - 32 SCREWS 12"CC. WITH LOCKWASHERS 0END" U3STL, SRACKET FLAT HE�R WOOD SCREWS -:Z�BkTl§ AT JAMB� 0n_®®_ C61`�MUOUS SEALANT_,� I c 2"-X SILL ­ Ex:rERIOR _______MESSURE TRE Ant SILL SUPPORT- 2 X .SURFACE' IF I - � I I , . , TED, I X TRIM- HPLP::CLE;RAq OF EXTERIOR SURFACE NdfES, L NEW:,SLIDING, GLASS, DOOR TO HAVE, dUAL,,OPERABLE PANItLS, 'TO' FACILITATE' cLEMM'OF'06ORSII.� ' Figure%3-3. Sliding Glast. Door. De,tall 3-6% Lt E WR 03-10 New'Construetion Acoustical Design Guide matizh 2003 Installation "Considerations As with windows; it Is 6f .critical importance. to ensure:that=the door fits well, that 'ail gaps and ,leaks are sealedy. and that .the door remains closed. High-quality weatherstripping is recommended to ensure the,, noise. reduction of the. door: Sound :attenuation through standard .doors, can be improved by fitting thein with special',acoustical seals, including drop sea ls°mounted, to, -the bj4ck.or. fully °mortised in the door's bottom rail. If,the door.does not fit. squarely_jnto•.-the- frame it wili knot, seal, properiy',and 'unhecessary noise infiltration will ,result,, In all -,cases, -avoid openings, such. as.=mail slots in doors. =or the use of pet doors. 3.5 'bulls and Ceilings Determining Wall ,and Ceding Dei s/gni Depending -cin the dwelling's-exterior.construction, and -materials, it may be necessaryto use specialized designs for walls. Generally, dwellings which are ,of vinyl, aluminum, or wood siding exterior construction require improvements such, as staggered studs or resilient channels in the highest noise impact. zones. Dwellings which use brick, stucco, concrete masonryblock,, and other cementibous materials typically do not. For the:purposes of this design guide, ,the following material definitions can be assumed: •. Brick or Brick Veneer Construction:,-"At.:.least 41Ia-i,ncht4hick: brick veneer over 7/16" OSB sheathing _on:.2x4 studs, 1'0,, "O.C. wl ,,R-1.3 ..or R -r3 batt insulation, and 1/2" gypsurnboard at interior; The. entire exterior wall. is- constructed of brick, notjust a portion:._ ® Stucco Construction: 718 -inch stucco over paper over.7/16" OSB sheathing on 2x4 studs 16 "O.C: with ;R-11 or R-13 bath ihsulat%on, and 1J2" gypsumboard,at interior. Entire ;exterior wall is stucco, not partial siding or other material.. Siding Q69rvct,I Ail types of-slding including wood, .aluminum, hardboard, or .vinyl. 'Coitstruction; iticludes'siding on insulation, board (e.g., Thermoply) .dr 7/'16" OSB sheathing on 4x4 studs X16 "O.C. with -R-1.1 or R-13 batt insulation, and 1/2'" gypsum'board' at interior. Many buildingscombine siding with other exterior construction materials -such as brick, brick veneer, stone, or stucco. For the purposes of `this Guide, the siding and. siding -combination constructions are taken to have, approximately the sante sound insulation performance. Because noise penetrates through .the -weakest `available element, unless the siding area is very limited, noise will penetrate,thr`ough that part of the building :envelope. Generally, if a particular wall is shielded From the flight track, or is protected by a'heavily roofed porch, the need, for supplementary wall treatments is reduced. Improved ceilings; are -'sometimes necessary -where there. is .an attic over habitable- or, noise - sensitive rooms such as bedrooms, living rooms, family rooms, etc There is no need to modify the ceiling of any first -floor rooms where they are completely covered by a second story room. tion -habitable rooms, such as garages and. mud rooms in breezeways, are generally not given improved ceilings- unless they"open directly to habitable rooms without i interior doors in between': the rooms. 3-7 .� WR 03-10 New,Constructlom Acoustical, Design Guide March,2091 Specific Interior Wall Designs ane technique for increasing the�� mass, and' resiliency of -the wall or -,ceiling is --to attach the. gypsumboard to the standard base- studs with 1/2 -inch, resilient, vibration! -isolation, channels ("resilient channels", or "111,C). This will. provide;, an, STC rating - improvement of 7 dB -,I�ovdr 'that for atypical wood 'frame/W811bo6rd structure. The channels should be attached to the studs, s6- that they run. horizontally for wails and perpendicular to the joists for ceilings: This ,minimizes the vibration transmission' from the supporting studs to the channels and the wallboard., The screws used,to attach the, gypsum bo.ard'to. the cha . nn6is must, be. short'enough that they- do not contact the studs. 'The common installation- error of using. -too, long: screws 611 ows., vibration to travel from 'the stud to the gypsumboard',, ren'dering"'the.system ineffective., A second technique involves using,. the resilient channels, mentioned,abovej and changing the,wall construttion'from 2x 4studs to 2 x 6 studs. This will" increase the STC by 1,1 dB over the standard wall, construction-, and will 'allow space for R-19 insulation. However, this does involve changes �to the framing, design of 'the dwelling, sand may not be desirable in some cases. The, third, and most effectivej option is to construct the interior wall on a set � of staggered studs -'so that the interior and 'exti:irior finish surfaces . 6.re', not rig , idly connected to each other except through the top and 'bottom plates. This system uses two rows of studs,'one.. row of studs, spaced- 16" ort' center supporting the sheathing, and a second row spaced 16"' on center supporting., the interior- wall' , finish. Tice end' result is that, there - are studseach; 8" on ' -center. Figure 3-4 shows how"to implement this construction. This modification-provid - es acoustical decoupling, and separati , on betwee6:,the exterior and the Interior-of"il-ie" room, resulting in a 13 dB increase in the STC rating over standard construction methods. A larger space between "the interior and exterior panels, will .yield. a,greater.STC-Jmproyernent. likewise, a,greater spacing (24") between studs will 'provide a higher STC rating. Sedtlon 4-.,0. references,a staggered ,,2,.x-4 stud construction on a -2.k 6.base-plate. Staggei Plate Figure,3-4. Staggered Wood Stud Comi.rqction 34 VUAe 1 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical DeslgwGuide: March 2003 The three wall co6structiomclesigns,referenced In - Section 4.0 are summarized in Table; 3-1. Table 3-1. Acoustical Wall Designs and STC 11atings 7, 777, -i. 7ZE Interior Side - STC Rating Resilient�,Chahnei -IT. Zx4,16"-O.C. with 1 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical DeslgwGuide: March 2003 The three wall co6structiomclesigns,referenced In - Section 4.0 are summarized in Table; 3-1. Table 3-1. Acoustical Wall Designs and STC 11atings To 66sorb:skund,.,fiberg,lass batts,,-afe, placed betw6en, the studs in the, -walla cavity. Thermal ins I ulation of at least A-, 11, should,be used to censure �" :''insulation ' "a'thick-enough-Mayer. B,a"tMq-rblankets should be held firmly In place between,. studs, fastdn6rsI necessary, A6,Orevent sagging however,066kihgtk6,,such that'it'is,c6mpressed may slightlyreduceIts acoust�cai hermal),Oerf6itna6c6. blwnrjnJnsuiatioiiisnot recommended,-inwalls for acoustip4rpo es,betauseof iie,tendenqy,tp compact f me", Sp6dific Interior Celling MddIfkations' The ceilings of 'topyflbot rooms' may- need to be 7 modified ,to provide, -`increased noise protection. The same methbds, that are used in wail constructions can be used for"ceillnos. : The standard roof c6hstrtjq1tiOa is, assumed to be: asphalt -shingles, 7/16" OSB sheath,ilng, 'interior - 14�'.frusses at 16"` 04.,. batt.,Jhsul6tion,,and 1/2" gypsumbbaed on the ribr cellinq, This design,, has an STC 45 rating. 8ection 4. 0 references,a—design with.r.esilient channels mounted perpendicular to,tfie ceiling joists, on the bottom of the joists, with one layer,of !W' gypsumbolard attached to the channels.. The, -addition, of resilient channels to the ceiling. assembly will increase the rating to approximately STC 56. 3-!9 uodft, ExterlorSide - Studs Interior Side - STC Rating Resilient�,Chahnei Vinyl Siding, Zx4,16"-O.C. with RC-onstuds, 1 on: 2,x4 studs 7/16"'0513 batt insulation layer 1/2" I I 43 sheathing. gy0sumboard Resilient Channel Vinyl Sit! [ng, '9$6 2x616" O.C. With RC -6n'stu'ds, 1 on 2x' studs h 6 7/i6,"' btitt insulation, layer 1/2" r 47 sheathing gypsumboard 2x4 16" O.C. for i layer IA" .Staggered 2X4, Vinyl Siding, each, row gypsumboard on 2x6, base 7/1611 OSB (staggeredon2x6 (attached onlyto 50 sheathing base plate) with interibr-side batt'insulation studs) To 66sorb:skund,.,fiberg,lass batts,,-afe, placed betw6en, the studs in the, -walla cavity. Thermal ins I ulation of at least A-, 11, should,be used to censure �" :''insulation ' "a'thick-enough-Mayer. B,a"tMq-rblankets should be held firmly In place between,. studs, fastdn6rsI necessary, A6,Orevent sagging however,066kihgtk6,,such that'it'is,c6mpressed may slightlyreduceIts acoust�cai hermal),Oerf6itna6c6. blwnrjnJnsuiatioiiisnot recommended,-inwalls for acoustip4rpo es,betauseof iie,tendenqy,tp compact f me", Sp6dific Interior Celling MddIfkations' The ceilings of 'topyflbot rooms' may- need to be 7 modified ,to provide, -`increased noise protection. The same methbds, that are used in wail constructions can be used for"ceillnos. : The standard roof c6hstrtjq1tiOa is, assumed to be: asphalt -shingles, 7/16" OSB sheath,ilng, 'interior - 14�'.frusses at 16"` 04.,. batt.,Jhsul6tion,,and 1/2" gypsumbbaed on the ribr cellinq, This design,, has an STC 45 rating. 8ection 4. 0 references,a—design with.r.esilient channels mounted perpendicular to,tfie ceiling joists, on the bottom of the joists, with one layer,of !W' gypsumbolard attached to the channels.. The, -addition, of resilient channels to the ceiling. assembly will increase the rating to approximately STC 56. 3-!9 uodft, WR 03-10 New Construction -Acqustic.al Design -Guld'e Maech,2003-, 3.6 Attlics� and.. Roofs, Options -Over%46v .HbmO- designs incorporating unoccupied attic space. overall living areas are 'recommended' PI for,dwellinqs exposed to aircraft noise. Skylights Can be. used'if 1/4 -inch -thick glazing or insulated thermopane, glass is used at the b ' ottom of the skylight ,well to supplement whatever glazing is used at the top of the well. In addition to these basic rules, it may be ry necessato used improved'roofj attic, or ce'll - ing designs: Improvements could include baffles ii-ilhe attic -vents, extra insulation to absorb sound reverberating in the attic space, and. -On upgraded roof deck. The use of cathedral ceilings-' is strongly discouraged for homes exposed to aircraft noise; particularly where the necessary; NLR'ls '30 d6'olr higher. Rather than a true open, -beam or cathedral ceiling, a mock -cathedral or vaulted ceiltng with a small attic space above is recommended. Opqn-beam ceilings should never be used when "the necessary NLRjs 25,dB or higher: Sound Transmission Paths Sound enters through the roof ln tw.o paths: directly through vents and other leaks; and by -vibrating the roof itself, thereby radiating acoustical endrgy'into the:air within the attic, If there is no attic the sound passes immediately into the living space under the roof. This is y why ..homes with open -beam or cathedral, ceilings often have very limited, noise level reduction through the, roof. Where there is­.,-,,qnrattic; the ,iound enters and reflects off :of the attic surfaces, reverberating in the space.- Since" much of the':sound energy hasbeen dissipated, less sound passes through the finished celllng'to-lthe°lroom belo, I w.. ,Atfic vents Attics typically have open=air vents,7at the ends!'(for a. gabled roof) or under the.eaVet. The sound entering through these vents may be significant. Off-the-shelf acoustical louverscan be applied to baffle the sound passing, through such openings. Most offAhe=shelf noise control baffles are rectangular -and this-r6quires the use'of'rectan,gular vents: in the dwelling, s I deign. Soffit vents under the eaves can be left 'unmodified When other measures.are implemented, since thL:iy,�aresotnewhat,shieided from direct.exposure tothe aircraft noise. Any type oflattic.ven ' t that opens directly through the roof toward the.,aircraft . flight tracks is strongly discouraged.. This,includes gr'avity Vents, ridge vents, and some active.or positive ventilation systemsi Ifthete Vents- are used, built -in-place 'baffld§ ca" n be used' under them to. reduce noise intrusion. Built- , in-place baffles consist of . pieces of 3/4"thick plywood covered with !",thick rigid - fiberglass insulation; the. plywood 'panels: are oriented in such a Way that noise(and -air) must,be reflected, on at least 'dne- fiberglass-lin.ed - surfwce before it c -hoy built -in-place an,.1 move into attic. In general, acoustical louvers are pr6fbrred over 'baffles -due to the possibility that the built -in-place baffles may redtice, ventilation through the -attic, �Figjure..3_s shows a typical built -in-place gable vent ba' MeAesign. 3A +< 11 R 03-10 New Co6niirucrion Acoustical Design, Guide. March 4003 EXTERIOR 8OX- a�8'� CONSTRUCTION, PAI�,Taa� .R,EJaUIREC0 WALL VENTILATOR AT ATTIC E SHAPE FIBER -GLASS LINING �IARY) CORNING 703 . �Figume,375^ � ' Bmi/ Ab6c When considering the upgrade ofthermal insulation to noise levels. it is,imp.prtantto understand what the insulation will do' Thermal insulation materials will act to -absorb soundJbmtis, reverberating in, the attic or in the space, between flat. panels. It.does not prdventn#7se frorn.entedngthe'epace. That,is^ithasno appreciable -acoustic "idsu|atlng" properties but acts as an' absorbent instead. To keep sound out, barriers must be used wh|dl <ncnoaam the mass of the roof or ceiling. As a soundabsorbont, fiberglassba�s and w/ b| in fiberglass or rninorn|fiber.can. bempp|ied bmhweanth� rafters, between the ceiling � joists,,njundion wWith' pd or gypsumboard,ovvn-|n cellulose is not recommended since -it oomnpactspVertime, r6duoingits effectiveness. The absor-ption of a material dnotba ere is no direct relationship between a material',s absorptive properties and -the overall NLR. Asimple method'for determining, the tN ofs0und,�Absorbent materials is to UIS6. the, cQncept'df the, materiaYs thermal rating (R. -value). This,-R�ratjng is.,!a commonly used and welkknown rating for buildi . ng:,products. -the R-va.lues',ancl thickness for several corrimon insu''lation. materials are given in Table 3-.2. The� value of th, e sound absorption at lower frequencies depends on the thickness of the mat6rn|` For, noise sources with a significant low -frequency connponmnt, such as aircraftflyovers, the. thickness is the most important parameter.. Th|cker'rnabehalsprovide better|om-fr(�qLjency�eondabsontion. 3-11 mWje WR 03-10 New -Construction Acoustical Design Guide 'March,2003 Table 3-2. Material Thickness and R -Value For Common Insulating Materials Material Thickness, ,Inches 11=4.1 R-19 11-�30 Roll or Batt Fiberglass 3.5• S.25 9 (Vapor Barrier on One Side) Blown -In Fiberglass 5 8 13 Mineral Fiber 1 4 J 6:5 1 11 3.7 Floors, Basements; and Crawl Spaces Options Overview Dwellings will usually have one of thesethree types of -'floor systems at the ground level; Concrete slab Crawlspace =,. Basement since noise- control, measures are concerned with the external building envelope,; floors between stories 'in a home arenofaddressed ` There are three stages of floor design improvements for.sound insulation: • Eliminating . sealing or baffling any openings.. Installing insulation between the floor joists. • Attaching a barrier panel to the underside . of the floor joists or between the perimeter of the house and the ground (a skirt). Concrete -slabs requite no treatment. Crawl.spaces and basements will .be.discussed:beloW. Crawl Spaces One:' -common floor system for new residences consists of wood plank and beam construction over a vented crawl :space. Using insulation Batts between joists is also very effective .acoustically. Thesi rn p lest-. wayAou iinprove `the: acoustical -performance of a housemhieh has a crawl space with masonry walls- is to install off-the-shelf noise. control louvers. to the under -floor vents; this is similar to the design discussed above for roof vents. These louvers provide a noticeable quieting in thec rest.of the-fiouse. IfAcrawl spaces do- not have .masonry walls, a. massive barrier.panef can be used ,as a skirt•connecting the bottom of the walls, to,:the ,g round. W11:03-10 New C dnstruction. AcousticiflDesign Guide' March 2,403% Basements Basements can be Modified with a c6mbin6tibri,of-methods discussed ussed in other sections, of this guide. Windows should have 1/4 -inch. -thick' la-miriate'd, glass or insulated glass units; Storm windows ,:and doors can -be -added for, further protection.. Large vents or openings should be: baffled if t , he.�'expose&,W,4f fii,ces. the flight traqj�� Dryer vents and other vents should hould be.'construlcted., of .'(,rather than, plastic or, flexible ducts) to, limit the amount of noise th6t.will' enter through thein and -then. pass through the duct wall to the surrounding room. Thermal insulation can be inst8lle&he­tWeien' the joists to absorb's.ound reverberating -in'.`the basement-. Garages Fire codes generally prohibit the -use of exposed insulating material above. garages. If part of the basement consists of - a garage With 'a garage_d,00r16cihg the, flight path, 'a fire -rated gypsumboardcelllhg may be used. Alsoj. 8 gYpsumboard or,plywood harrier or a finished ceiling can be hung u nder'the, first-flob"r with R-11 insulatidn' bbt We6n., the, joists, similar to the, treatment discussed for -attics and in Section 3.6. Z.8 Vpilti.1altion In order to maintain the noise: reduction benefits of lmproying- Windows and -doors and sealing leakage,- paths, it is important to keep these,openihgsclosed. While an acoustically wel.Htisulated home can provide 30 to, 35 dB-1.of noise reduction, this figure;-drops:,to.. 15:dB wherievet,the windows 6,rid. AbOrs,arg, open. Heating,, ',ventilation-, and, ait-coriditioni (HVAC) systems do not directly affect the sound I insolitidn,peffori-n6rice, but,they..enable residents to keep the:,wind6ws, and doors, shut yeae rouhdand. Ifenefit, ftrn o, the "`sound insulation modifications. The following inform I atidn is-,ri not 't6i6reit,6d ih, A,O"Ihut,: the Ventilation. features discussed "here are:1str6n-o" d6d. g y recommen Air'Oftulation New homes, in, North Carolina :mill most likely'have central air cohditi I oning, Whether the,air needs to be heated, cooled,, dehumidifled, or simply circulated and replenished depends on the season:, Refre'Oing the air supply and moving it around it: Important for `health and coif fort no,, matter what the outsi&-temperature: 'Afreshair -ihtake'should be installed on all airwhandiing systems to, provide the required percentage of fresh makeup air combined ,With, the, recirculating air.�Wh idents do not Want :heating or cooling, the� en res system should allow for cir,culation/v.ent,.Ilation.allone. Ndis6iand. Vibration Control It is, important td° limit the 'amount of noise the HVAC system, -generates and the noiseft carries In from tfte,6utsid'e. Takin6,thesteps s dUtlined, below ,,WilWill to minimize the noise from -fans; airfloWj,eqbipm6nt vibration, and iatcn4t,ribiselsources: Proyide, vibrati,on.,isola,tion,,mount,ing for ail, :egui,pMent,jand,locate it so-ttiat, the structure -borne -:sound and vibration are, keptAo'.a�minimorn. Use ducting, materials appropriate to the location to minimize the s6d"d rn transmitted through ',the ,syste. Fl I exible, ductwork should not be used, in ab6s 3-13 e. WR 03-10 New'. Consti;.ii4ttloh.A6ousticail:Desigrf.Guld4a March -2003 and crawl spaces• heavier sheet metal ducts will nrovide better sound. r, insulation. Ducts, to the outside, whether intake or �exhaust,, and all ducts in the. attic Or crawl space can be I , Ined with I-Iriph acoustical Internal lining -material, orhave at [.east two 90 -degree --(right angle) elbows (turns) thereby breaking the line - of -sight to I the� ouiside �a�s, �shown in . Figure ` 3!-"6.- It , must be, noted that there is concern than this fibrous" s acoustical" lining material: will affect air quality. Install[lig a' duct so:urid silencer),:alternative t'04his tecfinique;, there zria-,�sileiicer's:.av-,allable':that, do not con'tain"fib WdU 11 ning- 'These measures ensure thatttTdvehtilaition syste`mlis, no"t bding—ing' 6-8ditidnal aircraft noise Into tha hbusd.­ t-)(TvqibR; WALL MINIKJM OF2 go- 'ELBOWS PLAN' ROOF. - BAFFLE tOX111 SDAMKbPEACRAFT 'R — ATTIC SPACE ' 4XI 0 1xJ0 PN "INE 'EXHAUST FA4- I/S* SUPPORT STRAPS FLEXIBLE CONNECTIONS 12 LE CEI L I NG SECTION 'GR I L ,ALL DUCTWOPK.,BETWEEN THE CEiUNGGRILLE AND THE EXHAUST -.FAN'SHALL SE,ACOUSTICALLYJJNEDW Figure.3-.6. Controlling Noise Entering Through Ducts ln.AtticSPa.ce,, I 1 x. z Wit,03;40 New ,C4nstroicUon,'Acousticaf,Design Gulde; Moth 2003 3.9 Miscellaneous Vtchen. and Bath -Fans Most.,-kitthen and bathroom designs for new homes alrea'dy incorporate fans for ventilation purposes i 0 -9 be dOdtedAhrough the attic to -an&baffiroorn exhaust ventilators §h6UId,rb A ,outside: A-.,8' O'g sche­m' e , -.thatjncorOo the ou ucti ratesat least one and, pfdfpra bly,. two right-�angle 'd there �fio6j8'be_rjo,,dIrect line -of -sight turns Js effective at. reau"dn' t on an g,.nolse inftrail thr6ig'h_.the :;dua from, fhq,outsi I de,tothe I inside'. In other Wo" lf'i lh"duct. grilles'or Overs were removed, 1 , t should not be possible to see daylight , through the -duct. All ducts in the attic should berigid metal and not flexible; poise may pass 7 through these elements to other rooms of -the house, Fireplapes Frequently, homes with fireplaces, will require some type ,of design modification. This is, especially true. if the outside 'noise exposure ishigh, or the fireplace is In a room used for watching TV or,sfeeping. The 'treatment package consists of two parts: First, glass doors are mounted at the: front. of the,fireplace. Second, the- in-chlmhey,dampOr must be installed so that all edges seal arbundthe damper. Any air gaps or leakt will allow sound to pass through. The glass .doors by therhselves provide a 'noticeable improvement and,these'two treatments; in, combinatiblni have provento'be, very effective at reducing the noiseentering alon'' Chi' -top 'd I a . mpers have also b' successfully when t1i 0 1 hfly g this path. Chimney -top been use Installed. 3-15' VlWkft1— WR 03-10 NewConstruttlon Acoustical Design -Guido Tile following selection chart is tobe%usgd,to determihe,,ttfdacoustical design needs of each, 'noise -sensitive room'' of a dwel . ling, For each room, design- recommendations are deter-mmnipci by.1.611'6MO 9 the chart from left, -,-.to, -rightflrst,4. g,,mquired n6iseIevel reduction (NLR) Must be --determined,for',the ftellinO,,based on: its, locationAn,,,a -certain noise contour zone. Second the numberof exterior yvalls..,of a room must,, be selected. Third; the total exterior fagade area (Including the gross wall/window/door area), of the room Must be talcblated,-,and classified ,as,"tygical,"�br."T,arge""accor&i,.ng,tothe roquirements shown in the thart:�, The .,last, f6ur,colurn, fts-,c6ritain the minimum STCratings, of walls; windows;, doors (of all I .types)i_and;ceiljngt,that mustbe used:to tbl.,achieve the desir'ed:, hcijse leveF reduction., Table I - 4-1., Material'Selection Chart a I nd.t:Orrespofid I lhq:aT I q Ra i 6 NILR, Number -Of Exterior Walls Room, I Exterior Wall Area , sq, ft.). Minimum Recommended STC Rating Wall Window Door 'Celifing* Large f>170) 36 33. 24 45 Typical 170). 36 27 24 4 25 ` Large>: -300 36 33, 45 Typical (c,5.00} 45. Large:(> 43 33 26 45 Typical (<170) 36 33 26, 45 30 1 large (> 300) 43, 40 33 56 2 Typical 300) 43 33 26 45 Large, (> 1.70): 4.7 40 38 45 t. Typical (<. 170) 43 40 38 48 35 Large (;> 300), 49' 44 58 56 2 Typical (< 300) 47 40. 38 45 I* For.,;roon's located on the top floor ONLY (with attic. above) I 4i -I wyLe.� WwO-10' New Constructfo,6:Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 5.0 Limitations There are; many variables affecting the acoustical performance of a room. The recommendations contained in this,, Guide are, based on assumptions of -typical parameters. If the actuaUbuilding: design .and. construction used don't match theseassumptions the noise level -reduction, will be different. -Due to the, interrelationship, between each 'of these variables there are no upperllmIts on individ-val, parameters, .In developing recommendations, eight, typical,Aypes of rooms were considered. Typical floor plans for new dwellings for single4amily,homes, tbwnhomes,. ,and condominiums have been used. They included: I- Single-family home living room with 2 exterior walls with a, gross area of 221 sqda_ne� feet (sq. window area or 50 sq. ft., �'and a floor r . area a of 225 sq. ft, 2. Towhhome living room With I exterior wall with a gross. area of 171 sq. ft,, window -.area of 47 sq.. ft.,,door area of 2i sq. ft.',,and'floor area, of 456'sq, ft. 3. Condominium living room with I exterior wall with a gross area of 76 sq. ft., Window: area of 19 sq. ft., door area of 21 sq,. ft.,. and floor area of 234.sq. ft. 4. Singlb-family.home'ramily room` with ,2 exterior wal Is,-With"'a,gross.area of 385sq. ft., Window, area. of 74,Isq.- ft,-, door area of 41 1 -sq..ft..and'a floor and ceiliria area of 300�sq. ft. 5. Sing 164amily home typical" bedroom With -2 &kteHbr-;w,a'lls-with a gross area of 192 sq. ft.', window area of 30 sq, ft., atid fico r!arid `teilihg "Orea" of 144 sq. ft: 6. T6wnhome. typical bedroom with I -extenor-wall witK-a_grpss�,area of 76 sq. ft., window area of 30 sq. ft., and a floor and ceiling area of -90 sq. ft. 7. Condominium typical bedroom with 1 exterior Wall with `a gross area sof 88,sq, ft., window area. of 36 sq. ft.,, and a, floor and ceiling area of 132 sq. ft. 8: Single-family home master bedroom With 2 exterior walls with a gross area of ,372 sq. ft., window area of 79 sq. ft., and a floor and telling area of 451 sq. ft. Conditions'that would tend to reduce- the acoustical performance include; 1. Using, a greater area of windows or doors. 2. Having a,.greater area, of exterior walls. 3. Using, smalh--r rooms, 4. Adding wall penetrations such as through -wall air�condltjoners, heaters, or fans. S. Using hard room finishes such as ceramic the or wood floors, and using few fumishin.9s. 5.1 WYLO. WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Pesign.Gulde March 20j3 - ,.Appendix A SECTIONI: PURPOSE' Exterior noise having a significant impact on 'human c1c t , I vity,'hiedith-arid,;safety, maybe isolated and reduced In, homes and working environments where. public contact Is"common through construction, techniques which, selectively Increase ;the, insulating quality ofthe qxterio.r:of occupied structures. The noise llevel.reductioq&requlretl ,SECTION 2: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, A. The NLR requirements specified. herein. may .0e: achieved . by any suitable - combination of building. designs, choices of building materials., and execution of construction° details in accordance with established archl , tectural and acoustical principles. The NLR requirements Is , I ' iovid, be applied to all occupied rooms -having one or more exterior walls or ceiling,. The Sound Transmission Class (STC). ,ratings required for exterior walls, windows, doors, and ceilings -are presented In Table 4-1. B. Compliance with the construction standards herein are, sufficient to. comply- with the- NLR-1 requirements specified in the various airport land use districts. These. standards ,are ,applicable to plans and specifications for -any -propqsedresidence�.., Ifthe,:ptpris. and seci" - Ifga - tions`,4o not p' indicate compliance with Ahe.,cqn!strucl:ion standards herein the building code - should be amended to. require- a "written 'st',ptein eint from qualified 'acoustical consultant,"c'e" r6NI-no, that the the.building. .ps,-inoicated, j n fhe-,plans,�and specificiitions� will, result in,--a,NLR I for. , ;appropriate -, -, , occupied - rooms ' af . l,e6st,,.B 11 s _. great,. as t e,,NL , R yalue, specifiedI I , for , tl�g, plica,ble r7l the; air rtl-,Pse,dis�trict-:­ C. Sound -Transmission, Class (STC), ratings for. windows and, doors. ar&­valid :only if .they are: determined by laboratoryI tests perforrned by an. Ind , eperid . ent I aboratory, for -1 t I fie�,product manufacturer. A -rating estimated' for glass alone is not an acceptable substitute- for. STC tests of Windows. Likewise, ratings estimated for door leafs.alone are not an acceptable substitute for STC,ratings-of doors. The:inst6lled products must have the same accessories. such as -,storm panels, glazing thickness, glazing size, gaskets,.bottom -door seals, thre holds, etc,., as the tested. assembly. D. In order to achieve. the. STC ratings specified below special measures are necessary to, install doors and windows. These, Include the.. use of non -hardening (acoustical) caulk at all 'hidden surfacesi, flexible caulk at -all exposed surfaces, and solid. continuous blocking to, fill all voids .over, 1/4"'around windows and. door'si. SECTION 3:. BUILDING� REQUIREMENTS. FORA. MINIMUM NLR% oF,-.25. dW. A. Exterior -Walls 1. 'The 'interior surface of exterior walls .'shall be of gypsum board or, plaster at ].east 1/2 inch thick. A4 WR- WwIO New C,onstruction Acoustical Design Gulde M617ik_2063 . 2. Fiberglass batt or blanket insulation shall, be. installed continuously and completely"throughout the, stud cavity. Batts or blankets should be -held firrnly in place between studs; with fasteners if necessary, to prevent sagging; howeveri packing the insulation such that it is cornp d""rha'' ' '� Nsse - y s igli"htly re Oce, 1 acoustical (and thermal) performance. ormance. 1. Windows other than as described in this section shall have alabbratory sound; transmission class-'r-,AihgWat least STC -,33. 2. WiridowsJh any room With ohe.exterior'wall and a total exterior wall area below 170square feet may have a lziboratoryzound transmission class rating of 'at least STC -27. I., Exterior doors, -other than as -described in, this section shall have a laboratory sound 'transrnlssl.on class rating, of at -least STC -24. Interior doors bietw6en"occupi'o-d spaces "and attached garagesor "unfinished attic.spcos shall b'&'solid,-'core wood" or 20-4augeinsulated metal at least. -I-3/4 inches,thick and shall be fully weatherstripped. D. RoDf4Cefflng Assseimbly, 1.The­--,stbndard c s �rdof-contruti6n j's'bs§u'rh'ed.Itd bi� shih­61e�` 7/16", linimbm' 0SB­,'d1­ k and I I . I- " I - , I m Oc -wobd',teutses•,oe�tafters,,spac6d"16CJorming an"atticspace overoccupied rooms. 2. The' use of catheriraI ceihnbs,Ash s 'e -4iritr6ft noise. ,trohg,t�,:di8coU,raged"",f,'or�,,,,om s ,exposed io, Feather than z mock -cathedral cel ling' with., a, small - a'tUc,,,s'Pace&,aboV6" Is"rec' "rile6ded If a om using ien �- c ann"els., cathedral ceiling is used, tKe:gypsum'board ceiling must-b'e hung, ' �re�jl` �,t_­h 3. Skylights can 'be used if a­secdndat*- panel :of 4/4_'indfi4hick s8f6t*,' glass or 'insulated thdhimopane`glass Is used ° at the'b6ttorn of the skylight well. Alterhativ6ly;:sk'yiight§'.t filth an STC 38 rating can be used. 4, Gypsum bbard­br­pl6st(jr ceillngs";.at least" 1/2 Inch thick shall be provided. Ceilings,shall be subsitanfiallV 'airtight, with a mi riirriurn'ri umber of penetratloh.-§; E. Floors, Foundations and. Basements 1. The floor of the lowest occupied. rooms shall be S18b, on' -fill, below grade, or over a 'fully enclosed b6sement or crawNpace. Ifthe, basement is used as a,habitable living area (as a recreation area, study, or additional, sleeping area, for exarnple),Ahe doors and wihd6ws,shall conform "to the requirements stated in this ordinance. 2. Concrete tlabsrequire noAreatmb6t. -Crawl spaces -and' baseme'nts".are,discussed below. 3. Crawl spaces with masonry walls must have noise control louvers at the under-flodr vents. If crawl spaces do not have masonry, walls, a massive barrier pane . I must be used as a, skirt connecting the bottom of the ovalis to the ground. A-2. WyLe.. W11,03 -M New. Construction Acoustical Design Guide March Z003> 4. -Dryer vents 'and other basement vents- should be constructed- of sheet metal, to limit the amount of" noise that will enter through them and then pass through the duct wall to the surrounding room. F. Ventilation and Wall Penetrations 1. in -window :or thro4gh-themWall air-conditioning, ventilating,, or heating units shall not be. used, 2. ThroUgh-the-wall/doof mail boxes,,or-, mail,slots:,rshall. not be,used. 3. A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide the 'minimum; air circulation and fresh air supply requirements for various uses in occupied' rooms, as specified in the North",,Carolina State !Building Code, without the -need to -.open any windows,, doors, or otheropeninqs to,the�-exterlor_ 4., Gravity vent openings: ngs;in atticsshO 11 not -exceed the, code, Minimum I n� number and size'. 5. If an attic fan is used for forced ventilation, the attic inlet and discharge openings shall be fitted With sheet metal transfer, ducts of at, least 20 gauge steel at least 5, feet long with at least one 96.0 bend, 6. All vent ducts -connecting the interior space ,to the outdoors, excepting domestic. range ,exhaust and; bathroom, exhaust ducts,; shalt contain at -least two 90* bends - 7'. Domestic range exhaust ducts connecting'.the. interior -space -to -the> outdoors'shall be at..Ioatt 20 gauge steiel and, shall contain at least two 'W bends. Alternatively, unvented range exhaust fahs may be used, if allowed by applicable-. codes., 8. Fireplaces; if presenti shallp be.'rovide&_ ith, glass. doors arid" well =fitted -,oat h-pers.- W6od' stoves shall not be used. SECTION 4: BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. FORA MINIMUM T NLR QF'304B. A. Exterior walls 1. Exterior walls other than as described below shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -43. This rating can be achieved as follows. The, gypsum board or plaster shall be fastened rigidly to the studs, if the exterior is brick veneer. If the. exterior Is siding, the interior gypsum board or plaster must be, fastened to the studs using resilient channels. Resilient channels- must be installed horizontally along the studs, and screws connecting; the gypsum board or plaster to, the channets ,must not, contact the studs. Oriented Strand Board (OSB) at least 7/16 inches thick,shall.cover the exterion,'side &,''the,wrall. studs. 2. Rooms. that have one exterior -wall and zi,-total .,exterior .wall area -.below 17 0,square.-fedt: need not meetAhe requirements of the paragraph, above, 3. The Interior surface of theexterior walls shall -be of gypsum, board or -plaster at least 1/2" inch thick. 4. :Fiberglass batt'or blanket insulation shall be installed continuouslyand completely throughout the stud cavity,. Batts or blankets should be held. firmly in place between studs;. With 'A-1 1 . 7r,71 WR 0340 Now Construction Acoustical Design, Guide Aar W2003 '-N fasteners if necessary,, to prevent sagging, however, packing the insulation such that it is compressed may slightly reduce its acoustical., (an dthermal), performance. B. Windows 1. Windows otherthan as described iti this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission ,ciass..rating,of.at least.STC-!33. 2. Windows in rooms with 2 exterior walls -and a, total exterior wall area greater than 300 square feet must have a. laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -40. LAMI = 1. Exterior doors.- or door/storm, composite,zssembiies, other than as described in ,this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission class- rating of at least:STC726. A typical door or in combination with a typical. storm door will achieve a rating of at least STC 26. Therefore, either -a door tested to achievean STC 26 rating• may be: -used,, or else,.a storm door can be added to an untested door. If a. storm door Is not used, all glass, in the door shall be at least 3/16;,, thick. '2. Doors in rooms With 2 exterior .walls and a total exterior wail area.greater than 300 square feet must have 6 laboratory sound transmission class rating,of at least STC -33. This rating maybe achieved either by. using z door tested to,achleve.an:STC­33 �rating, "or a typical, door In combination with a sec,,ohdary/$tbrmdoor-t.ested, tw,achievie-.an- $TCi, 29 ratlng,,pr,-a typical door in combination with a full -view secondary /storm door utilizing 1/4" thick lamlnai'ed glass. lf,a,stormdo"or -I- s not-used,.all) glass in ;the,,doorshall be at least 1./4" thick laminated. gla5s. 3. Interior doors between occupied spates, and attached .garages ;or unfinished attic,spaces shall ' be solid -,core _wood or 20gauge `insulated m6taflat least�l 4,4 ,nchesAhick and shall, befully weather-stripped. 4. If a tOrm/secondary door is',usedi, the airspace shall be at Idast40 between the, surfke-§,,Of the two.d6ors, D., Roof -Ceiling Assemblies 1, The -standard roof construction Is assumed to be< shingles, 7/i6" 'minimum OSB deck, and wood'trusses or rafters spaced l6:" O.C. forming an attic space over -occupied rooms. 2. Roof-�ceiling assembi les in too -floor rooms with 2 exterior walls and a total exterior Wall area greater than 300.,square feet must have a laboratory sound transmission class rating ofat least STC -56. The; required, construction consists of resilient channels mounted perpendicular to the,ceiling joists, on'the bottom .of the joists, with one.layer04/2" gypsum -board attached to thechann'elt. Resilient,! channels must be. installed horizobtalIV along, the studs, and screws connecting the gypsum board or,plasterto.the channels must not contact the studs. 3. The; use of'cathedra,l ceilings ings is not, allowed. A mockrcathedralceiling .with a small attic space above is, acceptable. A-4 mo, ,Le WR 0340- NewConstructidnACM,ustical DeslgmGulde, M drch,2003, 4. Skylights can be 'used if a secondary panel of 1/4 -inch -thick safety glass or insulated thermopane -,glassis .used at the. bottom -of- the. skylight: well. Alternatively, skylights with. an STC 38, rating can be used. .5. Gypsum .board or..'plaster .ceil .ceilings. at least -.1/2 inch thick -shall be. provided. Ceilings shall 'he, .substantially airtight With a minimum number of penetrations. E. Floors Foundationsi,and 5asemdrit§ I. The fioQr of the ,16West,occupi6cl rooms shall he, slab on fill, below grade, or over a fully entlo�;e-d.b6s,ementorcrawlsp,ace-. If, the basement is -u.se.d.as a,1habitable living area (as -a recreation . area.,. study,,,or-addit7ional,sleeping: area, for,,example),.the d.00rsand windows shall, conform to;the.,requirements stated ins this� ordinance.,. Z. Concreteslabs require no treatment.. Crawl,,,.spaces and basements are discussed below. 3. Crawl spaces with masonry walls must have, noise: control louvers,at the under-floorvents. If crawl spaces do- not have, masonry walls, �a massive: barrier panel must be used as 'a skirt connecting the bottom of the walls to the�-ground.. C Dryer: vents and other basement vents ;should be constructed of sheet metal to, limit, the - amo �Unt:.of not I se, that, will ente.r,through them and then pass through the duct wal), to the surroundi,ng,:1room,. F. Ventilattion-an-d Wall Penetrations 1. in -window or through -the -wall air-conditioning, vehtllating,,,or_heating; .units.- shall not be used. 2. Through-the4wall/door mailboxes or mail `slots shall not be used. 3: A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide the minimum air' O(qu1atfdn.and:,-fresh air supply -,requirements for various usesAn occupied r0omsias specified in, the 'North Carolina State Building Code,. without.the need• to open any wind.Owsi: doors., or other openings to the exterior, 4. Gravity vent openings--inattics slizill not exceed the.code,minimuniAn,number arid' -size. 5. 'If an attic- fan is used foe forced ventilation, the attic, inlet and discharge 'openings shall be, fitted With sheet metal transfer ducts of at least 20 gauge steel atleast ,5 :feet -tong with �at least one 900 bend. 6. Ali vent ducts .'connecting,, the interior space tothe: outdoors,, excepting domestic range ,exhaust and bathroom exhaust ducts, shall be at least 1.0 feet long :and shall contain, at least: two W. bends. It is, recommended that in-line sound attenuators (silencers) be installed in ducts targer.,than--3".1n.diameter. 7, Unvente&,ranqe exhaust,,fans shall be used, if,,allowed, by:.appkable qpd.es. .If unventedi range exhaust'fans are not., allowed .by applicable codes, range exhaust ducts connecting � the interior space to the outdoors shall be at least 20 gauge steel and, shall contain at.least two 90." bends. A- wyLe., WR 03-1,0 New'Construction Acoustical Design Gui&a. March 2003 8. Operational vented fireplaces-or wood, stoves shall not tie used. SECTION5, BUILDING, REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINIMUM N LR OF 3!'de A. Ext1drior walls 1. Exterior walls other than as described below shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at -least -.STC-47. To achieve this rating, all exterior, wall studs must have 2 x 6 studs, and the -interior 1/z inch gypsum, board or Olaster,must be fastened to the studs using resilient channels. Resilient -,channels, -must -must be installed horizontally along the studs, and screws connecting the gypsum board or plaster zto,the channels : must :not. contact the studs. 2. Exterior walls ,in any room with one,exteftr Weill and, -.a total exterior wall area below 170 square feet shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -43- To achieve this reitinq, the interior 1/z inch gypsum board.or plaster must be fastened to the 2 x 4 studs using resilient channels. .Resilie'ht channels must be installed horizontally � along the :studs,,and screws-, connecting the gypsum board or plaster,to the, channels must, not contact 'the, studs. 3. Exterior walls in any, room with two exterior walls and a total 'exterior wall area greater'than 300 ;square feetShall have a laboratory, sound transmission rhission classrating of at lea-qt,,STC-49. To. 'achieve this rating, a staggered stud construction must ,be: ,used for! all, extIeriorwalls. This x., construction uses two rows (if 2, 4�' studs on a 2x6 base plate: one row of studs spaced 1W' on. center supporting, the.'theathirig, and a second row spaced 16" rani center -supporting- the interior wall finish, The, end result is -that there are ,stud studs center, 1/2.'inch, gyiJsUm board. or., plastet:'mbstbe'used 4. Oriented Strand Board (OSB) at least 7116 inches .thick shall cover the exterior side of the wall .studs, 5,.; Fiberglass,lbatt or blanket insulation shall be installed contlnuously,andcompletely throughout 't , he �stud cavity: Batts or blankets should be held firmly in' place `between studs, with ,fasteners if necessary., to prevent', sagging; however',,, packing the insulation such Ahat it is compressed may slightly reduce its acoustical (and thermal) -performance. 1. Windows other than :,as -described in this section shall have a.'laboratory sound transmission class rating -of, at least STC -40. 2. Windows in rooms, with 2 exterior walls, and a. total exterior wail area greater than 300square feet must have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at, least STC -44. C. Doors, 1. Exterior doors, or door/storm composite assemblies, other.than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating Of at least STC -38. Achieving this rating will require the,use:ofspeciaity,,acousticaI products.. A�.6 WR 0: , 10., NeW,ConsfruaipnAcoustical'Desidn.-Guide: March 2001� Interior doors betWeen -occupied space and attached 'garage or unfinished attic. spaces shall be solid -core wood or.20-.gauge insulated metal at least 1-3/4 inches; thick andshall be fully weather-strlpped.. 3. If a storm/secondary door is used; 'the-alrspace: shall be, at least V between the surfaces of they two, doors. D. Roof -Cell lhgAsseni bl let 1. The standard roof construction i I s -assumed to be shingles, 7/16" minimum OSB deck, and wood trusses or rafters spaced 16" O.C. forming an attic space over occupied rooms, 2. Roof-ceilingassei-nblies,,In=.top.;..flQorrooms with "2 exterior walls.-and,.a total- exterior wall area, greater than 300 'square Jeet'must: have a, laboratory: sound:transmissions class, rating of at least -STC -56. The required construction consists of resilient channels mounted :perpendicular to the, ceiling joists, on bottom of the joists, with one layer of I/Y' gypsum -board attached tothe ,channels. Resilient channels must be installed horizontally. along the �studs, - and:screws- .connecting, the gypsum board ,or plaster to, the channels mustnot. contact the studs. 3. 'The,use of cathedral ceilings it hot allowed,;- A mock-cathedt-al ceiling with a st-nall attic space above is',atceptable. 4. Skylights:shall not be. used. 5.. Gypsum board or plaster ceilings:at least ill, inch .thick shall be provided. Ceilings shall be substantially airtight with'a minimum nUmber.of penetrations. E. Floors,! Foundations :and Basetnents- 1, The, floor of the. 'lo 'West occupied' r6oms shall be slab on 'fill, below grade, or over a fUlIV-' enclosed toseme rit or crawlsp4c6.. If the basement is used as a habitable living area (as a recreation. area, -study, or additional sleeping area, for example), the doors and wind 6ws.,sliall conform to, the -'requirements stated in this ordinance, 2'. Concrete stabs require: na,treatm.ent. Craw[spaces and basements, are discussed below. 3. Crawl spaces with masonry walls must have noise control louvers at the under -floor vents.. If crawl spaces es do not have masonry walls, -a massive barrier panel must be: used at a skirt connecting -the bottom of the walls,to'the ground. 4. Dryer vents and other basement vents should be constructed of sheet metal to limit the am , oUnt of noise that will enter through them and then pass through. the duct wall to the surrounding room: F. Ventilation and Wall Penetrations. i. In -window or through -the -wall air-conditioning, ventilating, or heating units shall not be used. 2. Through4he-wall/door mailboxes, or mail slots shall not be, used, .A-7 WFU03,401 New, Construction',Acouaical'Design.,Gitlde, Manch, 2'003 re system -3. A - mechanical Ventiilation em zh' -all be' installed that will provide the minimum air' circulation'and fresh -air supply'requfirementsfor .varioususesn in occupied - rooms,, as,.specified In `the North Carolina State Building Code, without the need oto open any •windoWs, doors, or other openings to the exterior. 4. Gravity vent openings in attics shall not exceed the, code .minimum, in number andsize. S. If an attic, fan is Used for forced,,ventilation, the attic inlet and discharge openings shall be fitted with sheet metal transferducts of at least 20 gauge .steel at least 10 feet long With at, least.ono,90P bend. 6. All vent ducts connecting the -interior space to the outdoors,,, excepting domestic range .,- exhziUst'and bathroom'. ej(haust ducts, shalt be atJeast 10 feet long,shall, containatleast �and. two 90*"behdsi It is recommended that In-line sound attenuators` (silencers) be installed In ducts ':larger than 'T'in diameter. 7. :Unvented range exhaust fansshall be -used, if allowed by,applicable codes.: If unvented range exhaust fans are not allowed by applicable. codes, rang e, -exhaust, ducts connecting the interior space to. the outdoors shall be at least 20 gauge steel and .shall contain at least two goo bends. 8-. Operational vented fireplaces or wood stoves shall, not be. used. A -S wAe,, WR -03-10 N'eW--Cb'niitrticti,6n.AcousticaI DeslgwGulde WmW2iD03 ff� Manufacturers --of Acoustical Materials This list represents a partial list of typical suppliers of specialty acoustical products. Other manufacturers not listed may have comparable products. The list below does not imply a product endorsemen.t,or recommendation by Wyle Laboratories. BATrs.'A'ND RIGID FIBERGLASS IN50LA:qON Owens-Corning Fibeegia ' ss -Corp. Knauf Fiberglass One Ow'ens�Coming.parkViby _Tel'; 800-82,54434 Toledo, Ohio 43659 Fax: 317-398-3675 800 -GET PINK' Iitt'-://www,.knauffiberglass.,C'OM p h'ttp://www.,ow'enscorhi.ng.coM/ CeftainTeed (800) 233-8990 http;//Www.certain teed :com/` Johns Manville P.. G..Box 5108 Denver, Colorado 80217-5108= .800-654=3103 http:/,/Wwvv.jm.,Com/ nr�be I., Algoma Hardwoods He§s-Arrnklad, Inc.. 1,001 Perry Street' 6ox 1,217 Algoma,, Wisconsin 54201 QUincy, PA 17247 800 678.8910 866544-666" http:HvYww..a'igomahae,diti6ods.com/ www.armadad.COM rEggers' In'dust'ries " A Doors`_ Weyerhaeuser Architectural b0o'. PO Box 1050 1,401 East 4th Street Neenah, W1 54957-.1050 Marshfield,. W1 54449-7780 Phone: 920-722-6444 800-869-3667 http://www.eggersir!dUstries.coib/ www.Weyerh6eUser..corti/ Pibqe6r'1ndustfles 401 Washington Avenue Carlstadt,. New Jersey 07072 201/933-190.0 http-.//wWw.p.io.neer'inOustt-ies..com Buell DoorCompany 5200 East..Gra.nd Ave. Dallas; TX 75223 2 1 14/827-9260: 800/556-0,15,5 http://www.buelidoor-comt Peerless Products, Inc.. Mon -Ray., Inc: 2403 S. Main�801 BooneAvenue North Fort;Scott, KS 66701 1 minneapolis, MN 55,42-7-44,32. 866-420-4060, 800-5-44-3646 http-/,/,wWw..p.eettesspro,ducts.cotn/' http,://ww.w.monra , yXorri/ B"4 1 zmmwgsi4� Aetoacoustic, Corp. Ihdijstrial Aco.ustics.Cphipany 3300 Corporation Way. 1160 Cbmmerce-Avenue Darlington.. SC 29532 Bronx., New York, 10462 843-39,4-10016 (718)!91318000 http,//www.aero6coustic.-com/ http;//www.industriaiacousties.com/ ndustrialacoustics.comil Pemko Manufacturing Co. 5535 Distd buti on'D rive ,Memphis, TN 38141 - 800-824-;5018 or 9017365-2160 http-//www.pemko.,qpm/ Uatio.nal.Guard Products, roducts, Inc-. 4985, East Raines, Rd Memphis, TN 38118' 800/647-7874, , http:://www.ngpinc.com/ Zero. Internati6nali Inc. 415 Concord,Avenue Bronx, New York 1,0455-4898 718/585-3230 http://www.zerointernational.com/ SPECIALTY ACOUSTICAL VINDOW UNITS Rehau Incorporated R.O. Box 1706 Leesburg, VA 20177 703-777-525S http://vvww.rehau.com Peerless, Prod ucts,'Inc. 2403 S. Main Fort Scott, KS 66701 ,666420-4000 Harvey Industries Inc. 4-1.Errimpri Road Waltham, MA 02154-4689 800-225-;6183 or 781-,398-7718 www.harveyind.com Graham ,Architectural Products: Corp. 1551 Mt. Rose Avenue York, PA 17403-2909 900-755-6274 http,-./jwww.graharia itth.comj .Wausau,Metals Corp. 1415 West Street,: 715-845_'2161 hftp://'Www;wausauwjndows.corn Moh-Ray, Inc. 801 Boone Avenue North Minneapolis,. MN 55427_4432 800-544-3646 Republic Windows and Doors 930 West Evergreen Ave Chicago, IL 60622 (.609)654-5512. http-//www-.repUblicwindows.com/ 71M WR 03-10. Ne *Cdnstructlon AbDust1cp1,bes1gW.G61die March 2003; Appendix C Ind I Open4ont . Per, tiffed: Acoustical Testing Laboratories This, listrep'resqnfs,,apartial Acoustical Testing Laboratories The list below 'does', hot imply an endorsement orsement or .-recommendatio n. byWyleLaboratories. I The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAvnaintpins,a Directoryof Accredited .Laboratories on their website: httt)'.//ts,.nist.Oov/ts/htdoc,s/210/­2-1,4`/`Sc,oti6slacotshttn A66ustic -Systerns Aco ustical Stork -Twin, City, Testing, Inc. - .Research Fatilitv;_;Inc.. = 662 Cromwell Avenue 415 East. St. Elmo Road St. Paul, MN 55114-1776: P.O. Box 3610 '651-645=3601 Austin, TX, 78764 51214444961 Wd'Of6m' Elddro I Ato-usti6 Lab., Inc,.,, i-5,12, Batavla Avenue 25132 Rye Canyon; Loop, G6n6va..11lin6i.t 0184 SadtaClarita; CA 9,1355 630-232-0104 t61-775-374,_1 ,Architectural 7,esting, Inc. Orfl Od' Laboratorl Inc. 130, 'Derr 2709:E_25 Street,Y,Ct. Y6ik; Pk,174'62 Minneapolis,. MN 55406 .7 06 2 WR 03-:10, New C6nstructidti-Acoustical'Design Guide March:2bO3 Noise Level Reduction, (NLR) The 'difference between, A -weighted sound levels, Indoors: and % outdoors. Noise Reduction (NR), The difference, in decibelsj of the, average sound levels in two adjacent areas or rooms-. Noise reduction could be from outside to inside, offrom one room to another. Noise reduction combines the effects -of - the building, -construction plus the effect of acoustic absbr—tion present in the receiivinh , p 'g room. By knowingthe noise reduction values and the outdoor ndfselevels one can determine, the Noise Level Reduction (NLR). Octave The, interval between two sound frequencies having- a ratio 6f,2. For example, ifthe center frequency of f one octave is 125 Hz, the next octave, up, will be centered at 250 Hz. -and the octave above that will be, at $00 Hz. Octaire�Band A frequency range which:is-ohe octave wide. Standard octave bands are designed by their center frequency. Octave Band Center Frequency The average of the upper and, lower. frequencies of the octave. Standard octave band center. frequencies in the audible range are 31.5, 63, 125, 250,,50'0, 1000, 2000, 400,0j 8000, and 16,000 hertz., Ond-Third "Octave, Band A frequency, range which Is one-third: octave wide. Standard one-third :octave bands, are. designed by -their center frequency. One;-irhird' '6ctave Ba - nd Center I Frequency 11 The, average of, the upper an I d lowerfreppe ncies,of the ,,one-third ci,c-taveband's. ,Standard,,one-third,.o.,ct.ave, band 'dpnter,,freqq en dies -I njhe %aud I b1p rangeare,-,., of, Sound , X2'5 0 -100' , 4,00 '6300. 3,14'5 A25 5061 2RQP,, 800, 40.6,,' 1"6'0'1_ 630' 2500 '-.10 06Q, SO. -O .200 806, 12 500 - 63.0 250 1000 4000 16",,000 80.-0 315 1250 5000, .200,11001 ReceiVe'r The listener who Bears -,-a §6 und or the measuring mid phohe'whibh 6e'tdcis-the'-s'6u'.hd r9 ,transmitted, by the source. Reverberation The persistence of sound in an enclosed space, ,as,a result of multiple reflections, after the sound source has stopped. The more absorptive the room is, the shorter the reverberation time will be. Generally, if the reverberation time is too short, people feel that the room �is "dba&'while if, it is too long, there Is confusion among sounds. Shid1dino The ability of hills or,structiuees;:to physically biodk,�sound or create,stiadoW zones where 0 vels-are reduced. un "ie''. Sotind"A'00bepilon The ability of'sou,hd-6bsorbl'hg materials to trap sound.and convert'it, to; he.at;or sortie ,,other` ,f energy. ,form of, . P 91 Sound insulation Reducing the sound level.'Inside a building through -the-use of specific building construction materials, and component assemblies whjch,provide.noise, reduction. >ound Transmi"Ibn Class (STC) A single -number rating derived from measured, values f "Determination transmission loss, in accordance with ASTM Classification E413, of, Sound D=3 UTIRM" WR 03-10 New.Construction Acoustical Design Guide Marck2003 a~ Transmission Class".. It. provides an evaluation of the sound isolating properties of built construction against sounds of speech, radio,. elevislon, etc. Sound Transmission loss (TL) A measure of a. built construction's ability' to :reduce sound passing through it, expressed in decibels.: Source- The,objectmhith generates the sound: Southern Building Code (SBC) See inteenattiona/ BuildInrg Code. Spectral Characteristics/Spectrum The frequency cpntent of the.npiseproduced by the source. Structureborne Sound Sound energy transmitted through a. solid medium such as the' building Structure. Thermal .Insulation A material or assembly of materials used primarily to provideresistance to heat flow. TL See;'Soundjransmission Loss. Uniform .Building Code (UBC) See International Bui 67- 9 Code; D-4 APPENDIX 1 NLR 30 STRUCTURAL NOISE CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS 1 -1 - RECOMMENDED BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINIMUM NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION OF 30 dB 1. Compliance Compliance with the following standards shall be deemed to meet the requirements of the Compatible Use Districts in which an NLR 30 is specified. 2. General a. Brick veneer, masonry blocks or stucco exterior walls shall be constructed airtight. All joints shall be grouted or caulked airtight. b. At the penetration of exterior walls by pipes, ducts or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar. c. Window and/or through -the -wall ventilation units shall not be used. d. All sleeping spaces shall be provided with either a sound -absorbing ceiling or a carpeted floor. e. Through-the-wall/door mailboxes shall not be used. 3. Exterior Walls a. Exterior walls other than as described below shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -44. b. Masonry walls having a surface weight of at least 40 pounds per square foot do not require a furred (stud) interior wall. At least one surface of concrete block walls shall be plastered or painted with heavy "bridging" paint. c. Stud walls shall be at least 4" in nominal depth and shall be finished on the outside with siding -on -sheathing, stucco, or brick veneer. 1 1 1 i -2- (1) Interior surface of the exterior walls shall be of gypsum board or plaster at least 1/2" thick, installed on the studs. The gypsum board or plaster may be fastened rigidly to the studs if the exterior is brick veneer or stucco. If the exterior is siding -on -sheathing, the interior gypsum board or plaster must be fastened resiliently to the studs. (2) Continuous composition board, plywood or gypsum board sheathing shall cover the exterior side of the wall studs behind wood, or metal siding. The sheathing and facing shall weigh at least 4 pounds per square foot. (3) Sheathing panels shall be butted tightly and covered on the exterior with overlapping building paper. The top and bottom edges of the sheathing shall be sealed. (4) Insulation material at least 2" thick shall be installed continuously throughout the cavity space behind the exterior sheathing and between wall studs. Installation shall be glass fiber or mineral wool. 4. Windows a. Windows other than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission rating of at least STC -29. b. Glass of double -glazed windows shall be at least 1/8" thick. c. Double -glazed windows shall employ fixed sash or efficiently weather stripped operable sash. The sash shall be rigid and weather stripped with material that is compressed air tight when the window is closed so as to conform to an infiltration test not to exceed 0.5 cubic foot per minute per foot of crack of length in accordance with ASTM E -283-65-T. d. Glass of fixed -sash windows shall be sealed in an airtight manner with a non -hardening sealant, or a soft elastomer gasket or glazing tape. -3- e. The perimeter of window frames shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction with a sealant conforming to one of the following Federal Specifications: TT -S-00230, or TT -S-00153. f. The total area of glass of both windows and exterior doors in sleeping spaces shall not exceed 20% of the floor space. 5. Doors a. Doors, other than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -35. b. The glass of double -glazed sliding doors shall be separated by an airspace. Each sliding frame shall be provided with an efficiently airtight weather stripping material as specified in Section 4C. c. Glass of all doors shall be at least 3/16" thick. Glass of double sliding doors shall not be equal in thickness. d. The perimeter of door frames shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction. e. Glass of doors shall be set and sealed in an airtight non -hardening sealant, or a soft elastomer gasket or glazing tape. 6.Roofs a. ...Combined roof and ceiling construction other than described in this section and Section 7 shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -44. b. With an attic or rafter space at least 6" deep, and with a ceiling below, the roof shall consist of closely butted 1/2" composition board, plywood or gypsum board sheathing topped by roofing as required. J 1 1 c. If the underside of the roof is exposed, or if the attic or rafter spacing is less than 6", the roof construction shall have a surface weight of at least 40 pounds per square foot. Rafters joists, or other framing may not be included in the surface weight calculation. d. Window or dome skylights shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -33. 7. Ceilings a. Gypsum board or plaster ceilings at least 1/2" thick shall be provided where required by Paragraph 6.b above. Ceilings shall be substantially airtight, with a minimum number of penetrations. b. Glass fiber or mineral wool insulation at least 3.5" thick shall be provided above the ceiling between joists. 8. Floors The floor of the lowest occupied rooms shall be slab on fill, below grade, or over a fully enclosed basement. All door and window openings in the fully enclosed basement shall be tightly fitted. 9. Ventilation a. A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide at least 2 air changes per hour with at least 20% fresh air supply requirements for various use in occupied rooms without the need to open any windows, doors, or other openings to the exterior. b. Gravity vent openings in attic shall not exceed code minimum in number and size. The openings shall be fitted with transfer ducts at least 3 ft. in length containing internal sound absorbing duct lining. Each duct shall have a lined 900 bend in the duct such that there is no direct line of sight from the exterior through the duct into the attic. 1 c. If a fan is used for forced ventilation, the attic inlet and discharge openings shall be fitted with sheet metal transfer ducts of at least 20 gauge steel, which shall be lined with 1" thick coated glass fiber, and shall be at least 5 ft. long with one 90° bend. d. All vent ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors, except in domestic range exhaust ducts, shall contain at least a 10 ft. length of internal sound absorbing duct lining. Each duct shall be provided with a lined 900 bend in the duct such that there is no direct line of sight through the duct from the venting cross section to the room opening cross section. e. Duct lining shall be coated glass fiber duct liner at least 1" thick. f. Domestic range exhaust ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors shall contain a baffle plate across the exterior termination which allows proper ventilation. The dimensions of the baffle plate should extend at least one diameter beyond the line of sight into the vent duct. The baffle plate shall be of the same material and thickness as the vent duct material. g. Building heating units with flues or combustion air vents shall be located in a closet or room closed off from the occupied space by doors. h. Doors between occupied space and mechanical equipment areas shall be solid core wood or 20 gauge steel hollow metal at least 1-3/4" thick and shall be fully weather stripped. 1 1 Appendix I: Traffic Impact Analysis LJ 1 DRAFT Traffic Impact Analysis 420 W. 6TH STREET RESIDENTIALPROJECT Prepared for: EPD Solutions May 13, 2016 Prepared by: rranspO roup 4 WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. 4340 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-656-7925 www.transpogroup.com 15463.00 © 2016 Transpo Group 1 1 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary .................................................................................................................2 Chapter1. Introduction............................................................................................................3 ProjectDescription................................................................................................................. 3 StudyArea and Scope........................................................................................................... 3 Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2. Existing and Buildout Year 2035 Without -Project Conditions ..........................8 StreetSystem........................................................................................................................ 8 TrafficVolumes...................................................................................................................... 8 Intersection Operations.......................................................................................................... 9 Chapter3. Project Impacts....................................................................................................13 TripGeneration.................................................................................................................... 13 Trip Distribution and Assignment......................................................................................... 14 TrafficVolumes.................................................................................................................... 21 Existing With -Project Intersection Operations..................................................................... 21 Buildout Year 2035 With -Project Intersection Operations ................................................... 25 Chapter 4. Findings and Recommendations.......................................................................28 Appendix Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS Worksheets Appendix C: OCTAM MODEL DATA Figures Figure 1. Site Vicinity & Study Intersections....................................................................... 6 Figure2. Project Site Plan ......................................... :........................................................ 7 Figure 3. Existing Traffic Control and Geometrics............................................................ 10 Figure 4. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.................................................................. 11 Figure 5. Buildout Year (2035) Without -Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................... 12 Figure 6. Residential Trip Distribution.............................................................................. 15 Figure 7. Residential Trip Distribution (Intersection Level) ............................................... 16 Figure 8. Existing Industrial Use Trip Distribution............................................................. 17 Figure 9. Existing Industrial Use Trip Distribution (Intersection Level) ............................. 18 Figure 10. Residential Trip Assignment.............................................................................. 19 Figure 11. Existing Industrial Use Trip Assignment............................................................ 20 Figure 12. Existing With -Project Peak Hour Volumes........................................................ 22 Figure 13. Buildout Year (2035) With -Project Peak Hour Volumes .................................... 23 Tables Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections using ICU Methodology... 4 Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ...................................... 4 Table 3. Study Area Existing Street System Summary ..................................................... 8 Table 4. Existing Without Project Weekday Peak Hour Intersection LOS ........................ 9 Table 5. Buildout Year 2035 Without Project Weekday Peak Hour Intersection LOS ...... 9 Table 6. Project Trip Generation..................................................................................... 13 Table 7. Existing and Existing With -Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service.... 24 Table 8. Buildout Year 2035 Without and With -Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service............................................................................................................... 26 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 Executive Summary This section provides an executive summary of the Transportation Impact Analysis through a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Where Is the project located and what would be developed? The proposed project is located at 420 West 6th Street in the City of Tustin. The project is bounded by West 6th Street to the North, South B Street to the East and the Interstate 5 Freeway to the South. It would replace the existing 183,430 square foot industrial park with 140 for -sale condominiums. What existing public streets will serve the project and where is accessproposed? West 6th Street and South B Street provide primary access to the project site. Regional access to the project is provided from Interstate 5 via Newport Avenue or EI Camino Real. Is the site currently served by public transit? Transit service in the project study area is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The project site is served by OCTA routes 66 and 71 on Newport Avenue. How many daily vehicular trips would the proiect generate and when would peak traffic volumes occur? The project is anticipated to generate a net of 439 fewer daily trips (439) including 89 fewer trips (-89) during the AM peak hour and 83 fewer trips (-83) during the PM peak hour. Net negative trips are anticipated as the existing industrial use generates more trips than the proposed for -sale condominium residential use. What Transportation impacts are anticipated, If any No transportation impacts are anticipated at any of the study area intersections. What measures are proposed to reduce or control traffic impacts ? The project would not result in any significant traffic impacts therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. VA 1 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 Chapter 1. Introduction The purpose of this traffic impact analysis (TIA) is to identify potential traffic -related impacts associated with the proposed 420 West 6th Street Residential project (proposed project) located in the City of Tustin (City). As necessary, mitigation measures are identified that would offset or reduce significant impacts. Project Description Figure 1 illustrates the project site and the surrounding vicinity. The proposed project is located on an existing industrial park located at 420 West 6th Street in the City of Tustin. The project is bounded by West 6th Street to the North, the Interstate 5 Freeway to the South, South B Street to the East and an existing self -storage facility to the west. The project would replace the approximately 183,430 square foot industrial park with 140 for -sale condominium dwelling units. The project site plan is shown in Figure 2. West 6th Street and South B Street provide primary access to the project site. Regional access to the project is provided from Interstate 5 via Newport Avenue at EI Camino Real. The project would continue to use the existing driveways on West 6th Street and South B Street. Two additional driveways will be added on West 6th Street for emergency vehicle access only. Study Area and Scope This analysis focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hours (the hour of highest traffic volume between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM). These periods represent the highest cumulative total traffic for the adjacent street system. The study intersections include: 1. Pacific StreettWest Main Street 2. South B Street/West Main Street 3. Pacific Street/West 6th Street 4. South B Street/West 6th Street 5. EI Camino Real/ West 6th Street 6. West Driveway/West 6th Street 7. Center Driveway/West6th Street 8. East Driveway/West 6th Street 9. South B Street/North Driveway 10. South B Street/South Driveway Based on the City's guidance the study intersections were analyzed for the following four study scenarios: • Existing Conditions • Existing Conditions Plus Project Conditions • Buildout Year 2035 Without -Project Conditions • Buildout Year 2035 With -Project Conditions This TIA includes a description of existing conditions in the site vicinity, including roadway network, existing and opening year weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, and traffic operations. t 171r Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 Methodology The City of Tustin intersection evaluation methodology and significance criteria is based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections and intersections under Caltrans jurisdiction, the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology (HCM 2010) was used. Signalized intersections The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the intersection's level of service (LOS). The intersection as a whole and its individual turning movements can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (A through F), with LOS A indicating free-flow traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. At signalized intersections, LOS was calculated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. LOS at signalized intersections is measured based on the sum of the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of the critical movements. Table 1 shows the relationship between v/c ratio and LOS for signalized intersections. Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections using ICU Methodology Level of General Description Service V/C Ratio (Signalized Intersections) A 50.60 Free Flow B 0.61 to 5 0.70 Stable Flow (slight delays) C 0.71 to <_ 0.80 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D 0.81 to <_ 0.90 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E 0.91 to 5 1.00 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F >1.00 Forced flow gammed) Unsignalized intersections LOS at unsignalized intersections is classified by two intersection types: all -way stop -controlled and two-way stop -controlled. LOS for unsignalized intersections was calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 methodology. All - way, stop -controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all of the movements, much like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way, stop -controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is because the performance of a two-way, stop -controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop -controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. With this in mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop -controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion, and impacts would be considered for the highest approach delay for the worst movement. Table 2 shows the relationship between vehicle delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections (both all -way and two-way, stop -controlled). Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Two -Way and All -Way Stop Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) A 0-10 B >10-15 C >15-25 D >25 - 35 E >35 - 50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. l- 4 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential F 2016 Future Traffic Forecasts Buildout Year 2035 without -project traffic volumes were obtained from the County's OCTAM model. Transpo received model data from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and then post -processed the data for peak hour turning movements. West 6th Street and South B Street were not included in the model as it is mostly historic residential use and not much future growth is expected in this area. With the project, it was important to assume a distribution for the existing industrial use and account for this in the plus project conditions. Significance Criteria According to City of Tustin staff, the City has adopted a performance standard of LOS D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) for all signalized intersections with the exception that LOS E is acceptable at designated Congestion Management Program (CMP). There are no designated CMP intersections within the project study area, therefore LOS D is applied as the maximum acceptable LOS at all study area intersections. According to City guidelines, for ICU greater than the acceptable level of service, mitigation of the project contribution is required to bring the intersection back to no -project conditions or better if project contribution is greater than 0.03 at CMP locations in the City of Tustin (the impact threshold specific in the CMP), or 0.02 greater for all other intersections in the study area. The City does not have any significance criteria for unsignalized intersections that are operating at unsatisfactory LOS E or F without the project. �r 5 Site Vicinity and Study Intersections 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 10, 2016-10:07am rudyg CALlserAudyglDropbox (Transpo CA)1Transpo CA Team FolderlProjects12015115463.00 -Historic Lofts, TusfinlGraphios115643.00 -Tustin -Residential -Revised - 2016-05-10.dwg FIGURE transpogro r=_,` 1 WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN Layout: figl-sitelocation-studyarea 'i_ -4- 7 I r Site Plan 420 W 6th Street Residential Project WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. 4 May 10,2016-10:07arn rudyg C:IUsers\rudyg\Dropbox (Transpo CAffranspo CA Team FolderlProjects12015115463.00 - Historic Lofts, TusUnIGraphics115643.00 Justin - Residential - Raised - 2016-05-1 O.dwg Layout fig2-eiteplan M A N NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 Chapter 2. Existing and Buildout Year 2035 Without -Project Conditions This section describes existing and Buildout Year (2035) without -project conditions within the identified study area. Characteristics are provided for the roadway network, peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, non -motorized facilities, and transit. Street System Characteristics of the existing street system in the proposed project vicinity are shown in Table 4. As shown on Figure 2, the access is provided to the project site via driveways along West 6th Street and South B Street. Table 3. Study Area Existing Street System Summary Street Posted Speed Number of Travel Bicycle Roadway Classification Limit Lanes Parking Sidewalks Lanes Main Street Secondary 30 MPH 2 Yes Yes No West 6th Street Collector 25 MPH 2 Yes Yes No Newport Avenue Major 35 MPH s/o 1-5 6 No Yes No 35 MPH n/o 1-5 25 MPH w/o EI Camino Real Secondary Newport 4 No Yes 40 MPH e/o No Newport South B Street Collector 25 MPH 2 Yes Yes No s/o = south of, n/o = north of, w/o = west of, b/w = between MPH = miles per hour Transit service in the project study area is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The project site is served by OCTA routes 66 (Huntington Beach to Irvine via McFadden Avenue and Walnut Avenue) and 71 (Yorba Linda to Balboa via Tustin Avenue, Red Hill Avenue, and Newport Boulevard). The existing traffic control and geometrics at study area intersections is shown in Figure 3. Traffic Volumes Existing Traffic Volumes Existing turning movement counts at the study intersections were conducted in January 2016. The existing condition reflects those land uses that were built and occupied at the time of the traffic counts. This includes the existing industrial uses that currently occupies the project site. Intersection turning movement counts are provided in Appendix A. Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are summarized on Figure 4 and were used to evaluate existing traffic conditions. Buildout Year 2035 Traffic Volumes As noted in the methodology section, Buildout Year 2035 traffic volumes were developed from OCTAM model data provided by OCTA. OCTAM model data is provided in Appendix C. Transspo post -processed the model data using TurnsW32 to obtain the Buildout Year 2035 8 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential ProjectMay 2016 peak hour traffic volumes. These volumes were assumed to include the existing industrial uses currently on the project site. The Buildout Year 2035 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5. Intersection Operations A LOS analysis was prepared for the Existing and Buildout Year (2035) without project conditions using the ICU and HCM methodologies as discussed in Chapter 1. Table 4 provides the existing without -project levels of service. The adopted LOS threshold for the study locations is LOS D. Table 4. Existing Without Project Weekday Peak Hour Intersection LOS AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Type LOS' V/C or LOS' V/C or Intersection Delayz Delay' 1. Pacific Street/West Main Street Signal A 0.521 A 0.411 2. South B Street/West Main Street Signal A 0.570 A 0.454 3. Pacific StreetlWest 6th Street All Way Stop A 8.2 A 7.8 4. South B Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A 9.3 A 9.1 5. B Canino ReaV6th Street Signal A 0.405 A 0.471 Level o Service, based on Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU orHCM Iorstop controlled intersections s Vo fume -to -capacity ratio o r delayfo r stop controlled intersections As shown in Table 4, all study area intersections operate at a satisfactory LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 5 provides the Buildout Year 2035 without project levels of service. The adopted LOS threshold for the study locations is LOS D. No future roadway improvements were assumed for this analysis. Table 5. Buildout Year 2035 Without Project Weekday Peak Hour Intersection LOS AM Peak PM Peak Control LOS' DeCayz LOS' Deny= Intersection 1. Pacific Street/West Main Street Signal B 0.676 A 0.55 2. South B Street/West Main Street Signal B 0.682 A 0.579 3. Pacific Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A 7.7 A 7.8 4. South B Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A 8.8 A 9.0 5. B Camino Real/6th Street Signal A 0.395 A 0.465 Level of Service, based on Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) or HCM fo r sto p controlled intersections 2 Vo lume-to -capacity ratio or delay fo r stop controlled intersections As shown in Table 5, under Buildout Year 2035 Without Project conditions, all intersections continue to operate at satisfactory LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. 9 Pacific St West Main St South B St O West Main St Pacific O West 6th St St South B St 4 West 6th St EI Camino Real O 6th St _ . LANE GEOMETRICS M N + + o + — + r"--0 DEFACTO DEFACTO DEFACTO o DE FACTO E [Jstin ❑ Traffic Controls and Geometrics A N NOT TO SCALE 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project trarlspo' WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. :--a May 10, 2016-10:07a� C:lUsers4udygT)ropbox (Transpo CA)1Transpo CA Team FolderlProjects12015115463.00 -Historic Lofts, TustinlGraphics115643.0�Residential -Revised - 2016-05 10.dwg Layout fig3-existing -to and geo FIGURE 3 LEGEND ® _ TRAFFIC SIGNAL ! = STOP SIGN _ . LANE GEOMETRICS 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project trarlspo' WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. :--a May 10, 2016-10:07a� C:lUsers4udygT)ropbox (Transpo CA)1Transpo CA Team FolderlProjects12015115463.00 -Historic Lofts, TustinlGraphics115643.0�Residential -Revised - 2016-05 10.dwg Layout fig3-existing -to and geo FIGURE 3 OPacific St West Main St O South B St West Main St O Pacific St West 6th O South B St O EI Camino Real St West 6th St 6th St N .N. w NpN :E8. SON Lv�k58/29 63913981 f-453/532 14/43 578/354—► f-399/496 12/34 26/29 57/51 a26/66 18/10 20/50 1121771 --a--38/90 1329 14/31 4783—► ♦26/36 6/10 66/58-)-) 21/17 j6/15 � 0/1_� f'0/0 1/1`� 8/13 i 121/109-,� 13118 t � t r _� t t 00 Q OON O NN p�N (�O N�p f0 M N E 11stin ❑ Peak Hour Volumes FIGURE 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project t 4 � f an��o'�. MiAT TPANSPORTATION CAN BE. ::; May10,2016-10:07am rudyg C:lUserslrudyglDropbox(TranspoCA)1TranspoCATeam FolderlProjecls12015115463.00-Historic Lofts, TustinlGraphics115643.00- Tustin - Residential -Revised -2016-05-10.dwg Layout fig4-existing -4afficvolumes Pacific St South B Pacific St South St Camino Real O West Main St O West Mainin St O East 6th St O West 6th St 6th O 6th St m N a7 to NO�l V7 tpQm to n O�� N M �fNON / 58/29 -)-.*) 829 14/43 12/34 2629 18/10 20/50 1329 14/31 972/695 x•784/752 880/591-0-- -o-713/684 57/51 -o-26/66 11 2f77 --o- X38/90 47/33 X26/36 �6/10 66/58-) 21/17-� f'6/15 0/1 /0/0 1 1/1, f'8/13 121/1091/ 13/18 1 -,*) t t t O O O �o� O ON ,� N N aaa O N a�� N O t R ZZ '-1' N Buildout Year (2035) Peak Hour Volumes 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project tfatlSpQgrup WHATTP,ANSPORTn.ION CAN BE. .--� May 10, 2016 -10:07a_ C:1Users4udyg%Dropbox (Transpo CA)ITranspo CA Team FolderlProjects12015115463.00 -Historic Lofts, TustinlGraphics115643.0�Residential -Revised - 2016-05-t0.dwg Layout: fig5-2035-trafficvolumes FIGURE 5 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 Chapter 3. Project Impacts This section documents project -generated impacts on the surrounding transportation system and at the study intersections. Trip Generation The proposed project replaces the existing industrial uses on-site with multi -family housing units. The project site is located at 420 West 6th Street in the City of Tustin. The project is bounded by West 6th Street to the North, South B Street to the East and the Interstate 5 Freeway to the South. It would replace 183,430 square feet of industrial uses with 140 for -sale condominium units. The vehicle trip generation for the project was developed using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (9th Edition, 2012) for Land uses 230 — Residential Condominium/Townhouse and 130 — Industrial Park. The industrial park uses would be an acceptable assumption as an industrial park can contain multiple small businesses including office uses. Table 6 shows the trip generation of the project during the AM and PM peak hours and on a daily basis. Table 6. Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates Condominium' DU "" 5.81 ' t. 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 Industrial Park2 TSF. 6.83 0.67 0.15 0.82 0.18 0.67 0.85 Project Trip Generation Proposed Project (Condos) 140 DU 813 10 51 62 49 24 73 Existing Industrial Park 183.43 TSF -1253 -123 -27 -150 -33 -123 -156 Total Trip Generation -439 -113 24 -89 16 -99 -83 TSF =Thousand Square Feet 'Trip rates from the Institute of Transpo ration Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012. land Use Code 230 - Condominium 3 Trip rates from the Institute of Transpo ration Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012. Land Use Code 130 - Industrial Park. As shown in Table 6, the existing industrial use generates more trips than proposed residential use. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a net total of 439 fewer daily trips (-439) including 89 fewer trips (-89) during the AM peak hour and 83 fewer trips (-83) during the PM peak hour. r 13 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 Trip Distribution and Assignment Project trips were distributed to the study area intersections using the existing travel patterns, engineering judgement, and knowledge of the study area. The trip distribution pattern for the proposed residential uses is illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. The trip distribution pattern for the existing industrial uses are shown in Figures8 and 9. Project trips were assigned to the study area intersections by multiplying the project trip generation by the trip distribution percent at each location. The proposed residential project trip assignment is illustrating in Figure 10 and the existing industrial trip assignment is illustrated in Figure 11. 14 f. Residential Tri ❑ Distri ❑ution FIGURE 420 W. 6th Street Residential Projectt(anspo ' "�� �� 'NKAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE May10,2016-10:07am rudyg C:lUsers4udyglDropbox(TranspoCA)1TranspoCATeam FolderTrojecis1201M15463.00-Historic Lofts, TusfinlGraphicsl15643.00-Tustin-Residenfial-Revised -2016-05-t0.dwg Layout fig6-res trip dist 0 Pacific St West Main St South B St O West Main St Pacific St O West 6th St South B St O West 6th St EI Camino Real O 6th St West Driveway O West 6th St Center Driveway O West 6th St OEast West 6th St N N N N 5 0 10—► X10 f �(75 85--m- f-70 � 55 N N N n V N N Driveway South B St ,� South B St OEast West 6th St O North Driveway O South Driveway 00 0 I � 5 —► �5 40 40 i10 o Residential Tri ❑ Distri ❑ution (Intersection ❑evel) FIGURE 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project transpogroup WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. =_I May 10, 2016-10:07a� C:IUssrsVudygTropbox (Transpo CA)\Transpo CA Team FolderTrojects12015115463.00 -Historic Lofts, Tustin\Graphics\15643.O�Residential -Revised - 2016-05-10.dwg Layout- fig7 -Residential Dist (Intersection) 7 Edstin❑ Industrial Use Trio Distri❑ution FIGURE 420 W- 6th Street Residential Project transpor t 8 WHAT T ,ANSPORT i ION CAN LE. May 10, 2016-10:07am rudyg C:IUsers\rudygTropbox (Transpo CA)1Transpo CA Team Fo1der\Projecls12015\15463.00- Historic Lofts, Tusfin\Graphics115643.00 -Tustin - Residential - Revised - 2016.05-10.dwg Layout: fig6-industrial trip dist Pacific St West Main St South B St O West Main St Pacific St O West 6th St South B St O West 6th St EI Camino Real O 6th St West Driveway O West 6th St Center Driveway O West 6th St $ West 6th St 9 North Driveway South Driveway 5 o 60i f-60 30 85—► -..*-65 5 5--s- --*-5 5 35 East Driveway South B St South B St $ West 6th St 9 North Driveway South Driveway o 35—► f35 30J �30 0 Edstin❑ Industrial Tri❑ Distri❑ution (Intersection ❑evel) 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project ifanspo 'KHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE, May 10, 2016-10:07a� C:IUsers4udyg0ropbox (Transpo CA)1Transpo CA Team Folder\ProjecM2015115463.00 -Historic Lofts, TustinlGraphics\15643.O�Residential -Revised - 2016-05-10.dwg Layout flgg -Industrial Dist (Intersection) FIGURE 9 OPacific St West Main St South B St 2 West Main St Pacific St O West 6th St South B St O West 6th St EI Camino Real O 6th St West Driveway O West 6th St Center Driveway O West 6th St $ West 6th St O North Driveway South Driveway 1/2 112 N '/IC r 3/1 5/2--b- f-1/5 /6/37 4320 f-7/34 ,/2` �02 2/1—o- f02 21/10) 20/10 1/5 N N t N �m m M ee East Driveway South B St South B St $ West 6th St O North Driveway South Driveway N N _ /Q Q N '/IC r 2/1—o- f02 21/10) 20/10 1/5 N N t N Residential Tri ❑ Assi Ehment FIGURE 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project transpo r p ! ,- 10 WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. May 10, 2016-10:07am rudyg C:IUserslrudygl0ropbox (Transpo CA)1Transpo CA Team FoldWrojecls120105463.00 - Historic Lotts, TustinlGraphicsl15643.00 - Tustin - Residential -Revised - 2016-05-10.dwg Layout fig10 -residential trip assignment Pacific St West Main St South B St O West Main St Pacific St 3 West 6th St South B St West 6th St EI Camino Real O 6th St West Driveway 6 West 6th St Center Driveway O West 6th St West 6th St North Driveway 0 South Driveway N N 1 N -8/-2 8/-37J -16/-74i f-74/-20 37/-10 -23/-105—► -80%21 -11-6 -6/-2—► --0-1/-6 -6/-2 -43/-12 -9/-43 —► --*-431-12 371-10 m TA OEast Driveway South B St O South B St West 6th St North Driveway 0 South Driveway n m 8/-37J -9/-43 —► --*-431-12 371-10 rn T E [Istin ❑ Industrial Use Tri ❑ Assi dlment FIGURE 420 W 6th Street Residential Project transp0 ro, WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. ..- May 10, 2016-10:07am rudyg C.1Users4udyglDropbox (Transpo CA)ITranspo CA Team Foldeffrojects12015115463.00 -Historic Lofts, TusfinlGraphics115643.00 -Tusfin - Residential -Revised - 2016-05-t0.dwg Layout: fig11- Industrial trip assignment Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 Traffic Volumes Existing and Buildout Year (2035) with -project traffic volumes were determined by adding the project trips to the existing and buildout year (2035) without project traffic volumes. Figure 12 shows the existing with -project weekday peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. Figure 13 shows the Buildout Year (2035) with -project weekday peak hour traffic volumes. Since the existing industrial use may generate more volume at a particular intersection than the proposed residential use, if a negative volume was forecast for any turning movement (northbound left, through, right) at an intersection, the'hegative volume was replaced by the volume from the residential only trip assignment (proposed project) shown in Figure 10. Existing With -Project Intersection Operations An intersection operations analysis was conducted for the study area to evaluate the existing With -Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. Intersection operations were calculated using the LOS methodology described previously. Table 7 provides a comparison between the existing without and with -project conditions for the weekday peak hours. Detailed LOS worksheets are included in Appendix B. 1 1 IT 21 Pacific St South B St O Pacific St O South B St O EI Camino Real O West Driveway O Center Driveway O West Main St West Main St West 6th St West 6th St 6th St West 6th St West 6th St fmD tO+l� 1 4-14/43 tOOtN 4-2724 mrh � 4-20/50 tO nJN (0.k14/31 58/29JJ 12/34J- 19/5J-) 1329-)j 639/3981 ---453/532 578/3541 --o-399/496 57/51—► f26/66 101/6 f1f75 6720 X7/49 109176—► X458/536 167/1261 X419/554 60/59 6/10 21/17 ♦7/17 0/1_ �0/0 1/1� f6/40 120/103 13/18 1/2' �02 N \ N ONN OaD rp � N � N OEast Driveway South B St 9 South B St West 6th St North Driveway South Driveway :Q r' Owl �J� _)�1 124/46--o- ♦85/84 1/5 12/10 20/10 t t N \ N � EIstin❑ With -Project Peak Hour Volumes FIGURE 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN 8E. _+ May10,2016-10:08am rudyg C:IUsersWdyglDrophox(TranspoCA)1TranspoCATeam FolderTrojects12015115463.00- Historic Lofts, TuslinlGraphios115643.00-Tuslin-Residenfial-Revised -2016-05-10.dwg Layout fig12-sx+proj-traffiwdumes 12 OPacific St South B St 2 Pacific St O South B St O EI Camino Real O West Driveway O Center Driveway O West Main St West Main St West 6th St West 6th St 6th St West 6th St West 6th St o o 972/6951 f-780/52 5829 14/43 880/591 x713/684 12/34 2724 57/51--0- f26/66 1915-)-) 9/5 20/50 10116 --► f1/75 1329 14/31 67/20 -.*--7/49 109/76--0- X458/536 167/1261 -.*-419/554 60/59-� _� 1 �6/10 21/17-� _� 1 f'0/0 011_� _� 1/1- 8/40 120/103,k.� 13118 1/3`i� N (_(7/17 t r(0/2 n� N East Driveway South B St South B St $ West 6th St O North Driveway 0 South Driveway o 0 124/46--m- -4*--65/84 12110-)-j 20110-)J 1/5 �i t t N � N � � Buildout Year (2035) With -Project Peak Hour Volumes FIGURE 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project transpo , UP . =f 13 WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN 6E. rA`,1 May 10, 2016-10:08am rudyg C:1Users4udyg1Dropbox (Transpo CA)1Transpo CA Team Fo1derTmJecls12015115463.00 - Historic Lofts, TustinlGraphics115643.00 - Tustin - Residenfial - Revised - 2016-05-10.dwg Layout fig13.2035+proj-trafficvolumes Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential F Table 7. Existing and Existing With -Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service 2016 Level Or service, oaseu on intersection t.apacay uuurauo n tn.u) or rn.m ro r sto p co ntroneu intersections 2Volume-to-capacity ratio ordelayfo r stop controlled intersections IT 24 M M M ControlVIC Existing AM Peak PM Peak Existing With -Project AM Peak PM Peak VIC or Delay Change AM PM or VIC or VIC or VIC or Intersection LOS Delay 2 LOS, Delay 2 LOS Delays LOS Delay 2 1. Pacific Street/West Main Street Signal A 0.521 A 0.411 A 0.522 A 0.408 0.001 -0.003 2. South B StreetNVest Main Street Signal A 0.570 A 0.454 A 0.567 A 0.454 -0.003 0.000 3. Pacific Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A 8.2 A 7.8 A 8.1 A 7.8. -0.100 0.000 4. South B Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A 9.3 A 9.1 A 9.2 A 9.1 -0.1 0.0 5. B Camino Real/6th Street Signal A 0.405 A 0.471 A 0.384 A 0.471 -0.021 0.000 6. West Drivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop B 13.7 B 14.4 13.7 14.4 7. Center Drivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop A 9.2 A 8.9 9,2 8,9 8. East Drivew ay/West 6th Street .1 Way Stop A 8.9 A 8.5 8.9 8.5 9. North Drivew ay/South B Street 1 Way Stop A 8.8 A 9.0 8.8 9.0 10. South Driveway/South B Street 1 Way Stop A 8.7 A 9.0 8.7 9.0 Level Or service, oaseu on intersection t.apacay uuurauo n tn.u) or rn.m ro r sto p co ntroneu intersections 2Volume-to-capacity ratio ordelayfo r stop controlled intersections IT 24 M M M Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 As shown in Table 7, all study area intersections will continue to operate at satisfactory LOS under the With -Project conditions. At some intersections, the proposed residential use is expected to add fewer trips than the existing industrial use, which were included in the January 2016 traffic counts. Therefore, some intersections are expected to operate with improved V/C or delays during the With -Project conditions. No project impacts are forecast under the Existing With -Project conditions. Therefore, no mitigation would be required. Buildout Year 2035 With -Project Intersection Operations An intersection operations analysis was conducted for the study area to evaluate the Buildout Year With -Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. Intersection operations were calculated using the LOS methodology described previously. Table 8 provides a comparison between the Buildout Year 2035 without and with -project conditions for the weekday peak hours using the City's ICU methodology. Detailed LOS worksheets are included in Appendix B. 1 ITr 99 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project 2016 Table 8. Buildout Year 2035 Without and With -Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service V/C or Delay Buildout Buildout With -Project Change AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM Control LOSE V/C or LOSE V/C or LOSS V/C or LOSE V/C or Intersection Delays Delays Delays Delay Y 1. Pacific Street/West Main Street Signal B 0.676 A 0.550 B 0.677 A 0.547 0.001 -0.003 2. South B Street/West Main Street Signal B 0.682 A 0.579 B_ 0.679 A 0.579 -0.003 0.000 3. Pacific Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A .7.7 A 7.8 A 7.6 A 7.8 -0.1 0.0 4. South B Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A 8.8 A 9.0 A 8.7 A 9.1 -0.1 0.1 5. 8 Camino Real/6th Street Signal A 0.395 A 0.465 A 0.376 A 0.456 -0.019 -0.009 6. West Drivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop B 13.7 .6 14.4 13.7 14.4 7. Center Drivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop A 9.2 A 8.9 9,2 8.9 8. East Drivew ay/West 6th Street 1 Way Stop A 8.9 A 8.5 S.9 8.5 9. North Driveway/South B Street 1 Way Stop A 8.8 A 9.0 8,8 9,0 10. South Drivew ay/South B Street 1 Way Stop A 8.7 A 8.9 8,7 8,9 Level of Service, based on Intersection Capacity Utilizatto n (IOU) or MUM to r sto p controlled intersections 2 Vo fume -to -capacity ratio or delay for stop co ntro [led intersections GPM 26 M M s Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 1 I IT 27 As shown in Table 8, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS under the Build out Year 2013 With -Project conditions. At some intersections, the proposed residential use is expected to add fewer trips than the existing industrial use which was included in the 2035 OCTAM model data. Therefore, some intersections are expected to operate with improved V/C or delays during the With -Project conditions. 1 I IT 27 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 Chapter 4. Findings and Recommendations This transportation impact study summarizes the project traffic impacts of the proposed 420 West 6th Street Residential project in Tustin. General findings and recommendations include: • The proposed project is located at 420 West 6th Street in the City of Tustin. The project is bounded by West 6th Street to the North, South B Street to the East and the Interstate 5 Freeway to the South. It would replace the existing 183,430 square foot industrial park with 140 for -sale condominium dwelling units. • West 6th Street and South B Street provide primary access to the project site. Regional access to the project is provided from Interstate 5. • Transit service in the project study area is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The project site is served by OCTA routes 66 and 71 on Newport Avenue. • The project is anticipated to generate a net total of 439 fewer daily trips (-439) including 89 fewer trips (-89) during the AM peak hour and 83 fewer trips (-83) during the PM peak hour. Net negative trips are'anticipated as the existing industrial use generates more trips than the proposed residential use. • In the Existing and Buildout Year 2035 conditions, all study intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS D or better during the peak hours. The project would not result in any significant traffic impacts therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. WA 28 L Appendix A: Traffic Counts INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 paciFc@aimtd.com I- Main 1 WEST SIDE 1 Pacific NORTH SIDE 1 FAST SIDE Main 1 SOUTH SIDE— Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS DATE LOCATION: E SIDE 1 W SIDE Tustin 0 7:30 AM 0 0 7:45 AM PROJECT #: SCO826 0 0 8:15 AM 0 8:30 AM 0 Thu, Jan 14, 16 NORTH 8 SOUTH: 4:00 PM Pacific 4:15 PM 0 4:30 PM 0 LOCATION #: 7 5:00 PM o 5:15 PM 00 5:30 PM 0 EAST & WEST: TOTAL Main 0 0 0 0 0 CONTROL: SIGNAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: 0 0 0 0 —1 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 Ae 0 A 0— "o o-- o - - o ----o- o- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ��+, •` 0 '10 N F00 0 O i 0 0 0 0. 0 1 0 RSR_ t $ E► 1 0 ({]AdU Tumst LefcT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EA5TBQUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS Patlf c Padfic Man Male NL ' NT NR SL ST SR EL l ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB i WB TTL LANES: 0 X 0 X X I X X 1 0 1 1 X 0 0 0 1 0 7:00 AM 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 100 ! 9 0 47 0 0 0! 0 0 7:15 AM _ 7:30 AM 8 14 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 188 L 17 33 1 i 49 l 3—�96 6 0 242 341 0 0 0 0+2- _ 0 0! 00 0 7:45 AM 5 0 2 0— —0 i 0 0 1 157 1 6 0 187 0 357 0 0, 0, 0 0 _ 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 6 5 0 i --- — 0 2 ------ 1 0 ---- 0 i 0 --- 0 0 — 0 0 0 128 69 ! 10 1 16 2 —1--- 2 121 65 0 --- 0 269 - --- 158 1 ---- 0 i 0 i 0 i 0 1 — F-- — o 0 l 0 ---- 8:30 AM 6 - 0 ---- 1 0 0 - 0 --- 0 54 — 1 9 1— - 51 ------ 0 122 0 --_0 0 0- 1 0 0 g 8:45 AM 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 62 6 1 40 ' 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 a VOLUMES 51 8 0 0 0 924 106 10 56 0 1,765 1 0, 0 0 1 APPROACH % 74% 0% 26% 0% 00/0 0% 0% 90% 10% 20/0 98% 0% APP/DEPART 69 / 0 0 117 1,030 / 942 666 / 706 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:15 AM VOLUMES 33 0 12 0 0 0 0 639 66 6 453 0 1,209 APPROACH % 73% 0% 27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 91% 9% 1% 99% 0% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.536 0.000 0.798 0.614 0.847 APP DEPART 45 0 0 73 705 651 459 485 0 4:00 PM 16 1 0 Z 0 0 3 ! 10 4 111 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 13 0 3 0_' _ 0 0 0 87 1 6 3 41::: 113 0 225 0 0 1 0! 0 0 4:30 PM 21 0 5 0 0 0 0 97 r 12 2 09 0 246 0 0 O l 0 0 4:45 PM 16 0 6 0 0 0 0 110 ! 12 3 117 0 264 0 0 0 l 0 0 5:00 PM _ 5:15 PM 14 11 0j 0— I 3 0 0_ 0 i 0 1 0 0_ 0 0 0 102 i 13 ! 91 - 19 4 2 142 1 145 0 0 -278--- 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 15 0 1 ----T ---',-o 0 0 95 l 14 1 128 0 254 0 i 0 1 0 i 0 0 g o 5:45 PM 12 0 i 0 0 0 0 0-1 86 i 10 1 i 100 1 0 209 0 0 1 0 o 1 0 0 0 u i 0 0 VOLUMES 118 0 20 0 0 0 0 761 96 20 965 0 7980 APPROACH % 86% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 89% 11% 2% 98% 0% APP/DEPART 138 / 0 0 / 116 857 / 781 985 / 1,083 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:45 PM VOLUMES 56 0 10 0 0 0 0 398 58 10 532 0 1,064 APPROACH % 85% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 87% 13% 2% 98% 0% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.750 0.000 0.934 0.922 0.957 APP DERT 66 0 1 0 68 1 456 408 1 542 58-8-1 0 I- Main 1 WEST SIDE 1 Pacific NORTH SIDE 1 FAST SIDE Main 1 SOUTH SIDE— Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE 7:00 AM E SIDE 1 W SIDE 7:15 AM 0 7:30 AM 0 0 7:45 AM F a 8.00 AM 0 0 8:15 AM 0 8:30 AM 0 8:45 AM TOTAL 0 ! 4:00 PM —0- 4:15 PM 0 4:30 PM 0 4:45 PM F a 5:00 PM o 5:15 PM 00 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM TOTAL I- Main 1 WEST SIDE 1 Pacific NORTH SIDE 1 FAST SIDE Main 1 SOUTH SIDE— Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 1 W SIDE TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 —0- 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0_ 0 0__ o I 00 0 0 0 0' 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 {-0 0 0 0 0 —1 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 o 0 0— "o o-- o - - o ----o- o- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '10 0 1 1 1 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE i S SIDE I E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL 0 i 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 —� 0 0 0 0 ! 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-- 0 0 0! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 i 0 0 o 0 o 0 —r— 0 0 0 -�-0 -- 0_- -_- 0 O 0 0 0 0 o 1 0 -- 20 0 0! 0! 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 BICYCLE CROSSINGS NS l SS ES I WS ITOTAL 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0! 0 0 0 0 O l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0! 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ; 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ F00 0 O i 0 0 0 0. 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com 11 DATE: LOCATION: Tustin PROJECT #: SCO826 Thu, Jan 14, 16 NORTH & SOUTH: B LOCATION #: 2 EAST" & WEST: Main CONTROL: SIGNAL 1 1 Main WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Main 1 i SOUTH SIDE B PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS NOTES: 7:00 AM I TOTAL 7:15 AM 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 _ 7:45 AM .4 a '.,° 0 -- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 _ 8:45 AM TOTAL 0 4:00 PM 0 _ 4:15 PM 0 �- 0 _ 0 _� 4:30 PM 0 4:45 PM a+- 5:00 PM N 5:15 PM -- 0 5:30 PM 1 0 _ 5:45 PM TOTAL 1_ 0_ 0 0 0 �C�0--1 0 0_ 0 0 i 0 i 0 TP IFh ; 0 0 j 0 ,m . s Q Add li'Tums m Lek toms? W E 1. 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0! 0 1 0 0 1 0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1 U-TURNS B 8 1 Main NL NT NR SL ST SR EL i ET 11 ER WL I WT WR TOTAL NB 1 SB EB WB TTL LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 i 0 1 1 0 0 I O O i 0 I 7:00 AM 0 8 1 42 2 2 99 1 4 0 4 4 174 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 3 3 4 8 -� 5 3 10 1 152 6 1 47 1 243 0 i _0 i 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 7 j 5 3 7 10 15 17 - 1 181 ! 5 0 101 1 2 34EF 0 O 1 0 0 0 7:45 AM 3 7 0 5 14 27 23 125 1 8 1 160 9 382 0 0 1 0 0 0 8.:00 AM 5 4— 3..._......_....-.....-_13....- 18---- i 120....-1 77 0 1 0 0 0 0 -- — 5:15 AM .__ _.-._�... 3 6 --1.... 3 7 - --8 - 3 -- 60 5 ..-.......-4..-.._..L-.-.-9-1.-........---2 1 1 55 _....-_ 1 ....__271 ...__ 154 0 0 0 6 0 8:30 AM 3 6 1 12 �73 1 66 —7 1 53 4 165 0 _ 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 4 1 2 10 10 45 1 8 1 43 2 139 0 0 0 0 0 a VOLUMES 17 45 17 52 67 77 74 848 45 9 598 25 1,874 0 0 , 0 0 0 APPROACH % 22% 57% 22% 27% 34% 39% 8% 88% 5% 1% 95% 4% APP DEPART 79 / 144 196 121 967 917 632 692 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:15 AM VOLUMES 11 21 10 19 42 63 58 578 21 6 399 14 1,242 APPROACH % 26% 50% 24% 15% 34% 51% 9% 88% 3% 1% 95% 3% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.875 0.674 0.809 0.616 0.813 APP DEPART 42 93 124 69 657 607 419 473 0 4:00 PM 1 5 10 5 9 4 1 95 5 4 111 5 0 0 1 0 2 2 4:15 PM 1 9 1 11 3 5— 3 82 ! 2 1 ! 113 6 237 0 0 1 0! 0 0 4:30 PM 5 8 0 —f -5-:j6 6 6 93 - 5 5— 113 5 267 0 _ 0 01 0 0 4:45 PM 5 13 3 3 1 9 2 4 1 108 ! 6 7 115 13 288 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 5:00 PM _ 3 — 9 1 - - -+-- 5 9 i 5 ------- ------ 2 8 --- 87 i --- �--- 5 3 133 i 11 -+-- 280 ---- - 0 1 0 0 0 0 -- ---- 5:15 PM 5 16 ! 3 7 ! 10 1 10 7 1 79 2 2 130 I 8 279 0 1 0 0 1 0 _ 5:30 PM 7 12 4 —9 —8— 4 10 80 4 3 118-' 11 270 0 0 0 0 0 g 5:45 PM 4 10 1 2 12 '15 10 11 71 7 1 121 1 4 258 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 a VOLUMES 30 82 28 71 54 48 53 695 36 26 954 67 2,144 0 0 0 3 3 APPROACH % 21% 59% 20% 41% 31% 173 / 28% 113 7% 784 89% / 5% 797 2% 1,047 91% 6% 1,032 0 APP/DEPART 140 / 202 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:45 PM VOLUMES 20 50 15 28 32 18 29 354 17 15 496 43 1,117 APPROACH % 24% 59% 18% 36% 41% 23% 7% 89% 4% 3% 90% 8% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.885 0.722 1 78 B I*— 63 1 400 0.847 398 1 554 94 0.2 534 1 0.970 0 APP DEPART 85 122 NORTH SIDE 1 1 Main WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Main 1 i SOUTH SIDE B PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE I E SIDE 7:00 AM I TOTAL 7:15 AM 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 _ 7:45 AM .4 a 8:00 AM 0 -- 8:15 AM 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 _ 8:45 AM TOTAL 0 4:00 PM 0 _ 4:15 PM 0 �- 0 _ 0 _� 4:30 PM 0 4:45 PM ' 00 5:00 PM 0 0 i 0 5:15 PM -- 0 5:30 PM 1 0 _ 5:45 PM TOTAL 1 1 Main WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Main 1 i SOUTH SIDE B PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE I E SIDE I W SIDE I TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- --0 ---0 0 _ 0 - 0 �- 0 _ 0 _� 0 — 0 0 0 ! 0 ' 00 0! 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 1 0 ' 0 1 0 0 0 1 00 1_ 0_ 0 0 0 �C�0--1 0 0_ 0 0 i 0 i 0 0 0 0 j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0! 0 1 0 0 1 0 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE i S SIDE I E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0! 0 0 O — r---- 0 0 1 0 - 0 — 0 0 --0 1 0 --- 0 0 0 -�0 0 0 0 I — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0 0! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0! 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0--- 0 0 0 0 ___0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 '10--o 0 -t 0 0 0! 0! 0 1 0 0 BICYCLE CROSSINGS NS SS 1 ES WS TOTAL 0 00 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 -T0 0 0 0— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 1 0! 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0, 0 0 0 =0. O 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ---0 r 0 T 0 T --b-- ..0_i --0. - - 0 -._ 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com Pacific f a— NORTH SIDE—► f I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 •— SOUTH SIDE--► Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS DATE:LOCATION: 7:00 AM 0 0 Tustin 0 7:30 AM 0 0--o 0 0 0 7:45 AM PROJECT #: SCO826 0 8:15 AM 0 ! 0 8:30 AM 0 i 0 Thu, Jan 14, 16 NORTH 8, SOUTH: 0 0 ! Pacific 0 4:15 PM 0 0 4:30 PM LOCATION #: 6 i 5:00 PM 0 0 5:15 PM 0 10 1_0 5:30 PM EAST & WEST: 5:45 PM 6th 0 0 0 0 i r 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 CONTROL: STOP ALL 0 o 0 0-7 0 0 0 1 0 I NOTES: 0 0 1 0! 0 1 0 0 v 7 r- A N vu- �W $ E► t ` QAd UTumsm left Tums= NORTHBOUND 8 D EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS Pacific Pacific 6M 6th NL NT i NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL 1 WT WR TOTAL NB i SB EB i WB TTL LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 i 0 7:00 AM 0 0 10 0 0 2 4 !0 0 ! 1 1 5 22 0 1 0 0 1 7:15 AM _ 0 0 0 14 0 3 3 15 0 0 1 8 44 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 ! 0 33- 0 6 6 19 0 0 8 8_ 80 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 15 i 0 0 10 5 37 0 0 0-7 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 6 0 5 3 i 8 i 0 0 ! 7 5 34 0 0 0 i 0 0 8:15 AM 0 - --- 0 0 -- 11 --- 0 - ------ 0 8 t-- , 0_ 0 1-- - , 3 --- 6 ------ 33 --- 0 1--- 0 1 0 , 0 0 8:30 AM 0 _ 0 0 6 _ 0 _5 _ 2 2 10 0 _ 01 4 6 30 0 0 O i —0-0 g 8:45 AM 0 0 1 5 ' 0 2 2 1 4 0 0 1 1 5 20 22 0 0 0 a VOLUMES 0 0 1 90 0 25 18 83 0 0 35 48 300 0 1 0 0 1 APPROACH % 0% 0% 100% 78% 0% 22% 18% 82% 0% 0% 420 58% APP/DEPART 1 67 115 0 101 / 173 83 60 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:15 AM VOLUMES 0 0 0 58 0 16 12 57 0 0 26 26 195 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 78% 0% 22% 17% 83% 0% 0% 50% 50% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.474 0.690 0.813 0.609 APP DEPART 0 38 74 0 69 / 115 52 42 0 4:00 P 0 0 9 5 i 1 14 12 5 4:15 PM 0 01 1 3 0 3_ 5 11 ! 0 2 5 8_ 38_ 0 0 0! 0 0 _ 4:30 PM 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 1 1 2 7 0 8 11 1 10 1 1 0 17 9 66 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 5:15 PM - 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 ---- 7 0 0 10 13 _7 13 i 0 — 8 ! 13-0 0 - 0 15 1 - 14 9 - 2 61 ---- 57 0 o o i 0 0 0 - ! -0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 i 0 i 0 5 0 10 8 15 —1t 0 0 20 0 67 0 0 0� 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 2 6 1 1 5 11 i 1 0 0 1 14 1 7 57 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 VOLUMES 0 3 5 51 2 61 63 90 1 3 117 73 469 CL 0 0 0 1 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 38% 63% 45% 2% 54% 41% 58% 1% 2% 61% 38% APP/DEPART 8 / 139 114 / 6 154 / 146 193 / 178 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:45 PM VOLUMES 0 2 2 25 0 41 34 51 1 0 66 29 251 APPROACH % 0% 50% 50% 38% 0% 62% 40% 59% 1% 0% 69% 31% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.333 0.825 0.935 67 0.9 0.7 93 APP DEPART 4 65 66 1 86 78 95 107 0 Pacific f a— NORTH SIDE—► f I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 •— SOUTH SIDE--► Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE 1 S SIDE E SIDE i W SIDE 7:00 AM 0 0 7:15 AM 0 7:30 AM 0 0--o 0 0 0 7:45 AM a 8:00 AM 0 8:15 AM 0 ! 0 8:30 AM 0 i 0 8:45 AM TOTAL 0 0 ! 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 4:45 PM i 5:00 PM 0 0 5:15 PM 0 10 1_0 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM TOTAL Pacific f a— NORTH SIDE—► f I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 •— SOUTH SIDE--► Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE 1 S SIDE E SIDE i W SIDE TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 o o�- 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0--o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 i 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1_0 1 0 0 0 i 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 i r 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0-7 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 0 1 1 00 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE ! S SIDE 1 E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL 0 i 0 1 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +- 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 i0 0 0_ 0 0! 0' 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 ; 00 1 0 0 _ 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0; 0 0 - 0 T O-� 0 0 -�- 0 -- 0 i 0-- 0 - 0.. - 0 i 0 0 i 0 0 0 F 0 0-7-0 0 0 1 0! 0 1 0 0 1 1 00 I O0 0 o 0] 0 0 0! 0 1 0 UI U I U u U 0 0! 0 0 0 4 � I 6th WEST SIDE 1 *- B NORTH SIDE 1 EAST SIDE 6th 1 SOUTH SIDE—► B PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS 7:00 AM TOTAL PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com 0 0 7:30 AM DATE:LOCATION: Tustin PROJECT #: SCO826 n�;4 Thu, ]an 14, 16 NORTH &SOUTH: B LOCATION #: 1 8:30 AM rr: �_ Qdw. M g.y4 EAST & WEST: 6th CONTROL: STOP ALL 4 � I 6th WEST SIDE 1 *- B NORTH SIDE 1 EAST SIDE 6th 1 SOUTH SIDE—► B PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS NOTES: 7:00 AM TOTAL 7:15 AM 0 0 7:30 AM 0 - _ 7:45 AM a n�;4 0 N 0 0 8:30 AM rr: �_ Qdw. M g.y4 EW E► 0 $!♦ 0 4:15 PM _ 4:30 PM NORTHBOUND B SOUTHBOUND B EASTBOUND I 6th 5:00 PM 5:15 PM WESTBOUND 6th 5:45 PM U-TURNS 0 LANES: NL 0 NT NR 1 0 SL 0 ST 1 SR 0 EL 0 ET i 1 i ER 0 WL 0 WT 1 WR o TOTAL NB 0 SB EB WB TTL 0 1 0 i 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 2r3l, 0 0 ! 0 I 12 ! 1 0 1 0 0 5 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM AM 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 3 7 25 i 47 0 0 2 3 5 90 3 54 0 0 07:30 0 0 07:45 I--0— AM 0 0 i 0 0 4 4 21 0 2 15 5 67 0 i 0 0 10 o 0 8:00AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 2 1 4 19 i 1 3 13 1 2 11 0 1 i 9 1 6 1 i 9 5 8 5 61 50 43 0 _0 0 0 i 0! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 1 1 0 3 16 0 7 8 5 56 0 0 0 0 0 a VOLUMES APPROACH % 4 22% 4 10 22% 56% 87 75% 12 10% 17 15% 28 14% 164 84% 3 2% 20 15% 70 53% 43 32% 462 0 0 , 0 0 1 0 APP DEPART 18 / 75 116 35 195 / 261 133 91 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:15 AM VOLUMES 2 0 4 51 6 14 APPROACH % 33% 0% 67% 72% 8% 20% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.375 0.845 18 112 1 8 38 20 274 14% 85% 1% 12% 58% 30% 0.606 0.750 0.745 APP DEPART 6 38 71 15 131 167 66 54 0 4:00 PM 0 1 6 8 i 2 1 3 18 1 0 2 24 1 6 71 0 J 00 i 0 0 _ 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 0 0 2 S 4 3 12 8 1 1 1 9 2 1 12 ! 16 0 1 3 0 i- ! 18 19 9_ '8 65 70 0 0 1 0 0! 0 0 0 0i 0 0 4:45 PM 1 7 3 8 2 ! 6 3 23 i 0 4 ! 24 1 10 91 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5:00 PM _ 5:15 PM _ 0 0 2 4 7 3 _10— 11- '-27—H 3 _ 2 2 �- 18 1 3 ! 19 0 __3 3 22 18 10 1 13 77__ 82 0 0 -� _1 0 1 2 0 t o 0 0 5:30 PM 0 3 2 8 2 4 2 17 i 0 3 26 17 84 0 0 1 0 0 0 g 5:45 PM 0 2 3 11 i 1 1 1 3 16 i 0 3 i 23 1 13 76 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 CL VOLUMES APPROACH % 1 2% 28 29 48% 50% 76 65% 14 12% 27 23% 19 12% 139 87% 2 1% 21 7% 174 62% 86 31% 616 0 1 1 0 i 1 2 APP/DEPART 58 / 134 117 / 36 160 / 244 281 / 202 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:45 PM VOLUMES 1 19 12 37 9 15 APPROACH % 3% 59% 38% 61% 15% 25% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.727 0.953 10 77 1 13 90 50 334 11% 88% 1% 8% 59% 33% 83 0.846 0.2 0.918 APP DEPART 32 80 1 61 22 88 126 153 106 0 4 � I 6th WEST SIDE 1 *- B NORTH SIDE 1 EAST SIDE 6th 1 SOUTH SIDE—► B PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE 7:00 AM TOTAL 7:15 AM 0 0 7:30 AM 0 - _ 7:45 AM a 8:00 AM 0 8:15 AM 0 0 8:30 AM 0 8:45 AM TOTAL 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM _ 4:30 PM O--0 4:45 PM 0 ! 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 0_ 5:30 PM 0—� 5:45 PM TOTAL 4 � I 6th WEST SIDE 1 *- B NORTH SIDE 1 EAST SIDE 6th 1 SOUTH SIDE—► B PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE i W SIDE TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F O--0 j 0 —10 0 ! o 0_ 0 - 0—� _o 0� 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0� 0 0 0 0—� o 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0� 0 I 0 --0 00 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE i S SIDE I E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 o! o! 0 i 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 —0 — 0 j 0 —10 0__�0 0 D_ 0 o _ _! o I o o _0 0! 00! 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 00--� - -; - —�--� -�..__ _o 0 0 0 0 0--- 0 0! 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 0! 0 0 0 BICYCLE CROSSINGS NS SS ES WS TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0- 0 0 0 0 0 0-- 0 - - 0 _0 0 o_ 0 �0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o -- o o I--0— o- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com EI Camino Real �— NORTH SIDE—► t 1 f 6th WEST SIDE FAST SIDE 1 1 •— SOUTH SIDE— El Camino Real PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS DATE: LOCIO ATN: 0 Tustin 0 7:30 AM 0 —0 0 7:45 AM PROJECT #: SCO826 8:00 AM 0 AM 0 1 0 0 --8:15 8:30 AM 00 Thu, ]an 14, 16 NORTH & SOUTH: 4:00 PM EI Camino Real 0 ! 0 ' 0 4:30 PM 0 LOCATION #: 3 5.00 PM 5:15 PM 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM TOTAL 0' 0 EAST & WEST: 0 { 6th 0 0 0 0 j 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 CONTROL: SIGNAL 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ! 0 1 F-1-0 NOTES: 0 0 0 0 I 0 _-0 0 __ --0 0 0 0 0000-- 0 0 L06 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 6—�--0___ 0 �.1,N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0! 0 1 0 0 Nib ,..EWbbl E ►$ --=BOUND tGT" %♦ x x NORTHBOUND 750THBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS EI Camino Real o Camino Real 6Ih 6d1 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET j ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB I EB WB TTL LANES: 1 i 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 i 0 0 i 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:0 AM 15 27 1 44 2 0 15 1 ! 4 0 0 0! 0 0 - 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 4 13 47 - 57 ! 0 -- 2 5 --- 8 63 ! 95 2 0 3 3 5 26 i 30 I 33 3 4 i 4 _3_+_6_ 4 170 250 0 0 -t _0 0 0 0! 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 12 68 2 6 85 I 3 6 1 9 30 3 i 7 3 234 0 0 0-1-1 1 _ B:OO AM 8:15 AM -- 745 -10 - i } - 40 2 3 - 3 --_ 3 --- 67 69 -- 1 - 1 - 1 7 —3-- - 3 -- ! 28 22 4 !_ 3— 9 5 3 —1- 1 177 ------ 163 0 ----- 1 . 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 i 0 0 1 8:30 AM 9 33 4 5 48 3 5-2-3 _T__1_8 1— i 43 136 0 0 0-�- 0 0 8:45 AM 16 39 2 3 54 1 2 6 20 4 6 1 154 0 0 0 0 0 a VOLUM 86 35 8 34 525 13 23 61 196 22 47 23 1,404 1 0 0 1 1 2 APPROACH % 19% 77% 4%' 6% 92% 2% 8% 22% 70% 24% 51% 25% APP/DEPART 460 / 402 572 / 743 280 / 114 92 145 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:15 AM VOLUMES 36 217 6 22 310 6 13 47 121 13 26 14 831 APPROACH % 14% 84% 2% 7% 92% 2% 7% 26% 67% 25% 49% 26% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.790 0.820 0.730 0.828 0.831 APP DEPART 259 244 338 443 18176 53 68 0 4: M 23 i 7 1 4 5 ! 27 7 0 0 i 0 I 0 0 4:15 PM _ 91 5 4 64 5_ 4 9 _! 30 _5 _4 _ _ 5 _ _ 247 0 0 0 ! 0 0 4:30 PM 85 2 3 54 8 7 6 29 0 5 11 236 0 0 0— 1 0 0 4:45 PM �26 90 2 4 55 3 10 7 ! 29 4 15 10 250 0 0 0 ! 0 0 5:00 PM ---- 5:15 PM 30 113 l --- 103 ? 6 7 4 -- 2 - 61 ! 67 _12_ 7 9 _ 9 31_ 7— j SO ! 21 6 ---�_ 3 6 7 - S 6 291 270 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 -j � ! 0 0 0 0_ 0 5:30 PM 35 98 1 1 3 1 52 8 3 7 28 5 8 -( _-_ 7 255 —6-11 0 1 0 i 0 0 g a 5:45 PM 25 1 96 1 9 3 1=53 3 5 i 10 23 6 5 8 246 0 0 1 0 0 0 VOLUMES 207 754 35 27 450 49 50 64 218 30 57 61 2,002 0 0 I 0 0 0 APPROACH % 21% 76% 4% 5% 86% 9% 15% 19% 66% 20% 39% 41% APP/DEPART 996 / 865 526 / 698 332 / 126 148 / 313 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:45 PM VOLUMES 112 404 16 13 . 235 30 29 33 109 18 36 31 1,066 APPROACH % 21% 76% 3% 5% 85% 11% 17% 19% 64% 21% 42% 36% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.917 0.903 0.872 0.733 0.916 APP DEPART 532 464 278 362 171 62 85 178 0 EI Camino Real �— NORTH SIDE—► t 1 f 6th WEST SIDE FAST SIDE 1 1 •— SOUTH SIDE— El Camino Real PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE I S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE 7:00 AM 0 7:15 AM 0 7:30 AM 0 —0 0 7:45 AM a 8:00 AM 0 AM 0 1 0 0 --8:15 8:30 AM 00 8:45 AM TOTAL 0! o: 4:00 PM 0 --o 4:15 PM 0 ! 0 ' 0 4:30 PM 0 4:45 PM f 5.00 PM 5:15 PM 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM TOTAL EI Camino Real �— NORTH SIDE—► t 1 f 6th WEST SIDE FAST SIDE 1 1 •— SOUTH SIDE— El Camino Real PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE I S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 —0 0 0 0 0 '10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0! o: 0 0 0 o 1- 0 1 0__ 0 --o 0 1 0 ! 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0_ 0 0' 0 0 0 0 { 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 j 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ! 0 1 F-1-0 —0 0 6th 1 1 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE i S SIDE I E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL O i 0 0 1 0 0 0 00— 1- 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0i _ 0 0 —01-0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 i 0 '10 — 0 0_ 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 ! 00 0 0 0 —0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 _-0 0 __ --0 0 0 0 0000-- 0 0 L06 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 1 1 BICYCLE CROSSINGS NS155 ES WS TOTAL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ! 0 1 0! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0' 0! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 6—�--0___ 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0! 0 1 0 0 1 1 M. Appendix B: LOS Worksheets EX AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:35:21 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #101 Pacific St/W Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.521 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Pacific St W Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 33 0 12 0 0 0 0 639 66 6 453 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 33 0 12 0 0 0 0 639 66 6. 453 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 PHF Volume: 39 0 14 0 0 .0 0 754 78 7 535 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 0 14 0 0 0 0 754 78 7 535 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 0 14 0 0 0 0 754 78 7 535 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 1700 0 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0:00, 0:00 0.00 0.44 0.05 0.00 0.31 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling.Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 EX AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:35:21 Page 3-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #102 S. B St/W. Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.570 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: S. B St W. Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 21 10 19 42 63 58 578 21 6 399 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 21 10 19 42 63 58 578 21 6 399 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 PHF Volume: 14 26 12 23 52 77 71 711 26 7 491 17 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 26 12 23 52 77 71 711 26 7 491 17 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 14 26 12 23 52 77 71 711 26 7 491 17 ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.34 0.66 1.00 0.15 0.34 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.03 Final Sat.: 584 1116 1700 260 576 864 1700 1700 1700 1700 1642 58 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.42 0.02 0.00 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 EX AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:35:21 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #105 E1 Camino Real/E. 6th St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.405 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 20 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: E1 Camino Real E. 6th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 36 217 6 22 310 6 13 47 121 13 26 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.-00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 36 217 6 22 310 6 13 47 121 13 26 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 .0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 43 261 7 26 373 7 16 57 146 16 31 17 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 43 261 7 26 373 7 16 57 146 16 31 17 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 43 261 7 26 373 7 16 57 146 16 31 17 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.14 0.86 1.00 0.07 0.93 1.00 0.22 0.78 1.00 0.25 0.49 0.26 Final Sat.: 242 1458 1700 113 1587 1700 368 1332 1700 417 834 449 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. EX PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:37:43 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #101 Pacific St/W Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.411 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 20 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Pacific St W Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 56 0 10 0 0 0 0 398 58 10 532 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 56 0 10 0 0 0 0 398 58 10 532 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 416 61 10 556 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0 416 61 10 556 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 59 0 10 0 0 0 0, 416 61 10 556 0 ------------I---------------II-----------=---II---------------II---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 1700 0 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.04 0.01 0.33 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. EX PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:37:43 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length °s) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #102 S. B St/W. Main'St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.454 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A Street Name: S. B St W. Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 50 15 28 32 18 29 354 17 15 496 43 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 50 15 28 32 18 29 354 17 15 496 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 21 52 15 29 33 19 30 365 18 15 511 44 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 52 15 29 33 19 30 365 18 15 511 44 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 21 52 15 29 33 19 30 365 18 15 511 44 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.29 0.71 1.00 0.36 0.41 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 486 1214 1700 610 697 392 1700 1700 1700 1700 1564 136 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.33 0.33 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 1 EX PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:37:43 Page 4-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Lcss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #105 E1 Camino Real/E. 6th St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.471 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: E1 Camino Real E. 6th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 112 404 16 13 235 30 29 33 109 18 36 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 112 404 16 13 235 30 29 33 109 18 36 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 122 441 17 14 257 33 32 36 119 20 39 34 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 122 441 17 14 257 33 32 36 119 20 39 34 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 122 441 17 14 257 33 32 36 119 20 39 34 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- II --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.22 0.78 1.00 0.05 0.95 1.00 0.47 0.53 1.00 0.21 0.43 0.36 Final Sat.: 369 1331 1700 89 1611 1700 795 905 1700 360 720 620 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 2035 AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:38:26 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative), ******************************************************************************** Intersection #101 Pacific St/W Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.676 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Pacific St W Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 .4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 33 0 12 0 0 0 0 972 66 6 784 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 33 0 12 0 0 0 0 972 66 6 784 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 35 0 13 0 0 0 0 1023 69 6 825 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 0 13 0 0 0 0 1023 69 6 825 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 35 0 13 0 0 0 0 1023 69 6 825 0 ------------I--------------- II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 1700 0 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0 ------------ I --------------- II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.04 0.00 0.49 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 2035 AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:38:26 Page 3-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #102 S. B St/W. Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.682 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: S. B St W. Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I--------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 21 10 19 42 63 58 880 21 6 713 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 21 10 19 42 63 58 880 21 6 713 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 12 22 11 20 44 66 61 926 22 6 751 15 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 12 22 11 20 44 66 61 926 22 6 751 15 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVclume: 12 22 11 20 44 66 61 926 22 6 751 15 ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.34 0.66 1.00 0.15 0.34 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 584 1116 1700 260 576 864 1700 1700 1700 1700 1667 33 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.54 0.01 0.00 0.45 0.45 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 2035 AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:38:26 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #105 E1 Camino Real/E. 6th St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.395 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 20 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: E1 Camino Real E. 6th St Approach: North Bound South Bound_ East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II--------------- II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 36 280 6 22 365 6 13 47 121 13 26 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 36 280 6 22 365 6 13 47 121 13 26 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 38 295 6 23 384 6 14 49 127 14 27 15 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 38 295 6 23 384 6 14 49 127 14 27 15 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 38 295 6 23 384 6 14 49 127 14 27 15 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.11 0.89 1.00 0.06 0.94 1.00 0.22 0.78 1.00 0.25 0.49 0.26 Final Sat.: 194 1506 1700 97 1603 1700 368 1332 1700 417 834 449 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 1 1 1 2035 PM Tue May 10,.2016 13:39:17 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #101 Pacific St/W Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.550 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Pacific St W Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I--------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 56 0 10 0 0 0 0 695 58 10 752 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 56 0 10 0 0 0 0 695 58 10 752 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 59 0 11 0 0 0 0 732 61 11 792 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 0 11 0 0 0 0 732 61 11 792 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 59 0 11 0 0 0 0 732 61 11 792 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 1700 0 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0 ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.04 0.01 0.47 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 2035 PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:39:17 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #102 S. B St/W. Main St . ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.579 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: A Street Name: S. B St W. Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 50 15 28 32 18 29 591 17 15 684 43 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 50 15 28 32 18 29 591 17 15 684 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 21 53 16 29 34 19 31 622 18 16 720 45 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 53 16 29 34 19 31 622 18 16 720 45 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 21 53 16 29 34 19 31 622 18 16 720 45 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.29 0.71 1.00 0.36 0.41 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 486 1214 1700 610 697 392 1700 1700 1700 1700 1599 101 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.37 0.01 0.01 0.45 0.45 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2035 PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:39:17 Page 4-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #105 E1 Camino Real/E. 6th St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.456 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: E1 Camino Real E. 6th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 112 404 16 13 235 30 29 33 109 18 36 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 112 404 16 13 235 30 29 33 109 18 36 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 118 425 17 14 247 32 31 35 115 19 38 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 118 425 17 14 247 32 31 35 115 19 38 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 118 425 17 14 247 32 31 35 115 19 38 33 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.22 0.78 1.00 0.05 0.95 1.00 0.47 0.53 1.00 0.21 0.43 0.36 Final Sat.: 369 1331 1700 89 1611 1700 795 905 1700 360 720 620 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 EX + PROJ AM Tue May 10,, 2016 13:40:06 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #101 Pacific St/W Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.522 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Pacific St W Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0. 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 34 0 12 0 0 0 0 639 60 6 453 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 34 0 12 0 0 0 0 639 60 6 453 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 PHF Volume: 40 0 14 0 0 0 0 754 71 7 535 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 0 14 0 0 0 0 754 71 7 535 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 40 0 14 0 0 0 0 754 71 7 535 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 1700 0 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 0.31 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 EX + PROJ AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:06 Page 3-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length °s) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #102 S. B St/W. Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.567 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: S. B St W. Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 22 13 19 36 63 58 578 21 7 399 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 22 13 19 36 63 58 578 21 7 399 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 PHF Volume: 14 27 16 23 44 77 71 711 26 9 491 17 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 27 16 23 44 77 71 711 26 9 491 17 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 14 27 16 23 44 77 71 711 26 9 491 17 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.16 0.31 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.03 Final Sat.: 567 1133 1700 274 519 908 1700 1700 1700 1700 1642 58 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.42 0.02 0.01 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 EX + PROJ AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:06 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #105 E1 Camino Real/E. 6th St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.384 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 20 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: E1 Camino Real E. 6th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II------------=--II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 7 217 6 22 310 6 13 67 120 13 7 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 7 217 6 22 310 6 13 67 120 13 7 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 8 261 7 26 373 7 16 81 144 16 8 17 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 261 7 26 373 7 16 81 144 16 8 17 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 8 261 7 26 373 7 16 81 144 16 8 17 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.03 0.97 1.00 0.07 0.93 1.00 0.16 0.84 1.00 0.38 0.21 0.41 Final Sat.: 53 1647 1700 113 1587 1700 276 1424 1700 650 350 700 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 EX + PROJ PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:56 Page 2-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report' ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #101 Pacific St/W Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.408 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 20 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Pacific St W Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 51 0 10 0 0 0 0 398 59 10 532 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 0 10 0 0 0 0 398 59 10 532 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 53 0 10 0 0 0 0 416 62 10 556 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 53 0 10 0 0 0 0 416 62 10 556 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 53 0 10 0 0 0 0 416 62 10 556 0 ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 1700 0 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0 ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.04 0.01 0.33 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 EX + PROJ PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:56 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #102 S. B St/W. Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.454 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: S. B St W. Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ----------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 45 16 28 33 18 29 354 17 17 496 43 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 45 16 28 33 18 29 354 17 17 496 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 21 46 16 29 34 19 30 365 18 18 511 44 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 46 16 29 34 19 30 365 18 18 511 44 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 21 46 16 29 34 19 30 365 18 18 511 44 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.31 0.69 1.00 0.35 0.42 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 523 1177 1700 603 710 387 1700 1700 1700 1700 1564 136 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.33 0.33 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 EX + PROJ PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:56 Page 4-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #105 El Camino Real/E. 6th St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.471 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: E1 Camino Real E. 6th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 111 404 16 13 235 30 29 20 103 18 49 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 111 404 16 13 235 30 29 20 103 18 49 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 121 441 17 14 257 33 32 22 112 20 53 34 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 121 441 17 14 257 33 32 22 112 20 53 34 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 121 441 17 14 257 33 32 22 112 20 53 34 ------------I---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.22 0.78 1.00 0.05 0.95 1.00 0.59 0.41 1.00 0.18 0.50 0.32 Final Sat.: 366 1334 1700 89 1611 1700 1006 694 1700 312 850 538 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 2035 + PROJ AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:41:57 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #101 Pacific St/W Main St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.677 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Pacific St W Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 34 0 12 0 0 0 0 972 60 6 784 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 34 0 12 0 0 0 0 972 60 6 784 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 36 0 13 0 0 0 0 1023 63 6 825 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 36 0 13 0 0 0 0 1023 63 6 825 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 36 0 13 0 0 0 0 1023 63 6 825 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 1700 0 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.04 0.00 0.49 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 2035 + PROJ AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:41:57 Page 3-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #102 S. B St/W. Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.679 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: S. B St W. Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 22 13 19 36 63 58 880 21 7 713 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 22 13 19 36 63 58 880 21 7 713 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 12 23 14 20 38 66 61 926 22 7 751 15 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 12 23 14 20 38 66 61 926 22 7 751 15 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 12 23 14 20 38 66 61 926 22 7 751 15 ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.16 0.31 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 567 1133 1700 274 519 908 1700 1700 1700 1700 1667 33 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.54 0.01 0.00 0.45 0.45 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 2035 + PROJ AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:41:57 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #105 E1 Camino Real/E. 6th St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.376 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 19 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real E. 6th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 7 280 6 22 365 6 13 67 120 13 7 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 7 280 6 22 365 6 13 67 120 13 7 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 7 295 6 23 384 6 14 71 126 14 7 15 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 7 295 6 23 384 6 14 71 126 14 7 15 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 7 295 6 23 384 6 14 71 126 14 7 15 ------------ I--------------- II -------------=-II--------------- H ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.06 0.94 1.00 0.16 0.84 1.00 0.38 0.21 0.41 Final Sat.: 41 1659 1700 97 1603 1700 276 1424 1700 650 350 700 ------------ I---------------II---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 2035 + PROJ PM Tue May 10,-2016 13:42:43 Page 2-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as.Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #101 Pacific St/W Main St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.547 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Pacific St W Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 51 0 10 0 0 0 0 695 59 10 752 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 0 10 0 0 0 0 695 59 10 752 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 54 0 11 0 0 0 0 732 62 11 792 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 0 11 0 0 0 0 732 62 11 792 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 54 0 11 0 0 0 0 732 62 11 792 0 ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 0 1700 0 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0 ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.04 0.01 0.47 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 2035 + PROJ PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:42:43 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length a) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #102 S. B St/W. Main St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.579 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh):_ xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: S. B St W. Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 45 16 28 33 18 29 591 17 17 684 43 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 45 16 28 33 18 29 591 17 17 684 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 21 47 17 29 35 19 31 622 18 18 720 45 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 47 17 29 35 19 31 622 18 18 720 45 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 21 47 17 29 35 19 31 622 18 18 720 45 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.31 0.69 1.00 0.35 0.42 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 523 1177 1700 603 710 387 1700 1700 1700 1700 1599 101 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.37 0.01 0.01 0.45 0.45 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 2035 + PROJ PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:42:43 Page 4-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length a) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #105 El Camino Real/E. 6th St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.456 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: E1 Camino Real E. 6th St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 111 404 16 13 235 30 29 20 103 18 49 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 111 404 16 13 235 30 29 20 103 18 49 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 117 425 17 14 247 32 31 21 108 19 52 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 117 425 17 14 247 32 31 21 108 19 52 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 117 425 17 14 247 32 31 21 108 19 52 33 ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.22 0.78 1.00 0.05 0.95 1.00 0.59 0.41 1.00 0.18 0.50 0.32 Final Sat.: 366 1334 1700 89 1611 1700 1006 694 1700 312 850 538 ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 1 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Movement sku .a,rEBU EBL .-`:EBT _.EBR ,WBIJ �� L t V!%BT a a WBR ' NBU ,NBL-NBT NBR Lane Configurations WB EB SB tr Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Confli�tmg Lanes Left TrafficUol, veh/h 0 12,57 0 0 0 .. 26 _ 26 ._ _ �� 0 m S8 016 Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 26 0 58 0 16 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 61 OM61 0'61 ",0.92 0 61 0 61 0 61 -0 92 0 61 0 61 `0 61'. Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 LT Vol 58 12 0 0 — , Through Vol n A n 7 "- d d� n , w ,a� `n SF Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Opposing Approach WB EB SB Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Confli�tmg Lanes Left 1 ' 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB HCM Control Delay 8 7.5 :._ 8.2 _ HCM - _., n ; NBLrt1,. ° EBLn1. {WBLn1r. ``SBL 4 g m Vol Left, % 78% 17% 0% ' 0% _ Vol Right, % 22% 0% 50% 0% Si n Control Stop m Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 74 69 52 ; 0 LT Vol 58 12 0 0 — , Through Vol 0 57 26 1 0 RT Vol `16 _. 0 _ 26 _,..._.__ Lane Flow Rate 121 113 85 j 0 Geometry Grp � 1 1 1 1 .z Degree of Util (X) 0.148 0134 0.096 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 4 402 4 249 4 039 4 507 z _. Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes $92 0 Service Time 2.402 2.347 2.045 2.5.16 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0148 0136 0.095 0 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8 7 5 7 5 HCM 95th -tile Q 0.5 0.5 0.3 0 Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 1 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing AM 103: Pacific St,11 E 6th St 5110/2016 yi o- IW Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection`LOS Lane Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0.61 0`61 061 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0" Number of Lanes __ �w_._m . �..__0...._-_0 ... .. __1__ ..., 0_ Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing AM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9 Lane Future Vol, veh/h 0 18 112 1 0 8 38 20 0 2 0 4 0 51 6 14 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 74 0 74 0 74 0 92 0 74 0 74 0 74 0 92 0 74 .0 74 0"74 0 92 0 74 bit 0 74, r. m _ _ m m Heaw Vehicles. % 2 �.. �. �,W 2 . 2 _�.. 2 2. 2 . 2 2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB �._� HCM Control Delay 9.3 X8.6 7.8 8.8 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 14% 0% 12% 89% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 30% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stogy Stop Sto0 'Stop. Stop Stop. ___ Traffic Vol by Lane 2 4 130 1 66 57 14 LTVoI Through Vol 0 0 112 0 38 6 0 Lane Flow Rate 3 5 176 1 89 77 19 Geome Grp 7 7 677 7 7 ��� _.�, _�_..� u Degree of Util (X) 0.004 0.007 0.242 0.002 0.121 0.121 '0.64 .__ Departure Headway (Hd)n _ 5 823 4 614 4 962'4191, 4872 p"5 667.4 513 _ _ _ _ Convergence Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Service Time 3.549 2.341 2.677 1.906 2.889 i"3-8-7-2.233 HCM_Lane V/C Ratio 0 005 0 006 0 242 0 001 Oz_121 Oy1s21 0 024 ; w HCM Control Delay 8.6 7.4� 9.3 6.9 8.6 9.2 7.3 u HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0 0.9 0 0.4 0.4 0.1 Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 1 J 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/1012016 Int Delay, s/veh Lane Configurations 483 0 41� 0 604 604 4� 483 4 ;0 4 Traffc Vol, veh/h' _. _.....:'0 a 115 Q 0 459 0 0 483 483 - 121 121 - CnticaLtidwy a ay Future Vol, veh/h 0 115 0 0 459 �0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr_ 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7677— 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 1� - None :. _ _.._ ... _ None Stage 2a _ ..e a. ._ .. .o n..�..... u Storage Length 883 796 - - - __� _ �e - _ -�- _ Mov Cap 1 Maneuver w _ - Veli in Median Storage, #' 410 412 930 " 410 412 584 _ - - - - - - 410 412 - 410 412 - _Stage 796 5Ei5 ' 553 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 �..v.... 95 `95 W _.._ 95 95 95 95 95;' _5 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 _._ _... 2 ._.._.,.:.a�.�� 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 121 0 0 483 0 0 0 0 0 0 A Conflicting Flow All 483 0 0 121 0 0 604 604 121 604 604 483 HCM Control Defy (s) �_., ;0 121121 HCM Lane LOS .. A Stage 2 - - - - 483 483 - 121 121 - CnticaLtidwy a ay 4.12 _ -' 412=. 712 6 52 6'22 ' ' 712 6 52 -6 22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.12 5.52- CnticalNdwy Stg°2 6125 52 �° 612.E 552, sK 6J_._ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - _. ro_.. ....a.. 3.518 4.018 _ . _ ._ ._ 3.318 3.518 4.018 . 3.318 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver _ _Stage 1080 - ti 1467 w 410 X412 930 p 410 412 584 1� - 883-796 - 565 553 Stage 2a _ ..e a. ._ .. .o n..�..... u 565553 883 796 Platoon blocked, �jo __ __� _ �e .0 _r� . _... _ ... _ .�.. _ Mov Cap 1 Maneuver w _ 1080 LLmm 1467 410 412 930 " 410 412 584 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 410 412 - 410 412 - _Stage 796 5Ei5 ' 553 Stage 2 - - - - - 565553 - 883 796-�� - _._. _ _- ... HCM Control Delay, s . OF Capacity HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Defy (s) �_., ;0 HCM Lane LOS .. A A - }}A - A HCM 95th %tile'Q(veh) - 0" 0 Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 511012016 Int Delay, s/veh Lane Confiqurations Future Vol. veh/h 0 167 Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Storage Length - - - - - - Veh m:Median Wage,.# Grade, % - 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - PeakHourFactor 95 95 95` 15 95 . 95 X95. 95' w �. �.... Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 . � 2 2 2 F95 F, 2 2 2 .v. 2 2 2 MvmtFlow r0..._.176 �,. __.. 0 441. __.0 w.r.0., 0,. 0 _ _ 407- 00 Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 617 176 617 617 441 Stage 2 - - - - 441 441 - 176 176 - CniJcal7?.2�a 6.,&2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Cntical Hdwy St9 2._ :5 52 612 5 52 �471I Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318_ 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1119 � � 1;400 _ M� _ _* r _ � , 402 '405 M867 ,_�„ 402; 405��616 Stage - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577_ - i� Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 402 405 402 405 - LE Stage1 T 17 �` 826 >753 595. 577 Stage 2- - - 595 577 826 753 - HCM Control Delay, A _ _��,.,___ �.� �_.._ _ .,�-.._.�4._.�w..__a_.4. _ .�..�_.�_. 0 _. _ __.._ .,_ ._ 0" HCM LOS mm A A -,,-7 .—ZI HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Dehay (s) 0 0`�y _0 .. 07-7 - ,.. HCM Lane LOS A A A - - A HCM 95f6Aptile�Q(veh)� _ ..� `_F� _7� ;77 Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 nter'secflon Int Delay, s/veh 0 Lane Configurations Conflicting 135 4, 138 0 0 4 273 138 273 273 135 Traffic Vol vehlh 0 131 0 - - - 135 0 138 138 - Oy �. _.�, ._ . _:....�.._�__ .. Future Vol, veh/h _ ...,__. 0 _.._..s 131 .. 0 0 128 0 .w 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds'Ihr w 6.12 5.52 Cntical Ndwy Stg 2� 0 _ 0 0. z, 0 : 01121 771 0 0 0 w_ ll . — Sign Control Free Free Free _ Free . Free Free Stop _ Stop . __. _ Stop ... Stop r Stop Stop RT Channelized: _._ __a...z� None , one one, m.d one . Storage Length Mov Cap 1 Maneuver 1449 - 1446 Veli m Median Storage, # 679 634 , 914. 0= 0 °� 0 '•� - � 0 =_ _ Grade, s� '�.: d 865 ' .� '782 _ 868 785 Stage 2 - - ,e .._ - _ - - 868 0 - _ �e, Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 ' 95 95 95 95 95 95 _� 95 95 •,` 95 Heavy Vehicles, 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow .0 _6 0 135 0 0 0- 0 0 0 �' . d. W0 Conflicting Flow All 135 0 0 138 0 0 273 273 138 273 273 135 138 w138 _ 135 135 Stage 2 - - - - 135 135 - 138 138 - Cntical nHdwy ti 77-4 7.12' 712 6 52 6 22 712 6 52 : 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - -- - 6.12 y 5.52 w 6.12 5.52 Cntical Ndwy Stg 2� - � 6_12 5 52 612 Follow up Hdwy 2.218 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver * Fw M_ ,1449s 1446 ..__.. ._ 679 � ...865 ,.782 634 910 679" 634 .914 a an�868� _785 Stage 1 - - - __a...z� __..__ Stage2 _..m.u785.. _._ 782 _. Platoon blocked , Mov Cap 1 Maneuver 1449 - 1446 m 679 T.634 9m10 679 634 , 914. Mov Cap -2 Maneuver- 679 634 _ N 679 634 Sta e 1 9 _ n ._. �. �� n = =_ _ ._ s� '�.: d 865 ' .� '782 _ 868 785 Stage 2 - .. - - ,e .._ - _ - - 868 785�- 865 782�� - HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 _ _ n . _ . s.. 0a�.� ._._._ . 'm• ,.�.......... .u.__ Capacity (vehlh) w _ �...1449R ..... 1446 HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Iane LOS A A - - A HCM 9.5fh %tileQ(veh)`0 0 .. Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/10/2016 Int Delay, s/veh Lane Traffic Uol veh4 U U U b 15 U n.e _ �. Future Vol, veh/h _ 0 �h 0 0 6 15 0 Conflicfing Peds,�t#Ihr 0 _.. _ _ ._ 0 __ �... _ Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized 'Noe u n .w. None _..�._-. _ . , .... None ` Storage Length 0 _ .N_ _ M _...._ 0 _ Grade, % 0 - 0� 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 ' 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % m._ 2 _... 2 �., _...�. 2 2 _�.._ 2 2 ... ,�..0 _. ai—dr /Minorw=�T"frMmor2_Rro INa—ib r1.. a'a-;fix"Mator2.v Conflicting Flow All 22 16 16 0 0 w Stage Stage 2 6 Cnfical Hdwy _ 6 42 6 22 412 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Cntical_'�� ^ Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2Y8-"---"'- - PotCap-1 Maneuver 995 _ w 1063 n. 1.602 Stage 1 1007 - - - - 0 Platoon blocked—N.,-77 - - Mov_Cap Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 995 - w__ 10D7 _a .... __... �,�_e_ ,—, ._.- _ .._ - Stage 2 1017 - - - - HCMControl Dela HCM LOS A - e HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS m A - A - HCM 95th °lotile Q(veh) _._._ Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 htersecfion _'> KKK" Int Delay, s/veh 0 HCM Control, Del s _ ...wu ....w .0.., Capacity 1602 HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s)� � 0 0� . HCM Lane LOS _ A - A - - HCM 95th %tile'Q(veh): ...2 _ .:� ._ _. Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol vehlh _ _ '0_ _ " .. 0 0 �" ... Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Chahnelized No None .. T None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Stora e # .� _ ._ _9_._ 0 0 Grade__ , % 0 0... Peak Hour Factor 9292 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % . _ _ W _ _ Mvmt Flow Majot/Minor 3.,.,Minor2aort 035,Conflicting Flow All 23 16 16 0 - 0 16 _. Stage2�_. . -�_.. CnficalHdwy 642 6 22 412 ` �' __. Critical Hdwy St g 1 5.42 ..._.__. __... . ___.. _ _. Cntical HdwyStg 2 Follow-up Hdwy _5.42 3.518 _ 3.318 2.218 - - PotCap-1 Maneuver 993 1063 16027 77 Stage 1 1.0.di .. _ _ _ _. w_ __. , Stage 2 1016 c Platoon blocked, % - - MovCap 1 Maneuver 993 1063 1602' Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 993 - - - - � Stage 2 1016 - _... _... _,.... - - r ,N HCM Control, Del s _ ...wu ....w .0.., Capacity 1602 HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s)� � 0 0� . HCM Lane LOS _ A - A - - HCM 95th %tile'Q(veh): ...2 _ .:� ._ _. Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 1 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Frltersectl0n�e � Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6 Vol Left, %0% 40% 0% 38% Intersecfion LOS A 50% .3 MOvement.l. * EB,EBT BEBR.t U ,* ;WBL'7NBT„,wB Lane Configurations NB n1u "EBL1a WBLn1, °`SBLn1 . N Vol Left, %0% 40% 0% 38% Vol Thru % 50% 41 Traffic Vol, vehfh w .. 02 --34 5 1 0 66 29 0 0 277 OnoontrolStop Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 29 �0 0 2 2 Peak Hour Facior . ___..__...._ 0 92 0:94 0:94 0:94 0 92 0 94 .0 94 0 94 0 92 `.0 940 94 0.94 Heavy Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 ..__... 2 2 2 2f 2 2 ...... 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 ��36 `54 �1 � 0 �0 70 �_ 31 � �- 0 � 0 2 � .""2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 _ 0 0 0 1 0 Appro F EB �_, NB `h .� Opposing Approach Yes WB EB 846 ;900 SB Opposing Lanes 2.124 1 2.004 2.06` 1 HCM Lane V/C Ration 0005 1 0112 Conflicting Approach Left SB _ � . 7 8 �NB .� EB A Conflicting Lanes Left ` ,...._. HCM 95th -tile O O___ 0 77 0.4m Conflicting Approach RightNB SB w ...� ..w WB �... Conflicting Lanes Right _ , HCM CLO_onStrol Delay 7.8 HCM -77.--- r r, �7..-5 A , �.-7.-.1 A, Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 NB n1u "EBL1a WBLn1, °`SBLn1 . N Vol Left, %0% 40% 0% 38% Vol Thru % 50% Vol Right, % 50% 1% 31% 62% OnoontrolStop --Sfop .._Stop a. Stop .. Traffic Vol by Lane 4 86 95 66 LT Uol s _ 0 34 =_2 _ v 0 - `2571 Through Vol 51 66 0_ RT Vole .. _ _ w .r_. .. . 2 �4 1 '29 _ x'41 Lane Flow Rate 91 101 70 Geometry Grp . � ��- 1 _ 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0,005 0.107 0.111 0,077 - Departure Headway (Hd) 4124 4 213,'3, Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes 873 846 ;900 X887 , Service Time 2.124 2.263 2.004 2.06` HCM Lane V/C Ration 0005 0108 0112 r : m �, w e._ _.o_ 7 0.079 t, HCM Control Delay . 7 8 .. ..._._�..� HCM Lade LOS �a,_ A A M- ,...._. HCM 95th -tile O O___ 0 0.4 0.4m 0.2 _w - Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St .5/10/2016 ,nter;aechonn "%3�»,� "�+. k�r�p �'x�r`. ��„p,r •�' �n. ,�k. ��:i„' ,���`i, s� ���� �.z : ��r. aria .', i _�.�” :- Intersection Delay, slveh Intersection LOSS j M (ovement g SBU SBLSBT°SBR xf Lane Configurations rTraffc Uol vehlh0 X25 0 -41 q d 77 Future Vol, vehlh 0 25 0 �41 NOIZ iour_Factor 0:92 0 94 0 94 0 94 t Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Number of Lanes Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/212016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 i HCM 2010 AWSC Existing PM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 FntersWc-0onm.77777 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7 Intersection LOS A Lane Configurations Fane v�NBLn1 NBLn2'EBLn1,,EBLn2WBLhfSBLn15 Ln27 _ 3 z�,.. a �.� i777 Vol Left, % TrafficVol vehlh 01,0 0% 77 1 ; 013 X90 50 0 1 19 12 0 37.E 9 X15 Future Vol, veh/h 0 10 77 1 0 13 90 50 0 1 19 12 0 37 9 15 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92� 0 92 0 92 0;92 0 92 0 92 - 0 92 0 92 0 92 : 0 92 0 92, 0 92 0 92 Hea— Vehicles, % _ . 2__ 2.... 2 . 2 2 2 2 U 2 _.__.._2 ._ . 2 .> ._.2 _. _;2 _ 2 MvmtFlow� 0 1,1 84 _ __. 1 0 14 - '98 54 __ _ 0 1 21 13 0 ` 40 10 16 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach , ..' x.E6 xa NB ;_„ SB 3xi r ,r� ] Opposing Approach WB 13 EB 1 166 SB Geometry. Grp77 NB Opposing Lanes- 7 7 6 -6-.66 7 7 .,NB_ Degree of Util (X) 0.032 0.016 0.131 0.219 Conflicting Approach Left gB.. Departure Headway (Hd} 5 281 4 551 EB 4 231 4732 5 622 1'.5 14 WB Conflictn Lanes Left 277, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Conflicting Approach Right NB 679 787 SB '847 X762 WB Service Time EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1.948 2.747 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0032 0 017.0132 77, xv __ a HCM Control Delay 8.5 a. _ � �9.17.9 . __ ., 8.2 8.5... __�... 7 9-.1 8.4 HCM LOS A A . A` E A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 - Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Fane v�NBLn1 NBLn2'EBLn1,,EBLn2WBLhfSBLn15 Ln27 _ 3 z�,.. a �.� i777 Vol Left, % 5% 0% 11% 0% 8% 80% 0% UoI Thru, % 95% , 0%, 89% ``' 0% 59% 201 0% Vol Right, % _ 0% _ _.._ 100% __ 0% _ __ _ . _,_._. 100% 33% 0% 100%..�_- Sign Control _ Stop y Stop mStopa Stop ur Stop Stop Stop M77 __ �___... Traffic Vol by Lane 20 12 87 1 153 .�_r� _. m_ ....a_wv_.w___ 46 15 LT Vol Through Vol 19 0 77 0_...=90 . _4.8.._0 RT Vol ; 0 12�. Lane Flow Rate 22 13 95 1 166 50 16 Geometry. Grp77 7 7 6 -6-.66 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.032 0.016 0.131 0.219 0.078 0.02 Departure Headway (Hd} 5 281 4 551 4 991 4 231 4732 5 622 1'.5 14 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 679 787 721 '847 X762 638 794 Service Time 3.005 2.275 2.708 1.948 2.747 3.345 2.236 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0032 0 017.0132 0 001 0.218 0 078 0 07 ...._. HCM Control.Delay . __ ., 8.2 _ 7.3 8.5... __�... 7 9-.1 u,Y . A` E HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0 0.4 .e.._A_.A 0 0.8 0.3 0.1 Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing PM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 a s ATF}"' "'"'�a 1 ti _ Fntersection „_-v% s . pan b s t Int Delay, slveh 0 EBLT EB�WBL „ WBT„ WBa.!„NBLNBT NB.R, SBL SBT ,PSBR Lane Configurations_____ Future Vol, veh/h 0 78 0 0 542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicbhg Peds #/hr 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 - 612 5.5277 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop _0 Stop Stop Stop RT Channelizedone _ ,._ .._ _...___ None _. __..._ one Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 - PeakHourw95 ._ 95---._95 h � �.. 95 95 95 _ 95 y .�95 ' ..� 95 _9 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Conflictina Flow All 571 0 0 82 0 0 653 653 82 653 653 571 1 HCM Control Dewy, HCM LOS A� A —77 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - HCMControlDelay(s) HCM Lane LOS A A - A - �A Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 571 571 82 82 - 412 „w µ 412” 712 6 52 6:22 _- 712. 6.5--- 6 22 Cnfical.HdwywY 9w Critical Hd St 1 - 612 5.52 - 612 5.5277 _ CnficalHdwy_St92 __. _ ._.�.. 612 x552 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 612 552 � 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver s _ 1002 «µ 1515 {w 380 n387 µ 978 r w 38Oµ 387 52Q Stage - - - 926 827 506 505 - Stage2 Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov,Cap 1 Maneuver 1002 1515 380387 978 380 387.',520 _.. Mov Cap -2 Maneuver _ 380 387 380 387 6,,7L-$ Stage 2 506 505 926 827 HCM Control Dewy, HCM LOS A� A —77 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - HCMControlDelay(s) HCM Lane LOS A A - A - �A Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing PM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Int Delay, s/veh Future Vol, veh/h 0 126 0 0 554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflictin Peds,#/hr . 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0. UJT0 ::�4_12._7_12 - - Sign Control_ Free Free Free^ Free Free Free _ _..__ Stop Stop Stop _ _ Stop Stop 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuverer, ra w 4tl _ 1452 - X345 356 916. None ^_ - None- ^Stop_ 870 786 - None _ _rW r v o._w Grade, %___.. - 0_.____ _. 0 - - 0 - - 0 - PeakHourFacto� 5 95 95'' S ` 95 95 95 95 95 95 r 9595. 95 _ Hea`_ vy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 --2- ✓ 2 2 2 2✓ 2 V 2 ti 2 2 Mvmt Flow -, 0 133 0 - 0 583 0 0 0 5 _ 0 0 0 _ Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 716 716 133 716 716 583 - _ - - - - - - Mov Cap 1 Maneuver „ X991 w _ 0. 1452 - X345 133 133 583 _ Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - _ 583 583 - _ 133 133 - -7711 0 Cntical.Hdwy _ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ._412 _.-..--.- - - - ::�4_12._7_12 - - 6 52 6.22_ 6.12 5.52 - _ 712 ry 6' 52 T6 22 6.12 5.52- Gntic . HdwySt9 71- 612 J5.- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3_.318 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuverer, ra w 4tl _ M 991 a u _Y 1452 - X345 356 916. 345 -. 356. 512 870 786 - _ 498 498 499yV �- _ 991 - _ 1452 - Platoon blocked, - - _ - - - - - - Mov Cap 1 Maneuver „ X991 w _ 0. 1452 - X345 ' 356 916 y 345 356 '512 _ Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 345 356 - 345 356 - yStage70_498 07 -7711 0 Stage 2 _ - - - - _ - 498 499 - 870 786 - HCMY,_Control Dela 0 0 0 O1 _ _. _ ., _ _ _ __. _.. __.. _... _ _ _ _ _. HCM LOS � A A c;@paclty_(vehlh) ---- 991 - _ 1452 - _ HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - _ - - - - - - HCM Control Delay __ _ __ HCM Lane LOS A A - - _ A - A HCM:95th %tile Q veh 07 -7711 0 Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing PM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 - k �..:..` ��� �, �,� �. .�.��,� , Int Delay, s/veh 0 0 0 Conflicting Flow All 0 . _._--0 $>>EBU-7,77EBT`,, EBR ; ,.-WBL; INBT rvUVBRyF.. NBL .:NBT 4 NBR E . i ..„SBL= }SBT SBR Lane Configurations - 0 - _ 0 -�_ Traffic Vol,,vehlh` 0 $8' 0, - 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0. 0 - _�__ m_. Future Vol, veh/h 0 88 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ Conflicting Peds, #/hr � D 0 0 � 0 � 0 '0 7-6 0 0 � 0 0 0_ 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized _ _ w: one _ None _Stop Veliirl`,MedianStora e# Marb 14 R M Major2 p� l :%,e� 0 0 Conflicting Flow All 0 . _._--0 = 0” 7 _....._._._� �._. Grade, % - 0 - _ 0 -�_ A _ _�_ 0 _.. Peak Hour Factor 95 95' 95 95....� 95 95 ` 95 95 95� 95 95 ' 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 9.._'� 2 2 . 2 2 2 . _ 2 2 _ 2 2 2 2 Cntical Hdwy 4.12 93 _ 0 98 0 0 0 _ 0 0`. 0 0 Biu ajor/Minor, tau _ Marb 14 R M Major2 p� l :%,e� .Minor2z " � L HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Flow All 98 0 0 93 0 0 191 191 93 191 191 98 HCM Lane LOS _ A ----_ A - A - - A 93, 93 ��__ 98 98 _ _ Stage 2 - - - - - - 98 98 - 93� 93 - Cntical Hdwy 4.12 412 : - 71276-.62'--T-.:227 7-.-12-6.5-227y 6:22 _ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Cntical'Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -V- - - 612 5.5 2.218 - - 3.518 4_.018 3.318 w 612: 5 52 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap=1 Maneuver : -� 1495 M ' 1501 - 769 - 704 964 769 704 958 _ _ Stage __. ___.... - _. _ __ - -_ _..._ - - ... _ _ _ ..v _ _ - - - 914 . .. _ .__ _ - - 908 81477, _. Sta e 2908 _ _ _818 814 914: 818 Platoon blocked, % - - - - TM 1495 - '' 71501 769 704 _ 964_ _ 769 704 w95$ _. _ _ Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 769 704 - 769 704 - I914: 818 908 814:, Stage 2 - - - 908 814 914 818 - HCM'Control'Delay,-s ____ 0 _: w._ :: _0_ HCM LOS �A A -77 Ca aci vehlh V` 1495 1501 _ HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - iCM Control Ox_ _-__ 0 HCM Lane LOS _ A ----_ A - A - - A _ Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing PIVi 109: S. B St 1 N Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection . , $ Int Delay, slveh 0 Lane Configurations ►fir Conflicting Flow All 58 24 24 0 0 Stage Traffic Vol, vehlh° �0 0. 0 32,-23 - 0' Future Vol, vehlh 0_ 0�..�0 .,32 ConflictingyPed,w#!hr0 Critical Hdwy Stg 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control n Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized` None- None w None Storage Length 0 - 8tage 2 - _. - Veh mMedian Stora a # 9 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 ��� 0 ; Grade, %- Mov Cap 1 Maneuver 949 1052 1591 Peak Hour Factor95 _ _._ _ .-, _. 95��95 - 95 95 _ X95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 _ _2._ . _ .... ... Mvmt Flow 0 0 ; 0 : 34 - 24 0 HCM Control Delay s 0 0 0 _ _ _ .�� _ ..,.. _ _ o ._ OS A Capaci (Leh/h1591 HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) _. _ .... 0. HCM Lane LOS A A Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 1�or/Minor . � s,y 146Rt a or12 Mator2 0 a. Y, Conflicting Flow All 58 24 24 0 0 Stage Stage 2 34 - - - CnticalHdwy m_....--_�.._ 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg ._6.42. _ Cntice al Hdwy Stg 2 s 5 42 m r Follow-up Hdwy 3.5183.318 2.218 Pot Ca �1 Maneuver Stag1 e 949 999 1 052 - 1591 - - 0 �.__.�...._.�__.�._,. - 8tage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap 1 Maneuver 949 1052 1591 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 949 - - - xStage 1 g99 ry Stage 2 _.. _ - ..--- .. . HCM Control Delay s 0 0 0 _ _ _ .�� _ ..,.. _ _ o ._ OS A Capaci (Leh/h1591 HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) _. _ .... 0. HCM Lane LOS A A Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing PM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 J'nterse gn ; b r, ,4i$ N .moi FT {k crJ,r y1eM ¢ r Int Delay, s/veh 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 32 23 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RTChannelizedr _:��_..��__ _ - - one, s Storage Length rNone _None_ 0 - - Ueh in Median'Storage.# 0 0 s.m_R. . _>_.._m Grade, % ms:_0..._ __ 0 - - 0 _ 0 - Conflicting Flow All 60 25 25 0 - 0 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver �_ _ � s 947 p HCM LOS A ,..,.>.�..u.-........J.�-a_5 �.�w_....m..�.. .. �:.....r,.�..:....o..�m.,..�,.,..v:_.. _L', ..,........_ �u...:.. �N....,K .._ ,�... ,... a... a.. i.:. L�'+s.._x z.�.. _, ._� ..., ,..�.,i� d....-i......—_....a..._..»�.,,�.,.�s. ...m... �...�. HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCMGontrol_DelaY(s)��,F._ HCM Lane L0S A - A - HCM�95ih%t�leQ(veh).__ Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/1012016 n'tersection= = _ r Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5 Intersgeiaon LOSa .�.. � Lane Configurations Traffic Uol vehlti' 0 12 5 IM, Q Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 26 0 0 0 0 Vehicles, % Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 U U 1 U U u 1 u Aroach u7' NB. +, Opposing Approach WB EB SB Conflictin4 Approach Left SB �NB EB NB SB WB HCM Control Delay 7.6 7.1 0 _...=�A Yf.ane AnT'SEW Ln1, n SBLn1 .y . HCM Control Delay Vol Left, % 0% 17% 0% 78% 7.6 .100% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 50% 22% HCM 95th -tile Q� 0 S#oP m Stop__.StoPe_ 0.2 �0.3 Traffic Vol by Lane 0 69 52 74 X12su Through Vol 0 57 26 0 ._ Lane Flow Rate 0 73 5578 Geometry Degree of Util (X) 0 0.084 0.058 0.09 Departure Headway (Hd)4 216 4147 3'826 4182 y_ Converaence. Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Service Time 2.29 2.197 1.884 2.235 HCM Lane V/C Ratw 0 0 085 0 059 0 092 HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.6 71 7.7 _ HCM 95th -tile Q� 0 0.3 0.2 �0.3 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 1 1 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS �: Lane Configurations TraffcVol vehlh m._�.16 Future Vol, veh/h 0 58 0 16 Peak Hour Factor :0.95: - 0.95 ;95', -0 Heavy Vehicles, Mvmt Flow 0 61 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach NB Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 17 77 - Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting.Lanes Right ______� 1 HCM Control Delay 7 7 -�-- -- -• �-____._ . _ ____ _.�______ __ .__._...�__ ______ _ ._�� . . 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 AM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 —•-----..__ . a . _,.� ... __ a ,. - a .. ,. _ Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5 Intersection -� Future Vol, veh/h 0 18 112 1 0 8 38 20 0 2 0 4 0 51 6 14 __________,.,_.� - __ . -__. __ _ __,_ ._ -_ -._ -0--.-95—",-0,. __ _._._ _ _._ y.-_-_ ___._ .._____ __---_.--____ Peak Hour Factor - 0:95 0.95 -:0.95 0.95 0:95 0 95 - 0.95 .0..95 0 95 : 0 95.0 95 0 95 ` 0.95 0.95 .0.95 _0.95: Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow �_ 0 19 118 1 0 .. 8 4t) 21 0 _._ 2 0 __- 4 0 54 6 15 _ w _..._ _...0 _ _ _. _ _ _ _ �,. Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 2 _ 2 i 2 AWB Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Sign Control Confl77 ict ng Lanes Left ` 2 2 2 77 _ r._ _ -_.' _ ._ _ �. . �_ _ - �... �EB Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB 112 0 38 6 Conflicting RT Vol - 0 4 0. 1 20 0 14 -Lanes HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.2 7.6 8.5 _ R HCM LOS __ A A A __--, A 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Vol Left, % 100% 0%14% 0% 12% 89% 0% ILV6 0% 0% _ 86% ` � 0% 58% 11 % 0% i Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 30% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop .Stopw �.__.____ Traffic Vol by Lane 2 4 130 1 66 57 14 O Yp Through Vol 0 0 112 0 38 6 RT Vol - 0 4 0. 1 20 0 14 Lane Flow Rate 2 4 137 1 69 60 15 Geometry Grp 7 7 7` 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.003 0.005 0.186 0.001 0.092 0 092 0.018 Departure Headway (Hd)_ 5 636. 443 - 4_.884_411_4 4.753 5 511 4 358 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cape 637 810 739 m 875 757 6_53 824 �- Service Time 3.353 2.146 2.584 1.814 2.764 3.224 2.071 HCM Lane VIC Rafio 0-003 0 005_ 0.185L,0:001 0 091 0 HCM Control Delay 8.4 7.2 8.7 HCM Lane LOS:q q q A A A q y0.3 ; HCM 95th the Q 0 O 0.7- f~ R0� -µ0.3T 0.1 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 AM 106: West Dwy & E 61h St 5110/2016 ntersectl n _ka Int Delay, s/veh 0 Mv'ement . ' a , . _ EBL :` EBT .EBR BL WBT WBRT .w NBLf. r'NBT NBmm R SBL , SBT» w SBR Lane Configurations,,, tulajorlMinor ,w Majacl , .. Niajor2 w #. or1vn:6T :' =;Minor2 k Conflicting Flow All 483 0 0 121 0 0 604 604 121 604 604 483 TraffcWVol, vehlh _._.m.mm 0_ 115_ ._..Y m._ 0 459... ..0._ .,._.. .; Stage 2 - - - _ _. - - ..483 Future Vol, veh/h 0 115 0 0 459 0 __._Q 0 .. 0 a _.0.._ 0 _ _m� 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr_...__ _� .. 0 0 0 _4 - _ 6.12 5.52 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized. Pot Cap -1 Maneuver _ �.� one, 1467 LL u . .. 410 -412 oneone 410' " 412 584 Stage 1 _. Storage Length 883 796� _ - _. 553- _ _. Ueh m fVledi Platoon blocked, % - - - MovCap 1 Maneuver n A, __.,. 1080 _.._ . _ . y-0,- Grade, %0 410 .412_ 930 410rr 412 584 0 - - 0 410. 412 - 410 Peak Hour Factor _.. _ . _ ....,_ _ _ _ 95 __......... 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 `95 Stage 2 —_ _ _ _ w __. 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 _ 2 _ 2 _ .... ,....... 2 _. _ . _ _ 2 2 _ 2 2 2 _._. 2 Mvmt Flow 0 121 0 0 483 0 0 0 ry 0 0> 0, .PO HC Control Delay, s e_: . -. ._� _ : . v 0 0 p HCM LOS _. _ _ _ _ _... �. Aa-- ------ n rapacity (vehlh) _ 1080; 1467 HCM Lane V/C Ratio _ __.._ _. __.. _._ . HCMsControlDelay(s)�._...0., A HC b -'Nfile Q(veh) 0 0 _ 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 tulajorlMinor ,w Majacl , .. Niajor2 w #. or1vn:6T :' =;Minor2 k Conflicting Flow All 483 0 0 121 0 0 604 604 121 604 604 483 Sta e 1 _ ... . ._a..483, 121 121 4$3 483_ Stage 2 - - - _ _. - - ..483 .121 121 - Cntical Hdwy.....412_ w �? ::.... 712 �6 52 6:22_.. 712 6 52 6 22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 . _ . ..�� ... e. ._ _ 6.12-' 5.52 _4 - _ 6.12 5.52 _. 612 5_52 Follow up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.218- - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver _ �.� 1080 ._ 1467 LL u . .. 410 -412 930 410' " 412 584 Stage 1 _. ___ _ _ 883 796� _ - - 565 553- Platoon blocked, % - - - MovCap 1 Maneuver n A, __.,. 1080 _.._ . _ . 1467 '' ` = 410 .412_ 930 410rr 412 584 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver _ _.,_.... _ _ -� 410. 412 - 410 412 �- - -- .. 883..:,796 565 553 Stage 2 —_ _ _ _ w __. _ _ -...__ - 565 553 - 883 796 HC Control Delay, s e_: . -. ._� _ : . v 0 0 p HCM LOS _. _ _ _ _ _... �. Aa-- ------ n rapacity (vehlh) _ 1080; 1467 HCM Lane V/C Ratio _ __.._ _. __.. _._ . HCMsControlDelay(s)�._...0., A HC b -'Nfile Q(veh) 0 0 _ 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 AM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 511012016 pG °a^"r 'i, n. °.-,r^�-, , ^r°.^ --¢'"7 me 4111.'On i.� i# H�4 t���� .Ltt { �'aPd^, t %Qt Int Delay, s/veh 0 Mpvementp . __ c.; EBL' ,EBT; EBR.u`t h ..aj aUVBL :WBT WBR tJBL NBt"NB70,5,' �" -- SBL SBT , :SBR Lane Confiqurations Futu-re--Vo I-, veli/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds,;#/hr 0 p,., 0. 0 0 0. �.. 0. 0 �. 0 Sign Control Free Free Free _. _ ,. Free Free _ _. Free Stop Stop _ .._,__. Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized' . None �.� ,.��.,.. _ None None None "u. M . 0 - 00 612 5.52 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95: 95 "� 95 95 95 95 . 95 95 95 95 _5 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 176 0 441..._..._0 _. .. ., O Maior/[ulinar fid" Majorl{xi_ *Major2, Mmor1``' 7� Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 617 176 617 617 441 176 176 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 612 5.52 612 5.52 - Cntical Hdwy Sfg 2 2 612 ,5 5261ll Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.218 3.518 4.018 2 5 52 3.'-318 3 518 4 018 3.318 Pot Capt Maneuver 1119 W 1400 402 405 867 402 405 T.616 __ w. . _ ,. : _ , _ Stage - 826 753 595 577 - � _ Platoon blocked, % - - Mo� Cap 1 Maneuver 1119 =: 1400 - 402 :405 867 402, 405_ 616 Mov Cao -2 Maneuver - - - - 402 405 - . 402 405 - Stage 2 - - - - 595 577 826 753 - HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - A 0 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 AM Lane Configurations 41 4 4 4� 128 . 0 ...r 0 _ u.,_. _ �a Future Vol, veh/h 0 131 0 0 128 �0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 Sign Control Free 108: East Dwy & E 611 St 5/10/2016 Stop Stop - 2- 5 nterseatl0h.fa 7,5 Stop Int Delay, s/veh 0 one, Lane Configurations 41 4 4 4� 128 . 0 ...r 0 _ u.,_. _ �a Future Vol, veh/h 0 131 0 0 128 �0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized -� w one, None None 138 -138 None .. Storage Length - - - _.... .e_ �..... - - - .. - _ . _:... - _ .._ . __. 135 _ _.._� V0646- Mi ­c firan#„ v __ 0 _ 0 - ..e 0 6 52 6;22 0 6.22 Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - 6.12 - 0 _ . Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95. 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 _.. �._ .... ._.. _ 2 2 2 ., .�a�. 2 __.__.. 2 _.._ 2 ._._ 2 _.. 2 2 Mvmt Flow 777-0 138 0- 0 135 0 0 0" 0 0' 0 0 Ma°°ot rlMinor,,, 7 . n , _t ajorl . ' Majar2 Nlinorl a Minoff HCM Control`Delay, s 0 0 0 0 _. HCM LOS A�A X. t Capaci 1449.. w._w 1446 __ . HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) -,7 HCM Lane LOS A A- - A - - A _... - HCM 95th %tile.Q(veh 0; 0 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 Conflicting Flow All 135 0 0 138 0 0 273 273 138 273 273 135 138 -138 135' 135 Stage 2 ___ _ :._,� _ .._ . __. 135 135 ��.- 138_ 13877, - Cntical Hdwy er 412412 ..e :T 712_„ 6 52 6;22 _ 712w 6 52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Cntical �Hdwy Stg;2 �ti a. �.s - „ 6125 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver 1449 1446 679 634 X910 679,; 634mm 914 _ e m Stage1 m - - - „ - - - 865 782 868 785 Sta e 2 868 785 865 782 Platoon blocked, % N16vCap 1 Maneuver 1449- 1446 .- - 679 634 910 679 634 914 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver -_ - _ - 679 , - 634 ��- 679 634 865 ', X782 w_a_868 785 ti° Stage 2 - - - - - ...r� 868 . _.,x.�a 785 - 865 782 ?. w. ... .r..a... �v.n _..` „_.a ... m_t...„ ....... . _. ... .._.... a,. _ w .e ....... _.c,..........., ..................._.. .. ....._ ._ ..._ _ _. rte..._. , .... _.. _....... ..__ .,_rc ... _.t -...>.A ___ �. .:e....3 ._,..»,...,. HCM Control`Delay, s 0 0 0 0 _. HCM LOS A�A X. t Capaci 1449.. w._w 1446 __ . HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) -,7 HCM Lane LOS A A- - A - - A _... - HCM 95th %tile.Q(veh 0; 0 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 AM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5110/2016 T77:7`,., Int Delay, s/veh Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Storage Length _ 0 7,177 iVeh m Metlian 8xorage, # . _0 .,d. _. _._ �� O:.�w Grade. % �� _ 0� - - �0 0 - Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlowm.. _ Conflicting Flow All 22 16 16 0 0 51 Stage 2 6 CnhcalHdwyf�e� Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 77 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 ^ 1063 1602E 0 dot C I Mane�iver��..._.___ _ _,. Stage 1 1007 - - - - 0 Stage 2 TOM Platoon blocked,%o - - Mov Cap 1 Maneuver 9_95 1602 , 1063 .a� Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 995 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 12 ... :, y .. _.. HCM LOS A HCM Lane V/C Ratio H_CM HCM Lane LOSµ A - A 2035 AM 7:00 am. 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 AM Int Delay, Delay, s/veh Lane Configurations 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 f . �a .,- ,., . ,�-,:: . Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 �,.,; ,,, . mom; Te e�.; .� „� -- ��•�w�., ., .F�,-; ,.<.,. ,., 4, , Int Delay, Delay, s/veh Lane Configurations Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 Conflictin Peds =#Ihr 07 _ J7, Sipn Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free __.�°���_... �_ Grade,% 0 W �0 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow �ua�� .' ��,�__v. h0 _..�_._� 0� .._� .. _d. �,_F_._�6_._�_. _._._,.�r �a.•� �. _16_ear�A�� w��.._f�rMM ._ .�...�.u�a� Conflicting Flow All 22 16 16 0 - 0 Stage 1 �}1Po6 b Stage 2M 6 - - - q HCM Lane LOS A -_ _��_ _ A _ w_r_�_ �� _.• . __3_ � _ �..,_..._.�.�. _w__. . HCM 95th %tileQ(veh) 0 - 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC 103: Pacific St & E 6th St Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6 7 71 Intersection LOSS A 2035 PM 5/10/2016 Lane Configurations WB EB SB v_ Opposing Lanes __ _ ._- 1 a 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB 4 EB Traffic Vol, yehlh 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 ` 29_0 ConflictingLanes Right ..�....,. 0 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 29 0 0 Peak Hour Factor : 0 95 0; 5 0.95 0;95 � �0 95 0 95 0 95 -0 95 0 95 �0 95 0 95 Heavy Vehicles, %. ._ _w � ._ _ � � ._ � . -2. _. E . �. 2 2 _ _ 0.106 0.11 MvmtFlow 036 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.12 4.22 3 949 3 966 r 31 p 0 2 2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach WB EB SB v_ Opposing Lanes __ _ ._- 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB ConflictingLanes Right ..�....,. � 1 �-, � 1 71 _ HCM Control Delay _ _ �. 7.8 _ -_w _ _._ , �._. W� 7.5 7.1 n _ W _P 86 95 A.. ._ _ .... _ ... _ - ? ... ._a..h,. M ............ 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lane NBLn1, rEBLn1 '=W_BLn1: ;SBLnt _ 77 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 0% 38% VoI Thru % 50% 59% 69% 0% Vol Right, % 50% 1% 31% _ _ _. __ _.. _ __. 62%� _ . _ _ . _ -�_ _ _ Sign Control mm Stop Sto P Sto Stop 5 Traffic Vol by Lane 4 n _ W _P 86 95 66 LT Vol 0 Through Vol 2 51 66 0 Ft 29 77,_, - 41 Lane Flow Rate 4 91 100 69 w_ _.._.. _ __r_, Degree of Util (X) 0.005 0.106 0.11 0.077 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.12 4.22 3 949 3 966 r Convergence, Y/N Yes _- Yes Yes µ Yes _. _ 874w 846 901 _ __ 889 _ Service Time 2.12 2.262 2.003 2.056 HCM Lane VIG Ratio 0.005 0108 0111 0.078 HCM Control Delay 7.1 7.8 7_.5 7.4 HCM Lane LOS m A A HCM 95th -tile O 0 0.4 0.4 0.2 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 i i i 7 Fn 7tirrs e �Wwn M: 77' Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOSS 77 -_11'1]'17-11 IT, I j7pl, 77 Wq'Ve �ih x Lane Configurations NMI c" wo I Future Vol, veh/h 0 25 0 41 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 NB HCM Control Delay 7.4 77' 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 I HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 PM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 511012016 Intersection Delay, slveh 8.6 Intersection LOS ti A � - Lane Trattic Vol, vehlh- 0 �. 1l) 77 1 U 13 ,. ; 9l) 50 U , 1 19 2 0 37 9 75 , Future Vol, vehlh 0 10 _ . 77 .. _a . 1 . 0 _ .., 13 _.. _;,� 90 . m,..... _ .. 50 0 1 _......._ 19 12 __.,f::.. 0 ........ 37 9 15 Peak Hour Factor 0:95 0 95 0 95 0 9 W` 0 9 5 5 0 9 5 5 0.9 0 95 0 9 0 9 5 5 ,0 9u 5 0 95 x. 0 95 v0 95N 0 95 0:95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22 2 .9 2 2 2� 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow _ .., 0 14 95 1 53 , 0. . 2Oµ. ..13... 0 39� 9 ,; �1 16 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 w. _ 0 0 __ 1 1 V-11-4----- 0 0 1 Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing v _._NBa.�.._ Conflicting Approach Left SB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 _ 2 P 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB� Conflicting Lanes Righty HCM Control Delay 8.4 9�7 8 8 4 HCM LOS -A,-- 2035 PM 5:00 pm 21212016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 PM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/1012016 Int Delay, s/veh Lane Configuratic TrafficrVol, vehlh Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds,; Sion Control 0 0 78 0 0 542 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor _ _ _w __ .95 _ 95A a 95 95, _...:95 _ . 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 � _ 2._�: 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Floinr D 82° 0 0 571 0 0 0 Conflicting Flow All 571 0 0 82 0 0 653 653 82 653 653 571 571 uStagea1 .,aw571= Stage 2- _ - 571 > _ 571 82 82 - Cntical Hdwy a 41!2 ;412 6 52 6 22. 712; 6 52 LL 6 22 w Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ____: _ _ , _ _a _._ti _m _._ _. _712 - - - - 6.12 _ 5.52 - _ 6.12 5.52 - Cntical ,5 52 612: -5:52, Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.218 -3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap -1m Maneuver 1002 - 1515 380 ` 387 X978 w 380 F 387 520 Stage 1 - 926 827 - 506 505 Sta e 2 506 505 .�. . � _. _ .� � 926 827` Platoon blocked, 10 _ Mov Cap 1 Maneuver 1002 W y 1515 k µ 380 X387 978 h e380 387 520 _.__ Mov Cap -2 Maneuver „ - - 380 387 - 380 387 - _.� Stage 2 - - - - 506 505 926 827 - HCM Control Delay,H s . ww ��.�0 _ w_ Q �.0 HCM LOS ��� _ _._ ,.�._._ �a ..�.___ . A �.�.A� HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM HCM Lane LOS A A� - A - - A �r T177 HCM 95th °0- 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 r--7 i L 1 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 PM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 511012016 Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 716 716 133 716 716 583 Stage......: ....__w..M 133 133 583x 583 Traffic_Vol, vehlh 0 126 0 0 554 0 __.:t. 0 .._., 0 .._.ww w µ Oy.,_ 0 :0 _ Future Vol, vehlh _.m., .. �0 126 0 0 554 0 0 0 _._ 0 0� _ 0 0 Pot C_ap-1 Maneuver M 9911452 345_ ':356 916 345 356 4:.512 � �u...0 - _,. _ .. _ ..., _ 870 786 - 498 499. _. Sign Control Free Free Free _._.....a.�a Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None 345 rt 356 None None . 4m a v Storage Length - �..� - nF - _ 4� _ .y� - - _. - - - Veh in Median Storage # �.,.�_ .._ s. ,r� 0 .�... � , _�_. �_v �..e._� _.a 0 - - 0 ._..._ ..._ 0 Grade, ojo.. 0�.... _.__0_. _ 0��,_�_ HC_M_ControlDelaY�s.__._� HCM LOS �� A A Vapz cyntvenml . as i HCM Lane VIC Ratio w_ HCM Control Delay (s) 4 0 0 0 0 HCM LaneLOS� A q..�� _ ..�. _A�r HCM 95th °ladle Q(veh)_ 2035 PM 5:00 pm 21212016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 716 716 133 716 716 583 Stage......: ....__w..M 133 133 583x 583 Stage 2 - - - - - 583 583 - 133 133 - Cntical HdwyW _ s 412 _ _ _.._, 412 ... ry 712 6 52 6 `22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Cntical Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot C_ap-1 Maneuver M 9911452 345_ ':356 916 345 356 4:.512 _ Stage 1 - - - - _,. _ .. _ ..., _ 870 786 - 498 499. _. Stage 2 Y _ _ _ _ , _ _ m498 ' 499 ._ ._ . _._. s 870. 786 _ _.. Platoon blocked, % _ _.... ... Mov Cap 1p Maneuver 991 1452 345 rt 356 916 345' 356 512 p aP „ n w Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 345 356 - W ry 345 356 - Stage 1_. w _,_..... __ ... ,.. _. µ 870 786 m499 .._ 498' 49_9 Stage 2 498 - 870 786 - m. HC_M_ControlDelaY�s.__._� HCM LOS �� A A Vapz cyntvenml . as i HCM Lane VIC Ratio w_ HCM Control Delay (s) 4 0 0 0 0 HCM LaneLOS� A q..�� _ ..�. _A�r HCM 95th °ladle Q(veh)_ 2035 PM 5:00 pm 21212016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 PM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 1 Int Delay, s/veh Lane Future Vol, veh/h 0 88 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds #/hr 0 0� 0 0 0 0_ :r 0„ 0 0 On 0�0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized„ Noneax - 769 704 769 None- None v �age 1 Storage Length - - - y - - - - - - .-�- Veh m'Median Storage # 0 Ot 0 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 0 .,,_. __.� 0___ _� _0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 , 95 K 95 95 95 _ r_F 95 95 „95 95 _. _.m._...N Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 _v 2 m _. _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow °0 93 0 0 980 0 0 MaiorVmor , n Ma�or1?,,, Mator2 � q `' Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 98 0 0 93 0 0 191 191 93 191 191 98 A* Stage 1 !,_,_ _ _ _ �._a �. a -_ ...., _.,, _ 93 93 98i 98 �n ��Staoe 2 - - - - - 98 98 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Cnficaf Hdwy Stg 2 q _N _ Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 612_ 5 52 - 2.218 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 d.. 612 3.518 5 52 4.018 3.318 Pot Cal Maneuver 1495 501-, ._ a 769 704 _964 769 ,a 704 . 958 Stage - - - - - 914 818 - 908 814 - e Sta 2 908 �' 814 914 818 �.. _ �9._._._ Platoon blocked, % v_ m._...__._.._,..,., _. - - - MovCap 1 Maneuver 1495_ 1501 a 769 ` 704 964 w 769 704958 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 769 704 769 704 v �age 1 f 914 .818 908' 814_ m �. _.... _ _ .. .�.t Stage Stage 2 _ _m ------- - - - - - 908 814 914 818 - HCM LOS A A 77 77 HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Dela s 0 0 0 0' n �, HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A HCM 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 u HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 PM 109: S. B St & N DWy 5/10/2016 Int Delay, s/veh Lane Configurations Conflicting Flow All 58 24 24 0 0 Traffic Vol, vehlh ... .....M. p m _ ,. p . __. , ___ p 2m __ .__ 32 ....._ 23 _.. 0 ; Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 32 23 0 6 22412 . ... „ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None ._._ _ .__.._.._ one Y._ ,.... _.. _ None+ .._. Storage Length _ 0 .. - Ueh mMedian Storage,,, Platoon blocked, % Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - PeakHour Faetor `95 95 9595 rt 95 __ 95' Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Stage 2 988 - - HCM Control Delay, s ° 0 0 0' HCM LOS A Ca------------ HCM acity (veli/h)� �_� _ 1591_._ ...�� : , ; -.-_ .HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) .. " 0 0 4 HCM Lane LOS A - A - NCM 95th %tile Q(veh), 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 Conflicting Flow All 58 24 24 0 0 Stage 1 �' 24 _RF Stage 2 34 - - _ tical Hdwy _Cn7-e77-'-----:7, 642 6 22412 . ... „ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - CnticalHdwyStg2 _. Follow-up Hdwy 542�� 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Pot Cap 1 Maneuver .. _.0 .:949 1052 �_ _ 1591 _.... .. , _ ....._ . __.�. _ ; 0 ,0 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap 1 Maneuver 949 1052 1591 Mov Cap 2 Maneuver 949 - - Stage 1 999 Stage 2 988 - - HCM Control Delay, s ° 0 0 0' HCM LOS A Ca------------ HCM acity (veli/h)� �_� _ 1591_._ ...�� : , ; -.-_ .HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) .. " 0 0 4 HCM Lane LOS A - A - NCM 95th %tile Q(veh), 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 PM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 1 Int Delay, s/veh Sian Control Stop Stop I Free Free Free Free Storage Length 0 - - - - ,Ueh Grade, % 0 0 0� Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 X95 Heavy Vehicles, % _ 2� 2 2 _ 2 . 2 m me 2 WON 77 77 Conflicting Flow All 58 24 24 0 - 0 Staae 2 34 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 _ 2.218 - - - PotCap 1 Maneuver_ 939 _ ... 1052 1591 Z. a, ���Stage1 � � 994 �- - - - �_ Platoon blocked, % - - MouCap939 v52 1591 tame „ w p HI Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 939 - - - Stage 2 982 HCM LOS HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM95th°/ptileQ(veh)z�.�_._�.��.� 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9.Report Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing + Project AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9 Intersection LOS°` A " Lane Future Vol, vehlh 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 27 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor_ �092 061 061 0:61 f 0 92 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 92 0 610 61 �0 61: Heavy Vehicles, % 2 _ _2 2 2..2 J-1 2 .2 22 _ 2 22 Mvmt Flow 2.496 2043 �0 2.008 - t) .._ . , Number of Lanes 0 0135 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 .= 0 1 0 WB EB SB Vol Left. % 0% 17% 0% 76% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 51% 24% 111 Stop tor Traffic Vol by Lane 0 . 69 __ 'top .._Stop..... 53 -68 a� 52 Through Vol 0 57 26 0 Lane Flow Rate 0 113 87 111 Geometry G 1 .__. 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0 0.133 0.094 0.133 Dartue Headwa Hd 4 4 232 e 496 3 911 �.P_ Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap n 0 836 899 J-1 _ ServiceTime 2.496 2.315 2.008 2.381 0135 HCM Control Delay 7.5 8 7.4 8.1 N ...A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.5 0.3 0.5 Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 1 7 L—J 1 1 1 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing + Project AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 ntersection,. ; ._ r. t 4,,d 4 Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersecfion LOS Lane Configurations, Traffic Vol veh/h 052 0 1677 X52 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 16 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 61 X0:61 0.61 Heavy Vehicles, _ _ Mvmt Flow 0 85 T 0 26 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 approach ,. UNW, _ Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes ° 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Le ft 1 Conflicting Approach Right Approach ._ Conflicting Lanes Poght 1 HCM Control Delay 8.1 _ _ HCM LOS A Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing + Project AM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7 r Intersection LO$� A • Lane Configurations 5 34 120 1 29 58 8 LT 851 0 Through Vol 3 0 _ 101 0 1 7 0 Traffic`Vol, veh/h° 0 19 1'01 1% 0 81 20 0 2 3- 34_ r0 51_ 7 Ryy _.. ,8 Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 101 1 0 8 1 20 0 2 3 34 0 51 7 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 074 0.74 0 74 0.02-'­-d.74`-b-.74­. _2_. _2 _._22-- __ 0 74 0 92 0 74 .'0 -2 µ2_ --_ 74 -0.74 ` _ --`-4-- 0.92 _ 074- 0 74 ,0.74; _ Heavy Vehicles,% _ _2 _....2 _2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A HCM 95th the Q 0 0.2 0.9 0 0.2 0.4 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 6 1 6 0 6 1 1 0 0 1 1 Abproach. EBS,'` WB .NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB _ _ — - m Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Laries Left2 _ Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB HCM Control Delay9.2 8 7.5 8.8 -_ - HCM LOS _ :A A _ - A aneNS _ - r=°NBLn1=413L°ri21EBLn1'EBL62WBLn1lSBLn1 SBLn2 -a,- Vol Vol Left, % _ 40% 0% 16% 0% 28% 88% 0% F Uol Thru % -60% 0% 84% 0% Vol Right, % t 0% 100% 0% 100% _69% 0% 100% Sian'Control . =.Stob. Stoo Stop;°,"' StOD StOD ' S_8 StOD Traffic Vol by Lane 5 34 120 1 29 58 8 LT 851 0 Through Vol 3 0 _ 101 0 1 7 0 _ -' RTVol . �.�..40__ - - -- .162_F_ssy Lane Flow Rate-���___ 7 1 39 78 11 Degree of Util (X) 0.01 0.057 0.226. 0.002 0.052 0.121 0.013 Departure Headway4(Hd)_ 4.448 5.0 114.743 5546 4-4-- __5.353 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ^, - Cap _ .w 670 806 718 848 756 848 Service Time 3.074 2.169 2.726 1.945 2.763 3.265 2.12 HCM Control Delay 8.1 7.4 9.2 7 8 9 7.2 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th the Q 0 0.2 0.9 0 0.2 0.4 0 Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Project AM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Int Delay, slveh 0.1 Lane Configurations 482 0 4* 597 597 115 597 598 482 Stage 1' v __ _._ _ - 115 115 - affiE\ ol, eehm; - 0 109 1 0 458 r..0 . _._my. ,..3:M..U__0 r_..W _� w._. 0 -0 , .._. 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 109 1 0 458 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds,_.#/hr _ __e _ 0_. 0 - _ Sign Control Free Fre Free Free Free iFree Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized _•�.___ _._�.��, _...None. 4 416 415�416T 584 None - -None ; - , , , -None 800 ___.. Storage Length _ - __ - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in_Median Storage, MovCap 1 Maneuver 1081 _ 1473 _ _ . _ _ 0_ _._ 93 7 0 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver __ Grade, %­ _.- . _ _ .... _ - - - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - _ 0 _ - PeakHourFactor _ _ ...<__ _ c 95 __...._, u 95, .._ .. 95 °-95�- 95 95 95 . ' 95 ; ' 95 95 95'� 95 Heavy Vehicles, % ... 2 _ 2 _ _,�.: , 2 2 2 2 _ _2 _ _2..__� 2 _ _ .__ _..... 2 .__. 2 _ __ 2 Mvmt Flow 0 115 4 0. 482 , 0 3 0 0 _ 0 0 0 Conflicting Flow All 482 0 0 116 0 0 597 597 115 597 598 482 Stage 1' v __ _._ _ - 115 115 Stage 2 - - - - - 482 482 - 115 116 - CnticalHdwy_412 412 712 6 52 622_ 712 6 52 6,22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1- - - - - - 6.12 _,.. 5.52 _ .. - 6.12 5.52 - Cntical Hd St a2 ___. _ 6x12 ._._ `5 52 612 5..52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2--.2-'l'-8-'--"18 - - - - 3.518 ._ _. 4.018~3.318 _. 3.518 4.018 3.318 _ Pot Cap -1 Maneuver _ ~. 1081F, -_ --------- =� w ry1473^ _y 415w 4 416 ^ 937 _ 415�416T 584 Stage - - - - - - 890 800 - 565 553 - _ ,r �565 h553. Platoon blocked,- MovCap 1 Maneuver 1081 _ 1473 _ _ . _ _ X415 .416 _._ 93 7 415T 416 584 ..___ 1 6 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver _ - - _.- . _ _ .... _ - - - - — _. 415 d 416 _.� _ - _ _- 415 416 - Stage 1 - _.�s_._..._ �-.._ 890 . 800 - . 565 x553. Stage 2 _ - __.N�.�. _ 565553 _ 890 � 800 - 77 37, -_ - - 11 HCM Control Delay, s v 0 -. 0 13,7 �_._. .. .. .. ., HCM LOS B A .w�._____.._.... Capacity (veh/h) '415 Ratio 081081 - ' 1473 HCM Lane V/C RaV 0.0 ..__ _ ata _ _ _. a __. __ HCM Lane LOS B A - A _ - - A rw HCM 95th %tile Q(ueh)..:'__. 0, 0 Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 617 176 618 617 441 _ Existing + Project AM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St .. 441 `441 z Stage 2 - - - - - - 441 441 5/10/2016 _._ . - Cntical Hdwy = :4.12 712:..6 52 622.: 7126 52 6:22 __ Wim. Critical Hdwy Stg 1 .---412 - - ... _...._ - - - _ .T: 6.12 5.52 - _. 6.12 5.52 - Critical°Hdvuy_St9 ? ' _ — Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - -. . - _ .` _.._a _ ._ , _ - 2.218 - - --- . _ w_ 612 :5 52 — _ _..._ 3.518 4.018 3.318 6.125 52 _ 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot;Cap�1 Maneuver 4 1,119'1400 ^ 4_ 402 405 867 _ 402 X405 y _ 616 Stage - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - j6tersection ..[ �. 77 Int Delay, s/veh 0 Platoon blocked, % - - - - MovCap 1 Maneuver 1119 '— 1400 �_ 402 405 867 NBT° � NBR . °A SBL:; SBT `SBR Lane Configurations — - 4)- _ 402 405 - 401 405 - Stage 753 .. .. Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 . 0 - 2 ,0' .' 0 _ _ .0 MO ..........a.._.a.."..;...a.�.., E........w._. Future Vol, vehlh _ 0 167_ __..O -__ 0 419 _ 0_._ . 0 _ o _.. 2 0 0 Conflicting Peds; #Ihr�.0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop StopStop Stop Stop _ _ _e N-_on_e.. _Stop - None. ._-_ ----None Storage Length _N_. — - v Grade, %- 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0— - Peak Hour Factor 95 ',95 95 95 X95 95 9595 95',-' � _ 95 95,; 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 _441�_. 0 . _� _ 4 0 _ 2 _� . 0 _0 0 Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 617 176 618 617 441 _ 176 176 _ .. 441 `441 z Stage 2 - - - - - - 441 441 177 176 _._ . - Cntical Hdwy = :4.12 712:..6 52 622.: 7126 52 6:22 __ Wim. Critical Hdwy Stg 1 .---412 - - ... _...._ - - - _ .T: 6.12 5.52 - _. 6.12 5.52 - Critical°Hdvuy_St9 ? ' _ — Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - -. . - _ .` _.._a _ ._ , _ - 2.218 - - --- . _ w_ 612 :5 52 — _ _..._ 3.518 4.018 3.318 6.125 52 _ 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot;Cap�1 Maneuver 4 1,119'1400 ^ 4_ 402 405 867 _ 402 X405 y _ 616 Stage - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - �. 77 595 Platoon blocked, % - - - - MovCap 1 Maneuver 1119 '— 1400 �_ 402 405 867 :LL401,405, 616, Mov Cap -2 Maneuver — - - - - _ 402 405 - 401 405 - Stage 753 .. .. _ 595-_ 577.- Stage 2 - - - - 595 577 823 753 - ..........a.._.a.."..;...a.�.., E........w._. ....__•_ _-...w a wt.... -....a. _w, .....,...._. .,...__ .--__ ..._... s..ti,......« _ _..... x .-.,...,__ �«,,.sr....v._...._... _ _.. _+....+n. ..r...............A..._w.w _.......,. ......_:� H_CM Control Delays �- .: _.. _0 _ �_._ �- _ 9.2 HCM LOS A A 9 - 1400 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - - - - - HCM6ontrol Delayq(s),9:2 tr_ 0 _.�. _w. . 0 0--__.___ HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A HCM'95th %tile'Q veh " 0 0 0 Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Project AM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 ntersectron 71 177 Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 M vo ement�R _ EBLy REBT EB,INBL WBT` ;WBR s. NBL :,NBT,.:NBR{ SBLT. SBT"YSBF Lane Configurations , 4, 4 IN"p, _. w0 124 W,..D..A _ _ .. z . rK ..� e . '`85 ,. h.._..�, a_ Q Future Vol, vehlh 0 124 0 1 85 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop None None = None None .__._____ . -" ____ __, . _,... _ m a_..1� -.s Storage Length _ _ _ _ _� = .-one Veh in' Median Storage, #' u` ..,.... 0� _ _ 0 _..�u. 0 _m __. _ r Grade, % - 0 a_.. 0 - - 0 - 0 - PeakHourFactor X95 95� 95 0 95>95 95 95 . 95 X95 95 95 95 _ .._ . _.. _.., ..... ...., U ..,:... _ . .. r „wr _., .,. Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmf IFlow 0 131 0� 1 89 0 0 0 m 5 0 0 0 HCM LOS A q Ca aoi "a veh/h < 919 1506; 1454 ,_ _ P _, _. _. _ . HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.00101' -._. , HCM trol Delay (s) 8 9 Cgn7 5 _ . _ .....d_p HCM Lane LOS A A- - A A - A HCM 95th %file Q veh 0 Orv` 0 Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 Mai6—r/Wnor .Mator2.,£ Minor/ Mino � Conflicting Flow All 89 0 0 131 0 0 223 223 131 225 223 89 Stage 2 :_-_ ��-� - �� _�. _._ _�..s �_.__ _ , 92 92 - 133 131 - Cnfical Hdwy 4.12 �_._.�__. _.... 412 = ^ 712 6 52 6 22 712 6 52 -,,'6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - _. - - 6.12 _ ..��._ 5.52 .� .n. .A.. 6.12 5.52 Cntical Hd Sf 2 612 5 52 612 5 52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.218 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver Stage 1506° - - - 1454 r - = - - 733 873 676 919 788 7_30 676 969 915.. �819..� Sta e 2 _� g..r_ 915 819 870 788 Platoon blocked, % Mov1Gap 1 Maneuver _ Mov Cap -2 Maneuver ,1T506 Fy - �� 1454 r - - 732 732 675 919 675 -� 725 675 969 . _ 725 675 Stage 2 _.__. - - - _, . ,. .`�873 914 788 818 - 865 788 - HCM LOS A q Ca aoi "a veh/h < 919 1506; 1454 ,_ _ P _, _. _. _ . HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.00101' -._. , HCM trol Delay (s) 8 9 Cgn7 5 _ . _ .....d_p HCM Lane LOS A A- - A A - A HCM 95th %file Q veh 0 Orv` 0 Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Project AM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/10/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 7-7 -_ Conflicting Ped -KA /hr Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Storage Length 0 n Veh_m Median Storage,,#� �__ .��0.�.-..., .. __.. w ��.�.� . �. n. � � �� _. Grade.%. 0 - - 0 0.. lla�or/M►nor�" �„;�� _.�_„ _ ��r2 r � A �� � � j ��-�--- ��� � ;,,, pxk Conflicting Flow All 49 22 24 0 0 Sta e 1 d 22 Staae 2 27 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Cntical A" Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver 960 1055 1591 m Staae 1 1001 - - - - Platoon blocked, %777, - - - Mov Cap�,1 Maneuver .. a - � 960 05 e 1591 ,7' Mov Caa-2 Maneuver 960 - - Stage 2 996 - . H_CM Control_De-l- HCM LOS �A HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.013 - HCM Lane LOS A - A - _ HCM 95th %tileQ(veh) _� _0 Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Project AM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 3.9 Lane Configurations Y 18 21 0 0 Sta 18 Traffic Vol, vehlti _ __ ��_ _. _ 20 __ 0__ �_ 0 6 15 4 Future Vol, veh/h 20 . _ 0- _ 0 6 _ y _ _. 15 __- 4 Confllctmg Peds,`#/hr0 r� 0 0 0 0 w 0 Sign Control Stop stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized' 1061 ' k None ' None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh mMedianStorage,a# 0 0 0 X986 Grade, % _ --- ..v.. - -0. - _ Peak Hour Factor �_. - 92 - _ ... _ 92 92 92 .2 - 92 - w— 92 , Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 _- Mvmt Flow_.,0 _ w. 7 _ MajorlMmor. fr Mino`r2 ��Major1�� � =Malor2M} ��fi 3j 4 s , A .� ; .t Conflicting Flow All 25 18 21 0 0 Sta 18 -.. Stage 2 7 - - - - Cnhcal`Hd _.-_ 7 12 ___ _ 6.22 ° _ _.._ "",4;12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 __. ntic CalmHdwySt9?r.__N,.... 612 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver w ..._ 986 1061 ' k 1595 4 Stage 1 1015.e� Platoon blocked, % ..: - - MovCap 1 Maneuver X986 - 1061 .° 1595 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - Stage 1 1001 W Stage 2 1015 . _-a -..___.� - ..._ - HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS-� A. 77 C,arpacfty (vehlhj' _ 1595,' HCM Lane VIC Ratio HC_M Control Delay (s) ' 0 HCM Lane LOS A__ .._ ._ .. e A. HCM 95th %tileQ(veh) Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing + Proj PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/1012016 lntersectlon , "$ c z s i -;' Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6 Lane Future Vol, vehlh 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 24 0 0 2 2 Peak Hour Factor m 0.92 0.94 0.94 0 94 0 92 0 94 0 94 0 94 0 92 a 0 94 0 94 0.94 _ Heavy Vehicles, % ,_... r_ ... " 2 ... 2 . _ m 2 _.. ..... 2 _.._ w..... 2 _ ,. 2 2 ., _. 2 .1 _. . 2 __. _.._ 2 2 .. __..94 2 MvmtFlow �0� :36 54 1 0 0 7026 2 2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Conflicting Approach Left— SB NB EB Conflicting_ Lanes Left � � Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Rights _.: HCM Control Delay 7.87.5 7.1 HCM LOS Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 21212016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing + Proj PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/1012016 1 Intersection Delay, s/veh Lane Configurations Future Vol, veh/h 0 26 0 41 Heaw Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Number t G x -9rM ,'-'� CSD ' Y 4 f'. ^"'*. fi'",r " x: ^ '(' ' 7F " a . "� _pproat�ll..? � � =<�U•r Y ., r*� � ^� s� �� a � � 1 Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 104: S. B St & E 6th St Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Lane Existing + Proj PM 5/10/2016 Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Ildllll.=VUI, VCI1111: V `V D. V "+U""-' P'V'." t10 .'OU U A _ LU - 10 I I ^1.0. �18 Future Vol, veh/h 0 5 6 1 0 40 75 50 0 1 20 0 37 11 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 92 , 0.92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92. 0.92 0;92, 0.,92 0.92 0:92 —0,92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Nlymt Flow - w 0 5 7 1 0 43 82 54 ¢ 1 22_ 20 0 40 12 17 _... _ Number of Lanes 0 0 1 _.._. .-. 1 0 0 -_.._ 1 .. 0 0 f 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 AK— pprroacoar h EB -77 NB a F Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB w NB EB ... .._._ WB Conflicting Lanes Left_2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1.....,":... 2< HCM Control Delay - 7.9_. -.... �..._ _a 91. 7.6 8.2 A..: _.. Lane';NBL'n1 NBLn2'_EBLn1-EBLn2WBLn1 SBLn9 SBLn2 }, a,. }° Vol Left, % 5% 0% 45% 0% 24% 77% 0% Vol Thru, %_ 95%0 0%' "550X 3% _.45% 0%2 : Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 30% 0% 100% Sign Control _u M „Stop Stop' Stop ,Stop .Stop _Stop .Stop .71 ,.. 7-1 Traffic Vol by Lane 21 18 11 1 165 48 16 LT Vol ._ . _ ... 5 :1 Q 0,.40 37 0 Through Vol 20 0 6 075 11 0 RT UoI 18. 0 1 ' 50 16 Lane Flow Rate 23 20 u ..0 12 1 179 52 17 . __, x _ ........ - Geomefry Grp 7 Z 7 Degree of Util X 9 �) 0.032 0.024 0.017 0.001 0.234 0.079 0,021 De acture Headway (Hd) 510x7 4 38 5193 4 262 099',,5.44 .35 tiw Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes YesYes Yes Yes ,4 Yes Cap _. .... 691 842 768 661 _ 826 77-7,,77 _. Service Time ...r ,.703 ., ..820: 2.82 2.093 2.908 1.977 2.71 3.152 2.062 HCM Lane V/C JRatioh r 0.033 0.02 0.01T,0'.001 0.233 0 0.79 0 021 T HCM Control Delay 8 7.2 8 7 -9.1� 8.6 7.2 HCM Lane LOSA A,. A '� .�� A�=A A7" A HCM 95th the O 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.9 0.3 0.1 Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Proj PM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/1012016 nteection s 4r r ..< ,. 7 g t c r ;rx ,r77 T Int Delay, s/veh 0 Moho ement , p l k ,EBL .EBI'EBR ='r Y,VVBL w. WBT WBR£ NBL ; NBT NBRa a r'SBLn,m SBT s,SBf Lane Configurations 411 , 4 T�affic V.ol, vehlti _ ,�..0.�_ 76' ? . Future Vol, veh/h - 0 76 2- 0 536 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ 0 s _ _ �.� Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized _ �a Nones r_ None None one Storage Length 71 Uehin Median Storage, # `.ae,_.. _ __ _ _ v1.___, ._ _,_ _,._ . __ _ � 'm_. Grade, %�_.____ 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor_ 95 �95 95 _ 95 X95 9b 95 95 X95p 95` 95 �95 _ ... _ _ Heavy Vehicles, % s..2. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0 77-67 A _ , Majo !Minor x Major! r _ g`Mejor2} :Minor{ M nor2 } Conflicting Flow All 564 0 0 82 0 0 645 645 81 645 646 564 y Stage 564 564. _ ._. Stage 2 - - - 564 564 81 82 - Cntical Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 - Cntical;Htlwy St 9 2 u ... _ _ ,. 612 -,6 ."5 a.. .` ...,. _ .. _ . 6y12 5 52W Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap=1 Maneuver 1008 'ry 1515 mm 385 391 979 385 390 r' 525 _ _ ._ .__..m._._._ .._._-�_ ._ Stage - - - - 927 828 510 508 - Stage 2 _ m _ .. w _.. _ _. _.. _ _ _510 ��508 . �. a _ 927' 827 Platoon blocked, % - - - MovCap 1 Maneuver _ 1rt008 _ 'ti _ ,. _ w 1515 a i Mp 385 m 391 979 385£ 390 525 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 385 391 385 390 - .�_4y. Stage 2 - - - 510 508 927 827 - 77 4�..... ..«... .ate„_.,.. .... .d .. ... ............re.....r..._a,«, ..... ,,... ., .,s..,..a..u. _....... ,.�. _...._.. ...._.. +..... �,..,uL �,. et.. w� .a... o.e, ... _. a......, ..__. um.,...........- .... ...., ,_..... P m..e,..,c,.,....r._,.-_...mei fi�montroi-ueiay,s __.-_ _h u HCM LOS B_ 7, HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - - - - - HCMControlDelay.jS) 0' ....-__. HCM Lane LOS B A - A - - A HCM 95th%tileQ(ueh)a�-Q 0 0, � ,.�.._ _ Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 1 HCy02O1OTVVSC Existing +P 'PKA 107 Ctr Dwx & E 6th St 5M0/016 991 1452, HCMLane V/CRatio 0.00 ' ' ' 0.00 Existing +Proj PN6:0Opm2/2/2O 8ExisUng+PmjPN Synohm9Report Int Delay, sIveh 0 0 133 0 0 720 720 133 720 720 583 Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ Stage 2 587 587 133 133 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop stop Stop Stop Storage Length 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 512 Stage 1 870 786 496 497 Plaioon 991 1452, HCMLane V/CRatio 0.00 ' ' ' 0.00 Existing +Proj PN6:0Opm2/2/2O 8ExisUng+PmjPN Synohm9Report Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 720 720 133 720 720 583 77 Stage 2 587 587 133 133 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 512 Stage 1 870 786 496 497 Plaioon 77-1 ff-7 5 12 Mov Cap -2 uver 342 353 353 taP 78 Stage 2 495 496 869 786 991 1452, HCMLane V/CRatio 0.00 ' ' ' 0.00 Existing +Proj PN6:0Opm2/2/2O 8ExisUng+PmjPN Synohm9Report HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Proj PM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5110/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Lane Configurations 84 _ . u.. s _ . �0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 46 0 5 84 0 0 2 0 0 0 0.0_ 0 _ 0'-. Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free ._ . ____ Stop Stop Stop ,__ Stop Stop Stop R_T Channelized None None _o..�...w �...�..� None.....�����..__...�.�...��None Sfnrnna I annfh Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Flow All 88 0 0 48 0 0 147 147 48 148 147 88 2 Critical Hdwv Sta 1 - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap=1 Maneuver 1508m� X1.559 821 744 1021 820 744n97Q Stage 1 - - - - - 965 855 - 907 813 - _Stage 2 ,._� _.�.n _ �_ _ 907: 813 ' ` 964: 855 �. � W�.. � w5 . Platoon blocked, % - - - Mo� Cap 1 Maneuver 1508_r� ti ti 1559 819 742 1021 816.; 742 r x970 I Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 819 742 816 742 - _ Stage 1 — ,. Stage 2 - - 904 811 962 855 ,ae.m xF, F 4 t = SB M HCM LOS Ad� A HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.003 - - _ HCMControlDelay(s)8�5 -am 0 _..m ,,. 730 ,�.�.0.�_� HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - A� HCM95th lofile Q(veh) Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 1 1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Proj PM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/1012016 lntersecfian Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Lane Configurations *' Traffic Vol veh/h' 10 0 042 S%e 43"':X10 Future Vol, vehlh � �� 0 0 ti .-42.w _ _ � 43 10 Conflicting Peds,.#Ihr �0 0 � 76 _ 7; 0 0 0 7Sign Control StopStop Free Free Free Free W . RT ChannelizedNone 905y 1017 �° �_. None °� 1... None Storage Length _ _w... _ 0 _..� ..._ .. . �. __...�. _.. - - Ueh mMedian Sforage, #�.0 w. �.. _.m_...__ . _._ �0 ._.T_...o. 0 _ ___. t�...._�. Grade __..__. % 0 _Stage.�_...: _ 0 0 - Peak Hour Fa_ctor95 95 95 _ 95� 955 a __�.." . Heavy Vehicles, % _ _ __ 2 2. " �� . 2 :_ 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 0 44 45°11 r, HCM LOS A m Capacity (yeh/h) ,� _ 1549 905 HCM Lane VICC Ratio - - 0.012 - - HCM G_ontrol Delay HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 9,5fh %file Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 Conflicting Flow All 95 51 56 0 - 0 S%e Stage 2 44 - - - Cnbcal'Hdwy 6 426 22 . 412 Critical Hdwy Stg 1- . _. Cnfical Ntl St g 2 542' Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - PotCap 1 Maneuver 905y 1017 1549 __ Stage 1 971µ - - - 978 _, ` Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap 1 Maneuver o 905 10 17° 1549 7 7' -2 M Mov Cap -2 905 - - _Stage.�_...: _ : Fp Stage 2 978 r, HCM LOS A m Capacity (yeh/h) ,� _ 1549 905 HCM Lane VICC Ratio - - 0.012 - - HCM G_ontrol Delay HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 9,5fh %file Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Proj PM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Future Vol. veh/h 10 0 0 32 23 20 Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Storage Length 0 Veh in Median,Sforage, Grade. % 0 - - 0 0 Heavy Vehicles, % _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow , 22 —2 - Conflicting .. Conflicting Flow All 71 36 47 0 - 0 IVIPa..Stage 1 `36 '� �17 �m_ Stage 2 W 35 - - - CnticalHdwy�. Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 - - - - - CnticalSHtlwySt9?. 7 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Stage 1 980 - - - Stage 2 -� ...981IV7 L Platoon blocked, % - - - MovCap 1 Marieuver 920.._.._.11�"'1,1037.., 1560x. , , Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 920 Stage 2 981 HCM LOS A -97 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.012 HCM Lane LOS A - A-77 - HCM,95th Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 + Proj AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 1 Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5 Intersection Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 27 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 095 0 95 0:95 095 0 95 0 95,. �0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0.95', .` 0:95 Heaw Vehicles..%�. � � � � , ....2.. . � �� � n .�.,�_ � ., 2. i m2 � 2R� n_2� Number of Lanes Conflictina ADDroach Riaht NB SB WB HCM Control Delay 7.6 7.1 0 Lane '-3 BLn,_', - EBLn1, — I , .�SBLn1. Vol Left, % 0% 17% 0% 76% Uol Thru, % 100% 83% Vol Right % 0% 0% 51% 24% SignControl..3_ Traffic Vol by Lane _..Stop.Stop.,L 0 69 53 68 52 ..O.���. Through Vol 0 57 26 0 RT Vol 0 0 2716 __. Lane Flow Rate 0 73 56 72 -1-11-7)-1'---r---17" Degree of Util (X) 0 0.083 0.059 0.083 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Service Time 2.284 2.184 1.863 2.22 HCM Lane_V/C Ratios 0 0 085 006 0084` _. HCM Control Delay 7.3 �7.6 7.1 7.6 HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.3 0.2 0.3 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 r - -, Lj 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 + Proj AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 lritersection T77��s� Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Lane Configurationsr TrafficVol, vehlh 0 X52 0 16 Future Vol,vehlh 052_..�..M_016 r actor Peak Hour Factor 0.95-0.95 0 95 0 95 __,'*j _ ... Heavy Vehs icle, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow' .'�0 55 �. 0 17 Number of Lanes �u. �. App or acdSB A � a a ,kN m , Opposing Approach NB Opposing Conflicting Approach LeftWB Conflicfing Lanes Left _ 1 , M "_ _ Conflicting Approach Right EB - "_ -tine- Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay 7.6 HCM COS r u_e _.._ `A ; 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 + Proj AM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 5110/2016 Int-6li Pilitldn .,,`$F Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3 Intersection LOS A Moaement�m,x= .. yE .U, ;aEBL EBT ,EBR =WBUr„ WBLxUVBTgWBR NU NBL B7R SBU SSBLna SBTX SBFT Lane Configurations 5 34 120 c c� 8 690 835 733 868 780' 0 $ 2 ., 2.917 2.014 2.627 Through Vol 3 Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 101 1 0 8 1� 20 0 2 334 0 51 7 8 Peak_H_our Factor 0' 95 .._ 0 95 0 95 0 95 ;p 0 95 ns 0 95 a 0 95 0 95 , 0 95w a 0 95095 0''95 0 95 0 95 0 95 30 95 a� a .... _...,��.� Heave Vehicles, %+~ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Number of Lanes WB EB SB NB Left SB NB EB WB EB HCM Control Delay 8.7 7.8 7.3 8.5 HCMl`OS A A w A A' Vol Left, % 40% 0% 16% 0% 28% 88% 0% Vol Riaht, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 69% 0% 100% Traffic Vol by Lane 5 34 120 1 29 58 8 690 835 733 868 780' 0 $ _... Service Time ., 2.917 2.014 2.627 Through Vol 3 0 101 _ .... 0 1 _ 7 0 Lane Flow Rate 5 36 126 �a� 1 31 61J8 w._Z of Util (X) 0.008 0.043 0.173 0.001 0.039 0.092 0.01 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap a 690 835 733 868 780' 665 841 _....u. _.._, .... _x__ _ . _' _... Service Time ., 2.917 2.014 2.627 1.846 2.62 3.123 1.979 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 007 "0 043k 0172 _0 001 0 04 0 092 HCM Control Delay 8 7.2 8.7 6.9 7.8 8 7 7 w._Z HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.1 0.6 0 �0.1 0.3 0 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 1 1 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj AM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/1012016 UP- Int PInt Delay, slveh 0.1 Lane Future Vol, vehlh 0 109 1 0 458 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds',#/hr Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Chanpelized None None - - - 482 482 one _ Storage Length - - - - - .6.22..._712 6:52',” -None - - - - - Veh m�Median Stora a# w.. _.�_ _. 9 _ 0 ._ _... a. .� 0= Cnfical�Hd St 2 `NY. _ 9 ��... _ �. _. Grade, % _ -= 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 937 415` 416 F "-95 95 95 95 r95 95 , 95 95, Heavy Vehicles,% _a. 2 2�_„� 2 � 2 2 � _ _ . 2. _ 2. _ 2 . _ Qr�2 2_�.� 2 Mvmt Flow 0 115 1 0 482 0 3 0 0 0 0 Q HCM ControFDelay s a �0 0 13 7 0 HCM LOS B A 'i E 7 ., .., ..w.....v.»........... .. ... �...__ �s.. _.,. .�. � � ate......... .+ _-...>.... -.t .x .. .. .. ... >.. .,aa....... ✓ ,.. .... ._ A.a _.... m .__�»..._. } �apagty,(v_enm)` � 41b .Luba 14[3 HCM Lane V%C Ratio HCMControlDelays) q 13 (.__. _ 0 HCM Lane LOS �B .w HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 21212016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Conflicting Flow All 482 0 0 116 0 0 597 597 115 597 598 482 Stage 482'_ 482:�. Stage 2 - - - 482 482 - 115 116 - Cnficaf Hdwy v 412 = 712 6 52 .6.22..._712 6:52',” 6'. 22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 _412 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Cnfical�Hd St 2 `NY. _ 9 ��... _ �. _. .. 612 5_52 612: 5_52 u . _ _ -= Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.218 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap 1 r 1081 1473 415 416 937 415` 416 F 584 LLManeuver Stage _q v - - - 890 800 __. - 565 553 __. - Stage 2 77 77- 565 553 890 , 800 Platoon blocked, % - -- - Mo1 Maneuver v Cap 1081 1473 - 415 ' 416 937 415, 6 584 m Mov Cap -2 Maneuver p';....6 - - - R - - - 415 416 -416 - 415 416 - Stage 1` ._. x_ ° 890800 56_5 55_3 -' Stage 2 _�_ _. 565 553_ 890 800 - HCM ControFDelay s a �0 0 13 7 0 HCM LOS B A 'i E 7 ., .., ..w.....v.»........... .. ... �...__ �s.. _.,. .�. � � ate......... .+ _-...>.... -.t .x .. .. .. ... >.. .,aa....... ✓ ,.. .... ._ A.a _.... m .__�»..._. } �apagty,(v_enm)` � 41b .Luba 14[3 HCM Lane V%C Ratio HCMControlDelays) q 13 (.__. _ 0 HCM Lane LOS �B .w HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 21212016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj AM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 tnfersectton q . .. �V, Int Delay, s/veh 0 Lane Configurations Future Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 Sign Control r Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized � � None None il � None �None Storage Length._,. Veli in` Median, Storage, # 0 Grade. % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 176 0 0 441 0 0 0 2 Ort 0 -0 Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 617 176 618 617 441 ..u..Sfage 1 Stage 2 - - - - 441 T441 - 177 176 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - CnticalHdwySt9?.._�_h.._. Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4 018 3.318 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver 11(9 a 1400 n 402 405 867 402; 405 616. Stage 1 - - - - - 826 753 - ar 595 577 a57T 17 _ Platoon blocked, % L._. ._� _ ._ .595 _... Mov Ca 1 Maneuver 1119 1400 402 405 867 _._ 401 � 405 ,61-1i Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - 402 405 - 401 405 - Stage 1 826 753 595'" 577 =' Stage 2 595 577 823 753 - d� 3, �t o-_..:., N .....iu .....,...«.....aG...' .1mk ... _.. _..,c. __..a4 .. ...... ..... „.,_ b. _....... m.....-... ........ .F> -+.._..s ..._... ., w...,....�_.1......._. ,.._....,...< .u. w�.,a...,...a. ,.w ._..... m,w...,d,.fi.m.ay.... ......n...«n..a.c,............. HCM LOS A A HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - A 7'7-74 .w�..._.�___._ 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj AM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 ��� `{ .,.:` : Minor2s _.. 0 7 5 0 0 —; Conflicting Flow All 89 0 0 131 0 0 223 223 131 ovement. °;EBL EBT EBR-; . ., `WBL- WBT=<WBR . ` =_ NBL- " N 97A NBRx;;:,4 `TSBL .SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 92 92 4+ - - - - - 92 92 - Traffic Vol �vehm`.0 ._. - _ Cnfical ...,_ 0 ... 5 .�._ _ _ O.sm., 0 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 124 0 1 85 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Conflictin Peds #/hr 0 __a _.9� _ s { `' 612 '5.5 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None Stage _ None, - - None 915 819 - - Veh r Median Stora e# 0 - - - p Moy CaCap' 1 Maneuver Grade, %0 -675 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak HourFactor95 - 95 95 95° 95 95 95 95 m 95 Heavy Vehicles, 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 131 0_ 1 89 0 _ 0- 0 : 5. 0 0 0 Capacity (veh/h) _- 91V1506., HCM Lane V/C q M .._r ..Minor1 Major/Minor ., .m.a atort ����s� Nlator2 _.�e �.. ti.; ��� `{ .,.:` : Minor2s _.. 0 7 5 0 0 —; Conflicting Flow All 89 0 0 131 0 0 223 223 131 225 223 89 Sta e 1- _ - 131 e-131 _ 92 92 Stage 2 - - - - - 92 92 - 133 131 - _ Cnfical 412 __ _ .` _ .._ ._v M m._.,♦ -412 w n:. 712 _ 6,52. 6.2A712 _612 '6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg1 - - ._ _. _ . _ _ .. - - - - 6.12 5.52 - w 6.12 5.52 Cnfical Hdwy St9_ m { `' 612 '5.5 _? _ ____: __.. Follow-up Hdwy _ 2.218 - _....__ .__. -' _-- ..__ - 2.218 -3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Ca -1 Maneuver 1506 1454 733 7 66 91 9 :_:. ` 730 _ 676 969, _ -_ Stage - - - - - - 873 788 - 915 819 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Moy CaCap' 1 Maneuver w1506 1454 M - 732 -675 725 675 969 M Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - _ r - M - _ - - 732 3.919 675 - - 725 675 - Stage.l....��:. .Stage � . w._..°_.__�._ ;873_ 788 s -- 915F818 2. = ._. _ ._.. _ . 914 _.T__. 818 - - 865 788 - F s,WB . NB..;,� *`� ` SB`n. HCM Control DelaY HCM LOS A .._.,__..A�.—_.d___�_ t Capacity (veh/h) _- 91V1506., HCM Lane V/C = 1454 --__-_. _ CM Control Dela s 8 9 _.. 0 7 5 0 0 —; HCM Lane LOS A A - - _ A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) p 0 0 - _ 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj AM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/10/2016 ntersection ;` n--.-. Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement R EBR'`- c ��.'NtiL� �Nt31 , . { �5tf l `: bb Lane Configurations 24 0 - 0 .._ - Stage 1�. HCM Lane LOSA Stage 2 - A - HCM;95th %tile'Q veh _ . .: 26 . _. w., 19 _4 . Future Vol, veh/h 12 0 0 26 19 4 Conflicting Peds; #/hr Follow-up Hdwy 0 a p p 011p. 960 _, Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized T - _None - None,, - None Storage Length 0 1055 1591 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver P 960 - Veh m Median'Storage # v.._ 0 m � `°' 0 0 996 _ . _ ._. rtn Grade, % _- _ w 0 _ ._ � _ - _... _ .. x 0 0 eak PHour Factor -95 95 . 95 95 95 95 n _m_..M Heavy Vehicles, % . _. _ 2 __- _ 2 2 __- 2 -- _ _ 2 2 r=_ _ _-. _ -- -- ,0 20 q Majof/Minor, _ = w Mino 2Majorl Maior2< Conflicting Flow All 49 22 24 0 - 0 .._ - Stage 1�. HCM Lane LOSA Stage 2 - A - HCM;95th %tile'Q veh a CnticalHdwy , 17-11-1 =.. Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Cntical Hdwy.St9 .- _ _. Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3._._ 318._.._ 2.218 - - - rn PotCap-1,Maneuver 960 1055, 1501 Stage 1 1001 - - Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Oa -p-1 Maneuver .__. _:. _ 960�r_ 1055 1591 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver P 960 - - - Stage 2 996 HCM Control Delai, s 8.8., _ ' -- - — - --- -_0 HCM LOS A Ca aci vehlh _1591 P tY ) - 960 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.013 - - HCM Co ..�__, HCM Lane LOSA - A - HCM;95th %tile'Q veh 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 I I I HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj AM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/1012016 tht "rs ctid'n Int Delay, s/veh 3.9 Lane Configurations Conflicting Flow All 24 18 20 0 0 ehjn Median Storage, 9 18 Traffic __ Stage 2 0 0' 7777-77a- ­I Future Vol, veh/h 20 0 0 6 15 4 ConCIcfIng AE4 Zt: n � -7 16 4 7 7777 _IJ#RE Sign Control top §top Free FreeFreeFree ..... RT Channelized Platoon blocked",% None �qv qap.�A;�nttjy one Minor Mai i W. Conflicting Flow All 24 18 20 0 0 ehjn Median Storage, 9 18 __ Stage 2 0 0' Peak Hour actor - 7°12 6 22 412 7 Heavy Vehicles, %2 6.1 2 2 2 ri FiqLfffwy _St Mvmt Flow Zt: n � -7 16 4 Minor Mai i W. Conflicting Flow All 24 18 20 0 0 Sta_gq1 18 __ Stage 2 6 7°12 6 22 412 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 ri FiqLfffwy _St 6,' Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Maneuver(987 0611596, _j Stage 1 1001 -'.�-777 7777-7-1 Platoon blocked",% �qv qap.�A;�nttjy 5 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 987 7 Stage 2 1016 7, :8.7 0 qqtrol Delay, s_ 0 HCM LOS F_'_ T ,Pap 987 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0-.021 HCM Control eL y, HCM Lane LOS A A —7— _77 71 7 70 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 I HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 + Proj PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/1012016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6 Intersection -LOS- ` A .. 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 L -W BL-- BTu,:.,--WBR, "AM,." -'NBT,,- -71 NBL,,,: - -�,NB Lane Configurations 40% 0% 39% 50% 59% 73% 0% Vol Right, % -Control_.;___. - jT(j veh h 1% 27% 61% Sign .____._Stop Stopstop _ ----7- —7n -7-- -4 -,j 4 - Future Voil,-'ve-h-/-h' 0 34 511 0 0 66 24 0 0 2 2 PeakHour--0-.9-5-, --Vehicles, -%-- -6-6 ..... --0-."9-5- 0-.-9-5 -----0,.,9--5 0.95 0.95 0;95 0 95 0.95 72-' 0.95 Heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -2 Mvmt Flow A '3-6 0.078 Departure --Headway -4.112 A- -- .21 7, 3.964 2�- 2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Service Time 7 2.054 HCM Lane -VfC Ratio` -6. 6 66 -1 6A06 BA 0:08- Opposing Approach HCM Control Delay WB 7.8 7.5 7.4 EB HCM Lane LOS --A A SIB A I p s qg Lanes HCM 95th-tileQ- Conflicting Approach Left ppro SB -1- NB EB lqfln - - Confl71' ,.g La 7-71, 77, 7, Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB ---------- 7 HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.57.1 A- -A: - 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 L NBLn1-1 -ane B L-fif WB n1' -7-7. -SBL61"2 to Vol Left, %0% 40% 0% 39% 50% 59% 73% 0% Vol Right, % -Control_.;___. - 50% 1% 27% 61% Sign .____._Stop Stopstop _ stop, Traffic Vol by Lane 4 86 90 67 Lf Vol -'0-- --- --- '-26-- Throug_h Vol -2 -6-6 ..... --0 2 1 24 41-, Lane Flow Rate 4 91 95 71 A Degree of Util (X) 0.005 0.106 0.105 0.078 Departure --Headway -4.112 A- -- .21 3.974 3.964 Convergence, Ylk -Yes Yes Yes Yes 7-771 Service Time 2.054 HCM Lane -VfC Ratio` -6. 6 66 -1 6A06 0.106 0:08- HCM Control Delay 7.1 7.8 7.5 7.4 HCM Lane LOS --A A A A HCM 95th-tileQ- 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 + Proj PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/1012016 h�� Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS' - " - ,_ - Mavement�-������.�,�..� Lane Configurations Traffic Vol vehlh 0 26 0 41 Future Vol, veh/h 0 26 0 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.95.0.95 _ x_95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 _0^95 2 2 _2 27 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Appt08Ch�r SB k _17 Opposing Approach NB w Opposing Lanes;. 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB _ Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflictinr!e Right-� 1 HCM Control Delay 7.4 U 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCK82O1OAWSC Intersection Delay, okmh 8.6 2035+P 'pK8 Lane Configurations *T r Tr-aTc—Vol by Lane 21 18 11 1 165 48 16 Through Vol 0- 75 11 -0 try Grp Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes s 82 Service Time 2.803 2.076 2.892 1.961 2.699 3,137 2.046 Opposing Approach W B 0.1 EB 0.1 SIB NB— - 71 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Approach Rig6-t'-" N -b SIB WB EB g Lanes Right_ 2035+PmiRN6:00pm2/2/2082036+PmiPN Synohm9Report Tr-aTc—Vol by Lane 21 18 11 1 165 48 16 Through Vol 0- 75 11 -0 try Grp Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes s 82 Service Time 2.803 2.076 2.892 1.961 2.699 3,137 2.046 HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0.2 0.1 2035+PmiRN6:00pm2/2/2082036+PmiPN Synohm9Report HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj PM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 ritersection r h = x { .x a . •° ..,. 7 fi .4.. _ " 4 _.,^ {< � r 7 _ .,�7 Int Delay, slveh 0 Lane Configurations Conflicting Flow All 564 0 0 82 0 0 645 645 81 645 646 564 81 _0 '564 Stage 2 - - - - - - 564 Traffic Vol, veh/ti n� _.�0 76 _ �76 2 _ 0 536 M. 0 ... _. 1 , 0 _ . _ _0�– 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 5 52 2 .0 536 0 1_ 0� 0+ 0� M 0 0 Cor flict n Peds' #/hr 0 OF D ry 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0— 0` 0.0 77 7 ' �.9 _ Sign Control _ _ Free Free _ Free ._. Free _._ Free s Free Stop _ Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop _._ _. RTaCfiannehzed. _ - - None 510 508 None - - _ None - - None Storage Length - - Ue� h in.Median _ 0 .�.a0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 - 95 95 95<,95'_ 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow " 0 80 2 0 564 0. a1or/Mi66�.$FW&I F � � MioR'+. k .'�,. �. Minor2,'M P41 Conflicting Flow All 564 0 0 82 0 0 645 645 81 645 646 564 81 u564 '564 Stage 2 - - - - - - 564 564 - 81 82 - Critical Hdwy 412 r T 412 - 7x12' 6 52 6'.22 712^ 6 52 6.22 _ _ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 612 5.52 612 5.52 - INC Hdwy Stg 2 612 5 52 612- 5 52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218RT - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap_1 Maneuver ,1008385 3915",-39 0__525 Stage - - - - - 927 828 - 510 508 - St_age 2 _ 510 508 927 82T Platoon blocked, % - - - - _ T _a _. Mov Gap 1 Maneuver 1008 1515 = 385 391,479,3854 _ 390. ` 525 _._,. _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - P 385 391 385 390 - M_ _ Stage 1, - 927 828 510 508 Stage 2 - - 510 508 927 827 - ..--_U; . HCM LOS B A 385 1008 1515 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 HCM Control Delay) ri 14:4 _ 0__. �. ' �_'_... K-777- HCM Lane LOS B A_ - A - - A 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay, s t_0 HCM LOS A A - Capacity (veh/h) __..._r _.._..916 991`.___... _ .._._ a 1452 n HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.001 - m. m HCM Lane LOS A A A A - A HCM;95th%tileQ(veh) - FO Q;_ ��� . �.� .�_ �_.-6 _ _._�... • °. 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 583 0 0 133 0 0 720 720 2035 + Proj PM 720 720 583 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St .� -�-_ _ .. -..___ 5/10/2016 .. � _ M... _ 587 587 Stage 2 _ _ _ __. _ 587 587._ -.. 133 133 - Cntical Hdwy . 412 Int Delay, slveh 0 6,-22y 712 6 52 v6 222 y r Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - �loiement m., `-r.r,EBI,.:BB1EBR 3 WBL,WBTINBR. NBL rNBT_`NBR' m . 4,< SBLa �SBT, vSBR 6,12 5.52 - Lane Configurations 41, 2.218 6.12 _w5.52 _ 3.518 4.018 w..... _ _.: 3.318 _ . 6._! � J.5 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Ca ' 1 Maneuver P 991 1,452 - 354 Future Vol, vehlh 0 126 0 2 554 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Conflictin Peds; #/hr `0 0 0 0 Stage 2 . �: , . ' .. _ _ �. Sign Control Free Free, Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized- None one _ None` None Storage Length - - - - - 342 353 - _ 3_42 353 512 eh Vin Median Storage, # 0�� �- '� 0 = - 0 0 _._ Grade,% � 0 � _u. _ - ._._. _ 0 0�.m.._.._�....0...____.� Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95;95 d 95 95 _95.._95 '95 _v.. _.._,m� 95_ 95r m n 95 ._..... - ` .... Heavy_Vehicl_es_, % 2 V .m 2 2 . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow �'0 133 0 2 583 0 77 0 HCM Control Delay, s t_0 HCM LOS A A - Capacity (veh/h) __..._r _.._..916 991`.___... _ .._._ a 1452 n HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.001 - m. m HCM Lane LOS A A A A - A HCM;95th%tileQ(veh) - FO Q;_ ��� . �.� .�_ �_.-6 _ _._�... • °. 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 720 720 133 720 720 583 .� -�-_ _ .. -..___ 133 ;133 .. � _ M... _ 587 587 Stage 2 _ _ _ __. _ 587 587._ -.. 133 133 - Cntical Hdwy . 412 7126.52 6,-22y 712 6 52 v6 222 y r Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6,12 5.52 - Cntical Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 6.12 _w5.52 _ 3.518 4.018 w..... _ _.: 3.318 _ . 6._! � J.5 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Ca ' 1 Maneuver P 991 1,452 - 354 916 343 354 512 _v . _M.._ u _ R.b..__ _ . . Y343 870 786 �. , - 496 497 Stage 2 . �: , . ' .. _ _ �. �._ . _ : ', �_ 496vy 1497 870' 7861: r.= Platoon blocked, % - - MoyCap 1 Maneuver `, 991 -� 1452° - 342 353 916 _ 3_42 353 512 Mov, Cap -2 Maneuver �- - - - - 342 353 342 353 - '496,-, Stage 2 - - - 495 496 - _496 869 786 - HCM Control Delay, s t_0 HCM LOS A A - Capacity (veh/h) __..._r _.._..916 991`.___... _ .._._ a 1452 n HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.001 - m. m HCM Lane LOS A A A A - A HCM;95th%tileQ(veh) - FO Q;_ ��� . �.� .�_ �_.-6 _ _._�... • °. 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010' TWSC 2035 + Proj PM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 15/10/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Lane Configurations 4 Sta e1 *14 4+ Stage 2 traffic Uol, veh/t , 0 46 0:5 84 9 0 0 2 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 46 0 5 84 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds; #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 965 855 - 907 813 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop MovCap 1 Maneuver�z w 1508 µ 1559 -b. X819 742 1021 816742 970 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver on None <None €_. 965 855 Stage 2- - - - 904 811 - 962 855 - __..� ..., ..a.P Veh m Median Stora a #` g 0 � 0 �'-0 0 Grade, % - _ 0 __.. __.��� 0_.��_�....: 0 _ 0 _. Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 �2�_ ..2 . _a 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 _2._�. _ � _m2_._..-2a.e..�.� 95 Heavy Vehicles, %�2� 2. 2.. � 2 5 _- . 88 _. r_ ;q �' . 0 ^ 2 0 0 a _ Conflicting Flow All 88 0 0 48 0 0 147 147 48 148 147 88 Sta e1 48 48 99 99 µ Stage 2 - - - 99 99 - 49 m 48 Cntical.Hdwy 412 412 �. 712 `6 52 6:22` 7_1_21 6'52 62 2; _ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 _ ..m - - - 6.12 5.52 - ^6.12ry 5.52 - CnhcalHdwy Stgµ2 -, - 612 5 52 612< 5.52,'- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.218 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver u._ 1508 a 1559 _ a 821 744 1021 820 744970 - _ � �- Stage 1 - - - - 965 855 - 907 813 Stage 2 �._ .__ . 907 813 964 855 _ Platoon blocked, % _. __.. w _.� ....�_ - - - - MovCap 1 Maneuver�z w 1508 µ 1559 -b. X819 742 1021 816742 970 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - 819 742 816 742 - €_. 965 855 Stage 2- - - - 904 811 - 962 855 - a 7"-" - , HCM LOS A A 777 e - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.003 HCM Lane LOS A A - A A - A 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 ` HCK82O1OTVVSC 2035+P 'PM 108 SB St & N5/10/2016 Dwy Int Delay, sIveh 0.9 Lane Configurations Conflicting Flow All 95 51 56 0 0 Stage 2 44 Haity -6.4Y-- Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Frei` 'Free Follow-up Hdwy one Storage Length 0 Platoon blockedi" Mov Cap 1017: 1549 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 905 Stage 2 978 � 1549 905 .~~^~~~..~.. HCM Lane LOS A 7,7 2035+PmiRN6:00pm2/2/20182035+Pm|PN Synnhm9Report Conflicting Flow All 95 51 56 0 0 Stage 2 44 Haity -6.4Y-- Follow-up Hdwy Stage 1 971 Platoon blockedi" Mov Cap 1017: 1549 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 905 Stage 2 978 � 1549 905 .~~^~~~..~.. HCM Lane LOS A 7,7 2035+PmiRN6:00pm2/2/20182035+Pm|PN Synnhm9Report HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj PM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 lnterseotion,� 'x -z_"„:, "M .,gin s. m k Int Delay, s/veh 1 Lane Configurations Stop Stop Free Free Free Traffic Vol vehm 10-,0; 0 32 23 Future Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 3277 23 20 612 _ _ __ Ueh an Median Stora e # -77- Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized` - _ None. None � - - - - - one _ Storage Len� gth 0 _ _� Critical Hdwy Stg 1 612 _ _ __ Ueh an Median Stora e # 0 Follow-up Hdwy 0 0 Grade, % 0- - 0 0 �_ ..._,. PeakHourFacto�-°95 �� 95 9595 .w_ _ _ . _ 95 -�-95 � Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ Mvmt Flow__ Stage 2 982 _ - - - r n -- t'}�dt. a oriMinor M1u� .� . d irzr'.B`a. ,fit? 5, * rp ".A 62 '.a 4°yi f '1 6 &,d•�' Y Mmoi.�Mator1� Conflicting Flow All 69 35 45 0 - 0 _35 Stage 2 34 . - - - - - _ Cnfical Hdwy 7'.12 6.22 412 _ _� Critical Hdwy Stg 1 612 _ Cnticaf Hd St Follow-up Hdwy —i518 3.318 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver Stage 1 981 _ qt age2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap 1 Maneuver ��923 1038 >w 1563 • � °•°.��_ Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 923~�_._�_.___ Stage Stage 2 982 _ - - - r n _ r m 0 HCM LOS A Ca aci yeh/t 1563 _ _._ . _._----- __HCM �P _y _) HCM Lane V/C Ratio` - - 0.011 - - HCMControl Delay �s)— _ HCM Lane LOS A - A - - 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 1 1 Appendix C:OCTAM MODEL DATA �� � / ' '''' / \ /- / `` ,/ ` / ~` //`~` y / / \ \ ' \ ' '' ` / =MM.1-�wW-PR-t --- - ------ 1% Al GGTM&Cl-T—n Group PaQuaet swadV P.. NodN Volume ` Jf _ _ h i �'iC ■ • ;- � � ;� i` �' � � '% � ;' "� '�' I` r ���� f -� i �� � i _ "V���' �� ��� /� �� +� d� ��� �. i A j� �� i � =� � � V ,� �• �� // J _ , \�� \\ /• � \ � �� _ ii / / / / \ � � / / ,t\ '��san..'. .buc.. va iw�..eea GGTMI-T=GmRN—t 1 MPMMP kPw� HAW Nodd Volumes i rt ... ......... . .......... 1 09 \ Resolution No. 4325 1 1 1 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION 4325 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification `AESTHETICS Pro'ect Desian Featares - None. Policies,, ans, and Procedures ... PPP -1 Project construction hours will be limited to the Construction hours. Project City of Tustin Ongoing N/A hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays Developer/Construction Community through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and Contractor Development Dept. 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. PPP -2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Lighting plan. Project City of Tustin Prior to Building N/A applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan Developer/Construction Community Permits showing compliance with the TCC Section 8102, Contractor Development Dept. which requires a minimum one foot-candle of light on the private drives and parking surfaces and a minimum of one-quarter foot-candle of light on the walking surfaces. The lighting plan is to be overlaid onto a tree landscape plan. The photometric plan must also show no light spillage pursuant to TCC Section 9271 hh. Miti ation'Measures ,, . •,, ,., .�• : . , None. AIR QUALITY Pro'ect Desi n Features PDF -1 The applicant/developer shall install upgraded air Air filtration systems. Project City of Tustin Prior to Building N/A filtration systems in all residential units. Air Developer/Construction Community Permits filtration devices shall be rated MERV13 or Contractor Development Dept. higher. Ventilation systems in residential units shall meet the following minimal design standards: ■ A MERV13 or higher rating; TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION. MONITORING AND REPORTING_ PROGRAM, Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification ■ At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air; ■ At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and ■ At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration. Policies, Plans, and Procedures' - PPP -3 Fugitive dust. Project City of Tustin During Possible The project will comply with South Coast Air Developer/Construction Community Construction coordination with Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule Contractor Development Dept. SCAQMD 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The project developer will require construction contractors and subcontractors to employ the following enhanced dust control measures during construction to minimize particulate matter (PM- - 10 and PM -2.5) emissions: 12 Suspend the use of all construction equipment during first -stage smog alerts. 2. Apply soil stabilizers such as hay bales or aggregate cover to inactive areas. 3. Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. 4. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. 5. Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times/day. 6. Cover all stock piles with tarps. 7. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly. 8. Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. 9. Trenches shall be left exposed for as short a time as possible. 10. Identify proper compaction for backfilled soils in constructionspecifications. TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM „ Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification 11. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 12. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. 13. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. 14. Minimize in -out traffic from construction zone. °BIOL:OGICAL�RESOURCES��,�``' • Project Design Features: None. Policies, Plans; and Procedures None. Mitigation Measures_ MM B-1 Prior to approval of grading Plans, the Community Nesting Bird Survey Project City of Tustin Prior to grading N/A Development Department shall verify that the Developer/Construction Community permit. following note is included on the contractor Contractor Development Dept. specifications to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): "To avoid impacts on nesting birds, vegetation on the project site should be cleared between September 1 and February 28. If vegetation clearing occurs inside the peak nesting season (between March 1 and August 31), a pre - construction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. If the Biologist does not find any active nests within the impact area, then vegetation clearing/construction work will be allowed. If the Biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the Biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone .. TABLE 54'-: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING, PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity. Construction activities would be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified Biologist determines that the nest has been abandoned." CULTURAL RESOURCES Project Design Features None. �,Policies; Plan's; 'and Procedu es PPP -4 Should human remains be discovered during Discovery of human Project City of Tustin During Grading Possible project construction, the project would be remains. Developer/Construction Community coordination with required to comply with State Health and Safety Contractor Development Dept. NAHC and Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further County Coroner. disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the human remains until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the. identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Miti afion Measures = . MM C-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, Activity: Project City of Tustin Prior to grading N/A the Applicant/Developer shall provide a letter to Archaeological Developer/Construction Community permit. the City of Tustin Community Development Monitoring Contractor Development Dept.. Department, or designee, from a qualified professional archeologist meeting the Secretary TABLE 5-1= MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Meas Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification of Interior's Professional Qualifications for Archaeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A stating that the Applicant/Developer has retained this individual and that the archeologist shall provide on-call services in the event archeological resources are discovered. The archeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference to establish procedures for archeological resource surveillance. In the event a previously unrecorded archaeological deposit is encountered during construction, all activity within 50 feet of the area of discovery shall cease and the City shall be immediately notified. The archeologist shall be contacted'to flag the area in the field and determine if the archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). If the find is considered a "resource" the archaeologist shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the archaeologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The archaeologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of TABLE 51-1`-: . MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification the resource. Excavation as a treatment option will be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. MM C-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, Paleontological Project City of Tustin Prior to grading. N/A the Applicant/Developer shall provide a letter to Monitoring Developer/Construction Community the City of Tustin Community Development Contractor Development Dept. Department, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County, stating that the. Applicant/Developer has retained this individual and that the paleontologist shall provide on-call services in the event resources are discovered. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. In the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, ground -disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate adverse impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the City. Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may TABLE 54' ' MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. MM C-3 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, a Native American Project City of Tustin Prior to grading. N/A qualified Native American monitor shall be Monitoring Developer/Construction Community retained by the Applicant/Developer to provide Contractor Development Dept. professional Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils (i.e., previously undisturbed soil 18 - inches or more below the surface). The Native American monitor from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, shall be selected by the Applicant/Developer and verification of retention of the Native American monitor shall be provided to the City of Tustin Community Development Department on tribal letterhead, including the monitor's name and contact information. The Native American monitor and a City of Tustin Community Development Department designee shall be present at the pre - grading conference to establish procedures for Native American resource surveillance. The Native American monitor shall be present durin TABLE 5-1, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification all ground disturbing activities of native soil (i.e., previously undisturbed soil 18 -inches or more below the surface) including but not limited to post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - 'Pro'ectDesign Features. None. ;Policies, Plans, and Procedures, ` PPP -5 In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the SWPPP Project City of Tustin Prior to grading proposed project shall prepare a Stormwater WQMP Developer/Construction Community permit. Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Contractor Development Dept. Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. • The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. • The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. • A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. PPP -6 The project would comply with NPDES WQMP Homeowner's City of Tustin During operation requirements for control of discharges of Association Community sediments and other pollutants during operations Development Dept. of the facility through preparation and or designee. implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in effect for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit application. Mitigation Measures MM G-1 All grading operations and construction shall be Geotechnical Project City of Tustin City Prior to grading conducted in conformance with the conformance Developer/Construction Engineer, or permits. recommendations included in the geotechnical Contractor designee documents prepared by GeoTek, Inc. (included in Appendix D of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration). Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the City of Tustin City Engineer, or designee, prior to the start of grading to verify that requirements developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, as well as the recommendations of the project TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final report subject to review by the City Engineer, or designee, prior to the start of grading activities. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS`" =Pro "ect Desi n Features None. Policies; Plans, and Procedures None. "Miti ation Measures MM H-1 During construction, all soil identified with Soils testing. Project City of Tustin Prior to building petroleum hydrocarbons, as shown in area B4 in Developer/Construction Community permits. Figure 1 of the Phase II investigation, shall be Contractor Development Dept. remediated or removed from the site. Following completion of demolition activities on all or part of the site, a qualified hazardous materials specialist shall conduct soil gas testing at the location of the residential structures proposed on the site, as recommended by the Phase II investigation. If any testing sites reveal contamination in excess of the EPA Region 9 Residential Regional Screening Level thresholds, measures to minimize intrusion of pollutants into residences shall be applied as determined by the hazardous materials specialist. Pro "ect Desi 9 _ n Features PDF-2 The project shall provide a minimum 20-foot high Sound wall Project City of Tustin Prior to final sound wall along the project's interface with construction. Developer/Construction Community occupancy of Interstate 5, adjacent to the southern property Contractor Development Dept. Phase I. boundary. Policies, P.latis, and Procedures None. Miti ation Measures MM N-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Structural Noise Project City of Tustin Prior to building TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification residences adjacent to the freeway (Interstate 5), Attenuation and Final Developer/Construction Community permits. the Project Applicant/ Developer shall submit a Acoustical Report. Contractor Development Dept. final acoustical report to the City of Tustin Director of Development Services, or designee, that demonstrates that the interior noise levels in all habitable rooms shall not exceed 45 A - weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), as defined by Title 24, Part 2, of the California Building Code. If necessary, particularly for third -floor units, the Project Applicant/Developer shall provide structural components with higher STC ratings to ensure that the 45 dB CNEL interior threshold is met. Structural noise attenuation features for third -floor units are outlined in the "Building Requirements for a Minimum Noise Level Reduction (NRL) of 35 dB" provided in Appendix B of the project's Noise Impacts Analysis (Giroux & Associates, 2016; provided as Appendix H of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) PUBLIG'SERV,ICES Pro'ect Desi `n Features None. Policies, Plans, and Procedures- roceduresPPP-6 PPP-6Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant Fire Master Plan Project City of Tustin Prior to grading Orange County or responsible party shall submit a fire master Developer/Construction Community permit. Fire Authority plan (service code PR145) to the Orange County Contractor Development Dept. Fire Authority for review. Approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Mitigation Measures ' None. Resolution No. 4325 1 L 1 EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION 4325 Responses to MND Comments 1 1 1 City of Tustin Vintage Lofts Residential Project Response to Comments for Initial Study (IS) / Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Lead Agency: City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Project Applicant: Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250 . Newport Beach, CA 92660 Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 FORMAT OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS..........................................................1-1 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ....................1-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS......................................................................................................2-1 REVISIONS TO THE MND...........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 MND REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS.....................................3-1 APPENDICES A. Traffic Impact Analysis Memo 1 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page i 1 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure8 Landscape Plan............................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure10 Recreation Area............................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure11 Paseos............................................................................................................................3-9 Page ii September 2016 1 1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This document contains responses to the comments that the City of Tustin received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Vintage Lofts project during the public review period, which began July 27, 2016, and closed August 26, 2016. This document has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated MND together comprise the Final MND. 1.2 FORMAT OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS This document is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this Final MND. Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the MND; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (Al through A4 for letters received from agencies and organizations, and R1 through R4 for letters received from residents). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. Section 3, Revisions to the MND. This section contains revisions to the MND text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or typographical errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the MND for public review. The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the Final MND. The City of Tustin staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the MND for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Vintage Lofts MND. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15073.5. 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines do not require that lead agencies prepare formal written responses to comments on a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Nevertheless, the City of Tustin, in the interest of full disclosure, has prepared formal written responses to comments on the MND. Because CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines do not outline a procedure for responding to comments on Mitigated Negative Declarations, the City of Tustin implements the procedures for responding to comments on environmental impact reports in this situation. Thus, in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to the City Council's consideration of the MND. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this Final Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 1-1 1 1 1. Introduction MND, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on draft environmental impact reports. Page 1-2 September 2016 2. Response to Comments 2. Response to Comments This section provides all written responses received on the MND and the City's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the MND are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the MND text are shown in underlined text for additions and stFikeeut for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the MND during the public review period. Number Page Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment I No. Agencies & Organizations Al Department of Transportation Caltrans August 17, 2016 2-11 A2 Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) August 31, 2016 2-11 A3 Orange County Fire Authority OCFA) August 11, 2016 2-11 A4 South Coast Air Quality Management District 11, 2016 2-19 Residents —August R1 Dave Hackett August 26, 2016 2-23 R2 Heather Hackett August 25, 2016 2-27 R3 Maureen Li August 15, 2016 2-31 R4 Reese Udall Auqust 26, 2016 2-27 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-1 i 1 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-2 September 2016 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al —Christopher Herre, Branch Chief, Caltrans (2 pages) - - SI'A7L0_,+ FCAL(i�AN�A-CAUM11NU 914'0132,6j) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.. F.f}MUNn4.i1A0} rr_Ga�,re.x DISTRIcr 12 3341 MICHMSON DRIVE, 41A M 100 IRVIN@,CA"42611 &644. RECEIVED SerloraDrwighr. PHONE .(949) 724 -2086 Serio ssdraught. FAX (949) 7244542 AUG 2 2 2016Ilefpsavtxmtrf TrY 711 ' wivw:doGca:gov C13MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: M. August 17,2916 Elaine Dove File: IGR/CEQA City of.Ttistin SCH#:2016071081 Planning Division Log #: 2016-00100 300 Centennial Way I-5. Tustin,CA: 92780 Dear Ms. Dove: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vintage Lofts Residential Project. The project applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6.81 -acre lot into two development parcels for condominium purposes to accommodate 140 -residential units and ancillary uses, including, but not limited to onsite private -drives, parking, sidewalks, recreation uses and community center, walls and: landscaping. The discretionary,actions required to allow for"the development of 140 multi -family residential units are as follows: • General Plan Amendment — Change the site's land use designation from I (Industrial) to Planned Community -Residential (PC Residential). • Zone Change — Change the site's zoning from Planned Industrial (PM) to Planned Al -1 Community Residential (P -C) District. • Tentative Tract Map — Subdivision of existing 6.81 -acre parcel into two development parcels for condominium purposes. Design Review . Development Agreement The Development Agreement authorizes the development of project with a 5 -year term and two 1 -year extensions and in return requires public benefits'in the form of payment of park in -lieu, affordable housing and traffic fees over and above the City's standard development impact tees, city.signage and public infrastructure improvements. Caltrans Local Development -Intergovernmental Review.program reviews impacts of local development to the transportation system, including the State Highway System. The Department works to ensure that local land use planning and development decisions include the provision of transportation choices, including transit, intercity rail passenger service, air service, walking and biking, when appropriate. The Department advocates community design (e.g. urban infill, mixed use, transit oriented development) that promotes an efficient transportation system and healthy communities. ' "'Prorotds a ra%, sasraGmbk. lntegrared and rJ/totrnr tra+crportatVen syrtrm to rahance Collfornia a economy and tNwblltty" Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-3 1 ;Y. 2. Response to Comments Ms; Elaine Dove August 17, 2016 Page 2 Caltrans,is a commenting agency at this time on this project and has the following comments for, your consideration, in addition to those made in our letter to the city dated Al -2 June 15, 2016 (See attached). Hydraulics. 1. Hydraulic.comments ,! Final,construction plans and hydrology calculations . (existing &,proposed condition) tiecd to be reviewed and approvtd by hydraulics braidi uring Encroachment Penmi Proce s •Need the hydraWlc calculatians, (existing 8c proposed cond►f ion) to clarify;that ttfere will be no Increase In water Al -3 surface elevation-in,the existing system: • No diversion 6wshall be allowed: l.. Need a,letter froin C' of Tustin concurring approval of this' proposafpri-or to Caltrans final approval: 2..Caltrans Maintennlice'Briaich should review and make comments on`this proposal. landscape Architecture.- 2. rchitecture:2. On page 48 the 31d paragraph under.' Response it is stated" The buildings would be A1-4 replaced with 140 two -three and four story residential -units" This is the only mention of a four story residents is this an error? Permits: 3. In the event of any activity in Caltrans right-of-way an encroachment permit will be required. For specific details on the Department's Encroachment Permits procedure, Al -5 please. refer to Department Encroachment Permits Manual; Eight Edition. This Manual is available on the web site: hiW:Ywww.dot ca:eov/trafricopslep/ "Provide asofe,.=.tWnable, Intgrmed and of dmt m t*onadoa symM to enhance Ca/llfamb's economyand hvabiltryI Page 2-4 September 2016 2. Response to Comments Ms:. Elaim"Move: August 17; 2015. Page3 Please continue to, keep us,informed of tl is;projectand any future developments that` could potentially impact -State transportatcon,faciiities. If you have any questions or.need - to eoptacf us, ple,"ase do not, hesitate to call AileenKennedy,:at (949)-724-2239.. Sincerely, MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief; Regional=Community-Transit Planning District.12 c: Eric,Dicitson, Landscape.Architecture Steven Sowers; TrafficOperationsSouthwest. Kamran Mazhar, Traffic Design Ahmad Khosravi, :Hydraulics Scott Morgan, Officeof.Planning and Research ''Pmvi* a We. e. swainabM. integrated imdbfJts{enttrnaswrmrlvn system tomnM e:Galjfdmkemomtyo h-abffky" Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-5 1 1 1 1 Page 2-6 Dear Ms, Dove: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comnunton the General Plan Amendment (GFA) 2016-01, Zune'Chaage 2016-001, Tentative Parcel Map (TPIM 14 o.17093 and Design Review (DR) 2016.604,,forthe Vintage 140 unit condominium complex at424 V. 6th Street within the City of Tustin. Caltrans Local Development -Intergovernmental Review program reviews impacts of local development to tiie tmaspprtation system, including the State Highway System. The:Departmieot works to ensure that local landuse planning and development decisions include the provision of transportation choices, including transit,;intercity rail passenger service, sir service, walking and Al -6 biking, when appropriate. To ensure a safe, efficient, and reliable transportation system, we encourage early consultation and coordination with local jurisdictions and project proponents on all' development projects that utilize the multinodal transportation nctwd The Department advocates community design (e.g. urban infill, mixed use, transit oriented development) that promotes an efficient transportation system and healthy communities Tite Department of Transportation (Calirans)-is a commenting ageucy'on this project and has the following comments for your consideration. Trafllc Operations: 1. Demonstrate if a.Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is needed'following the Caltians TIS guide at httni//wwvr.dot.cg&ov/ha/WV&f(icxsloco/igs 6dgeJllesffls ideazdE Al -7 2. If a TIS is required, plea=,prepam a draft TIS scope,proposal and submit for our review, include any Vehicle Miles Travel (V MT) reducing strategies. -Pmvlde as*. swlohWk. 6owited and gUkkat Poaspa mihur.g7 en do enheace calub-la "-,vay mrd dl-a6ulor September 2016 2. Response to Comments Attachment to Caltrans' August 17, 2016 Letter ry STXTPr)PC+r:1HrAMJl�P�1 t#tAMA RtA4'LTRATS,pC4T�TAt1(���d_rj) ��tinHAflMili..l",mimai DEPARTME, NP. OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON BRIM SUfrE.IW IRVINE, CA 92612.8894 SerlaisDrotghc PHONE (949)724.2086 Satan&68hr. M (949) 724.2592 Help save anted TTY 711 www.doGra.sov June13, 2016 Ms. Elaine Dove File: lGR/CEQA City of Tustin SCH#: None Planning Division Log P 4733 300 Centennial Way I -S Tustin; CA. 92780 1 Page 2-6 Dear Ms, Dove: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comnunton the General Plan Amendment (GFA) 2016-01, Zune'Chaage 2016-001, Tentative Parcel Map (TPIM 14 o.17093 and Design Review (DR) 2016.604,,forthe Vintage 140 unit condominium complex at424 V. 6th Street within the City of Tustin. Caltrans Local Development -Intergovernmental Review program reviews impacts of local development to tiie tmaspprtation system, including the State Highway System. The:Departmieot works to ensure that local landuse planning and development decisions include the provision of transportation choices, including transit,;intercity rail passenger service, sir service, walking and Al -6 biking, when appropriate. To ensure a safe, efficient, and reliable transportation system, we encourage early consultation and coordination with local jurisdictions and project proponents on all' development projects that utilize the multinodal transportation nctwd The Department advocates community design (e.g. urban infill, mixed use, transit oriented development) that promotes an efficient transportation system and healthy communities Tite Department of Transportation (Calirans)-is a commenting ageucy'on this project and has the following comments for your consideration. Trafllc Operations: 1. Demonstrate if a.Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is needed'following the Caltians TIS guide at httni//wwvr.dot.cg&ov/ha/WV&f(icxsloco/igs 6dgeJllesffls ideazdE Al -7 2. If a TIS is required, plea=,prepam a draft TIS scope,proposal and submit for our review, include any Vehicle Miles Travel (V MT) reducing strategies. -Pmvlde as*. swlohWk. 6owited and gUkkat Poaspa mihur.g7 en do enheace calub-la "-,vay mrd dl-a6ulor September 2016 2. Response to Comments Ms: Elaine Dove June. 13, 2016 ` Page 2. 3rSubmit therequired traffic analysis scenarios for a, general plan amendment showing traffic impact§ at ail' intersections leaoi g to and -from all California State Highways. Include all intersections -with ramps at the Newport Avenue and Red Al -8 Hill Avenue interchanges for. the: I-5 Santa Ana Freeway., As a minimum, provide Existing Conditions, Proposed Project Only with Select Zone Analysis, General Plan'Build-out Only, and General Plan Build -out Plus Proposed Project. Office or Outdoor,Advertising: 4.. Regarding A-15 (Freeway Signagc)'of the pioject plans, if the display operates as an on - premise display as defined in Business -and Professions Code 5272 ODA (Outdoor .Advertising) will not require a permit. 5.:However if the display advertises off -premise commercial Copy you will have to Al -9 apply for a State ODA Permit and comply with the current standards of the Califarain-Outdoor Advertising Act and the Federal Highway Beautification Act. . Information on outdoor advertising may be obtained by contacting George Aruo Jr. Southern Area Manager. George,anzo(Mdot ca r ov 6. Illuminated signs could be considered a traffic safety hazard -given the potential of light and glare to distract drivers. Section 214665 of the Wfoniia Vebicle Code regulates illumination by placing limits on maximum'light output. hltnilwww.dray.cu,goyortal/dmv/detaiypuhs,(vciop/vc/dl l/c2/a3t214665 I:andscape Architecture: 7. There is no existing landscape adjacent to the proposed project. The area between Caltrans right of way and the proposed development is too narrow to landscape. There are no landscaping issues. a. ;The proposed 24'high sound wall is located about 8' below the level of the 1-5 freeway, Al -10 and approximately 12' of sound wall will be visible from the freeway level with -3 story buildings above and beyond the sound wall. Tire height of the proposed sound wall is approximately the height of the existing building. 9:. Please provide -final detail plans of the sound wall aesthetics visible from the Leeway. "PmRd* a xajr, sustainable, l�atArattd and rf(eknttra r. yaxmttar xyium to talumci Cat{famfu'rcranamyamf rtgab(Illy" Ll - Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-7 1 1 2. Response to Comments Ms., Elaine Dove June 13, 2016 Page 3 10. The visual character of the corridor changes slightly from the existing commercial theme to a residential theme. Although the development will consist of 2 and 3 story buildings, Al -10 freeway viewers would not notice substantial visual changes along the freeways. cont'd Local Development IGRs 11. Please identify if there is an environmental determination for this project under CEQA. I Al -11 Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any futuredevelopments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Aileen Kennedy at (949) 724-2239. Sincerely, MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning - District 12 c: Steve Sower, Traffic OperationsSouthwest George Anzo Jr - Southern Area Manager Office of Outdoor Advertising Greg Grant,, Right of Way Engineering Kamran Mazhar, Chief,Design'F' & Traffic Design "Provldc o raft. mfolnoblr; Mlegroted and rj(irtrnt uonspartatfon system to eabbnce Coltf mb s economy andlhablNry" Page 2-8 September 2016 2. Response to Comments Al. Response to Comments from Maureen EI Harake, Branch Chief, Caltrans, dated August 17, 2016. Al -1 This comment is a summary of the Vintage Lofts residential project and a summary of the role Caltrans' Local Development -Intergovernmental Review program. Because this summary does not raise concerns related to the project's environmental impacts, no response is necessary. Al -2 This comment references a comment letter submitted to the City of Tustin on June 15, 2016; this letter is addressed in Response to Comment A1-6 through Al -12. Al -3 Caltrans review is underway. Although no improvements are proposed within the Caltrans right of way, due to the site's proximity to Interstate 5, the hydraulic plans and final calculations were submitted to Caltrans on July 7, 2016 to ensure that an encroachment permit would not be required. Al -4 The proposed project would be limited to three stories. The last paragraph on page 48 is revised to indicate that demolished buildings would be replaced with 140 two-, and three-story residential units. Al -5 Please refer to Response to Comment Al -3 above. A1-6 This comment is a summary of the role Caltrans' Local Development - Intergovernmental Review program. Because this summary does not raise concerns related to the project's environmental impacts, no response is necessary. A1-7 According to the Trip Generation Thresholds provided on page 2 of the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) may be 'required if a project generates 1 or more trips assigned to a state highway facility. As demonstrated in MND page 126, Table 4-20, Project Trip Generation (provided below), the project would generate fewer trips than the existing land use. Therefore, the project would result in fewer trips on the surrounding roadway network than in the existing condition. Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-9 1 1 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates Condomin um' DU 5.81 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 industrial Park' TSF 6.83 0.67 0.15 0.82 0.18 0.67 0.85 Project Trip Generation Proposed Project (Condos) 140 DU 813 10 51 62 49 24 73 Existing industrial Park 183.43 TSF -1253 -123 -27 -150 -33 -123 -156 Total Trip Generation -439 -113 24 -89 16 -99 -83 TSF=Thousand Square Fast 'Trip rates from the Institute of Trareporation Figlneers, Trip Generation. 9th Edifion. 2012. Laid Use Code 230 - Condomdum 'Trip rates from the Institute of T—poration Figitreers, Trip Gerreratiort 91h Edifiort 2012. Laid Use Code 130- Industrial Park Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-9 1 1 1 1 1 2. Response to Comments A1-8 Please seethe response to Comment A1-6. A TIS following the Caltrans Guide is not required based on the project trip generation. The City's TIA comports with the City's existing standards for traffic studies and based on that analysis, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts. As discussed in the MND and the project TIA (Transpo Group, Inc., 2016), no project impacts are forecast under the Existing With -Project conditions and in the Buildout Year 2035 With -Project scenario. Therefore, no mitigation is required. A1-9 The comment is a summary of Caltrans requirements related to freeway signage. The project shall comply with all Caltrans regulations related to freeway signage. The project would construct a non -illuminated sign identifying "Old Town Tustin" which shall be placed/imbedded on the project sound wall adjacent to Interstate 5 freeway and be of a size and in a location which will not encroach into Caltrans right-of-way; therefore, Caltrans review would not be required. Al -10 The comment correctly states that there are no landscape issues, that the three-story buildings would be visible beyond the 20 -foot sound wall, but would not cuase substantial visual changes along the freeway. As requested, the final plans for the sound wall have been submitted to Caltrans as part of the hydrology review. As discussed in Section I, Aesthetics, of the MND, visual and aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. All lighting fixtures are required to have light shielding pursuant to the City's municipal code, "Tustin City Code" (TCC) Section 9271 hh, which would prevent light spillage off of the property. The 20 -foot noise wall adjacent to the site boundary with 1-5 would screen passing motorists from light and glare impacts. Al -11 The environmental documentation for this project is a MND. All project impacts would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations, project design features, and mitigation measures. Page 2-10 September 2016 2. Response to Comments LETTER A2 — Scott Morgan, Director, OPR (1 page) 4 STATE OF`CALIFORNIA— GOVERNOR'S OFFICE O PLANKING AND RESEARCH t STATE CLEARINGHOWE AND PLANNING UNIT EDMUND O. BROWN JR. GnVaRHOR DntscroR August 29,2016 RECEIVED . Elaine Dove City of Tustin AUG 312016 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 COMMUNITY DEMOPMENTDEPT Subject: Vintage Lofts Residential Project SCH#: 2016071081 Dear Elaine Dove: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on August 26, 2016, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter aclmowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse A2-1 review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality AcG Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the abovo-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 140010th Street P.03=3044 3044 Sacramento, California 95812.3044 (916) 445.0613 PAX(916)323-3018 www oprca.gov 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-11 2. Response to Comments Nnta• Rlankn In datA fiRldA rAsuit frnm inadeniant Infh—finn nr—AA.A r.., I—A Page 2-12 September- 2016 Document Details Report ' State Clearinghouse'Data Base SCH# 2016071081 ProjectTRfe Vintage Lofts Residential Project Lead Agency Tustin, City of Type .MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The Vintage Lofts Residential project proposes to subdivide a 6.81 acre lot into two parcels for condominium purposes to accommodate 140 for sale residential units and ancillary uses (e.g private drives, parking, sidewalks, recreation uses and community center, walls and landscaping). The discretionary actions required to allow the project include a general plan amendment, zone change, planned community residential district standards, tentative tract map, and development agreement. .Lead Agency Contact Name Elaine Dove Agency City of Tustin Phone (714) 573-3136 Far email Address 300 Centennial Way City Tustin State CA Zip 92880 Project Location County Orange City Tustin Reg/on .Lat/Long 33°44':21° N /'117° 49 37° W Cross Streets Southwest comer of W. 6th St and S. B St Parcel No. 401-341-04 Township 5W Range 9W Section Base SB Proximity to: Highways 5 Airports Railways Waterways Schools Tustin HS Land Use GP: Industrial; Z: Planned industrial Project Issues AesthetiGVisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biolbgical Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreatiori/Parks; Schools/Universities; Septic System; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; ToxiGHazardous; Traf7iclCirculation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Mparian; Lenduse; Growth Inducing; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Dffice of Emergency Services, Califamia; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8: Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 07/28/2016 Start ofRevlew 07/28/2016 E'nd of Review 0 8128120 1 6 Nnta• Rlankn In datA fiRldA rAsuit frnm inadeniant Infh—finn nr—AA.A r.., I—A Page 2-12 September- 2016 2. Response to Comments A2. Response to Comments from Scott Morgan, Director, OPR, dated April 20, 2012. A2-1 This comment states that the State Clearinghouse circulated the MND for state agency review. As the comment does not raise concerns related to the project's environmental impacts, no response is necessary. 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-13 2. Response to Comments LETTER A3 — Tamera Rivers, Management Analyst, Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) (2 pages) @IRF . ORANGE COUNTY F:I.RE AUTHORITY P.O. Box 57115. Irvine: CA 92619-7111 •. I Elm Authority. Road. Irvine CA 92602 a Jolt Bowman, Fire Chief (714) 573-6000 www.ocfa.org °�rso August 11, 20I(i City0.Tustin 300 Centennial' Way Tustin, CA92780 Attn:Elaine-Dove; Senior Planner: Subjects;lHlttgated lYegatiye l0eclaration —Vintage Lofts Residential Project Dear Ms: Dove: Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document: As stated in the document, The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA):provides.firo-protectionond emergency medical services response to the. project.area. We have the following, comments regarding the subject document: A3-1 o .Page 117 — Orange County Fire Authority has 72- fire stations. 01 Page 120 — Under Project Design Features, the following items should be ,considered in order to insure.a fire safe,project: •' Structures should have'automatic firelprinkler systems. • Access to and around structures 16 "meet OCFA and Califomia Fire::Code ;requirements A3-2 4, A water supply sysiem.to supply fire hydrants and automat ic,frre'sprinkier systems:: Fire hydrant spacing is 500 feet between fire hydrants. •, Turning radius and access in and around the project site and buildings shall be designed to accommodate large fire department vehicles and their weight. 4 If the project includes traffic signals on public access ways, they should include the installation of optical preemption devices. • All electrically operated gates within the Project shall install emergency opening devices as approved by the Orange County Fire Authority. A3-3 In addition, we would like to point out that all standard conditions with regard to development, including water supply, built in fire protection systems, road grades and width, access, building materials, and the like will be applied to this project at the time ofplan submittal. Saving theCSties of Aliso Viejo - Buena Park - Cypras -Dans Point- 6vim - Laguna Hills- Lagmo Niguel - lAgt a Woods - Lake Forest- Lo Primo Los Alsmitos - Mission Viejo- Piacentla- Rancho Santa Margarita San Clcmente - San Joon Capisumto - Sana Am - Scal Beach - Stanton - Tustin - Villa Park Westathma - Yorba Liois - and Uninrorparcicd Areas orOmngc County RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE ALARMS SAVE LIVES 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-15 1 2. Response to Comments' Sincerely, a-.,. 9�� Tamera Rivers Management Analyst (714)573-6199 Serving the Cities of Aliso Viejo - Buena Pak - Cypress - Dona Point - Irvine- Laguna kills - Loguna Niguel • Laguna Woods - Lake Forest - La Palma Los Alanitos - Misslan Viejo - Placentia - Rancho Santo Margarita -Son Clemente - San Juan Capistrano - Santo Ann - Seal Beach - Stontmt - Tustin - Villa Pork Westminster - Yerha Linda - and Unincorporated Areas orOrtutge County RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE ALARMS SAVE LIVES Page 2-16 September 2016 2. Response to Comments A3. Response to Comment from Tamera Rivers, Management Analyst, OCFA A3-1 OCFA provides a comment correcting the number of fire stations within its service area. Page 117 of the MND is revised to state that OCFA consists of 72 fire stations. See Section 3 of this Response to Comment document, Revisions to the MND. A3-2 The commenter provides a list of OCFA standard conditions and suggests they be included as Project Design Features (PDFs). These items have not been included as PDFs because they are required by existing regulation (OCFA and CA Fire Code Requirements) and compliance with the such regulation is required by City of Tustin Conditions of Approval. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Tustin would route the project plans to the OCFA for review and approval, and requires the payment of OCFA Plan Check and inspection fees, per Condition of Approval 16.5. Condition 14.7 ensures that the adequacy of a proposed water system plan, including the number, size and distribution of fire hydrants, must meet OCFA fire protection requirements and must be stamped and approved by OCFA. A3-3 The proposed project would comply with all applicable OCFA standard conditions applied at the time of OCFA submittal. The project does not include electronically operated gates or new traffic signals. 1 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-17 1 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-18 September 2016 2. Response to Comments LETTER A4 — Jillian Wong, PHD, Planning and Rules Manager, SCAQMD (2 pages) t& South Coast Air Quality Management District: 21865 Copley. Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909)396-2000 - w w .agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS' edovefttstinca.org Elaine'Dove, Senior Planner Community Development,D'epartment. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin; CA 92780 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) for the Proposed Vintage Lots Residential Protect August .l 1;, 2016 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final HIND. Project Description In the project description, the Lead Agency proposes to demolish the 11 existing industrial -park buildings totaling 183,430 square feet[ in order to subdivide the 6.81 -acre lot into two parcels. Construction would than begin to build 148 -residential condonhinitun homes'- along with ancillary uses (e.g., private driveways, parking, sidewalks, recreation uses, a clubhouse, walls and landscaping). Construction will occur in three phases over an approximately 25 month period starting in 2017 with occupancy starting in 2018. Health Risk Assessment and Associated Mitieation The Lead Agency notes that the proposed residences will be sited just north of the Interstate -5 Freeway, which has an average daily tratlic volume of 324,000 vehicles that includes 19,030 diesel tricks. 3 Because of the close proximity to the existing freeway, residents would be exposed to diesel particulate matter, which is a toxic air contaminant. As partof tlhe Lead Agency's analyses, a health risk assessment was performed. That analysis determined that future residents would be exposed to cancer risk that would exceed the SCAQ1%4D's recommended significance threshold of 10 in one million cases. 'fo reduce the estimated risk to a less than significant level, tine Lead Agency mitigation including a heating, ventilation, and air I Dlv- ND, Appendix B: AQ & GHG Analyses, CaIEEMod output sheets used 175,500 square feet for demolition.. 21bfd Page 15 and CaIEEMod output sheet, Land Use Size. 7 hnn:/hvww.dot.ea.t:ov/trafficops/census/ Caltrans 2014 Traffic Volumes on California Highways, Back Peak Month (The peak month ADT is the average daily traffic for the month of heaviest traffic flow. This data is obtained because on many routes, high traffic volumes which occur during a certain season of the year are more representative of traffic conditions than the annual ADT) for I-5 at Newport Avenue and 2014 Daily Truck Traffic percentage (5.511.) for Tustin/Junction Rte. 55. A4-1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-19 1 1 J f' 2. Response to Comments Elaine Dove August 11, 2016 conditioning (HVAC) air filtration system for each residential unit. The air filtration system will A4-1 have a bditiimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 13 or higher. These and other support cont'd. actions" will also be part of the development's Covenant, Codes & Restrictions (CC&Rs). Based on the proposed mitigation, the project's cancer risk was estimated to be less than significant. Limits to Enhanced Filtration Units The Lead Agency should consider the limitations of the proposed mitigation for this project (enhanced filtration) ort housing residents. For example, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the MVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the A4-2 resident. T7te proposed mitigation also assumes that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors. These filters also have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. The presumed effectiveness and feasibility of this mitigation should therefore be evaluated in more detail prior to assmni ng that it will sufficiently alleviate near roadway exposures. Compliance With SCAQMD Rules Finally, the project includes demolition and soil disturbance activities that could fall under the following SCAQMD rules: Rule 1403 — Asbestos Emissions front DentolilionlRenovation Activities would apply if asbestos is found during demolition, and Rule 1166 — Volatile Organic A4-3 Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil would apply if soils containing Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are encountered during soil disturbance activities. If applicable, compliance with these rules should be included in the Final MND. Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to A4-4 the adoption of the Final MND. 17ne SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency I to address these issues and any other air quality questions that may arise. Please contact Gordon Mize, Air Quality Specialist — CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3302, if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, PM" MOV Jillian Wong, Ph.D. Planning and Rules Manager Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources JW:GM ORC 160802-05 Control Number 4 Support Actions Described in the Draft IMR TD on Page 38. Page 2-20 September 2016 2. Response to Comments A4. Response to Comments from Jillian Wong, PHD, Planning and Rules Manager, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), dated August 11, 2016. A4-1 This comment is a summary of the project description, the findings of the Health Risk Assessment (HRA), and the project's air filtration mitigation measure. Because this summary does not raise concerns related to the project's environmental impacts, no response is necessary. A4-2 Based on market research, the developer/applicant has identified a consumer demand for upgraded air filtration systems in similarly located projects. Therefore, the developer/applicant has included as a project design feature (PDF -1) upgraded air filtration systems, rated MERV13 or higher, in all residential units. According to Status of Research on Potential Mitigation Concepts to Reduce Exposure to Nearby Traffic Pollution, prepared by California Air Resources Board (CARB), August 23, 2012, research has shown that homes with positive static pressure HVAC systems with MERV 13 to 16 air filters result in a 90 percent reduction in fine particles (PM10) when compared to outdoor levels of PM10. It should be noted that the requirement for MERV 13 filters is a project design feature and is not mitigation, as CEQA is limited to the analysis of a project onto the surrounding environment and does not include analysis of environmental impacts onto the proposed project. Pursuant to California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 CalAth 369, Case No. S213478, agencies are not required to analyze the CEQA impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents, unless the proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist. The proposed project would not exacerbate existing environmental hazards. As discussed in the MND, all construction and operational air quality impacts are found to be less than significant. The project will negligibly add ADT to the 1-5 Freeway. The health risk assessment determined that the net reductions from the filtration system would result in the risks being lowered to less than 10 in one million, the SCAQMD cancer risk significance threshold. Therefore, impacts related to emissions from 1-5 would be less than significant. The health risk assessment has been provided to the City as an information item for land use decision making, but is nota CEQA required analysis condition. A4-3 Pursuant to existing regulations, the project applicant will be required to ensure that all contractors that perform work on the proposed project adhere to all applicable regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 1403 and 1166. Page 89 of the MND has been revised to state that the project includes demolition and soil disturbance activities that are subject to SCAQMD Rule 1403 —Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities — if asbestos is found during demolition, and Rule 1166 — Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil for soils containing VOCs. A4-4 Written responses will be transmitted to SCAQMD prior to adoption of the MND by the City Council. Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin, • Page 2-21 1 1 1 1 1 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-22 September 2016 2. Response to Comments LETTER R1 — Dave Hackett, Dated August 26, 2016 (1 page) From: Hackett, Dave (ma !Ito;Hack ettD@CTT.com] Sent: Friday; August 26, 2016 4:21 PM To: Dove, Elaine Subject: 420 W. 6th Street Hi Elainel My name is Dave Hackett. I own 445 112W. 6th Ste et with my wife and live directly across the street from the proposed proj ect at 420 W. 6th St Although there are aspects of the proposed project I am very concerned about the additional traffic, parking, and the construction.dirt/noise. The parking on 6th St. is already an issue due to the residents of Tustin Acres and some apartments parking on R1-1 the street. .Often cars.will stay three and four days in a row parked on 6th. I also see people being dropped off to park their car in my neighborhood. The additional homes will add to the issue. I would fully support any permit parking for residents only or a no parking overnight initiative. In addition speeding on 6th Street is a real issue. I am concerned not only about the speed but the volume of traffic. Hopefully there will not be an entrance to the development in front of my house. I am concerned on how the additional traffic will be handled. I would support speed bumps. Hopefully the developers will work with the current residents regarding the noise and dirt. Regards, . Dave & Karen Hackett Sent from my Whone NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential and may be privileged. If ,you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and all copies;.(ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. L Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-23 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-24 September 2016 2. Response to Comments R1. Response to Comments from Dave Hackett, dated August 26, 2016. R1-1 The commenter's main concern is that the proposed project could negatively impact traffic speed and volume, and parking in the area. The commenter also expresses concern with regard to the potential negative construction noise and construction dust impacts of the proposed project. The MND demonstrated that there are not significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed 140 -unit development, including Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic. As demonstrated in MND Section 3.3, Air Quality, there are no project -related air quality impacts from short-term construction activities or long-term operation of the project. The project will comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). As required by PPP -3 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, Section 4 herein) the project developer will require construction contractors and subcontractors to employ the following enhanced dust control measures during construction to minimize particulate matter (PM -10 and PM -2.5) emissions: 1. Suspend the use of all construction equipment during first -stage smog alerts. 2. Apply soil stabilizers such as hay bales or aggregate cover to inactive areas. 3. Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. 4. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. 5. Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times/day. 6. Cover all stock piles with tarps. 7. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly. 8. Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. 9. Trenches shall be left exposed for as short a time as possible. 10. Identify proper compaction for backfilled soils in construction specifications. 11. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 12. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. 13. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. 14. Minimize in -out traffic from construction zone. Section 3.12, Noise, demonstrates that changes in traffic noise due to the project would not result in significant long-term, traffic -related noise impacts to offsite uses and no mitigation is required. Likewise, the project would not result in any significant short- term or long-term impacts from project construction or operations. Section 3.16, TransportatioNTraffic, and the project -specific traffic study both demonstrate that the project would not result in more traffic as compared to existing conditions, but would reduce the volume of traffic to the site. The project would generate a net total of 439 fewer daily trips (-439) including 89 fewer trips (-89) during the AM peak hour and 83 fewer trips (-83) during the PM peak hour. Net negative trips are anticipated because the existing industrial use generates more trips than the proposed residential use. As a result, in the project's opening year, and in year 2035, all intersections would continue to operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS) B or better in the "with -project' traffic condition. Project -generated traffic would not contribute to a significant cumulative traffic impact in either the AM or PM peak hours. The majority of intersections would operate at LOS A. Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-25 1 1 2. Response to Comments Every unit in the Vintage Lofts project would have a two -car attached garage. Parking for the proposed project would meet the off-street parking requirements of the City of Tustin. A total of 315 parking spaces are required, including 280 covered spaces and 35 guest parking spaces. The project provides 280 garage spaces and 69 guest parking spaces for a total of 349 parking spaces. City Condition of Approval 6.5 (k) requires residents to keep garages clear and available to park vehicles. In addition, the CC&Rs shall include provisions requiring the HOA to develop and adopt an enforcement program for parking regulations within the development to ensure garages are kept clear. The rest of the MND demonstrates that there are no significant environmental impacts. These comments, including the comment's support for speed bumps, permit parking and no overnight parking will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. Page 2-26 September 2016 2. Response to Comments LETTER R2 — Heather Hackett, Dated August 25, 2016 (1 page) From: Heather Hackett[mailto:hackettheather@gmaii.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:47 PM To: Dove, Elaine Subject: 420 W. 6th Street Hi Elaine! My name is Heather Hackett. I own 445 W. 6th Steet and live directly across the street from the proposed project at 420 W. 6th St. Although there are aspects of the proposed project I am very concerned about the additional traffic, parking, and the construction dirt/noise. The parking on 6th St. is already an issue due to the residents of Tustin Acres and some apartments parking on the street. Often cars will stay three and four days in a row parked on 6th. I also see people being dropped off to park their car in my neighborhood. The additional homes will add to the issue. I would.fully support any permit parking for residents only or a no parking overnight initiative. In addition speeding on. 6th Street is areal issue. I am concerned not only about the speed but the volume of traffic. Hopefully there will not be an entrance to the development in front of my house. I am concerned on how the additional traffic will be handled. I would support speed bumps. Hopefully the developers will work with the current residents regarding the noise and dirt. Regards, Heather Hackett R2-1 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-27 1 1 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-28 September 2016 2. Response to Comments R2. Response to Comments from Heather Hackett, dated August 25, 2016. R2-1 The commenter's makes the identical comments as Dave Hackett in Letter R-1 and is referred to Responses to Comment R1-1. These comments will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-29 1 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-30 September 2016 2. Response to Comments Maureen U, Dated August 15, 2016 (1 page) -----Original Message ---- From: Maureen Li [mailto:Maureen.Li@wdc.comj Sent: Monday, August 15, 20161:43 PM To: Dove, Elaine Cc: maureenli@yahoo.com Subject: Intracorp So Cal -1LLC - Written Comments Dear Ms. Dove, As a property owner near by, I am writing to express my concern related to additional residential development in a very cramped area of Old Town Tustin. Not only the streets are narrow ( 6th, Pacific, A and B) surrounding the proposed development, over the years, high density apartment complexes were built at the end of 6th street and apartments at the City line with Santa Ana to the East. All kinds of vehicles were parked on the streets mentioned in Old Town Tustin. The proposed development will posted additional Parking challenges and continue to be the 41 concerns for the impacted home owners. We see folks from other high density area coming to drop off their vehicles and left them parked overnight and over the R1-3 weekends. They came in 2-3 at a time and carpool back to where they come from. Other uses skateboards, roller blades and other transport after dropping off their vehicle parked on 6th, Pacific, Main, A and B streets. These folks left behind trash and oil drips on the roadway. I have to call police several time because my driveway was blocked by the parked vehicle preventing me from getting out. I understanding the importance of community development. If I may suggest the following actions for your consideration: Traffic study to support the added traffic resulting from the condo development. Requiring parking permits for the residents who reside in the area and no parking on these streets without a City issued permit. Red curb the areas where parked vehicle is interfering with our driveway access. I can be contacted at maureenli@yahoo.com if you need any additional information from me. Respectfully submitted, Maureen Li HO - 535 Pacific street Tustin 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-31 1 1 2. Response to Comments` This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-32 September 2016 2. Response to Comments R3. Response to Comments from Maureen Li, dated August 15, 2016. R3-1 The commenter states that there is a parking issue in this part of Old Tustin and expresses concern that the proposed project would result in additional parking challenges on public streets. The commenter wants to ensure that a traffic study for the project has been prepared. Furthermore, she expresses support of permit parking on the local public streets and the use of red curbs in areas where parking is interfering with private driveways. Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffiq and the project -specific traffic study both demonstrate that the project would not result in more traffic as compared to existing conditions, but would reduce the volume of traffic to the site. The project would generate a net total of 439 fewer daily trips (-439) including 89 fewer trips (-89) during the AM peak hour and 83 fewer trips (-83) during the PM peak hour. Net negative trips are anticipated because the existing industrial use generates more trips than the proposed residential use. As a result, in the project's opening year, and in year 2035, all intersections would continue to operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS) B or better in the "with -project" traffic condition. Project -generated traffic would not contribute to a significant cumulative traffic impact in either the AM or PM peak hours. The majority of intersections would operate at LOS A. Every unit in the Vintage Lofts project would have a two -car attached garage. Parking for the proposed project would meet the off-street parking requirements of the City of Tustin. A total of 315 parking spaces are required, including 280 covered spaces and 35 guest parking spaces. The project provides 280 garage spaces and 69 guest parking spaces for a total of 349 parking spaces. City Condition of Approval 6.5 (k) requires residents to keep garages clear and available to park vehicles. In addition, the CC&Rs shall include provisions requiring the HOA to develop and adopt an enforcement program for parking regulations within the development to ensure garages are kept clear. The rest of the MND demonstrates that there are no significant environmental impacts. These comments, including the comment's in support for permit parking and no overnight and red curbs near private driveways, will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-33 J 1 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-34 September 2016 2. Response to Comments LETTER R4 — Reese Udall, Dated August 26, 2016 (1 page) From: Reese Udall [mailto:reeseudall@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 4:31 PM To: Dove, Elaine Subject: Vintage Lofts Project Hi Elaine, Came in today 8/26 to inspect the Vintage Lofts Project on 6th Street. I own a small 5 -unit apartment building down wind and caddy -corner to this project at 545 S. B St. This project sound nice and removing the industrial park is a plus. The current concerns are for my many tenants, the neighborhood and future building values as follows: 1) dust coming down wind blanketing everything (the plan is to take 5' of topsoil of), 2) dirty streets and 3) future parking. If these issues arise, I am confident the City will help rectify the problem. Thanks for your time and attention to this matter. Reese Udall, Manager 545 S. B Street Apartments, LLC 949-363-7238 R4-1 1 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-35 r. 1 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-36 September 2016 2. Response to Comments R4. Response to Comments from Reese Udall, dated August 26, 2016. R4-1 The Commenter's concern is that the proposed project could negatively impact individual property value. The commenter also expresses concern for the proposed project with regard to construction dust and parking. The Commenter's concerns regarding property value will be shared with the decision - makers. However, it should be noted that neither the Public Resources Code nor the State CEQA Guidelines requires that a MND evaluate social or economic impacts of a project unless those social or economic impacts would lead to physical environmental changes (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e) and Section 15131). Since property values are an economic consideration, they are not included within the MND. As demonstrated in MND Section 3.3, Air Quality, there are no project -related air quality impacts from short-term construction activities or long-term operation of the project. The project will comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The project developer will require construction contractors and subcontractors to employ the following enhanced dust control measures during construction to minimize particulate matter (PM -10 and PM -2.5) emissions: 1. Suspend the use of all construction equipment during first -stage smog alerts. 2. Apply soil stabilizers such as hay bales or aggregate cover to inactive areas. 3. Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. 4. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. 5. Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times/day. 6. Cover all stock piles with tarps. 7. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly. 8. Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. 9. Trenches shall be left exposed for as short a time as possible. 10. Identify proper compaction for backfilled soils in construction specifications. 11. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 12. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. 13. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. 14. Minimize in -out traffic from construction zone. As determined by the MND, dust control measures required by the SCAQMD would ensure that there are no significant impacts to streets and adjacent properties. Please see Response to Comment R1-1 for a detailed response to the project's provision of guest parking spaces. The rest of the MND demonstrates that there are no significant environmental impacts. These comments will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration. This page intentionally left blank. Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 2-37 1 1 2. Response to Comments Page 2-2 September 2016 1 3. Revisions to the MND 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the MND based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of MND publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. Changes made to the MND are identified here in L*r'o�„keeut tc to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. These changes do not result in new, different or more significant impacts than previously identified. These changes represent minor alterations that clarify and amplify information that was contained in the publicly circulated version of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3.2 MND. REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the MND. Page 48, Section I, Aesthetics, is revised as follows: The buildings would be replaced with 140 two- and three ,-�,nd fGur-story residential units. Page 50, Section I, Aesthetics is revised as follows: PPP -2: Lighting. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan showing compliance with the TCC Section 8102, (N102) which requires a minimum one foot- candle of light on the private drives and parking surfaces and a minimum of one-quarter foot-candle of light on the walking surfaces. The lighting plan is to be overlaid onto a tree landscape plan. The photometric plan must also show no light spillage pursuant to TCC Section 9271 hh. Page 89, Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, is revised as follows: Furthermore, the project includes demolition and soil disturbance activities that are subject to SCAQMD Rule 1403 — Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities — if asbestos is found during demolition, and Rule 1166 — Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil — for soils containing VOCs. Page 118, Section XIV, Public Services, is revised as follows: The OCFA consists of 7 divisions, 9 battalions, 74 72 fire stations, 951 firefighters, 6 executive chiefs, and 248 professional staff members. 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 3-1 1 3. Revisions to the MND , Page 118, Section XIV, Public Services, is revised as follows: funding fGF Gapital improvemeRts neGessaFy to establish Rainird irnaintain adequate fire preteGtien faGilities, nGremental Gentribution to GUmulative regional demand fQF Are pFeteratien serviGes to a less than SigRiftant 'ems Page 128, Section 3.16 Transportation and Traffic, is revised as follows: As shown in Table 4-22, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS under the Buildout Year 241-3 With -Project conditions. Page 120, Section XIV, Public Services, is revised as follows: PPP-7- Sesut Fire -P�'n} est,inn Anr ee►neR#. Prier to issua.,we of R_ build-ing pemit fbi: aPy FesidellGeG, *e designated site develepeF "hall enteF ont" a Table 5-1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, has been revised as follows: Page 3-2 September 2016 3. Revisions to the MND 5.0 MlRgatlon Monitoring and Reporting Program z TABLES -1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM n Number Measure Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency =ty Responsibility/ Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification "AESTHETICS Protect Design Features . None. Pofldes�Plans, and Procedures` i - -- PPP -1 Project construction hours will be limited to the Construction hours project City of Tustin Ongoing NIA hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays Developer/Construction Community through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 an and Contractor Development Dept 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. PPP -2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Lighting plan, Project City of Tustin Prior to Buitding NIA applicant shall submit a photometric fighting plan Developer/Construction Community Permits showing compliance Wth the TCC Section 6102, Contractor Development Dept i"KQ2Y 2y,which requires a minimum one foot- . candleof light on the private drives and parking surfaces and a minimum of one-quarter foot- candle of light on the walking surfaces The lighting plan is to be overlaid onto a tree landscape plan. The photometric plan must also show no light spillage pursuant to TCC Section 9271 hh: Mitigation Messures None. Pro ecrDesl n Feature PDF -1 The applicant/developer shall install upgraded air Air filtration systemsyProject City of Tustin Prior to Building N/A filtration systems in all residential units. Air Developer/Construction Community Permits fihration devicesshall berated MERV13 or higher, Contractor Development Dept, • Ventilation systems in residential units shall meet - the follovrin minimal design standards: City of Tusbn-InNal Study/Mifpaled NegalM Deelere0on Page 142 Vintage Lofts Residentfal ft*t .. July 2016 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 3-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3. Revisions to the MND 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3-2 Clry of Tusdn-Initial StuellMitigated Negative Vederailon Page 147 Vintage Lofts Res.denfial Project July 2016 September 2016 'MITIGATION MONITORINOANOREPORTINO PROGRAM Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for TimingOutside Agency Responslbllityl Oversight of Coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification A MERV13 or higher rating; At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air, At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour In unfiltered Infiltration. Fn --,m that the GG&R's and other pFope" Fasse that ri;-,Gmem -Ad needed- <Pollcles, Plans and 'Pracedures v=;r --� PPP -3 Fugitive dust. Project City of Tustin Ongoing Possible The project will comply with South Coast Air Developer/Construction Community Durina coordination with Quality Management District(SCAOMD) Rule 402 Contractor Development Dept Construction SCAOMO (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The project developer Wit require construction contractors and subcontractors to employ the following, enhanced dust control measures during construction to minimae particulate matter (PM -10 and PM -2. emissions Page 3-2 Clry of Tusdn-Initial StuellMitigated Negative Vederailon Page 147 Vintage Lofts Res.denfial Project July 2016 September 2016 3. Revisions to the AIND 6A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program �. TABLE 5-1 .x , MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM - Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responsibility! Oversight of Coordination Verifieation Compliance/ . Verification 1. Suspend the use of all construction equipment during first -stage smog alerts. 2. Apply soil stabilizers such as hay bales or aggregate cover to inactive areas. 3. Prepare a high vdnd dust control plan and Implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph 4. Stabilize previously disturbed areas d subsequent construction Is debyed. 5. Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times/day. 6. Cover all stock piles with tarps. 7. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly. 8. Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. 9. Trenches shall be left exposed for as short a time as possible. % Identify proper compaction for backfilled soils , in construction specifications. 11. Cover all.trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. _ 12. Sneep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. 13. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. 14. Minimize in-outtraffiefromconstmdion zone. =BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES= .,. " Pro ectDesl n Features None .. ,, PollelessPlans-andPioceduresw '^ ` _- _ _ . .. *_- =` � ' ��" ,. .` None. Miti atlon'Measuress CifyofTwUn-InNel Stud7lMitigated Negallve Declaration, Page 144 V.tage Lofts Residential Project - :July 2016 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 3-3 1 1 1 G 1 3. Revisions to the AND 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM • Number Measure Monitoring Activity Implementation Responsibility for Timing Outside Agency Responslbllityl Oversight of coordination Verification Compliance/ Verification MM B -t Prior to approval of grading plans; the Community Nesting Bird Survey Project City of Tustin Prior to grading NIA Development Department shall verify that the DevelopedConstrucuon Community permit following note Is included on the contractor Contractor Development Dept specifications to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META): 'To avoid impacts on nesting birds, vegetation on the project site should be cleared between September 1 and February 28. If vegetation clearing occurs inside the peak nesting season (betvraen March 1 and August 31), a pre- construction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. If the Biologist does not find any active nests M-lim the impact area, then vegetation clearing/construction work will be allowed. If the Biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the Biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity. Construction activities would be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified Biologist determines that the nest has been abandoned" CULTURAL W =. RESOURCES., - a_ a o ;Proect Design Features • : `- - • ? <°- None. Policies P/eria, an Procetlur'esa ., .:. ti ,� :..• _.... = ,.`. , - . -. ., h _ -r . PPP -4 Should human remains be discovered doing Discovery of human Project City of Tustin Ongoing- Possible project construction, the projectwould be required remains: Developer/Constmction Community During Grading coordination with to comply with State Health and SafetyCode Contractor Develo mem Det NAHC and Cify of Tustin • Initial Slud//Miligated NegaU a Decfaralfon Page 148 Vintage Lolls Resifentlel ftect Jury 2016 MND Figures 8,10, and 11 have been revised as follows: Page 3-4 September 2016 Figure 8 Landscape Plan 3. Revisions to the MND Gz- VNTAGE InSIDE.'QTIAL PROJECT. .FIGURL CAA a n,.,tia. Landscape Plan �cplcmbr2p;2Ulb Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 3-5 i 1 J 1 3. Revisions to the MND'' This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-6 September 2016 Figure 10 Recreation Area 3. Revisions to the MND NO MOW GRASS �� ,,.ry, 17 RECREATIOWAREA RUII.T IN BBQ 1`677ED�PLANTS ENHANCED PAVING: PO,OI WROUGHT IRON FENCE RAISED' PLANTERS W/ BENCH' VMMWERESIDENTIALPROJE& ,.FIGURE, 10. e,Ly;�r'rudls= Recreation Area Sepi mber,20.-2016. Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 3-7 C] 1 f ILIBLIC PARK' 474--�; ¥p PLANTING DO PATH ` TURF ;;, ENNANCEP-PAVING DECORATIVE FEATURE - DOG WASTE STATION: SEAT. WALL NO MOW GRASS �� ,,.ry, 17 RECREATIOWAREA RUII.T IN BBQ 1`677ED�PLANTS ENHANCED PAVING: PO,OI WROUGHT IRON FENCE RAISED' PLANTERS W/ BENCH' VMMWERESIDENTIALPROJE& ,.FIGURE, 10. e,Ly;�r'rudls= Recreation Area Sepi mber,20.-2016. Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 3-7 C] 1 1 1 3. Revisions to the MND This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-8 September 2016 3. Revisions to the AIND Figure 11 Paseos V INTM3F-RE.SIDENTiALTROJ ECT Sep[2iylitc�20 3{Ilfi. FIGURE I'1 Paseos Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin • Page 3-9 1 1 1 1 7 ji 3. Revisions to the MND This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-10 September 2016 Appendices Appendix A. Traffic Impact Analysis Memo 1 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin. Appendices This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 September 2016 Appendices TU.STIN �t Inter -Com DATE: JUNE28,.201,6 .. RU14INq Ut/&ltRllNk' flUt3g0.tNq OVrt PAST Tb_: ELAIME.DOVE; SENIOR PLANNER. FROM. KRYSSALDIVAR, PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER-TRA.FFICfTRANSPORTATION SUBJECT:. DRAFT T'RAFFIC.IMPACT ANALYSIS: 420:W. 6TH STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 2ND`REVIEW Public W6tks Staff has reviewed the Revised 420 W 6TH Street,Residential Project, ,dated May 13; 2010. The.preparation of:the document.is consistent with Tustin requirements and the conclusions are supported throughout the analysis. However, there are minor inconsistencies and corrections throughout the document that need to be addressed. Please consider the following :comments:. 1. There are a couple of minor inconsistencies and corrections in Figure 3 for intersections #1 and #3. Note that SB is a driveway at.#1 and NB is a driveway at #3 but Figure 4 inconsistent as far as showing corresponding lanes and turn volumes. Also at #1 note de facto NBR. 2. In Figure 5, please note in the title that this Figure represents the Buildout Year (2035) Peak Hour Volumes "No -Project." 3. Please re -review the headings on the calculation sheets in the Appendices to be consistentwith the headings in the document figures (i.e. Pacific & W 61h St vs. E 6th St.?). Again, City staff did not check every work sheet, but did notice inconsistencies on a few. Please contact me if you have'any questions. 1 Vintage Lofts Residential Project City of Tustin Appendices This page intentionally left blank. 1 September 2016