Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-E1 (CC RES 16-55 - EXHIBIT A (MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION))
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 Table of Contents ................................................... 1.0 Introduction....................................................... 2.0 Project Setting .................................................. 3.0 Project Description ............................................ 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis ............. 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program. Appendices............................................................. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... i ......................................................................................................1 ...................................................................................................... 5 ....................................................................................................17 .................................................................................................... 43 ..................................................................................................138 ..................................................................................................155 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 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 NOX nitrogen oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03 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 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction This page intentionally left blank. 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 Study/Mitigated 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 Settina 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 2.0 PROJECT SETTING 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 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 8 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 Le r --Vf} LE w ve intridged 1 M untain — Alta d cn a bink lend le -••' Rafae! 210 AIM rrVie. Duarte sa en 4 - Arcadia- ' l San Tem pl e T aut]Y asadena I� jtifat5no aty. &� Ealdw x 215 i 59 ti, x: Ran€ha Cucamonga Rialto F a �n-.I,d 3r-une, d �. —Fo n# -'n I6I {{ :Hoiiyzvood— Alltam�� Sar abriel� � i'ar Dimas dr Bloomington Coltod� 2�, 8eterly _L semead e5 + dntdair -- Hills Las hianter6y E ante �' Q-n-tario f - wf Sante n 8� Covina 5' a an hd _ _ _ E]Pn_ C�lr2r Ange S �_--------hSon#ebeii Haa.738 tts 4Yalnvt" M1 I 60�-�;x�rt t-_ -Gran. I••i'�--�•- Minn Chino I - Terrace tit},, t Faun ingt a tvoo 5 .. Roi9ia�d --' ' t htliia f 1L�_y . 4L�Jtittier ■ Hills iiulridoux, . ' aric I B- + Heights L Lwn� �n W'D°� krn>�3tLiafe oili era � J l{1 Diland1 e 51L� I G --- Iv NT C rNd VAL EY t--- ih�VltittiEr - 1115 unnox �t. W e S to Few'-.. I La Fiaara 57S ' La is GM ! N 6- fi 1 L L 6 n n Lyn ►dab ti 5 Tings ti '4 Hawth a yy,, Ynrba -- ti _ ' 71 attan Gardena Co°nFton r Wal e� Linda I. } dt Laivndal Pa m n# ellflower �uena'Full rtan 4' 11" A 93)3to Pax% ' 91 Iface -f3a -0, ti' Carona Qardens PER 3eadt lie cndaYar €e.• oke o alma ., S Lake si 11 -� I Y M4itlawi ; alos eadt Ca7s { UaWffl vt Gardens s Estates Lomita 710 C i�os 5#an tan Palm Verde HXi nah ei rn � r n ge f �_- iami S Tian dtn 110. Lang itl'estmin r r rave - S A N T A' -A N A seal Seadt ustin Fa] I onto Ana pR JEC m o U N T A ii N S 4'erdes Beach ` Fountain E y. t ry Valle 24� r dR�_� , 91 � Costa aos ruin Ran IFMt.3i Fi'� 1lsrrru unting#a Mesa h�sann sotto Beach Laguna oke Viejo h4argarita 1, Newport r uo - Wds F�gst frF VMIdomar � Beach � �f78�rpn La aHi13s fr �. 1i@s sj i sa ; f. r Viejo f hl Laguna ]3eadt'� i �i,_. Laguna'•. ; - - - �•� Niguel San Juan str an o 2 Dana Pant C �i '!.' 4T x12 rJPBtE 5ai� f { 7 r [dem en ffI rt N Camp Pendleton 5 ; Nlarine VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FIGURE I City of Tustin Regional Location Map July 20, 2016 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 -- z W Chapman Ave Orange 55 E Chapman ave EI Maden$ E Chapman Ax' Canyon Vie,1 PC 241 G? m lune at Orange H. �, e 4 m r. w La'�eta Ave 8 E La Vera Ave w °' w 22 & MainPlaoe Mall F2irhaven Awe N x ss , e m w Santa Clara Ave i� E Santa Clara Are aCa w WNorth Tustin 2 17th St x 17th sr 17th t v 2e1 sn °" J. ' A u c F dth St Irvine Blvd J �b wlstst Santa Ana =First St Tustin h r,.rrlWn I Santa Ana Zoo •.•EMain St r'r vr w Bishop S; P) OJECT E• g 261 den Ave E me FadMn ave !� , fss�r�s EI N(iRFhlpAfiK�� �At�p��y E Edinger Ave ' r3 10 In +n v, y � T J3. Z R- m d a ' 261 o EWBrnCrAwe ���y '� t 55 4P +Voyer Rd a oyer Rd SOL rH COA S7�1-6 r ^ ETRO Jart ,�45 wnl�nRurrr �1 Ava Anton6Wd 4ZP -R`frL�lAwe 133 COMPI EK ¢f c0? q c A N 1 mile VINTAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FIGURE 2 City of Tustin Local Vicinity Map July 20, 2016 2.0 Project Setting This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 12 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 430 6TH STREET (V 428-C (V 6TH STREET 428-B 6TH STREET Q 420-B 428-A 6TH STREET 6TH STREET Z co 420-A 6TH STREET 694-D B STREET 646 694-C B STREET B STREET 690 B STREET 694 B 644 TREET B STREET 6 SSTRETREET NO 436 6TH STREET 424 STREET 426 6TH 6TH STREET STREET W W 422 (A 424-B 6TH STREET = STREET 418 6TH STREET 420 6TH STREET 630 B STREET 624 B 624-A B ;TREET STREET B STREET 330 B STREET 320 B STREET 620-B 620-A 622 B STREET B STREET B STREI B I A 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 'k pir Ow 06 14 W 4L MIR MULTI -FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY ai +' RESIDENTIAL €` t RESIDENTIAL' i _16 - f 06- . ► —,. _ Sixt S eet ` �~•. 4" t � r + r Trr IN- tip,—ti - - MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 4" m, .i ' d t, • y ■T �•■4`. +.��• ' 1• fie` f J.:11 4L a bj + f MAL :L 2.0 Project Setting This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 16 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 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. 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-Plex 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 20 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 _5iE Zz �� o00 00 �� 0 0 000 00 V V Z w O O U V O O V U U ov�c� N N J u V r N <<< z C0 ��� w d o QQ N o0 o U27 U as aLL � N 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 22 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 a t—R _ t&" x ow- 'd -,o r= o � o 0 Qoo�Cca00000 o§52 ,ao,o>_x�°o.0 °vo 00 _ Ew ai 0000zo 13D: `OO12 o 003oz'O� JUOUN�vi�o--QoO Ng 3S0 3 --�2 _�u_ouu>LLhoo�o 0 0 z 1�o�ryiaa-N`_ ��z imioc,�od o � �0oco sw s"oo_� V z 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 24 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 BYd, ■■■■■■"0 Mon ■■Mo■on on 11■ II II �� I z ii■ ►_ 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 z 0 0 0 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 00 g P4 '74 'c.:' O 6T4 9 . 10 t- 6T4 A rq 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 30 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 32 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 J.� SE 0 22 I_ - < u z LU V 7 foe z 0 o z F- < < z z Z < F- < 0 5: < o (:3 z (D Z u < w w u m F- Z 0 LU z F- < Z < 0 F- :2 F- w < oe 'Z o o V 0 w LUx 0 0 z 0 w 0 a - Z w co d a w 3 ae J.� SE 0 22 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 V a Q J v l k�e 1 � l fix: gg PI b V a Q J v l k�e 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 36 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 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 Study/Mitigated 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 Ell d �# x z� j=jm OzO O 9�N • FEli W� mi RR' a�l 6 ■■o� � Ell vt� �S�m reen��ee da a�dFw�. i 9 d �# x z� j=jm OzO O 9�N FEli W� RR' 6 � orvlonne vt� �S�m reen��ee da a�dFw�. i 9 d z� j=jm OzO O 9�N FEli W� RR' vt� �S�m reen��ee da a�dFw�. i 9 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 40 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 T 133M15 ,B ql—1 W- — — —A M 10 LLJ Z 0(/)o - 0 ,,, s Z uw) - Pa 35- 00 Z 'z im — I I � Z U " P: LL O 0 / C) ------ LL, Ol< Lu c) 0 lc"-) > oLL 0 < LLJ -------------- F- It- ui o:'9d a 2N A HE --W R h c R-. 2 2 M. R, p M Ism �s ..... 81 9 - I m U z 3.0 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 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 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis This page intentionally left blank. 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 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 made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION x 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 `1 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. 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 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 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? 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), http://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 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 anew 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). Project 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 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 w W Q d W N D O m U 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 53 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis II. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES 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: Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 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.htmi; 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/filebank/blobdioad.aspx?BlobiD=8633. Would the project: 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? 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 Project 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 56 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 III. AIR QUALITY 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 ❑ ❑ X ❑ substantial number of people? 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 for the federal PM10, 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 Analysis 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 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Table 4-1. Daily Emissions Thresholds ounds/da Pollutant Construction Operations Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55 Nitrogen Oxides (NO.) 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 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 Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 60 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 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. Table 4-5. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) LST 2 acre/25 meters CO NOx PM -10 PM -2.5 Max On -Site Emissions 715 115 6 4 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 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 SCAQMD Threshold 1,519 148 24 8 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 62 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 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 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 Analysis IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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? 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? 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? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ X FS IN IN ❑■ n X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X n ■❑ No Impact In ■❑ Ll ■❑ ❑ X ❑ X City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 66 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 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: 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: f) 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 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 survey 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 Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 survey 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 Analysis 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." 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 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). 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 Analysis 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. Mitigation 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 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 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 76 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? 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? Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ X ❑ 0 Y ■❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 77 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 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: 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'/4 miles to the southwest and the Whittier Fault, located approximately 11'/2 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 1/2 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 Analysis (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 result of the project, and potentially result subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? unstable, or that would become unstable as a in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 80 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 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 /// 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 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: 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). City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 82 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ 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 (Oa), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), 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 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 CaIEEMod 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 1,589.2 Guideline Threshold 3,500 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 Analysis 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 86 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 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 Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ X ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 87 Vintage Lofts Residential Project No Impact ■❑ ■❑ U 1:1 X P P July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 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 134-1.5 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 134-5 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 Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact E E E 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 134-1.5 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 134-5 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 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 2. Soil gas sample SG6-5 had a 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. Proiect 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? City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 90 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 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 Mitiaation 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. 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. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 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 Analysis 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 (PBDs) 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 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Lona -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 Analysis 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? f) 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 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 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 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 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? 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 ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X No Impact — Implementation of the proposed project would not change the existing parcel configuration within the project site or within the local areas, nor would 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 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. Prosect 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 Potentially Significant Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES 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? 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? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: Less Than Significant Impact with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ X 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, Programs, 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 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Mitigation Measures 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 Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 102 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 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 501h 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 COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal CNEL CATEGORIES USES X55 60 65 70 75 80> RESIDENTIAL Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Fanulv A A S C C D D RESIDENTIAL Mobile Home A A B C C D D COMMERCIAL Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging Regional, District A A B F C C P COMMERCIAL Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Regional, Village Movie Theater A A A I' F District, Special COMMERCIAL Office Building, Research and Develop - INDUSTRIAL inent, Professional Offices, City Office A A F } L, Building 1tiSTTTLTIO1iAL COMIIIERCIAL Amphitheater, Concert Hall Recreation► INSTMTIONAL Auditarium, Meeting Hall Civic Center COMMERCIAL Children's Anutsement Park, Miniature Recreation Golf Course, Go-cart Track, Equestrian -k A E. I p E, Center, Sports Club CLALMERCiAI, Automobile Service Station, Auto General, Special Dealership, Manufacturing j I' - r Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities INDUSTRIAL 1Tv�.,TTILTFIONAL INSTITUTIONAL Hospital. Church, Urinary, Schools' General Classroom A A B C C D I.' OPEN SPACE Parks A A A B C i' [' OPEN SPACE Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers A A A A I Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat AGRICULTURE Agriculture A A A A -. INTERPRETATION ZONE A Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal CLEARLY COMPATIBLE conventional construction without anv special noise insulation requirements. ZONE B New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction NORMALLY 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 INCOMPATIBLE Source: J.J. Van Houten n sodates Residential development of the project parcel could place potential noise constraints upon the remaining light industrial/commercial 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 104 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Tustin noise standards apply to all property within a designated noise zone as follows: 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 d8(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour, (c) Plus 10 d8(A) for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour, (d) Plus 15 d8(A) for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (e) Plus 20 d8(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 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 dB 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 d8(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour, (c) Plus 10 d8(A) for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour, (d) Plus 15 d8(A) for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (e) Plus 20 d8(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 Analysis 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 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" St/1-5 68 74 62 ST Meter 1: (24-hour reading) * 68 76 64 ST Meter 2: "B" St (1/2 way 1-5/61h 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 on 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 VdB — 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 VdB 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 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 Study/Mitigated 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 6t" 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 Table 4-15. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis CNEL in dBA 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 IF 55.3 55.2 55.3 55.3 Main -6th IF 54.0 54.0 54.0 F___54_._3_]1 6th -N Driveway IF 49.7 52.0 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 69.9 71.1 71.1 S of SB Ramp 69.7 69.7 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 6t" 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 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, Programs, or Policies PDFs 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. 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 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. Mitiaation 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) City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 114 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? 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? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X 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. Proiect 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 116 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 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: 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: 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 0.0661 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 Analysis 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. PPPS 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 XV. RECREATION Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing 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 of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation of Checklist Responses Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ 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 Analysis 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 9331d, 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 122 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis ❑ ❑ X ❑ management program, including, but not Less Than limited to level of service standards and Significant travel demand measures, or other Potentially Impact with Less Than standards established by the county Significant Mitigation Significant No congestion management agency for Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: ❑ ❑ X ❑ a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ X ❑ ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, ❑ ❑ X ❑ taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and ❑ ❑ ❑ X 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? 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 (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. 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 Analysis 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated 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' Industrial Parke DU 5.81 0.07 0.37 0.44 TSF 6.83 0.67 0.15 0.82 0.35 0.17 0.18 0.67 0.52 0.85 Project Trip Generation Proposed Project (Condos) Existing Industrial Park 140 DU 813 10 51 62 183.43 TSF -1253 -123 -27 -150 49 24 -33 -123 73 -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 -Condo mini um. 2 Trip rates from the Institute of Transpo ration Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated 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 Seryice, based on Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) or H C M for stop controlled intersections z Volume -to -capacity ratio or delay for stop controlled intersections 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 VIC 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 t VIC or VIC or VIC or VIC or Intersection LOS Delay LOS' Delay LOS' Delay LOS' Delay 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 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 Street/West 6th Street All Way Stop A 9.3 A 9.1 A 9.2 A 9.1 -0.1 0.0 5. 0 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 B. East Drivew 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 Seryice, based on Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) or H C M for stop controlled intersections z Volume -to -capacity ratio or delay for stop controlled intersections 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 VIC 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 Analysis Table 4-22. Buildout Year 2035 Without and With -Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Level of Service, based on Intersection Capacity Utili2ation (ICU) or HCM for stop controlled intersections 2 Vo Iume-to-capacityratio or delay for stop co ntro Iled 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 VIC 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 Control Buildout AM Peak PM Peak Buildout With -Project AM Peak PM Peak VIC or Delay Change AM PM VIC or VIC or LOS' LOSE VIC or VIC or LOS' LOSE Intersection Delay Dolay 2 Delay Delay2 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. 9 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 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 8.9 8,7 8,9 Level of Service, based on Intersection Capacity Utili2ation (ICU) or HCM for stop controlled intersections 2 Vo Iume-to-capacityratio or delay for stop co ntro Iled 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 VIC 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 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: 1J 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 Analysis XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? f) 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? Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ 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 Analysis 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. 61h 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 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: f) 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 & 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 134 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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: Less Than Significant Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ 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 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. Project Design Features & Existing Plans, Programs, 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 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 5.0 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. City of Tustin - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 140 Vintage Lofts Residential Project July 2016 5.0 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 \ / / \ >1 Ma k0 \ < < 00 z 2 2 E 2 � \ m / \4 \4 ( ( o &E 2E 3 j j _200 *\ »\ »\ '2±$ , E \2E \2E § E. e = = 5®} 5®} M>0 0 L)±\Z �®} ±2± ±2± 2 ■ Oo2 Qe2 Qe2 ■ S §mac \ \ \ �/ / \ \ z a m o 0 0 ■ 0 Eos k\ k\ k\ C LU) CL U) t2@ ta@ ta@ Em \t »\t _LU W »\t �j/ �j/ Go §3/ -i2 § ( 2 / a E 7 k 2 o \ r « 1:j < � _r /%2G 7§&\/\-r— \<0 o = o m —� 3 0� o e s.2 = \6� a) //\\\mow -0 a)c:23§2 \/-E .o/ ¥2£ ==n—o= a) $ \¥ E o =5a§ =�=Eca � om m7 °°°w 0\\G _co> °�— 0)'F— > _ ® 22±=n LU �°( \/0 \EE -a 2�en /\==x0 0Dt =25- \)\\� 2 F=27/ %k®0>E�\/I 3—a tm 2 0m m`\%�77\ao +�2�\ /f=22k\°3�»�®5 CL baa §}+ §\S/\®o±52 $m3/$ �5 0= wu)mL) _oE± cn ®Eeo» $/o &ma a_� \/Eƒ2'/2in ® , 0@//§2 0 2 a _�0-Z _� o ® ■\�ƒ�� e e= =a 2 ® a °% E® = m f=J0 ° _ 2 =_ ==^=Seeec ® �2 2— ®�g@3—_ =ga OL__ o _ �.a) o cE-0 cn o° o=Eo» g— a = Roe=s c )OLo—=tom=\� E : e �2ff\o c � s '==z===2—E c Q / ■ E LL,Q 2 § aQ ; (D E m Cl) v 7 � m, v § LL z aCL§ai i kk��E \ / / \ \ / / \ � Ma k0 d� S E � 0 =2c� •-0.$ § a)E' CL @0L)> ■ 2 ■ 0 � $__ƒc 0 § ) C\ o _§ EJ> Go LU mZ � 2 k E 7 o § 0 F- � r 0 » /&\ c0c0 a@ § ƒ0 » Co= ° r°°—E_ y / > F2v o=< / \\%\ Q-_ ===3— ] % CL §aƒ 00 (D Q) 5- _ = o = CL ///a >C: y 77 n E «=§e =2-0 geaf§0 �= 5 2 Em=S ==—#=I2= 2 )§ § Q /3%/ r\=EE=C°/ o / 2 § o J = o f 2 k f \ \ E =ate / / - — \ R O¥\>Qgs=� /\7)j\\ \ƒ\\ � m=3®0o- _ _E ///7/�§/� \/ °te/2 co i@/ [ _ . 2- :� =1-4t<<o<@$= (\2-\2 0.- L) aE= a§§ uu=�\7\ -\ oE / \=/7///\ 3 //\ / ƒ § E �z ] � \ / / \ U c C.0 0) _ Q c o -0a� o OU 0 I °U) a> S E C 'o 0) C O L 0O_ N p 0) C 00 � C W C M w2 m '� Q od'L E O d E O E Q> 0) y >oa>i 000 a o ° W C U a - w a y Q r cn z C 'y m O E G ~ L L p O °' CL a 16 CL di .2 LU E (1) 4) N O Dnp Q -0U LU Z J Q m � z O H Q z O c C/) Lo >- Z O a F- 'L c� N N C N MO QOL O� C� _ C — :� M O C O cn c6 fA c6 to a) �, to C ++ U 7 cn Co cn Cl) U u7 '6 U N N co O O C C6 cu O cn p. cu 0 d N 7 O L C L Co c6 f6 c0 c4 fl_ N O L p U) "a Lco N O U C C E N O C E Q .� c4 OU N O (c6 « O co @ O 'O E� 0 t7n @ O c0 O N N N O= U a TL O (�6 U p O U' .> p O E E —_ E tq N C co N O N -O c0 O O C— 'O O" O O Q�� L (6 C U 7 c fl' N p -C_ Y Lcn L_ (n LL O U C 'C '� (6 U > U) (n N a •� N O -O 0 'C Q O � i � 'C7 3. V M O to to U .O U N `� N � O U U ._� - O O p U iC N a T — C O_ — O U N N C : E ' U N N 0) O M C •� 'n O O U CL6 C N O U O N >+ O O N N ._ 0) Q N O N c OC 7 7 E O O O N N C 0� O C= N C p .> C t Q N 0 cl co U p _N U 0 O 7 .� a 0 O N Q' N U .0 U) O" m > O m 0 Q) CO �� n� CYj O N f6 p C U N 4; - Q)-0 o-0 C E 3 C: coO N --0 � O O p C 0) ° >' O QQ� U) o-- ami co co E O >i N N> m -p � p �' C x to m N 0 (D 0) 7 N E O O. O_ O y p c0 0) 0) N U >, U L U c0 i 0) .O .O 2 U O) U N .N O Q >+ N O_ .5 Q Q � N> Q U_ "O C C O C > (n O. > L >+ C U C` m Q O SLC-' 7 0_ p� cn @ 0 O -5u) L E 0 0 0 0) (6 � E O p (0 m� c6 OL C) of (if :2 �U E 2U) ��U) mQ cod. C7 Un - Lc0 '— O C 7 'Q C_ C "6 H d z a L) pU c6 � N M t0 I` 06 O d I? E a 7 d z a \ / / \ >1 Ma k0 J� f z E S k E o � ( .) 2 = 0 e _» kk$k *) .2 $ S § a) E. e = CL 233> »E} 2 0) ■ ±\Z Oo2 ■ S §mac / � � / n z a m o @ § $ I § »/ CL \\} _E�> / G § L; ISO LU mZ � / 2 k � E 7 \ E F- � F- z � r a /0 §§ooU>" _ E - o - o » _ & t _ ¥ Eco �\§3cu / 7=�` &� \ \ �� \ 4K�=�\ cn c: ���\\�\\ o% mEe0) /saw= 9S _ =oEe =�®=_ E \/ 3 �3=L) c±b0- cr ��\\> /=)7=)=% \\ �f\/_< §0LL(1) } 2 _35 %E;°k 0C m L coo \\�/�%\} \g u 0-- (n = L==)j � Eoo =# °2E e�\� ?o� eQEƒ�0\ o R®o0°w/ =2£° 23 / _j m k _jk k )� o @ z m0-zCLz \ / / \ \ / \ / MM \ «c /=b /� • § §72 J� @GƒS Eoze S E = 0 / a _»0�§ .2 .2 \7E § a) E. e = 0CL -E> 233> 2 ■ ±\$ Ooz ■ S §mac / � 0 \ z a m o 2 § $ CL »/ CL {1) _E�> 73§ Go Ico LU Z m< � �§ ƒ E 2 k / E 7 ƒ 0 =a § = 0 0� UE $ a e � r ====«oo=»o» Baas=6§£±=2 ==oma =2®=0o=�=67» f2f�=-/fes®k}®®ems \ -0 ) � ° \ = a) Z) 3 0)-0 o = / ° C7 a) 0 CO ° ® ) 000(D � � a) f== � ©° °_ _> /!/\2.5oo =iso =o3S§m># =oa @±o mcmy 4>e"u- §� _ ° 22E\~� ®=\)$§J°°»# _ Zn =ma /7�o §J=oƒ `tee4 \2==Gg0 :3 Q0-0 ¥ =$D -a_Eo00.-- =a0 CL a) E=�=o -= »3 ®&o V)0 C: \�/\0 k \7-7- 0-0 /� ��\n->,'O (o @ 0 7aog=S%»> @/2222§p \b/y3q=� = Q) 0�/§E�\E22� :3 a=og==o«E0 >4�£/ S t `��f2\90 22//$\�#©/�%«752 ��gm o=%m o0�) q—a) ' Q) _ 0 2m"to>o7c= _0 -a a=S=W=�oe«�o'�-=�_� ©c2 *_�_�_ =�-m oE�=-C: a) ��.-E /E@/_ __)=2% w■ kEo c: \_£20\ at°%0 aE0 ®/#=§=I§ 2�«\oyo==� o� �2 r- o�==mss §±=z2=2= § ��\0 q2 §f\[g\\\2�\5f§/0 7/�»§t&00g0 w\ �/9a)LI) 55®«/f$2=q _sloEa§ R== cm&gym=�=Eot&<=02 k Q./ z 0 0. \ / \ / c 0 d rn Q c -0a a 0 w 0 �U Q O Z c a) S _0 m E L C O L d Q L 0 Q a) 0 0 C -�, 0 r)0 W V C a) In L d _ Q> 0 U)OU> O O E > >) a U U 0 a O W C U CL g w 0 0 r V Z C 'y m 0 E 0 E L L 0 O m a 0 Q CL d > U 2 CL6 LU E� 0 0 c — 'p >) Dnp dU LU Z J Q m � Z O a U_ z 0) C 0) O c 2 0r 0 L O Z = > @ O c c F- Qo aL c� 0 a) a) o o r °' °' a m Lp @ h c -0 a) c o cn @ -0-0 c .L) Q CL 13) C _- F L O d @ H CO .O. i @@ d O @ @ a) _ Q@ i a) > U)> O a) O _0O @ U L p O U @ > @ V O 7 @ p' @ O U a) a) CM @ a) @ � 0 a) N m N L ..-. N 7@> 0 0 @ U tT N@ (n (6 W' C -O @ U U— O U O U O O@ tq > w c W@ OL — U@@ c lC� ' U Q V O -p 0 U c a) c� p @ = � U 0 @ 0 " c a a' '- = t @ c � — c = = @ U Q CLO c) O — @ U U O T O .- O .� (p �+ a) '� @ Z?) > O O_ U a) O C i' 'O @ O O N '+' co @ V .tn N .@- -p +�.. ,��— C d Q 1 a) — a) 0 a) 0 a) U O U L of CZ m 000 E N N @ a) � p Z U p -0 U •t 'O O CA V — a) O Q) 7 a) to O N Z co O CT to a) @ •� N— Cn c "p O .� d .� 04 a) O L U c U .O O. a) U p p U) O c O @ O p -0 0� • U W a) O '� L L L a) U O U -0 @ —� @ O Q .O 0 0).T) Qm 0 0 c� 0)@ 0-0 :3 0 m 0 2 c0i U))-0 0 c0) a0i c 0 c a) a) C t— U U O O c 0 — a) N( to �: i@ -p U a) z7 0 O i @ L O O N N c@ L O O_ 0 a) U C)~ a) U C C Q O O c O U) -@ T N .r coC7 'O t M� .0 - 0 c@ Q c U 0 p .0 N U n@ W 00 p a) U V y _� a) 0V O U T 0 U p O@ U@ O U E q) ,O 0 0@ @ O - L p) O c a) •+� a) U >> C E O Q T 0- U Q V L a) a) L OV t Q 6 "O VO) (O (O L) O .L �+' a) OL L O_ @ i> i c O a) c O a) OL U a) OU 4000 a—QQ c @ a)H 0)@ aa)U) @ -0 0U - a. @� d L a) = 0 �U r Z c O d rn Q c 4) ° O w O �U Q O Z c a) S -o E o L ^O L.L L O O_ N O a) C W V a) 0 O O. > O U)OU> O y o a>) 000 a o ° U CL 0 g w O O r ui Z P: C .N m w'.0 O U_ EO E L L 0 O m a y O CL d > U 2 W E� —L o>c (1) O 0 Q-00 LU Z J Q m � Z O Q U_ Z O O 2 L O .� L Z O 02 p c (1) c F a � c� a) •M.— 7 (3).— CY_0 m— C �, p a--� Co p C Q � ° C O-6 -— c L O O a) Op O'0 UU O X O p O' p O>a) O .iN C X O� NN OOOQ Ca) O0 •�p O " LW CNfl Up _M 0CN 7 aL'O U QoU c p oa) cU -0) a Q) -- O O p- O O U 7 (6 N :B L U L O Q O >; 6 U) i O p O a). Q 7 C 0 7 O p U) ) U) C U) a) ~ a) a) a) O) o p O O-0 — a) o O O) N — N O a) OU L O N U O Q O- E 0 �, 6= T L O a) L 7 O (6 — O pL w U O U L O D U p O co 0)— O L L L i a) — `a o E a) a) Qo �: L`o m � ° o m m o o� m �� C) �° aa)) aa))—_0 Qp o �� = a.9�t o a) �� a) a) o o w N p O O a cn O > -0 O U)EO U u U�-a N O U) QN N O OOOOQ a) N 'O tm E O aUUa) C"OO p L m O) a) a) (• p6 mco -0 LU >OO C > � — C U U _Cp p ppa) 7 �O Q -Q'O a) aa) O 0 p a U) Q� a p U O_ c .� ai O� � � Q U � U) E Q p U) H� O_ Q OU � O_ a) � a) N = U � 2 Z 2 c o d rn Q c 4) ° 0 w 0 OU Q Z 0) c ts) C � E O L ^O LL L O O N 0 C C W M V a) 'y eC. w '� Q O N C .L 0 O O_ > 0 O N �OU> o > a) 000 a o ° w C U CL g w 0 0 r O Z C .N m O 16 E0 E ` ` O 0 N Q O O CL d > U N W E� o>c L O O (np d0U LU Z J Q m � Z O v co � a U Z O N o' 20 Q .L Z = C (1).2 '— O c F a Z -a c� _H 0)L V O N -0 0 C6 - m o O L N O m O C6 �_ N 00 ( a) coE E '~ O cL O c > caO : O� ca '� -.0 — OL ` O N C O 7 O f0 a) IDO N a) O O ca O- C V '� CO -O O a N O C Q' C O O .O .E O O -O _ 0 > O CL U � Oa) 1p O O -O m U (6 O O O Oct T O O) C9 "O E C w- '� 3 O) L a) SZ O (6 O C X_ Cn .0 a) T >(n y (0 L -0 C L L V C O (n . C-0 (0 O O C, a) O 'D O L L L a) O (0 .� O_ �' N C � (D > a) O m U 0 0 •m E N O 00 U Cn a) O a) a) C 0)O O c 75 0r (n D OU i 7 O 0 0 >, O O U> a) .O c O- t C M 0 0 0 N U7 U) N a) >O Q- O U ul N Q a) 0 U H 0 C � co U> R > Q) �_' N N c0 — CLO a) UCo O L —_ (06 N N a) 'C co N U 00 d U N -O SZ > (� E i CA C i Q C1 E O) ) O U '6 (6 C C O a 'O N N N L 7 'C O a) .0 E N. E Q > O — O Q O N O O a) a) C O a) E 6 a) a) O C — O_ (= w -C 'O (D N a) CD to O O_ U (0 •� O a) Q 0.Q C N U Q a) .0 a N O� a� (a.� °� ca c.0—� (D O O L E m N c6 ID Cr ° c6 .� o cn � '" X- (C6 O .0 > .T C u0i � E ai Z .- N i M— > U Q U C >� (n a) (-/) in O O 7 0) -c'—O) U) U () C CO to � M C p 0) (6 O- U N@ U) a) Z T (0 (n U O O a) N O ,0 ,� O p (0 E 7 N (n O C O— @ O- OL C C C f6 p O C U. O O O O .O O_ O pj a) C U C w O O 0) U` V C 0 (6 C C C (9 C w .0 �O a) cn C .— .� (fn a) > O CO 4) 0 -Fu O 5 X F f0 E U U E U U (n Q L .� O_ U O_ c .� C � CL Of E O_� -a m � C. O. Q � � a� a) o d ZS L O_ C a) M = U 7 � Z c O d rn Q c -00 a O w O OU a> S E L O E L � Q L O Q N C W C O 0E L 0 O O_ > O U)0v>o O m UU0 0 ° O w C U CL g +� C O r � rn C z C .N m 4) '.0U_ N E o E LL O N CL0 Qo CL d > U m LU E� � o> i N O Dnp d0U LU Z J Q m � Z O H Q z a� O Z O U� F- a)A� N ° N 0)- Q) -0 N O N N O O U° -O -° C 7> N U p O N-0 ; C a); CEN °��,°. ° Q C Q- u1 o�coC �c�,� -a)0 co Eo a)2 0 � X (D m o U .� —> � C N CL C C N p 7 (7 O C U C f6 (D (6 (n N O- U� 0 U ?j 7 N N O (6 �O O C E E U :� .O p'co Q EZ as > E o o N 0 o � �_ Co M Nz � -0 aRi °-- O ° O N _> U O N E f6 N U C N N .? U C O o) -o C O V) d C U N 0 C C '0 E J O .� N Y> 6 Q o z C L) E .� ..� z �r N T .0 a .0 Nis a) 0) a) rn� -C 0 C C N c U) a) m m a a N o.W awi ao mw ami U O> 0) E O O (6 (6 O C .L-� C N 7 7 E E N E N en y O 0 A Q C M O N N ='0 C O L C C Q O E o ,� N U Q E -o T N C o -O C fn J 0 , C "" �-.2-aN Q i -a) E N N Q C 0-0)-7- O Q U) �.� �Q.°- N ons �o .-.o �� —0E i a) a ��o C C N U o- Ui6 a� �� > - C: CU a) �c>�oO�a)� U E a) i U° .O N G ° o O� N •� C d SQA T Qo.S.SU0 O)zZ m Q�c. zQ 5 CLO- w Qw m � � a Lm O v vi N Lo CL 7 W o o a - z z 0CLzaEL c o d rn Q c -0a a 0 w 0 OU c 0 a) is c a 0 H � C 'L L 0 Q O 0 d C 0 W •y fl. w C -C E C mEL 0 ~�aC) E Q_ 9 0 p a) a) NOU>_ p >� 000 `o a 0 W r�_, CL g ., 0 a+ _ 0 Z C •N m E 0 c 0 CL di E — ' N 0 0LU E r (/) L;D 2 Q LU Z J a m � Z O H Q z a) O Z O F- c� H a) o a o U) m 0) c m o uJ - (n o c uJ 0 0 C13 o 0) m c a— m. m _ � °v p m ACL) a)�-C)" �o� a�i� C���E� a) N p �_ U d' 0(f) rn M O p U Z p Z p) y C O N cm M .O m U c a) v 0 a .0 .- M-0 a) a) o a w o .o C 0 0 CL ID c—00 o E� U)� 0:° v, 0 0 n o 0mCL 0,�� a)� co LcC6 U) Q co mai E o 0 0-0-0 O 0 ca p 0 o i C .0 C 0 `) r- '~ CO E N E a E C6 0� a) >CD a C p a) N O T C Q 0 N C E O L d j (6 — Ta) a0—Eo._���0- N (D -O OU - O E o a) C j U 3 t O p- 0) L C T Q' N N R Z3 7 m a) -0 fE C� co p- (0 m p N U �O C N N O — E a) a) fZ N O sZ L (t3 a) ".' O U _� p> (6 () co C O co CIT] Q g 0 0 n w m o N L> p Q} E Q O a) O (U9 .� (n c i 'C 0) a N a) ~� O O U >U O CO OUcl- a) �t m CCU:-0OL L) � C)� E 0)(D-0 C: 3 0 0 0 �� o ami Co m ��— M Co � �'� �� � a� m o_ : o �� m a)a c a)� � Qp.�- a) -r— o o� aa)) CL °'x Ea o N .o0- a0i o� � o,� H 7 U G H C� O OL.� to "p C Q 7 i Cl a) m J p m (n C (� U CoQ L cu cn oU a o.dcn L Q d •Ir Z E \ / / \ >1 Ma k0 0 E E � \ & � § § .0 2 E .) & E CL G M _»0 15Z- C: . n $ § z = E § @ e § o E� 2 33>°�� 2 ±55 O3% ±E> ■ 0 CL§ c \ \ � / ) n z a m E0 o @ 0 @ 0 kL\ CL >)4 \\{ _U7\\ $ f§§ Go Iee Ieo LU Z m< � 2 k /C \ 0 7 0 5E \_ § §0 \ $ /S / � __-__ >u)==co=»--� =£S -a 222ƒate°=sa/a) ____®- _ -$% =&=mc=§o= m 7== = e°` 02 == Ie2m5 cn z \zz /\0Ek�)a) 2/§0 u C: u. _ =-o= _ =_o- 2 \ 2 §ƒQ)C:-m _ z o m - owmf 7%\--- \ °%2ƒ��¥�I® 7 \\%)oa =k: _£- ±§//a£= --m\/§ ¥7=m7 U) J� cco-=n-- O= m -om=9E ____� 0 0'--- 2--- °E f/\%/j\±/e��I/ 0==- `//EZ§ 2 -a' E \J=»°Q®/ ■ -`\/G/ _ Co =tg*e /==2mU)0-0£\EO � © mo-= nLU _ _� ±, o§ *_ Coca-cn « =m=g, om> = / Iz $ fc3a�§CO °E / -EJ5)ee= ' 0 sem (D \ «CL a�cg� E®&§=\JJ= m 2 L)0 :30 (D =»/=a o=ce _ .2� ) =>.(n ®_= 0 no =o=#mom® o u t>1 7=0. §/y _ _ = e E _ _ * o __= 5 a® t=_ o 0 m _ t ■ E § _ _ Z3 0 o\__ E_= , o3=g O =_ , « , a E��»= �t5E�0m E±r L'- 24 o =_ ==E_=« :L- k a c=/=5�� � g EE)\ ®°§-®aaE=sc c=o= L5 y m== E=-¢§2§/__§000 I m ,.=PD==m -§gGEG eu�=<a ea2==Go¥==amu&& �\ z c �&a:E0 �e=E ua «# © ■ Et c R _ § «ekd§3 § ! t� E § §�§kk57 ] \ / / \ \ / / \ >1 Ma k0 0 2 2 � » » 7 / \ a\ 2/ 0§ 0§ § E 2 E 2 \ § 3 3 _ *\ >} 22 /\\ E$ o > E' _/\\ 233> 0E( ±77 >E> ±2¢ 2 ■ Do= DoE ■ S 0 0 � §mac \ \ � / \ n z a m o @ 0 @ 0 E o E 2�m k\ k\ CL \\f \f{ LU _�> 73§ 7$§ Go Ece ISO LU2 �k �. LL It 2 k�-0/ 0 7 7\ \/\ \ ®g =_/ \ \0 \\) $ @S /\< � r /@b72§@\ k3� /�///#\\/�\#j%§/ § =-aa=% »/2I22e 24= 20ƒ = 0 2�=mere co ���»G&/%2ƒ� �m 2mg$/\EE gu= a) ;=2&2x2 0 E//z§\¥ww\_ 7222E co)M5-502 Gf= aa¥ 22\\ 2 ==E=.p _\__. E == 025\7®> g�= mmr5n&m=cm >=e =2 ==..==o =o=gz== a > 0) _ _ [z0 & '52+� E2D U) [f}%E #0-7-o E a) ca :\ _ ��a -0 a) o a) U) = o CD 0'- »(ao¥ O0a) =o==-�§7 �/@%2eoo n& nac mz =a==) 2 _ w m = ooa Q)a)F *P =�2o »ao\2f\£*a5%a) J�§tp@/§ °°�-�_-___ =-=o @S7E\°§7 E2 /�\ eco » 22%\ƒa2E=/ ƒ/)s =3.2= £°° _ U) ®2�z0 >a2=- -_._ s2ƒ � a 70_=-2 0C CL O§_ - z9 CL a) tS§\kI=2 0co ± �/� C \C<EE)§in D-00�0 -, °°°®-_ =e°°eoCo= �os� E. § s=t7}#E\@��ct&30 \\§�J//\ ]7�\\a $-C:L) =e=-� -0 cu (±/e E_ =oma °� ®> � =7=c __ G ��-0 = c c g = 20 pLu .=mom OL sn0 -J 3>ea±%tf ° m » - s E � a z E � _ =o c_- \/\22/ J�EaJ»%27�/2�Sa\§ � a § LU §�^2a�z BCL§ �kk7 z \ / / \ \ / / \ /0 » � M £» 2» 2 \/ \0 k0 %< &\ J 3 of 0E E E S \ k E og og � \ §\ § § E 2 E \0 3 / _2 %k$ka) »\ In 2 2 $ \ \ \ \ o a) E' _/ _/ 233> �E� ±77 0E� ±§¢ 2 ■ Do= Deo ■ 0 CL§mac \ \ 0 \ \ z m o 0 E o E @ @ 0 2Um k\ k\ CL \\f \\f _E�> 700 7$§ Go E00 Ice LU < <k \ ■ 7 = 2 0 / 7 E/ 2 \ \\ e (\ $ a E C/) CL _r 61 _ __ =>5�» _ - 0 r/G2 -- ©��'\[ 0 �E�EE\§ n �»�2_ CLQ__ \moo CL » / /2 =M0 0) 0 =Cc J_%_ /E22g . E73 2m O� em -2 ->C: -0 /(D< \\/�\ \\\\�\\k 1: M \/\\E ±®/�/\§\ "d = o = = 0 's = 2 = §M� ems CL Co - o = =ao»<m n * _ n=E==o = > x¥22 $e�\\ �2m< e\�<c o 7 02%;0 ta7o)" __ =c Eo2¢3 0" o0-== 5�om a)OL- ! _ % _ :o=I3= 'a o cL I E § q)2g 2 I > _ C) m § ■ 0)-° r ) ƒ ) = _ ° E / E e-« 2 a §(n 77=0oo 0 \&��ƒ0 =t/» __ _- 2 *= 0 E L) o-==> _ z z z� o=_ c a�8�� > > 2\E2 �° LL §«(n o � _ 76���7&G )In = G - -0 ®°m=_ § ==_=m 2 c $ $f gaa)U) u m m (D §Io�<& §R � § a) E Lt W ƒ Zk aOL§ki C: LZ kk ] i \ / / \ APPENDICES 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(aD-tustinca.org This page intentionally left blank. 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 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A: Planned Community District Regulations VI NTAG E Planned Community Regulations Prepared for the City of Tustin, California Submitted for Review: July 13, 2016 Intracorp SoCal-1 LLC 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 Figure 3: Conceptual Sixth Street Elevations..........................................................................................................................10 4.4. Subdivisions..................................................................................................................................................................9 4.5. Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Other Discretionary Actions...................................................9 Figure 7: Conceptual Monumentation Signage.....................................................................................................................14 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 Figure2: 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 - 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. Proiect Objective 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. Proiect 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 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. 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. Melros-- 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 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 Veranda Court 48 1,400 SF - 1,700 SF LAND USE REGULATIONS 4— 8 units/building 4-5 units/building 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. 1 u, pose 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. 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. ,vvv,. pment Stanuaras 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. 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..,. rcimca aria 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 Wall Adjacent 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. Rorrontion Aron corurity Fepcing 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). SiRnaize 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 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. 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. 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. �.1. Responsibility The Community Development Department of the City of Tustin shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of provisions of these regulations. 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 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. Subdivisions All divisions of land shall be processed in accordance with the Tustin City Code and State Subdivision Map Act. -r.., Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Other Discretionary Actions All applications shall be processed in accordance with the Tustin City Code. 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. Enford,&,�,,L 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. Severability Clause In any part, 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. resign Revie— 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 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 - ' 1 CLUBHOUSE ALLEY PASEO ALLEY �� VINTAGE City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations Figure 4: Conceptual Architecture Styles City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations 0 f - 4 now tow; City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations Figure 5: Typical Paseo Concepts r+ L 1 City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations Figure 6: Recreation Center and Public Park Concept it•-t� - -" City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations r _f a owe Z w � y m Z r ti Z V Ox Z w a a = �4 L Z 3 3 0 z o y c o my0 2 U 0 W o o m W it•-t� - -" City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations Figure 7: Conceptual Monumentation Signage City of Tustin I Vintage Planned Community District Regulations Appendix B. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses 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 ProjectNo.: P16 -006A METEOROLOGICAL 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 -1- 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. Vintage Lofts AQ -2- 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 Air Quality Standards Averaging California Standards' National Standards' Pollutant _ Time Concentration 3 Method ` Primary 3'S Secondary 3'° Method 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 Pym) Ozone (O�)e Ultraviolet Same as Ultraviolet 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 Pym') 0.070 ppm (137 Pym') Photometry Primary Standard Photometry Respirable 24 Hour 50 4m' 150 P91MI inertial Separation Particulate Same as and Gravimetric Mean 20 Pym' — Matter (PM10)g Beta it Beta Attenuation Primary Standard Analysis Arithmetic Fine24 Particulate Hour — — 35 Pym' primary as Inertial Separation Matter Ariratal 12 Pym' Cvim xaetric or 120 pgrni' 15 4m' and Gravimetric Analysis PM2.5) Anthmetic Mean Seta Attenuation 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg]m') 35 ppm (40 mgfm') — Carbon Non -Dispersive Nan-Dspersive Monoxide 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 nxym') Infrared Photometry 9 Ppm (10 mg/m3) — IMrared Photometry (CO)8 (NDIR) 8 Hour [Laine Tahoel 6 ppm (7 mym') — — Nitrogen 1 Hae 0.18 ppm (339 Pgrm') 100 ppb (188 pgl ') — Dioxide Gas Phase Gas Phase 0.030 ppm (57 pgtm') 0.053 ppm (100 pghn') as (NO,)1° C����e � ce q��C Mean Primary Standard 1 Hoa 0.25 ppm (655 pgrm') 75 ppb (196 Pym') — Sulfur Dioxide Ultraviolet Ultraviolet Flourescence• 3 Hair — — 0.5 ppm (1 300 Pgtm') 1-i (�z) Fluorescence Spedmp'otometry (Pa ltie 24 Hour 0.04 pom (105 rxym')(For — certain areas)16 Annual 0.030 ppm Arithmetic Mean _ (for certain aas)10 e — 30 Day Average 1.5 Pym' — — � 1.5 Pym' Lead Calendar Calendar Quarter — Atomic Absorption 12 (for certain areas) Same as Sampler w Ab50fpti0rl Pnmary Standard Rolling 3 -Month Average — 0.15 Pym Visibility Beta Attenuation and Reducing 8 Hoar See footnote 13 Transmittance No Particles' through Filter Tape National Sulfates 24 Hair 25 Pym' Ion Chromatography Hydrogen 1 Hour 0 03 ppm f42 pgrm') Ultraviolet Sulfide Fluorescence Standards Vinyl1z 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 pghn 3] Gas Chloride Chromatography See footnotes on next a e — -fig-- - For more information pkase call_URE-PID at (916) 321-2990 California ?lir Resources Board (1011115) Vintage Lofts AQ -4- Table 1 (continued) 1 California standards for ozone. carbon monoxide (except S -hour Lake Tahoe). sulftir dioxide (1 and '4 hour). nitrogen dioxide. and particulate matter (PA110. PI 2.>. and visibility reducing panicles). are vales that are not to be exceeded All others are not to be equaled or exceeded California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Reeulations _'. National standards (other than ozone. particulate matter. and those based on annual antimetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year The ozone standard is attained when the fourth hiehest 8 -hour concentration measured at each site in a vear. averaged over three years. is equal to or less than the standard For PM10. the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 ug n- is equal to or less than one For PAS' S. the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations. averaged over three gars, are equal to or less than the standard Contact the U S EPA for farther clarification and current national policies. 3. Concentration expressed fust in units in which it was promulgated Equivalent units gn•en in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of S`C and a reference pressure of 760 ton Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 5°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr: ppm in this table refers to ppm by volute. or micronoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. Any equivalent measurenent method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used S. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary. with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare front any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7 Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA An "equivalent method of measurement may be used bun must have a "consistent relationship to the reference nethod" and must be approved by the U.S. EPA S. On October 1. 2015. the national 8 -hour ozone pruuary and secondarn• standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm 9 On December 13.'01'. the national annual PAL'.5 primary standard was lowered front Is lig m3 to 12.0 lig mm' The existing national 24- hour PAL'S standards (primacy and secondary) were retained at 3S lig m'. as was the annual secondary standard of 15 jig m' The existing 24-hour PA110 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 lig m3 also were retained The form of the annual primas- and secondary standards is the annual mean. averaged over 3 vears 10. To attain the 1 -hour national standard. the 3 -year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximnmt concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1 -hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1 -hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted front ppb to ppm In this case. the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0 100 ppm 11 On June'. 2010. a new 1 -hour SO: standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primas• standards were revoked. To attain the 1 -hour national standard. the 3 -year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1 -hour daily m><axrnnni concentrations at each site utast not exceed 75 ppb The 1971 SO- national standards (24-hourand annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard. except that in areas designated nonattamment for the 1971 standards. the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 1010 standards are approved Note that the 1 -how national standard is in units of parts per bullion (ppb) California standards are in units of parts per nulhon (ppm). To directly compare the 1 -hour national standard to the California standard the units can be convened to ppm. In this case. the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0 075 ppm 12 The ARB has identified lead and vinvl chloride as 'toxic air contanunants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined These actions allow 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 1 S. 22008 to a rolling 3 -month average The 1978 lead standard (1.5 {iWm' as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 22008 standard. except that im areas desi®ated nonartainment for the 197S standard. the 197S standard remains in effect until implenentation plans to attain or maintain the 2005 standard are approved 14. In 1989. the ARB convened both the general statewide 10-nule visnbilit standard and the Lake Tahoe 30 -mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents. which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0 07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Au Basin standards. respectively. For more information please call ARB-PIO at (916) 322-2990 California -air Resources Board (10/1115) Vintage Lofts AQ -5- Table 2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Carbon Monoxide • Incomplete combustion of fuels and other 0 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. 0 Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. 0 Plant leaf injury. Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. 0 Impairment of blood function and nerve construction. • Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Fine Particulate Matter • Stationary combustion of solid fuels. 0 Reduced lung function. (PM -10) • Construction activities. 0 Aggravation of the effects of gaseous • Industrial. processes. pollutants. • Atmospheric chemical reactions. 0 Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory diseases. • Increased cough and chest discomfort. • Soiling. 0 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. 0 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. e Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, (SO2) • Smelting of sulfur -bearing metal ores. emphysema). • Industrial processes. 0 Reduced lung function. • Irritation of eyes. • Reduced visibility. 0 Plant injury. • Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002. Vintage Lofts AQ 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 pg/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. The federal ultra -fine particulate (PM -2.5) standard of 35 pg/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. Vintage Lofts AQ -R- 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 Cone. (ppm) 0.093 0.104 0.088 0.079 0.084 0.111 Max. 8 -Hour Cone. (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 Conc. (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 µghn3 (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 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 (SCAG). 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- Table 4 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in tons/day) Pollutant 2012a 2015b 2020b 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 '2012 Base Year. 'With 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: 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 pg/m3) Vintage Lofts AQ -11- 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. Vintage Lofts AQ -12- AIR 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 Dailv 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 with the 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. 0 Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. Vintage Lofts AQ -14- 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 CaIEEMod2013.2.2 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 Activitv Eauipment Fleet Phase Name and Duration Equipment Demo (20 days) 1 Concrete Saw 2 Dozers 3 Excavators, 2 Loader/Backhoes Grading (20 days) 10,000 cubic yards 1 Grader 1 Excavator 1 Dozer 1 Scraper 3 Loader/Backhoes Construction (230 days) 1 Crane 3 Loader/Backhoes 3 Forklifts 1 Gen Set 1 Welder Paving (20 days) 2 Pavers 2 Paving Equipment 2 Rollers Vintage Lofts 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 Dailv Emissions (nounds/dav) Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SO, 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 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 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. Vintage Lofts AQ -16- 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 6th 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 Type 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 Project Emissions (pounds/day) LST 2 acre/25 meters Central Orange County CO NOx PM -10 PM -2.5 Max On -Site Emissions 715 115 6 4 Demolition Unmitigated 34 43 11 3 Mitigated 34 43 5 2 Grading Unmitigated 33 48 9 6 Mitigated 33 48 5 4 Construction Unmitigated 18 26 2 2 Mitigated 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 CalEEMod 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 CalEEMod2013.2.2 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 -15- 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 Dailv Operational Impacts Source: CaIEEMod2013.2.2 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/da ) 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 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CaIEEMod2013.2.2 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 l 3 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. Vintage Lofts AQ -20- 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 Lofts AQ -21- 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- 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, 0 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 PROJECT RELATED GHG EMISSIONS GENERATION Construction Activity GHG Emissions The project is assumed to be built in approximately two years. During project construction, the CaIEEMod2013.2.2 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 CalEEMod2013.2.2 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 CalEEMod2013.2.2 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 Total 1,589.2 Guideline Threshold 3,500 Exceeds Threshold? No Vintage Lofts AQ -24- 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- CALEEMOD2013.2.2 COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUT DAILY EMISISONS • ANNUAL EMISSIONS Vintage Lofts AQ -26- Q 00 O N ti N (6 co N 0 a� co 0- C) O N O 75 W W_ U c O •L a� O 2 w w (6 U 0 � � m N O_ O d m 2 Q O (D U O p ,t O O O Cl) `o O 0 LL m CO m O LO M CD N O U Q P- to O O O J O N T • f0 a m O y O d ` S U Z) V N o i a Q- O N 4 z Z- 3 0 rn N O N O N N O N N_ Cf) -It£ T d N Q L N =� c = s U G N c o • w y V) m E Z, 4) 0 'L lC i U V cm 07 0 V 0 0 N =O oo (n co i U � C d '^ O R m O a o U O dc i o N E O N c` a J O O r N C f6 E >+ = C'4 r2 0.0 r r I I I r U M Uz Q 00 0 N r - N N (6 co N O N O 0) co d ,a U co LO ti N C cz J N N r m M N N C O U Y O M ai c co U O O U O U) U C O U C C� C Q CT W co O O m N L O N O N U O U X N ch 3 U) CD N U O O r O E a) C C) C Q W O O O N O_ CU U y m H M N N O r O O) 0 cz m U X N Ol 'co V C C� C Q .5 07 W O O O O E O O LO Ln r— r c O O E m I CD C) C) O C co ti E m cn .E w N O: 0 : : O O : C:) '� W O M ' i N _ O Il- 7 ;� ; � O � O 3:6) M .O N O .O . O . O U N L � Lf) Z M N . N . N O N 7 co co C) , p , O O , O , N , V, O ' O Ln (6 N ,N ,O ,O ,O , N O :O ..i...i...i...i...i...i...i ...i ...i...i...i...F ... d) o_ ccu a c a) ca .� m .� j : W W : v : c L 7= Li N . N O : N . O . . f6 . LL . (6 (6 (0 : N : co N : y O O O L . L . . . U . . J . J :x 'O '10 U) N N N N U N . (A . N . Nco IL ,a ,a ,a 3 rn m o o .2 Q .2- E E co O o o o Z V V U U � a) a) . . . . (L . (� . , 0 . � J N (D c . C . C . . . . O . OO . . U O O O O ;a) E m cn .E w N co (N 1- 0 C) N N O N 0 O 75 W W m U O •L O 2 W LJJ m U _ O U) N E W 0 E 3 E x cm G O v 3 L U) _ O U d O T N t N O N O O O U O O N Q z O v o 04 x o U o O U c f0 O O F N O O O_ O m O z N O o U o o c m h @ W a H N N N s2 lL a o j Lq O r N � C La LL O 'O N a0 Ln H M 7 � O R � O �a X W >o 0 01 �� co =a W NO o to o O c 0 O o z o O o O c w, c2iv 7 � ad 1` c O W N _ NM ' W p V V m h W L n 11 O U 17 O ,y c v 1 p o ,0 0 p N o ,0 O O ' 0 O z O O O O O O T 1 1 V 1 LO m = co o U T v 'm N R 13 — , 1- 11� r 1 N N p R 9 — , \ 1 1 N N p n O U 1 1 CO (M R LO cn , CO N V CO O "� H 00 V 1 H 00 V r 10 M p ' LL7 U 1 100 M O_ LO O ,[ON V co o m O O 'O M z 0 0 00 1 O O N p O U o 0 Cl •0 0 0 m o .0 0 V N Lo T N y0 � ~ C� • N LI'f LL <fl 1 0 1 N co in Lo N ' m 'v W LL N 1 1 1 LO � 1 N P L( N ' LO M n m O Li a ri o v 1 00 O_ 0 ' W INfJ LL ' N 1 V LL 1 1 1 CD T mO M � L 0000 ,O ' W X W > 0 Ln 1 7 X LL W R , 1 -e V R � N O — 1 O fD toCDcn > O , ID CD LO 1 N N =3 LL 1 4 O LL 1� Ln LL 1 1 NO m ;v v NO o 'o v CO 1 1 ----r---- 1 LO ' O N p o Io 0 U rn 1 orn Cb U LO co 1 N m O 1 1 O 1 1 00 1 T X O1 10 coo z V 1 V co w z C9 1 N CO 00 1, CO w (D 00 L 00 co 1- O 0 LO 1 CO 1- O p 0 L 1 W M LO 1 CD CD (D , M 1 a) % CD CD N N F N O N O O O U O O N Q z O v o 04 x o U o O U c f0 O O F N O O O_ O m O z N O o U o o c m h @ W a H N N N s2 lL a o j Lq O r N � C La LL O 'O N a0 Ln H M 7 � O R � O �a X W >o 0 01 �� co =a W NO o to o O c 0 O o z o O o O c w, c2iv 7 � ad r 00 O W N M _ N p ap U r 00 O O O cf 00 v 1 p o ,0 0 N Z O O O ' O O O O O O 1 1 V 1 l0 T o = rn T O N R 13 — , 1- 11� r 1 N N p n M U 0 Mlli LOM SOON O O H 00 V 1 p U r 10 M Ln O 1 O0 N LL7 z 00 ;-�t O O N p O U o 0 o •0 0 0 cs o 0 0 m O V N Lo T N aV {1 1 a1 1 N n Lo N ' cc N W LL N 1 1 1 N ' > N W CD ' V M M O LL d O N 1 OR 00 00 CO INfJ � 0 C MO ' W V LL O �N T 1 1 Lf) 1CD yO M L 00 07,O ' W X LL W a m LO N ' 1 -e V R � , 1 Io ao Cl)>_ r 1(D ti LL O� 7 LL N 'N 1 Ln LL IT 1 1 NO CD ;v v CO o 'o 1 ----r---- 1 p LF) o 10 0 U rn 1rn m LO 1N O 1 1 00 ' T X p 1� z 'm 1 rn m Co 1 N CO 1- cD 7 00 00 co 1- O p 0 1 N CO Lo 1 00 M , M 1 (0 N N F N O N O O O U O O N Q z O v o 04 x o U o O U c f0 O O F N O O O_ O m O z N O o U o o c m h @ W a H N N N s2 lL a o j Lq O r N � C La LL O 'O N a0 Ln H M 7 � O R � O �a X W >o 0 01 �� co =a W NO o to o O c 0 O o z o O o O c w, c2iv 7 � ad Q 00 co r N ti N N (6 co N O (ll co 0- r�1 O ^ NN N NM N LQ N O U) ' '� m� N O W O O 'Lq O Q U a ,iNN O 1 co 1 N O1 M 1 1 1 O , , 0 O O o) ioo i N n cD O ' O ' N M Z T o �o �0 0 La 1 1 N o 1 1 ILn 1 1 11 O M 1 I M f N U Lo N cq m 9 m 1 IN N O — co I m 1 � U N 1 I M M O O U o O 1 a o 0 co F V Lo 1 1 N N O O M c 1 1 1M I N c6 O_ O Lo ' O ' N oD M a (c 'Lo V 'C a m UJ Lo w N O Z ICJ N -- - M 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - M N M 0O O LD O U M M O LL (o 6 oo O QJ D 0] @ OJ� 1 1 LO Ln , r- � ,O O Cl) C N Ui LL O o o m O� 1 1 1 1 Ln 1 1 O p M :� O io I- ,or, N IL i i i M a 1 1 O O 1 1 Wco O 1 ' 1 ' O _ N n N N ' ' N 1 1 0 N p , , M p tco (h ' o ' O 'n x LL LU CA 1 1 0 o o' ' cn ' O 1 1 1 1 O O V 11- 10 Gln (o 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 00 O 1 1(Dto N U LO O d LL 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 , c 1 1 , W 1 1 1 1 N _ �� M I o I N n LL N M Lo r n �ci :LO ti 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N I N I M LO , O ,M L ('� M I p I p L n x oo � O � t V LU > � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 0) a) O N o — 1 1 L o L O > , , co co O IL ' 1 ' N 1 O N IO LL 1 1 O 1 1 1 UM 1 1 1 N Q I p M 1 co O ' p oo ' o '� 1 M O 'O 1 N o 1 1 1 1 O oo'u 'I o U (O I N 1 0 IO co M 1O 1 1O 1 N 1 1 1 1 x to N IV l0 O 0 n z 17 ' LO ' Q 1 1 I N 10 1 1 I M IM C> O � 1 p 1 co O N I p I N � O� • .iii 1 ..iii A 1 . LV cz Ns y0 N ¢ O F U w O ^ NN N NM O O O � '" LQ N O c)Lo m� U ANN CO Lo O 1 1 1 co 1 O O1 M 1 w N Z O , , 0 O 1 1 1 1 LO 1 l0 1 O v Iv ,co n V O ' O ' N M T o �o �0 0 La 1 1 N N O UFo O M 1 I M f N O Lo' N(O �6? �I-N Lb cc'Lb m ' 1` ' Z N ti 1 1 .............. N O O O U o O o o a o 0 ......T........T""' O M r O N Lo N 0 t O N i i a O i 0 N 1 1 of1 W 1 L) UJ Lo w N M , r ,M ICJ t N ' o ' O M W LL O O o 1 1 1 1 O LD 1 1� N Ln O LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 @ OJ� 1 1 LO Ln , r- � ,O O Cl) C N Ui LL o o m to 1 1 1 1 Ln 1 1 O p t LN 1 1 ' o ' O IL o �o �6 Cl 0 Lux 1 1 O 1 1 Wco U EL ' ' N 1 1 0 N p LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 N 1 n O CA o ' o c 0 o o' ' cn ' O O O V 11- 10 (o 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 00 O U M I N 1 0 (O N 1 1 0 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 I V 1 X N M Lo r n z ' Lo 1 1 1 1 N I N I M LO , O ,M ('� h n oo � O � t V > O 1 1 • . ii i ..iii . cm_ N 0) a) O Q cw O F U Q 66 N N 0 co N O LO a) 0) (a 0- N N _M O N cO G w w m U c O •L O 2 w m U d 1- 04 - N O O U CD N N Z M 2 N U rn N O N Cl) j6 O O F N 0 01 O_ m Z N O O U o O p O 10 'n R O 117 IL F OD N N 106 N r L C w a 1n = N O O �a o LL O R n CL 3 O (0 td t� 1G Ka w w do CD i o B a c LL N � O to W) O K m O fO Z N C9 CO O IO co V U 0 d � LL� O M u 0 .Q N O O 16 L IL 1n O1 O 1 0 1 ' O >, N I N I M N I N N � 1 1 N 1 C 1 1 1 C 1 1 1 Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 -rU1 -rte -rL LO N 1 1 E > 1 1 1 3 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 o'o 'o N ' N ' N : O W iz: 1 . N N N N 1 N \ M N 1` : 1- M :o (n N � N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 Q 1 1 0 1 � 1 1 .� 1 • O 1 I U 1 1 CO N 1 l i 1 O 1 1 '0') IL 1 C 1 1 1 O 1 O 2 3 1 1._ _ ] : L 1 1 1 1 i 1 m N E T Z C U N cu : U L cu 0 o .� 'm .a O N 1n L 16 � Z N ' co ' V ' Lo O al O al Q 00 co r 0 N N N m 0 i U m LL m O J Q O 0 E m z N fn m d M ' W ' O ' W ' W ' O ' - ' O ' O ' V ' I- ' to ' N '(0 ' W ' 00 r� M I I M � M N N ' r— M I � ' M M � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -hN -ham-F---FN-,,:;7 -FF -F -ham -h-,,:;7-.1^ am F-Fo -Fo 1 1 1� 1 1 1 1 1 1-F 1 1 1 1 CO CO m CO 0) 't N M M : r- 1 � I N I co N 1 � 1 � I N 1 I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o ;o o to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to ;o W ' 00 ' 00 ' Cfl ' co ' Cb ' W ' 00 ' r— ' W ' W ' r- ' w ' N ' co ' OJ 1C.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I M I N I I I I I M I I M I I M I I N I N I N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I to 1 1 1 I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 I N 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 I U 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 CO I N 1 1 1 I N I m 1 1 1 I mU 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 0 I m 1 1 1 I m 1 1 1 1 1 I N 1 1 1 I N 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 I D 1 1 1 I D 1 0 1 1 1 iN+ 1 1 1 I E 1 : O l i 1 1 l i 1 1 I J 1 1 1 I J 1 0 1 I L 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 I W 1 E I m 1 1 I m l i 1 l i I N 1 0 1 1 o I 0 U i m i, i i m is i� i i s iY i m i t i-0 1(v i.S i� ;<j CO I x 1-0 I U I X I N 1 1 fL 1 f6 l O 1 1 (L 1 0 I m 1 I Q U IW '� Icn IW 1C7 'W' '� IU IW 'U '� '� Ia Ia 1� 'Q ...4 ...4 ...t ...t ...t ...t ...t ..4...4...4...4 ..4 ..t ...t ...t T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o o o o 2 2 2 2 2 O o 'U O. ; .O ; .O F , :2) ) E E E 00 '0 '(D 'CD 'CD 'CD 'C7 'M 'M 'CD 'CD 'CO 'a 'a 'd 'Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V) (n �U _ N N 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 V) 1 1 1 oU x x . x . x x 0 N U N U L 4) N (D C) x x x x x `o QI QI QI MI 0I - -F O 1 0 1 0CD H L CD O O C C N' NNNN - O 7 J n rn L 19 1 19 1 19 1 C-0 : M C J (y 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 0 1 0 'o �v v :v CY) 1 1 1 N C 1 1 1 0 J 1 1 1 -- O I 1 1 -- I O 1 1 - -- I O 1 1 -- O ; O �- m LO O O 16 E r- I N I I C Z � I I I I I I = O O I 10 10 I 10 10 I 10 10 .O :O d O I CD ICO 1 0 O L 1 1 � 1 O E 1 1 1 CZ (D1 1 1 1 1 1 i O 1 :O 1 :O 1 :O LO Q O :O :O :O LO H co O LO N � jY Z C-0- -�O-)- n � c w 7 wU m 0 O ..:.. N E U ? � O m .0 Zm m O coco O U L = 5 N IL C C m Q 00 co 0 N N N m co N O ti m 0- N N 0 N 0 cO G W W_ m U O •L N O 2 w w m U G O r N p M n po m rn� U p O p .0 In 0 p 1 'p [-� airn O 1 1 .o N o N 1 1 ; O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 co z1 co t 1 1 1 1 1 0 r- n U t 2 '7 ,'7 O No , O T 1 � U L — R L , , CO10 'vo In I t 1 0 N N O O O 1 0 to Uo 10 ,v v oln O ,cot lov @ o '0 0 a F- ' m o t N N— Cl) O 1 I t 10) , m to W n U ,o ,o m ' ' - P- 01 O_ N MM M, O Z U N O o U DO 0 07 @.................. ........................... 0 - I LO ' 1t I ' 'm O f— H N rto r ' c"N7, n 1 Om co N N O ' i 0 IL I ---- 1 rn I 11 'o I 'o CD v Ln �`o o In n N � O p ,rn rn s O ' W 01 x a 1 1 1 'v 1 ' O > w 1� o ' ' 1 1 N 012 d j N ' O 1Do LLLL U') O W ' 1 1 1 00 , W .. N .Fm2 O (6 O 1 M ma LL N ' 1 ' O 1 n 1 N 1 1 1 1 f` 1 04 _O O m 1 0 :00 1 0 ' LL ~ L of cV 1 1 O CD 1 o CD 1 10 o 0 O x d w O 1 N N j L O cD ' N O p x a o O N N m L , 1 ' CO LLa >oco o ' �0 0 1 n _ 0 1 1 1 0 co ' n to ll O_ OO 00 co 0 1 1 1 O Of O 1 0 1 N 1 1 I r ,rn m rn M U CO 00 'O �O 1 1 'I- �O 1 1 'r ' O 1 O r - ---r- - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' co M O co 10 rn m M Dfco 1 m 1 m M M �o O �o N 1 1 ' I) R n x O 'co ' co co co z 1 N N O 1 t 1 1 � U co oo 0 0 �0 �v v s � O o O R d > O ~ U ° ;O LL n M N N Lq p O LO O M p rnir) 'p [-� airn U C .o .� o N 1 1 M O 1 1 1 1 z1 co 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 0 t 2 O No , O , O m 0-0 N U L — o O co ,o 1 1 1 0 , CO10 'vo In I t 1 0 0 N O W n 10 10 m oln ,o 'co 11 6) ' O ' m O N— Cl) 1 1 10 1 I t 10) cli O W n U ,o ,o m ' ' - P- 01 O_ O MM M, Z N O U 0 07 ........................... 0 I ' O I I LO ' 1t I Iii O f— N c"N7, 1 0 1 M N cC O i 0 i 0 O rn I 11 'o I 'o CD �`o 0 L W a � O 'CD 1 0 1 O o O 1 1 1 '0 1 1 1 'v > o ' ' v N 012 d ' O ' O N LLLL U') O 1 1 1 O , O 1 1 1 00 , W 0 O (6 M Ip O N ' O ' O 1 1 1 1 CD m 1 0 :00 1 0 ' IA L CD 1 o CD 1 10 o 0 LO r x d w N N 1 1 1 0 1 1 I n O p 0 0 ma- (Op p ' ' CO LLa o �o �0 0 m CD 1 1 l0 , O 1 1 1 0 N v OO 0 O ON I p 1 1 1 1 0 ' O 1 0 1 N 1 1 I r O O U CO 00 'O �O 1 1 'I- �O 1 1 'r M 00 O r 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 0 co O t m M Dfco O �o O �o N n R CM c i O - U G Q 00 co 0 N \ N N (d co N O 00 co 0- I_ 0 N N p N N O po o a, U p O p ;0 Ln 0 O 1 p r-� C1 0 O 1 1 ;o z o N 1 1 ; O N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'r- co v 1 1 1 1 1 o t- O U 7 2 ,. O N , O 0 T 1 � U s - m 9 , 1 (o , Ivo 1 IOJ N n O U1 O 1 0 O 0 1 0 `O O� ,mv m n 01 (U o '0 0 0 M 0 H N Cl) O 1 M I O) , to w U U ,v v O ,o ' M 7 M V M n ,o nal 0 m O N O Z O 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 o] U 0 0 07 'm ........................... o F- 'LO o m CN O Irn v N � I O p I I ry a o ----r----r---- rn I 1 �0 1 'o o 0 �`o Cl) x 2 0 1r- r• N O 1 0 0 p ,rn rn t 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ' d xO 1 >'nO W 1 ' 7 V N O)m 1 1 O ' O ' O N = LL O Lr) O > N � O 1 1 1 00 , 00 O O M IA O N LL '� O O 1 1 1 N 1 1 D7 O N O oo W , M O 1) M N M '7 s IL F- ' O O x d W M ; N 1 1 In ' p 1 1 ' I Ir 1 ' O OU') O 1 N N L O , cD ' N Lf) x _ .52 O N I p 1 (O O N N (6 , �O o NO co o 1 n > N 00 , c0 CN to LL a M M 1 C 1 1 1 l0 'o 100 1 N 1 1 1- '� 1 1 1 O n O M o ,rn M rn M U) x OW r z O r-- ' O 1 O O cD O c0 O V ' m Q. O c0 O 'o m U ' `q cq 1 M M m M 1 1 '� = n x O'rn ' co a)z co 1 N N 1 � 1 1 � co co 0 0 �0 1 7 � O N o f6 L5 N ; O d U LL r N N LL) p O LO :(0 Cl) M O O i0' p r-� C1 0 U rn ;o ;( o N 1 1 �"1 O N 1 1 1 1 co 1 1 1 1 l 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 O N , O 0 , O co O co N U s - o O Cl) , to 1 10 , Ivo 1 IOJ 0 N O co n U1 0 1 0 `O 'c-, 'CO n 01 (U C> E M O H N Cl) 11 1 10 1 M I O) M O co U ,o ,o M n ,o nal 0 m M Z N M O U 0 07 ........................... o 'O 'LO LO CN O M I O I O M a~ o ----r----r---- rn �O 1 'o �0 1 'o o 0 �`o Cl) x 2 O 1 O O 1 0 0 O w 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ' >'nO ' O ' 7 V N O)m O ' O ' O N = LL O Lr) O � O 1 1 1 O , O � O 1 1 1 00 , 00 O O (6 M IA O c0 'O '� O a~ 1 1 1 1 O _M 1) M N s ' O O x d W � p ' p 1 1 ' I Ir 1 ' C OU') > 1 O 1 1- N _ .52 N I p 1 (O LL O �O �O o co 1 1 l0 1 1 1 0 N v O CN CD C> C) 1 C 1 1 1 l0 'o 100 1 N 1 1 1- '� O O n M o O 1 1 ' C) 1 'o ' r` 1 1 ' 1 'o Ci x OW r z O r-- 1 C, 1 1 1 'o 1 1 1 1 O cD O c0 O V M Q. i' OCD c0 O 'O O O 'O O O n O C 4 m = ; O O F- C) U Q 00 co r - C) N r- N N (d co N O co 0- N N _M O N cO G w w m U E O •L N O 2 w w (0 U OD O O O 00 t00 CO N O O O O 060 OD O U p O LL7 Lo • V 1 V ,`n O . o O r` 1 1 N � ; 1 1 1 Q1 CA 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 ' 2 ' N co 7 2 N co O O O T 1 � m 9 , I M N M N N —O W O � LO O OOD O CD , m aD mm ,O O - H rir 0 �v v LO LO ' o O Ln r W OCA N N 1 1 1 CD ; O Ln CO 4 00 O O] , O , CO N N (000, O ,M M r U n O O 0 N Z o] ' , .. .I ... a -Fa O ' Im co H (D I L I I O CD M I M r CV 2 O rl a u] 1 I O to N stn O o 1co co NCD d o ,N rn L �G I 1 I O M OO O ' M M x S r X d O N N O 0 N N O W 1 1 I r 1 1 ' l n `� > N ' W N 1 M 'O 1 too O N O O M ' Cl) LL a O N M M N 1 1 00 1 V 00, N O N M � 0 Cl) (OD ' r IL O O ; N 1 1 CA It M (=D co N O 1 V 1 O co X d W O, N CDco ' N m x I M I r 1 1 I N O Un O N IA N (6 �_ , 1 00 l O 1 O ' O 1 r 'N N O d � 0) 1 O > ' O 00 , CO t7) 4t co ' w CL N O (G LL C:) 1 1 1 O C � 1 C 1 1 1 1 0 O N n O 0 co 1 0 1 M OR ' O 1 O 1 1 'O 1 C 1 1 'M 1 x O Z O ti 00 110 ro to U C7 Io 0 1 M 1 M M M M 1 O ; O ; O X ; co W z E T 1 N 1 00 N co 1 � 1 1 � U O M M �v v O O R ~ U ;O LL r0 O N N O O O ; ' r r O LL7 Lo U ,`n O . o ; r` � V 1 1 Q1 CA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ' O N 7 2 N co O O O C U , , 010 _� N N 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 I lb I N I r O N Q LO U O M N mm ,O O �(i rir f0 LO LO ' o ' �o � Ln r N N 1 1 1 CD 1 I N 1 N O Ln U 0) , O , CO N (000, O ,M M r O m n O O co m N Z V ' , ' , a N O U 0 07 (ND I I O CD I I � Lf) 70 O f— O rl u] I O I O to N O i 0 d I 1 1 0 I 1 I O M OO coN r X d N O O 0 N N O W 1 1 1 ' I r 1 1 ' l n > N W 1 O ' O 1 M 'O M M2 LLCL N O O O 1 1 1 O , O O 1 1 1O ,N O O N to co N 04 CL 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 O ' O 1 'O11 It M (=D co N 1 0 1 O N X d W > � _� O 1 1 0 1 1 I M I r 1 1 I N O O _ .a2 00 l O 1 O ' O 1 r 'N C N d � ' O ' O L 4t 1 1 1 1 O , O 1 1 1 1 N , O N � O D Q C:) C � 1 C 1 1 1 1 0 1' 1 N 1 1 I M O n O co 1 0 1 M OR n 1 1 'O 1 C 1 1 'M 1 x O Z ti ' O 1 1 1 ' o ' CDoq ' O 1 1 1 ' (0 ' C7 v O LO M 0 O ; O ; O E T O Y m U Q 00 co r - C) N r- N N (d M N 0 O r N N _M O N c0 G w w m U E 0 •L N O 2 w w (0 U OD O O O CO (OO CO N 0 O O O 060 OD O C) p O LL7 Lo • V 1 V `,n O . o 0 r` 1 1 N � ; 1 1 1 0 CA 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 ' 2 ' N co 7 2 N co O O O T 1 � m 9 , I M N M N N —O W O � LO O OOD O CD , m aD mm ,O O - H rir 0 �v v L LO ' 'o O 1(J r W OCA v N N 1 1 1 CD ; v O Ln CO 4 OD O O] , O O N N O (0 co,O O .0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o] N .................. r j c0 ICi — ' , (V a m co I N to 7 U M I M CD LL~ IN I C7 (ND I to I 1 70 O f— Lo 0 1 co co NCD 1 0 O ,N rn L O M M x LL d O N N I 1 1 0 I 1 I O M OO coN r X d 1 1 N O O 0 N > `� W ' ..N I r 1 1 ' _10 > N W LLL LL 1 M 'O 1 1 O2 LLLL N O O 1 1 In 1 � h , N O 1 1 1 (D ,N O N O M O LO ' Ln O LL~ N ; N 1 1 I N ' p 1 1 1 ' p 1 1 1 O 1 V O O, N co ' N m LL xLLI 1 D 'O� O LD O N IA N 6 , 1 O N X d W NO O LO 1 N > > O , ti O W O LO ' w a d LL N N LL ' O L 4] 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 N , O M O N Q U 'O O C)1 CD ' O 1 O O n 0 co 1 0 1 00 ro 0 n 1 ro to U 0 Io 0 ti 1 M 1 M C7 Cl) C7 1 X LO ; co W z 0 O 1 N 1 00 N co 1 � 1 1 � E O1 -O Y 0 M M U �v v O O f6 L5 d O ~ U ;O LL r0 N O O O ; ' r r O LL7 Lo U `,n O . o ; r` � V 1 1 0 CA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ' O N 7 2 N co O O O C U , , 0 0 _� N N 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 c6 I N I r O N 0 LO U O M N mm ,O O �(i rir 0 � L LO ' 'o co ' ' � 1(J r v N N 1 1 1 CD 1 I N 1 v N 0 Ln U 0) , O , CO N (0 co,O ,M Mr O m n O O co m N Z V ' , ' , a 0 U 0 07 (ND I to I IC.0 ID 70 O f— o rl u] I O 1 0 Vi N O i 0 i 0 O d _ I 1 1 0 I 1 I O M OO coN r X d N O O 0 N N O W 1 1 1 ' I r 1 1 ' > N W 1 O ' O 1 M 'O M O2 LLLL N O O O 1 1 1 O , O O 1 1 1 (D ,N O O N Ln OD co N M Ui LL~ ' p 1 1 1 ' p 1 1 1 O 1 O ' O 1 D 'O� 00 M (=D co N 1 0 1 O N X d W > � O 1 1 0 1 I Cl? I r 1 I N O > O l _ .a2 W O 1 O ' O 1 r 'N C N d LL ' O ' O L 4] 1 1 1 1 O , O 1 1 1 1 N , O M N ou O D Q C)1 CD 1 1 1 Io 1' 1 N 1 1 IM O n 0 co 1 0 1 Cl) OR n 1 1 'O 1 C 1 1 'M 1 0 O Z ti ' O 1 1 1 ' o ' CDoq ' O 1 1 1 ' (0 ' C7 v O LO M 0 O ; O ; O E O1 -O Y m U G Q OD r O N N (d M N O r 0) co 0- N N _M O N O 2 W w m U C O •L a� O 2 w w (0 U C 00 :CN o Dto N 0)O O M O M O LO Ln N N O N 1 1 Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l O 1 O v rn rn U O I O) o 1 0 O O T O O 9 — LO cm N O 1() U O I N 1 0 6 0) M co mM M O O � H N N N O O O U c� cR m p 1 'j - 1 M M m O LD Z N N O U ............ O LO O V I(D I 0 N � O ~ o] O I O IC? M LL O I O I O I I ----r----r---- 1 1 O QLD NCD1 O ION 10 m I N r O O O LO p O x LU N 1 1 1 1 1 1� � � N O W 1 1 _ a O]�G o O 1 0 I m Ln o N O O O 1 1 1 1 O 1 m 1N O1 a1 I V co M t OCD O O x w LL~ O p 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 O u� OCD 0 1 (D 1 d) 1 O I S M LL LL LCD N 0 I p O N O O 1 6 1 1 1 06 O o 1 1 1 1 10 I oo co CL N ti y O N O 1 N O d LL coco D 1 1 O I o 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 S 110 l o m 1 w T M CD CO 0 °o_ y 1 7 O 1 0 Im 1 1 1 1 1 O100 1 O O aCL O O IM ILLOO 1 1 d U O LO c') 1 1 0 1� ILO 1 1 1 1 o IM ILLOO 1 1 LL x 00 O co O Z O N Lfl N U) C� O O 1 I O m O 0 rn It O 17 r c m O _ > oo 0o U x LO LO O a O N N C7 N N O O O � s M a M O O N 0cu R O 4 ~ U O C 00 :CN o Dto NIq O�071� 0)O U 4 m C) v M o �? 1 1 Q1 1 1 1 1 1 Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l O 1 O v O LO U O I O) o 1 0 O O O I M 1 0 O T m 1 N 1 Ir Ir 1O 1 CO 1� OO O O (i O I N 1 0 -Fa CD1M1(`N 00 Q) O 1 1 C�2 0 1 m 1 r 1 1 O 1O to Q U O I M 1 O 1 1 1` N co 00 Q) 0 m p 1 'j - 1 co M 1 1 N O U 0 07 ............ O LO O V I(D I LO_ 0 N � O ~ O I O IC? M LL O I O I O I I ----r----r---- 1 1 O QLD NCD1 O ION 10 m I N r O O O LO p O x LU 1 1 1 1 1 1� >Ln N O W 1 1 _ LO O]�G O 1 0 I m M L LL O O O 1 1 1 1 O 1 m 1N O1 a1 I V O O (0 GD M OCD O I r 1 No I 1 04 M LL~ O p 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 OCD 0 1 (D 1 d) 1 O I S M 00 1� LCD 0 I p O x d Lu O 1 6 1 1 1 06 O � _� 1 1 1 1 10 I O CD O 1 1 COD W .O� O 1 N O d LL 1 1 O I o 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 S 110 l o m 1 O QN CD CO 0 1 7 O 1 0 Im 1 1 1 1 1 O100 1 O O LOW O O IM ILLOO 1 1 0) U O LO c') 1 1 0 1� ILO 1 1 1 1 o IM ILLOO 1 1 ro m x v O O I N 1 Z 7 O 1 1 O 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 I W (D C� f� O 1 I 0 O Cl) O O O It O c m O _ > O H U G Q OD r O N N (d M N O N N N _M O N O 2 W w m U C O •L a� O 2 w w (0 U 00 :CN o Dto N O M O M O U LO Ln N N O N 1 1 1 Z 1 1 Z v rn rn U O LO U T O O 9 — LO cm O N O L() U OO w O 6 0) M co W M M O O � H N N N O O O U c� o O 1 1 1` N co M M m O LD Z N N N O O o U o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o] O O O LO O (D V I I N LID O I O IC? 0- F N C) �o �0 a- LL o I I 1 1 Lo 0 N Lo NCD1 co M t xx O O x w a LU o Io 1� 1 1 1 1 1co 1� �Lo >Ln A N N O 1 1 cli_ LL LL O]�G N 1 I 0 M M N O O O O 1 1 1 1 O 1 O 1N O 1 a I V O O N o W co a LL~ N ti y O N Z O 0 1 (O 1 O 1 O I S M D L O 1 0 I p w T N O1 6 1 1 1 06 O °o_ y 1 1 1 1 10 I O aCL O 1 1 COD d .O� O 1 LL O d LL 00 1 1 O I o 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 N 110 I S M 1 00 O QN O N Lfl N U) O O O O m O rn 0) U 17 r o0 m x v O O I N 1 oo 0o 7 O1 1 O 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 I W x C� LO LO O 1 I a 0 O Cl) O O O O N N C7 O _ > N N O O O � s M a M Ocm O N 0cu R O 4 ~ U O 00 :CN o Dto C NIq O 4 m 0) w o U C) v � M �? 1 1 Q1 1 1 1 1 1 Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l O 1 O v O LO U O I O) o 1 0 O O O I Cl) 1 0 O T m 1 N 1 Ir Ir 1O 1 CO 1� OO w O (i O I N 1 0 -Fa CD1 M o0 0) O 1 1 C�2 0 1 M 1 r 1 1 1(0 1O O 1O to N Q o U O I M 1 O 1 1 1` N co 00 Q) 0 m p 1 'j - 1 co M 1 1 N O U 0 07 70 O LO O (D V I I N LID O I O IC? M N C) �o �0 0 LL I I 1 1 Lo NCD1 O I oN 1 0 M I N xx O O O LO p O a LU o Io 1� 1 1 1 1 1co 1� o >Ln N O 1 1 cli_ LOO O]�G 1 I 0 M M LL LL O O O 1 1 1 1 O 1 O 1N O 1 a I V O O N o0 Cl) CD No I 1 04 M LL~ O p 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 Z O 0 1 (O 1 O 1 O I S M w 1� L O 1 0 I p O x d w O1 6 1 1 1 06 O � _� 1 1 1 1 10 I O CD O 1 1 COD W .O� O 1 N O d LL 1 1 O I o 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 N 110 I S M 1 O QN C D CO 0 1 7 O 1 0 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O LOW O OO100 LOO IM IL 1 I 0) U O LO co 1 1 0 1� ILO 1 1 1 1 o IM ILLOO 1 1 o0 m x v O O I N 1 Z 7 O1 1 O 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 I W (D C� f� O 1 I 0 O Cl) O O O It O c m O _ > O H U G Q OD r O N N (d M N O M N N _M O N O 2 w w m U C O •L a� O 2 w w (0 U O O N ;0) r - N m M O O ' LO'I O N N 1 Ln C) cc lc N N O N Z 1 1 1 ,It = w m Cl U o O D = U T O O 9 O O N O T U rn Oo O U Dio O m 4 O O O OOM F- o ' N M ' Ln N N O M M U m rn O O O cn O O m O fD Z N N O U 0 O f- o] I I O ILO I V I I O U? O I O I cN7. O N cC 00 O i 0 i 0 H LL V t5 Ln N N o 1 O 1 N O 1^ l 0 m N r IL CD 00 . cm x Lu a 1 17o 1 1 1 1 1 1� oo >`n v ?" N O W 1 _ Lo O]�G t O ' O 'M V L LL x w O O O 1 1 1 1 O1 In 1 O 1 07 I V O O N a)Lo C O ~ A N O)� O ' C ' � ' O ' 04M LL LL LL O 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 M M 0 1 In 1 d) O 1 O2 IoM In w m F- CD11 O O O O 7 7 a l0 10 M w O M c O 7 M x d C 1 1 W a w A M N O CL LL 1 1 O l 0 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 S 1 LL� o l o m 1 l_ °O_ y N O a 0 �CL O ' 0 d O Im 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 10 1 D) LL O OO o ' 0 'O 'c 'm to co O O 1 1 0 1� Iv 1 1 1 1 O 1 c O 1� O N O N U) O O O Ln Z o o 1Lo O Q L CD o O ' ' Cl) It o O O O O r- Oo n E O co x O O H N N m cl) (N N (� OOD W to 0 D fD N a N o O Ocu N � R O ~ U O ;0) r - N O O O ' LO'I O N N 1 Ln U o 'M m � � M 1 1 Q1 1 1 1 1 1 Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O l O 1 rn v O D = U o I�o '0 o 0 o I M 1 0 O T m _-Q 1 N 1 1 CD O 1 1 Lo N O Oo O U O 1 m IM 00 o 1L IM V OOM o ' N M ' Ln ' co ' r 1 1 1 1 CD o Lr) N O 00 00 U o 1 co Cl)I 00 O O 1 I N ' L M p] z O M 1 co 1 1 1 N O U 0 07 O f- I I O ILO I V I I O U? O I O I cN7. M N cC O i 0 i 0 O LL I I 1 1 t5 Ln N o 1 O 1 N O 1^ l 0 m N r CD 00 . cm x Lu 1 17o 1 1 1 1 1 1� O >`n O W 1 _ Lo O]�G O ' O 'M M L LL O O O 1 1 1 1 O1 In 1 O 1 07 I V O O N In N C O ~ O ' C ' � ' O ' 04M LL O 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 j O 0 1 In 1 d) O 1 O2 IoM In w m CD11 O O O O N O x d l0 10 G7 w � 1 1 0 1 1 o 1 IcoD O CD C 1 1 W .O� O N O CL LL 1 1 O l 0 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 S 1 LL� o l o m 1 l_ N O a 0 O ' 0 O Im 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 10 1 D) a O o ' 0 'O 'c 'm to U O 1 1 0 1� Iv 1 1 1 1 O 1 c O 1� M m x Cl) O C Lo ' 'M Ln Z o O1 1 6 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 0 1C I W 1Lo 0m1 Q CD o O ' ' Cl) It o O O O O E O � C O = j H U G Q OD r O N N (d CO N O N N _M O N O 2 w w m U C O •L a� O 2 w w (0 U O O N ;0) r - N M M 0 O ' LO'I O N N 1 Ln C) cc lc N N O N Z 1 1 1 ,It = 000 m Cl U o O D = U T O O 9 Op O N O co U rn OO O 6 O rn O OO rn O O CR H N 00 N N 00 Ocn N O M U m rn O O O O W m O fD Z N N N O O O U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o] I I O ILO I V I I OO c0 O I O I cN7. M N o �o �0 N W O O a 00 f/) ll) N v ?" NCD co CD 0 co x Lu V 0 x w O LO W 1 _ A N O)� O]�G O ' O 'M LL LL L LL M O O O 1 1 1 1 O1 l2 1 O 1 tx) I V O M In N C O ~ O ' C ' � ' O ' F- LL 7 7 a M O O M In O m 7 M x d x d a W A N R _� 1 1 03� 1 1 1 1 o Io IcoD >o °O_ y 1 1 aCL 1>)� O ' Or ' d O CL LL 1 1 O I o 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 LL� LL OO N OO O Q O N O N U) O O 0 0 o ' oo ' o 'c 'm O U co O 1 1 0 1� Iv 1 1 1 1 O 1 c O 1� M m x Cl) O C Lo ' 'M � 00 n Do x O O o ' ' OM N N o O O O M Cl) N N (� _ ; O 000 W U O fD s N a N Ocu O N � R O ~ U O ;0) r - N O W O O ' LO'I O N N 1 Ln U m o 'M � � M 1 1 Q1 1 1 1 1 1 Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O l O 1 rn v O D = U o I�o '0 O 0 O I M 1 0 O T m _-Q 1 N 1 1 C9 O 1 1 Lo N O OO O U O 1 M IM OO o 1 L I M V O f 7 N) p ' N M ' Ln ' co ' r 1 1 1 O 1CO o Lr) N O O 00 U Oo 1 co Cl)I 00 O O 1 I N ' L M p] z O M 1 co 1 1 1 N O U 0 07 O f- I I O ILO I V I I O U? O I O I cN7. M N o �o �0 0 W I I 1 1 f/) ll) N o 1 O 1 N O 1^ 10 M N co CD 0 cm x Lu 0 1 0 1 7 1 1 1 1 1� O W 1 _ Lo O]�G O ' O 'M M L LL O O O 1 1 1 1 O1 l2 1 O 1 tx) I V O O N In N C O ~ O ' C ' � ' O ' 04M LL O 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 O 0 1 In 1 to O 1 O0 10M In O m CD11 O O O O N O x d 61 1 0 G7 W R _� 1 1 03� 1 1 1 1 o Io IcoD >o 1 1 coo 1>)� O ' Or ' N O CL LL 1 1 O I o 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 LL� O N o 10O) M 1 �_ 40 Q O ' 0 O 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 10 1 9) a O o ' oo ' o 'c 'm to U O 1 1 0 1� Iv 1 1 1 1 O 1 c O 1� M m x Cl) O C Lo ' 'M Ln Z o C31 1 6 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 I W 1Lo Om) Q o ' ' OM It o O O O O E O � c _ ; O O H U Q OD co 0 N r- N N (d M N O Lf ) N N _M O N O 75 W w m U c 0 •L N O 2 w w U ti 0 N N N O O O O in to uM7 to O U o o O o 0 O 07 O Ni M c0 O LO C)'O 11)O U N p N 0 CA N 1 N 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O z = ; 1 p C) 1 M o M Q 0 1 CD o ' o 1 1 0 1 1 ' cq N O m 01 v 2 000 coo U 0 ID 0 O T o o (p m 9 o0 1 1 O N CO 0 O lo O 1 1 M O 0 m ao , 0 ao o ao cp N p N H 'o N 00 N a p] co O o O ci (O N U o o o ao , ao co co m N ' N Z N N N Io O aI f- 70 U U?I O o I O O N o] o .................. M 0 L N O 0 I 1 1 0 1 0 I 1 t o 1 c) O 2t f/J l() N c? 1 0 O a O O I O I 1 0 0 10 O p w I 1 10 1 1 'o 1� 1 1 'v Ln M 1 O M N o o O N t M 2 L LL O O O x w O 1 1 co ,m O o m w C 10 00 10 1C0 1 LL o Lo �0 1 1 1 N CD o O t o 1 0 t oN 1 0 M O M L LLL LL O 1 1 1 o CD � p x d W 1 1 p 1 p 1 1 'o 1 1r 1 '1- o m >p 00 o m o o co ' O '2 LL a) 'o 1 1 m o o 12 qp LL v 10 a L �0 00 1 0 M 1 co 'y W LL >. O 1 1 0 1 1 1 O (6 , O C)C) O °o ' 0 0 0 0 U% �C O 0 o 1 O 1 1 1 10 'o 100 1 N 1 1 1� L O 1 U L LL O o O 1 �� 1 1 ' O n x O 1 1 M 1 Z M NO :6 1 1 ti N N U)O U ' ' O ;o ;v O 1 O o O o N ' C. N 0 R CD r` o n O Y N 1 N (u _ � 1 � O H 1 1 1 x 1 a) rn 0 , N 1 N O 1 O N , 1 1 N (� r ' o 0 n O ;o 0 CT) �o rn �o O O �_ R N O LL ~ U O N N O O O O in to uM7 to O U o o O o 0 O 07 O Ni M c0 1 1 0 CA 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1N = O 1 p C) 1 M o M Q 0 U CD o ' o 1 1 0 ' o 1 7 10 cq N O m 01 U o ,o ,o 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 (p O 1 O CO 1 CO M t0 O 1 1 0 1 1 M N O 0 U 'o o 'o too a p] o O o O ci (O m t0 Z , , N O U 0 07 o Io I IW) I aI f- 70 O U?I O I O I O O N o 10 10 0 L O 0 I 1 1 0 1 0 I 1 t o 1 c) f/J l() N N O M r xw O O 1 O 1 1 0 0 10 O p w 10 1 1 'o 1� 1 1 'v N o o 1 o 1 � O v O M 2 L LL O O o O 1 1 1 O1 ,o O 1 1 co ,m O o m O co C 00 10 1C0 t{O LL o �o 1 1 �0 1 1 0 CD o O t o 1 0 t oN 1 0 M O M L O 1 p 1 o CD � p x d W > � p 1 p 1 1 'o 1 1r 1 '1- r >p o ti a) m o o 12 to LL o �o �0 0 O 1 1 1 004 1 1 1 O N O C)C) O ' O ' 0 0 0 0 U% O 0 o 1 O 1 1 1 10 'o 100 1 N 1 1 1� 0 0 N O U O o O �o 1 1 ' o �� 1 1 ' O n x O O Z O o ' :6 1 1 ' o :6 1 1 ti O C� r U O ;o ;v v o O o N �o O C. N 0 R O1 -O c Y (u _ > O O H U Q OD co 0 N r- N N (d CO N O N N _M O N O 75 W w m U c 0 •L N O 2 w w U ti 0 N N N O O O O in to uM7 to O U o o O 0 o O rl� .,o O r M O O LO C).p 11)O U N p N 0 CA N 1 N 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O z =0 ; 1 p C) 1 M o M Q 0 1 C) o ' o 1 1 0 1 1 ' O N O m 01 v 2 000 coo U 0 ID 0 O T o o (p m 9 o0 1 1 O N CO 0 O lo O 1 1 M O 0 m ao , 0 ao 0 ao cp N p N H 'o N 00 N a p] co O o O ci (O N U o o o ao , ao co co U Z N N N Io I IW) I O O O U?I O O O O ° I O 0 0 0 0 o] O i 0 i 0 O L O o O ' I 1 1 1 c) H t5 Lr) N r- I o F- O O 1 0 o 10 O p O Lu c? I O I O � 1 1 'v O ' a N I 1 o o 1 o 1 � O v O M 2 L LL O O o N O 1 1 co ,m ft o m t C O O x w t{O LL w o 10 �0 1 1 0 1 CD o O Lo 1 0 1 M 1 L N O 1 O 1 Op � p x d w > � p LLL LL 1 1r 1 '1- 1 1 >p 1 1 0 o m a) 00 o m o 12 co ' O '2 LL o 'o 1 1 �0 0 qp O v 10 a L 00 1 0 M 1 co 'y w LL > O 1 1 0 ' 0 0 O O (6 , 0 0 o 1 O 1 1 1 10 'o 100 1 N 1 1 1� °o O U �C O o O �0 1 1 ' o �� 1 1 ' O L x O 1 Z L LL O o ' 1 :6 1 1 ti O C� 1 1 M 1 U M NO ;v N N U)O o N ' ' O 0 O 1 O O1 ' Y (u _ CD r` o n O N 1 N � 1 � 1 1 1 x 1 a) rn 0 , N 1 N O 1 O N , 1 1 N ' n (� o 0 r O ;o 0 rn �o rn �o ° O �_ R N O LL ~ U O N N O O O O in to uM7 to O U o o O 0 o O rl� .,o O r M O 1 1 0 CA 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1N =0 1 p C) 1 M o M Q 0 U C) o ' o 1 1 0 ' 0 1 7 10 O N O m 01 U o ,o ,o 0 0 O o O co 0 (p O 1 O CO 1CO M O O 1 1 0 1 1 M N O 0 U 'o o 'o too a p] o O o O ci (O m t0 Z , , O U 0 07 o Io I IW) I aI f- 70 O U?I O I O I O O N cC O i 0 i 0 O L o O I 1 1 0 1 0 I 1 1 1 c) t5 Lr) N d O M r xw O 1 O 1 1 0 o 10 O p O Lu 1 1 'o 1 1 'v N o o 1 o 1 � O v O M 2 L LL O O o O 1 1 1 O1 ,o O 1 1 co ,m O o m O co C 00 10 1C0 t{O LL o �o 1 1 �0 1 1 0 CD o O l 0 1 0 1 0 1 M N O M L O 1 O 1 Op � p x d w > � p 1 p 1 1 'o 1 1r 1 '1- r >p 0 ti a) o m o 12 to LL o �o �0 0 O 1 1 l 004 1 1 1 O N O C)C) O ' O ' 0 0 O O U% 0 0 o 1 O 1 1 1 10 'o 100 1 N 1 1 1� 0 0 N O U O o O �0 1 1 ' o �� 1 1 ' O n x O O Z O o ' :6 1 1 ' o :6 1 1 ti O C� r U O ;o ;v v o O o N �o O C. N 0 R O1 -° c Y (u _ > O O H U Q 00 co 0 N r- N (d N N _M C] N O 75 W W m U E O cO G W W N U co T O N O N N N O w M rl O O O N O o 0 O O o 0 0 U O coOND 1 N 1 N N 1 N 0 CN O 1 1 1 1 z O 1 1 1 1 1 CD 1 1 1 1 1N ; = 1 l O I M C) O Q co o 1 1 'm T Q C) O to 1 1 1 CD v �o 0 N O m U O O T �0 CD CD 9 1 0 C -i N ,n O 1 0 O 1 co OD U O 'v o 'CD CD 1 v CD O F- v ; N tco N N N O CD N 1 co ....! ....! 7 N 0 N N z Z , N O ' O ' M I U M U?I 0 O I O I O O N cC ................. O i 0 i 0 O' d ' O O H I 1 N I O M o o 0 0 N O M ro r� x LL O I r r N '� 1 7 0 O LU a 1 1 1 ' Cl) Cn > N �G O 1 0 Co D 1 � O O , O O t CD O ' L12 O 1 1 I M ,co x O m o �0 0 CD O ' O N ' Cl LL~ ----r---- 1 O ' O 1 1 1 ' O 1 1 1 LO 1 O N O O 1 1 I O CO N O M L O LLL LL 'top 1 1 xCL W � _� 1 1 O 1 co 1t0 Ir 1 1 'v Ui r Co O m o , 0 0 g 0 1 o �� r LL O o 'o 0 C13 N L a 1 1 1 O O O O O 1 D Co L 1 1 ID04 O , O CD Lo 1 O �2 x LL O O ' O T O O O N , 1 N 1 1 1 0 ' CO Io 00 N O tll 0 1 C)U o o o > � C 1 1 'CO 1 '0 1 1 x O d z 1 O CD L LL O 1 1 1 C7 0 U 1 1 d O �o N N , p M O C M �o O • ' . O �0 O • ' . N ,r-Oo 1 O� ro Cn R 1 N N c 1 (U _ O 1 N N O ' U LO ' tb Ln o 1 � 1 1 1 'LO x Lo Oz '0 0 N 1 N rn ' C7 1--i 00 DD O m 1 p W 01 C O O 0 R U O as C� O H U a` O N O O O O CO in r— w M rl O U o o O o 0 O C. N cc 0 N 1 N 1 N 0 CN 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 CD 1 1 1 1 1N = O l O I M C) O Q co o U T Q C) O to 1 1 1 CD i�o 1 m 1 CO 1 �o 0 N O GO U o o 'o 'v v �o 0 �C11 0 C -i CD 1 0 N 1 N N O O U o 'CD 'v v p pj O O �O O �6 N CD N Z ....! ....! N .... N N O U 0 07 O ' O ' M I 70 M U?I O I O I O O N cC O i 0 i 0 O d O O I 11 1 O 1 0 I 1 N I O M o f/1 l() D N N O M ro r� x LL o 'o 1 '� 1 7 0 0 LU 1 1 ' 1 1 ' Cl) > N �G O O 1 O O 1 � O N O O] L LL O O O O 1 1 1 CD ,O O 1 1 I M ,co O O m M 0 C O CD O ' O N ' Cl LL~ O ' O 1 1 1 ' O 1 1 1 O O O O 1 0 1 0 1 I O CO N O M L O ' O 'top 00CD 0 xCL W � _� 1CD 1 1 1 ' 1t0 Ir 1 1 'v Ui r >o r- 0 CD 1 _1 O 1 O Cl) ' N C13 N L a O O O O O 1 1 1 O 1 1 ID04 d O O ' O ) ' 0 0 0 0 oo ----r----r---- O O ;o ;00 1 1 1 1 0 ' O �o 1 N 1 1 1 0 ' CO Io 00 N O O to C)U o o o 1 1 '0 1 'o 1 1 'CO 1 '0 rn x O w 0 z O CD O 1 1 'o '0 O 1 1 O C7 0 U O �o �m o O o O • 0) �o O • ' . O �0 O • ' . N 0 O R En c (U _ O O H U G Q 00 0 N r— N N m C`7 N O 00 r () () m 0- N N C'7 C] N 0 O 5 W W m U c O (V cO G W W m U co O N O U L U L O N N N y w LO 11 O O O N O O 0 O O O ' O O U O W ccoo 1 N 1 N . N 1 N 0 O 1 1 1 1 z O 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 ' 1 1 1 1 , ; N _ 1 l O M I C) 0 o c 0 1 1 ' T — C) O 'oo 1 1 1 0 v �o 61 m to U O O v 0 (a 9 1 0 N N O 1 0 o 1 W co U O o 'v v N 'o O 1 o v F- ; N N N O 100 co �0 N ' 0 N Z o ....! N .... N Z , O N O 0 o 0 O FF o CD � FFF j 0 IO � FF j r` I(h LO I -- M O O o I O ' LL~ H O ----r---- O O o '0 0 O (meq Ln L12 x LL (Lq V O O I O i O r O d w I 1 10 1 1 ' 1� 1 1 ' to (n o 1 m co O O O , O O co CD O ' L O O o x O 1 1 I( `7 , (D o 0 0 M to O O ' O ' N 1 LL~ O > 10 ' O 1 1 1 1 N O 1 O 0 1 0 10 1 10 CO U O M L LLLL O 1 1 I co O0 0 00 x CL W 1 1 O 1 co O 1 CD 1 1 ' to o m O o , 0 0 g 0 O o '� 1 7 LL _ .O o 'o 0 1 0 I CN 1 1 1 LLL O O CD O 1 1 1 O04 0 1 o co L o, O O 1Lo O t2 W LL T o j O O 6 � , 1 ;�0 1 N 1 1 1 0 'CDD 1 00 N O O Cl toU o o o > =C rn 1 1 '00 1 '0 1 1 x O w 0 z 1 O 0 'o LLL LL O 1 1 '0ID 1 0 0 Oo 1 1 , d �o d N O , CD CM 1 0 • 1 . 1 0 • 1 . ,P-Oo 1 A moo T 1 N N O c U 1 _ > O 1 N N O ' U LO co tLr> co � 1 1 ' x LO LO Oz '0 0 N 1 N rn ' w C7 -o 00 O o i m 1 NO tD iT C O O O 0 R d U O C� O H U a` O N O O O O (D In f-- w LO 11 O U O o O O 0 O CDtD 0 N 0 N 1 N 1 N 0 1 1 1 1 z O 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 ' 1 1 1 1 , N _ 00 l O M I C) 0 o c 0 U T — C) O 'oo 1 1 1 0 '�o 1 (T 1 CO 1 �o 61 N O Go U o CD 'o 'v o v 0 0 O 1 0 N 1 I N N O O U 'o 'v v o S p] o O �o O ' �0 N ' 0 N Z ....! ....! N .... N N U 0 m FF o CD � FFF j 0 IO � FF j r` I(h LO I -- M O O I O I O O LL~ O ----r---- O O I O I 1 1 0 10 I O I r---- 1 1 > 10(`7 O (meq Ln N OM x LL O 1 1 7 0 0 w 10 1 1 ' 1� 1 1 ' (n > N O O 1 O 1 0 1 N 1 0 N O O J LLL O O o o 1 1 1 0 , o O 1 1 I( `7 , (D O C) m M to O O ' O ' N N LL~ O ' O 1 1 1 ' O 1 1 1 O O O 0 1 0 10 1 10 CO U O M L O 1 0 I co O0 0 00 x CL W � O 1 CD 1 1 ' 1 I r 1 ' If1 r O > O 1 O 1 7 _ .O O 1 0 I CN Cl! LLL O O O 1 1 1 0 O 1 1 1 O04 O N 0 0 0 oo ----r----r---- O1 O ;o 1 1 1 0 'O I ;�0 1 N 1 1 1 0 'CDD 1 00 N O O Cl toU o o o o 1 1 'o 1 '0 rn 1 1 '00 1 '0 rn x O w 0 z O 0 'o O 1 1 O 1 1 '0ID CD 0 0 Oo �o �(D to O • 1 0 • 1 . 1 0 • 1 . O O zm O c U !o _ > O O H U O 2 _O L CL r•1 G Q 00 co O N r` N N m N O 6) N 0) m d N C0 G L c� G Nt O O O . r � N O CN N . N C) uN"� o 0 1 ' ' O N Z � e �ti � m 1 N N U T 1 O 1 O a-- 9 N - N. . M ' M O C) N ' ISN 0 ' O 1 0 O 0 F- N 1 N 0 O m Z o 1 O r 'r _L.... N O � U O m M 1 1 o 10 � - F N ' a ' d Lo N00co 1 0 1 0 co M t LU 0 1 0 1 > 04 1 c ' CO LO LO LL LL O ' 1 O m O In Lo rn 1 rn 0 LL N 1 N m 1 0 yF- c, 1 o ,o t m O 1 O xLLJ > O Io ' m CO O N 0 >_ — LO n 00 00 1 O� 7 LLLL N0 1 N 1 d � Oco L �LO '(D (1)O 1 O 0 1 O >_ N 1 C) �o O r` 1 r- m of N � N O 1 M O LO LO Z O 1O 10 1 1 N ' co ' O W W V 1 Cj N I N • 'L' o .a a m is m cm O V C) r_ E E H N Nt N co N N O = O � O � N M d V O U) O NO m O Q CO O 7 � d � >_ N O O � O � O V O p N o IL m o CD . CD Z CC/)m U p 0 ocs m o O o O O v U o p Q U o = o N = O O O N V co U 0 p = LO o N O 0 O v _ LY 0 CDN Z O U =� 0 J p O co O 2 co v _ O p U = O N U J O O rn cn Iri v 2 co > LO � a U o r O - co ti 0) p o N 0 co O O n C p Lo o 7 3 J p C n ML ULO � -C<jl O II Q) (n D (ll i LU C6 U O E M N O O N N N _M O N O 2 W W_ M U C O •L N O 2 W W f6 U � N rn rn O O U U Ln Ln ,LO Lo 0 '00 M '� o N Z N O 1 O o 'o O0 0 Lq 0 Ql N �LO (, U( O 1 O T R 9 O ' O ' L '� ' O U co rn 'rn m ' v LOv F- 1 N O U ' rn 'rn O ' Oo ] ' z = U � '� ' N O U T o_ 0] O 1 co 1 R00 F- N N ' � - O 1 O a U ' 1 00 co 1 Lo N co R LU v o ' o 1 1 1 1 i :- 52 n ' LL LL O ' 1 U') h rn m OD co 0 LL O 1 O o 'o 1 ' ' 1` 1 cCDCO L LO 'r 1 O xLLI R ' 1 �0 — O a 1 1 =3a - U LL - � 6 N ' N O 0 m 1 O O ' 0 0 ' � O � O 1 O m �m O i 'u U n N 1 N o Cl 'o N 1 a. O O LL z o 'o 1 1 rn ' M (� O' O 1 co r o C> 'o w o 0 ° O N 3 ' 3 E U m� me z 'z� m m L m ii d C m J m N a Lo M. r t- o) rn N O0 0 Lq 0 Ql U( Ln � °M° r co O N Z O O O LO O Ln 7 V 7 = U O O T O O � N O - LLL LL U R v v � � n N O U') h rn m 6 m LO n z O U 6 m O r- n Ln o 0 N a. O O LL co N Lo O � N � r xLU o 0 O O a� ._. N U- 0o co o 1- `O CD O r- O ti m xLU O O T o 0 R wo U- D d N O O O O O O (n M (0 M O O LC N U N Cl! O � O � x LOC) N 0 0 O rn m 0 0 0 W ... 0 R z 0 � L c 3 R � O J -O 0 U M N O N d N N C'7 O N O 2 w LLI m U c O •L O 2 W w (0 U N +' u t co 2 U) /m V cz z C O N m 2 ' 't hco ti 0 L ; 00 O N O N' Lx? 1 o 'o m CO LO N U m — r- n U co O m I- N Z _M O O U O LO O v 'com 7 V � U O O T O O O ' c+7 , ,CD m ,O N ' M � N N ' O - LO N U m m m o �� 1 � , , v - n o N N O LO N N 1 M p 1 m rn b v v m 3 O LO ti Z M LU LL > a O , , 1 O LLL , U � o_ 1 m , O 7 O 07 V' O O 1 co ' LO 0 o 'r- 00 O m '� H N ,C 1 1 N ' to r r Z N 0- O O 0 - o Lo Lo m � N r � d 0) c Lx LL O O > cn N LL oo co O m r- 2 o O O LL o 0 W O tiI- WLL x a o 0 m a-- j O O) � d LL m u, N O O M O O O C 9 O O (/J r- O r- 0 O uO In U N N O � O � x O LO LO O EN O N O 0 O O O oo O C7 O T r- 12 N (.o zN (6 j. . O N L Z) c 3 �a aotz O O H J a o U t co 2 U) /m V cz z C O N m 2 ' 't hco N O 0 L ; 00 O co N ' V , O O O N' Z 1 o 'o WO LO O 1 U m — o 1� m 0 'N N1 ° U vt � m I- p H W 1O N ' V ---- :0) N----F 0 U co ND ' o v 'com m z W ' (O N ' N ....L ... co N 0C) O O7 U O '�rn o m O ' c+7 , ,CD m ,O N ' M m N ' a ' 1 co N m co 1 7 1 cq N 1 cq x LU o �� 1 � , , L LLa , , c:> 1 N 7 1r - LL N 1 M p 1 3 O 1 L 1 N 1 Ci M LU LL > a O , , 1 >o - LLL , � NOCO 1 m , O 7 O V' O O 1 co ' LO 0 o 'r- 00 U m '� N ,C 1 1 N ' to X O Z ,r p 1 1 0 0 � 00 W � , N 1 � •.iii.• .a O a) m m , CM d 0) c U G Q 00 co r O N ti N N m r) N N M r O N 0 O LU LU p U d ca o U •L '^ > / VI O G1 LU d a LU Qf6 U 04 N OO O N CO O O Cl) r N O ' p M . C ' p co w ci O p O . N O p pp V 1 1 1 O 1 C 1 1 a N 1� 1 1 Z 1 0 1 1 1 I N Cl) 1 1 1 1 1 I W ' N I 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 O O N U �4 p �o m S — O I M 10 1 1r 1 10 N O 0) O U O I M 1� I p N C 1 0 0 Q 1 O 1 C) N r - F - O I 1 0 101� I r 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 N1 O IA co O co 01 .0 1 1 r- z ....L..-.- ' N M O ' N ....- ' ... Ic N N. M O O M M U ' (O 61 1001 O_ C'Ib M M CO O H o 'r- ' Cl) : 0 O O N O O CD : M CO : O O : O r M N a o 1 Im 1 1� 1 to NIn c N O I p M 1 0 1 0 M L X LL LU C) I I r 1 1 1 1 I p 1 1 1 1 C) 1 cs 1 1 1 Cn M2 1 1 1 1 1 1 z 0 - LL LL O O1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 I p O O N 0 O I cq ' O ' O M LL o o 1 1 1 1 1 1 L OI p IM 1( I p 1 0 1� n M X LL CD O I r I p 1 O W T 1 1 1 C, CZ 1 1 1 L LL 1 1 1 I C I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I d 1 1O� 1 N O 01 Cl)1 I p p 1 ' 1 1 .(0 1 is 1 1 i O 1 O 1 W 1 t - O (� IM I N 1 l0 1� 1 1 ' V 1 N 1 1 IN 1 1 1 1 ID co f0 OX 00 N Z V 1 1 1 I M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I N n U O O Cl) Iap 1 (` Irn I M 1� I M o 7 N 1 1 p 1 p N • , i\ 1 (••) 1 i , , I 1 iY i , , I 1 iY i , V 0 O U c o oLL .2 6 cLiU F U U .Q G Q 00 co r O N r - N N m N O Cl) N m 0- N N r 0 N 0 O 2 W W_ m U c O •L O 2 W W m U O d U v! Q NW) If/ n N O W O O O 0 ;" U p . W N . p 0o0 N N N 1 1 1 In 1 1 n O 1 1 1 N (N 1 0 1 1 O Z I p 1 1 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W 1 o) Lo n U �o �o o m N 9 1 n 1 1 O — O1 0 1 1 0 O O O I n I M 1 0 C O 1cD 00 1 1 � -N w e 1 W 0A 0 1 r 1 F- O ' N I N 1 ccN 1 1 1 N 1 n 1 1 O nco ci N O I N 1 N� ( O m1 0 1 1 W z ' N ' N ' N - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - N O O O U o O 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 ....-.T........T........T........ o co o rn (0 O CO N Q O P ' CO ' O 7 O lo : O N LL~ o o L o L o 0 1 1 1 (� In O I OJ 1 1 0 m N O co11r- 10 M t CL O O ' O N W LL o o o 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ci 1 1 1 �- 1 1 1 LLL d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O m O ' W ' co ' O -e o O — ' O ' O N CL 1 1 1 1 1 1 wo O 0 M � o Ico 1rl- to In x LL O O O O O Lu 1 1 1 L LL 1 1 1 LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t o I d 1 d cD O ' 0 1 0 0 1 O O �p �qo vo 1 1 CQ 1 1 1 1 to 1 1 1 1 1 co 1 O 'o U 1 0 I N 1 M I p I N 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 x 100 c, I N 1 N Oz loo 1� 1 to Ip 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 V I O 1 I N N 0 O 1 W 10 1f` N QMi �N �M �M COD N 1 0 1 0 1 0 M 1 1 1 a° E t a N U c o m ° F 04 O ti r•1 N O_ D LL O U m LL m O J N 4 E D Z ULL U !n J Q O ti r•1 N O_ D LL O U m LL m O J N 4 E D Z C) \ / 75 L L / \ / » / L L / � / @ .. c ) ƒ r ® 2 2 & y / o CL ƒ § 2 § m LL � \ @ = c \ o @ o f \ ]02 a / Cl) § / U ) j — \ / ! \ 2 3 = e G LL m co 0 \ \ @ p 4) k J a , w o 0 3 § @ .. c ) ƒ r ® 2 2 & y o CL ƒ § § m LL � � @ = g o @ o f ]02 a / g k \ / U ) j — \ / ! \ 2 3 = e G § k j a � @ .. c ) ƒ r ® 2 2 & y CL § § k j a � .. m v 2 r ® 2 2 4 § o @ } En ƒ U ) j — \ / \ 2 3 = G m co 0 a 4) .2 o Ecn , w o 2 a 3 r k \ £ % q ] EC '4 2 . _ u § 0 z-- Q 00 0 N r - N N (6 00 N O N O 0) co d ,a U co LO ti N C cz J N N r m M N N C O U Y M ai c co U p O U O U) U C O U C C� C Q CT W co O O m N L O N O N U O U X 0 c+) 3 U) CD N U O O r O E a) C C) C Q W O O O N O_ CU U y m H M N N O 0 cz m U X N Ol 'co V C C� C Q .5 07 W O O O O E O O LO Ln r— r c O O E m I CD C) C) O C co ti E m cn .E w N O :� :� :� O p :O W a) 07 > N _ p I� 7 ; ; � O 0� ?i 6) M .O N O .O . O . O U N LO Lp Lf) Z M N N N . O m 7 co co p . p . O .O .O . N . V. O ' O Ln w N � .N .O .O .O .N .� .p p ..i...i...i...i...i...i...i ...i ...i ...i...i...F ... a) Q c cu CD am) ate)20 Z LL LL W U LL O E N N a) a) .ON �= .� m .Lu c�a �� .0 . �� .w .� O L L L - J J . . . . U . , . . 0 .a .a .Q :� : 'O .o ..F...;...;...;. ........... U) N. (n . (n . (n °' IL ' 2 'a ' 2 'a ' - 'a : rn m ' E o ' E o ' N ..Q ' (n ' Q ' (n ' Q E as c O c O c O c�� O �� Z, •� • ) Z v v v v � a) a) m as .'0 '-0W .� L L. 2 i ;U ;( m J :U .! a) .! a) .� m O O U E m cn .E w N G Q 00 co r O N ti N N m 00 N 1- 0 d N N r 0 N 0 O 75 W W_ m U O •L O 2 W w m U r�1 t Q) o .� L r n NO O m o n r U O r . N LO 1 O O O O O m Q O O N z O ' O O O 1 1 O O Z 7 2 O O , OM N o CJ 0 ,mO o Ico 0 U T H----r---- ' M 7 1 T 0 O M U 04 O M U O0 1 N L ' N 1 , , N N ' N 1 , m1 O Ln m O 1 N N O O 1 n fD m 1 V ' N T z (n 1 O O IA N O O U In o 0 Cl 0 0 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 m m O : o V In 1() Ho) c) m N a o 70 0 N a 1 O 1 O n !J P- N C) V , M N t N 1- p N W LL O 1 W 1 1 LI)1 N 0 O , O M O W In > N CD N O� O (D ; Mp O LL a O N O LL a 1 1 (D 1W CO O O R O F- O ' N LL o �o 1 C O M O 0 0 0 M O L N ' O p N x W j O 7 1rn 1 o W O VI d O >_ LO ,CD CD CD 1-11 M �� =3 CL M Q 1(o C LL 106 1 1 W 1 W 0 o W O �, 000 O O U)1 N O O 1 c 0 (O 1 N 1 V 1 T O O (D N O 00 ' T x z'7 to m ri o 1 1 O 1 (LO v '� m x O (CDD m z to to 1 co 1 � 1 C7 7 W _ � C16 O 1 O 1 % N N F W O N O O O U O O N Q z p v o 04 2 O U o O U c f0 p O F O U c O_ C Fn z N O o U O o c m N R N a °' sC, c lx a o > 'n O r NCL O �C M U- CL O R � C F Ln 7 CO O R� O Ma x W j o MCL 04 M d N LL O O O !n o 0 p 0 O O 0 z o O o O c w0, 2 7 W CL W w 7 O Ln N n N O o rn o n r W 1 O O O O N O O ' O Z O O 1 1 O 2 00 0 U ,mo o I c o 0 T ' M ce) V 1 04 O M U m ,N N W 1 n Hif ' N 1 , m1 O Ln N Q 1 N N O W , n tC m (o 1 cV ' N C) z In 1 O O In N O O U o 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 m m Ho) c) m Lq OM : O M N a O O O 1 O 1 N n In n N V , CD Mp N t N N W LL O 1 of 1 1 O 1 W 'OM O W (n N .�--.N m (D O ; p ( O LL a co O N O I 1 N00 1 , n Moo O R O o LL o �0 1 C O M (D 0 N O M O N ' O 00 N W O 1 O O M 1 a O >N , 00 M P- M =2 LL LL 1 (OO 1 of 1 1 1W O O 0 o O c O 1 O O 0 0 (D 1 N 1 V 1 n T O O O O N O ri � o 1 1 o 1 (`�r� ri x z'7 to m z 1 1� 1 (DO to to Q W O ' O 1 1 W O N O O O U O O N Q z p v o 04 2 O U o O U c f0 p O F O U c O_ C Fn z N O o U O o c m N R N a °' sC, c lx a o > 'n O r NCL O �C M U- CL O R � C F Ln 7 CO O R� O Ma x W j o MCL 04 M d N LL O O O !n o 0 p 0 O O 0 z o O o O c w0, 2 7 W CL W w G Q 00 co C) N r- ti N 00 N O co 0- lie I O :o :M N co U1 .N .� 'Qq 'COM .O 'O�j . ' , N �O U 7 . p N . C r N M r 1 1 1 1 O � M 1 1 o 1 � M 1 l p 1 I d I p M O M_ 1--c ' M o ' Z O 10 I o 10 1 O? O V d1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 co I M 1 0 I N 1 1 1 1r- 1 (O 1 r- 1 1 I co 1 CO 7 O O UO ' p ' O ' W ' M N O ' O ' O 1 1 ' O 1 ' O 1 T co 1 1 1 1 N 1 7 I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 N O W N U N 1 1 I r I r N V 1 I N N 1 0 I M r- Lo 0 W 1 o I r I I M I to 1 I r 1Lo I V 1 7 I N 1 1 1 0 1 1 I M r N O O N U Cl ti �I I r INN Cl 1 N 1 I N CO N V O m N M 1 1 o I r lo I 1 p 1 1 In 1Lo IR z o0 r 1 o 1 rn 1 N O m U .p .p 'co "n h O CCJ �� �� �M N CO o'f H rn pc, :m ;o ;0 0 r :o 'MQ:O a o �oo 70 70 �0 0 IL r` 1 1 1 IM 1 to 1 to N(r> r R N 1 N p o 1 0 O 1 o O M r x d W O 1^ O l O 1� 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 l 0 l O 1 0 1 1 1 l O 1 0 1 1 1 O N n O 04 �� 1 1 0 1 I N 1 1 1 1 Ifl N W I- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 co ' N 1 1 1 1 1 0 'O 1 1 1 1 1 0 ' O C p O Lo O 7'p0 I M I r p 1 1 0o c0 N CL O I h 1 r 100 1 ~ 1� I 1 1 :Op M :CO OM p 1 r 1 1 :O 1 0 1 1 1 :O 1 0 w R N x CL ti Ip10 'O W j O 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 N O O 1 I r 1 1 LCL W Q M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N I o n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N Ili r (o o 0 o I Q I p cl 1 1 C Ln O 1 o7 I p 1 (o 1 1 1 1 1 I p I'T 1 1� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O N A c) M N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t o 1oo I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x O 0� N Z p O co r r ' O 1 I r 1 1 1 1 Lo p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ci CD W O N 1 1� 1 1 Do LQ • . i\ 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 i. • i\ i ........... 1 1 11 1 1 22d ;- R Q W U G Q 00 r' C) N r - N _N m 00 (N O LO a) 0) m 0- N N C'7 r' C) N 0 O 75 W m U C O •L cO G LLI w m U r�1 N Q1 O O U N n Z M � N = n U M N O m R O O F N 0 clj Op m Z O N U N O_ W Co 49 Co an IL N N WN co N O t2 Ka Co LU j N a NO O 7a c LL O_ NO CL F O a o 0o v, L CL T xa n W � O � O O °la � LL N F- 0 O ? y W u� O a? U 1C M O a? Z O M � M C Vv 3 d � CL Q M LIE OD p . M Of W) (7 Q (DC) cljN . '(O 'COM .O 'p�j .� V 01r U M . p . N M . c . r- h 1 1 1 1 O V 1� 10 I M 1 10 1 1� I M O N 0 0' M O I p I p ' M O O Z (T 1 0 1 o 1 C) 1 Cn o LD 1 1 1 1 I I N 1 W I M cM I O I N p 1 1 I 1 f� ICO I n 1 I 1 f� ICD 7 01 M Do U °� O O ' O ' O 'off 'M M ' O ' O 1 1 ' O 1 ' O 1 T 1 1 1 1 W V1 N I Ni I p I M M M I p I r I 1 M I r 1co I L O IA M 1 1 1 to I V 1 7 I N 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 o r N O LO O 'Q V 1 c I N N 100 I I N I N m N V Co M V I p I r I crj I p 1 1 1 L n I LO N I O r 1 1 O 1 1 ' N O o U o o 'o 'o .o .o °? �o) .o n °? ..O- o H o :o '°� ;o ;o Lq :o O : O M c\l: O O coa : O : O O 1 I I O ' 1 I o0 1 I o0 L: J N O O I M 1 O f Op 1 O 1 O v X d lL O O O om I (p I O 1 1 1 1 1 1 (D I O 1 1 1 I O 1 1 1 O O LO > O c j 1 1 0 1 1 CO Na) LL m O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICD I O M 1 1 1 1 to I O 1 1 1 to I O O O N m 117 r0 I O p N I N ti0 1 00 1 Op 7 d (J I O 1 CO 1 1 1 1 1 OM (00 O O I� I 1 1 1 �O I O 1 1 1 �O I O co N Cl) X d O M I n o 1 0 ' O ' O O L 1 y O 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p > O O L d LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N I N 1 o p0 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N O c p 0 0 I p I I I 0o M ICn Ip 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 N ' ' I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 O O O L() Ca p O N 1c; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 l 0 1 1 112 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LO Qn n r z M M r 1 1 1 1 1 CO 1 LO I N I O 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I Cl) i� CD CO O C 1 c Lo 1 1 1 Q O ' O ' O 1 1 1 1 ' T 1 1 1 1 c O @ O Q W ~ U N Q1 O O U N n Z M � N = n U M N O m R O O F N 0 clj Op m Z O N U N O_ W Co 49 Co an IL N N WN co N O t2 Ka Co LU j N a NO O 7a c LL O_ NO CL F O a o 0o v, L CL T xa n W � O � O O °la � LL N F- 0 O ? y W u� O a? U 1C M O a? Z O M � M C Vv 3 d � CL Q M LIE Q 00 ro 0 N N (iS D 00 N O N m m c 0 .Q N 0 ❑ 0 m d o- >, N �N �M �N N 1 I N 1 1 1 1 E 1 1 1 Z 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 co 1 1 1 ❑ a) 1 1 1 1 1 1 O > 1 1 1 Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 N ❑ 1� �_ _0' O W C O ' O ' O ' N N ' N ' N : O W N CV 7 N (6 ❑ ;r- ;fes ;I- W O ' N ' N ' N i N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 d 1 1 F .0 1 O 1 1 O1 1� 1 O N ' ' ' ;U 16 1 1 1 7- 1 1 1 1 m1 0 1 ' O 1 .O 1.c 1 .0 1 CC', ' O 'O L 1 i2 > i ❑. Ay :°. A N C Z C U i U) w .0 d p (6 c U 0 O . O � U .O N 7 (6 N CO I Z O 'N co V l!7 O 2 zo O Q r` 00 co r 0 N N 6 m 0 i U m LL O O J Q O 0 E co z N fn l6 d M 'M 'O 'W 'W 'O '- 'O O V 'r-- L N 'C0 W W r� M I I M � M N N ' r- M I � ' M M � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -hN -ham-F---FN-,,:;7 -FF -F -ham -h-,,:;7-.1^ am F-Fo -Fo 1 1 1� 1 1 1 1 1 1-F 1 1 1 1 CO (O m CO O) 't N M M : r- 1 � I N I co N 1 � 1 � I N 1 I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ;C) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 O o to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to ;o W 'O '00 'Cfl 'W 'W 'W 'M 'rte ' W ' W 'r- 'CO 'N 'W 'OJ 1CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --=7C-Y)- = -N- = ;-= ;- = 7= 7=I M-- = 7=7C -Y)- = 7=7C -Y)- =;-= q C,4 --� N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I to 1 1 1 I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 I N 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 I U 1 1 1 I U 1 1 1 1 CO 1 I 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 0 I m 1 1 1 I m 1 1 1 1 1 I N 1 1 1 I N 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 I D 1 1 1 I D 1 0 1 1 1 iN+ l 0 1 1 I E 1 : O 1 1-0 1 1 1 1-O 1� 1 1 I N 1 1 1 1 I N 1 1 I N 1 1 I J 1 1 1 I J 1 0 1 I L 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 t o 1 1 1 I W 1 !Z 1 1 1 1 l i 1 l i I N 1 0 1 l i l i 1 1 1 : E U i m i� i i m is i� i i c iY i i i� i i.� i ;(j I Co X 1 I U I X I co 1 1 fL 1 f6 l 0 1 1 (L 1 0 1 1 I Q U L W L L Cn L L C7 1 W' L U LLL L U` L: L. L a L a L T L Q ...4 ...4 ...t ...LT. .t ...t ...Lt. .4...4...4...4 ..4 ..t ...t ...t ...: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o o o o 2 2 2 2 2 o C C) 0 C C . m o 'U O. ; .O ; .O F , :2) ) E E E 0 '0 '0 '(D m m 'CD 'CD 'CD 'C7 'm 'm ' ' 'm 'a ' a CL ' 'Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V) (n �U _ N N 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 V) 1 1 1 1 1 1 `oU x l x I x I x x 0 L N U L N to Y U x x x x 1 x o` QI QI QI MI 0I - -F O 1 0 1 0 H L O O N' NNNN � C _ O 7 J -r � -r 0 -r C) 0 . Q;-� ;- c� L 1.0 1 10 1 1- 1 C-0 : oC: 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - ---- 0 0 0 1 7 --*... 0 'o f? I[,- 1 r--:1 � : � Y N 1 1 1 1 1 1 o f 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 �- O I O I O I O ; O HD C6 :`O :O :O O E � E r- 1 N I 1 I 1 I I I I Z = I I I H o O 1 0 ICO 1 0 O U E 1 1 1 N Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 > O 1 :O 1 :O 1 :O LO CL O :O :O :O LO c : n ; L _ `m E z >O co -L--- L�--L f '�Q c cr LUU m 0 O ..:.. N E U ? � o m .0 Z0 . m 'o m coco O U L= 5 N IL p � .J :� E .� G Q 00 co O N N _N m 00 N O 00 m 0- N N 0 N 0 O 2 W W_ m U O •L cO G w w m U G O O N M O .rn o NO o N N O cq W U O M r N co-, 1 1 1 O 1 O O O 1 0 1 0 O O 1 00 00 O O o �0 O 0 O C) 4% 1 1 0 1� �0 1 1 1 N 0 v 2 O ,0 0 U 0 0 o '0 0 O O n o '0 0 O p W N T 2P ' W 1 10 1 1W U O O 1 UCSO UOD o0 1— 00 CO m 1 CO CO @ 04 1 O C; 1 CC H N ----r----r---- °0 m 1 M 1 Cl) cli N O 0 U CD C4 ,o ,o CD � co W M 1 1 m o m O (D 1 0 I M M Z 1 , Z N O 0 U O O O o o O O O O o 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 DO 0 0 0 .................. 0 07 @ 0 ......................... N C, M O_ 0 �N C,V I O N m �D N IO I0O N0 N O i 0 O a IL 1 ----r----r---- N CDCD I 1 1 0 10 I 1 I R 111 n Ln fn Lo �N O 1 W W O N MO O IC70 x W LU I r 1 1 l0 ' mL� d .�N � O O W O 0 10 0 0 100 1 1 7 a LL Cts 1 I V M 10 1 1 N 1 0 M 100 17 1 1 1 O 1 0 M N O O O O 1 O LLCL 1 O O 11 1 1 cc 1M 0 1 1 1 Ir 1 1 O cc co r - O 1 0 10 1 0 10 Ln N OM L O p Ln , , CD C, N O NO 1 1 1 j N O 1 1 O 1 1 O r O 1 M M N 0 CD 1 1 0 1 C M N � M o 0 0 CDC O O ,0 o 0 LLa �0 1 O 1 (D W O 1 1 co 0 1 1 1 Io O w d 04 O co' 1 O _ O 00 M O 1 co O 00 rn CN Cl) oo ' 10 1 1 1 ' O o 0 LLa N 'o 1 1 ,a 0 d OCD 1 1 1 1 O C, 0(I W ;oo 00 0 o ,O O 1 V -q Z 1 �o 1 1 1 Arno 1 � 1 1 0 1 W 0) 0m 1 0 CO M U ' M r> O CDO �0 0 I0 1 1 'r- IQ CD x 1O ' . O n N O R 04 v C �0 1 1 0 O o 0 U O O � O O N O O O R ~ U ° ;O LL ro O o m o 0 O N h U o N ,o r N 1 1 O 1 0 1 0 O O 00 00 O Z O C) 4% �o 1 1 1 O �0 1 1 1 N 0 47 2 0 0' C)' 0 0 00 U O O n 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 I rl O p W N T H W 1 10 1 1W O UCSO 1 0 1 CO m M 1 0 04 1 n F- N ----r----r---- °0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 I W N N O U � ,o ,o rn p M 1 1 n m o N 10 1 n N Z O O' O N 0 O U o CD 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 ......................... N C, M 0 �O 0 �N C,V 0 N CD M O N IO I0O N0 O I V M IL ----r----r---- N CDCD I 1 1 0 10 I 1 I R 111 fn Lo �N N �M Xd MO 1 0 IC70 00 W 1 1 1 to ' I r 1 1 l0 ' mL� d .�N � O O W O 0 10 0 0 100 O O Np 7 a LL Cts 1 I V M 10 1 1 N 1 0 M 100 17 1 1 1 O 1 0 M N O R O O O F- co O M 1 0 I C O 11 00 0 1 1 1 Ir 1 1 0 O� 011, 0M 1 0 10 1 0 10 Ln N OM L O p Ln , , CD C, N O NO xd W j N O 1 1 O 1 1 10O 1 r 1 1 r N 0 C J 1 0 1 C 1 V I C) M N � M O)CL CDC O O ,0 ,LOO O 00 O 7 d Lb 1 O 1 (D V LL co 0 1 1 1 Io 1 r 1 1 10 w d 04 O oo 'C'oo 00 fn 00 rn CN Cl) oo ' 10 1 1 1 ' O ' 00 10 I N 1 1 ' O � O M O N 'o ;Oo 0 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 N W x O 0 o ,O O ,ov o0 La 0 Z o �o 1 1 1 Arno 1 � 1 1 0 0 M 1 0 1 0 V O M 0 OCD �0 O CDO CC I0 1�0 IQ O • • 1O ' . O 1t • ' . N N R C O O H U G Q 00 _co O N r— N Id 00 N O CF) co 0- N N _M C) N O 75 W W_ m U O •L cO G W W (0 U ti 0 N a 0 o NO o N N o O CO U o M h N con 1 1 1 0 1 O O O o �0 0 z O 1 0 1 o �o 0 O o a 1 1 O 1 �0 1 1 1') 0 v 2 o ,0 0 '0 00 00 U C) rn '0 to '00 Io op (o T F ' ' W 1 1 0 1 I W O O O 1 W � U CSO 0 '— l0 1 O f0 N 1 O (D to 001 F N co 1 M 1 M N N U n U CD Cli C-4 Q , o O 1 F C2 M l 0 1 m m O 1 (0fo 0 I M M z 1 , O O N O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 o] 0 0 0 .................. 0 07 0 ............................ N MV 00 o 0 �N a o N 00 �rn v Lq I O 0 O O I O O N � M I O u7 I O a a 1 O M O I 1 1 l (CZ)) O I 1 1 S l 0 l n O (n y l() N O 1 a0 a0 N Cl? O O 1 0 0 t W CD a) Cl) x LL I r 1 1 1 N ' O O O LU1 N .� C-1 W O O 1 O 0 0 1 O O 1 LL LL W a In I V N 1 d N l 1 1 N 1 0 0 M 1 0 M 1 O p M O 0 R O O , O O O LL LL CD O -O ((j 1 N LL F 1 1 ' M 1 0 1 1 1 (q 1 1 G O M 1 0 1 O 10 O N O M LL o 0 0 , 0 0 x N p Iq O 1 1 1 j N O 1 l0 1 1 O r O 1 M M a) O 1 � o 0 0 x LL N Q M OCC LLJ ,O O O O 7 d � O 1 1 1 0 1 (D V LL (9 m 1 1 1 1 O I r 1 1 1 a) CC) a) O O 1 0 a 00 O o LL C 1 O 1 1 1 ' 0 ' 0 0 1 O 1 N 1 1 ' ON 0 0 M O 1 1 ,a CD d NcD O 0 ' 0 0 C2 O O 1 1 1 1 O 0 0 0 O p 1 � � (o o ,o O 1 0 z o ;o 1 1 1 1 (S) T O 'm M U 1 O 1 O ' M M O �0 0 o CD 11 1 1 'r- 0 x 0 n i' 0 O 1 O ;N v '0 1 1 1 0 0 C) U �0 � O O f/) O O R > '0 p -E) ~ U II ;O LL a) c co o M o O o N n U m N ;o h N 1 1 O 1 0 l 0 O O 1 0 1 O z O o a 0 �O 1 1 Io �0 1 1 1') 0 m 2 00 '0 00 00 U C) rn '0 to '00 Io op (o f - W 1 1 0 1 I W O h U CSO l0 l0 Cl?04 l 0 1 n N co l 0 1 10 1 1 1.0 N N U n U (0 ,o , o w M l 0 1 n m O 1 1 h N O O O N O O U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 07 0 ............................ N MV 00 0 �O 0 �N 0 N M o N � I O I O 0 N 0 M I O I V M a O M O I 1 1 l (CZ)) O I 1 1 S l 0 l n O y l() N N O M O X 2 Cl? O 1� 0 1 0 0 ? O W a) Cl) l 1 1 1 O ' I r 1 1 1 N ' a) In N N .� C-1 W O O 1 O 0 0 1 O O 0 0 N p LL LL W 1 0 I V M l 1 1 N 1 0 0 M 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 ) N 0 R O O CD O ' (fl 0 O LL F M 1 0 1 1 1 (q 1 1 G C) 1 O 10 1 a) l0 In N O M s O 0 , 0 , 0 0 x N p Iq O d W j N O 1 l0 1 1 100 1CD 1 1 r a) O a) 0 Cn 1 0 1 0 I N l 0 (`M N Q M OCC "'O O ,O ,rO 0 00 O 7 d M 1 0 1 (D V LL (9 m 1 1 1 1 O I r 1 1 1 a) CC) a) O 00 'o 00 00 W o o' Cn N (MC') o C 1 O 1 1 1 ' 0 ' 0 0 1 O 1 N 1 1 ' ON 0 0 M O CD ;o ;oo 0 1 1 1 1 O In 1 1 1 N p x O (o o ,o O 00 0 z o ;o 1 1 1 ;rno 1 � 1 1 0 O D M 1 O 1 O 1 4 10 V N O M O 0 o CD 11 0 0 i' 0 h a 1 O 1� O h O) F- C) U G Q 00 O N r- N Id 00 N 0 O r N N _M O N O 75 LU w m U E 0 •L N O 2 LU LU (0 U N N o N C) N W . N CMCDC) NO p O o n � N n N U p 00 Co M 1 v O 1 O O 1 o �0 0 z ON O 1 o o �o 0 1 1 O 1 n �0 �0 n v o �o 1 1 10 C=J 0 o I o 0 2 C3 '6 0 ' 0 0 T ' o o rn N ' O 10 1 U O o n Cl) O 1 W DD U 1 10 O I N N UM Lo O 1 OR O 1 p O 1 W 0 Co 1 CO 1 M 1 O U CJ O' Co 1 1 1 I N W 00 I U O N p 1 O N O m Q 1 W CO z 1 1 M 1 O O M N O 0 1 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o] N O U O M 0 0 0 07 O 0 �O Co 0 H m �m N I O In N IL 2 O I O O O IL ILr) 1 O M O Lo I 1 10 l o L, O O I M M N x p Co 1 0 0 CD N Cm x N o o 0 0 N N LQ N N M2 p 0 V O 1 1 p 0 1 0 Oto 0 0 7 LL LL > Ln O CMO 1 I N n 'tO M .. N 1 1 1 O 1 O LL LL O O O 1 1 1 Co LL ~ O ' O 1 1 1 ' I r 1 1 1 0 M O O O a l0 l o i n ; 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ' 0 0 005 x d LLIj CD Cl? N O 1 CO M M N O , LO CD Cl 1n 0 x n 1 0 1 I O M LLI O)CL O O O 1 O � O 1 1 d LL L O N O 1 d1 1� 1 1 1 4= 1 > 04 O (O , LO O ' 0 0 O 1 0 a oo c0 O o LL � M Co 1 1 1 ' O N io 1 1 ' O iloo 1 1 1 d 0 r NCD O O ' o o 2 O O U) ;12o o 1 1 1 'o 1 Co 1 1 'o 1 � � x 0 1 cNo (D 'o 'po n Z In t- o 0 ; O 1 Co 1 1 ' OM M U ' M M 1 O ,o 1 N �0 0 1 1 ' OD C) C, C. O w x U N 'v N a IL o Io 1 1 1 0 E O1 -O c Y ; O O 0 U �0 ,0 0 O O R N > - ~ U ;O LL N N C) m W 0 O M p O n o M v 1 1 ON O 1 o 1 0 o o �0 �0 0 z o �o 1 1 10 �0 1 1 14 0 m 2 C 0 ' c ' 0 0 cc U o o rn N ' O 10 1 ' p 0 Io 1 Co O o n Cl) T 1 10 1 IN UM Lo U a 1 p I N O N cD 1 1 O F- V co 1 O 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 I N N 0 U rn o N 1 I n O m 1 1 M O o 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 N O U O M 0 0 0 07 0 ............ N M pN 00 0 �O 0 �N V 0 o d M N I O I cD O w O 2 L6 IO ILr) Lo O M O I 1 Io 1 0 O I 1 10 l o L, O t5 Lo N d O M O x p 1 o 1 0 0 r 0 W N o I 1 1 1 0 ' 1 1 1 o 1 ' N N LQ N N M2 p 0 V O O 1 O p 0 1 0 Oto 0 0 7 LL LL O 1 I N n 'tO N 1 1 1 1 1 1 M O LL ~ O ' O 1 1 1 ' I r 1 1 O M 0 O M Io 1 0 l0 l o i n d o M L 0 0 ' q ' 0 0 005 x d LLIj N O Cl? N I p 1 1 1 1 0 I r 1 1 M N N n 1 0 1 I O M n N O)CL O 1 O O I.0p O d LL L O 1 1 O 1 1 1 O 1 d1 1� 1 1 1 4= O 4) 04 O O O ' O ' 0 0 0 o c� oo c0 'C 1 O CD c) 1 O 0o 00 � M Co 1 1 1 ' O N io 1 1 ' O iloo 0 r O ' O ' � O 1 1 1 'o 1 Co 1 1 'o x 0 cNo (D 'o 'po n Z 0 ; o 1 1 1 ; O 1 Co 1 1 0 N 1 O ,o 1 N ao 0 C) C, C. O p IL o E O1 -O c Y ; O O U G Q 00 O N r- N Id 00 N 0 N N _M O N O 75 w w m U E 0 •L N O 2 w w (0 U N N o N C) N W . N CMCDC) NO p O o n � N n N U p 00 Co M 1 v O 1 O O 1 o �0 0 z ON O 1 o o �o 0 1 1 O 1 n �0 �0 n v o �o 1 1 10 C=J 0 o l 0 0 2 C3 '6 0 ' 0 0 T ' o o rn N ' O 10 1 O O o n Cl) O 1 W DD U 1 1 C o I N N 04 O C O 1 OR O 1 C O 1 W 0 Co 1 CO 1 M 1 1 O O o'W 1 0 1 1 1 0 U M m I 00 U N N m o Q 1 W CO z 1 o 1 M 1 O O M N O 0 11 I p O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o] N O U O M 0 0 0 07 O 0 �O I 0 H cN7 I to o I O I O N IL O I O O i 0 O O IL 1 O M O L n I 1 1 0 t o Ln O O I M M N xa- p Co 1 0 0 CD Cq Cm x N o o 0 0 N N In N N O O V O 1 1 p 0 1 0 Oto 0 0 to 7 LL LL O ' I C > m M 1 1 1 1 Lo 1 1 M o LL LL O O O ' O 1 1 1 M CL � O_ I r 1 1 LO 1 O ' 0 O M d~ 10 l o Lo O O o 'o 1 1 1 O 0 0 0 CD CD 6 ' 0 0 O 1 CO M j Cl? N O , LO CD Cl LA 0 x N > LLI n O O O n � O 1 1 O 1 O O I m p N O = d LL O 1 CO > _ 1 n 1 1 1 1 4= , N O O N CD 1 0 a ' 0 0 O o LL oo c0 'C 1 O 'oo 1 O oo 00 1 1 1 d M Co 1 1 1 ' O io 1 N 1 1 ' O iloo NCD O 0 ' o o 2 O O U) O ;1,2o o O 1 � � 1 1 1 'o 1 Co 1 1 'o --- 1 x O cNo In n o0 Z U ; O 1 Co 1 1 ' M M c� �0 0 1 O ,o 1 1 1 ' OD 0 w x C) C, C. N N O o 'v a o l0 1 1 1 0 �o �Lo E O1 -O Y 0 �0 U ,0 0 O O R > 0 o Cu ~ U ;O LL N N C) m W 0 O M p O n o M v 1 1 ON O 1 o 1 0 o o �0 �0 0 z o �o 1 1 10 �0 1 1 14 0 m 2 C 0 ' c ' 0 0 cc U o o rn N ' O 10 1 ' p 0 to 1 Co O o n Cl) T Co 1 1 C 1 1 N 04 O C O W O) 1 C I N N 1 � 1 1 1 O O ~ V co 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 I NN M N O U Ip 1� o Q N 1 o I n O m V 11 I p 1 M � z O o 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 N O U O M 0 0 0 07 0 ............ N M ON o 0 �O 0 �N V 0 - d M N o I O I O O O M O I 1 1 0 O I 1 1 0 t o Ln O t5 LnIo N d O CM O xa- p 1 C o 1 0 0 r 0 W N o I 1 1 1 0 ' 1 1 1 1 N ' N N In N N O O V O O 1 O p 0 1 0 Oto 0 0 to 7 LL LL O 1 I C N 1 1 1 1 Lo 1 1 M o O O ' O CL 6 to 1 1 1 I r 1 1 0 O M Io 1 0 10 l o Lo d o M L 0 0 ' CD 6 ' 0 0 M 11 001, x d LLIj N p Cl? N 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 I r 1 1 M N N > n 1 0 1 n O)� O 1 O O I m p O = d LL O 1 1 O 1 1 1 O 1 n 1 1 1 1 4= O 4) O O O ' O ' 0 0 0 0 c� oo c0 'C 1 O 'oo 1 O oo 00 M Co 1 1 1 ' O io 1 N 1 1 ' O iloo 0 N r O ' O ' C O 1 1 1 'o 1 Co 1 1 'o x O cNo 'o 'po n Z 0 ; o 1 1 1 ; O 1 Co 1 1 0 c� 1 O ,o 1 ao 0 _ C) C, C. O o p o o �o �Lo E O1 -O Y U Q 00 _co O N r- N Id 00 N O N r N N _M O N O 2 W W_ m U C O •L a� O 2 W W (0 U O N .0 o 0) 00 m N O 0o r O U w N 0 N O: 0 0 l 0 1 0 1 0 0 z 0 0 z U 0 0 0 0 oo :v0 :NO O C w0 0 00 0 m = T to L() U 0 00 0 0 7 m:,6 0 0 0 1 O) 1 T 0 1 O I M 1 O OO 1 1 1 1 O I N 1000 U N V N 7 6 m MM O W Co N N N N a O O 0 0 0 o- 1, U 0 N v N a O I M O 1 0 O 0 L o ri ri W N I I 1 1 0 10 10 1 0 0 0 z z t5 Lo N10 d Q f M N N M r O 1 0 1 0 0 0 N 0 x LL O O 00 LU O 0 O 0 0 N In > 0 0 0 0 o] O) 0 1 0 O 7 LL LL 1 0 1 0 O 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 1 O I M 1 0 0 2 H O N � V ' O ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD l0 l0 0 0o I M I V O2 O N L O O O 1 0 00 1 0 00 O O 0 0 x 0 W O O a O 0 > .O� LD 0 O L a O O O L 00 CO x LL 04 O O w 0 00 0 0 O O O 0 LO 100 1mO O 107 1 � 1 1 1 1 C) I LD I LO o 'rn 'cLO o A N O) �G O ao m U LL LL o 1 1 1 1 o Iv Iv 0 :� :o 0 x O w T) D7 O (0 CD �o �0 1 1 1 1 O 1 lD 1 CO 1 1 Ln N 00 D O) LL ~ o 0 O m CD rn j LD N x d LLI O O C N O O OCL d LL Q1 N O OM O C) N 0 W O N N O rn U rn rn x O v v rn N M N M M IT 0 M s O a O Ocu O R ~ U O .0 o N O CD O .V �M O 0 O O U o o co _ v 1 1 Q O: 0 0 l 0 1 0 1 0 0 O z 1 1 1 1 1 1 U 0 0 0 0 oo :v0 :NO O C w0 T 1 N 1 LO 1 1 1 11` O 1 co L() N O 0 00 7 m:,6 f0 0 1 O) 1 0 1 O I M 1 O 1 1 1 1 O I N 1000 N O U O 1 1 LO 67 m Q 0 1 C 1 h W z 1 O 1 I M I r 1 1 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a N O U O 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 O 6 1 O 1 000 1 M 0 O N a O I M O 1 0 O 0 L O O i i W I I 1 1 0 10 10 1 0 0 0 t5 Lo N10 d Q f M co M r O 1 0 1 0 0 0 N 0 x LL 16 IM O 00 LU 1� 100 1 1 1 1 O 1 O) 1 Cl) 0 I O M I M r N In > M N O) 0 1 0 O 7 LL LL 1 0 1 0 O 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 1 O I M 1 0 0 2 O N M r 0 LL ' O ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD l0 l0 0 0o I M I V �� d O M L O O O 1 0 00 1 0 00 O O 0 0 x 0 W j N p 1 1 0 CD I N 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 O M O > .O� O 0 (F"! 00 1 p N O L a O O O O 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 N 1 1 04 0) O U) 0 00 0 0 O O O 100 1mO O 107 1 � 1 1 1 1 C) I LD I LO o 'rn 'cLO o Cn O ao m U o 1 1 1 1 o Iv Iv 0 :� :o x O w T) Z CD �o �0 1 1 1 1 O 1 lD 1 CO 1 1 0 C:) r O M O O O N O 0 E O ; ; O 1 0 1 0 � c O m _ O O H U Q 00 _co O N r- N Id 00 N O co r N N _M O N O 2 W W_ m U C O •L a� O 2 W W (0 U O N .0 o N O 000 m N O 0o r O U w N 0 N O: 0 0 l 0 1 0 1 0 0 z 0 0 z U 0 0 0 0 oo :v0 :NO O C w0 0 00 0 m = T to L() U 0 00 0 0 7 m:,6 0 0 0 1 O) 1 T �o 1 O I M 1 O O 1 1 1 1 O I N 1000 U N V N 7 6 C1) MM O W CO N N N 1 O 1 I M I r 1 1 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O O 0 0 0 N to N 0 0 0 O 6 O 1 000 1 M 0 v v o ri ri O O N i i z z W N N t5 Lo N10 d Q f M co O O 0 N 0 x LL O 0 O 0 0 LU 0 0 0 0 o] N In > M N O) 0 1 0 O 7 LL LL 1 0 1 0 H � V O N O2 O N ' O ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD l0 l0 0 0o I M I V �� d O M L O O a x 0 W 0 1 1 0 CD I N 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 LD 0 > .O� O 0 (F"! 00 1 p N L L a 00 CO x LL O O w 04 0) O U) 0 LO 0 00 0 0 O A N O) �G 100 1mO O 107 1 � 1 1 1 1 C) I LD I LO o 'rn 'cLO o LL LL O 0D7 U o 1 1 1 1 o Iv Iv 0 :� :o O (0 x O Ln N 00 CD �o �0 1 1 1 1 O 1 lD 1 CO 1 1 D O) LL ~ o 0 N O m ; ; O 1 0 1 0 � c CD rn j LD N O H U x d LLI O O C N O O OCL d LL Q1 NO O M O C) N 0 W O N N O rn U rn rn x O v v rn (N M N M M IT 0 M s O a O O O 0) 0cu R O 4 ~ U O .0 o N O CD O .V �M O 0 O O U o o co _ v 1 1 Q O: 0 0 l 0 1 0 1 0 0 O z 1 1 1 1 1 1 U 0 0 0 0 oo :v0 :NO O C w0 T 1 N 1 LO 1 1 1 11` O 1 co L() N O 0 00 7 m:,6 f0 0 1 O) 1 0 1 O I M 1 O 1 1 1 1 O I N 1000 N O U O 1 1 LO 67 C1) Q 0 1 C 1 h W z 1 O 1 I M I r 1 1 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a N O U O 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 O 6 O 1 000 1 M 0 O N a O I M O 1 0 O 0 L O O i i W I I 1 1 0 10 10 1 0 0 0 t5 Lo N10 d Q f M co M r O 1 0 1 0 0 0 N 0 x LL 16 IM O 00 LU 1� 100 1 1 1 1 O 1 O) 1 Cl) 0 I O M I M r N In > M N O) 0 1 0 O 7 LL LL 1 0 1 0 O 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 1 O I M 1 0 0 2 O N M r 0 LL ' O ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD l0 l0 0 0o I M I V �� d O M L O O O 1 0 00 1 0 00 O O 0 0 x 0 W j N p 1 1 0 CD I N 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 O M O > .O� O 0 (F"! 00 1 p N O L a O O O O 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 N 1 1 04 0) O U) 0 00 0 0 O O O 100 1mO O 107 1 � 1 1 1 1 C) I LD I LO o 'rn 'cLO o Cn O ao m U o 1 1 1 1 o Iv Iv 0 :� :o x O w T) Z CD �o �0 1 1 1 1 O 1 lD 1 CO 1 1 0 C:) r O M O O O N O 0 E O ; ; O 1 0 1 0 � c O m _ O O H U Q 00 O N r- N Id 00 N O N N N _M O N O 2 W W_ m U C O cO G W W (0 U O N O N O 00 . 01 O 0 N n Q7 NO m m w CP Cq U O 0 Q 0 0 z 1 1 1 1 O 1 N 1 U 1 1 N 0 a 0 O 0 0 0 o oioo �c)O m 7 Co 2 T 0 o0 0 0 00 U oo o �� �W o 11O 1 c T N N 1 1 7 N Q o N U 7 00 00 M O 'U) 'm v W W Z H N Q U O O p 0 a 07 Q 0 LO N U C'4 00W CO m 0 c� OO m m LL I I 1 1 O 1 1 N 0 1010 to In Z f/1 Ln N 41 G 7 Co r O 1 0 0 1 0 0 `106 xLL O O M Lu O CD O p 0 0 0 0 o1] 10 c, 1O0 O N d I V 1 In 0 I r I r 1 1 1 1 O 1 4 1 1 0 7 1 0 M Lq F O t p Q M MO N 0 o O O 1 o) 0 1 0 O p d~ 1 Ln 1 Ln 1 1 1 1 0 1 u 1 to O 1 0 l0 t o l0 O N O d G L a n Lo d N 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 o 1� I0 O p O p Co .�--. 0 o x LL d LL C w N n tll LO O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 A N O) �G 1 o 1 0 0 I N 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 I M LL LL Q N d O O M p M 0 O O ~ CL 0 o 0 O 1 0 0 I N 0 0 1 (O 1N 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 O O N C 7 r` a� n M M m 1 O 1 0 OM O M 170 11n0 O O x d 1 t9 1 0 O N � c �o a0 w n n O H _ c U Y 0 OCL d LL d N Q 0 7 O o 7 oll OM o M � n O 00 Co U o 0 0 0 x O m m z O O 0 O O O O O O f6 N 0 O Cu ~ O O N O 00 . 01 O 0 N n Q7 O Uo o o o> v o v to 1 1 Q O 1 0 1 0 o l 0 1 0 o O z 1 1 1 1 O 1 N 1 U 1 1 N 2 U O 0 0 0 o oioo �c)O cc Mo o T 1 1 N 1 1 N O oo o �� �W o 11O 1 c 0 O 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 O 1 Ln I N N O o U 0 1 0 1 7 a O 'U) 'm v m Z 1 1 O O O o p p CD p p o 0 0 N Q U O O p 0 a 07 0 0 0 I I O I) I) OO 10 7 10 Cl) 0 O F d o M C'4 00 i o 0 X000 aMO.o c� I N LL I I 1 1 O 1 1 N 0 1010 to In f/1 Ln N 41 G 7 Co r O 1 0 0 1 0 0 o o xLL 1 0 1 0 O M Lu la) 1�t -Io ---r----r ---- 1 1 1) 0 l 0 7 10 M N c M nj � d 10 c, 1O0 O OQ j LL I V 1 In 0 I r I r 1 1 1 1 O 1 4 1 1 0 7 1 0 M n O t p Q M F- 0 o O O 1 o) 0 1 0 p L o 1 Ln 1 Ln 1 1 1 1 0 1 u 1 to O 1 0 l0 t o l0 � d G L O 1 O o 1 00 CD p O p x d W N 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 o 1� I0 M r op m .�--. 0 1 0 7 10 C J 0 1 0 00 I n 00 G M ( O Q d LL 1 0) 1 OJ 0 1 7 1 u7 1 1 1 1 O 1 ) 1 ) 1 1 M t0 N O (n O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o oo 1 o 1 0 0 I N 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 I M O O Q N 0 i 1M0, 0 1 0 O 1 W 1 1 1 C) a ll 1 0 1 0 d Q Z 0 o 0 O 1 0 0 I N 0 0 1 (O 1N 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 cc N o o N C 7 0 1 0 7 I S M M M Q 1 O 1 0 O 170 11n0 r O oO 0 1 t9 1 0 O N � c N R (uo� � O = O H U Q 00 O N r- N Id 00 N O Lf ) N N N _M O N O 2 W W_ m U C O cO G W W (0 U O N O N O 00 .0 O O N n Q7 NO m m w CP Cq U O 0 Q 0 0 z 1 1 1 1 O 1 N 1 U 1 1 N 0 a 0 O 0 0 0 o oioo �c)O m 7 Co 2 T 0 o0 0 0 00 U o U O to Im o 1 i 1 m T N N o 7 F- N Q o 00 N U 7 M 00 M O 'In 'm v o ro Z H N Q U O O p 0 a 07 Q 0 LO 00W In U C'4 CO m 0 OO m m LL I I 1 1 O 1 1 N 0 10 0 1010 Z f/1 l0 N 41 Q 7 Co r O 1 00 1 0 0 `106 x LL O O M Lu O CD O p 0 0 0 0 o1] 10CD c, 1O0 O OQ j LL I V 1 lO 0 I r I r 1 1 1 1 O 1 4 1 4% 1 0 7 1 0 M n O t p 4) Q M F- H 0 o O oo �o) �rn0 o MM 0 Lq 1 Ln 1 Ln 1 1 1 1 0 1 u 1 to 0 1 01O 1010 0 O O O N L O 0 O O � x d W � n a op a .>--. (n d N d LL O p O p Co 0 o x LL O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o oo C w 1 o 1 0 0 I N 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 I M O O n tll LO A N O) �G o i L o i o 0 LL LL 1 W 1 1 1 C) a ll 1 0 1 0 d d O 0 o 0 O 1 0 0 I N 0 0 1 (O 1N 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 O M p M p U' O O ~ CL Q O O O r` a� n r O m oO O 1 t9 1 0 O N � c OM O M R O O x d �o a0 w n n _ c Y 0 OCL d LL d N Q 0 7 O o 7 oll OM o M � n O 00 Co U o 0 0 0 x O m m z O O 0 O O O O O O N 0Cu R O 4 ~ U O O N O 00 .0 O O N n Q7 O Uo o o o> v o v to 1 1 Q O 1 0 1 0 o l 0 1 0 o O z 1 1 1 1 O 1 N 1 U 1 1 N 2 U O 0 0 0 o oioo �c)O cc Mo o T 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 O 1 n I N N O o U O to Im o 1 i 1 m v p o 7 F- 1 1 1 1 O 1 Ln I N N O o U 0 1 0 1 7 a O 'In 'm v m Z 1 1 O O O o p p CD p p o 0 0 N Q U O O p 0 a 07 0 0 0 I I o I I) OO 10 7 10 Cl) 0 0 F - d o M C'4 00 i o 0 X000 OMO.o LL I I 1 1 O 1 1 N 0 10 0 1010 f/1 l0 N 41 Q 7 Co r O 1 00 1 0 0 o o x LL 1 0 1 0 O M Lu la) 1�t 11 ----r----r ---- 1 1 1) 0 l 0 7 10 M N c M nj � d 10CD c, 1O0 O OQ j LL I V 1 lO 0 I r I r 1 1 1 1 O 1 4 1 4% 1 0 7 1 0 M n O t p 4) Q M F- 0 o O oo �o) �rn0 p sono 1 Ln 1 Ln 1 1 1 1 0 1 u 1 to 0 1 01O 1010 � d G L O 1 O o 1 p 00 CD O p x d W N 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 o 1� IN M r op m .>--. 0 1 0 7 10 C J O 1 0 00 I n 00 G M ( O Q d LL 1 0T 1 OJ 0 1 7 1 u7 1 1 1 1 O 1 ) 1 ) 1 1 M t0 N O (n O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o oo 1 o 1 0 0 I N 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 I M O O O N o i L o i o 0 1 W 1 1 1 C) a ll 1 0 1 0 d Q Z 0 o 0 O 1 0 0 I N 0 0 1 (O 1N 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 cc N o o N U' 0 1 0 7 I S M M M Q 1 O 1 0 O 170 11o0 r O oO O 1 t9 1 0 O N � c N R (uo� � O = O H U G Q 00 O N r- N Id 00 N O N N _M C) N O 75 w w m U c 0 •L N O 2 w w U ti O N N O O O O O Cl) 00 O °4 U O 0 o 0 0 U N 1 N O 1 O O 1 ON o '0 0 z O o 'o 1 1 a l0 0 z m v �o 1 1 l 0 0 0 = m 7 0 ' 00 7 O U 1 M O t o M O U o loo 1 goo 1 i` 00 P, O T M 1 0 M U m 1 0 A O 1 o fD tD w O 1 O OJ � N 1 1 N O F- O 1 0 to U 0 0 m to rn O ' 1 0 m O 1O O O ' O Z N N 1 O O N N O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o] O 0 0 0 .................. in o 0 0 u7 - 0 'o 'o ns CN 0 l o 0 oo N l0 0 I O I O I I 1 LL In O O Lo 0 In � N DLn N O 1 O O Co 2 O o O ' 0 0 1 0 wLL w o l0 1 1 'o 10 1� 1 1 '0 IOV 0 .-.N 1 0 0 o O In 7 LL LL 1 O :. N I V ' O O l 1 1 1 O l 0 1 7 1 1 1 N 10 M LL LL O p 1 O 1 1 V 1 O 0 O O 1 o_ LL~ 0 p O ' o O LL o 'o 1 1 1 0 O O l 0 to 1 0 101n to v Mo L o t o ' CO 0 x `> o 0 0 LLI loo 1� 1 1 00 r 0 1 o 'o ' '0 ' M 0 f `9 .OcL Cl O > �C O '4)0 0 1 1 7 d LL d O O 1 1 I r 1 1 1 0) L LL 1 04 O C) 0 1 1 1 ' 0 0 O O N O O ' l o o 1 N 1 1 1 Q) O O Qo 0 O O O O No O 1 N O N O N 1 N 1 1 l 0 1 1 1 1 4 O O M 1 M O Z 1O0 0 0 1 �o 1 1 00 C� O � O ' O ' '0 ' V 1 1 ' O o x 0 0 0 C. M ' oN M Z ' N O 1 1 O O 0) o A O 0 o 0 0 �0 O 1 O CJ > O O H U O O CCm R 0 LL ~ U O N O O O O Co 00 Cl) 00 O O o O 0 N v N v, U 0 0 1 1 ON O l 0 l 0 O o 'o '0 0 z o 0 �o 1 1 l 0 �0 1 1 1 0 m _ 1 l o o o 0 Lo o c U o loo 1 goo 1 i` 00 P, T 1 1 co 04 O oo o o ( tD w o'o O F- O 1 0 I Co 0 0 0 ' ' N 0 O O O ' O N O o 0 0 O 0 0 .0 O 0 0 0 N O U O 0 0 0 0 07 0 o o 0 'o 'o 0 '0 l00 0 H 0 oo N O o I O I O O �O LL O O I 1 1O 1 O I 1 1 l O l n DLn N N O l n r x LL O o ' O 1 ' 0 0 1 0 0 o O w o l0 1 1 'o 10 1� 1 1 '0 IOV 0 .-.N 0 0 o O O� 0 0 O 7 LL LL O 1 0 I V O O l 1 1 1 O l 0 1 7 1 1 1 N 10 M O p N O M O 1 O 'p O O 1 OO LL~ p 1 1 1 I r 1 1 U)� O O O l 0 to 1 0 101n d oln o ' o ' 0 0 0 0 xd w `> N 0 o to 1 1 1 loo 1� 1 1 00 r >o o 'o ' '0 ' M 0 f `9 .OcL Cl O O 'O O '4)0 0 O Ln O 7 d LL O O 1 t o 1 1 1 0 1 I r 1 1 1 0) I N 04 O C) 0 ' 0 ' 0 0 O O (n O O t o 1 1 1 1 0 o l o o 1 N 1 1 1 Q) O 0 0 N Qo N O O O � ' O ' N 0 N O 0 1 1 l 0 1 1 1 4 O O ' O ' 0 0O O Z 1O0 0 10 1 1 1 1 �o 1 1 00 C� O ' O ' '0 ' V C v O o O 0 0 C. O 0 Mo �o oO O 0) R O O c Y = > O O H U G Q 00 O N r- N Id 00 N O N N _M C) N O 75 w w m U c 0 •L N O 2 w w U ti O N o LO 0 m O Cl) 00 O °D U O o o 0 o U N 1 N O 1 O o O o ' o O z O l 0 l 0 O 1 1 a 10 o m vcD 0 0 = �o 1 1 1 0 7 O ' 00 r 0 U m M O 1 o M O 0 1 1c) In 0`n O O o U O loo 1 M 1 0 M U T m l 0 A 1 1 I co O 1 o fD U O 1 O O � w co N 1 1 N O O O N 10 U 1 1 O m 10 m O (q 1 0 1 1 10 m O 1O 0 Oo Z N 1 O O N N O p O O 0 0 O 0 o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 o] o H O 0 0 0 ' o �0 0 Lq O O 0 0 O I O O N 0 'o 'o O i 0 O a I 1 N O o In I o 0 Lo O N � N O 1 O O Co 2 LL O O O CD wLL I 1 1 ) I O In Ln DN N o In CD x� x LL O O ' 1 1 0 1 w o In 1� 1 1 '0 IOV 1 :. N .-.N ' O 0 0 O O� 0 0 O 7 LL LL LL LL O 1 I V 1 1 V 1 O O O O o_ 1 7 1 1 1 N 1 0 M o 0 0 O ' o O LL Cc) 1 1 1 1 O O O O LL~ O o to v M L 1 Co o ' 0 x `> 0 0 LLI C ' o 0 1 x d L `> N 0 o l 0 1 1 1 1 0 1� 1 1 0 r > �C > o 1 1 o d '0 CD M ' 1 . OcL L LL O 1 O 'L0 0 O Ln O 7 d1 LL 1 1 0 O 1 0 1 1 1 0 N N C)1 ' O O 0 OO O O O o (n NO 0 1 N O 1 0 1 1 ---_r---- 1 1 0 o 1 0 0 1 N 1 1 1 Q) � O N 1 N N O O 1 O ' O I N O N O Co 1 M 1 1 1 0 1 1 14 0 O O ' 0 ' 0 00 O � O 00 1 CDm1 ' 10cD 0 1 �o 1 1 010 w x O C� M ' ON M Z 'ov ' N CD O O 1 1 O o11 0 o o A O o o 0 1 N �O O 1 O CJ R O O c Y O C O C R > O O H 0 U LL ~ U O N O O O O Co 00 Cl) 00 O O o O o N v N v, U 0 0 1 1 ON O l 0 l 0 O o 'o '0 0 z o 0 �o 1 1 1 0 �0 1 1 1 0 m 0 1 1c) In 0`n O O o U o loo 1 X00 1 i` 00 P, T O 1 1 1 0 1 1 I co O U O O co w co O O N N O 1 1 O 1 1 O 1 1 10 1 1 IN N O Oo cDcDO ' ' N p O O ' O N O o 0 o O 0 0 0 O o 0 0 N O U O O 0 0 a 07 0 ............ o o 0 'o 'o 0 '0 Ioc) 0 H 0 oo N O o I O o I o 0 O cC i LL O O CD I 1 1O 1 O CD I 1 1 ) I O In Ln DN N o In CD x� x LL O O ' 1 1 0 O w o l0 1 1 'o 10 1� 1 1 '0 IOV 0 .-.N O 0 0 O O� 0 0 O 7 LL LL O 1 0 I V O O 1 1 1 1 O 1 O 1 7 1 1 1 N 1 0 M 0 0 N O M Cc) O 'o 1 O O O O LL~ o 1 1 1 I r 1 1 U)� O O O l0 C 1 loin d oln C ' o ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 x d L `> N 0 o l 0 1 1 1 1 0 1� 1 1 0 r > o o 'o O ' '0 CD M ' 0 f `9 . OcL O O 'O O 'L0 0 O Ln O 7 d1 LL 0 O 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 I r 1 1 1 0) I N O 0 ' O ' 0 0 O o (n O ----r O o 1 0 1 1 ---_r---- 1 1 0 o 1 0 0 1 N 1 1 1 Q) � O O o N Q N O O O ' O I N O N O 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 14 O O ' 0 ' 0 00 0 Z 00 10 1 1 1 10cD 0 1 �o 1 1 010 w C� o 'o 'ov CD O 0 o11 0 o �o 0 oO 1 O 1 N R O O c Y = > O O H U G Q 00 O N r- N Id 00 N O 00 N N _M O N O 75 W W m U E O •L cO G W W (0 U 00 TMIO N N O ' 7 O Co 'r CO N O V O LL o N ur? U O O O N 1 O 1 O 0 1 0 N O O O z 0 o �o 1 1 O 1 o SCD 0 v d p� 2 U 1 00 0 ' 00 CD 'moo v0 o T 1 N 1 O I CO N N O M U (p 10 O IM O Lq O 1 In M In N z O N 1 O I Co N O M U m o ' Cl) ' Ln p 1O O Lo N p] O N N Z 00 m � O O O O T N O O 1 1 1 0 0 0 o] 0 0 I o i O M 0 O M H N NO I L, O O O 1 O N 1 07 N 01 O ! a 1 1 O 1� O ' O M �Lo Co N d O M t x LL 1 1 1 0 O 1 u O N O w I- 1� 1 1 1 1 In N ' ' N N LL LL O ' 1 1 O1 N O 1 O M O_ d p M 0 LL O o 1 no I r 1 1 O 1 N O OO 0 'moo j N ( 6 O 0 'o 0 CCDCR p O p xd N O C6 1L0 1 1 1 1 1r;O r N O > 0 'o'0 I O � C 0 1 d NO 1 O L LL I m O 1 1 1 1 4 ' LO cC NCD (D C2 Ln O U)o i C4 0 0 O O O o O o O 1 C7 ----r---- 1 1 Ln 1 co Io M O U u'i O 0 d O l n CD r x LL � O 1 1 ;0 '0 O xx 0 0 z w �o 1 o 0 Io 1 1 'o'0 10 0 C7 ro' 1 M .-. N O L N O(I O o LL LL 1 0 0 O O O 1 CV 01 C O 0 R 1 1 1 1 0 1 d U O N o M C� O H 1 O ' 1 O 1 M 0 U LL~ p a` 1 N 1 1 N N o O V Lo V 0 O O O O N an N 01 0 0 1 1 ON o Io Io o o 10 Io 0 z o 0 o 1 1 10 0 1 1 1 0 m 1c) 0 1O In U O M Lo cc o o loo 1 goo 1 m 00 m T O 1 1 1 1 1 1 N O N U O 1 C 0 I N N N (p O O O 1 O N 1 07 N 01 1 1 F- O 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 ti N O I- O ' ' N N O O ' 1 p p] O O O 0 Q1 O o CD o O 0 'o 0 O o '0 0 N O U O O 0 0 a 07 0 .......... o O 0 'o'0 I O 0 I O V o0 0 H 0 o oo NO O I O O I m O M cC i i C4 Cfl LL o O I 11 Io 1 0 I 1 (D 1 O LO oo t5 Lo DN d O l n CD r x LL O ' O 1 ' O 1 0 o o O w o Io 1 1 'o'0 10 1� 1 1 IOC, 0 .-. N O IOo O(I O o LL LL O 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 O 1 0 M V) O N o M O O 1 O ' 1 O 1 M 0 04 O M O LL~ p p 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 N O O O 1 0 1 o 1 1 0 to N O In L O 1 0 ' 0 0 11 O O x d W j N p l 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 N 1 1 O N O o ' O ' ' O M ' O M O) � O O O 1 0 _O 1 O O O O O 7 d1 LL O O 1 0 1 1 1 0 I M I N 1 1 1 O M N N O O 1 0 ' 0 0O O (n O 0 0 o 1 O 1 1 Io CD 0 100 1 1 1 ) c) O 0 0 Q d N O O 1 0 N ' O N O 0 1 1 10 1 1 1 d x 0 l O 1 o v Q v Ooo �o 1 1 1 goo 1 W 1 1 oo0 oo C7 0 ' ' VO V O O O 1 0 O 1 C. O O O O 1 O 1G? 0 O CO 1 1 In N to R O (u _ H U G Q 00 O N r- N _N m 00 N O m 0- N N C'7 O N 0 O 5 W W m U c O •L cO G W W m U Co O N C O U U L N O v O [O v Co N O v O LL) O Ln LI) Lfi U O O O N 1 O 1 o 0 1 0 N O O 0 z O 1 O 1 OI o V v d o 2 U 1 0 00 ' O 0 0 O O ' 7 O T 1 N 1 O I M N N O M U (p Io O I Cl) O In O 1 lfl M N N O N 1 O I Co N O M U 0 m o ' Ln 0 ' Ln Ln Ln Co l 0 O N N Z � O O 0 0 1 00 1 N O O T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 ...I ... I 0 i O M 0 C e,) 0 H N N N I I O Ln O N 10) N O) a 1 I 1 O 1 N O ' 0 M Lo Co N N O M CD t 2 x a- 1 1 1 0 O 1 LC) O O lt) p w h 1� 1 1 1 1 > Ln N ' :. N LL LL O 'o 1 1 O 1 N O 1 O M O d p m 20 LL O 1 120 O 1 1 0 I r 1 1 O 1 M O OO 0 0 N p CD j N M 2 O 0 � O O O x d w j y O O 1 LnO 1r 1 1 1 1 NO r N O > O 0 .52 O 0 1 =i LL LL 1 1 1 1 1 � m N O U) 0 i FFF ' o IO CD 11 ;o0 00 00 H 1 [7 1 1 Ln 1 W Io M O U Ln Lb 0 I O O I OM 0 � O 1 ;0 '0 O xx 0 0 z i � �o 1 ' o 0 0 C7 I 1 1 I O LO ro 1 M in Lo N d O Lo L xa- LO N ' O 1 ' 0 0 10 loo O O O 1 N O) C z O 1� 1 1 R d U � O 'o 1 C� O H O U O 0 O � O O LL LL a` O N o o c v Q O O O O N O1 N O) O O 1 1 ON O l 0 l 0 O Io 0 o o 0 Io � o 1 1 l 0 z Co 1 1 1 0 m 0 l 0 l c) c c o 0 U O 1 00 1 1 0 0 1 6 0 0 T O 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 N N O U O 1 0 I N N N � O O O 10 N 10) N O) 1 1 O 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 ti N O h U ' ' N N O O 'o 'rn a p] o O rn O O O N O O 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 a m o FFF 0 o 0 i FFF ' o IO 0 i FF ' 0 lov 0 H 0 ov N O O I O O I OM 0 M 0 cC i i � � d ----r----r---- O O I 1 l0 1 0 I 1 1 I O LO in Lo N d O Lo L xa- O O ' O 1 ' 0 0 10 cc O w 10 1 1 1� 1 1 o 'o 1 '0 I V 0 .-. N O 0 O 0 O � O O LL LL O ' O ' O 1 1 1 1 0 t 1 (6 1 1 1 O 10 M O O Yp N o M O O 1 o 1 O O O O O LL~ p ' p 1 1 1 ' M 1 N 1 1 M N DO O ot 1 0 o 1 l o l n N p I n L O 1 0 ' 0 00 O pp xd W j y p 1 1 1 1 10 I N 1 1 O N O > O O 00 1 0 100 1 0 1 00 C O N 0 M O O 1 0 1 O O O O 7 LL 1 I M M LL O 1 1 1 1 0 I N 1 1 1 O N N O0 l0 'oo 00 oo o 0 �o 1 1 1 l 0 0 goo 1 C7 1 1 1 (D O c) O 00 M Q d N O N 1 0 O I N O O 1 1 1 1 0 1 O 1 1 1 N 07 4) x l 0 l 0 0 0 v O00 o 0 1 1 1 CD 0 1 Co 1 1 0 0 oo 0 0 ' ' V v O p O 1 0 O O 1 0 O O O O 10 1 O)O OO • 1 • 1 • 1 Ln • 1 In O zn 0 O c N R M = > O O H U O 2 Y O L CL r•1 G Q Ib co O N P- 04 _N m 00 N O O N 0) m d N C0 G L c� G Nt r_ E E H N Nt M � M 0 N tOM 'COM N N CD ,o 01 0 Z O 10 O 1 O ----f... 1 M 1 M N N 1 O O U 1 O 1 O T 1 'LO OC) 6 LO N N N N N 1 N 1 O U Ln Ln N N O N N Z .. .L .. N C) O O O O O O cs O O m M o 0 1 1 � N 1 O 1 O a 1 d SCO 1 M IM 1 LO co t 2 ,xa-o O 1 O to 1 > 04 1 c 1 CO co LL N 1 N O 1 o O N CO CO CO1 CO N cli O LL m O 1 1 7 1 O t O 1 O w� CO O c � > O O 1 O � O O� 1 L LL LL 1 1 O 1 1� O 1 O o to C) O 1 1 (0 1co U N 1 N U 0 O O 1 (0to � 1 Z 1 1 1 O 0 LO V 1� O ' O • -L . O o .a a � a� is m cm W U r_ E E H N Nt II E N co N N O = O CD N M d v O o (n m O O Om O_ CO O 7 � C) U 0 O O O � O V W p N o IL m O � o CD Z co ',I - U (o � p o ocs m o O o O O v U o p Q U o = o O N = O O Cn � N U 0 C) = LO o N O 0 O v _ Cn. 0 0)N Z (2 O U= 0 � J p O CO O _ Cl). _ O p U = o N U J O � O rn Ln Cf) v 2 LO LO � a U o O - > M. > ti O p o O N 7 00+�+ O O n c p LOo 7 3 J p C J � 0 U 0 LO LLE II E G Q 00 r N r - N (d 00 N O r N N 01 N N C'7 O N O 2 w w m U E O •L N O 2 w W (0 U N N cD 7 7 0 0 Lo , LO 1` V V 0 U OP OQ co ' co LCA LO of BOJ �N 'N 11 ON r N 1 0 1 0 O O 00 O (D CO , 00 CO z Lo O 1 r 0 I N O ; N O 1 I N I N N R 2 1 1 ) 1 , 1 CDC IC>o IC)o �CDo U N O I N O 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 ' , O O N O T W l0 IN ,N � 1 1 � 1 1 7 1 1 O U _ N Ln 1 _� I M 1 I ' R COco CO 7 1 7 oo o" 1C', 1 1 1 m 1 m 1 V;I- N1 O O O oo O O oO 20 W , cOrn rn O m m � m 1 : O 122 Z T N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m U O O O O I I , o O 00 •-j I O M 70 H oo M N O I c I o l O o O O a O H i N in Ln c N N 1 1 O Io 1 ) ) O 1 0 10 M O M x � O , � O O 0 W l 1 0 , W rn c� 1 1 1 1 V , N N LLL N 1 1 L O R O O 1 1 O 1 0 1 , O o l O 1 � co , C) M ' I 00 LL~ O O M 0 I M O I p l O o 1 1 , C) C) 1 1 1 1 1 O D 0 1 I O M , CD MCO CD CD CD 1 I y m L xd m O 0 o I M C, W j 1 1 0 ,O y 1 1 L 1 1 O 1 OO M M Lr? L LL LL 0 0 0 0 N 1 1 N O CNCD Q 0 1 1 1 1 , of 1 1 0 0 , 0 1 1 0 oo CL 0 0 1 O o -- NCD 1 1 (.0 , 0 d N 1 1 1 1 Q O R , 1 1 LO 1 LO O Mm O O O 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 W O of , 1 1 O O Z l 1 1 1 1 1 LLa , 0 O 1 O p M 1 Io Io 1 co dp ~ N n� .6m ..� 9� CDm oo 0 N )' UV +' ' R d m m m EZ E 'm2 m 0 M O M e e N ,m _V m L m ii J N L N r O Lo Lo N N N R NO O O N O O O N O Z N N N N oo o" S O O oo O O oO U T N N O v v U co rn oo M R 7 li O H N N N O oo W rn c� V [pO N N N O O O O o o O O O m o H OO M M Lr? 0 0 0 0 N � O N O W oo CL -- NCD p Ln d N Q 0 Q R O Mm O O O x d W of oo > n ._. N 01� LLa O p M p M OM O co dp ~ o r` n� oo 0 co y d 3 0 M O M r C') p xa M c, w j oo oo 0 0 �o Ol� d LL N d N O O V O O O 0 0 (n 0O cO D 1D O u� 119 U o 0 0 0 x O r O z 0 0 CD N N O 0 O 0 0 C7 0 T M ` m O N O m o o + Z Y N O N L S c R o o 0 J -O o U N N _M O N 0 cO G w W_ m U C O •L O 2 W w m U N +' u CD tD LO `" cq n LO LO N N N d O O O M N O O O N O C N O Z r O N N N d O M O M S O O �o O O oo U �o 'o 00 00 w N w O m M o v v U o rn m rn m v v HF- N N N 0 O N co Doo y O O O � � co N N Z W N O O O U o 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 m Y a 0 O - a m H J O M O M I 0 0 0 0 Cl)N � O Cl) O co co 0 - a Lo Locm) d N MO cD p d O O O O x LL � 1-1: W oo w O � LL O c) M Q M p OM O M O F- �o no co m co y m � Or O ( `lC) O M O cl M L11 x LL m O W j co oo y-- N O O O� d LL N d N O O co O O a O O W O O O Lo N U o 0 O °r' O x O O n O Z Cl 0 N 0 0 O ... O M 9 N T M O (LO N =1 N O 0 OJ Y O M + Z N N.. O N = N S C a o O O a H o U CD tD N 4 cq N O m M co N W d O O O M N C, Z r O O M O M S O O 0 0 U �o 'o 00 00 w N w O m M U LO 17 M M O � O T N LO..• V y t O 7 O W O � L S C Y a 0 O H J a 0 U Q 00 Cfl O N r- N 00 N O M N ca d N N _M O N cO G W W m U C O •L N O 2 W W (0 U V L. v W J W M :t ui 2 o CD to co O N 0) U N O cR O OOj 'p O 1 M Cl) W N W U00 d O O O z T OMO O11 U m 1- 1 N '00 O I-cli T O U � 10 ' _o m Z O M O M S 0 6 O O CM U LO �o .......... . 1 ' 1 V @ O 00 co N O_ 00 CO ' 1 LO LM r @ O 1 r M M O j 00 Co F- LL d 1 T LO... w � o 1 O 01 1 LU IL _T C O o to 1 1 1 1 1 O =a LL W 1 _ 0 �0 0 M 00 0 @ L O' L O 1 00 1r 1 1 m 1Nt O D c 3 �a 0 otz 0 O M 'p F- -O 1 0 U o O O O co O N 0) U Cl) 7 07 N ov IoM O Z OOj 'p O 1 L(7 � r 1 � p M 1 U00 p 1 O tCD M T ' 1 N N 000 U m 1- 1 N '00 O I-cli M '� ' ' ' N O U � 10 ' _o m Z M ' co ' o 0 N O U O N _O LO m .......... . 1 ' 1 V @ O � O 1 O a ' 1 r O 1 r xLU o to 1 1 j LL d 1 O r 1 O 01 1 LU IL _T C O o to 1 1 1 1 1 O — .52 =a LL 1 0 �0 N O M 00 0 O' L O 1 00 1r 1 1 m 1Nt O U LQ IV ' N 1 1 00 O 'p Z O 1 O O ' O 1 0 1 m 00 � �N 0 Z p 1 r C) . -- L :.. .a a O a m . @ @ O c U G Q 00 co C) N ti N m r) 00 N O N N N M O N 0 0 LU LU p U d ca o U •L '^ > / V+ cO G1 C LU d _U i f6 Q U 04 N O O O O N O O O O , O O O . N , LO01 V u7 r U O O 7 N a 1 1 1 0 O O 10 10 1 OC) 10 OM N C) 1 1 r- 0 0 1 q n 0 O Z O O 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 r 1 1 1 T 1 C) 1 1 1 1 N O 2 U 0 ;o ;o ;C) 0 O 1 C 1 I C) 1 I VCD I N O T O 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 N O N U N O 00 1 0 1 � I N 1 0 I M 1 N V F- O 1 0 1 Lot n 1 7 1 I N O 1 O 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 N O N ii '0 O CD 10CD 1C 10 IN 1M 1Izil O r m 1 1 0 M I N ' N M Z --- - O L - - - O -! - - - C:, -! - - - - O N O O U o 0 Cl ^ 0 o n m 0 o cc::,) 0 vi m H o 7o M ID o r rn u) o 0 'o;(o 70 r 0 o 0 0 c o a O O 1 to 1 0 1 1 IM 1I 1 1 1 0 ' CD 0 1 ylli @ N r r X LL LU O IO O 10 1 1 1 1 1 ' 10 1 1 1 1 0 1(� 1i O 1 1 1 1 O In N LLL d O C) 1 1 1 1 1 C) ' O 1 1 1 1 I co ' 7 1 1 1 1 1 I O M O@ I- 7 LL O o 10 io 1 7 io I(p0 iso 0 CD 1 1 1 01 1 1 1 1 1 CD 1O O j p 0 L r X LL O O 0 I Q I p I M O O W j p 1 1 1 1 1 co 1 L d LL 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 @ 1 4 ' ' 4% O Cl)1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 co I V O 1 1 1 I rn l) 1 1 0 0 1 0 CD 0 1 CO 1 1 I r 1 L O O Il i r U 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 0 1 1 ror 1 0 X O O Z 6) 1 1 1 00 ' M 1 1 1@ ' 1 1 1 V ' co N 0 L Q 1 U co 1' V 1 q O O ' O 1 1 • . i\ i . . (6Iz ' O 1 1 iY i . . ' O 1 1 iY i . m U N@ya t O o oa @ U) LU ¢ V 00 N O Lf ) N N Op O L O (Op N O N M 7 7 C CD � o N n U O M N O M C) M I Q M 1 1 1 1 O I d 10 1 0 I V I p 1 N G z v p 1 0 0 1 1 O' O O S U O I Q? to o0 1 l() 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 N 1 0 N 4 2 00 ' O o ' 0 0 ' C) 0 0 U M M oo ;�o ,co ;o c0 00 L 1Ln • . i Y i . T 1 D I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O M N N m 6 AM U O 1 00 I m 1 0 CD 1 1 0 1� C N U .D O I M I N 1 0 M F- 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 0 N O U 'O O 1 0 I M 1 0 00 1 � 1 � 1 C ti m1 I N 1 C Z ------------------- O O O O o 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 N U U O 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 m o .o .o 0 0 m H o 'C)'CD 0 n ;0 oo :oo Co 'M :0 0 ON W : O O a 1 1 1 O 1 ) 1� 1 O !p Iq (O N O f p m f p m 1 0 0 O O t X LL LU 0 1 1 a) 1 0 I N O I M O 1 O IN I� 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O In LLL d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 0 I o M 10 M 1 O f0 O 0 O O CD 1 1 O 0 d I N I M6 1 0 O IN coI1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 N 1 N 1 Cl O I o M 10 M 1 0 N O M f0 O Ib 00 I M O 1 0 0 1 0 O O X LL O I N I M 1 0 O LU j y O IN I[p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L L LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 O 0 0 p O I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O co O U 0� loo Ian 1 f~) u'r 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 1 1 'o 1 0 1 0 1 x r O z 1 1 1 1 1 1 OD 1 1 1 6) o °o M Cl) m ;oo;L O f0 0 1 NO 1 10 O 1 M 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 L d O d E U U o m o O F ULL = U !n z Q O rl M N NO N M 7 7 a �a O C) M I Q M 1 v r ;m m 1m S U M 1 M to o0 N 1 LO LO M M 00 L 1Ln • . i Y i . O O N m 6 AM LM U .D Q 00 0 N r - N N (6 00 N O CD N N O) d N N _M O N cO G LLI w m U c 0 •L N cO G W W_ U c J N E d R Cl) N N N M N M Q 7 R U � � a to d ON 0 0 Cl Z �o �o T � n v 00 coo U ? �? 0 0 N---- Q LO N U � n � M M OW LO Do N F L -. o� _ , L � R N O O (D O _0 rn 0 0 O N L D C 3 R -a 0 a o c F J O 0 U d R Cl) N N m N N Q 7 V U �D a to )0 ON 0 Z co Qo T � n v n cD n co U Ci 0 0 N---- Q LO LO U � n � M M O W L() 03 LO LO _ , L � R 0� N O OO �0 rn. LI) O N L N C 3 -a 0 a) O C F J "O 0 U 00 N O r - CN N 0) m 0 - CN N N C'7 O N 0 c0 G LJJ LJJ m U C 0 •L N 0 2 LJJ L LI m U a) C C, Q 0 m O O (` r- 61 . O? U 0 n o 0 M ' M O ,o O1 O CD O N z m O 1 O o to T 1 7 = M O CO 1 CO U O 00 1 00 o Io O 1 y N C) O 1 � 10) O OJ 1 � O M 1 M a a o O o � m m w E c m N 00 m o 0 n O rn m U o 0 M O M O O O O y O O Z � � O o c m m = U W a0 0 0 O O W a0 � M M co NO C O a3 CL �o O co �o N-- 0 0 ro r N C 3 w a F- O C F J a 0 0 U N N _M O N 0 cO G w W m U c O N O 2 w _W m U a w N Q T H L `O U co LL 0 O J N E Z r I- N CD 0 r O rn rn U o 0 M O M O Q O O N O O Z 0 0 v r` co n m 0 0 N---- U U ° rn O�C� a M M F 90 o c m o_ 30 o co N-- 0 N L N C 3 R c a F � 0 U N Q T H L `O U co LL 0 O J N E Z Appendix C: Cultural Constraints Technical Memorandum cog -stone PALEONTOLOGY_ARCHAEOLOGY - HISTORY Cultural Resources Technical Meme Kll%.l%A 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 of Study: Cultural resources assessment Buildings: 420-426 W. 6th St., 420-A W. 6th St., 420-B W. 6th St., 424 W. 6th St., 428 W. 6th St., 430 W. 6" St., 436 W. 6' St., 640-646 B St., 690-694 B St. USGS Quadrangle: Tustin, Calif. Total Area: 6.79 acres Key Words: Mid -201h century light industrial buildings, Tustin Freeway Commerce Center 1518 West Taft Avenue Field Offices cogstone.com Orange, CA 92865 San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Oakland Toll free 888-333-3212 Office (714) 974-8300 Federal Certifications 8(a), SDB, EDWOSB State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE Vintage Lofts Cultural TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY......................................................................................................................................IV INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSEOF STUDY....................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................................2 PROJECTPERSONNEL..................................................................................................................................................2 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................................4 SITEHISTORY...........................................................................................................................................................6 SOURCESCONSULTED...........................................................................................................................................6 SURVEYRESULTS....................................................................................................................................................8 BUILDING 424 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04).........................................................................................................10 BUILDING 428 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04).........................................................................................................10 BUILDING 430 W. 6T,1 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.............................................................................................................................................2 0 REFERENCESCITED.............................................................................................................................................21 APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS.......................................................................................................................22 11 Vintage Lofts Cultural LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. 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. 61H STREET, NORTHWEST CORNER, VIEW TO SOUTHEAST................................................11 FIGURE 6. BUILDING 428 W. 61H 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. 6T11 STREET, SOUTH ELEVATION, VIEW TO NORTHWEST...................................................13 FIGURE 9. BUILDING 436 W. 6T11 STREET, NORTH ELEVATION, VIEW TO SOUTH...........................................................14 FIGURE 10. BUILDING 436 W. 6T11 STREET, EAST ELEVATION, VIEW TO NORTHWEST...................................................15 FIGURE 11. BUILDING 436 W. 6T11 STREET, EAST ELEVATION OF 1961 STRUCTURE, VIEW TO NORTHWEST ..................15 FIGURE 12. BUILDING 420-426 W. 6T11 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 ..................................................... TABLE 2. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN A ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS ............................................. 111 Vintage Lofts Cultural EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document is an assessment of cultural resources located within the commercial/ light industrial complex located at W. 6th 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 H, 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. uv 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. 6th 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). Ros•cr -- 90 ons Avs� dra Blvd a Fullerton Fitacentia Ar Buena La Pain Park Hawaiian Anaheim Gardens Cypress W Lincoln Ave qq ,,��j � Villa GI,+. Los W Ball RA\ 6 Park j larttltos Kat•Ila Av• \\{� Joint Forces Training Chapman Ave Garden range Center Grove 22 Navel Westmins or w ,pons Station Mldwrayc •al Beach ®' a City -.S an to 1 - Tustin 261 tat ° Ana Sunset Edinger A— 03 in m r 39 Huntington ?r Beach C� I cogstone Historic Lofts, Tustin City of Tustin, Orange County, CA Avea Man" Project Area Corps Air m Station Tust in o'Sy I Lnm Shin C Any" n Regional Park anve,auo _ _ rvms V 133 Foothill Costa \�55�44° Ranch M@ad n Ptr d Onedi Tran © •" el lo"° Regional Can �i Park 73`aw' Rancho Santa - EI Toro Margarita Co Lake Mission Y Forest Viejo a Newport Ne*port 1 Beach Coaab_ Laguna - C w on a His Del Mar a Sources: Esri, D'eLorme, HERE?'US'GIS Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan QETI, Esri , ina+(,Hong Kong), E'sri`(Thailand), TOrrWom ' Ladera 0 2.5 5 Kilometers 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 oProject Area 0 2.5 5 Miles 11 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1:300,000 1 in = 5 miles Figure 1. Project Vicinity 1 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. 6th 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 i l 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. A.m 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). Vintage Lofts Cultural is rNINE � . II : .�,,...,,-3f"1♦i �---� .� AVEfkal on � � +�gp��\ .. • -_ �n m' I1'# �_-_ vir- _ �1t C F •Q y y � 1 `. • � i �C' + ' � •Vii MORSVQO� o - �� ,� wrc' 8k 149 i'RU�-' 'ql t "5■ SS - nit 4 _-R�_ Wi w _ r N A 1-�- NORTN,• � I I -_7 'rr TiISTriV� LiwNdAl y r es r&I's r 111I� >„ ORAN_G i , 1 ��. aj�,mbu, ,��;1 ���i 60 of • t I�, v• TUSTIN R:.., ••C4lurnrga' ■ ■ it - ST— r1r 11. . ri y ■ ��"� ■`J sr em• O D� • J V -- 'J�� - � � .� .tel 1_�Ct n'H `� � •�� 7 St Jse ire e u . - iv •p t• _ ST mIN ,-� IC �[�! k • 7 S IIdS, M8 •:may`" ■ Q Q Cee n` 't f13 4p Ism 1 D O, 111u _ ,• •�: Juan �� . '.` D C 4 •i ice/ y' ;, 4 Se ■ rte-. - u a . c �1 • \- �y i • ■_ rte--�- � \ ', (`.�} � / � �/ • `` ' ` �\ �/ t moss ■��_: -_.�' n\ ♦.4L�� �\ . ! \"ter+ • •�'•. +' �• 1 t ! 1 t ltc Sthu�l �`jy(JQ �i�„_♦, p�� y •' _ ••� i ♦ r• W" Tra W 111 .` 3! WISM on \ Wel�■ ; °-'' ■ ''�,`�� �� --- -- - A, co •°°T° •••°^° °• °•Ap ��� Gopyright©.2013.aN Tonal Ge g phic S i -CU b'ed� Historic Lofts, Tustin 0 0.25 0.5 Miles City of Tustin, USGS 7.5' Quads: I i i i I i i i I N Orange County, CA ORANGE 0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers Project Area TUSTIN I i i i I i i i I Q USGS Quads 1:24,000 1 in = 2,000 ft Figure 2. Project Location 3 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. 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. 6th 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. 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, fonning 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. 6th 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. Vintage Lofts Cultural Table 1. Previous Studies within a One -Half Mile Radius of the APE Report Author Title Year Distance No. OR- from Pro'ect 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 Demcak, 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 Ariz Building), and numerous historic buildings within one historic district (Old Towne Tustin) (Table 2). The district borders include the north side of W. 6th Street, just north of the Project Area. The Historic Resources Inventory (HRl) 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 (18 87 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. 6`h 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. 011 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 P mf�M Vintage Lofts Cultural JIM Uncolored buildings are not historic (more than 50 years old) r. cogstone I Historic Lofts, Tustin 0 62.5 125 Feet City of Tustin, - 420 - 426 W. 6th Street - 430 W. 6th Street l i i i I i i i I N Orange County, CA — 420 W. 6th Street Suite A - 436 W. 6th Street - 0 10 20 Meters 420 W. 6th Street Suite B 0 640 - 644, 646 W. 6th Street Project Area - 424 W. 6th Street 690 - 694 W. 6th Street 0 428 W. 6th Street 1:1,500 1 in= 125 ft Figure 1. Map of Project Buildings Z 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. 6th 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. 6th 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 a loft 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`h 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. 6th Street is a long, rectangular plan building, one story in height, that abuts Building 430 W. 6th Street on its west end and Building 420-A W. 6"' 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 faVade, 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 Vintage Lofts Cultural Figure 4. Building 424 W. 6th Street, northwest elevation, view to southeast Figure 5. Building 428 W. 6t" Street, northwest corner, view to southeast 11 Vintage Lofts Cultural Figure 6. Building 428 W. 6th Street, northeast elevation, view to southwest BUILDING 430 W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04) Building 430 W. 6th 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. 6th Street and Building 428 W. 6t" 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. 12 Vintage Lofts Cultural Figure 7. Building 430 W. 6 I Street, north elevation, view to south Figure 8. Building 430 W. 6 I 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. 6th 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 6th Street, as well as above its southeast corner entryway and loading dock. Figure 9. Building 436 W. 6th Street, north elevation, view to south 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. 6th 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. 14 Vintage Lofts Cultural Figure 10. Building 436 W. 6 I Street, east elevation, view to northwest Figure 11. Building 436 W. 6 I 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. 6t' 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 1 Street, north elevation, view to southwest BUILDING 420-A W. 6TH ST (APN 401-341-04) Between 1963 and 1972, Building 420-A W. 6th Street was constructed. At its west end, it abuts Building 428 W. 6th Street. It is similar in configuration and size to Building 428 W. 6th 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 NO 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 facade. BUILDING 420-B W. 6TH ST. (APN 401-341-04) Between 1963 and 1972, Building 420-B W. 6th Street was constructed. At its west end, it abuts Building 428 W. 6th Street. Across its north flank, it abuts Building 420-A W. 6th Street. It is irregular in shape, filling a large space between Building 420-A W. 6"' 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. K. 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 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. 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 the 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 Vintage Lofts Cultural REFERENCES CITED CoStar 2001 A Little Piece of Tustin, in Costar Group, accessed online at http://www.costar.coiT/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, 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 '/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. 21 accessed online at http://articles.latimes.com/1991-09-20/business/fi-2708_1_tustin-freeway- 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 '/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. 21 APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS Vintage Lofts Cultural 22 cogstone 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, she routinely 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 ArcG1S 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 cogstone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY -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 Vintage Lofts Cultural cogstone 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 cog -stone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY -HISTORY Education Vintage Lofts Cultural SARAH NAVA Archaeologist and GIS 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 (NAWS) 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, FYI 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 26th, 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 21st, 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 20`h, 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 11th, 2015 to June 11", 2015 26 cog-sLone 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 lll 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 dining 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 27 Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Report 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 52875 GEOTEK'G, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 GeoTek, Inc. 710 E. Parkridge Avenue, Suite 105, Corona, California 92879-1097 (951) 710-1160 Office (951) 710-1167 Fax vwwv.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. 6th 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. � iu' Na. 1892 Edward H. LaMont CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/16 Principal Geologist * �JN JIN ,I.� Ey\ �i y C772 i4 p EXP. oenod-7 /* Paul Hyun Jin Kim PE 77214, Exp. 06/30/17 Project Engineer C Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file) G:\Projects\1351 to 1400\1400CR Intracorp Companies 420 W. 6th Street Tustin1400CR W. 6th Street, Tustin GEO.doc INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. 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'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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'91� INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 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. GEOTEK'G, 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 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 GEOTEK'Gr-, 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 1-1, 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 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). GEOTEK'91� INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 11'/2 miles to the northeast. 4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters The site is located at approximately latitude: 33.7393°N and longitude: -1 17.8271 °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, 1.480g 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 0.544g 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. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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'/2 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 1/2 inch of differential settlement across a 40 feet span. Due to the GEOTEK'91� 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. CONCLUSIONSAND 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 GEOTEK'91� INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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%. GEOTEK'G, 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'G, 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 05EI520 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. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 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 GeoTeWs 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'91� INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th 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. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 0.001 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 retention structures. Loads applied within a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the surcharge on the stem and footing of the earth retention structure should be considered in the design. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES Surface Slope of Retained Materials (h:v) Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf 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 (I:I 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 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 GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 15 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. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 Flatworlc 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. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th 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. GEOTEK'Gr-, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 GEOTEK'91� INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 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-1 1001 15) 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 GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 1:100,000. Seismic Design Values for Buildings (http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php). GEOTEK'91� F ' Y. 4• C /'.I rf y 5 SUBJE S!_ - of low ' 3:riP- + B-1 t } {ilgi him 6-1 r4 . F '-47,r: APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page A- 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'91� CLIENT: Intracorp 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: s DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing sE s o Boring No.: B -I z V U O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 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 5 --------- 4 -------------------------------g------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SP f SAND, light brown to brown, slightly moist, loose ------------------ 4.7 103.0 ------------------------------ 6 6 s m -f SAND 3.1 102.3 8 7 10 --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 5 SM Silty f SAND, light brown and tan, slighty moist, medium dense 6.2 106.2 II 12 15 ------------ 3 -----------------------------y ML --------------------g ---v --------------------------------------------------------- f SandSILT, brown, sli htl moist, firm ------------------ 11.7 ------------------------------ 3 3 20 -- --------- ---------------------------------- —-------------- —------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 4 SP m -f SAND, light brown, slightly moist, medium dense 5.6 8 7 Boring Terminated at 21.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 25 30 ZSample tyDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: s DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing s o E Boring No.: B-2 z V U O v ° E 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 7 --------- 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SM Silty m -f SAND, brown, slightly miost, medium dense, trace gravel ------------------ ------------------------------ 5 5 brown to light brown, loose 7.0 97.3 Fines = 36% S 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ZSample tyDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: s _ DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing s _ o E Boring No.: B-3 z V U _ O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 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 II IS 5 9 trace cobbles 3.8 113.3 16 23 I I increased gravel and cobble content 4.3 16 (sample disturbed) 20 10 16 dense 3.1 104.3 18 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 -- --------- -----------------------y ----------g---------------g---y------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------------ 3 CL Silt CLAY, light brown, slightly moist to moist, firm 18.5 LL=25; PL= 15; PI=10 2 3 ZSample type: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery -77 ---Water Table W AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing sE o Boring No.: B-3 (Cont.) V O v ° E o w 7 �` O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 30 (see previous page) 35 -- --------- 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SM Silty f SAND, brown, Blighty moist, medium dense, trace gravel ------------------ 9.0 ------------------------------ Fines = 28% 7 7 40 -- --------- 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SP m -c SAND with Gravel, brown, slightly moist, medium dense ------------------ 3.6 ------------------------------ 12 7 45 ------------ 4 ----------------- SM Silty f SAND, brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense 12.7 7 11 50 -- --------- -------------------------y ------------------------------------------ ------------------- —---------------- - --y,---------------------------------------- - ------------------ ------------------------------ 3 CL SiltCLAY, mottled light brown and re moist, firm, some fine sand in ti 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 Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o E Boring No.: B-4 z V U O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 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 15 2.5 116.2 20 27 15 15 2.8 23 28 20 12 2.6 17 18 25 -- --------- ------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 6 SP m -c SAND, dark tan, slightly moist, medium dense 3.2 10 10 30 ----- -- - --- ------ -- - -- --- ----- -- 3 ML Cla ey SILT, dark brown, sli htly moist, stiff y 12.5 5 5 ZSample type: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery -77 ---Water Table W AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing sE o Boring No.: B-4 (Cont.) V O v ° E o w 7 �` O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 30 (see previous page) 35 -- --------- s ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SM Silty f SAND, brown, slighlty moist, medium dense ------------------ 8.3 ------------------------------ S 5 40 -- --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 3 ML f Sandy SILT, light brown, slightly miost to moist, stiff, trace clay 17.6 3 6 45 I3 sM - ------ - ------ -- ----- --- --- -- ------ Silty f SAND, brown, slightly moist, medium dense 8.3 II 7 SP SAND tan sliahltv moist medium dense Boring Terminated at 46.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 50 55 60 ZSample type: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o E Boring No.: B-5 z V U O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 0 6" asphalt over 3" base with petromate layer at 1/2" SP 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 -- --------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------------ 20 SP c SAND with Gravel and Cobbles, tan, slighly 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 ZSample tYDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o E Boring No.: B-6 z V U _ O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 0 4" asphalt over 4.5 base with petromat layer at 1/2" SP-sM f. SAND with Silt, light brown, loose slightly moist 5 8 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 --------------------6J--- —---------------------------------------------------------- Cla e SILT, brown, slihity 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 ZSample tyDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: _ DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing _ o E Boring No.: B-7 z V U _ O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 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 s 7 6 m -f SAND, trace gravel 3.8 101.9 6 5 10 ----- --------- ---------------------------y--------------------g---Y --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 4 ML f Sand SILT, brown, slightly moist, stiff 14.1 98.9 Fines = 62% 5 6 15 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 ------------------------------------------ SP ----y---------------------------------------------------------------- m -c SAND, tan, slightly moist, medium dense ------------------ 1.8 ------------------------------ II 13 Boring Terminated at 27.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 30 ZSample tyDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV- R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density APPENDIX 6 RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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. GEOTEK'G, STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.1 1.0 10.0 0.00 1.00 0 2.00 U) rn Z 3.00 Y U 4.00 LU J D_ Q 5.00 CO U- 0 6.00 z LU 7.00 LU o_ O 8.00 Q 0 :-_i 9.00 0 U) z 10.00 11.00 _-7777d i —td_ - 12.00 ---- Seating Cycle �— Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation --f-- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 AE::." CONSOLIDATION REPORT IG E 40 �r E Sample: B-1 @ 2.5' Plate C-1 CHECKED BY: PK Lab: DI 420 W. 6th Street PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR Date: 01/16 Tustin, California STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.1 1.0 10.0 0.00 1.00 0 2.00 U) rn Z 3.00 Y U �T- 4.00 LU J D_ Q 5.00 U) U- 0 6.00 z LU � 7.00 LU o_ O 8.00 Q 0 :-_i 9.00 0 U) z 10.00 11.00 12.00 ---- Seating Cycle �— Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation --f-- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 AE::." CONSOLIDATION REPORT IG E 40 �r E Sample: B-7 @ 5' Plate C-1 CHECKED BY: PK Lab: DI 420 W. 6th Street PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR Date: 01/16 Tustin, California )C -r-, ET E 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' Sampled By: Received By: Tested By: Reviewed By: Test Procedure: ASTM 1557 Oversized Material (%): 0.0 140 135 130 LL a 125 120 Z W 115 110 105 100 Job No.: 1400 -CR Lab No.: Corona Date Sampled: Date Received: Date Tested: Date Reviewed: Method: A Correction Required: MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 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 * 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) MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES Maximum Dry Density, pcf 125.0 @ Optimum Moisture, % 10.0 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, % MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Grain Size Distribution: • Gravel (retained on No. 4) • Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200) • Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200) Classification: Unified Soils Classification: AASHTO Soils Classification: Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, % Plasticity Index, % 1 17- r X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 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 * 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) MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES Maximum Dry Density, pcf 125.0 @ Optimum Moisture, % 10.0 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, % MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Grain Size Distribution: • Gravel (retained on No. 4) • Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200) • Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200) Classification: Unified Soils Classification: AASHTO Soils Classification: Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, % Plasticity Index, % 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 Chloride Sulfate CT -417 Resistivity ID Deptt CT -532 CT -422 Bht CT -532 (643) (FeeB-1 (643) (ppm) We°i (ohm -cm) 0-5' 7.19 42 0.0145 2400 576 East Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION OUTPUT SUMMARY 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR GEOTEK'G, GeoTek, Inc_ 1400-R LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Intraorp Tustin Hole No.=B-3 !Nater Depth=40 ft Magnitude=6.6 Acceleration=0.537g Shear Stress Ratio Settlement ;0 0 1 C rir+.1 r .`Y +},V 17 f TL 0 fs1=1.04 i� S = 0.f9 in. CRR — CSR fs1— Saturated — U Shaded Zane has Liquefaction Potential Unsaturat. — z a 60 c� 70 F GeoTek, Inc_ 1400-R APPENDIX D GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR GEOTEK'91� GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-1 420 W. 6`h 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 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 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`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 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'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-3 420 W. 6`h 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. S. 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 1. 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. 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 blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable GEOTEK'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page DA 420 W. 6`h 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 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. 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. GEOTEK'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-5 420 W. 6`h 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 1:1 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. 1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's 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. GEOTEK'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-6 420 W. 6`h 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. Traffic Direction 11 11 ,one of Non -Encroachment PLAN VIEW TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN Test Pit/ Spoil pile Vehicle parked here GEOTEK'G, SIDE VIEW GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-7 420 W. 6`h 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'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-8 420 W. 6`h 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. GEOTEK'G, Appendix E1: Preliminary WQMP 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. 6th Street 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 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 dmcdougall@cvc-inc.net Telephone # (949) 916-3800 1 NJ 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. 6th Street Contents Section I Section II Section III Section IV Section V Section VI Section VII Page No. Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance .......... 1 ProjectDescription.................................................................................. 3 SiteDescription........................................................................................ 9 Best Management Practices (BMPs)...................................................... 13 Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs................................. 25 BMPExhibit (Site Plan).......................................................................... 27 Educational Materials............................................................................. 28 Attachments AttachmentA ................................................................................... Educational Materials AttachmentB .................................................................................. 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 iii 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 (ocplanning.net). Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. section i Page 1 Project Infomation Permit/ Application No. :Grading or Building (If applicable) TBD Permit No. :TBD (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 Conditions of Approval or Issuance i. 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 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 this project. for the estimated cost of reviewing the WQMP. (Please list verbatim.) 3• Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall record a "Declaration of "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. 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 Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Quality Control Board. ...... . ..................................... _................................................................................................................................................................ —................................................................................................................ ......... Conceptual WQMP Was a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan previously approved for No, this report represents a Conceptual WQMP. this project? Watershed -Based Plan Conditions Provide applicable conditions from watershed - based plans including N/A WIHMPs and TMDLS. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section i Page 2 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Section II Project Description III 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 Project 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 SIC Code: N/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Pervious Impervious ------------------------------------------------------------ Project AreaArea -----------------------------------------------------------. Area ----------------------------------------------- =------------------------------------------------------------ (acres or sq ft) ::Percentage - (acres r sq ft) - Percentage =................................ ........................... Pre -Project Conditions = 0.39 ac = 6% = 6.42 ac = 94% Post -Project Conditions = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_- 1.20 ac = 18% = 5.61 ac - 82% - - - - -- - - - ----------------- Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II 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 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II Page 5 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 z 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 167,180 sf or 56% of the total site. Private drive aisles coverage is approximately Narrative Project 77,058 sf or 26% of the total site. The remaining 52,537 sf is open space Description: _ landscaping area which makes up 18% of the total site. (Use as much space as _ The improvements which this residential project proposes include private drive necessary.) = 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 IV 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. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II Page 6 Pollutants of Concern Check One for each: E=Expected to = x Pollutant concern Additional Information and Comments N=Not Expected to be of concern Suspended -Solid/ Sediment E ® N ❑ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Nutrients E ® N ❑ Heavy Metals E❑ N Pathogens (Bacteria/ Virus) E ® N ❑ Pesticides E ® N ❑ Oil and Grease E ® N ❑ Toxic Organic Compounds I E ❑ N Trash and Debris E ® N ❑ _ Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section II Page 6 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) < 1.05 (34,191 cf/44,027 cf) = 0.78!- 1.05V* 2. (TC 2 -year, pre/ TC 2 -year, post) G 1.05 (13.04 min/15.9 min) = 0.82<- 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 II.4 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 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 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 The site falls under the 0.75" zone per the TGD, Figure XVI -1, Rainfall Precipitation Zone 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 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 Drainage 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 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 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 hazard zone report for the Tustin quadrangle. (Groundwater) Conditions 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 groundwi Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section III Page 10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street 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 1. Percolation testing was conducted to an approximate depth of z7'/2 feet and 46/2 feet below existing grade (bgs) within test locations I2 and I -i, respectively (see Figure r). The boring diameters were each approximately 8 inches. Approximately i 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 -i 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." 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. * 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. 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 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). Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. section III Page 12 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(4) Listed Impairments San Diego Creek is listed for Fecal Coliform, Nutrients, Pesticides, 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 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 7.71- 2.4.2.2 of the Model WQMP. • Determine applicable LID performance criteria. Refer to Section 7.II-2.4.3 of the Model WQMP. • Determine applicable treatment control BMP performance criteria. Refer to Section 7.II-3.2.2 of the Model WQMP. • Calculate the LID design storm capture volume for the project. Refer to Section 7.II-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 Per Section II.3 of this WQMP, HCOCs are not considered. performance criteria (Section 7.I1-2.4.2.2 in MWQMP) List applicable LID Per 7.II-3.2.2 of the Model WQMP, if the LID performance criteria is not feasibly met performance = Per 7.11-2.4.3.2of the Model WQMP, the available LID Treatment BMPs to be utilized criteria (Section in reducing the post -development impacts include infiltration, harvest and use, evapotranspiration, or biotreat/biofilter, of the 85th percentile of a24 -hour storm 7.I1-2.4.3 from ;event. required volume can be met, and has a medium to high effectiveness for reducing the MWQMP) (Simple Method) Calculate LID design storm 1 DCVPROP = (0.75 x 0.82 + 0.15) x 0.75 x 6.81 ac x 43560 sf/ac x capture volume 12 in/ft for Project. = 14,183 CF Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 14 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 required. Sizing of these treatment control BMPs will include, if applicable, any Water Quality credits as calculated per the Technical Guidance Document. If the additional BMP performance 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 i participation in an alternative program is not required. MWQMP) If the cost of providing treatment control BMPs greatly outweighs the pollution control benefits, a waiver of treatment control and LID requirements can be requested. (Simple Method) Calculate LID design storm 1 DCVPROP = (0.75 x 0.82 + 0.15) x 0.75 x 6.81 ac x 43560 sf/ac x capture volume 12 in/ft for Project. = 14,183 CF Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section IV Page 14 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 (TGD). 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 (14,183.27 CF) Volume of pipe =10,456 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 6.811 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: ❑ ..J 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 14,183 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. Worksheet J: 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: ❑ Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section Iv Page 18 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? IA 5.61 ac For projects with both toilet flushing and indoor demand 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**d gp use? 10 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 9 > Line 8?) NO For projects with only toilet flushing 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**** conservation landscape design? (Table X.8) ac 15 What is the proposed project irrigated area? (multiply 1.2 conservation landscaping by 1; multiply active turf by 2) ac 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 = 3422 **Approximate daily toilet use 2604 gpd (From Xi 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 420 toilet users (3 residents * 140 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 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: ❑ 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 11 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. Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs N/A Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. section Iv Page 21 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 420 W. 6th Street 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 11 N/A N/A Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. section Iv Page 22 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 -Structural Source Control BMPs Check One If not applicable, state brief Included Not Identifier Name reason Applicable N1 Education for Property Owners, ® ❑ Tenants and Occupants N2 Activity Restrictions ® ❑ .......-------- 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 ------------------------------------- El® --------------------------------------------- No storage tanks onsite Compliance ------------------- N9 ------------------------------------------------------ Hazardous Materials Disclosure ----------------- ❑ -------------------- ® --------------------------------------------- No hazardous materials Compliance expected onsite N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation ® ❑ ------------------- N11 ------------------------------------------------------ Common Area Litter Control ------------------------------------- ® ❑ --------------------------------------------- N12 Employee Training ® ❑ ------------------- N13 ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- El® --------------------------------------------- Residential project; no loading Housekeeping of Loading Docks docks onsite ------------------- N14 ------------------------------------------------------ Common Area Catch Basin Inspection ------------------------------------- ® ❑ ............................................. ------------------- N15 ------------------------------------------------------ Street Sweeping Private Streets and ------------------------------------- ® ❑ --------------------------------------------- Parking Lots ....... ......N16 -----------------------------------------I ----------------- Retail Gasoline Outlets ..................................... E E -- -- ---- ----------- --- ------- 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 Identifier Name If not applicable, state brief Not Included reason Applicable S1 Provide storm drain system stenciling ® ❑ and signage S2 Design and construct outdoor material to El® No proposed outdoor storage storage areas reduce pollution introduction areas Design and construct trash and waste S3 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 SS 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. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section Iv Page 24 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 zoater quality credits. Description of Proposed Project Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits (Select all that apply): ❑Redevelopment ❑Brownfield redevelopment, meaning projects that reduce the redevelopment, expansion, or reuse of real overall impervious property which may be complicated by the footprint of the project presence or potential presence of hazardous site. substances, pollutants or contaminants, and developments designed to Which have the potential to contribute to El Developments undeveloped portions to adverse ground or surface WQ if not support residential and redeveloped. ❑ Mixed use development, such as a combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that can demonstrate environmental benefits that would not be realized through single use projects (e.g. reduced vehicle trip traffic with the potential to reduce sources of water or air pollution). ❑ Higher density development projects which include two distinct categories (credits can only be taken for one category): those with more than seven units per acre of development (lower credit allowance); vertical density developments, for example, those with a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 2 or those having more than 18 units per acre (greater credit allowance). U Transit -oriented developments, such as a ❑ Redevelopment projects mixed use residential or commercial area in an established historic designed to maximize access to public E district, historic transportation; similar to above criterion, but preservation area, or similar where the development center is within one c significant city area half mile of a mass transit center (e.g. bus, rail, c including core City Center light rail or commuter train station). Such = areas (to be defined through projects would not be able to take credit for E mapping). both categories, but may have greater credit assigned (if applicable) Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. section IV Page 25 ❑Live -work ❑In -fill projects, the ❑Developments with ❑ developments, a variety of conversion of empty lots dedication of Develo ments p developments designed to and other underused spaces El Developments undeveloped portions to in historic support residential and into more beneficially used in a city center parks, preservation districts or til ds together - vocational neeg spaces, such as residential p :area. areas and other pervious 'historic similar to criteria to mixed or commercial areas. uses. :preservation use development; would not :areas. 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 Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. section IV Page 26 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 7.114.0 in the Model WQMP. BMP Inspection/ Maintenance Inspection/ Minimum Reponsible BMP Maintenance Frequency of Party(s) Activities Required Activities 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 Common Area provide maintenance of landscaping to meet Regular maintenance Landscape HOA current water efficiency once a week and monthly inspections to Management (N3) and keep plants health p p y determine deficiencies. and bio areas maintained with proper soil amendments. HOA or appointed Regular maintenance Property management once a week and BMP Maintenance (N4) HOA company to provide maintenance of BMPs per monthly inspections the requirements of the to determine WQMP deficiencies HOA or appointed Common Area Litter Property Management Regular maintenance Control (N11) HOA Company to provide once a week. maintenance and to empty common area trash cans. Common Area Catch HOA or appointed Implemented as Basin Inspection (N14) HOA Property Management 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 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 standards, and keep plants deficiencies. 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 I during dry season. Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC. Section v Page 28 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 Check If Business Material I (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Applicable (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Lfheck plicable 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 ® Proper Maintenance Practices for Your ❑ Water Use 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 Attachment A Educational Materials For Education Materials, please visit Orange County Public Works website below: https://cros.ocgov.com/gov/pw/watersheds/publiced IN a. �09�cc o un OCC to bn 0 F+ �. o0 z 00 w o b a. ct br O¢ O C7 O w Y S7 QM, m o ° b,C v� O �' 'm O w .� ,� s. Ra O •� v� U `t\"/J O O c� O..'� Ov O Com. m � > > -P O" o c� a br bt � � N ��+. •Ll N '� v w � C7 c� .�` sa ca .-- -� � 3 ,°�, � �o S�s�. •� �w� '¢a ti Zh w E-a�rte° ;����� 75 oCL o� tc � ° o°�°'Q- as •��oo� �� � �� �, ��� �•� 3 ~� 'C O z fes" r, br G v. C a N o a n aCZ �'� �oc3 o- 'okayw �-�a�= C.)in- Ita 7� -C 75 0� � ~ bC blD o7Sct �o .�' cd U br O k �v51tp N ° b0 O ad b/) •� o a� 0 �� �o� a "ad a 0p0 0�� �g cl� Ln o �o.�oy �� � �� ��ar,���U �°o a ����x x� �. o� F F-+' J C7. 'O C. O C� F-+ I M-1- 4 O n cU +� r� cC .� rrr rrwwO ct br O¢ O C7 O w Y S7 QM, m o ° b,C v� O �' 'm O w .� ,� s. Ra O •� v� U `t\"/J O O c� O..'� Ov O Com. m � > > -P O" o c� a br bt � � N ��+. •Ll N '� v w � C7 c� .�` sa ca .-- -� � 3 ,°�, � �o S�s�. •� �w� '¢a ti Zh w E-a�rte° ;����� T 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. Printed on Recycled Paper is r F• ' ,. ��6 ff io The O cel Beglns r at Your Front Door ...f, P R 0 J E C Tf 'sr POHL4fiOn P R E V E N T 1 0 N r Pool Maintenance Do not store items such as cleaners, batteries, automotive fluids, paint products, TVs, or All pool water discharged to the curb, gutter 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. 0 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.oclandfills.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. 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 0 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. T 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. Printed on Recycled Paper is r F• ' ,. ��6 ff io The O cel Beglns r at Your Front Door ...f, P R 0 J E C Tf 'sr POHL4fiOn P R E V E N T 1 0 N r Pool Maintenance Do not store items such as cleaners, batteries, automotive fluids, paint products, TVs, or All pool water discharged to the curb, gutter 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. 0 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.oclandfills.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. 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 0 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. 1 im c W leg O 19 IL d Con �o a. � U tea' � 'A $0 E o ►. b 03 IRbn I z �cz cz pftQ. O � O � O O 'z N �� O v O � a�bc ct O czCZ � 7-11 o cc cr p cr V WS 4-1 O O ■ o y S� bfj O A O o t, by ct ¢. o ,� o 7z M ' 7zct o a� o'er 4� 0 0 Ora, u Ocl� O b.0 4- br) v� ct o a� C ct t 0s�CIZ pftQ. O ct �M ■ r a� a� 4Z � O � i.y O N �� O v O � a�bc ct O czCZ � 7-11 o cc cr p cr V WS 4-1 O O ■ o y S� bfj O A O o t, by ct ¢. o ,� o N o '� o'er 4� 0 0 Ora, u Ocl� O b.0 4- br) v� ct o C ct �M ■ r a� a� 4Z � O � O N �� O v O � a�bc ct O czCZ � 7-11 o cc cr p cr V WS o ■ ct �M ■ r a� a� 4Z O N �� v a�bc ct O czCZ a p uu o ct �M ■ r a� a� 4Z O �� v O p ? o y A O tc t, by ct ,� N '� 10 0 Ora, u Ocl� O s• ct 0s�CIZ p bC bc ct cz bA (U o bA ° V o °. cc o o a .� 141' ct �M ■ r a� a� 4Z P!iv- 0 w\ `i . rA 73It po 0 0 �O �W 0 g� � � y O 'vi J i.. O . 0 bn �ano��3 a p r C7 7S . �.•' 4- . C' blJ blo b Q, Ct Ct N cd '4-d CIO V ObiD N 0 3 -� � bn U 4� "O �7= bf) v 4� U Z ao o ' 'S s�•bE -o 3, 1-4 CL) �,� Uoma -C CA oa•���ar tea,°ct°.� No��° 300 0.N� ^ct p N 0 3 �•�'� x o �o�u� 0 4-1 �o~.��� Hx�� 0 0 E cr a p 0 750 c� V O r C7 7S . �.•' 4- . C' blJ blo b 75 Ct Ct N cd '4-d be � V ObiD N 0 3 -� � bn U 4� "O " bf) v 4� Z ao -o 3, 1-4 CL) �,� Uoma -C CA tea,°ct°.� 0.N� ^ct p N 0 750 c� V O r C7 7S . b Ct Ct N cd be � V ObiD N 0 3 -� � a � � •r � " bf) 4� Z ao 0 750 c� V O cz cz bf). ct .o - ct O O4-1 : o~ a� b Ct Ct cz cz bf). ct .o - ct O O4-1 : o~ a� �clcl�•bn '�' 3 0 0 711 br 0 E bC U Q O v 0 L - �E 0 0 0 a� C� r, � u � 711 C -Y� .O o 'O v° .O 'O G v br•; � � •�, o.�;� � o V M C•. O ct v ct f•' U ct �. 'C bC N y, v 711 br 0 E bC U Q O v 0 L - �E 0 0 0 a� C� r, � u � 711 75 S � o o ° v° y r G v br•; � � •�, o.�;� � o a �. N y, v h' btcli C O - U U ct C u be O u 7s br u� (z v 8 n cz 711 br 0 E bC U Q O v 0 L - �E 0 0 0 U h N u u ■ CIT C� r, y 711 o o ° v° v 7d o u � � •�, o.�;� � o N y, v U h N u u ■ CIT C� r, y 711 o btcli ct C u be O u n OO ✓V..-iQJV wo �3 u It a o 44 t �•v .�. sy � o bra a� •� .In s. .v O '"G v =ti suy 'O u s. O O 'Ci O L -O iC O- 7.- 3 ✓M S.' SCZZ rte] O ,��, G Q U ✓ '� .��' Q 'y � '� m t • I— Z 00 'sZ W > NV` ^^ Y. aL.a ° PC � � a .4j �000� a � y 0 w +a ocz Ct° 0 ' I 4-5 PC a� a 3 w a o a O O 4 O 0 �,• O O s, O O cc y O x O +r ^C PC m 4, O O w m w O cz t • I— Z 00 'sZ W > NV` ^^ Y. aL.a PC .4j 0 w +a ocz Ct° 0 ' I 4-5 PC O O 4 O 0 �,• O O s, O O cc y O x O +r ^C PC m 4, O O w m w O cz A o � Q�U � °o..o�•� � c.o t • I— Z 00 'sZ W > NV` ^^ Y. aL.a 0 o PC 0 PC 0 0 I PC PC O *0 pa y PQ _ O pa py 4.1 I+I y PC PC P O U p UA ct ccs O cz— nA o o U ccz o U 3cz 0 — � cz O. y N O 4r U U In L.i �--� .�-i �' cC y 0 ccs ca 0 0 o - iJ U m N Q w w+ d a c a a m0 z ^4 4 Rv9'� M E a E mo oii a was m` mai a owu m O�Mi. Mii oii ��Nas oco ii mis n �u mu co rn m o m o m m m R o> n m o o m m a} m m >> y w 1.4 OmCU '�Q'mCU acmCU ci�CU x�CU -co CU �CU 1�CU `� CU a`r'CU >a°�'CU wrvCU w�CU LL�CU -�CU `�aCU U U U n m2 i c2 E U U a ruJ w - =m- � ^a a2 N o �N� o c0a^p MQ�o H e o o a v o v Sao 0 0 o -a _m Co in : voi N m- U o m 6 u ti o_ a -,3 v 'E Q -6 W 4 o N ci a s ci z E N U a a o cS '� N m o ti m a ci a m n ti y m v� ci o m v ti Q a U Q N o a E ` =° `° m n a u° o m w m c o m a m o Q y m m 3 r m m m N u m rn m a m m J m g w N m m m m m m m .p co m m m c m rn m r Y m m LL��U Y�c UCmmm t,U Cu U Cu e no Y�CU N�CU U a Q Q U U Q U U m U U m C7 (DU U U U r U t. C7 a a V U 2 9 m¢ utDi LL U LL m a m U coo _ U v n v °r° ai 3 U oo m o cma m O a N o o N w m _ a a^4 � m^4 tii�4 moo- rn� �� A��y aomV oE�V oYaV oy a9w� o`oV �aoV garnV 'm"�V a'NV c om u9 o n o t9a Y,no a9 om Eyoo v, o a o o o �� o o ao� l7Ym� (ly,no `k P om a9° om a p` cp tk T= o ik V m co # y Jm M Yk = co ik j ro ik a co tk U o ik m o Yk 9= v ik a Z v ik Q a tk m r ik O m u> ik 'p v Yk LL= m ik C N m O m n m T Z m O F rn m O m m m m m m O m J m m a U V m F M m a m A O rn m m m CU G-�CU �W c) YrnCU a`r'CU wNCU V nm.iU Q��a'U U LLCU CCJ CuYMY rnCU ZmCU HrnCU JQ��U OO��U rnN o M o � U U U U U r = C U ti m M m .N ~ U Q U w m = = Q r = = O m 0 d 41 ry a ii ii U - x ii O 0 nQ�U QMco 0Uis ' 0`0cvmooU mQ2QrnU=oU�U__Uo mN U_aEnfiU Q�iU W np^oUdi mn nmoU na U�oU -2 mo Uo p �oUo U Ea�1oUo VO 3 di NNai if Ri rnuNii a��o is O 2 m m g d m `y m N O U m m W N Z m N U m N m W m c> m 3 a m a Nv el: m oa oa w a :.ov «ov «ov «Nv Noa Ma my _ v aT ma.tu wu�i^� =,v�c� �vCv ��'�,� ��CU �m^� fra'�^� a'�Cv ac�C� wv�U S�Cc� w�^v LLMCv YNCc� ie - E O t a ¢ U M m U Q a a s v "ate v _3a m N m` N ^4 Qy V ymgV ain o m roi u v o M a m M a J o Q o v _ roi Y a M x a m o 0 0 0 o r M ��oi iti i.Y cou i.Jq#ti i.�vse mru o aiti V ��#E o¢w#E 10 you ' �oiu y E��u c Emiti � ao#E q c you a 10ru �'°vu �Nm o Mm o��m ownm °omNm gym Y2m cmvm °in �nm r�Mm ,C �,w�m o Nm mo>m C«pnm comNm mem YMCU a�^.0 a�CU awCU 'a�Cc� aMCU wNCU CA YcI vo N v m rn G U U « m n m c m>55 a Qc¢ w Q¢ 2 m r m Q M m M L w m a s m m o ¢ - uw a a m o a a w o n m ,� o �° ¢ .� R° o y Q o a m o y Q .� o G= o a o .� v C ai o �roU 'M Ei U -rnti E ooti ° �o cS zsmb �' `Nci roti oU m iU avNti o��ci w �oU M_ob aU�ti d�vU o. <> c76 w° o =y uamnim c wa ?#U omy ��oi 'oRZo $o= rndom a« cc� o o «o o = o o oo o � ;ad°°mo« -:03:_u �u iovioa�jjii 5i C-o -om QamCU a V CU aniCU ma��.0 V �`.0 W MCU W rnCU u��U U' ACV 2MCU -��.0 =i c��.0 ENCU ENCU Y�CU YnNiCU YMCU 4e` ` s : oaa� ao�-do -°io q5bjO �.�� `�'�~oma W bjOC U bjD •O O c M¢ cd O O O O bA is end m 'dam O 'd O v«3 U Owi bbA P. >' g u O +' -o s~D` O U -O U x O R.. O C O V 1rM�. .r S. cd 'd O s� y O y U U d U •- b O W G.J vi .� vUi N i�. ''7.'0 M �" '0 ° U '0 U cd O a� •.. U • .. a� �+ oMo 0 bA 22ct V 10 cdd vi +� ,O� U =M .0 Q0 z y O V'�i, ami O v' O O y s". �+ 0 O O H 3 w r�clo� �v�¢�x �w a���va �oU w xv�3 cn ° r° v U y a� o U m U U cq v c}, 3 y ° o -y W 0TA y rn ,w_m� U �. Gti y ��+•, ,� yy f~3d bjO i+ rA p� O , 4? ... sem. cd U mn y O' m O o U .� m O UbOm U° O ' o �cn � -o u a U�' �' e,o°' °s°", �.� o 00 tea° U O v >��.'5 o000 a by oA 0 •I.l G� cd cot y O ¢ '� *Q L.O~ O Cl. *Q U ' O bA SOA bio U by VU+ y �0�+ O O M cq O 0} u ' 9 W �. O � O U O ..m. U m , •� Q" cd +� v+Ji O O 00 vi bW0 u '� +J • a� E U 4� a� y bA .zz O a� '.. 0 a� O O t C1. cC 4) ws" ��+ U �" � a" cd O cd '� O m 4 m bn V bo dd �I.l y Vp U O 4iO sOr "" cCd 0 U 00 3 �:. HC a 0un ems• @� ut N C L m y to U 0 O as c n N E 3 O a C L N C 0 ( N n O O w T 3 � E L O U .U.. :5 O O O F � I tq N +) Q O o U I O w6O O O O n. Oo o C U O ) n � N .0 n U L, 0 a C a O N 0 U > n o F 'm CN O O -0 L a) > o o tm U ac `O O C O Qi .c E � L s O � O n C C p '� U o U m C d L V N C VJ C E Y 0 o g M O OJ N C H C L 7 O U O N U a a ws 'LL n 7 T NE a7 N a7 � " N L EO O N > N N n U C O N a O N � d o o o In n U N N U L I6 NF Co m 4"-. t5 U c c — a > �. o L a5 N U T O Y L Q aJ a O O C N O ISI i L w o 30 0 3 s v3oi N,, 0 o m A— # Lo w° o°12o C o ca �. c IWA Q a D) a, o > c V o a m t a a c o as o as a o a o �_ ��• Q a5 N o E o �o n o o c o o m ti � GYM' d T C1 w U w c- in } m o `o a� c c Q_ c m O m a ccu 3 o as a) o 7 .LU n a5 N `d QL C a5 T O O in L m - C Q) U L K a) T .L--. >• Q) C N o a5 -O w m C Y c m o E m o ao c o 0 0 ° o a m 'N a o -o w o } > O aci ami ami a�6i .� t vi ami m m c x o x x c> y c (D o y m Q 0 w 0C oo m U- U c m t m CL t Q t Z H H U m m O y C Q N E O E L C L N E � n O O w T 3 � > C O U n Q O O O n. Oo o C U O ) Q N .0 n U t U O C a O N 0 U > n o F 'm E a o o ac `O O U N O a) .c E � L O O n C C p '� U o U m Y U a) N C VJ C E O O m (` p O C L 7 O U O d a) dT n 7 T NE .C - N c6 Q) O] O a Q) C +� a 0 O U � `n 0 C a _ O L E Q) -OO a as Q) a n L C C O C L.L n OU D d U OU O - - a7 N a7 � " N L EO O N > N N n U C O N a O N � d o o o In n U N N U L I6 NF Co m 4"-. t5 U c c — a > �. o L a5 N U T O Y L Q aJ a O O C N O ISI i L w o 30 0 3 s v3oi N,, 0 o m A— # Lo w° o°12o C o ca �. c IWA Q a D) a, o > c V o a m t a a c o as o as a o a o �_ ��• Q a5 N o E o �o n o o c o o m ti � GYM' d T C1 w U w c- in } m o `o a� c c Q_ c m O m a ccu 3 o as a) o 7 .LU n a5 N `d QL C a5 T O O in L m - C Q) U L K a) T .L--. >• Q) C N o a5 -O w m C Y c m o E m o ao c o 0 0 ° o a m 'N a o -o w o } > O aci ami ami a�6i .� t vi ami m m c x o x x c> y c (D o y m Q 0 w 0C oo m U- U c m t m CL t Q t Z H H U m m CO LO V LO CO V LO 'o M m O O M co O m LO M O I� M m O Lo O LL( O _ CO CO N L[7 M W Lo V LO f— CO M V M O M LO co M N LO N M d1 LO � C7 u) (9 M X CO LO LO CO c) X O N 7 C) X M c? L. O. (9 . CJ X X M X X I. CO O L 7 l0 O N 7 m m O m c0 V Lo O f- � N W 0 7 7 M co r� F N co a0 O r, M U y .-� O m O LO N V O M V M N O V M O CO O M� 7 V M M M V N N I-- M I� a7 U C m LO I- N N V r- r- LO m 1 I, M V LO V CO r� d) M V CO LO N LO O) M CO C a5 E O E ,5 7 (h N Cn M (` CO O_ O L O C V V V V V G M V V V m N M O) O) O) O) 61 61 V V V Q) V V a0 I� LO E x Q CCCCCa Lo CCC°' co o° o o' rn CCa a Cv m vvm rn �_ - o N q U p .L... Q� � � � V o o a C C C CCd V Q.o L m 6J E oN'> aci >> O M R a0 T d) � L E0 0 0 � rn E CO o w S -O m _ 0 o E o y w Q C O_ [` c N R O) U U) 3 a U o Ea-) : : c E m c a) m_ m o U) O n aci O O D` O .� c fn ED Lu_ � m U) w N Y � 0 O_ 'V U fn Q .� `p O W Y �] O OJ C O 6 E a5 N Cco � O= O) O _ : '` Y a) U .0 [� O) N y W zm "� O o 'O C) a a) a fn N O 'C a) = E .0 Y .0 C OC Zi Y Y -C U a) d `m L O O N L Y UJ O C .0 E O O a) C O a) - C O N 6 U) 6 a) U .c O D U `o U U a' CL o d c w w -`-' _� `o c -a 0 3 T a a a .c a> .� a m L LL d U d o L)m 'n w -' 'o a LL, `m C O O C d C Y N d a5 w O m -U d d N N y O a) Q) L W apj U a L U W °) m m o o U E m O E a� a m N .o c c (7 0 O m m 2 z �' -� > 00 a as E c c"a d o m o c rn a o c a a E m m m O m c o- o as Q m c a �° J 'U cn o m s W c 9 a a m _E y m m c C C¢ o a U m p E a E (n o C N C Q) '6 O a) to C L y C O C O O n a5 O O > a5 a5 a5 a5 N a5 O m a3 a3 a3 m O O U L W (n Q a0 a0 U U LL LL U S —` J J J J J J J Z O d U) U) U) (n (n H> r O N U LO cO LO V N LO LO 0) N 7 c . � co W 7 _ r—U W V V :E 7 W N C C C O U O_ OP o -0 (D E 3 r` c ' aa �� U c 0—? E o � Q w Cc E 0 a c > c E a) �c.ow O U v U L o O C N O C N U a W 0 U) Z N ) a5 /�>�' O -U d �p � c0 O N X C O W ` N .0-. m Q Q) ,O oO_ U Q) N > a3 p U da) > U ` C a) O a O p C o x cma 0d o a5 as C U S a5 4'S L U O d CL— O p U U O In C > O ai oo a) U E o c c w Q U x `o o c 2 O L U `o m .a) m w w O LiO OU�K b o o o a"�? ti W O S4 W A 75 > W (~ o I un ILI 4.4 y ... L U rct 4� Lol 7Z h � � � 2 O zi p � O � o o 'L ° y x 0 O y by � O o i a U cl . �� � zL z 7Z ct U � v O zi p v O o 'L ° y x 0 3 7� o O Cn L300 cl h z '� U Fy ■ w ■ in: ct U zi p v � o 'L ° y x 0 3 7� o �7Z cl z '� C btc O cd V O N 'c O rT O N O Z bfJ v0 o U vt s0 v -C 4 O v lc� - NO clt tr In 4� O 7Z a '% 4 aJ U GJ Ct a' � O GJ a O V • cn �" tj O O V � U � o U 7z r Si ■ in: 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ct U p v � o bio 0 �7Z cl z C 4,ct O cd O x Z V o U vt p C O ^~ Z clt In 4� O 7Z a '% 4 4: GJ Ct a' � O GJ a O V • cn �" tj V V 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ o bio U z C 4,ct O cd O x Z V o U vt p C ^~ Z clt In '% GJ Ct a' � O GJ a O V • cn �" tj V V t U U U 7z r Si 4ct U U O � u y ct V n bA 0 a u bt p Ic Iccr u Lo Q x cr y 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 4 U z C 4,ct O cd O x Z o vt p C ^~ Z clt In '% GJ Ct GJ a O V O �" tj 7z U O � u y Q bA a u x Ic Iccr Q x Q x 4 72 "-MAOZ E y E C n O g T 117 N r 0 O E- 0 Al ��m a of cn & w G Oa a- m c o Qimc�'ca�io PAim¢am w $ 3 y g o n 3'a c m o E c m T 117 $ 3 y g o HUM / \ :\$ - king MU A & �- 0000\. ƒ \ ƒ/{� �- T� C= : _ \ = 0(002) 2 --_1 CC -2 \ 2 |\\i/\i _ _ -!//92 /_0020 - \!/\__\ LU / k. 00-0\\)0000\\/\ t is »®J`(` 2 ƒ !)}26 ){)/[ J//j)E}\7/\/ !/[f§7[) HUM / \ :\$ - king MU A & / / 0000\. ƒ/{� Sca 2\ \ = 0(002) ILK "!,!, , �Sol 0002/ � ►% \ /\\� �. 5• y „p CJ p 0 y V U to o A o v N a y d u o b -C O" ', o a o ° V u U '¢ aucn 7 -C >. 0 '� o u ° a o~ ° u d o 3 o o L u �. 5• y „p CJ p � v N a y d u o ', o a o ° V u U '¢ aucn 7 -C �. 5• y „p CJ p � a o ', V u U '¢ aucn 7 -C v N � QA ce. 0 A .v o �J a� o -0 0 � blj U G� 7z O CZ ar ti z o �J a� o -0 0 � blj U G� 7z O CZ ar ti z �i ' o r tr a; v cc brj U..y �i C� CC; i.cn -C QJ a,. '� Cc -C m Chi -C -0 0 G� 7z O ar ti z �i '5 14. C a n Q.. a o ' . G '� v O > vU $ s c -0 4J p IS p V 'n O o0 -0 0 n v1:4 ' G '� vU $ r -0 4J p p V 'n O •p O p Q Q an ^� br, M v O O �d Z C w N bn w v p ��, o oCd 3 3 •� i 3 oo a.� cam. o C14 C) 3" 3 .� a �. 3 x br c I LCJ = CO rf'; On ^ It, LYJ .0 tCi CV C x = 1- O O x CO m ^ m C �J m: O n t- = O CO x In �I ?T OC Cc I.C: n. t- x i0 Z^ Cn n. O- n n, =7 = '� x ch in r1 (� � r --I x rl CA i[) n 't, cn ;n x o c cn n o d x ?r cn n c; cC '" �o �o o w d+ Ou a rq � cn n ci , �n d+ d cu n � � � �. � q> c- cv cn �; cn on r, c� k � C�; � �' X � 4 II' s - �' k iC) iq x Cn x rtl OC d+ C=) O 1- 1� GV ?: rti ,-, O 't, GV Cn iP IC d^ 1. P CV C' x ,-, l� O GV G> >n Gv CN O: cn I -� Cn QV O n 00 �+ cq C) - IC a; d'' �f CA l� � 5 T GV In 1- 1 in 1- O'1 cG d" L- cn cC � � � c0 �. 6') .c an N OO �c; GV � O'1 � 6, X- ti O% x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V) . . . . . . . . . . ° C c . . . . . . . . . . . . . br n ° w 'cn C c y a oto 3 0> a W w 3 �, p:, � _� � .°: •^n a a � � � � a' � -c � c o � � 3 � � y a. � � .� � t a ;� �' �'.c a � O •� o a" a c c a c w :: a a a 'Lo 9 9 o bn � � o �,' 1., � R' bn bn � C C 5 C U N O14 00 -d o '� ro c s bc 00 ct It O F-� p vS ,� m •� S~ 'n � O O � C "tl s. 'm O C c � � Pa a' � E' � :� hn o °M � � � � 'b, d •> `° � � � o 'S � � � 'S � � � .c c c a o 14 w E c u wbr U C 0 r%z r� F r F o C7 5 • • • • • • W �: O `rri ea rr U ... ;.� es° Attachment 6 Site & Drainage Plan W zwa o A FWD W Ll F' LIT — ---I — f w I III �� AA I of I� as Do Do as 00 oa oa oa o0 0 �� / §o �o Ao �o �&AA n 1 a e o �0 �v� DD v � I '� �� DD � W a a Qa oo �o AA AA AA ooLU zs 0> Q � x �I-a; z z Lu Q--�_�'I DADAUDDAAAAui DpDDDp i / _ I D III° II Y Y a �I y 1I O Attachment C TGD Worksheets & Figures Table 2.7: Infiltration SMP Feasibility Worksheet Infeasibility Criteria Yes No 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 SMP 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. ocwatersheds. com/WQMP.aspx 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. ocwatersheds. com/WQMP.aspx Table 2.7: Infiltration SMP 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. g Provide basis: No Summarize findings of infeasibility screening -------------------------------- -- 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 Ill. 1, d inches d= 0.75 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHsc (inches) dHSC= 0 inches 2 Worksheet A C 0.765 4 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder= 0.75 inches 3 d inches Line 1 - Line 2 remainder Step 2: Calculate the DCV 1 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 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x 1/12 _ Vdesign- 14183.27 cu -ft Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasured (in/hr) 1Appendix VII Kmeasured= 0 9 In/hr Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Sfinal SfinaF 2 (unitless) 3 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesi n = Kmeasured/Sfinal Kdesign= 0.3 In/hr Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint 4 1 Enter drawdown time, T max 48 hours T 44.67 Hours Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within _ feet 5 the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesi n x Tx 1/12 max— 1.12 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq -ft), Amin = Amin= 12663.63 sq -ft 6 V, -;,,.,/ dm, 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 C: Capture Efficiency Method for Volume -Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs Step 1: 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) 3 Using Figure 111.2, determine the "fraction of design capture storm depth" at which the BMP drawdown time (T) line XJ= 1.0 achieves 80% capture efficiency, X, 4 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHsc d Hsc= - inches (inches) (Worksheet A) Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHsc, Yi 5 (Worksheet A) Y2= - 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), X2 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),fraction- dtraction= 0.75 inches d = 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, Vdestgn= (C x drfractton x A x 43560 x Vdesign= cu -ft 4 (1/12)) 14183.27 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 www.ocwatersheds.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% - -- — _ Drawdown Time 1-h r $0°l0 -w--hr —g -hr 70% r r � ` � �6-hr --1-hr A�0°do � � � � - -� 4- hr tau O k, _ – –3&hr w f —46 hr 3- 40% 40 J r — -72-hr {_ —9&hr 30% I I - 1Q -hr I I—18O-hr 0% _. �... 246 -hr 1011/0 I I 36G -hr _ 480 -hr 0° 720 -hr 0.0 0.2 0-4 0.6 0.8 1.0 '1. '1-4 '1.6 '1-8 2.0 Fraction of Design Capture Stone 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.ocwatersheds.coiu/WQMP.aspx Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet Assigned Factor Pro Factor Category Factor Description Weight (w) Value (v) p = w x v Soil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.5 Predominant soil texture 0.25 2 0.5 Suitability Site soil variability 0.25 1 0.25 A Assessment Depth to groundwater / impervious 0.25 1 0.25 layer Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = Ep 1.5 Tributary area size 0.25 2 0.5 Level of pretreatment/ expected 0.25 3 0.75 sediment loads B Design Redundancy 0.25 1 .25 Compaction during construction 0.25 2 0.5 Design Safety Factor, SB = EP 2 Combined Safety Factor, STAT= SAX SB 1 3 Measured Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, KM (corrected for test -specific bias) 0.9 Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KDESIGN = STOT / KM 1 0.3 in/hr 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. 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 www.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 X1 1 (from Graph) X2 0 X1- X2 1 d FRACTION 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 VTOTAL 15783.26 > 14183.27 cf DCV Constant > 14183.27 cf DCV Simple Attachment D TGD Reference Exhibits VO 'OD 3IONVW d sa ��S r,c-��Ua ouzs ro b—..5.g,wMpaa wv oRHoo ry 30bfd ' olmooWoWoo X pzw SILO[[OL seu oil ou 11 Ax—Di i9 6\SLZD1 101 1 VO 'OD 3IONVW d sa buuaawb.g,wM P—enpy Pl--O—Z IIPSPIPAI PM -1511 39Z56�5 LZOI IOL A��pgesoajuol�oallUul\s�iotlay Zspzw ZSl'J�\39.56\'d VO 'OD 3IONVW d sa buuaawb.g,wM P—enpy U`inn AVO nn�n n �J��I 11ln n �N\* ul nUM ry ��b�d `y (dn0M8 n�cn n�nnnnlHnAM Almon R WTHO - X P-�'S LZO LIOL slloSL qZ1 �Xaan6y 39Z56�5 LLOI IOL A��pgesoaju Ol�oallUul\s�iotlay �spzw�Sl'J�\39.56\'d VO 'OD 3IONVW 68 V buuaawbu3,wm P—enp y U`Lnn AVO nn811n n �JAI 11ln B3 �N\l0U, n�AM 3%bVd N dln0M81�(Q) n�nnnnlInAM AIMW ROWTH pzw SIZOLLOL sepllspuo� �Z1 nXaan6y 39Z56�5 LLOI IOL A��pgesoajuol�oallUul\s�iotlay �spzw�Sl'J�\39.56\'d VO 'OD 3IONVW bwaa 5w g,wMP—enpy V3'! a ��bd .Las,]J r.L Hj=-j3 a aMad a l a! a VN\l0 A � � aJL jUNAaa aD, M, OC ,,!a ��a0oa aa� 7 700 �~� - X P-1 IL01 LOZ PL IAXIIIN 1-6\S IZUI IOL A4111911— I d VO 'OD 3IONVW buua 5w g,wm P—enpy VJ p%IU'SI—IOZ 4494]1NllPIXll�llg4d,G eLIAXIIIDJJ 1-6\SLZU1IOL A�Illgesoajuollo��lllul\s�iotlay �spzw�Sl`J�\39.56\'d pxru'S —01 101 1L11-15111 1-6\SIZUI IOL A��Ilgesoaju OlEo��lllul\s�iotlay �spzw�Sl`J�\39.56\'d �_� J O�O V VO 'OD 3IOWAO e se ouz,roo buua 5w g,wm paauenpy N V�OOO��OOJ O��O'OOV 00000 )% OOO INO�OUO-M�AM 3%bVd � OHOiniOOO IVH -00 OHOOOM AIMW RON'TH m L c d a 9 x m o ' N c`m W • _... d o L m m d Y U o cc ooia�c o3 °------------- 3 O O o m � c � 09 - m _.. - y LD • t6 O O o Q m m o Q m O L p C a m° c y `1 •'• W Z H - m °°' E 3 m ; p E 4 LU U O N En Lu Q ' .' ¢F5 • .... _ g is r i� �.I i i e > r,t ,r CIL n3 LE s P E E o } Ei O !I 00 ID ` L f" D 6 pxru'S —01 101 1L11-15111 1-6\SIZUI IOL A��Ilgesoaju OlEo��lllul\s�iotlay �spzw�Sl`J�\39.56\'d vO 'OO 3IONVW "sB �, II CO f l f2colI — 6—..bug,wmP—enpy NUO U.MIAM AIM= RJMIU0 � � - X 8a. IWMV PYW SILOIIOL IQUI—llballUulI 1-6\SIZU1I0L �llllgosoajuolloNlUul\sl�otlay �spzw�Sl'J�\39.56\'d 0 p ° o � u £ C ¢ f w d N o � o N y N V N m W - - @ co)O O co)U a33 h3� o -O a a Ca R a o. � rjo - _ o m m m p � - 0 > C N N N m D > C O > > > ° m`J - - C a Z U= � 0 0 0 0 `¢ O LU -1i i `c I 1@ mrv- N m m Jn_ o3m�O`c i 8a. IWMV PYW SILOIIOL IQUI—llballUulI 1-6\SIZU1I0L �llllgosoajuolloNlUul\sl�otlay �spzw�Sl'J�\39.56\'d pp� `` nn nnnn VO '00 3ONVaO UHNNI ' ld _, L' 1 =-sz.e. 1-11 6uu .,E.g,.;.Mp.... 1ptl 111-1171--1 dwBC)Vd -V� X��M.-AM � �a ���� Q —R o � n o r7rno n �� x n �,� �, �� ��/ 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. ➢ Infiltration 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 Considerations 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 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES ❑ For infiltration facilities beneath roads and parking areas, structural requirements should meet H-20 load requirements. Computing Underground Infiltration Device Size 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. Additional References for Design Guidance • Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Stormwater Technical Manual, Chapter 5: httpV/www.laschools.orgLemployee/design/fs-st dies-and- reports/download/white—paper_rep ort material/Storm_ Water_ Technical_ Manual_ 2009 -opt- red.pdf Version_id=76975850 XIV -44 December 20, 2013 LULLMAUS •'�.- - ... ... ...... ...,wu .�n1i Il. - TECHNICAL NOTE TN 7.01 Rainwater Harvesting with HDPE Pipe Cisterns January 2009 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 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" HDPE THERMOPLASTIC LINER 2 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD. HILLIARD, OH 43026 (800) 821-6710 www.ads-pipe.com ATN701 © ADS 2009 Storm Drain Signage SD -13 Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage 0 Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Description Waste materials dumped into storm drain inlets can have severe impacts on receiving and ground waters. Posting notices regarding discharge prohibitions at storm drain inlets can prevent waste dumping. Storm drain signs and stencils are highly visible source controls that are typically placed directly adjacent 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. Resigning 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 N 1 CA LMORNIAS OR[tIRVA= January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbc)oks.com 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 Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbc)oks.com Efficient Irrigation SD -12 Design Objectives 0 Maximize Infiltration D Provide Retention 0 Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Description Irrigation water provided to landscaped areas may result in excess irrigation water being conveyed into stormwater drainage systems. Approach Project plan designs for development and redevelopment should include application methods of irrigation water that minimize runoff 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 Resigning 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 shutoff valves 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. 1 � 1 CA LEURNIAS OR[tIRVA= January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbc)oks.com SD -12 Efficient Irrigation ■ Design timing and application methods of irrigation water to minimize 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 minimize 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 Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbc)oks.com Drain Inserts 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 MP -52 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. S QA California Stormwater Quality Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 3 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 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 $foo 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. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 3 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 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(a;), 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(1440-0.574) = 0.0877 Depth: D(t) = a(tb) a = 0.095 t = 1,440 minutes (24 hours) b = 0.426 D(t = 1440) = 0.095(1,440°.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 L r-- 1000 :5• 700 -600 •' • 500 TcI ,`0� 100 LIMITATIONS= 1, Maximum length = 1000 Feet 0 •� 75- Mobile Home 90 2. Maximum area = 10 Acres 350 7 40 - Single Family -1 /4 Acre Lot 80 a �I c 6 15 -Developed Open Space E 10 - Single Family -21/2 Acre Lot Fair Cover 0 E 70 H u z 300 _ Y500 4 c 20 w a .Q •-• 300 19 a c 200 18 o N EOC 250 50 o so 0 . t5 *.. .. 0 uw C 60 a► • `. m m fL 40 ' . �' E g-- h 30 V 44 •. C `c c 20 ° a! 12 �•'. m 10 m u 35 m '•� 0 3 e CL H '~ '10 • . • .. K 6 4. 400 ,`0� 30 Undeveloped 0 •� 75- Mobile Home 8 65- Condominium Good Cover m 350 7 40 - Single Family -1 /4 Acre Lot 25 Undeveloped c 6 15 -Developed Open Space E 10 - Single Family -21/2 Acre Lot Fair Cover 0 E 4 z 300 Undeveloped c 20 Poor Cover °0 19 0 18 Single Family 250 17 (5-7 DU/AC) m c t5 Commercial �'u 14 -�■4 200 ..1.&--■ m a! 12 d u II O '~ '10 1.0 .9 .6 .3 .2 1 6 7 8 9 KEY L -H-Tc- K -Tc' a I - Pi Development 150 d E 9 80- Apartment 75- Mobile Home 8 65- Condominium 60- Single Family -5,000 ft?_ Lot 7 40 - Single Family -1 /4 Acre Lot 20- Single Family - I Acre Lot 6 15 -Developed Open Space 100 10 - Single Family -21/2 Acre Lot 5 ..... Pre Tc' = 12.75 min Post Tc' = 15.9 min 4 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY MANUAL 19 20 25 30 35 40 0 D-4 Figure D-1 Attachment G Geotechnical Evaluation Report GeoTek, Inc. 710 E. Parlcridge Avenue, Suice 105, Corona, California 92879-1097 (951) 710-1160 Office (951) 710-1167 Fax www.gec-tekusa.com 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`h 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-7), 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 46%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, D H. GeoTek, Inc. 0772 4 9; iz 4�e Flo_ 18 2 Exp. m±BGiD exp, Edward H. LaMont Paul Hyun Jin Kim CEG 1892, Exp. 7/31/16 PE 77214, Exp. 6/30/17 Principal Geologist Project Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee via email GAProjects\ 135 1 to 1400\1400CR Intracorp Companies 420 W. 6th Street Tustin\1400CR Additional Percolation Test Information.doc G E O T E K 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. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California," Project No: 1400 -CR, dated February 1. ,C� 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 52875 GEOTEK'G, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 GeoTek, Inc. 710 E. Parkridge Avenue, Suite 105, Corona, California 92879-1097 (951) 710-1160 Office (951) 710-1167 Fax vwwv.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. 6th 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. � iu' Na. 1892 Edward H. LaMont CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/16 Principal Geologist * �JN JIN ,I.� Ey\ �i y C772 i4 p EXP. oenod-7 /* Paul Hyun Jin Kim PE 77214, Exp. 06/30/17 Project Engineer C Distribution: (1) Addressee via email (one PDF file) G:\Projects\1351 to 1400\1400CR Intracorp Companies 420 W. 6th Street Tustin1400CR W. 6th Street, Tustin GEO.doc INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. 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'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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'91� INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 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. GEOTEK'G, 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'/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 GEOTEK'Gr-, 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 1-1, 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 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). GEOTEK'91� INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 11'/2 miles to the northeast. 4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters The site is located at approximately latitude: 33.7393°N and longitude: -1 17.8271 °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, 1.480g 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 0.544g 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. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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'/2 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 1/2 inch of differential settlement across a 40 feet span. Due to the GEOTEK'91� 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. CONCLUSIONSAND 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 GEOTEK'91� INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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%. GEOTEK'G, 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'G, 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 05EI520 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. GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page 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. GEOTEK'91� INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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. GEOTEK'G, 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 GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES Surface Slope of Retained Materials (h:v) Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) 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 (I:I 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 GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 Flatworlc 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 GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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 GEOTEK'Gr-, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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. GEOTEK'91� 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-1 1001 15) 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 GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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). GEOTEK'91� F ' Y. 4• C /'.I rf y 5 SUBJE S!_ - of low ' 3:riP- + B-1 t } {ilgi him 6-1 r4 . F '-47,r: APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 2016 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, Orange County, California Page A- 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'91� CLIENT: Intracorp 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: s DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing sE s o Boring No.: B -I z V U O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 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 5 --------- 4 -------------------------------g------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SP f SAND, light brown to brown, slightly moist, loose ------------------ 4.7 103.0 ------------------------------ 6 6 s m -f SAND 3.1 102.3 8 7 10 --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 5 SM Silty f SAND, light brown and tan, slighty moist, medium dense 6.2 106.2 II 12 15 ------------ 3 -----------------------------y ML --------------------g ---v --------------------------------------------------------- f SandSILT, brown, sli htl moist, firm ------------------ 11.7 ------------------------------ 3 3 20 -- --------- ---------------------------------- —-------------- —------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 4 SP m -f SAND, light brown, slightly moist, medium dense 5.6 8 7 Boring Terminated at 21.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 25 30 ZSample tyDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: s DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing s o E Boring No.: B-2 z V U O v ° E 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 7 --------- 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SM Silty m -f SAND, brown, slightly miost, medium dense, trace gravel ------------------ ------------------------------ 5 5 brown to light brown, loose 7.0 97.3 Fines = 36% S 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ZSample tyDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: s _ DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing s _ o E Boring No.: B-3 z V U _ O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 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 II IS 5 9 trace cobbles 3.8 113.3 16 23 I I increased gravel and cobble content 4.3 16 (sample disturbed) 20 10 16 dense 3.1 104.3 18 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 -- --------- -----------------------y ----------g---------------g---y------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------------ 3 CL Silt CLAY, light brown, slightly moist to moist, firm 18.5 LL=25; PL= 15; PI=10 2 3 ZSample type: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery -77 ---Water Table W AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing sE o Boring No.: B-3 (Cont.) V O v ° E o w 7 �` O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 30 (see previous page) 35 -- --------- 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SM Silty f SAND, brown, Blighty moist, medium dense, trace gravel ------------------ 9.0 ------------------------------ Fines = 28% 7 7 40 -- --------- 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SP m -c SAND with Gravel, brown, slightly moist, medium dense ------------------ 3.6 ------------------------------ 12 7 45 ------------ 4 ----------------- SM Silty f SAND, brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense 12.7 7 11 50 -- --------- -------------------------y ------------------------------------------ ------------------- —---------------- - --y,---------------------------------------- - ------------------ ------------------------------ 3 CL SiltCLAY, mottled light brown and re moist, firm, some fine sand in ti 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 Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o E Boring No.: B-4 z V U O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 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 15 2.5 116.2 20 27 15 15 2.8 23 28 20 12 2.6 17 18 25 -- --------- ------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 6 SP m -c SAND, dark tan, slightly moist, medium dense 3.2 10 10 30 ----- -- - --- ------ -- - -- --- ----- -- 3 ML Cla ey SILT, dark brown, sli htly moist, stiff y 12.5 5 5 ZSample type: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery -77 ---Water Table W AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing sE o Boring No.: B-4 (Cont.) V O v ° E o w 7 �` O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 30 (see previous page) 35 -- --------- s ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SM Silty f SAND, brown, slighlty moist, medium dense ------------------ 8.3 ------------------------------ S 5 40 -- --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 3 ML f Sandy SILT, light brown, slightly miost to moist, stiff, trace clay 17.6 3 6 45 I3 sM - ------ - ------ -- ----- --- --- -- ------ Silty f SAND, brown, slightly moist, medium dense 8.3 II 7 SP SAND tan sliahltv moist medium dense Boring Terminated at 46.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 50 55 60 ZSample type: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o E Boring No.: B-5 z V U O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 0 6" asphalt over 3" base with petromate layer at 1/2" SP 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 -- --------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------------ 20 SP c SAND with Gravel and Cobbles, tan, slighly 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 ZSample tYDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o E Boring No.: B-6 z V U _ O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 0 4" asphalt over 4.5 base with petromat layer at 1/2" SP-sM f. SAND with Silt, light brown, loose slightly moist 5 8 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 --------------------6J--- —---------------------------------------------------------- Cla e SILT, brown, slihity 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 ZSample tyDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limics EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing 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: 2R Drilling LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: Hollow Stem OPERATOR: HAMMER: 140#/30" RIG TYPE: _ DATE: R. Hankes Cody/George CME 75 1/13/2016 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing _ o E Boring No.: B-7 z V U _ O v ° E o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS A ° 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 s 7 6 m -f SAND, trace gravel 3.8 101.9 6 5 10 ----- --------- ---------------------------y--------------------g---Y --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ 4 ML f Sand SILT, brown, slightly moist, stiff 14.1 98.9 Fines = 62% 5 6 15 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 ------------------------------------------ SP ----y---------------------------------------------------------------- m -c SAND, tan, slightly moist, medium dense ------------------ 1.8 ------------------------------ II 13 Boring Terminated at 27.5 feet Boring backfilled with excavated soils. No Ground Water Encountered 30 ZSample tyDE: ■ ---Ring , ---SPT Z ---Small Bulk ®---Large Bulk ❑ ---No Recovery �_ ---Water Table LU AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV- R -Value Test LU -j Lab testing SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density APPENDIX 6 RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR GEOTEK'G, INTRACORP COMPANIES Project No. 1400 -CR Geotechnical Evaluation February 1, 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. GEOTEK'G, STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.1 1.0 10.0 0.00 1.00 0 2.00 U) rn Z 3.00 Y U 4.00 LU J D_ Q 5.00 CO U- 0 6.00 z LU 7.00 LU o_ O 8.00 Q 0 :-_i 9.00 0 U) z 10.00 11.00 _-7777d i —td_ - 12.00 ---- Seating Cycle �— Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation --f-- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 AE::." CONSOLIDATION REPORT IG E 40 �r E Sample: B-1 @ 2.5' Plate C-1 CHECKED BY: PK Lab: DI 420 W. 6th Street PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR Date: 01/16 Tustin, California STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.1 1.0 10.0 0.00 1.00 0 2.00 U) rn Z 3.00 Y U �T- 4.00 LU J D_ Q 5.00 U) U- 0 6.00 z LU � 7.00 LU o_ O 8.00 Q 0 :-_i 9.00 0 U) z 10.00 11.00 12.00 ---- Seating Cycle �— Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation --f-- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 AE::." CONSOLIDATION REPORT IG E 40 �r E Sample: B-7 @ 5' Plate C-1 CHECKED BY: PK Lab: DI 420 W. 6th Street PROJECT NO.: 1400 -CR Date: 01/16 Tustin, California )C -r-, ET E 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' Sampled By: Received By: Tested By: Reviewed By: Test Procedure: ASTM 1557 Oversized Material (%): 0.0 140 135 130 LL a 125 120 Z W 115 110 105 100 Job No.: 1400 -CR Lab No.: Corona Date Sampled: Date Received: Date Tested: Date Reviewed: Method: A Correction Required: MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 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 * 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) MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES Maximum Dry Density, pcf 125.0 @ Optimum Moisture, % 10.0 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, % MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Grain Size Distribution: • Gravel (retained on No. 4) • Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200) • Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200) Classification: Unified Soils Classification: AASHTO Soils Classification: Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, % Plasticity Index, % 1 17- r X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 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 * 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) MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES Maximum Dry Density, pcf 125.0 @ Optimum Moisture, % 10.0 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, % MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Grain Size Distribution: • Gravel (retained on No. 4) • Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200) • Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200) Classification: Unified Soils Classification: AASHTO Soils Classification: Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, % Plasticity Index, % 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 Chloride Sulfate CT -417 Resistivity ID Deptt CT -532 CT -422 Bht CT -532 (643) (FeeB-1 (643) (ppm) We°i (ohm -cm) 0-5' 7.19 42 0.0145 2400 576 East Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION OUTPUT SUMMARY 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR GEOTEK'G, GeoTek, Inc_ 1400-R LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Intraorp Tustin Hole No.=B-3 !Nater Depth=40 ft Magnitude=6.6 Acceleration=0.537g Shear Stress Ratio Settlement ;0 0 1 C rir+.1 r .`Y +},V 17 f TL 0 fs1=1.04 i� S = 0.f9 in. CRR — CSR fs1— Saturated — U Shaded Zane has Liquefaction Potential Unsaturat. — z a 60 c� 70 F GeoTek, Inc_ 1400-R APPENDIX D GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES 420 W. 6" Street Tustin, Orange County, California Project No. 1400 -CR GEOTEK'91� GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-1 420 W. 6`h 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 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 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`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 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'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-3 420 W. 6`h 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. S. 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 1. 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. 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 blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable GEOTEK'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page DA 420 W. 6`h 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 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. 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. GEOTEK'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-5 420 W. 6`h 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 1:1 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. 1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's 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. GEOTEK'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-6 420 W. 6`h 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. Traffic Direction 11 11 ,one of Non -Encroachment PLAN VIEW TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN Test Pit/ Spoil pile Vehicle parked here GEOTEK'G, SIDE VIEW GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-7 420 W. 6`h 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'G, GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Intracorp Companies Page D-8 420 W. 6`h 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. GEOTEK'G, Appendix E2: Preliminary Hydrology 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 S, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 i Hydrology Study and Hydraulic Analysis For APN: 401-341-04 Tract No. 17993 6" 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. ll Date Introduction: The proposed project site address is 420 W. 6th Street, Tustin, CA 92780 and is located in the City of Tustin, south-west corner of W 6th Street and S B Street intersection bordered to the East and West by commercial developments, bordered to the North is residential development, and to the South by the I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway). The subject project site (6.8 acres) is planned to be a residential housing comprised of 140 condominium units to be constructed on traditional slab on grade. The subject site currently surface flows via ribbon gutter and sheet flow into B Street, then entering the storm drain system through the south of B Street curb opening catch basins. Ultimately the proposed flow will maintain this historic path of drainage with new on site inlets draining the subject site and transferring flows subsurface into the same system Methodology / Rationale: 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 be 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 on-site storm drain system, to the water quality detention system, which will outflow to the drywells for treatment and infiltration. Once the drywells are completely saturated, the high flows for the 50 -year storm event will outfall through a dedicated overflow pipe system, and curb core out onto B -Street. At which point, the drainage follows the existing surface drainage pattern. It will then flow to the south end of the cul-de-sac, into an existing catch basin. 1 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 (6.41 AC) 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 Conclusions: The results from this hydrology and hydraulic analysis demonstrate the following: The drainage design for Tract No. 17993 has been designed to meet the County of Orange Flood Control Standards and per City of Tustin requirements. 0 The drainage system is designed to manage runoff from a 100 -year storm. The decrease in flow rate between Pre & Post Development in a 100 -yr storm event is a 10.8% decrease (0.27 cfs). 50 -Yr Event Summary: Pre -Development Q=21.48 cfs Tc = 10.67 min Flow Rate Post -Development Q=19.74 cfs Te = 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. 3 REFERENCE 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 4 Vicinity Map VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCAFE Hydrology Study (50,100 -Year Storm Event) PRE -DEVELOPMENT INTR2E50.RES sta:a:hh������hhhhic:c:chhh:t het sthhhhst st a:a:hhh��..�hhhic:c:c'.ch st:t:c:cs:s`s`s`s:s:s:a:s.s.s.s.��.. �:r ac ac s'c :c :c'.c'.c st st :t :c :c 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 *::::hhhhhhh:::::::: hhhhhhsr,thhh......................................hhhhsr**........................................::**�:�: 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) _ 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 LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) COMMERCIAL B 1.24 0.30 0.100 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 1 125.20 SCS TC CN (MIN.) 56 6.13 INTR2E50.RES FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU 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 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.200 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.080 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.01000 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 LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) COMMERCIAL B 5.56 0.30 0.100 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. EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.80 AREA -AVERAGED FM(INCH/HR) _ AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = SCS CN 56 56 0.03 21.48 ==>>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 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)= AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.48 --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 2 0.03 INT2E100.RES s:a:a:s.s.•�•�•�:r is is is ic:c:c'.c st st:t:r:rs:s:s`s`s:s:s:a:a:s.s.s.•�..�:r ac ac ac:c:c'.c'.c st st:tst:r>:>:s`s`s:s:s:s.s.s.s.s.s.'�.. mac :r :r :r'.c'.c'.c st st'.r'.r 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 STUDYsYsY:Y:Yzr> * 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 st::a:•�•�•�•�•�'�'�'�'�'�:::r:r:r st st st st s:s`t:t:s:::st::a:•�•�•�•�•�'�'�'�'�'�::*:r:r:r:rst:t:rs`s`t:t:s:s:s........... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. :: :t st :r :r :r :r 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 INT2E100.RES 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) = 6.11 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.24 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.11 stirs'rs'rs'rs'rs'rs'rs'cs'cs'cs'r k ks'cs'cs'cs'cstststicicsYsYsYsYsYirs'rs'rs'rs'rs'rs'rs'cs'cs'cs'rs'rs'rs'rirs'cs'cs'cststicicicicsYsYsYs'cs: s: s: s': s': s': sYs'cs'cs'cs'rsts'ririrics'cs'cicic FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU 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 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.200 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.080 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.01000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 it 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.130 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL B 5.56 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.) = 3.99 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 -AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 PEAK 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 SPECIFIED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEPTH. END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 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 2 Hydrology Study (50,100 -Year Storm Event) POST -DEVELOPMENT INT2P50.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: 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) = 50.00 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 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) = 291.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 126.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _ 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 LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CONDOMINIUMS B 0.50 0.30 0.350 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 FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.41 Page 1 126.30 SCS TC CN (MIN.) 56 12.44 INT2P50.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 * 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 ::::i:iriririr***:r :r :r :r::::sYsYsYsYsYd:'.:'.:......................................::drsYsYirsYsY'.:........................................:::Yitit 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. sY it �r s'r s'r s': s'r***sc** ks'c is tc is is is is st sY sY sY sY sY sY �r �r s'r s'r s'r s'r s'r k k k k ksc sY is is tc is is is is sY sY sY sY sY sY s'r s: s': s': s': s': s': s'r k k k ksY sY s'r is is tc is is is FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< ::::::::::•::•:::::::::::r:r:rsYs'rs'rsYsYsYs'csYsYsYs:sY'rsY::::•::::::•::•:::::::::r:r:r sYsYs'rsYsYsYirsYsYsYsYiririr::::•::•::::• ::::............::sY:rs'rsYirir 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 sY �r �r s,s;:r:r:r*****scs'c is tc is is is is st sY sY sY sY sY sY �r �r s;s;s;:r:r:c****sc sc is is is is is is is sY sY sY sY sY sY �r s:s:s:s: s: •:r :r :c***sf sc it it s'r is is is is FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 81 Page 2 INT2P50.RES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAINLINE TC(MIN.) = 9.78 ''r 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 ::::::::::•::•:::::::::::r:r:rsYs'rs'rsYsYsYs'csYsYsYs:sY'rsY::::•::::::•::•:::::::::r:r:r sYsYs'rsYsYsYirsYsYsYsYsYsYir::::•::•::::• ::::............::sY:rs'rsYirir 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 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. sY sr 4rx x4r 4r 4r 4c 4c 8c k:c:'cs'c do is is is sY is st sY sY it it sY sY s'r s'r s'r s'r 4r 4r 4r 4c 4c 4c k ks'cs'c do do st is is is is sY sY sY it sY sY s'rs'rs'ro'r x 4r 4r 4c 4c 4c 4r s'r s'r s'c s'c st st st is is is FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'r* MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 12.92 12.18 3.285 0.30( 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 Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 20.41 12.18 3.285 0.30( 0.11) 0.35 6.4 200.00 2 19.74 14.39 2.990 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) = 20.41 TC(MIN.) = 12.178 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 INT2P50.RES FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>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 30.0 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 Intensity 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 INT2P100.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: 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: 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 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) = 291.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 126.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _ 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 LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CONDOMINIUMS B 0.50 0.30 0.350 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 FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.60 Page 1 126.30 SCS TC CN (MIN.) 76 12.44 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 ::::i:iriririr***:r :r :r :r::::sYsYsYsYsYd:'.:'.:......................................::drsYsYirsYsY'.:........................................:::Yitit 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. sY it �r s'r s'r s': s'r***sc** ks'c is tc is is is is st sY sY sY sY sY sY �r �r s'r s'r s'r s'r s'r k k k k ksc sY is is tc is is is is sY sY sY sY sY sY s'r s: s': s': s': s': s': s'r k k k ksY sY s'r is is tc is is is FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< ::::::::::•::•:::::::::::r:r:rsYs'rs'rsYsYsYs'csYsYsYs:sY'rsY::::•::::::•::•:::::::::r:r:r sYsYs'rsYsYsYirsYsYsYsYiririr::::•::•::::• ::::............::sY:rs'rsYirir 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 sY �r �r s,s;:r:r:r*****scs'c is tc is is is is st sY sY sY sY sY sY �r �r s;s;s;:r:r:c****sc sc is is is is is is is sY sY sY sY sY sY �r s:s:s:s: s: •:r :r :c***sf sc it it s'r is is is is FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 81 Page 2 INT2P100.RES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAINLINE TC(MIN.) = 9.78 ''r 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 ::::::::::•::•:::::::::::r:r:rsYs'rs'rsYsYsYs'csYsYsYs:sY'rsY::::•::::::•::•:::::::::r:r:r sYsYs'rsYsYsYirsYsYsYsYsYsYir::::•::•::::• ::::............::sY:rs'rsYirir 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 20.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.46 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. sY sr 4rx x4r 4r 4r 4c 4c 8c k:c:'cs'c do is is is sY is st sY sY it it sY sY s'r s'r s'r s'r 4r 4r 4r 4c 4c 4c k ks'cs'c do do st is is is is sY sY sY it sY sY s'rs'rs'ro'r x 4r 4r 4c 4c 4c 4r s'r s'r s'c s'c st st st is is is FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'r* MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 14.68 12.14 3.722 0.30( 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 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 Intensity 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(MIN.) = 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 INT2P100.RES FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>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 Intensity 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 SOILS MAP Existing Hydrology Map w D� D ty X � H tl O 4a X i ` mX IL w V x X,, Xd X p�J Wp X X� x� LLI LLI D Cr-, _ X N X/ �a II II ry Ss -y �•l�L� X �~ 3 :VAAy $ lag A .. g ffy m Eli z cn w �: Proposed Hydrology Map Z Q U ao� t A0A0AAAA AAA -A h tA—AAaAt V -o �o �o as as as as as as o N N �N AA 10 V� Lij o LLJ I� 90�0������00� o a �o as Vo 0o a a� �N N N� a� 0A o a ,16Z =l 8 s ail %w" Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment HILLMAN N CONSULTING PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 420-4366 TH STREET & 330 — 694 B STREET 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.HillmannConsulting.com 94972, HILLMAN N CONSULTING December 3, 2015 Ms. Jennifer Chirco-Coker Intracorp Communities 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 420 — 436 West 6"' Street & 330 — 694 South B Street Tustin, California 92780 Hillmann Project Number: C3-6449 Dear Ms. Chirco-Coker: Hillmann Consulting, LLC, is pleased to provide the results of our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the above referenced property. This assessment was performed in accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13, which is the latest version of the E1527 standard published by the ASTM, and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Final Rule 40 CFR Part 312. This report is for the exclusive use of the entities named on the front cover, 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 the Project Manager at (714) 634-9500. Very Truly Yours, Hillmann Consulting, LLC Gregory Shaffer Project Manager �C Larry Rockefeller Sr. Project Manager Your Property. Our Priority. Corporate Headquarters: 1600 Route 22 East, Suite 9107, Union, NJ 07083 (908) 688-7800 Fax: (908) 686-2636 Toll free: (800) 232-4326 Office Locations: California, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia www.HillmannConsulting.com Hillmann Consulting LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Details Summary Table.................................................................................................................... l 1.2 Findings Summary Table.............................................................................................................................2 1.3 General Description, Current and Historic Property Use.............................................................................3 1.4 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions...........................................................................................................3 1.5 Recommendations........................................................................................................................................5 2.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Purpose and Scope.......................................................................................................................................7 2.2 Property Location/Legal Description...........................................................................................................9 2.3 Significant Assumptions...............................................................................................................................9 2.4 Limitations and Exceptions..........................................................................................................................9 2.5 Data Gaps.....................................................................................................................................................9 2.6 Special Terms and Conditions....................................................................................................................10 3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION.....................................................................................................12 3.1 Prior Reports and other Provided Documentation......................................................................................12 3.2 Title Records/Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations............................................................12 3.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience.......................................................................................................12 3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information...................................................................12 3.5 Property Value Reduction due to Environmental Conditions....................................................................12 3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA..........................................................................................................13 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW.................................................................................................................................14 4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources...................................................................................................14 4.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources................................................................................................17 4.3 Physical Setting Sources............................................................................................................................18 4.4 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............................................................................ 10.0 APPENDICES ............... Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G ...................................................................... Site Diagram/Vicinity Map Site Photographs Questionnaires / User Provided Information Historical Records Documentation Regulatory Records Documentation Other Documents Project Personnel Qualifications Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -1- 420 - 436 West e Street & 330 - 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California ..................................................... 30 .....................................................31 Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 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 Materials CERCLA — Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act CERCLIS — Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System CESQG — Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator CORRACTS — Corrective Action Sites CREC — Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition DNPL — Delisted National Priority List DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control ENG — Engineering ERNS — Emergency Response Notification System FOI — Freedom of information FOIA — Freedom of Information Act FOIL — Freedom of Information Letter HVAC — Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning HREC — Historic Recognized Environmental Condition 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 Elimination System NPL — National Priority List RCRA — Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRIS — Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System REC — Recognized Environmental Condition RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD — South Coast Air Quality Management District SQG — Small Quantity Generator TSDF — Treatment Storage and/or Disposal Facility USEPA — United States Environmental Protection Agency UST — Underground Storage Tank Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -ii- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hillmann Consulting, LLC (Hillmann), performed a Phase I Enviromnental Site Assessment (ESA) of 420 — 436 W. 6r1' 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: PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE Name of Client Intracorp Communities Client Project No.: N/A Client Contact: Ms. Jennifer Chirco-Coker Description of Project Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Project Name: 6' Street Tustin Street Address: 420 — 436 West 6' Street & 330 — 694 South B Street City: Tustin County: Orange State: California Tax ID/Parcel Number: 401-341-04 Zoning Designation: Industrial (4) Approx. Property Area: 6.748 Acres Approximate Building Area: 190,194 SF Year Built: 1964 General Type of Usage: Warehouse / Commercial Property Owner: Van Buren Plaza LLC Occupant(s): 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 George Wheeler, Cabinet Makers, Synthetic Grass Store of California, Micro Com Inc., AT&T, Harris Histology Services, Advantage Manufacturing, Santa Ana Cross Fit, HBP Dance Studio, Calvary Chapel Tustin, Vacant suites Assessment Personnel: Mr. Ryan Sokolovsky & Mr. Gregory Shaffer Property Contact: Ms. Jennifer Chirco-Coker Property Escort(s): Mr. Said Shokrian Inspection Date: November 12 - 18, 2015 Weather Conditions: Clear, 64 - 75 degrees F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -1- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 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. Assessment Section No Sig. Potential Env Concern REC Recommended Rep. Concern Follow-up Ref. 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 11 5.2 lithography, and manufacturing between the 1970s through the present Adjoining Properties X 4.1.2 5.2.8 Hazardous Materials X 5.3 Bulk Petroleum Storage X 5.3 Leaking pad -mounted PCBs transformer along 6u' Street REC Phase II 5.3 on the northern portion of the Property Waste / Discharges X 5.3 Asbestos Containing Potential for ACM on mpliance with 7.1 Materials ACM Property ulations Lead Based Paint (LBP) Potential for LBP on mpliance with fre 7.2 Property regulation Radon X 7.3 Mold X 7.4 Wetlands X 7.5 NA = Not Applicable, TBD = To Be Determined, UNK = Unknown Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -2- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 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. 6ti, 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 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 e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 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 were 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. 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- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, 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 Phase I 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): 0 No evidence of any CRECs in connection with the Property was identified. Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (H-RECs): • 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. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -S- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 1.5.2 Non -ASTM Considerations The following should be considered with regard to further investigation or management of Non - ASTM considerations addressed by this report: Compliance with all applicable rules and regulations pertaining to the presence of ACM and lead based paint at the Property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -6- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e 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 (HREC) 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 e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 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. A review of standard physical record sources for available topographic, geologic and groundwater data. • Review of standard historic record sources, 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 first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier. Review of standard environmental record sources including federal and state environmental databases, and additional environmental record sources, to identify potential regulatory concerns with the Property, adjoining properties and properties located within the surrounding area. 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. 2.1.1 Non -ASTM Scope Considerations 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: 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 (LBa A preliminary visual inspection of the condition of painted surfaces in the accessed areas of buildings on the Property. 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. Mold: A preliminary visual inspection within the accessed areas of buildings on the Property for evidence of systemic microbial problems, including visible mold growth, water damaged building materials or musty odors. Wetlands: A preliminary review of data published by the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the presence or absence of mapped wetlands on the Property. The US Fish and Wildlife Service wetlands data is typically provided to Hillmann by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -8- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 2.2 Property Location/Legal Description The Property is located at 420 — 436 West 6th 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 6th 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 e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC raises reasonable concerns involving the data gap and the ability to determine the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions. 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 snakes 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 findings 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 received during the course of this assessment. Regardless of the findings stated in this report, Hillmann is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from facts that were concealed, withheld or not fully disclosed at the time the assessment was conducted. This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant against operations or conditions present of a type or at a location 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 Property. Neighboring properties listed in Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -10- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Significant (Yes/No)? Discussion 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. representative 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 snakes 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 findings 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 received during the course of this assessment. Regardless of the findings stated in this report, Hillmann is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from facts that were concealed, withheld or not fully disclosed at the time the assessment was conducted. This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant against operations or conditions present of a type or at a location 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 Property. Neighboring properties listed in Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -10- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ 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. 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/Documentation 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: • 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 and 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. • "This Assessment revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) or Historic Recognized Environmental Conditions (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 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 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. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -12- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e 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 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, if 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. Regulatory Database Search Distance Property ? Listed. Adj. Properties Listed? Total Listings Within Search Distance Fed. NPL/Proposed NPL 1 -mile No No 0 Fed. Delisted NPL /anile No No 0 Fed. CERCLIS '/2 -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 LQG Site & Ad'. No No Fed. RCRA SQG Site & Ad'. Yes No Fed. RCRA CESQG Site & Ad'. No No Fed. ENG Control List Site No 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 Storage Tanks /z -mile No No 18 State/Tribal Registered Storage Tanks Site & Adj. No No State/Tribal Eng. Control List Site No State/Tribal Inst. Control List Site No State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites '/2 -mile No No 0 State/Tribal Brownfields '/z -mile No No 0 Supplemental Databases Site & Ad'. Yes No 4.1.1 Property Listings The Property was identified on the following databases: HAZNET — KeithCo MFG INC., 420 W. 6th 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. 6th 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- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e 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 V2 -mile radius of the Property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -15- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC Federal CERCLIS: No CERCLIS listings were identified within a '/z -mile radius of the Property. Federal CERCLIS-NFRAP: No CERC-NFRAP listings were identified within a'/z-mile radius of the Property. Federal RCRA-CORRACTS: No CORRACTS listings were identified within a one -mile radius of the Property. Federal RCRA-TSD: No TSD listings were identified within a'/z-mile radius of the Property. State/Tribal Hazardous Waste Sites: Six (6) SHWS 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 SWF/LF listing was identified within a '/z -mile radius of the Property. State/Tribal leafing Storage Tanks: Eighteen (18) LUST listings were identified within a '/z - 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 '/z -mile radius of the Property. State/Tribal Brownfields: No BROWNFIELDS listings were identified within a'/z-mile radius of the Property. Review of the sites identified within the ASTM search parameters did not identify any nearby or surrounding area sites that are considered to be a REC in connection with the Property, unless as discussed otherwise previously in this section. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -16- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, 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: Inquire Type: Outcome: Made. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Yes FOIA Response indicated no records found Request for 420 W. 6t' Street. Orange County Fire Authority Yes FOIA Response not received prior to report Request completion. Department of Toxic Substances Control Yes FOIA Response indicated no records found. (DTSC) Request Regional Water Quality Control Board Yes FOIA Response indicated no records found. (RWQCB) — Santa Ana Region (8) Request Orange County Sanitation District Yes FOIA Response indicated no records found. Request Orange County Department of Yes FOIA Response indicated no records found. Environmental Health — Online database Request South Coast Air Quality Management Yes FOIA Response indicated Hillmann's request District SCAQMD Re uest is bein rocessed. Orange County Geographical Yes On-line No information indicative of a REC Infonnation System GIS search was identified. CA DTSC EnviroStor database Yes Internet The Property address was searched. No htip:Hxv-,vw.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ results for the Property were found. CA GeoTracker database Yes Internet The Property address was searched. No ht :// eotracker.waterboards.ca. ov/ 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 Yes Internet for "Quick Printing" and "Commercial http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html 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 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. 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. 4.4 Historical Use — Property and Adjoining Properties Hillmann has conducted research in order to help 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. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -18- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California The Property address search returns On-line www.google.com Yes results for a variety of search 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. 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. 4.4 Historical Use — Property and Adjoining Properties Hillmann has conducted research in order to help 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. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -18- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 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: YEAR(S) SUMMARY 1886, 1901, Property: The Property is listed with numerous businesses including Harris Histology Services, 1902 Adjacent FedEx Lending Corporation, Graymark International, Alpine Tutoring, Keithco Properties Manufacturing, Permlight Products, Wall Words, Inc., H&J Cabinets, Sandbox 1932, 1935, Property Marketing, The Cabinet Shop, Backyards 4 Less, Foster Printing Co., McKinlay 1948, 1949, Adjacent Builders, Van Buren Plaza, LLC, Gear For Sports, Crowell & Associates, Suntel 1950 Properties Management Services, Inc., Advantage Electric Motors, Marie Courant Inc., Sola Worx, Clearwater Publishing & Studio, RT Travel & Incentives Inc., Smith Property Lithographic Arts Inc, Kawabunga Cooler Co., Dakota Printing, Cardinal 1972-2013 Adjacent Environmental Cnsltnt Inc., Advantage MFG, Tonon Photocopy Service Inc., A 1964, 1965 Properties Automatic Pool Covers, Inx International Ink Co., Control III Germicide, Serilaire Medical Incorporated, Business Printing Center, Millworks, Gresean Industries Incorporated, Electramation, Plasmachrome Corp., Associated Printing School, among 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: YEAR(S) DESCRIPTION 1886, 1901, Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land. 1902 Adjacent The adjoining properties are depicted as undeveloped land. Properties 1932, 1935, Property The Property is depicted as undeveloped land. 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. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -19- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 4.4.4 Aerial Photograph Review Hillmann obtained and reviewed an "EDR 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: YEAR(S) 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 Properties orchards and residences. shopping center. The adjoining property to the south is depicted as having a Property The Property appears to be an orchard with a residence. trailer park. The adjoining property to the west is depicted as having two The adjoining properties to the north, east, south, and west appear to be 1946, 1952 small structures. Properties 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 1981 Properties undeveloped land. The adjoining property to the east is depicted to have a The adjoining property to the north appears to be residential homes. The shopping center. The adjoining property to the south is depicted as having a Property adjoining property to the east appears to be commercial buildings with trailer park. The adjoining property to the west is depicted as having four associated parking lots. The adjoining property to the south appears to be small structures. Property The Property is depicted as developed land. 2012 Adjacent The adjoining properties to the north, south, east, and west are shaded to Property Properties denote general urban development. 4.4.4 Aerial Photograph Review Hillmann obtained and reviewed an "EDR 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: YEAR(S) DESCRIPTION Property The Property appears to 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. Adjacent The adjoining properties to the north, east, south, and west appear to be 1946, 1952 Properties orchards and residences. Property The eastern portion of the Property appears to be an orchard. The western portion of the Property appears 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 to be developed with multiple commercial structures. Adjacent The adjoining property to the north appears to be residential homes. The 1972, 1977, Property adjoining property to the east appears to be commercial buildings with 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. Adjacent The adjoining properties to the north appear to be residential homes. The 1985 Property 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 adjoining property to the west appears to be vacant land under development. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -20- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 1989, 1994 Property The Property appears to be developed with multiple commercial structures. 2002,2003' 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/do ggr/index.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 Hillmann Consulting LLC 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions The site reconnaissance consisted of visual and/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 adjacent 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 12th and 18th. 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 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 Inc., and Advantage Manufacturing, Inc.) 5.2 General Site Setting 5.2.1 Site and Vicinity Characteristics The Property consists of one irregularly shaped parcel on the southwest corner of W. 6th 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 The terrain of the Property appeared to be relatively flat. No natural surface bodies of water were observed. 5.2.3 General Description of Structures 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. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -22- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 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: Dir Street Address Description N W. 6r' 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 e 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 the 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. Approximately 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 minimis pavement staining in the vicinity of the compressors. 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 leaks were observed below the drums storing hazardous materials. 5.3.3 Other Hazardous Substances/Petroleum Products 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. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -24- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e 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 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 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -25- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e 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 noted 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. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -26- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 6.0 INTERVIEWS 6.1 Interviews with Past and Present Owners and Occupants 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 e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Name; 0 Summary Affiliation/Title NIL & 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 re ort. 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 e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California 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) 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 separate cover. 7.2 Lead -Based Paint 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. 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. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -28- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ 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 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -29- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC 9.0 REFERENCES 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 Orange County's On-line Geographical Information System Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Van Buren Plaza LLC, EMG Corporation, June 11, 2013 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -30- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Hillrnann 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 Tustin. Contact Elaine Dove, Senior Planner, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA (714) 573-3136; edove@tustinca.org Phase I Environmental Site Assessment -31- Hillmann Project No. C3-6449 420 — 436 West e Street & 330 — 694 South B Street„ Tustin, California Appendix G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment HILLMANN CONSULTING LIMITED PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT 420-436 WEST 6TH 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 ,� �- A4 -&— 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 HILLMANN 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 6th Street Tustin, California 92780 Hillmann Project Number: C3-6472 Dear Ms. Chirco-Coker: Hillmann Consulting, LLC, is pleased to provide this Limited Phase 11 Subsurface Investigation Report prepared for the above referenced 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 parry 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. 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND ................................................. 2.0 GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY........................................................ 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION...................................................................... 3.1 Laboratory Results............................................................................ 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 5.0 LIMITATIONS.................................................................................... LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - Summary of Soil Sampling Results TABLE 2 - Summary of Soil Gas Sampling Results LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE I 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 420 West 6`" Street, Tustin, California Hillmann Consulting LLC .......................................................1 .......................................................1 ....................................................... 2 ....................................................... 2 ....................................................... 3 ....................................................... 4 Hillmann Project C3-6472 1.0 INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND Hillmann Consulting, LLC (Hillmann) conducted a United Phase 11 Subsurface Investigation at 420-436 West 6th 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 6th 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 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 subsurface conditions and also pose a potential environmental liability. Based on these findings, Hillmann recommended conducting a subsurface investigation. In December 2015, Hillmann completed a Limited Phase 11 Subsurface Investigation at the Property that featured soil and soil gas sampling to identify potential contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). The investigation featured soil gas sampling which was considered very important in determining possible vapor intrusion impacts for the proposed sensitive redevelopment. The investigation included installation of twelve (12) soil borings across the site, and ten (10) of these were completed as soil gas sampling probes. Results indicated the soil and soil gas samples contained mostly insignificant or non-detectable levels of targeted contaminants that are below accepted commercial screening levels. However, two (2) samples had marginal results that exceed current residential standards. In the event of redevelopment, some additional sampling could be required. 2.0 GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY Based on the drilling logs, shallow soils beneath the site consist primarily of silty sand, silt, and clayey sand from near surface to six (6) feet below grade, the deepest interval explored by drilling in this investigation. Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth of investigation. Based on the GeoTracker website, groundwater was present at about 52 feet below grade in 2012 at a site located about 1,200 feet southeast of the site (Ultramar Service Station, 14001 Newport Avenue, Tustin - Global ID T0605902280). Descriptions of the sediments encountered during drilling are presented in the drilling logs (Appendix Q. Limited Phase II Subsurface bavestigation Report I Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 6th Street, Tustin, California 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION On December 2 and 3, 2015, Hillmann installed twelve (12) soil borings across the Property. Borings B1 -B3 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 B4 -B7 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 6th Street. Each of these borings was completed as a soil gas sampling probe installed at maximum depth. Borings B10-1312 were installed immediately adjacent to the leaking electrical transformer observed during site inspection. Only boring B 10 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 -B12 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 6`h Street, Tustin, California California. The RSL levels for total petroleum hydrocarbons are divided into six non-descript categories that depend on the relative speciation of aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons in the source contaminant. In a commercial setting, these screening levels range from 420 mg/Kg to 3,500,000 mg/Kg, depending on the hydrocarbon species, which for this site is not specifically known. In a residential setting the values range from 82 mg/Kg to 230,000 mg/Kg. The most conservative of these values was used as the guideline for comparison in each scenario. These results are summarized in Table 1. The laboratory reports from soil sampling are included in Appendix B. Results of soil gas sampling indicated four soil gas samples had low but detectable levels of VOC. Two soil gas samples (SG6-5 and SG7-4) had detectable levels of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA), with maximum concentrations of 0.60 ug/L and 0.20 ug/L, respectively. In addition, sample SG4-4.5 had 0.16 ug/L 1,1,1 TCA, and sample SG9-4 had 0.17 ug/L toluene. The detected concentrations were compared to the Region 9 RSLs for soil gas developed by EPA and modified by DTSC for use in California. Results indicated none of the soil gas samples had levels greater than the commercial guideline values, though the maximum PCE result slightly exceeds the residential standards. No other VOC was detected and none of the other soil gas samples had detectable levels of VOC. These results are summarized in Table 2. The laboratory reports from soil sampling are included in Appendix B. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Twelve soil borings and ten soil gas sampling probes were installed across the Property. Results of soil sampling indicated a single isolated instance of shallow hydrocarbon contamination. Sample 134-1.5 had 200 mg/Kg diesel range hydrocarbons exceeding the most conservative standard for residential cases (82 mg/Kg). However, the soil sample collected just below this sample 134-5 did not have detectable levels of hydrocarbons, indicating a limited vertical extent of impact. These results suggest that if the Property is redeveloped for a more sensitive use additional sampling and limited mitigation may be required. Results of soil gas sampling indicated four soil gas samples had detectable levels of VOC, but none exceeded commercial RSL or DTSC guidelines. However, the maximum PCE result did exceed the conservative residential guideline and may require additional vapor sampling. This investigation targeted those areas believed to be most susceptible to spills or discharges of chemicals to the subsurface, and the objective was only intended to identify significant environmental liability associated with the Property. Although this investigation suggests no such major liability, there are indications of minor contamination that could require additional limited action. In addition, there is the possibility that other areas could be impacted which might affect a sensitive residential development. Nevertheless, based on the data and the results of the Phase I assessment, there is not a reasonable justification for a complete subsurface environmental site assessment of the entire site. There are a few possible issues that will need to be addressed if the Property changes to residential use. If the proposed residential development proceeds, and after demolition of the existing structures is complete, Hillmann recommends additional soil gas testing of each residential structure to ensure that the solvent concentrations meet the stringent residential standards. If there Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report 3 Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 6`h Street, Tustin, California 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. Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report 4 Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 6`h Street, Tustin, California TABLE 1 Summary of Soil Sampling Results (mg/Kg) Sample ID PCBs TPHg C4 -C12 I TPHd C13 -C22 TPH-Oil C23 -C40 Sampled December 2 and 3, 2015 B1-1.5 -- ND<0.2 ND<10 ND<20 B1-5 -- ND<0.2 ND<10 ND<20 B2-5 -- ND<0.2 ND<10 ND<20 133-5 -- ND<0.2 ND<10 ND<20 B4-1.5 -- 0.24 200 ND<20 134-4.5 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B5-1 -- 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 B7-2 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B8-2 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B9-2 -- ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B10-2 ND <0.05 ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B 10-6 ND <0.05 ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B11-3 ND <0.05 ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B12-2 ND <0.05 ND<0.2 ND<100 ND<20 B 12-6 ND <0.05 ND<0.2 ND<10 ND<20 Residential RSL -- 82 82 82 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 (RSLs) 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 onn hydrocarbon speciation is indicated. Please refer to lab report for complete results. Lirnted Phase II Subsurface Investigation Hillrnann Project C3-6472 Report 420 West 6th Street, Tustin, California TABLE 2 Summary of Soil Gas Sampling Results (ug/L) Sample ID Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes PCE 1,1,1 -TCA Other VOC Sampled December 7, 2015 SG 1-5 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 SG44.5 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 SG74 ND ND ND ND 0.60 0.20 ND SG84 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 Commercial RSL 0.0485* 0.42* 155 1,300 0.55 4.9 100 440 0.24* 2.1 * 500 4,400 -- -- Notes: ND - Not Detected. EPA Region 9 Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are human health risk based screening levels used by EPA specific to Region 9 to determine Health Risk in residential and commercial settings. *-Values modified for California by DTSC HHRA Note 3. Screening levels for soil gas calculated using indoor air values and attenuation factors provided by DISC. Please refer to laboratory reportfor complete results. Limted Phase II Subsurface Investigation Hilhnann Project C3-6472 Report 420 West e Street, Tustin, California FIGURES Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 6`h Street, Tustin, California } ` / O R c 2 0� % G }/ §ƒ )� f ) \\ _ LU ` §/ � �\-- �ƒ UU)f 1 D'd 1 8 HInos _r_ \ < LU �£tro =\eU LL \ \V) G \rq � � ,ag { \ a) y \ ° \) 4 ,»g } L )_ 0 \{ K LU )u \) ) \ \ $ t t_ \ u 2@ 2 * @) yam � E § } \ / ) §) j 2 $ ) o @z / « _ GID ) 2 \ ) ƒ z- ca a) (\ \7 § }\ 5/ ) ) )/ % _ \ 2/ $ ID\ @ z ) ) $ ƒ / 0 2 / < } \ � �% § 0 ) � z § \ \ / 3 0 + } ` / O R c 2 % G }/ §ƒ )� f ) \\ _ }ƒ ` §/ � �\-- LU LU L Ln LU E N I olF. 0) m Il Y �o I J Cfa I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L ry zQ) w4�ro V U E IDD'dlS 9 Hinos N Q -r-o w1-I,o_ Z� V)V V) N 0" Z) c LL z M V) � O I I I �\ 4aai4s 4�91aZb I /.4 I� 1 / LO N L I 46 I I Q N I LC LC / --------- I ILN Ln L_l0 I N / _____ _______� I A - _ /_I I I � O0 M I N __m_____ ______a (II ra [f7 s1 I_________________y(} 1 I I I I I I I I L___________________I ------------`--------`- 2 N �\ 4aai4s 4�91aZb I /.4 I� 1 / N L I [ In / m U') / h� / I � / / 7aa17S 479 Zzb I N / _ A - _ /_I N / / O �j I l0 aj I N / 00/I \ �J L__�__ �_ l _�y�i�.� _ST_-\ I_____ Ln---- I" Ln I 0] � I / I / I / ------------`--------`- 2 N a LnE OI /6 C U) N 0 fu m (� O O In Ln EMS W U LU Q O tY a C- / O �j n (D/ vort - L / 0 / Ll) / m / J / / / O L / 0) a LnE OI /6 C U) N 0 fu m (� O O In Ln EMS W U LU Q O tY a APPENDIX A Site Photos Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 6`h Street, Tustin, California SG7 11 SG8 APPENDIX B Laboratory Reports Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 6`h Street, Tustin, California CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY - FOOD SAFETY - MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS WATER • SOIL SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CASE NARRATIVE Authorized Signature Name / Title (print) Page I of 10 A & R Laboratories Ke Zh2015 Pr3:04:1 12/09/201eside19 Formerly Microhac Southern California 1512-00044 Project Name / No. INDUSTRIAL PARK Dates Sampled (from/to) FDA 2 13 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C 12/04/15 To 12/04/15 LA city# I02z61 1 ONTARIO, CA 91761 Chains of Custody Received ELAN's 2789 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 2790 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com Organic Analyses 2122 CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY - FOOD SAFETY - MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS WATER • SOIL SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CASE NARRATIVE Authorized Signature Name / Title (print) Ken Zheng, President Signature / Date Ke Zh2015 Pr3:04:1 12/09/201eside19 Laboratory Job No. (Certificate of Analysis No.) 1512-00044 Project Name / No. INDUSTRIAL PARK Dates Sampled (from/to) 12/02/15 To 12/03/15 Dates Received (from/to) 12/04/15 To 12/04/15 Dates Reported (from/to) 12/09/15 To 12/9/2015 Chains of Custody Received Yes Comments: Subcontracting Organic Analyses No analyses sub -contracted Sample Condition(s) All samples intact Positive Results (Organic Compounds) Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL 34-1.5 C23 -C40 200 nri 20 34-1.5 Gasoline (C4 -C12) 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 Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microhac 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 2 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/09/15 12/04/15 74813 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 001 1131-1.5 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 10:15 Sample 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 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 82 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 002 61-5 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 10:40 Sample 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 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 80 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 003 1132-5 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 11:10 Sample Matrix: Soil [TPH Gasoline C4 -C121 Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 86 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 004 1133-5 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 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 Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microhac 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 3 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/09/15 12/04/15 74813 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 004 1133-5 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 11:50 Sample 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 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 85 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 005 1134-1.5 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 12:30 Sample Matrix: Soil [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 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 200 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 82 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 006 1134-4.5 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 12:40 Sample Matrix: Soil [TPH Gasoline C4 -C121 Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 82 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 007 1135-1.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 13:30 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 Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microhac 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 4 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/09/15 12/04/15 74813 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 007 65-1.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 13:30 Sample 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 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 80 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 008 1135-5 Date & Time Sampled: 12/02/15 @ 14:00 Sample 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 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 78 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 009 66-2 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 9:30 Sample Matrix: Soil [TPH Gasoline C4 -C121 Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 79 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 010 67-2 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 10:15 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 Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microhac 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 5 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/09/15 12/04/15 74813 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 010 67-2 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 10:15 Sample 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 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 80 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 011 68-2 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 11:00 Sample 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 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 85 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 012 69-2 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 12:10 Sample Matrix: Soil [TPH Gasoline C4 -C121 Gasoline (C4 -C12) <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction Complete EPA 35506 1 12/05/15 JEN C13 -C22 <10 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 10 12/05/15 JEN C23 -C40 <20 mg/Kg EPA 80156 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 82 %REC EPA 80156 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Sample: 013 B10-2 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 13:30 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 Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microhac 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 6 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/09/15 12/04/15 74813 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 013 B10-2 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 13:30 Sample 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 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 80158 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 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 Sample: 014 B10-6 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 14:30 Sample 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 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 80158 1 20 12/05/15 JEN [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) 76 %REC EPA 80158 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 Microhac 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 1512-00044 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK Page 7 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/09/15 Date Received 12/04/15 Invoice No. 74813 Cust # G073 Permit Number EPA 8082 Customer P.O. 0.050 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 014 B10-6 Sample Matrix: Soil .....continued Ultrasonic Extraction Aroclor 1016 Aroclor 1221 Aroclor 1232 Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1254 Aroclor 1260 [Surrogates] Tetrachl oro -m -xylene Decachlorobiphenyl Sample: 015 B11-3 Sample Matrix: Soil [TPH Gasoline C4 -C121 Gasoline (C4 -C12) [Extractable Hydrocarbons] Extraction C13 -C22 C23 -C40 [Surrogate] o-Terphenyl(OTP) [PCBs] Ultrasonic Extraction Aroclor 1016 Aroclor 1221 Aroclor 1232 Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1254 Aroclor 1260 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 14:30 Complete mg/Kg EPA 3550 1 0.20 12/05/15 JEN <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ 79 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 1 50-150 12/06/15 KZ 82 %REC EPA 8081A/8082 1 50-150 12/06/15 KZ Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 15:20 <0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015M 1 0.20 12/05/15 KZ Complete EPA 35508 1 12/05/15 JEN <10 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 10 12/05/15 JEN <20 mg/Kg EPA 80158 1 20 12/05/15 JEN 80 %REC EPA 80158 50-150 12/05/15 JEN Complete EPA 3550 1 12/05/15 JEN <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <0.050 mg/Kg EPA 8082 1 0.050 12/06/15 KZ <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 Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microhac 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 8 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00044 Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/09/15 12/04/15 74813 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 015 B11-3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 15:20 Sample Matrix: Soil .....continued [Surrogates] Tetrachloro-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 B12-2 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 16:00 Sample 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 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 80158 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 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 Sample: 017 B12-6 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 16:15 Sample Matrix: Soil [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 Microbiological Analyses and Research A & R Laboratories Formerly Microhac 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 9 of 10 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 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 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/09/15 12/04/15 74813 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 017 B12-6 Date & Time Sampled: 12/03/15 @ 16:15 Sample Matrix: Soil .....continued 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) 82 %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 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: l6— 3 Iden 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. Qual = Qualifier H = Analyte was prepared and/or analyzed outside of the analytical method holding time Tech = Technician 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. 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 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@ariaboratories.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 Page 10 of 10 A & R Laboratories Formerly Microhac Southern California FDA 2 13 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C LA city# I02z61 1 ON'T'ARIO, 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 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@ariaboratories.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 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY - MICROBIOLOGY - FOOD SAFETY - MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT GSA ENGINEERING 1512-00044 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Page 1 of 2 A & R Laboratories 12/09/2015 Method # FDA# 2030513 Formerly Microbac Southern Calijbmia 12/04/2015 QC Referenc@.fC d 51509 LA City# 10261 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C EEAE#'s 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 QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT GSA ENGINEERING 1512-00044 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Date Reported 12/09/2015 Method # Date Received 12/04/2015 QC Referenc@.fC d 51509 Date Analyzed: 12/52015 Date Sampled 12/02/2015 SamplM 001 002 003 009 005 006 007 008 009 Invoice No. 74813 Results Customer # G073 Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK LCS °7oDUP LCS °/aRPD SPIKE SPIKE SPIKE Customer P.O. °7oDUP %RPD 51510 Date Analyzed: 12/52015 Technician: 3EN 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 %RPD BLKSRR°/.REC %REC °hDUP %RPD EC C13 -C22 89 85 5 82 78 5 70 - 130 0 - 25 0- 25 ,.-re...l—A 1-1 — 50-150 Gasoline (C4 -C12) 95 92 3 89 85 5 Method # EPA 8081A/808 QC Reference # 51512 Date Analyzed: 12/6/2015 Technician: KZ Samples 013 014 015 016 017 Results BLKSRR%R EC Decachlorobiphenyl 75 Tetrachloro-nn-xylene 78 EPA 8082 51512 Date Analyzed: 12/62015 013 014 015 016 017 Results LCS °hREC LCS %DUP LCS °/aRPD SPIKE °hREC Arodor 1016 85 82 4 79 Technician: KZ SPIKE SPIKE °hDUP °7nRPD 78 2 No method blank results were above reporting limit Respectfully Submitted. :� Ken Zheng - President Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS %RPD SPIKE °7nRPD 70-130 0-25 0-25 Control Ranges BLKSRR%REC 50 - 150 50 -150 Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS °/.RPD SPIKE %RPD 70-130 0-25 0-25 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. Method # QC Referenc@.fC d 51509 Date Analyzed: 12/52015 Technician: KZ SamplM 001 002 003 009 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 Results LCS °hREC LCS °7oDUP LCS °/aRPD SPIKE SPIKE SPIKE °/.REC °7oDUP %RPD Gasoline (C4 -C12) 95 92 3 89 85 5 Method # EPA 8081A/808 QC Reference # 51512 Date Analyzed: 12/6/2015 Technician: KZ Samples 013 014 015 016 017 Results BLKSRR%R EC Decachlorobiphenyl 75 Tetrachloro-nn-xylene 78 EPA 8082 51512 Date Analyzed: 12/62015 013 014 015 016 017 Results LCS °hREC LCS %DUP LCS °/aRPD SPIKE °hREC Arodor 1016 85 82 4 79 Technician: KZ SPIKE SPIKE °hDUP °7nRPD 78 2 No method blank results were above reporting limit Respectfully Submitted. :� Ken Zheng - President Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS %RPD SPIKE °7nRPD 70-130 0-25 0-25 Control Ranges BLKSRR%REC 50 - 150 50 -150 Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS °/.RPD SPIKE %RPD 70-130 0-25 0-25 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. GSA ENGINEERING Project: INDUSTRIAL PARK A & R Laboratories Formerly Microbac Southern Califbmia 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C ONTARIO, CA 91761 951-779-0310 FAX 951-779-0344 www.arlaboratories.com officegarlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY - MICROBIOLOGY - FOOD SAFETY - MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT 1512-00044 Page 2 of 2 Date Reported 12/09/2015 Date Received 12/04/2015 Date Sampled 12/02/2015 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/09/2015 Date Received 12/04/2015 Date Sampled 12/02/2015 H co (L ,t It M O m rnN m X U ro o LL m` m E CY) O O GU11 U � o` LN 00 �o fII (D L > O O Q M co a) o p m U _j 2 co c - 06 O rn ro L_ E QcDw m i�CO r f u �4 c av E� �N o [[N= Q @ ; a w �4 u . ❑ �` `J o E Niz W ° .0 o O ro �m0 co -0N N U > 6 y Q -2 ma0 QS II II II ma> N CO N �T E� Ho0 3 `waoli o0 .11-10 alPic :ojoiW cc a ro m . (Slelm L l W'do) 000090109 Vdd N Qj Co o .� ) � U)(Obi-60 +� O UQUO we40 uoq�e�) W9108 Vd3 i'e v C `� 1-- 0 co (S80d) 2808 Vd3 X Q (saplailsad a(JIJOlgOOUe6J0)a V1808Vd3 E � > E E 0 m Oosalo) 9108 i iini ZZ= (auposeo) 9108 ijm II „ II (sale UoMx0'a X318)809Z8Vd3 (saleua6 (x0 '8 sOOA) 80K8Vd3 T CL 0- O VW (�$ (� iJ W m E UK E v4 ,__ �c n c zc�$ �/1 Vi 4 U Z US= N j (b 07 c 0 E u, r >Ir T tC E M ?` � p � � P p C cr�j M r 7 Y� _Jc!)<CL �3 N �` n�a� O N ~ a o (� 0� V a 0- c, zc � E E O U E O U o r 6 p(D5 0 n XIt } a- LL Q , �' C]o777 U) N c E E a m �° / '� V i Cj /! V U w Q a Z J — —Cc — n U � — d �} _ 7 d s V —CO Y O pQ N O '���--Gyy ro ro ro U N\IE W E oO Cc w y p CL C ro m m a m' a M o CO ro N U> ¢ m mO p ma> 0 1 ma- > �N m � ¢ W-o a q T Q) i100-3 'W]01!100�.1ua aleld :oaaiW Eo a c U mm �� }. 0 (SlelaW L4 WHO) 00DA0109 `dd3 0 o F Q N U¢U- uieyO uogaeo) W91C8 dd3 K z a -o m 6 Ego C (S88d) 2808 Vd3 Q (sORNsed auuOWOUu6jo) y 18()8b`d3 _E E' V�-�I- =0 Oasala) s 108 / Idm o z u „ u O (auiiose0) 5108 / lith _ u) cncn2 Z (saleua6Jsx0'8 X318)80K8dd3 ro� Q (saleua6 (x0'R S80A) 809Z:9Vd3 V O (15 N a)0Q) N N E q u z 0 zcid U U 2= o r .4b> m o Q ;7) In ..� cz Q) Q (n 2 U , R1 ro m (r a A m o m oo Q Q a 0 amu) a *� -0 J — -s c�C a>io—° Q)o 3 cn¢a 0 ¢ co U ,� n u �cntca > o \ 71 0 Q _,J 2 r '� ` O r. (3aEuj Ln 0 M S 06 0 C C N Q`D�w E - E Y�N� h fzoro� o X U oo5 o n u n 3 L LL (4 -9 S oma ° . (D E m Q) a ro ro ro a, �Z 6 c o U W ¢ d Z J m tr m CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY - FOOD SAFETY - MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CASE NARRATIVE Authorized Signature Name / Title (print) Page I of 32 A & R Laboratories Signature / Date Formerly Microbac Southern California Ken Zheng, President 12/08/220101 5 12:24:53 Laboratory Job No. (Certificate of Analysis No.) 1512-00045 FDA 20 13 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 FOOD COSMETICS • WATER • SOIL • SOIL VAPOR • WASTES CASE NARRATIVE Authorized Signature Name / Title (print) Ken Zheng, President Signature / Date Ken Zheng, President 12/08/220101 5 12:24:53 Laboratory Job No. (Certificate of Analysis No.) 1512-00045 Project Name / No. 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Dates Sampled (from/to) 12/07/15 To 12/07/15 Dates Received (from/to) 12/07/15 To 12/07/15 Dates Reported (from/to) 12/08/15 To 12/8/2015 Chains of Custody Received Yes Comments: Subcontracting Organic Analyses No analyses sub -contracted Sample Condition(s) All samples intact Positive Results (Organic Compounds) Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL Sample Analyte Result Qual Units RL SG -4-4.5 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.16 pg/L 0.10 SG -9-4.0 Toluene 0.17 pg/L 0.10 SG -6-5.0 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.11 pg/L 0.10 SG -6-5.0 Tetrachloroethene 0.11 pg/L 0.10 SG -7-4.0 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.20 pg/L 0.10 SG -7-4.0 Tetrachloroethene 0.60 pg/L 0.10 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 2 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 001 SG -4-4.5 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) Benzene Bromobenzene Bromochloromethane Bromod ichlorometha ne Bromoform Bromomethane t -Butanol (TBA) 2-Butanone (MEK) n-Butylbenzene sec- Butyl benzene tert-Butyl benzene Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane 2-Chlorotol uene 4-Chlorotol uene Dibromochl orometha ne 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1, 2 -Di bromo-3-Chl oropropane Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 9:53 <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 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 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 001 SG -4-4.5 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichl oropropene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropyl benzene 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-Trichlorobenzene 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 9:53 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.1 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.1 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 4 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN'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 Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 001 SG -4-4.5 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 9:53 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.16 pg/L EPA 82608 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 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 82608 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 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 100 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 98 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 104 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample: 002 SG -5-5.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 10:30 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <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 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 5 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 002 SG -5-5.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued Bromomethane t -Butanol (TBA) 2-Butanone (MEK) n-Butylbenzene sec- Butyl benzene tert-Butyl benzene Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane 2-Chlorotol uene 4-Chlorotol uene Dibromochl orometha ne 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1, 2 -Di bromo-3-Chl oropropane Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 10:30 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 6 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 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 002 SG -5-5.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-l,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropyl benzene 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-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene 1,2,3-Trichl oropropa ne Trichlorofluoromethane Trichl orotrifl uoroetha ne 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 10:30 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 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, 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 7 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN'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 Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 002 SG -5-5.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 10:30 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 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 82608 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 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 108 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 102 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 115 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample: 003 SG -8-4.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 10:51 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 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- Butyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <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 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 8 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number EPA 8260B Customer P.O. 0.10 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 003 SG -8-4.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane 2-Chlorotol uene 4-Chlorotol uene Dibromochl orometha ne 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1,2 -Di bromo-3-Chl oropropane Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis -1, 2-Dichloroethene trans -1, 2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 10:51 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 9 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 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 KZ Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 003 SG -8-4.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropyl benzene 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-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene 1, 2, 3-Trichl o rop ropa ne Trichlorofluoromethane Trichl orotrifl uoroetha ne 1, 2,4-Trimethyl benzene 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Vinyl Chloride m,p-Xylenes o -Xylene [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] Isopropanol (IPA) 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 10:51 <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 <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 <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 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 8260B 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 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 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 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 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 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 10 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 KZ Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 003 SG -8-4.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane Toluene -DS Bromofluorobenzene Sample: 004 SG -9-4.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) Benzene Bromobenzene Bromochloromethane Bromod ichlorometha ne Bromoform Bromomethane t -Butanol (TBA) 2-Butanone (MEK) n-Butylbenzene sec- Butyl benzene tert-Butyl benzene Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane 2-Chlorotol uene 4-Chlorotol uene Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 10:51 91 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ 103 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ 82 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 11:32 <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 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 <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 KZ <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 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 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 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 <0.20 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 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 11 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 004 SG -9-4.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued Dibromochl orometha ne 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1, 2 -Di bromo-3-Chl oropropane Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichl oroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichl oroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-l,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropyl benzene 4-Isopropyltoluene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) Methyl -t -butyl Ether (MtBE) 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 11:32 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <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, 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 Page 12 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/08/15 12/07/15 74805 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 004 SG -9-4.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 11:32 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 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 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Tetrachloroethene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Toluene 0.17 pg/L EPA 8260B 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 <0.10 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 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-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 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 8260B 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 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 98 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample: 005 SG -1-5.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:04 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 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 13 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 005 SG -1-5.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) Benzene Bromobenzene Bromochloromethane Bromod ichlorometha ne Bromoform Bromomethane t -Butanol (TBA) 2-Butanone (MEK) n-Butylbenzene sec- Butyl benzene tert-Butyl benzene Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane 2-Chlorotol uene 4-Chlorotol uene Dibromochl orometha ne 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1, 2 -Di bromo-3-Chl oropropane Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:04 <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 lig/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 14 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 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 005 SG -1-5.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichl oropropene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropyl benzene 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 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:04 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 15 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN'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 Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 005 SG -1-5.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:04 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 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 <0.10 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 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 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 82608 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 111 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 101 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 97 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample: 006 SG -2-5.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:31 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 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 16 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 006 SG -2-5.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued Bromoform Bromomethane t -Butanol (TBA) 2-Butanone (MEK) n-Butylbenzene sec- Butyl benzene tert-Butylbenzene Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane 2-Chlorotol uene 4-Chlorotol uene Dibromochl orometha ne 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1, 2 -Di bromo-3-Chl oropropane Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:31 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 17 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 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 006 SG -2-5.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued 1,3-Dichloropropane 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 Isopropyl benzene 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-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene 1,2,3-Trichl oropropa ne Trichlorofluoromethane 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:31 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.1 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.1 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 18 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN'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 Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 006 SG -2-5.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:31 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued Trichlorotrifluoroethane <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 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 82608 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 82608 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 104 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 101 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 96 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample: 007 SG -3-5.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:53 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 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- Butyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butyl benzene <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 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 19 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 007 SG -3-5.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane 2-Chlorotol uene 4-Chlorotol uene Dibromochl orometha ne 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1,2 -Di bromo-3-Chl oropropane Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis -1, 2-Dichloroethene trans -1, 2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:53 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 20 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 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 007 SG -3-5.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropyl benzene 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-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene 1, 2, 3-Trichl o rop ropa ne Trichlorofluoromethane Trichl orotrifl uoroetha ne 1, 2,4 -Tri methyl benzene 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Vinyl Chloride m,p-Xylenes o -Xylene [VOC Vapor Sampling Tracer] 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 12:53 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 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, 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 Page 21 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/08/15 12/07/15 74805 G073 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 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 104 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 99 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample: 008 SG -6-5.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 13:27 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 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- Butyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 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 82608 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 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 22 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 008 SG -6-5.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued 4-Chlorotol uene Dibromochl orometha ne 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1, 2 -Di bromo-3-Chl oropropane Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichl oroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichl oroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans -1, 2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-l,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropyl benzene 4-Isopropyltoluene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 13:27 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.1 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.1 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 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, 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 Page 23 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 1512-00045 Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/08/15 12/07/15 74805 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 008 SG -6-5.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 13:27 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 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 82608 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 Tetrachloroethene 0.11 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-Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 1,2,4Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 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 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 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 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 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 82608 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 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 92 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample: 009 SG -7-4.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 13:40 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor 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 24 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 Date Reported 12/08/15 Date Received 12/07/15 Invoice No. 74805 Cust # G073 Permit Number 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 009 SG -7-4.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: [VOCs by GCMS] Acetone t -Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) Benzene Bromobenzene Bromochloromethane Bromod ichlorometha ne Bromoform Bromomethane t -Butanol (TBA) 2-Butanone (MEK) n-Butylbenzene sec- Butyl benzene tert-Butyl benzene Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane 2-Chlorotol uene 4-Chlorotol uene Dibromochl orometha ne 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 1, 2 -Di bromo-3-Chl oropropane Dibromomethane 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 13:40 <10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.20 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.20 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.20 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <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, 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 25 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 1 Customer P.O. 12/07/15 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 009 SG -7-4.0 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: .....continued 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichl oropropene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Diisopropyl Ether (DiPE) Ethylbenzene Ethyl -t -Butyl Ether (EtBE) Hexachlorobutadiene 2-Hexanone Isopropyl benzene 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-Trichlorobenzene 3 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 13:40 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82606 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.1 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.1 12/07/15 <1.0 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 1.0 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.050 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.050 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 0.60 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 8260B 1 0.10 12/07/15 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82606 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, 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 26 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN'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 Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 009 SG -7-4.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 13:40 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 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 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 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 82608 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 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 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 99 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 95 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Sample: 010 SG -10-6.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 14:20 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Bromoform <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 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 27 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/08/15 12/07/15 74805 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 010 SG -10-6.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 14:20 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 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 82608 1 1.0 12/07/15 KZ n-Butylbenzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ sec- Butyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 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 82608 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 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 82608 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 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 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 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 82608 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 1,3-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 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 28 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/08/15 12/07/15 74805 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 010 SG -10-6.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 14:20 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 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 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ trans-l,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 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 Isopropyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 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 82608 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 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 <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 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 82608 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 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 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 29 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN'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 Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 010 SG -10-6.0 Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 14:20 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 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 82608 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 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 104 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -D8 97 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 101 %REC EPA 82608 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 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 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 82608 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- Butyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ tert-Butyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ Carbon Disulfide <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 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 30 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAN's 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/08/15 12/07/15 74805 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 011 SG-10-6.0-DUP Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 14:20 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....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 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 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 8260B 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 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 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 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) 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 31 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/08/15 12/07/15 74805 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 011 SG-10-6.0-DUP Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 14:20 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued 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 Isopropyl benzene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 1 0.10 12/07/15 KZ 4-Isopropyltoluene <0.10 pg/L EPA 82608 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 82608 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 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 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 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 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 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 8260B 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 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 82608 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 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 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 32 of 32 FDA# 2030513 LA City# 10261 ELAP#'s 2789 2790 2122 GSA ENGINEERING DAN LOUKS 16950 AVENIDA DE SANTA YNEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Date Reported Date Received Invoice No. Cust 4 Permit Number Customer P.O. 12/08/15 12/07/15 74805 G073 Analysis Result Qual Units Method DF RL Date Tech Sample: 011 SG-10-6.0-DUP Date & Time Sampled: 12/07/15 @ 14:20 Sample Matrix: Soil Vapor Purge Volume Sampled: 3 .....continued [VOC Surrogates] Dibromofluoromethane 99 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Toluene -DS 99 %REC EPA 82608 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Bromofluorobenzene 101 %REC EPA 8260B 70-130 12/07/15 KZ Respectfully Submitted:"` 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. Qual = Qualifier H = Analyte was prepared and/or analyzed outside of the analytical method holding time Tech = Technician 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. 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@ariaboratories.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 www.arlaboratories.com office@arlaboratories.com CHEMISTRY - MICROBIOLOGY - FOOD SAFETY - MOBILE LABORATORIES FOOD COSMETICS • WATER - SOIL - SOIL VAPOR • WASTES QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT GSA ENGINEERING 1512-00045 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Date Reported 12/08/2015 Date Received 12/07/2015 Date Sampled 12/07/2015 Invoice No. 74805 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer # G073 Customer P.O. Method # EPA 82608 QC Reference # i 51476 Date Analyzed: 12/7/2015 Technician: KZ samples 1 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 ResultsI Control Ranges LCS %REC LCS %DUP LCS /.RPD BLKSRR%R LCS %REC LCS %RPD BLKSRR%REC EC 1,1-Dichloroethene Page 1 of 1 A & R Laboratories 11 Benzene FDA# 2030513 Formerly Microbac Southern Calijbrnia 4 Bromofluorobenzene LA City# 10261 1650 S. GROVE AVE., SUITE C HLAP#'s 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 QUALITY CONTROL DATA REPORT GSA ENGINEERING 1512-00045 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Date Reported 12/08/2015 Date Received 12/07/2015 Date Sampled 12/07/2015 Invoice No. 74805 Project: 420 W. 6th St., Tustin CA Customer # G073 Customer P.O. Method # EPA 82608 QC Reference # i 51476 Date Analyzed: 12/7/2015 Technician: KZ samples 1 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 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 70- 130 70 - 130 96 Chlorobenzene 118 101 7 Dibromofluorometha 113 Toluene 104 97 7 Toluene -D8 93 Trichloroethene 108 95 13 No method blank results were above reporting limit Respectfully Submitted. 3-� Ken Zheng - President 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 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@ariaboratories.com. a 00 av V C N o� wcvE -0c ° v °I a o Ecc OCw= Z C E E w �E El co 11OC m w d m E v V. a Cl) m N i m �Q O mdo • ` 7 CU : C) E 0 � i100-3 'uaJOA00 "IUD aleld :oaaiW CO (slula" L l VIVO) 000/80109 dd3 } N �m -C o� 0 � o< UQU� (0b3 -4o umgo uogjLO) W9108 dd3 � N � f4 N N 0 z Qa N 6 E � ' C m c7 ° ° ~ �('3c� (s8Od) Z808 Vd3 r rr/A� v l Q F (sapioi ad aoue6i au!JO w o) V1808t/d3 E E E I— O a V Oasa(Q) 9108 / lith = pro o LL zz= (auiiose0) 9 o / ldfli O m z t� . Z (sa}eu06,tx0'8 X318)80KWd3 Q (saaeua6AX013 sOOA) 809Z8b'd3 a�t m N C) Q) ,� M m �W a U �J c� o, o m00 O.vi O J CJ V U z o - z0Z; r m m m -0 Q1 > ',n E U a _0 U ro T U7 _� X U > m N m m N UL p X p L E � O a E N Q o q m °N' (n �' E E � c � c --Q yr r t' _o J(nCLd 3 om �` t V' Q Q Q cncnQa f p o -uio.- So m M y �.� �w` d T �ro—a) ���>a -E Q O _ 1 o Q 0 C O N o a � o3: coo ,— ,� c� o _ T m � ° co a Q E `'� \J\ Z N �z �.` �' a- v N m o �p N G O p 0 w¢ az J 1 1 ( ` l ) ; i APPENDIX C Drilling Logs Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Hillmann Project C3-6472 420 West 6`h Street, Tustin, California 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 131 LENGTH LENGTH OWNER PROJECT NUMBER TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH TO WATER 5 Feet SLOT SIZE TYPE DRILL METHOD Hand Auger LOG BY Dan Looks l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL CLASS (USCS) DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW 1.5 <1 131-1.5 ML Sandy SILT; brown, low plasticity, very fine grained, no odor. 5 <1 131-5 CL Silty CLAY; brown, low plasticity, slightly moist, no odor. Install Soil Gas Probe SG1 at 5feet bgs. Install filter pack along sampling tip. 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 Hillmann DRILLER Neil / Dan 132 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 l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL CLASS (USCS) DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE 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. 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 133 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 l l I LLMANN CONSULTING 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. Seal with bentonite to surface. DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER 134 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 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 Looks l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL CLASS (USCS) 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 Hillmann DRILLER Neil / Dan 135 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 l l I LLMANN 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 SGS at 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 3, 2015 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 l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL CLASS (USCS) DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL 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 137 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 l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL CLASS (USCS) DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL NUMBER 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. DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER 88 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 Looks l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL CLASS (USCS) DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL NUMBER 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. DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER 139 PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 611, 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 l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL CLASS (USCS) DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL NUMBER 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. DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER B10 PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 611, 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 l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL CLASS (USCS) DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW 2 <1 1310-2 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 1310-6 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 1311 PROJECT Light Industrial Center LOCATION 420-436 West 611, 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 l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (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 DRILL/LITHOLOGIC LOG BORING/WELL NUMBER 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 B12 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 l l I LLMANN CONSULTING DEPTH (FEET) WELL CONST PID (PPM) SAMPLES SOIL CLASS (USCS) DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION (COLOR, TEXTURE, STRUCTURES) PIPE FILL NUMBER BLOW 2 <1 B12-2 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine grained, some clay, slightly moist, no odor. 6 <1 B12-6 SM Silty SAND; brown, very fine grained, some clay, slightly moist, no odor. Appendix H: Noise Impact Analysis 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 ProjectNo.: P16 -004N 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, "dB" 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 rooves 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 2 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 CATFGORIES COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL CNEL CATEGORIES USES X55 60 65 70 -- 90> RESIDE TIAL -uigle Family, Duplex, Multiple Faniiiy A A B C C D D RESIDENTIAL _Mobile Home A A B C C D D CONIN ERCIAL Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging Regional, District A A B B C C D COMM ERCIAL Conunercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Regional, Village Movie Theater _A. A A A B B C District, Special COMMERCIAL Office Building, Reseamh and Develop- INDL"5TRiAL ment, Professional Offices, City Office y ; A B B C D Building INSTTTUTIONAL COMMERCIAL Aurplutheater, Concert Hall R�-reatiorn B B C C D P P 115 111 L'TIONAL Auditoriiutt, Meeting Hall Civic Center COMMIERCIAL Cluldren's Amusement Park, Miniature Recreation Golf Course, Go-cart Track, Equestrian y ! A F B D L Center, Sports Club COXWERCIAL Autorrnobile Seivice Station, Auto General, Special Dealership, Manufacturm y j j t'• 1� L� lvarehortsing, Wholesale, Utilities I\DL'STRIAL, INSTTUITONAL 1t';TTL-TIONAL Hospital, Church, Libram Sdiciols' General Classrmh oc y E'• D D OPEN SPACE Pinks y 1 D D OPEN SPACE Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nahrre Centers A A C C Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat A Ac;P.IC1 TTTT.TRE A A A 91 A y INTERPRETATION ZONE A spec>lred land use is satisfactory. based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal CLEARLY COMPATIBLE conventional construction without asnv special noise insulation requirements. ZONE B New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction NORMALLY COX[PATrBLE requnements 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 INCOMPATIBLE Source: J.J. Van Houten dr Associates CITY OF T'USTIN NOISE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 17 NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Tustin Lofts Noise 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 50"' percentile standard. The louder the level becomes, the shorter the time becomes that it is allowed to occur. For example, the L50 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 50t" 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 L5o daytime standard of 55 dB and L5o 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 5 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 anytime 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 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 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. 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 Readings Location Leg 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 OW , -. I , - ". -- f, 40 r_muk LT Meter 2 i Am Meter 4� ' , ST Meter 3 - ST Meter 2 e. I T Meter 1 ST Meter I C.ole earth Imagery Date: 3/24/2015- 33°44'21.52"N 117°49'39906 W_elev 126ft.--eye`R 1144ft0 Table 3 Modeling Results Noise Short Term (ST) Measured Noise Levels (dBA) 1:00 to 2:00 P.M. 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 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 -Hour CNEL 73.1 63.1 Tustin Lofts Noise 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 LoBti Noise 10 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 6th 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) i Front Loaders Backhoes _ LU Tractors _ N w Scrapers, Graders E Pavers MINE U m = Trucks a� Concrete Mixers MEMO CU Concrete Pumps co Cranes (Movable) MEMO WOMEN a� ECranes d CU (Derrick) WIN CL U.1 Pumps ME m _ s Generators N Compressors Pneumatic Wrenches c M C Jack Hammers and Rock Drills E _ — Cr "' Pile Drivers (Peaks) MEMO Vibrator a Saws Source: EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agancy, December 31,1971, Wase from Construction Equipment and Operations.' Tustin Lofts Noise 12 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: Table 3 Human Response to Transient Vibration Average Human Response I ppv (in/sec) Severe Strongly perceptible Distinctly perceptible Barely perceptible ource: Caltrans Transportation an 2.00 0.90 0.24 0.03 on Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013. Over the years, numerous vibration criteria and standards have been suggested by researchers, organizations, and governmental agencies. There are no Caltrans or Federal Highway Administration standards for vibration. 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/sec. 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 6" 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 PPV PPV PPV at 75 ftPPPV Equipment at 25 ft (in/sec) at 50 ft (in/sec) at 60 ft (in/sec) (in/sec 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: FHWA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment The closest sensitive uses are approximately 75 feet from the closest project perimeter, across 6`h 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 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events 100 Vd13 - 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. Tustin Lofts Noise 14 Table 5 Annroximate Vibration Levels Induced by Construction Eouinment * (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 6th 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 6' 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 86 80 77 74 Jackhammer 79 73 69 67 Small Bulldozer 58 52 L 43 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 6th 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 6' 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 (CNEL in dBA at 50 feet from Centerline) Roadway Segment Existing2035 Existing + Pro 'ect 2035+ Pro'ect 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 Driveway -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 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 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 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 Table 6 (continued) Project -Related Noise Impact WNEL 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 ofNewport -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 Ram 0.0 0.0 S of SB Ramp 0.0 1 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 Peak Model Over Growth Hour (dB) Leq to CNEL Predicts Factor Net CNEL Ground Floor 73 +4 -4 +1 74 dB 2n6/3rd 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 (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 3rd 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 4 1. 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 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 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. Tustin Lofts Noise 20 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 Figure N-1 from General Plan f�. 60, • oil� �• * ••• r of 40 City of Tustin sphere of Muence.Plmnn¢ ? ica SOURCE: J.J. Van Houtan and Associates, July 1993 NOTE: Noise Contours depicted within MCAS Tustin Specific Pian. May change based on final roadway alignment selected. I Figure N-1 TUSTI N Future (20 i 0) Community Noise Equivalent Level JCNEL] Contours for the GENERAL PLAN Tustin Manning Area Tustin Lofts Noise Short Term (ST) Measured Noise Levels (dBA) 1:00 to 2:00 P.M. Long Term (LT) Noise Measurements Existing Hourlv Lea'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 Hourlv Lea'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 L >L Y 0) J O O O O � U J 0) a) 0) Lo a)N N L J p W ootcorn W oo-tOo0 _ z 0 L Ln L O Z r- O 4 O 2 NQ p J> Z T cM 061 12 Z T U� U U ti co r� ti U r` co co r` N (.) Co 00x222 >zz0W 0 0LLX T T T ; Y C) O a_: 0) O O� T �\ N Z _II: Z LCA L? LlaiLO T N L LCj J rD r- 'C C T T T @ d E Y U a � O) r Ln Ln L1? T J 00 00 O W o r LO o W _o N LO (4);4BIOH V � d M O 7 r r r cu 0A O CD Z p + M 07 d Lo Lo Lo Q Lo a N CD LO .o z U U (0 U U =3 LLi r LL C r LLi r L C N J =5 j j Q 76 W LL Q 2 Q 2 H OJ N - O O J d _x: U i O mO (�) r CO 00 O O — 06 1 C6 Lo m c0 m r- CD T T T T i T T r Y U L O M O M Cl). r� �p I` O Ct co co O Cl) OD (D O cV r CC) p CO LO of � C'S N lir r T r T CV N r LO 0) LO O N Lo CO N O It O O O r co o0 Ln (D ti O T O CJ (D LO T T = Q co O co O r 07 T CJ N CJ L >L Y 0) � U N a)N N 2 p a)— m _ z o o=�� o> F >_ �� L O U U U L Cn p p U U M> LQ 2 NQ p J> D) 12 U Q p C�. N U� U / p 00x222 >zz0W 0 0LLX LO O s 2 LO C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Li o m o m o 00 r` r- co co LO m (VGP) 19NO O N CD CD � O 0 N / / O v �\ N o r LO o rn _o N (4);4BIOH k M 2 / 0 � 2 e o o 0 0 -J q q m » o 2@-t@ q 2@«@ q 0 L o Z w I� o Z Cl) r o r 9 2 04 S¥ o¥ w U w s w w \ Q e ®� e �\\f\ \// 2 2 9 9 7 c I e r E E c e o c 2\ $_ ƒ a. \ \ \ \ / � 2LU / � » ƒQG a) % (D m \ \ \ z \ 2 § In 9 CO 7 e k/ � ■ _ .0 Z m n $ \ � k 2 \ E ® E ® \ = my at k 5k� My /F- J/ƒ F- k ƒ k_k / 2 7 7 r M CD N _ § \ _ %5 sI z) \ ƒ § / 5 2 2 e I Of o$ E E % % t ®0 c c E0 .» ± g 2 : / \ \ ƒ ƒ T- ƒ ' k = % E f / I# 6906 C) w o \ g e 2 5 e® \ � \ / / / LO w e e 2 / \\2// LO = a — a / / n a C) \ co Cl) LO = \ \ \ / / m m =m 2 = 2 m m � \_ 0 ( � g \ e « @ o 3 3 5 ± of 2 2 F \ ) k CD o 0 o c c c° \ \ \ \ \ \ \ wem -13NO \ / Appendix B NEW CONSTRUCTION ACOUSTICAL DESIGN GUIDE (Noise level reduction (NLR) acoustical packages) The Lofts Noise Wyle Report WR 03-1Q NEW CONSTRUCTION ACOUSTICAL DESIGN GUIDE Prepared For CITY OF HIGH POINT 211 S. Hamilton Street High Point, NC 27261 Prepared By Clint Morrow Gary Ehrlich William Albee Wyle Acoustics Group WYLE LABO13ATORIES 2001 ]efferson Davis Highway Suite 701 Arlington, Virginia 22202 {]/N 47764) March 2003 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Background........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 How to Use This Guide........................................................................................1-1 2.0 Noise Control Basics...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Units Used in Acoustics........................................................................................2-1 2.2 Aircraft Noise .............................................. ..................................................... ..2-3 2.3 Sound Insulation to Reduce Noise......................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Basic Sound Insulation Concepts ... ....................................................................... 2-5 3.0 Building Elements.......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Evaluating Construction Materials and Methods......................................................3-1 3.2 Sealing and Weatherstripping...............................................................................3-2 3.3 Windows............................................................................................................3-2 3.4 Doors ..... ....................................................................................................... 3-4 3.5 Walls and Ceilings .............. ................................................................................. 3-7 3.6 Attics and Roofs...............................................................................................3-10 3.7 Floors, Basements, and Crawl Spaces.................................................................. 3-12 3.8 Ventilation......................................................................................................3-13 3.9 Miscellaneous...................................................................................................3-15 4.0 Material Selection Chart ................................................................................. 4-1 5.0 Limitations................................................................................................... 5-1 Appendices Text Formatting...................................................................................... A-1 Appendix A Noise Leel Reduction Design Requirements..............................................A-1 Appendix B Manufacturers of Acoustical Materials ........................................ ............... B-1 Appendix C Independent Certified Acoustical Testing Laboratories.................................0-1 AppendixD Giossary ............................................................................................... D-1 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 List of Figures Figure No. 2-1 Pictorial Representation of Sound Transmission Through Built Construction ....................... 2-S 2-2 Sound Transmission Paths Into Dwelling Interiors..........................................................2-6 3-1 Typical Aluminum Dual Window Detail ...................................... .................................... 3-3 3-2 Construction Features of Acoustical Window..................................................................3-3 3-3 Sliding Glass Door Detail.............................................................................................3-6 3-4 Staggered Wood Stud Construction..............................................................................3-8 3-5 Built -in -Place Gable Baffle.........................................................................................3-11 3-6 Controlling Noise Entering Through Ducts in Attic Space................................................3-14 List of Tables Table No. 2-1 Typical STC Ratings for Common Construction Elements.................................................2-8 3-1 Acoustical Wall Designs and STC Ratings.......................................................................3-9 3-2 Material Thickness and R -Value for Common Insulating Materials...................................3-12 1-2 UJ WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background Residences located near airports experience many economic and transportation benefits of the facility, but are unfortunately exposed to significant amounts of aircraft noise. However, using proper construction techniques and materials minimizes the impact of aircraft noise and reduces interference with regular indoor activities. The High Point International Airport has developed this New Construction Acoustical Design Guide to assist builders, planning officials, building inspectors, and homeowners in incorporating specific noise level reduction features into the designs of new homes. These features will help to ensure that new homes in the Airport vicinity provide an adequate noise level reduction to protect occupants from undesirable noise impacts. For horses located in areas with high noise levels, standard building methods, even those that are designed for thermal efficiency, are normally inadequate to protect inhabitants from external noise. For this reason, building design and construction methods may have to be modified for noise -sensitive rooms such as bedrooms, living rooms, 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 garages, mudrooms, and breezeways unless they open directly to habitable rooms without interior doors in between the rooms. This Design Guide provides recommendations for the design of dwellings in the vicinity of the airport that may be constructed in the future. it is meant to be used in conjunction with a noise overlay zone that Wyle Laboratories has developed for the Planning and Development Department of the City of High Point. This Guide was developed for new homes; different materials and techniques would be appropriate when renovating houses to achieve the noise level reduction goals. Construction guidelines are presented for the noise level reductions (NLRs) of 25, 30, and 35 decibels. 1.2 How to Use this Guide This guide has been developed to be used by a variety of different professionals, as well as by interested homeowners. This guide is recommended for the following people: • Planning Officials ■ Plan Reviewers • Building Inspectors ■ Builders • Homebuyers/Homeowners 1-1 U54 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Sections 2.0 Through 3.0 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 element subsections include text, tables, and design detail drawings to illustrate various options for noise control. Section 4.0 Specific design modifications are presented in a selection chart. Designs that achieve noise level reductions (NLR) of 25, 30 and 35 dB are listed. The table in Section 4.0 tells the sound ratings of building materials that are needed to achieve the NLR design goals. Section 5.0 This section discusses some of the assumptions used in developing the proposed design methods, as well as factors that would affect the accuracy of NLR predictions. Appendix The First appendix provides a summary of design and construction methods necessary to achieve NLRB of 25, 30, and 35 dB. Once the reader is familiar with this Guide, Appendix A can be used as a stand-alone reference in implementing the designs. Appendices B 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 be useful to 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 important for maintaining the acoustical integrity of a design. For example, even a good window, if not installed properly, will allow a significant amount of noise into the building. High-quality construction standards are absolutely essential For these techniques to work effectively. The design packages in Section 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 noise intrusion than average sized rooms. Similarly, rooms with very large windows or a 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 order to 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 noise buffer. Conversely, homes with large wrap-around porches may provide shielding from noise that the Guide will not anticipate. For these reasons, homes with unique features or with WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 7003 dimensions that differ significantly from the average may require the services of an acoustics consultant or acoustics -knowledgeable architect in order to ensure adequate noise reduction. Individuals differ in their response to noise. In an aircraft noise -affected neighborhood, a number of residents are very annoyed by aircraft overflights, while quite a Few others are not. If properly implemented, the recommendations in this Guide will reduce noise inside the home to levels that most people will find acceptable. The airplanes will still be discernible; sound insulation is not sound elimination. People 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 activities. Those individuals, however, who are most sensitive to noise, may continue to be annoyed. Nevertheless, the number of people who perceive unacceptable indoor noise levels can be significantly reduced by the use of proper construction techniques. 1-3 �e WR 03-10 New construction Acoustical design Guide March 2003 2.0 Noise Control Basics 2.1 Units Used in Acoustics A number 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 this Guide. Aircraft noise is generally expressed in terms of its A -weighted sound level, in units called "decibels." Strictly speaking, the decibel unit should be abbreviated only by "dlY; however, for clarity "d BA" and "dB(A)" are often used to highlight the fact that the sound level measurement has been A -weighted (this weighting 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 the average A -weighted sound level of all aircraft flights occurring in a 24-hour period with nighttime operations being counted more heavily as described below. The unit of DNL is also the decibel. The sound insulation properties of building construction materials are described by Sound Transmission Loss (TL) or Sound Transmission Class (STC). These measures of sound insulation are also described below. A -Weighted Sound Leel The two most obvious characteristics of sound are level and frequency. Level is essentially a measure of loudness that refers to how much energy or 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 Hz) is the unit used to indicate frequency and is equal to the number of sound waves (cycles) per second. For reference, middle C on a piano has a frequency of exactly 256 Hz. The normal human ear can detect sound frequencies ranging from about 20 Hz to about 15,000 Hz. People do not hear all sounds over this wide range of frequencies equally well, however. The human ear is most sensitive to sounds in the 1000 to 6000 Hz range. In order to reflect 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 to 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 is less sensitive in those regions. z -i W31e_ WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Day -Night Average Send Level (DNL) and Noise Contours 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 "significantly" impacted by noise. Most noise contour maps show contour levels of DNL 65 dB and above in 5 dB increments. The acoustic metric used is the Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn ). This is a cumulative measure of the noise exposure during a 24-hour calendar day. A 10 dB penalty is added to noise events occurring between 10.00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to reflect their greater intrusiveness and potential for disturbing sleep. The DNL is the result of averaging the A -weighted sound pressure level 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 one Full year. This gives an indication of the year-round average noise exposure for the community. Sound Transmission Loss (TL)' This is the physical measure which describes the sound insulation value of a building element such as a window or wall. Values of TL are determined in acoustical laboratories under controlled testing methods prescribed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The TL is expressed in decibels (dB), and the greater the sound insulation, the higher the TL value and the less sound will be transmitted through the building material. TL values are determined for different frequency ranges and give an indication of how a building product responds differently to sounds at different frequencies. Sound Transmission Class (STC)2 Since working with a series of TL measurements for different frequencies can be cumbersome, a single -number descriptor based on the TL values has been developed. This rating method is called the Sound Transmission Class (STC). As with the TL, the greater the 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 commonly specified in terms of their STC ratings. ' Typical tests to determine TL are described in American Society of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Standard E90. z STC is described in ASTM Standard E413. WR 03.10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 2.2 Aircraft Noise Interference With Activities The problem of aircraft noise has been recognized and studied in this country since the 1950s. Opinion surveys indicate that interference with telephone usage, listening to television and radio, and conversation invoke the 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 concentrate. Fears of permanent hearing damage from 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 high enough sound levels to warrant concern. The principal effect of aircraft noise on airfield neighbors is annoyance, caused by interference with daily activities. Aircraft Noise Characteristics Noise intrusion from aircraft activities is perceived as more disturbing than other kinds of noise because 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 as just another component of the "background noise" of their day- to-day lives. Some people get used to the noise, but many others feel that each individual flyover event is recognizable and disturbing. The noise level experienced at a particular dwelling will depend on its location relative to 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 aircraft noise more intrusive is its higher level, or loudness, than other types of community noise. Aircraft Sound Spectrum The noise produced by modern aircraft contains acoustical energy over a wide frequency range. The audible noise includes many sounds from a low -frequency "rumble" to a high - frequency "whine." The exact character depends on the aircraft type and the operation performed (takeoff, landing, or ground run-up). tow -frequency noise (below 500 Hz) penetrates walls, roofs, doors, and windows much more efficiently than does high -frequency noise. Higher frequencies (above 1000 Hz), however, are carried through cracks and vents better. Also, people hear higher frequency sound better, the human ear being more sensi- tive above 1000 Hz than below. Since aircraft noise differs somewhat from other types of community noise, it is important to identify the characteristics of the noise that sound insulation is protecting 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. While this energy is below the most sensitive region of people's hearing range, it can be heard well 2-3 uWLe, WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 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 Sound Insulation to Reduce Noise Total "soundproofing" of the dwelling, such that aircraft operations are not heard, is usually not practical or cost-effective. The goal for residential sound insulation is to reduce the dwelling interior noise levels due to aircraft operations to an acceptable level, 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 provide in order to be comfortable in the presence of aircraft noise. The FAA land -use compatibility table recommends that a home 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 70 to 75 dB should provide at least 30 dB of NLR. The use of other NLR goals may be appropriate in many cases, especially if a noise metric other than DNL is used at that airport. Room Variations The noise level of different rooms in a house depends on the absorption within the room, as well as on the noise entering from outside. Upholstered furniture, drapes, and carpeting absorb sound while hard surfaces do not. The exterior sound level is transmitted through the outside walls (depending on their construction) and is further modified by the absorption inside the room (from the various furnishings) to determine what the interior noise level will be. Expected Dwelling Noise Level Reduction An acoustically well -insulated home with windows and doors kept closed can provide 30 to 35 dB of NLR whereas more typical, unmodified designs might provide 20 to 25 dB of NLR. Experience has proven that the objectives discussed here are reasonable when construction materials and methods follow the guidelines presented in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. Providing more than 40 dB of noise level reduction is 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 using good sound insulation techniques. This Guide was developed for new homes; different materials and techniques would be appropriate when renovating houses to achieve the NLR goals. 2-4 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 2.4 Basic Sound Insulation Concepts Sound Transmission In order to effectively examine noise control measures for dwellings it is helpful to understand how sound travels from the exterior to the interior of the house. This happens in one of two basic ways: through the solid structural elements and directly through the air. Figure 2-1 illustrates the sound transmission through a wall constructed with a brick exterior, stud framing, interior finish wall, and absorbent material in the cavity. E Y 7F R IDR Reitected - SQUM - fuC ure e Sound Fnrlrlent SmmdAln, batrw i Cavil sof S 1NTpRigR THROUGH STUDS OR JOISTS Radiated Sand THROUGH CAVITY TIMOUCH FI)GE CONNECTIONS Figure 2-1. Pictorial Representation of Sound Transmission Through Built Construction The sound transmission starts with noise at the wall exterior. Some of this sound energy will be reflected away and some will make the wall vibrate. The vibrating wall 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. Openings in the dwelling, which provide air infiltration paths through windows, vents, and leaks, allow sound to travel directly into the interior. This is a very common, and often overlooked, source of noise intrusion. Basically, any way that air enters a home, sound will also enter. 2-5 uMe 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 attic 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 wails and the roof. Open Chfrnn Open Ventilatpr Roof Cracks Window THREE MAJOR PATHS FOR NOISE TRANSMISSION: Wall GAPS AND CRACKS WINDOWS AND DOORS Door WALLS AND ROOF Crick =!1111_11111-1lI!l�flll--141EI -1[II I =111 II =. I I I fl W 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 air gaps. Within these broad categories, different building materials have different responses based on the frequency of 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 Ranking paths must be eliminated wherever possible. This is the single most important, but occasionally 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-fi vvAe WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2443 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 it 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. Elimination 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. S. 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. This effect is significant even for massive wail materials, such as brick. Intuition suggests that 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 noise level reduction goals. In some cases, ceilings and exterior walls may require special construction as well, particularly in the higher SNL noise zones. Treatments for these paths and others are discussed in Sections 3.2 through 3.9 of this Guide. 2-7 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Table 2-1. Typical STC Ratings for Common Construction Elements LARGE ELEMENTS EXTERIOR WALLS STC (dl3)1 Aluminum or Wood Siding 34-39 Stucco App. 46 Brick 54-56 ROOFS Vented Attic App, 45 FLOORS Slab Over 60 Vented Crawlspace App. 48 Basement App, 48 SMALL ELEMENTS WINDOWS' Double -Strength Glazing 24-29 DOORS' Hollow Core (HC) wood App. 20 Solid Core (SC) wood 23-29 Steel or fiberglass 22-28 Sliding Glass 25-29 A higher STC value indicates greater sound insulation. Good weatherstripping condition. Problem Areas Sound intrusion problems are commonly caused by: 1. Building construction components and configurations not providing sufficient sound insulation. 2. Building elements, such as windows, doors, walls, roofs, and Floors chosen and combined in an unbalanced way so that some parts are much weaker sound insulators than others. 3. Unintended openings or sound -flanking paths caused by improper installation of construction elements. Thermal Insulation While homes which are well insulated thermally often perform well acoustically, thermal insulation is not always a good indicator of sound insulation. Many thermal windows provide little sound insulation when compared to wails or acoustical windows and are frequently the weak link in the building envelope. However, thermal treatments usually 2-8 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 eliminate air infiitration 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 last concept to consider is shielding. This refers to the fact that the side of the dwelling which faces away From the flight path and does not have an open line -of -sight to it will be protected somewhat from the noise. The shielding may be as much 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 unshielded. Sides which face the flight track at an angle may benefit from some minor shielding effects. Sometimes, however, sound is reflected 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 a consistent shielding effect. 3n general, a new dwelling should be oriented on the lot so rooms face away from the flight track. This will eliminate insulation components to protect these noise -sensitive living 2-9 that bedrooms and TV -viewing the need to add extra sound areas. WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 0XII 3.1 Building Elements This section provides specific guidelines for modifying standard construction designs and practices to meet the need for aircraft sound insulation in new homes. A general discussion of construction materials and methods is given in Section 3.1. Sections 3.2 through 3.9 address techniques for use with weatherstripping, windows, doors, walls and ceilings, attics, floors, HVAC systems, and other miscellaneous elements. Evaluating Construction Materials and Methods Informed Use of STC Ratings STC ratings are the most common measures of acoustical performance given by manufacturers of building materials. For this reason, it is important to understand how to use STC ratings to evaluate construction materials and systems. Two different construction methods or components may have identical STC ratings and yet may block aircraft noise differently 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 only on the basis of the highest STC rating may not provide the intended sound insulation. This is because the STC rating does not take into account the strong low -frequency nature of aircraft noise. This guide has taken the ability of typical products to block aircraft noise into account. The recommended materials listed in Section 4.0 (and their STC ratings) were evaluated for frequency response prior to formulating the design packages. Combining Building Elements As mentioned earlier, the acoustical performance of the building depends on the combined performances 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 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 -of -thumb, if a weaker element will be included in the assembly, its size should be kept to a minimum. 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. Similarly, very large windows degrade the noise level reduction of an otherwise effective brick wall. If a cathedral ceiling is included, it should be designed so that there is a larger -than -standard air space between the ceiling and the roofing system, and this space must be insulated. In addition, slightly higher STC ratings should be used for windows and doors than indicated in Section 4.0. Sensible compromises can be made to preserve the noise level reduction of the home without sacrificing aesthetics, provided the principles explained in this Guide are employed. 3-1 u?Ae WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 3.2 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 to 4 dB, depending on perimeter infiltration. For these assemblies, any perimeter leakage will degrade the performance of the window or door and can be the controlling factor in the noise isolation, This is generally not an issue with new construction, but homeowners must understand the importance of maintaining weatherstripping in good condition. For acoustical purposes, compressible neoprene weatherstripping is preferred over felt or other fibrous types. Neoprene is not as porous and compresses better against the window or door frame. Also, felt and fibrous weatherstripping materials tend to deteriorate more quickly than neoprene and must be replaced more often. 3.3 Windows Options Overview The exterior windows are usually one of 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 overall sound transmission into the house. Design modification options include using thicker glass and wider airspaces between the panes of glass. Specialized acoustical windows provide maximum sound insulation, and should be used in the loudest environments, as specified in Section 4.0. Acoustical Performance The thicker, high-quality insulated glass units should be V4 inch to 1 inch thick and, for the best noise level reduction, should incorporate at least one lite (pane) of laminated glass, preferably 114 inch thick. Laminated glass provides significantly better transmission loss than standard, float glass. Tempered glass is also acoustically superior to standard glass, but is not nearly as effective as laminated glass. Off-the-shelf thermopane 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 STC 30 to 36. Figure 3-1 shows a typical window installation with the most important features highlighted. Acoustical windows differ significantly from ordinary residential windows. The design of an acoustical window has 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 a storm unit attached, or an assembly of two double pane windows connected together. All of these measures are necessary to provide the high degree of sound insulation required for the window assembly. Figure 3-2 shows schematically the features of an acoustical window. Proprietary windows with STC ratings of 39 to 48 are available in a variety of styles and finishes, including aluminum and vinyl. Information on specialized acoustical windows is available in Appendix A. They are considerably more expensive than typical residential windows. 3-2,. WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 } rxii(IR& WALv 4 r Sfrrl IT hca"r k w1j-" V[ WE W AL ACOL61 WI}ItDM1 r)ott. c ESRK Sn Figure 3-1. Typical Aluminum Dual Window Detail REMOVABLE DUAL SASH Indirect ventilation, easy cleaning and maintenance. WIDE AIR SPACE (Greater than 2 Inches) Thermal and sound resistance, DOUBLE -FRAME: DESIGN Separate prime and storm sash and Frames give double environmental protection. NON-I-IARDE NTNG ACOUSTICAL SEALANT {Both sides] , THICK GLASS (monolithic or laminated) CHANNEL GLAZING Neoprene edge seal gaskets. cushions glass, reusable. SEALED THERMO-BARRIER The "core' of the window. No air or water leaks. Insulates, maintains structural Integrity without failure. EXISTING OR MODIFIED SILL Figure 3-2. Construction Features of Acoustical Window 3-3 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 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 airspace, as recommended for noise level reduction, further improves their thermal performance. Because of the above-mentioned design features, plus the common inclusion of thermal barriers at the frames, acoustical windows perform exceptionally well as thermal barriers. They allow approximately one-tenth the air infiltration of a typical 24 -year-old double -hung wood window with single pane glass. The R -value (a measure of thermal resistance) for acoustical windows is R-4. For comparison, the R -values of most off-the-shelf single pane and double pane windows are R-1 and R-3, respectively. Installation Considerations 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 the use of jalousie or louvered windows in a sound insulation design. Double -hung, single -hung, horizontal sliding, casement, Fixed, and awning/hopper windows are all acceptable for noise reduction, provided they have the required STC rating. Other considerations when preparing window specifications include maintainability, warranty, manufacturer's service, and proper installation. It is possible to install the best acoustical window improperly. If it does not fit tightly enough, air infiltration will significantly reduce the effectiveness. Starting with a too -small window unit and filling in the void around the window with a low -mass material such as fiberglass is unacceptable. Continuous wood blocking infill is, however, acceptable. 3.4 Doors Options Overview Doors are comparable to windows in the amount of sound they allow to enter the dwelling. Many typical residential doors require modification or substitution to provide the necessary protection from aircraft noise. As with windows, there are specialized acoustical units available, as well as acoustical storm doors. The following factors are important in evaluating doors for sound insulation: • Door composition: hollow core wood, solid core wood, insulated metal or Fiberglass, sliding glass; core material, additional internal insulation, etc. • Door weight (can be estimated by pull -weight). Presence and type of fixed window panels. ■ Quality of seals and weatherstripping and how tightly they seal. 3-4 uvyle WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 The options for improving the noise level reduction of residential doors include: Installation of a tightly fitting storm door with thick for laminated) glass; or use of a specialty acoustical storm door. ■ Installation of a secondary French door. Use of thicker 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 each type 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 lite 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 External storm doors are common in many parts of the country and can improve the STC rating by 3 to 10 dB. In order For storm doors to be effective for sound insulation, they should incorporate thick glass (ideally 1/4 -inch -thick laminated glass) and have a heavy core. Storm doors must be mounted year-round. Replacing the glass panel with a screen insert in the summer months will reduce the sound insulation of the home considerably but many homeowners may wish to exercise this option for periods when aircraft activity is light. A list of acoustical storm door suppliers is included in Appendix B. Acoustical Swinging Doors Acoustical doors, with a typical rating of STC 30 to 40, are similar in appearance to standard 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 noise reduction. While metal 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 substantially from standard doors. Layering of materials, along with added absorption and mass, increases their weight to approximately 12 to 14 lbs per square foot. To eliminate 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 closed is sometimes used to make tight contact with the threshold. In other cases, fixed bottom seals that contact a raised threshold or saddle are used. Also, because of their extra 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. 3-5 �e Wit 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Sliding Glass Doors There are two options for improving the sound -insulating properties of sliding glass doors: using acoustical units, or using primary and secondary doors. The disadvantages of acoustical sliding glass doors are that they are very expensive, very heavy, and can have a high threshold. The disadvantages of using primary and secondary sliding glass doors have to open two doors to leave the building, and that the two frames would not fit in the width of a typical 2x4 stud wall. This same secondary door concept can be used with French doors. Of course, the installer must ensure that there is no conflict in the operation and opening hardware of the two door sets. Good weatherstripping should be installed on both doors. Installing 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 has proven successful in that it raises the STC rating by 5 to 7 dB. Figure 3-3 shows a system of two sliding glass doors with the secondary door mounted outside of the typical door position. SEAL ANT - TYP METAL FLASHING AT HEAD I % 4 TRIM �, 2 X HEAO- SLOPED 3r8"MIN 5!8' MAX. SEALANT • TYP ter._ CONTINUOUS �l CONTINUOUS SEALANT 'I I I BED 'SILL 2 x SILL EXTERIOR- - SILL SUPPORT- 2 X SURFACE $ PRESSURE TREATED D.F BURIAL GRADE I X TRIM • HOLD CLEAR I OF EXTERIOR SURFACE NOTES I NEW SLIDING GLASS WOR TO HAVE DUAL OPF-RA13LE PANELS TO FACILITATE CLEANING OF DOORS Figure 3-3. Sliding Glass Door Detail 3-6 uAe ^ V HEAD I X4 TRIM {� 3X3 STL BRACKET W! s G X 2 1/2 2 x JAMB FLAT HEAD WOOD ATTACHED TO DOOR SCREWS - 2 BKT$ WI ROUND HEAD WODO AT EACH JAMB_ SCREWS NEW SLIDING GLASS SLIDING DOOR ATTACHE{} TO GLASS DOOR WITH WEATHERSTRIPIG p RI M E DOOR WITH 8-32 SCREWS 12' O_C. WITH LOCKWASHERS I I I JAMB CONTINUOUS SEALANT 'I I I BED 'SILL 2 x SILL EXTERIOR- - SILL SUPPORT- 2 X SURFACE $ PRESSURE TREATED D.F BURIAL GRADE I X TRIM • HOLD CLEAR I OF EXTERIOR SURFACE NOTES I NEW SLIDING GLASS WOR TO HAVE DUAL OPF-RA13LE PANELS TO FACILITATE CLEANING OF DOORS Figure 3-3. Sliding Glass Door Detail 3-6 uAe ^ WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Installation Considerations As with windows, it is of critical importance to ensure that the door fits well, that all gaps and leaks are sealed, 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 them with special acoustical seals, including drop seals mounted to the back or fully mortised in the door's bottom rail. If the door does not fit squarely into the frame it will not seal properly and unnecessary noise infiltration will result. In all cases, avoid openings such as mail slots in doors or the use of pet doors. 3.5 Walls and Ceilings Determining Wall and Ceiling Designs Depending on the dwelling's exterior construction and materials, it may be necessary to 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 masonry block, and other cementitious 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 4'/2 -inch -thick brick veneer over 7/16" OSB sheathing on 2x4 studs 16 "O.C. with R-11 or R-13 batt insulation, and 1/2" gypsumboard at interior. The entire exterior wall is constructed of brick, not just a portion. Stucco Construction: 7/8 -inch stucco over paper over 7/16" OSB sheathing on 2x4 studs 16 "O.C. with R-11 or R-13 batt insulation, and 1/2" gypsumboard at interior. Entire exterior wall is stucco, not partial siding or other material. • Siding Construction: All types of siding including wood, aluminum, hardboard, or vinyl. Construction includes siding on insulation board (e.g., Thermoply) or 7/16" OSB sheathing on 2x4 studs 16 "O.C. with R-11 or R-13 batt insulation, and 112" gypsumboard at interior. Many buildings combine 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 same sound insulation performance. Because noise penetrates through the weakest available element, unless the siding area is very limited, noise will penetrate through 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 sensitive rooms such as bedrooms, living r modify the ceiiing of any first -floor rooms story room. Non -habitable rooms, such a generally not given improved ceilings unless interior doors in between the rooms. 3-7 where there is an attic over habitable or noise- ooms, family rooms, etc. There is no need to where they are completely covered by a second s garages and mud rooms in breezeways, are they open directly to habitable rooms without WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Specific Interior Wall Designs One 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 "RC"). This will provide an STC rating improvement of 7 dB over that for a typical wood frame/wallboard structure. The resilient -mounting channels should be attached to the studs so that they run horizontally for walls 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 board to the channels must be short enough that they do not contact the studs. The common installation error of using too long screws allows vibration to travel from the stud to the gypsumboard, rendering the system ineffective. A second technique involves using the resilient channels mentioned above, and changing the wall construction From 2 x 4 studs to 2 x 6 studs. This will increase the STC by 11 d8 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, and may not be desirable in some cases. The third, and most effective, Option is to construct the interior wall on a set of staggered studs so that the interior and exterior finish surfaces are not rigidly connected to each other except through the top and bottom plates. This system uses two rows of studs: one row of studs spaced 16" on center supporting the sheathing, and a second row spaced 16" on center supporting the interior wall finish. The end result is that there are studs each 8" on center. Figure 3-4 shows how to implement this construction. This modification provides acoustical decoupling and separation between the exterior and the interior of the room, resulting in a 13 d6 increase in the STC rating over standard construction methods. A larger space between the interior and exterior panels will yield a greater STC improvement. Likewise, a greater spacing (24") between studs will provide a higher STC rating. Section 4.6 references a staggered 2 x 4 stud construction on a 2 x 6 base plate. Stagger pla y8 Figure 3-4. Staggered Woad Stud Construction 3-8 �e WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 The three wall construction designs referenced in Section 4.4 are summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Acoustical Wall Designs and STC Ratings To absorb sound, fiberglass batts are placed between the studs in the wall cavity. Thermal insulation of at least R-11 should be used to ensure a thick enough layer. Batts or blankets should be held firmly in place between studs, with fasteners if necessary, to prevent sagging; however, packing the insulation such that it is compressed may slightly reduce its acoustical (and thermal) performance. Blown -in insulation is not recommended in walls for acoustical purposes because of the tendency to compact over time. Specific Interior Ceiling Modifications The ceilings of top -floor rooms may need to be modified to provide increased noise protection. The same methods that are used in wall constructions can be used for ceilings. The standard roof construction is assumed to be: asphalt shingles, 7/16" CSB sheathing, 14" trusses at 16" D.C., batt insulation, and 112" gypsumboard on the interior ceiling. This design has an STC 45 rating. Section 4.0 references a design with resilient joists, on the bottom of the Joists, with or channels. The addition of resilient channels I to approximately STC 56. 3-9 channels mounted perpendicular to the ceiling e layer of 1/2" gypsumboard attached to the the ceiling assembly will increase the rating wyle Exterior Side Studs Interior Side STC Rating Resilient Channel Vinyl Siding, 2x4 16" C.C. with RC on studs, 1 on 2x4 studs 7116" C56 insulation layer'Is" 43 sheathingbatt gypsumboard Resilient Channel Vinyl Siding, „ 2x6 15 O.C. with RC on studs, 1 on 2x6 studs 7116 CSB batt insulation layer 1/2" 47 sheathing gypsumboard 2x4 16" C.C. for 1 layer 1I2" Staggered 2x4 Vinyl Siding, each row gypsumboard 7116" CSB (staggered on 2x6 (attached only to 50 on 2x6 base sheathing base plate) with interior -side batt insulation studs) To absorb sound, fiberglass batts are placed between the studs in the wall cavity. Thermal insulation of at least R-11 should be used to ensure a thick enough layer. Batts or blankets should be held firmly in place between studs, with fasteners if necessary, to prevent sagging; however, packing the insulation such that it is compressed may slightly reduce its acoustical (and thermal) performance. Blown -in insulation is not recommended in walls for acoustical purposes because of the tendency to compact over time. Specific Interior Ceiling Modifications The ceilings of top -floor rooms may need to be modified to provide increased noise protection. The same methods that are used in wall constructions can be used for ceilings. The standard roof construction is assumed to be: asphalt shingles, 7/16" CSB sheathing, 14" trusses at 16" D.C., batt insulation, and 112" gypsumboard on the interior ceiling. This design has an STC 45 rating. Section 4.0 references a design with resilient joists, on the bottom of the Joists, with or channels. The addition of resilient channels I to approximately STC 56. 3-9 channels mounted perpendicular to the ceiling e layer of 1/2" gypsumboard attached to the the ceiling assembly will increase the rating wyle WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 3.5 Attics and Roofs Options Overview Home designs incorporating unoccupied attic space over all living areas are recommended for dwellings exposed to aircraft noise. Skylights can be used if 114 -inch -thick glazing or insulated thermopane glass is used at the bottom 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 necessary to used improved roof, attic, or ceiling designs. Improvements could include baffles in the attic vents, extra insulation to absorb sound reverberating in the attic space, and an upgraded roof deck. The use of cathedral ceilings is strongly discouraged for homes exposed to aircraft noise, particularly where the necessary NLR is 30 dB or higher. Rather than a true open -beam or cathedrai ceiling, a mock -cathedral or vaulted ceiling with a small attic space above is recommended. Open -beam ceilings should never be used when the necessary NLR is 25 dB or higher. Sound Transmission Paths Sound enters through the roof in two paths: directly through vents and other leaks; and by vibrating the roof itself, thereby radiating acoustical energy into the air within the attic. If there is no attic the sound passes immediately into the living space under the roof. This is why homes with open -beam or cathedral ceilings often have very limited noise level reduction through the roof. Where there is an attic, the sound enters and reflects off of the attic surfaces, reverberating in the space. Since much of the sound energy has been dissipated, less sound passes through the finished ceiling to the room below. Attic Vents Attics typically have open-air vents at the ends (for a gabled roof) or under the eaves. The sound entering through these vents may be significant. Off-the-shelf acoustical louvers can be applied to baffle the sound passing through such openings. Most off-the-shelf noise control baffles are rectangular and this requires the use of rectangular vents in the dwelling design. Soffit vents under the eaves can be left unmodified when other measures are implemented, since they are somewhat shielded from direct exposure to the aircraft noise. Any type of attic vent that opens directly through the roof toward the aircraft flight tracks is strongly discouraged. This includes gravity vents, ridge vents, and some active or positive ventilation systems. If these vents are used, built -in-place baffles can be used under them to reduce noise intrusion. Built -in-place baffles consist of pieces of 3/4" thick plywood covered with 1" thick rigid fiberglass insulation; the plywood panels are oriented in such a way that noise (and air) must be reflected on at least one fiberglass -lined surface before it can move into the attic. In general, acoustical louvers are preferred over built -in-place baffles due to the possibility that the built -in-place baffles may reduce ventilation through the attic. Figure 3-5 shows a typical built -in-place gable vent baffle design. 3-10 w34e . WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 EXIST$WG ROOF INTERIOR aox -- 51£s" FLYWOOD CONSTRUCTION, PAINTED. (PROVIDE FRAMING AS _REQUIRED) 2" Fi BEFGLASS LINING iNSIDE EQUAL TO OWENS CORNING 703 --- INSECT SCREEN EXTERIOR THROUGH -THE - WALL VEN T iLATOR AT ATTIG (51ZE � SHAPE VARY) Figure 3-5. guilt -in-place Gable Baffle Attic Insulation When considering the upgrade of thermal insulation to reduce noise levels it is important to understand what the insulation will do. Thermal insulation materials will act to absorb sound that is reverberating in the attic or in the space between flat panels. It does not prevent noise from entering the space. That is, it has no appreciable acoustic "insulating" properties but acts as an absorbent instead. To keep sound out, barriers must be used which increase the mass of the roof or ceiling. As a sound absorbent, fiberglass batts and blown -in fiberglass or mineral fiber can be applied between the rafters, between the ceiling joists, or in conjunction with a plywood or gypsumboard barrier. Blown -in cellulose is not recommended since it compacts over time, reducing its effectiveness. The absorption of a material should not be confused with noise level reduction (NLR). There is no direct relationship between a material's absorptive properties and the overall NLR. A simple method for determining the proper thickness of sound -absorbent materials is to use the concept of the material's thermal rating (R -value). This R -rating is a commonly used and well-known rating for building products. The R -values and thickness for several common insulation materials are given in Table 3-2. The value of the sound absorption at lower frequencies depends on the thickness of the material. For noise sources with a significant low -frequency component, such as aircraft flyovers, the thickness is the most important parameter. Thicker materials provide better low -frequency sound absorption. 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 R-11 R-19 R-30 Roll or Batt Fiberglass 3.5 5.25 9 {Vapor Barrier on One Side} Blown -In Fiberglass 5 8 13 Mineral Fiber 4 5.5 11 3.7 Floors, Basements, and Crawl Spaces Options Overview Dwellings will usually have one of these three 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 are not addressed. 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 require 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 baits between joists is also very effective acoustically. The simplest way to improve the acoustical performance of a house which 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 the rest of the house. If crawl spaces do not have masonry walls, a massive barrier panel can be used as a skirt connecting the bottom of the walls to the ground. 3-12 mroe.:. WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guice March 2003 Basements Basements can be modified with a combination of methods discussed in other sections of this guide. Windows should have 214 -inch -thick laminated glass or insulated glass units. Storm windows and doors can be added for further protection. Large vents or openings should be baffled if the exposed wall faces the flight track. Dryer vents and other vents should be constructed of sheet metal (rather than plastic or flexible ducts) to limit the amount of noise that will enter through them and then pass through the duct wall to the surrounding room. Thermal insulation can be installed between the joists to absorb sound 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 -door facing the flight path, a fire -rated gypsumboard ceiling may be used. Also, a gypsumboard or plywood barrier or a finished ceiling can be hung under the first --floor with R-11 insulation between the joists, similar to the treatment discussed for attics and in Section 3.5. 3.8 Ventilation In order to maintain the noise reduction benefits of improving windows and doors and sealing leakage paths, it is important to keep these openings closed. While an acoustically well -insulated home can provide 30 to 35 dB of noise reduction, this figure drops to 15 dB whenever the windows and doors are open. Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems do not directly affect the sound insulation performance, but they enable residents to keep the windows and doors shut year-round and benefit from the sound insulation modifications. The Following information is not referenced in Section 4.0 but the ventilation features discussed here are strongly recommended. Air Circulation New homes in North Carolina will most likely have central air-conditioning. Whether the air needs to be heated, cooled, dehumidified, or simply circulated and replenished depends on the season. Refreshing the air supply and moving it around is important for health and comfort no matter what the outside temperature. A fresh -air intake should be installed on all air -handling systems to provide the required percentage of fresh makeup air combined with the recirculating air. When residents do not want heating or cooling, the system should allow for circulation/ventilation alone. Noise and Vibration Control It is important to limit the amount of noise the HVAC system generates and the noise it carries in from the outside. Taking the steps outlined below will help to minimize the noise from fans, airflow, equipment vibration, and aircraft noise sources: Provide vibration isolation mounting for all equipment and locate it so that the structure -borne sound and vibration are kept to a minimum. Use ducting materials appropriate to the location to minimize the sound transmitted through the system. Flexible ductwork should not be used in attics 3-13 UWUL Wit 03-10 New construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 and crawl spaces; heavier sheet metal ducts will provide better sound insulation. • Ducts to the outside, whether intake or exhaust, and all ducts in the attic or crawl space can be lined with 1 -inch acoustical internal lining material, or have at least two 90 -degree (right angle) elbows (turns) thereby breaking the line - of -sight to the outside as shown in Figure 3-6. It must be noted that there is concern than this fibrous acoustical lining material will affect air quality. Installing a duct sound attenuator (silencer) is an alternative to this technique,- there echnique;there are silencers available that do not contain fibrous lining. These measures ensure that the ventilation system is not bringing additional aircraft noise into the house. MiNIHUM OF 2 90' ELSOW5 4x IQ ON EXTERIOR WALL � IN-LINE EXHAUST FAN PLAN ROOF BAFFLE sox11 DACkEDRRAFT ATTIC SPACE I -x 1/8" SUPPORT STRAPS FLEXIBLE CONNECTIONS AXIo M__1 SECTION L GRRILLEEILING ALL DUCTWORK BETWEEN THE CEILING GRILLE AND THE EXHAUST FAN SHALL BE ACOIJ9TICALLY LINED. Figure 3-6. Controlling Noise Entering Through Ducts in Attic Space 3-14 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 3.9 Miscellaneous Kitchen and Bath Fans Most kitchen and bathroom designs for new homes already incorporate fans for ventilation purposes. Kitchen and bathroom exhaust ventilators should be ducted through the attic to the outside. A ducting scheme that incorporates at least one and preferably two right-angle turns is effective at reducing noise infiltration and there should be no direct line -of -sight through the duct from the outside to the inside. In other words, if the duct grilles or covers were removed, it should not be possible to see daylight through the duct. All ducts in the attic should be rigid metal and not flexible; noise may pass through these elements to other rooms of the house. Fireplaces Frequently, homes with fireplaces will require some type of design modification. This is especially true if the outside noise exposure is high, or the fireplace is in a room used for watching TV or sleeping. The treatment package consists of two parts: First, glass doors are mounted at the front of the fireplace. Second, the in -chimney damper must be installed so that all edges seal around the damper. Any air gaps or leaks will allow sound to pass through. The glass doors by themselves provide a noticeable improvement and these two treatments, in combination, have proven to be very effective at reducing the noise entering along this path. Chimney -top dampers have also been used successfully when tightly installed. 3-15 wAQ WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 4.0 Material Selection Chart The following selection chart is to be used to determine the acoustical design needs of each noise -sensitive room of a dwelling. For each room, design recommendations are determined by following the chart From left to right. First, the required noise level reduction (NLR) must be determined for the dwelling based on its location in a certain noise contour zone. Second, the number of exterior wails of a room must be selected. Third, the total exterior facade area (including the gross wall/window/door area) of the room must be calculated, and classified as "typical" or "large" according to the requirements shown in the chart. The last four columns contain the minimum STC ratings of walls, windows, doors (of all types), and ceilings that must be used to achieve the desired noise level reduction. Table 4-1. Material Selection Chart and Corresponding STC Ratings NLR Number of Exterior Walls Room Exterior Wall Area (sq. ft.) Minimum Recommended STC Rating Wall Window Door Ceiling* Large (> 170) 36 33 24 45 1 Typical (< 170) 36 27 24 45 25 Large (> 300) 36 33 24 45 2 — Typical (< 300) 36 33 24 45 Large (> 170) 43 33 26 45 1 - Typical (< 170) 36 33 26 45 30 Large (> 300) 43 40 33 56 2 Typical (< 300) 43 33 26 45 Large (> 170) 47 40 38 45 1 Typical (< 170) 43 40 38 45 35 Large (> 300) 49 44 38 56 2 Typical (r 300) 47 40 38 45 * For rooms located on the top floor ONLY (with attic above) WR 03-10 New Construction 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 actual building design and construction used don't match these assumptions the noise ievel reduction will be different. Due to the interrelationship between each of these variables there are no upper limits on individual parameters. In developing recommendations, eight typical types of rooms were considered. Typical floor plans for new dwellings for single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums have been used. They included: 1. Single-family home living room with 2 exterior walls with a gross area of 221 square feet (sq. ft.), window area of 50 sq. ft., and a floor area of 225 sq. ft. 2. Townhome living room with 1 exterior wall with a gross area of 171 sq. ft., window area of 47 sq. ft., door area of 21 sq. ft., and floor area of 456 sq. ft. 3. Condominium living room with 1 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. Single-family home family room with 2 exterior walls with a gross area of 385 sq. ft., window area of 74 sq. ft., door area of 41 sq. ft. and a floor and ceiling area of 300 sq. ft. 5. Single-family home typical bedroom with 2 exterior walls with a gross area of 192 sq. ft., window area of 34 sq. ft., and a floor and ceiling area of 144 sq. ft. 6. Townhome typical bedroom with 1 exterior wall with a gross 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 of 88 sq. ft., window area of 35 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 ceiling 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 smaller rooms. 4. Adding wall penetrations such as through -wall air -conditioners, heaters, or fans. S. Using hard room finishes such as ceramic tile or wood floors, and using few furnishings. 5-1 wAe. WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Appendix A Noise Level Reduction Design Requirements SECTIONI: PURPOSE Exterior noise having a significant impact on human activity, health and safety may be isolated and reduced in homes and working environments where public contact is common through construction techniques which selectively increase the insulating quality of the exterior of occupied structures. The noise level reductions required are 25, 30, and 35 dB. SECTION 2: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. The NLR requirements specified herein may be achieved by any suitable combination of building designs, choices of building materials, and execution of construction details in accordance with established architectural and acoustical principles. The NLR requirements should 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 requirements specified in the various airport land use districts. These standards are applicable to plans and specifications for any proposed residence. If the plans and specifications do not indicate compliance with the construction standards herein, the local building code should be amended to require a written statement from a qualified acoustical consultant certifying that the construction of the building as indicated in the plans and specifications will result in a NLR for appropriate occupied rooms at least as great as the NLR value specified for the applicable airport use district. C. Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for windows and doors are valid only if they are determined by laboratory tests performed by an independent laboratory for the 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 installed products must have the same accessories such as storm panels, glazing thickness, glazing size, gaskets, bottom door seals, thresholds, 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 surfaces, flexible caulk at all exposed surfaces, and solid continuous blocking to fill all voids over 1/4" around windows and doors. SECTION 3: BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINIMUM NLR OF 25 dB. A. Exterior Walls 1. The interior surface of exterior walls shall be of gypsum board or plaster at least 1/2 inch thick. A-1 ._ WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 2. Fiberglass batt or blanket insulation shall be installed continuously and completely throughout the 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 that it is compressed may slightly reduce its acoustical (and thermal) performance. B. Windows 1. Windows other than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -33. 2. windows in any room with one exterior wall and a total exterior wall area below 170 square feet may have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -27. C. Doors 1. Exterior doors, other than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -24. 2. Interior doors between occupied spaces and attached garages or unfinished attic spaces shall be solid -core wood or 20 -gauge insulated metal at least 1-3/4 inches thick and shall be fully weatherstripped. D. Roof -Ceiling Assembly I. The standard roof construction is 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. The use of cathedral ceilings is strongly discouraged for homes exposed to aircraft noise. Rather than a mock -cathedral ceiling with a small attic space above is recommended. If a cathedral ceiling is used, the gypsum board ceiling must be hung using resilient channels. 3. Skylights can be used if a secondary panel of 1/4 -inch -thick safety glass or insulated thermopane glass is used at the bottom of the skylight well. Alternatively, skylights with an STC 38 rating can be used. 4. Gypsum board or plaster ceilings at least 1/2 inch thick shall be provided. Ceilings shall be substantially airtight with a minimum number of penetrations. E. Floors. Foundations and Basements I. The floor of the lowest occupied rooms shall be slab on fill, below grade, or over a fully enclosed basement or crawispace. If the basement is used as a habitable living area (as a recreation area, study, or additional sleeping area, for example), the doors and windows shall conform to the requirements stated in this ordinance. 2. Concrete slabs require no treatment. Crawl 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 do not have masonry wails, a massive barrier panel must be used as a skirt connecting the bottom of the walls to the ground. A-2 mMe 0 ,,��, WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 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 through -the -wall air-conditioning, ventilating, or heating units shall not be used. 2. Through-the-wall/door mailboxes or mail slots shall 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 other openings to the exterior. 4. Gravity vent openings in attics shall not exceed the code minimum in 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 90° bend. 6. All vent ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors, excerpting domestic range exhaust and bathroom exhaust ducts, shall contain at least two 90' bends. 7. Domestic 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. Alternatively, unvented range exhaust fans may be used, if allowed by applicable codes. 8. Fireplaces, if present, shall be provided with glass doors and well -fitted dampers. Wood stoves shall not be used. SECTION 4: BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINIMUM NLR OF 30 dB. 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 piaster must be fastened to the studs using resilient channels. Resilient channeis must be installed horizontally along the studs, and screws connecting the gypsum board or plaster to the channels must not contact the studs. Oriented Strand Board (OSB) at least 7/16 inches thick shall cover the exterior side of the wall studs. 2. Rooms that have one exterior wall and a total exterior wall area below 170 square feet need not meet the requirements of the paragraph above. 3. The interior surface of the exterior walls shall be of gypsum board or piaster at least 1/2 inch thick. 4. Fiberglass bait or blanket insulation shall be installed continuously and completely throughout the stud cavity. Batts or blankets should be held firmly in place between studs, with A-3 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide Marc, 2003 fasteners if necessary, to prevent sagging; however, packing the insulation such that it is compressed may slightly reduce its acoustical (and thermal) performance. B. Windows 1. Windows other than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission class 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. 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 -26. A typical door in combination with a typical storm door will achieve a rating of at least STC 26. Therefore, either a door tested to achieve an 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 wall area greater than 300 square feet must have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -33. This rating may be achieved either by using a door tested to achieve an STC 33 rating, or a typical door in combination with a secondary/storm door tested to achieve an STC 29 rating, or a typical door in combination with a full -view secondary/storm door utilizing 1/4" thick laminated glass. If a storm door is not used, all glass in the door shall be at least 1/4" thick laminated glass. 3. Interior doors between occupied spaces and attached garages or unfinished attic spaces shall be solid -core wood or 20 -gauge insulated metal at least 1-3/4 inches thick and shall be fully weather-stripped. 4. If a storm/secondary door is used, the airspace shall be at least 4" between the surfaces of the two doors. D. Roof -Ceiling Assemblies 1. The standard roof construction is assumed to be shingles, 7/16" minimum OSS deck, and wood trusses or rafters spaced 16" D.C. forming an attic space over occupied rooms. 2. Roof -ceiling assemblies in top -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 of at least STC -56. The required construction consists of resilient channels mounted perpendicular to the ceiling joists, on the bottom of the joists, with one layer of 1/2" gypsum -board attached to the channels. Resilient 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. The use of cathedral ceilings is not allowed. A mock -cathedral ceiling with a small attic space above is acceptable. WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 4, Skylights can be used if a secondary panel of 114 -inch -thick safety glass or insulated thermopane glass is used at the bottom of the skylight well. Alternatively, skylights with an STC 38 rating can be used. 5. Gypsum board or piaster ceilings at least 1/2 inch thick shall be provided. Ceilings shall be substantially airtight with a minimum number of penetrations. E. Floors. Foundations and Basements 1. The Floor of the lowest occupied rooms shall be slab on fill, below grade, or over a fully enclosed basement or crawispace, If the basement is used as a habitable living area (as a recreation area, study, or additional sleeping area, for example), the doors and windows shall conform to the requirements stated in this ordinance. 2. Concrete slabs require no treatment. Crawl 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 do not have masonry walls, a massive barrier panel must be used as 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 amount of noise that will enter through them and then pass through the duct wall to the surrounding room. Ventilation and Wall Penetrations 1, In -window or through -the -wall air-conditioning, ventilating, or heating units shall not be used, 2. Through -the-walI/door mailboxes or mail slots shall 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 other openings to the exterior. 4. Gravity vent openings in attics shall not exceed the code minimum in 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 90° bend. 5. All vent ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors, excepting domestic range exhaust and bathroom exhaust ducts, shall be at least 10 feet long and shall contain at least two 90° bends. It is recommended that in-line sound attenuators (silencers) be installed in ducts larger than 3" in diameter. 7. Unvented range exhaust fans shall be used, if allowed by applicable codes. If unvented 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-5 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 8. Operational vented fireplaces or wood stoves shall not be used. SECTION 5: BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINIMUM NLR OF 35 dB A. Exterior 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 wail studs must have 2 x 6 studs, and the interior 'Iz inch 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 channels must not contact the studs. 2. Exterior walls in any room with one exterior wall 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 rating, the interior 1/2 inch gypsum board or plaster must be fastened to the 2 x 4 studs using resilient channels. Resilient 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 feet shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -49. To achieve this rating, a staggered stud construction must be used for all exterior walls. This construction uses two rows of 2 x 4 studs on a 2x6 base plate: one row of studs spaced 16" on center supporting the sheathing, and a second row spaced 16" on center supporting the interior wall finish. The end result is that there are studs each 8" on center. 1/2 inch gypsum board or plaster must be used. 4. Oriented Strand Board (OSB) at least 7,116 inches thick shall cover the exterior side of the wall studs. 5. Fiberglass batt or blanket insulation shall be installed continuously and completely throughout the 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 that it is compressed may slightly reduce its acoustical (and thermal) performance. B. Windows 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 wails and a total exterior wall area greater than 300 square 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 of specialty acoustical products. A-6 uAe WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 2. 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 and shall be fully weather-stripped. 3. If a storm/secondary door is used, the airspace shall be at least 4" between the surfaces of the two doors. D. Roof -Ceiling Assemblies 1. The standard roof construction is assumed to be shingles, 2/16" minimum ❑S6 deck, and wood trusses or rafters spaced 16" O.C. forming an attic space over occupied rooms. 2. Roof -ceiling assemblies in top -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 of at least STC -56. The required construction consists of resilient channels mounted perpendicular to the ceiling joists, on the bottom of the joists, with one layer of 1/2" gypsum -board attached to the channels. Resilient 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. The use of cathedral ceilings is not allowed. A mock -cathedral ceiling with a small attic space above is acceptable. 4. Skylights shall not be used. 5. Gypsum board or plaster ceilings at least 1/2 inch thick shall be provided. Ceilings shall be substantially airtight with a minimum number of penetrations. E. Floors. Foundations and Basements 1. The floor of the lowest occupied rooms shall be slab on fill, below grade, or over a fully enclosed basement or crawlspace. If the basement is used as a habitable living area (as a recreation area, study, or additional sleeping area, for example), the doors and windows shall conform to the requirements stated in this ordinance. 2. Concrete slabs require no treatment. Crawl spaces and basements are discussed below. 3. Crawl spaces with masonry wails must have noise control louvers at the under -floor vents. If crawl spaces do not have masonry walls, a massive barrier panel must be used as a skirt connecting the bottom of the wails to the ground. 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 through -the -wall air-conditioning, ventilating, or heating units shall not be used. 2. Through-the-wall/door mailboxes or mail slots shall not be used. A-7 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 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 Forth Carolina State Building Code, without the need to open any windows, doors, or other openings to the exterior. 4. Gravity Went openings in attics shall not exceed the code minimum in 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 10 feet long with at least one 90' bend. 6. All vent ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors, excepting domestic range exhaust and bathroom exhaust ducts, shall be at least 10 feet long and shall contain at least two 90* bends. It is recommended that in-line sound attenuators (silencers) be installed in ducts larger than 3" in diameter. 7. Unvented range exhaust Fans shall be used, if allowed by applicable codes. If unvented 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. 8. Operational vented fireplaces or wood stoves shall not be used. A -S wAe ae. WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Appendix B 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 endorsement or recommendation by Wyle Laboratories. BATTS AND RIGID FIBERGi_ASS INSULATION Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp, One Owens Corning Parkway Toledo, Ohio 43659 800-GEf PINK http://www.owenscorning.com/ CertainTeed (800)233-8990 http://www.certainteed.com/ Algoma Hardwoods 1001 Perry Street Algoma, Wisconsin 54201 800,678.8910 http://www.algomahardwoods.com/ Eggers Industries PO Box 1050 Neenah, WI 54957-1050 Phone: 920-722-6444 http://www.eggersindustries.com/ Pioneer Industries 401 Washington Avenue Carlstadt, New Jersey 07072 201/933-1900 http://www.pioneerindustries.com Peerless Products, Inc. 2403 S. Main Fort Scott, KS 66701 866-420-4000 http://www.peerle-ssproducts.com/ Knauf Fiberglass Tel: 800-825-4434 Fax. 317-398-3675 http://www. knauffiberglass. com Johns Manville P. 0. Box 5108 Denver, Colorado 80217-5108 800-654-3103 http://www.jm.com/ DOORS Hess-Armaclad, Inc. Box 127 Quincy, PA 17247 500-541-6666 www.armaclad.com Weyerhaeuser Architectural Doors 1401 East 4th Street Marshfield, WI 54449-7780 800-869-3667 www,weyerhaeuser.com/ Buell Door Company 5200 East Grand Ave. Dallas, TX 75223 214/827-9260: 800/556-0155 http://www.bueildoor.com/ Mon -Ray, Inc. 801 Boone Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55427-4432 800-544-3646 http : // www. mon ray .com/ 8-I WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Resign Guide March 2003 Aeroacoustic Corp. 3300 Corporation Way Darlington, SC 29532 843-398-1006 http://www.aeroacoustic.com/ DUCT ATTENUATORS Industrial Acoustics Company 1160 Commerce Avenue Bronx, New York 10462 (718) 931 8000 http://www.industrialacoustics-com/ DOOR SEALS AND WEATHERSTRIPPING Pemko Manufacturing Co. 5535 Distribution Drive Memphis, TN 38141 800-824-3018 or 901-365-2160 http://www.pemko.com/ National Guard Products, Inc. 4985 East Raines Rd Memphis, TN 38118 800/647-7874 http://www. ngpinc.com/ Zero International, Inc. 415 Concord Avenue Bronx, New York 10455-4898 718/585-3230 http://www.zerointernational.com/ SPECIALTY ACOUSTICAL WINDOW UNITS Rehau Incorporated P.O. Box 1706 Leesburg, VA 20177 703-777-5255 http://www.rehau.com Peerless Products, Inc. 2403 S. Main Fort Scott, KS 66701 866-420-4000 Harvey Industries Inc. 43 Emerson 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 17443-2909 800-755-6274 http://www.g ra hamarch . com/ Wausau Metals Corp. 1415 West Street Wausau, WI 54401 715-845-2161 http://www.wausauwindows.com Mon -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/ B-2 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 P Appendix C Independent Certified acoustical Testing Laboratories This list represents a partial list of Certified Acoustical Testing Laboratories. The list below does not imply an endorsement or recommendation by Wyle Laboratories. The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) maintains a Directory of Accredited Laboratories on their website: httl2:/Yts.nist.govlts/htdocs/21OLZ14/-scopes/acots.htm Acoustic Systems Acoustical Research Facility, Inc. 415 East St. Elmo Road P.O. Box 3610 Austin, TX 78764 512/444-1961 Western Electro -Acoustic Lab., Inc 25132 Rye Canyon Loop Santa Clarita, CA 91355 661-775-3741 Architectural Testing Inc. 130 Derry Ct. York, PA 17402 717-764-7700 I Stork -Twin City Testing, Inc. 662 Cromwell Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114-1776 651-645-3601 Riverbank Acoustical Labs, Inc. 1512 Batavia Avenue Geneva, Illinois 60134 630-232-0104 arfield Laboratories, Inc. 2709 E. 25th Street Minneapolis, MN 55406 612-721-2455 C-1 wAe WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Noise Level Reduction (NLR) The difference between A -weighted sound levels indoors and outdoors. Noise Reduction (NR) The difference, in decibels, of the average sound levels in two adjacent areas or rooms. Noise reduction could be from outside to inside, or from one room to another. Noise reduction combines the effects of the building construction plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room. By knowing the noise reduction values and the outdoor noise levels one can determine the Noise level Reduction (NLR). Octave The interval between two sound frequencies having a ratio of 2. For example, if the center frequency of one octave is 125 Hz, the next octave up will be centered at 250 Hz. and the octave above that will be at 500 Hz. Octave Band A frequency range which is one 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, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, and 16,000 hertz. One -Third Octave Band A frequency range which is one-third octave wide. Standard one-third octave bands are designed by their center frequency. One -Third Octave Band Center Frequency The average of the upper and lower frequencies of the one-third octave bands. Standard one-third octave band center frequencies in the audible range are: 25.0 100 400 1600 6300 31.5 125 500 2000 8000 40.0 160 630 2500 10,000 50.0 200 800 3150 12,500 63.0 250 1000 4000 16,000 80.0 315 1250 5000 20,000 Receiver The listener who hears a sound or the measuring microphone which detects the sound 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 "dead" while if it is too long, there is confusion among sounds. Shielding The ability of hills or structures to physically block sound or create shadow zones where sound levels are reduced. Sound Absorption The ability of sound -absorbing materials to trap sound and convert it to heat or some other form of energy. Sound Insulation Reducing the sound level inside a building through the use of specific building construction materials, and component assemblies which provide noise reduction. Sound Transmission Class (STC) A single -number rating derived from measured values of transmission loss, in accordance with ASTM Classification E413, "Determination of Sound D-3 WR 03-10 New Construction Acoustical Design Guide March 2003 Transmission Class". It provides an evaluation of the sound -isolating properties of built construction against sounds of speech, radio, television, etc. Sound Transmission Loss (TL) A measure of a built construction's ability to reduce sound passing through it, expressed in decibels. Source The object which generates the sound, Southern Building Code (SBC) See International Building Code. Spectral Characteristics/ Spectrum The frequency content of the noise produced 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 provide resistance to heat flow. TL See Sound Transmission Loss. Uniform Building Code (UBC) See Intermational Building Cade. D-4 wA APPENDIX NLR 30 STRUCTURAL NOISE CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS -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. -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. 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. In 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. -5- 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 90° 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. Appendix I: Traffic Impact Analysis DRAFT Traffic Impact Analysis 420 W. 6TH STREET RESIDENTIALPROJECT Prepared for: EPD Solutions May 13, 2016 Prepared by: transpogroup Awr WHAT TPA.NSF(- RTATION CAN BE. 4340 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-656-7925 www.transpogroup.com 15463.00 © 2016 Transpo Group Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project Table of Contents May 2016 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 A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS Worksheets Appendix C: OCTAM MODEL DATA Appendix 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 1 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 proiect located and what would be deve%ped? 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 access proposed? 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. 2 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 Street/West 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. 3 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project Methodology May 2016 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 Service V/C Ratio General Description (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 Qammed) 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. W 4 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 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. 5 9 jr (9,b�o� LRL' - - -. 111pr1pr 11� Iea� oul Ueo -/o AF - IQ DF t - h © jS 9 ujnoS O C H MR po L v / - - -- - (55 ?IS) 55 ajno2j alaiS -- LU 1 111111 111111 111111 111111 1111111 111111 1111111 111111 111111 111111 IIr-i.T1111 111111 III 1331. : rl J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II l l i I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ll a 1 T. 1- I I -1 1I--__ C _r t ti LL T II II If311 c ,; q:•� III 111111 r :_ �_ ~ 1 ° µ r= ' — LL tw cv F i HI L1w..� 44, _ _ LL-, LL-) -.-- is - I '9 o o 4� fd 7 f o o o LU N LL _m a— W U) 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 35 MPH s/o 1-5 Newport Avenue Major 6 No Yes No 35 MPH n/o 1-5 25 MPH w/o Newport EI Camino Real Secondary 4 No Yes No 40 MPH e/o 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. Transpo post -processed the model data using TurnsW32 to obtain the Buildout Year 2035 9 Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 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 PM Peak Intersection Control Type LOS' VIC or LOS' VIC or Delay z Delayz 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 Street/West 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. 6 Camino Real/6th Street Signal A 0.405 A 0.471 ' Level of Service, based on Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) or HCM fo r sto p controlled intersectio ns z Vo lu m e -to -capacity ratio or delay fo 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 V/C or Intersection Control LOS' Delay 2 LOS' De ay 2 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 StreetWest 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 for stop controlled intersections 2 Volume -to -capacity ratio or delay for 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. 0 LU J Q 4z,o "' 0 Z: _ �4b �'Oa II 3 :� LU � M LL N 4-- 0 C U� W (p OiDVJ30 O LL � O1JV334 S r.0 C >O O1DV330 U) >~ LL O � o 4—+ �-q s _V U N d O cu m O � N U CO 0� O LU J Q 4z,o "' 0 Z: _ �4b �'Oa II 3 :� LU � M LL LU J M M � a_ OM_ LN }!� O 9EZ/0IE——bOb/LlZ £l/ZZJ �, OE/9� �Zll/9£ W cO rnMo� N M O O �r� 00 N � M ~O y �Zl/b �U) L£/l9� r.0 6/91 r6l/0 O 9l/J7 �l/Z -, f z �- O r � r � O � r � N (OO N N O N O N W (n 0/0—m- Z/O U - lb/9l� �O/0 a- ��- M N O M O � r N O LZ LU � W �9l/Ol c 8Z/6l� N m Z£/Zb--M� F 09/1Z WC9---� f—OZ/ll N N O � � N N M O � � I N U �99/££ CO T O N M 83 (D � LU J Q J ULL ZLL O ~O Z a: H O z u � W Y LZ LU � W W Z d LuN � � N J � O I I �XIJI y.� lead oupe013 �4b Boa II 3 r W v LL LU J M M � a_ OM_ LN }!� O 9EZ/99E——bOb/08Z £l/ZZJ �, OE/9� �Zll/9£ W c0 rnMo� N M O O �r� 00 N � M y U) Zl/b a: LE/1,9� r.0 6/91 -*-6l/0 9l/J7 �l/Z z �- �_ r O � r � N(�O C O NNO W T/ J Z/0 y, (� (n 9Z/89 0/0--m— Z/0 U Lp lb/9l� �0/0 mco -,f a_ LU Mu o M O � r N 7 Irl co LZ LU � W �9l/Ol c �N 8Z/6l� m Z£/Zb� F 09/lZ SNE9� �OZ/LL -, f �— �or N � O � O N � N r 0 � � �Ol/Zl C_ N -.6-0/0 U �99/££ CO T N (O prj LU J Q J ULL ZLL O Z a: O z u � W Y LZ LU � W W Z d LuN � � N J O I I �XIJI y.� lead oupe013 �4b �'Oa II 3 :� W /L� v LL 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 Industrial Parkz TSF 5.81 6.83 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.67 0.15 0.82 0.35 0.17 0.18 0.67 0.52 0.85 Project Trip Generation Proposed Project (Condos) 140 DU Existing Industrial Park 183.43 TSF 813 -1253 10 51 62 -123 -27 -150 49 24 -33 -123 73 -156 Total Trip Generation -439 -113 24 -89 16 -99 -83 TSF =Thousand Square Feet 'Trip rates from the Inst it ute of Transpo ration Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012. Land Use Code 230 -Condominium. 2 Trip rates from the Inst ituteof 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. 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 ig 4 ;- IV - is 9 ulnoS 0 w 19-1b (55 ?IS) 55 aingj alalS a N aa) cp c N U� N N( L.f_ O 0 E �9l U� Cl) U L1i o� L r.0 g1 r9 9 > No ori ov L U � U N d Cl) z o� C .cu cn 9 -.4-9 s� 7 N >(D U) > >s C W N CO W LL O O Cl) U T > ori ov L O O Cl) z o� IN � OL >s W N W LL LU J U 4z O O H O z is 9 ujnoSLo O (55 ?IS) 55 ajno�j a}eiS LU /� CO V LL W a aa) 0 L N O (0 N a) (n > m � O N a) ry O C E UL �SZ O 00 OE � r.0 5 tf N O O M T O IM M � L U � OE U N d O c .cucn N M M O S� 5 7 N a>) U O C CO N O W V LL a) (n > m � L L cn U) T O L tf Cl) z M T O IM M fn OE � L W N M M O W V LL � N 0 L_ N � C � N U� LO N N (n > a N� L.f_ M ti O C M L/Z UL Cl) U) w co N Y ! � U) �8l/8E L m r.0 US Z/l1 r Z/l� N V T/r � L U � U N d (n Z N ❑ N c m N l/E Z/lam F l/E L 7 Ln N N I3 >>N (n >IS � L C W CON N W J Q U ULL ZLL O Z a: O O Z U � w O In = Z W Y W H W w ? a Lu J W � d � N O I I �XIJI d {; d 4 lead oupe013 �4b C 3 N (n > m C) OZ/b--� O O Cl) U) o_ O T ❑ o N N L O O (n Z ❑ N N N I3 � L W N W U V 4) < ZLL O Z � O O Z U � O LU Ln = Z W Y W L W W Z d N J Lu � d � N O I I �XIJI T�• d {; d lead oupeo 13 �4b pati I: 3 h )$ 8 U)ne$ m m h N � (6 y 0 L c9 �9-4- (0 m � L L O O f Cl) U) a N� L.f_ N O O C UL W c0 ❑ v> co o� N r L O O N an rm U) L ,n -q Z/9� ❑ � V LS -18- > L T/r � L U � U N d M ❑ m C mN Z -/9----N- F 9'/l' L 7 to >(D U) > c U �9-4- CON T W U V 4) < ZLL O Z � O O Z U � O LU Ln = Z W Y W L W W Z d N J Lu � d � N O I I �XIJI T�• d {; d lead oupeo 13 �4b pati I: 3 h )$ 8 U)ne$ m m h ui V LL W M Z U Z O N � Z c � m F m Q Q 2 m K W a •' ^n cn Q V � H U U �L 4.a U El C: cn 7 a W N (n > m � L L O O Cl) U) T L tf O O cn z �o r> r� IV M LS -18- > L Lu M ❑ m ui V LL W M Z U Z O N � Z c � m F m Q Q 2 m K W a •' ^n cn Q V � H U U �L 4.a U El C: cn 7 a W Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project Traffic Volumes May 2016 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 negative 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. 21 w J C)4v 4) LL < Z O Z a: 0 LD Z U � O L _ Z W Y LU L w w ? a Lu J Lu � d � N O u u T�• lead oupe013 �4b �'Oa II pati M 3 �E 8 Ujnos m C OI N 0 L U� O r co T (0 m m _ N — L I (p N O o o M O � Cl) U) N L._ }!� O 9u/0 �, Wzz-- E— —bOb/L l Z l/L OE/9� MIL Q) Y ! r N N LLiO ra m U)�8l/4E L L£/L9 L r.0 LL/L1 HOZ/£ 9L/8� �UZ cn O � N(OO r (00 NNO a N 9Z/M—T/ �Z/0 (n 0/0-0- -.*—Z/0 U - lb/9l� �0/0 � L a- ��— M N O M O �r N rn M air 7O)� c �9l/El 8Z/6l� cn � SNE9� �OZ/LL N N O � � N N O � V CO f r- T � w J C)4v 4) LL < Z O Z a: 0 LD Z U � O L _ Z W Y LU L w w ? a Lu J Lu � d � N O u u T�• lead oupe013 �4b �'Oa II pati M 3 �E 8 Ujnos m C W D /qTmmN V LL _ N �Z£/9 as Cl) U) O T O O N Q) N m L 0l/b� z cn O � a N I� � L 0 � Lu 0 W D /qTmmN V LL LU J C)4v 4) LL < Z O Z a: 0 LD Z U � O L _ Z W Y LU L w w ? a Lu J Lu � d � N O u u 4�a T�• lead oupe013 �4b �'Oa II pati M 3 h �E 8 Ujnos m C OI N 0 L C � U� O r co T (0 m m — L _ N 'i f �- (p M ,^ WSJ O o O y MO� 7 M_ a a LN }!� O SEZ/99E——bOb/08Z �, £l/ZZJ l/L OE/9� MM O T O O N Y ! O r N LLiO ra U) l/4E L£/69� L r.0 1,UL1 HOZ/E L Ol/b� cn z O O O N(OO r(0O NNO O � 9Z/M—T/ �Z/O (n 0/0-0- -.*—Z/O U - lb/9l� �0/0 a- ��— M N O M O �r N air 7 �I+ c �9l/El 8Z/6l� cn � SNE9� �OZ/LL 0 W -, f �— � �or N � O � O N � N r 0 �O6/Zl C_ U �L9/4£ CO T N (O prj LU J C)4v 4) LL < Z O Z a: 0 LD Z U � O L _ Z W Y LU L w w ? a Lu J Lu � d � N O u u 4�a T�• lead oupe013 �4b �'Oa II pati M 3 h �E 8 Ujnos m C W D /qrmmM V LL _ N 'i �Z£/9 y OZ/b--� a a Cl) U o O T O O N Q) N m L Ol/b� cn z O � ro N IN > L Lu 0 W � W D /qrmmM V LL � k LU e 7 2 n co c o g 0 o t R R R@ \ / / ° J = = c o m 7 / / k \ \ / \ 3 q @ % « / \ \ c = c6 c6 = e e ° >1 0 7@ &® g g g g g & w a & / C6 = a = 0 ( a C0 \ , f / \ ) \ \ / \ / / / \ k 0 0 0 @ > L a « p m \ \ / \ \ c o 0 ; a p < < < < < 7IL % o >1 0 0 \ / \ R LO 0 a p < < < < < CD - 0 0 3 f f f f f 2 5 5® 5 m m n m z » % » % % v ®®ƒ\® R R R R 4 \ { Q) ® } ) k E e$= E 3 j / I / G § G / \ 2 / 0 \ £ f \ ® , ; § G CO a o 2§> 3 E \ g g£ g g\ b 3 a 2)-- y 2 ( FL / 3 R \ j £ ® = £ v CD K w w a 3< 6 a - \ U-si 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. 25 H O co N M 0 O 0 0 O o M Ln O m a 0 0 0 0 0 cm w 6i o6 G a� c 0 (N 6) OJ 1- V > 0 o Q 0 C6 6 C6 06 06 O L N O ZT r- W L m LO O m Y R I? L? h d7 M M 6 c6 s O O O O m a 'o g CL` a in a a a a a m a a a a s O += J y N O >+ h h a7 h CO h M h h N O O h h o6 OV � O a0 r6 c6 > 00 O O •� a m � a y m m a a a m a a a a O J O o m w O LO Y U u 0 h °' CD > es 0 0 IL 2 w a in a a a a a 3 O O J 3 m L NCD O R 1 --co C\j r co LO Y U o c h 00 M 0 O > C) IL m m a a a O J O O d Q d O_ O_ U) � o O O in O O r m C C T T C in c6 cT6 c6 c6 c6 a a a) N N _ N U) U)= Z-5 0 C L (6 2 M(n O m L j V O U N 7 O O C/) � T C �' CI, a) N N N (D C of > Co 3: O N Cn CO C � ❑ .> '� ❑ L) m m E ❑ ❑ ❑ y = .2 -r N 8 d US U) L� Z N M -4 ui O h o0 O O co N Transportation Impact Analysis 420 W. 6th Street Residential Project May 2016 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. 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. 28 El INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com Pacific NORTH SIDE— 1 r I I Main WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Main 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS DATE: LOCATION: E SIDE Tustin TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM PROJECT #: SCO826 0 8:15 AM 0 Thu, Jan 14, 16 NORTH & SOUTH: 0 Pacific 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM LOCATION #: 7 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM EAST & WEST: 5:15 PM Main 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 CONTROL: SIGNAL 0 0 0 NOTES: 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 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4W E► 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S v NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Pacific Pacific Main an NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 X 0 X X X X 1 0 1 1 X 7:00 AM 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 100 9 0 47 0 161 7:15 AM 8 0 10 0 0 0 166 17 1 49 0 242 7:30 AM 14 0 7 0 0 0 0 188 33 3 96 0 341 7:45 AM 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 157 6 0 187 0 357 8:00 AM 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 128 10 2 121 0 269 8:15 AM 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 69 16 2 65 0 158 8:30 AM 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 54 9 1 51 0 122 g 8:45 AM 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 62 6 1 40 0 115 a VOLUMES 51 0 18 0 0 0 0 924 106 10 656 0 1,765 APPROACH % 74% 0% 26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 90% 10% 2% 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 1 1 4 111 0 236 4:15 PM 13 0.... 3 0 0 0 0 87 6 3 113 0 225 4:30 PM 21 0 5 0 0 0 0 97 12 2 109 0 246 4:45 PM 16 0 6 0 0 0 0 110 12 3 117 0 --M-4- 5:00 PM 14 0 3 0 0 0 0 102 13 4 142 0 278 5:15 PM 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 19 2 145 0 268 5:30 PM 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 95 14 1 128 0 254 g 5:45 PM 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 1 10 1 100 0 209 a VOLUMES 118 0 20 0 0 0 0 761 96 20 965 0 1,980 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/DEPART 1 66 / 0 1 0 / 68 1 456 / 408 1 542 / 588 1 0 Pacific NORTH SIDE— 1 r I I Main WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Main 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE 7:00 AM E SIDE 7:15 AM TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM a 8:00 AM 0 8:15 AM 0 8:30 AM 0 8:45 AM 0 TOTAL 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM 0 4:30 PM 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM 0 5:15 PM 0 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 TOTAL Pacific NORTH SIDE— 1 r I I Main WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Main 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Add U -Turns to Lek Turns PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Add U -Turns to Lek Turns 0 0 U-TURNS 0 0 NB SB EB WB TTL 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 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 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 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com NORTH SIDES r I I Main WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Main 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS DATE: LOCATION: E SIDE Tustin TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM PROJECT #: SCO826 0 8:15 AM 0 Thu, Jan 14, 16 NORTH & SOUTH: 0 B 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM LOCATION #: 2 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM EAST & WEST: 5:15 PM Main 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 CONTROL: SIGNAL 0 0 0 NOTES: 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 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4W E► 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S v NORTHBOUND B SOUTHBOUND B EASTBOUND Main WESTBOUND an NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 7:00 AM 0 8 1 4 2 2 2 99 4 0 48 4 174 7:15 AM 3 3 4 8 5 3 10 152 6 1 47 1 243 7:30 AM 0 7 5 3 10 15 17 181 5 0 101 2 346 7:45 AM 3 7 0 5 14 27 23 125 8 1 160 9 382 8:00 AM 5 4 1 3 13 18 8 120 2 4 91 2 271 8:15 AM 3 6 3 7 7 3 3 60 5 1 55 1 154 8:30 AM 3 6 1 12 6 5 1 66 7 1 53 4 165 g 8:45 AM 0 4 2 10 10 4 10 45 8 1 43 2 139 a VOLUMES 17 45 17 52 67 77 74 848 45 9 598 25 1,874 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 0 5 10 5 8 9 4 95 5 4 111 9 265 4:15 PM 1 9.... 1 11 3 5 3 82 2 1 113 6 237 4:30 PM 5 8 0 15 6 6 6 93 5 5 113 5 267 4:45 PM 5 13 3 3 9 2 4 108 6 7 115 13 288 5:00 PM 3 9 5 9 5 2 8 87 5 3 133 11 280 5:15 PM 5 16 3 7 10 10 7 79 2 2 130 8 279 5:30 PM 7 12 4 9 8 4 10 80 4 3 118 11 270 g 5:45 PM 4 10 2 12 5 10 11 71 7 1 121 4 258 a VOLUMES 30 82 28 71 54 48 53 695 36 26 954 67 2,144 APPROACH % 21% 59% 20% 41% 31% 28% 7% 89% 5% 2% 91% 6% APP/DEPART 140 / 202 173 / 113 784 / 797 1,047 / 1,032 0 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 0.847 0.942 0.970 APP/DEPART 1 85 / 122 1 78 / 63 1 400 / 398 1 554 / 534 1 0 NORTH SIDES r I I Main WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Main 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE 7:00 AM E SIDE 7:15 AM TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM a 8:00 AM 0 8:15 AM 0 8:30 AM 0 8:45 AM 0 TOTAL 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM 0 4:30 PM 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM 0 5:15 PM 0 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 TOTAL NORTH SIDES r I I Main WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Main 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Add U -Turns to Lek Turns PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Add U -Turns to Lek Turns BICYCLE CROSSINGS U-TURNS NS 2 NB SB EB WB TTL 0 0 0 0 0 0to WOO 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 3 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCLE CROSSINGS NS 2 ES WS TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WOO 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 3 3 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com Pacific NORTH SIDE---* r I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS DATE: LOCATION: E SIDE Tustin TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM PROJECT #: SCO826 0 8:15 AM 0 Thu, Jan 14, 16 NORTH & SOUTH: 0 Pacific 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM LOCATION #: 6 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM EAST & WEST: 5:15 PM 6th 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 CONTROL: STOP ALL 0 0 NOTES: 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 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4W E► 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S v NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Pacific Pacific 6th 6th NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7:00 AM 0 0 0 10 0 0 2 4 0 0 1 5 22 7:15 AM 0 0 0 14 0 3 3 15 0 0 1 8 44 7:30 AM 0 0 0 33 0 6 6 19 0 0 8 8 80 7:45 AM 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 15 0 0 10 5 37 8:00 AM 0 0 0 6 0 5 3 8 0 0 7 5 34 8:15 AM 0 0.... 0 11 0 5 0 8 0 0 3 6 33 8:30 AM 0 0 0 6 0 2 2 10 0 0 4 6 30 g 8:45 AM 0 0 1 5 0 2 2 4 0 0 1 5 20 a VOLUMES 0 0 1 90 0 25 18 83 0 0 35 48 300 APPROACH % 0% 0% 100% 78% 0% 22% 18% 82% 0% 0% 42% 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 PM 0 0 0 6 5 9 0 1 14 12 56 4:15 PM 0 0.... 1 3 0 3 5 11 0 2 5 8 38 4:30 PM 0 1 0 11 1 3 8 8 0 0 18 17 67 4:45 PM 0 1.... 2 7 0 8 11 10 1 0 17 9 66 5:00 PM 0 1 0 6 0 10 7 13 0 0 15 9 61 5:15 PM 0 0 0 7 0 13 8 13 0 0 14 2 57 5:30 PM 0 0 0 5 0 10 8 15 0 0 20 9 67 g 5:45 PM 0 0 2 6 1 5 11 11 0 0 14 7 57 a VOLUMES 0 3 5 51 2 61 63 90 1 3 117 73 469 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 0.679 0.937 APP/DEPART 4 / 65 1 66 / 1 86 / 78 1 95 / 107 0 Pacific NORTH SIDE---* r I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE 7:00 AM E SIDE 7:15 AM TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM a 8:00 AM 0 8:15 AM 0 8:30 AM 0 8:45 AM 0 TOTAL 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM 0 4:30 PM 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM 0 5:15 PM 0 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 TOTAL Pacific NORTH SIDE---* r I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE Pacific PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Add U -Turns to Lek Turns PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Add U -Turns to Lek Turns BICYCLE CROSSINGS U-TURNS NS 0 NB SB EB WB TTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 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 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 BICYCLE CROSSINGS NS 0 ES WS TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WOO0 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 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com NORTH SIDES r I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS DATE: LOCATION: E SIDE Tustin TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM PROJECT #: SC0826 0 8:15 AM 0 Thu, Jan 14, 16 NORTH & SOUTH: 0 B 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM LOCATION #: 1 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM EAST & WEST: 5:15 PM 6th 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 CONTROL: STOP ALL 0 0 NOTES: 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 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4W E► 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S v NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND B B 6th 61h NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7:00 AM 0 2 0 5 0 0 2 12 1 3 9 5 39 7:15 AM 1 0 3 9 1 2 3 25 0 2 5 3 54 7:30 AM 1 0 0 14 0 4 7 47 0 3 9 7 92 7:45 AM 0 0 0 14 2 4 4 21 0 2 15 5 67 8:00 AM 0 0 1 14 3 4 4 19 1 1 9 5 61 8:15 AM 1 0.... 5 .... 9 1 2 3 13 1 1 6 8 50 8:30 AM 0 1 1 11 1 1 2 11 0 1 9 5 43 g 8:45 AM 1 1 0 11 4 0 3–-16 0 7 8 5 56 a VOLUMES 4 4 10 87 12 17 28 164 3 20 70 43 462 APPROACH % 22% 22% 56% 75% 10% 15% 14% 84% 2% 15% 53% 32% APP/DEPART 18 / 75 116 / 35 195 / 261 133 / 91 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:15 AM VOLUMES 2 0 4 51 6 14 18 112 1 8 38 20 274 APPROACH % 33% 0% 67% 72% 8% 20% 14% 85% 1% 12% 58% 30% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.375 0.845 0.606 0.750 0.745 APP/DEPART 6 / 38 71 / 15 131 / 167 66 / 54 0 4:00 PM 0 1 6 83 18 u 2 z4 6 71 4:15 PM 0 2.... 5 12 1 1 2 12 0 3 18 9 65 4:30 PM 0 4 3 8 1 9 1 16 1 0 19 8 70 4:45 PM 1 7.... 3 8 2 6 3 23 0 4 24 10 91 5:00 PM 0 2 4 10 3 2 2 18 1 3 22 10 77 5:15 PM 0 7 3 11 2 3 3 19 0 3 18 13 82 5:30 PM 0 3 2 8 2 4 2 17 0 3 26 17 84 g 5:45 PM 0 2.... 3 11 1 1 3 16 0 3 23 13 76 a VOLUMES 1 28 29 76 14 27 19 139 2 21 174 86 616 APPROACH % 2% 48% 50% 65% 12% 23% 12% 87% 1% 7% 62% 31% APP/DEPART 58 / 134 117 / 36 160 / 244 281 / 202 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:45 PM VOLUMES 1 19 12 37 9 15 10 77 1 13 90 50 334 APPROACH % 3% 59% 38% 61% 15% 25% 11% 88% 1% 8% 59% 33% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.727 0.953 0.846 0.832 0.918 APP/DEPART 1 32 / 80 1 61 / 22 1 88 / 126 1 153 / 106 1 0 NORTH SIDES r I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE 7:00 AM E SIDE 7:15 AM TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM a 8:00 AM 0 8:15 AM 0 8:30 AM 0 8:45 AM 0 TOTAL 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM 0 4:30 PM 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM 0 5:15 PM 0 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 TOTAL NORTH SIDES r I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add U -Turns to Lek Turns PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add U -Turns to Lek Turns 0 0 U-TURNS 0 0 NB SB EB WB TTL 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com EI Camino Real NORTH SIDE---* r I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE EI Camino Real PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS DATE: LOCATION: E SIDE Tustin TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM PROJECT #: SCO826 0 8:15 AM 0 Thu, Jan 14, 16 NORTH & SOUTH: 0 EI Camino Real 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM LOCATION #: 3 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM EAST & WEST: 5:15 PM 6th 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 CONTROL: SIGNAL 0 0 0 NOTES: 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 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4W E► 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S v NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND EI Camino Real EI Camino Real 6th 6th NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7:00 AM 15 27 3 1 44 2 0 2 15 1 6 4 120 7:15 AM 4 47 0 5 63 2 3 5 30 3 4 4 170 7:30 AM 13 57 2 8 95 0 3 26 33 3 6 4 250 7:45 AM 12 68 2 6 85 3 6 9 30 3 7 3 234 8:00 AM 7 45 2 3 67 1 1 7 28 4 9 3 177 8:15 AM 10 40 3 3 69 1 3 3 22 3 5 1 163 8:30 AM 9 33 4 5 48 3 5 3 18 1 4 3 136 g 8:45 AM 16 39 2 3 54 1 —2--6 20 4 6 1 154 a VOLUMES 86 356 18 34 525 13 23 61 196 22 47 23 1,404 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 / 443 181 / 76 53 / 68 0 4:00 PM ZJ 78 3 4 44 5 6 27 1 7 6 207 4:15 PM 21 91 5 4 64 5 4 9 30 5 4 5 247 4:30 PM 26 85 2 3 54 8 7 6 29 0 5 11 236 4:45 PM 21 90 2 4 55 3 10 7 29 4 15 10 250 5:00 PM 26 113 6 4 61 12 9 9 31 6 6 8 291 5:15 PM 30 103 7 2 67 7 7 10 21 3 7 6 270 5:30 PM 35 98 1 3 52 8 3 7 28 5 8 7 255 g 5:45 PM 25 96 9 3 53 3 5 10 23 6 5 8 246 a VOLUMES 207 754 35 27 450 49 50 64 218 30 57 61 2,002 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 1 532 / 464 1 278 / 362 1 171 / 62 1 85 / 178 1 0 EI Camino Real NORTH SIDE---* r I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE EI Camino Real PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE 7:00 AM E SIDE 7:15 AM TOTAL 7:30 AM 0 7:45 AM a 8:00 AM 0 8:15 AM 0 8:30 AM 0 8:45 AM 0 TOTAL 0 4:00 PM 0 4:15 PM 0 4:30 PM 0 4:45 PM a 5:00 PM 0 5:15 PM 0 5:30 PM 0 5:45 PM 0 TOTAL EI Camino Real NORTH SIDE---* r I I 6th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 6th 1 1 — SOUTH SIDE EI Camino Real PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Add U -Turns to Lek Turns PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Add U -Turns to Lek Turns 0 0 U-TURNS 0 0 NB SB EB WB TTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 to 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 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 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 a-0 N N cn L 0 VJ O J r P N 0- 0L Q i 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. EX AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:35:21 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): 0.570 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 21 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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 0.00 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to TRANSPO Group, Inc. 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 El 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: 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. EX PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:37:43 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. EX PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:37:43 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) 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: 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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 o) 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. 2035 AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:38:26 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): 0.682 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 12 22 11 20 44 66 61 926 22 6 751 15 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 ------------ ---------------II --------------- II---------------II---------------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. 2035 AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:38:26 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #105 El 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: 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. 2035 PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:39:17 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): 0.550 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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 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): 0.579 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. 2035 PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:39:17 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) 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: 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------II --------------- 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. EX + PROJ AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:06 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): 0.522 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. EX + PROJ AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:06 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): 0.567 Loss Time (sec): 5 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 21 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 21 16 23 44 77 11 711 26 9 491 17 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 ------------ ---------------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. EX + PROJ AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:06 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #105 El 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: 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------II --------------- II---------------II---------------I 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. EX + PROJ PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:56 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): 0.408 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. EX + PROJ PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:40:56 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) 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: 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------II --------------- II---------------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 o) 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. 2035 + PROJ AM Tue May 10, 2016 13:41:57 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): 0.679 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------II --------------- II---------------II---------------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. 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 El 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. 2035 + PROJ PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:42:43 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): 0.547 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 41 17 29 35 19 31 622 18 18 720 45 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 ------------ ---------------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. 2035 + PROJ PM Tue May 10, 2016 13:42:43 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) 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: 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- 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 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 ------------ ---------------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. HCM 2010 AWSC Existing AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NB - Yes Lane Configurations Yes Cap 820 830 892 0 Service Time 2.402 2.347 2.045 2.516 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 26 0 58 0 16 Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 26 0 58 0 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.92 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.92 0.61 0.61 0.61 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 20 93 0 0 0 43 43 0 95 0 26 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8 7.5 8.2 HCM LOS A A A Lane ` NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 78% 17% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 83% 50% 100% Vol Right, % 22% 0% 50% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 74 69 52 0 LT Vol 58 12 0 0 Through Vol 0 57 26 0 RT Vol 16 0 26 0 Lane Flow Rate 121 113 85 0 Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) 0.148 0.134 0.096 0 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.402 4.249 4.039 4.507 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 820 830 892 0 Service Time 2.402 2.347 2.045 2.516 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.148 0.136 0.095 0 HCM Control Delay 8.2 8 7.5 7.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A N 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 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.61 0.61 0.61 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 0 HCM LOS 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 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 +' I 100% 0% 14% 0% 12% 89% 0% r 0% 0% 86% r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 18 112 1 0 8 38 20 0 2 0 4 0 51 6 14 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 0.74 0.74 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 24 151 1 0 11 51 27 0 3 0 5 0 69 8 19 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB 616 776 WB 856 738 634 NB Service Time 3.549 2.341 SB 1.906 2.889 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 EB 0.242 0.001 0.121 SB 0.024 HCM Control Delay 8.6 NB 9.3 6.9 Opposing Lanes 1 7.3 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A A 2 A A HCM 95th -tile Q 2 0 0.9 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.4 0.1 NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 9.3 8.6 7.8 8.8 HCM LOS A A A A Lane ` NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 14% 0% 12% 89% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 86% 0% 58% 11% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 30% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 2 4 130 1 66 57 14 LT Vol 2 0 18 0 8 51 0 Through Vol 0 0 112 0 38 6 0 RT Vol 0 4 0 1 20 0 14 Lane Flow Rate 3 5 176 1 89 77 19 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.004 0.007 0.242 0.002 0.121 0.121 0.024 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.823 4.614 4.962 4.191 4.872 5.667 4.513 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 616 776 726 856 738 634 794 Service Time 3.549 2.341 2.677 1.906 2.889 3.387 2.233 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 0.006 0.242 0.001 0.121 0.121 0.024 HCM Control Delay 8.6 7.4 9.3 6.9 8.6 9.2 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A 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 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 483 0 0 121 0 0 604 Int Delay, s/veh 0 121 604 604 483 Stage - - - - - - 121 121 - 483 483 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 115 0 0 459 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 115 0 0 459 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 121 0 0 483 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 483 0 0 121 0 0 604 604 121 604 604 483 Stage - - - - - - 121 121 - 483 483 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 483 483 - 121 121 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1080 - - 1467 - - 410 412 930 410 412 584 Stage - - - - - - 883 796 - 565 553 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 553 - 883 796 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1080 - - 1467 - - 410 412 930 410 412 584 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 410 412 - 410 412 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 883 796 - 565 553 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 553 - 883 796 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1080 - - 1467 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 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 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 Int Delay, s/veh 0 176 617 617 441 Stage - - - - - - 176 176 - 441 441 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 176 0 0 441 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 617 176 617 617 441 Stage - - - - - - 176 176 - 441 441 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 441 441 - 176 176 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1119 - - 1400 - - 402 405 867 402 405 616 Stage - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 595 577 - 826 753 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1119 - - 1400 - - 402 405 867 402 405 616 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 402 405 - 402 405 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 595 577 - 826 753 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1119 - - 1400 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 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 5 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 135 0 0 138 0 0 273 Int Delay, s/veh 0 138 273 273 135 Stage 1 - - - - - - 138 138 - 135 135 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 131 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 131 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 138 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 135 0 0 138 0 0 273 273 138 273 273 135 Stage 1 - - - - - - 138 138 - 135 135 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 135 135 - 138 138 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1449 - - 1446 - - 679 634 910 679 634 914 Stage - - - - - - 865 782 - 868 785 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 868 785 - 865 782 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1449 - - 1446 - - 679 634 910 679 634 914 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 679 634 - 679 634 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 865 782 - 868 785 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 868 785 - 865 782 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1449 - - 1446 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 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 6 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 16 0 - 0 Stage 1 16 - - - Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 6 16 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 22 16 16 0 - 0 Stage 1 16 - - - - - Stage 2 6 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 995 1063 1602 - - 0 Stage 1 1007 - - - - 0 Stage 2 1017 - - - - 0 Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 995 1063 1602 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 995 - - - - - Stage 1 1007 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) 1602 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Stage 1 16 - - - - - Stage 2 7 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 7 16 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 23 16 16 0 - 0 Stage 1 16 - - - - - Stage 2 7 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 993 1063 1602 - - - Stage 1 1007 - - - - - Stage 2 1016 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 993 1063 1602 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 993 - - - - - Stage 1 1007 - - - - - Stage 2 1016 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1602 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - Existing AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 0% 38% Vol Thru, % 50% Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 29 0 0 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 29 0 0 2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 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 Approach HCM Control Delay EB 7.8 7.5 7.4 WB A A A NB HCM 95th -tile Q Opposing Approach 0.4 WB 0.2 EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.5 7.1 HCM LOS A A A Lane ` NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 0% 38% Vol Thru, % 50% 59% 69% 0% Vol Right, % 50% 1% 31% 62% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 4 86 95 66 LT Vol 0 34 0 25 Through Vol 2 51 66 0 RT Vol 2 1 29 41 Lane Flow Rate 4 91 101 70 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.005 0.107 0.111 0.077 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.124 4.213 3.95 3.97 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 873 846 900 887 Service Time 2.124 2.263 2.004 2.06 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 0.108 0.112 0.079 HCM Control Delay 7.1 7.8 7.5 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.4 0.4 0.2 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 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 25 0 41 Future Vol, veh/h 0 25 0 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 27 0 44 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 7.4 HCM LOS A Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing PM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 +' I 5% 0% 11% 0% 8% 80% 0% r 95% 0% 89% r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 10 77 1 0 13 90 50 0 1 19 12 0 37 9 15 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 11 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 EB 679 787 WB 847 762 638 NB Service Time 3.005 2.275 SB 1.948 2.747 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 EB 0.132 0.001 0.218 SB 0.02 HCM Control Delay 8.2 NB 8.5 7 Opposing Lanes 1 7.3 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A A 2 A A HCM 95th -tile Q 2 0 0.4 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.3 0.1 NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 8.5 9.1 7.9 8.4 HCM LOS A A A A Lane ` NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 5% 0% 11% 0% 8% 80% 0% Vol Thru, % 95% 0% 89% 0% 59% 20% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 33% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 20 12 87 1 153 46 15 LT Vol 1 0 10 0 13 37 0 Through Vol 19 0 77 0 90 9 0 RT Vol 0 12 0 1 50 0 15 Lane Flow Rate 22 13 95 1 166 50 16 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.032 0.016 0.131 0.001 0.219 0.078 0.02 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.281 4.551 4.991 4.231 4.732 5.622 4.514 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 679 787 721 847 762 638 794 Service Time 3.005 2.275 2.708 1.948 2.747 3.345 2.236 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 0.017 0.132 0.001 0.218 0.078 0.02 HCM Control Delay 8.2 7.3 8.5 7 9.1 8.8 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0 0.4 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 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 571 0 0 82 0 0 653 Int Delay, s/veh 0 82 653 653 571 Stage 1 - - - - - - 82 82 - 571 571 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 78 0 0 542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 78 0 0 542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 82 0 0 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 571 0 0 82 0 0 653 653 82 653 653 571 Stage 1 - - - - - - 82 82 - 571 571 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 571 571 - 82 82 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1002 - - 1515 - - 380 387 978 380 387 520 Stage - - - - - - 926 827 - 506 505 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 506 505 - 926 827 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1002 - - 1515 - - 380 387 978 380 387 520 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 380 387 - 380 387 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 926 827 - 506 505 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 506 505 - 926 827 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1002 - - 1515 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - - 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 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 716 Int Delay, s/veh 0 133 716 716 583 Stage - - - - - - 133 133 - 583 583 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 126 0 0 554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 126 0 0 554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 133 0 0 583 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 716 716 133 716 716 583 Stage - - - - - - 133 133 - 583 583 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 583 583 - 133 133 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 991 - - 1452 - - 345 356 916 345 356 512 Stage - - - - - - 870 786 - 498 499 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 498 499 - 870 786 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 991 - - 1452 - - 345 356 916 345 356 512 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 345 356 - 345 356 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 870 786 - 498 499 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 498 499 - 870 786 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 991 - - 1452 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 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 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 98 0 0 93 0 0 191 Int Delay, s/veh 0 93 191 191 98 Stage 1 - - - - - - 93 93 - 98 98 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 88 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 93 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 98 0 0 93 0 0 191 191 93 191 191 98 Stage 1 - - - - - - 93 93 - 98 98 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 98 98 - 93 93 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1495 - - 1501 - - 769 704 964 769 704 958 Stage 1 - - - - - - 914 818 - 908 814 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 908 814 - 914 818 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1495 - - 1501 - - 769 704 964 769 704 958 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 769 704 - 769 704 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 914 818 - 908 814 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 908 814 - 914 818 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1495 - - 1501 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - - Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing PM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 24 0 - 0 Stage 1 24 - - - Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 32 23 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 32 23 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 34 24 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 58 24 24 0 - 0 Stage 1 24 - - - - - Stage 2 34 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 949 1052 1591 - - 0 Stage 1 999 - - - - 0 Stage 2 988 - - - - 0 Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 949 1052 1591 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 949 - - - - - Stage 1 999 - - - - - Stage 2 988 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) 1591 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 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 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Stage 1 25 - - - - - Stage 2 35 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 32 23 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 32 23 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 35 25 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 60 25 25 0 - 0 Stage 1 25 - - - - - Stage 2 35 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 947 1051 1589 - - - Stage 1 998 - - - - - Stage 2 987 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 947 1051 1589 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 947 - - - - - Stage 1 998 - - - - - Stage 2 987 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1589 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - Existing PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 17% 0% 78% Vol Thru, % 100% 83% Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 26 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 26 0 0 0 0 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 13 60 0 0 0 27 27 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Approach A EB A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.3 WB 0.3 NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.6 7.1 0 HCM LOS A A - Lane ` NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 17% 0% 78% Vol Thru, % 100% 83% 50% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 50% 22% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 0 69 52 74 LT Vol 0 12 0 58 Through Vol 0 57 26 0 RT Vol 0 0 26 16 Lane Flow Rate 0 73 55 78 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0 0.084 0.058 0.09 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.216 4.147 3.826 4.182 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 0 859 928 851 Service Time 2.29 2.197 1.884 2.235 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.085 0.059 0.092 HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.6 7.1 7.7 HCM Lane LOS N A A A 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 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 58 0 16 Future Vol, veh/h 0 58 0 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 61 0 17 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 7.7 HCM LOS A 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 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 +' I 100% 0% 14% 0% 12% 89% 0% r 0% 0% 86% r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 18 112 1 0 8 38 20 0 2 0 4 0 51 6 14 Future Vol, veh/h 0 18 112 1 0 8 38 20 0 2 0 4 0 51 6 14 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 Mvmt Flow 0 19 118 1 0 8 40 21 0 2 0 4 0 54 6 15 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB 637 810 WB 875 757 653 NB Service Time 3.353 2.146 SB 1.814 2.764 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 EB 0.185 0.001 0.091 SB 0.018 HCM Control Delay 8.4 NB 8.7 6.8 Opposing Lanes 1 7.2 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A A 2 A A HCM 95th -tile Q 2 0 0.7 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.3 0.1 NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.2 7.6 8.5 HCM LOS A A A A Lane ` NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 14% 0% 12% 89% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 86% 0% 58% 11% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 30% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 2 4 130 1 66 57 14 LT Vol 2 0 18 0 8 51 0 Through Vol 0 0 112 0 38 6 0 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 4.43 4.884 4.114 4.753 5.511 4.358 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 637 810 739 875 757 653 824 Service Time 3.353 2.146 2.584 1.814 2.764 3.224 2.071 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 0.005 0.185 0.001 0.091 0.092 0.018 HCM Control Delay 8.4 7.2 8.7 6.8 8.2 8.8 7.2 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0 0.7 0 0.3 0.3 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 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 483 0 0 121 0 0 604 Int Delay, s/veh 0 121 604 604 483 Stage - - - - - - 121 121 - 483 483 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 115 0 0 459 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 115 0 0 459 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 121 0 0 483 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 483 0 0 121 0 0 604 604 121 604 604 483 Stage - - - - - - 121 121 - 483 483 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 483 483 - 121 121 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1080 - - 1467 - - 410 412 930 410 412 584 Stage - - - - - - 883 796 - 565 553 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 553 - 883 796 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1080 - - 1467 - - 410 412 930 410 412 584 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 410 412 - 410 412 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 883 796 - 565 553 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 553 - 883 796 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1080 - - 1467 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 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 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 AM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 Int Delay, s/veh 0 176 617 617 441 Stage - - - - - - 176 176 - 441 441 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 176 0 0 441 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 617 176 617 617 441 Stage - - - - - - 176 176 - 441 441 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 441 441 - 176 176 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1119 - - 1400 - - 402 405 867 402 405 616 Stage - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 595 577 - 826 753 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1119 - - 1400 - - 402 405 867 402 405 616 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 402 405 - 402 405 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 595 577 - 826 753 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1119 - - 1400 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 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 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 AM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 135 0 0 138 0 0 273 Int Delay, s/veh 0 138 273 273 135 Stage 1 - - - - - - 138 138 - 135 135 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 131 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 131 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 138 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 135 0 0 138 0 0 273 273 138 273 273 135 Stage 1 - - - - - - 138 138 - 135 135 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 135 135 - 138 138 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1449 - - 1446 - - 679 634 910 679 634 914 Stage - - - - - - 865 782 - 868 785 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 868 785 - 865 782 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1449 - - 1446 - - 679 634 910 679 634 914 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 679 634 - 679 634 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 865 782 - 868 785 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 868 785 - 865 782 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1449 - - 1446 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 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 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 16 0 - 0 Stage 1 16 - - - Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 6 16 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 _ Conflicting Flow All 22 16 16 0 - 0 Stage 1 16 - - - - - Stage 2 6 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 995 1063 1602 - - 0 Stage 1 1007 - - - - 0 Stage 2 1017 - - - - 0 Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 995 1063 1602 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 995 - - - - - Stage 1 1007 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) 1602 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 AM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Stage 1 16 - - - - - Stage 2 6 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 6 15 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 6 16 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 _ Conflicting Flow All 22 16 16 0 - 0 Stage 1 16 - - - - - Stage 2 6 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 990 1063 1602 - - - Stage 1 1004 - - - - - Stage 2 1016 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 990 1063 1602 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 990 - - - - - Stage 1 1004 - - - - - Stage 2 1016 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1602 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 2035 AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 0% 38% Vol Thru, % 50% Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 29 0 0 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 29 0 0 2 2 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 36 54 1 0 0 69 31 0 0 2 2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Approach HCM Control Delay EB 7.8 7.5 7.4 WB A A A NB HCM 95th -tile Q Opposing Approach 0.4 WB 0.2 EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.5 7.1 HCM LOS A A A Lane ` NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 0% 38% Vol Thru, % 50% 59% 69% 0% Vol Right, % 50% 1% 31% 62% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 4 86 95 66 LT Vol 0 34 0 25 Through Vol 2 51 66 0 RT Vol 2 1 29 41 Lane Flow Rate 4 91 100 69 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.005 0.106 0.11 0.077 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.12 4.212 3.949 3.966 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 874 846 901 889 Service Time 2.12 2.262 2.003 2.056 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 0.108 0.111 0.078 HCM Control Delay 7.1 7.8 7.5 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 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 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 25 0 41 Future Vol, veh/h 0 25 0 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 26 0 43 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 7.4 HCM LOS A 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 PM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 +' I 5% 0% 11% 0% 8% 80% 0% r 95% 0% 89% r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 10 77 1 0 13 90 50 0 1 19 12 0 37 9 15 Future Vol, veh/h 0 10 77 1 0 13 90 50 0 1 19 12 0 37 9 15 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 Mvmt Flow 0 11 81 1 0 14 95 53 0 1 20 13 0 39 9 16 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB 682 791 WB 850 762 641 NB Service Time 2.98 2.25 SB 1.935 2.736 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 EB 0.127 0.001 0.211 SB 0.02 HCM Control Delay 8.1 NB 8.4 6.9 Opposing Lanes 1 7.3 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A A 2 A A HCM 95th -tile Q 2 0 0.4 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.2 0.1 NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 8.4 9 7.8 8.4 HCM LOS A A A A Lane ` NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 5% 0% 11% 0% 8% 80% 0% Vol Thru, % 95% 0% 89% 0% 59% 20% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 33% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 20 12 87 1 153 46 15 LT Vol 1 0 10 0 13 37 0 Through Vol 19 0 77 0 90 9 0 RT Vol 0 12 0 1 50 0 15 Lane Flow Rate 21 13 92 1 161 48 16 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.031 0.016 0.127 0.001 0.211 0.075 0.02 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.258 4.529 4.979 4.219 4.721 5.6 4.491 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 682 791 722 850 762 641 798 Service Time 2.98 2.25 2.695 1.935 2.736 3.321 2.212 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 0.016 0.127 0.001 0.211 0.075 0.02 HCM Control Delay 8.1 7.3 8.4 6.9 9 8.8 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0 0.4 0 0.8 0.2 0.1 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 PM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 571 0 0 82 0 0 653 Int Delay, s/veh 0 82 653 653 571 Stage 1 - - - - - - 82 82 - 571 571 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 78 0 0 542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 78 0 0 542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 82 0 0 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 571 0 0 82 0 0 653 653 82 653 653 571 Stage 1 - - - - - - 82 82 - 571 571 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 571 571 - 82 82 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1002 - - 1515 - - 380 387 978 380 387 520 Stage - - - - - - 926 827 - 506 505 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 506 505 - 926 827 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1002 - - 1515 - - 380 387 978 380 387 520 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 380 387 - 380 387 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 926 827 - 506 505 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 506 505 - 926 827 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1002 - - 1515 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - - 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 PM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 716 Int Delay, s/veh 0 133 716 716 583 Stage - - - - - - 133 133 - 583 583 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 126 0 0 554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 126 0 0 554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 133 0 0 583 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 716 716 133 716 716 583 Stage - - - - - - 133 133 - 583 583 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 583 583 - 133 133 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 991 - - 1452 - - 345 356 916 345 356 512 Stage - - - - - - 870 786 - 498 499 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 498 499 - 870 786 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 991 - - 1452 - - 345 356 916 345 356 512 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 345 356 - 345 356 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 870 786 - 498 499 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 498 499 - 870 786 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 991 - - 1452 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - - 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 PM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 98 0 0 93 0 0 191 Int Delay, s/veh 0 93 191 191 98 Stage 1 - - - - - - 93 93 - 98 98 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 88 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 93 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 98 0 0 93 0 0 191 191 93 191 191 98 Stage 1 - - - - - - 93 93 - 98 98 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 98 98 - 93 93 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1495 - - 1501 - - 769 704 964 769 704 958 Stage 1 - - - - - - 914 818 - 908 814 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 908 814 - 914 818 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1495 - - 1501 - - 769 704 964 769 704 958 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 769 704 - 769 704 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 914 818 - 908 814 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 908 814 - 914 818 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1495 - - 1501 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - - 2035 PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 PM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 24 0 - 0 Stage 1 24 - - - Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 32 23 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 32 23 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 34 24 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 _ Conflicting Flow All 58 24 24 0 - 0 Stage 1 24 - - - - - Stage 2 34 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 949 1052 1591 - - 0 Stage 1 999 - - - - 0 Stage 2 988 - - - - 0 Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 949 1052 1591 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 949 - - - - - Stage 1 999 - - - - - Stage 2 988 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) 1591 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 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 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Stage 1 24 - - - - - Stage 2 34 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 32 23 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 32 23 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 34 24 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 _ Conflicting Flow All 58 24 24 0 - 0 Stage 1 24 - - - - - Stage 2 34 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 939 1052 1591 - - - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 982 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 939 1052 1591 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 939 - - - - - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 982 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1591 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 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 - Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT_ Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 27 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 27 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.92 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.92 0.61 0.61 0.61 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 20 93 0 0 0 43 44 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8 7.4 0 HCM LOS A A - Lane ` NBLnl EBLnl WBLnl SBLnl Vol Left, % 0% 17% 0% 76% Vol Thru, % 100% 83% 49% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 51% 24% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 0 69 53 68 LT Vol 0 12 0 52 Through Vol 0 57 26 0 RT Vol 0 0 27 16 Lane Flow Rate 0 113 87 111 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0 0.133 0.094 0.133 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.496 4.232 3.911 4.288 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 0 836 899 824 Service Time 2.496 2.315 2.008 2.381 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.135 0.097 0.135 HCM Control Delay 7.5 8 7.4 8.1 HCM Lane LOS N A A 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 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing + Project AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection - Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR - Lane Configurations +14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 52 0 16 Future Vol, veh/h 0 52 0 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.61 0.61 0.61 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 85 0 26 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Approach SB - Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 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 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 +T I 40% 0% 16% 0% 28% 88% r Vol Thru, % 60% 0% r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 19 101 1 0 8 1 20 0 2 3 34 0 51 7 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 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 0.74 0.74 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 26 136 1 0 11 1 27 0 3 4 46 0 69 9 11 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB Yes Yes WB Yes Yes NB Cap 670 806 SB 848 756 Opposing Approach WB Service Time 3.074 EB 2.726 1.945 SB 3.265 2.12 HCM Lane V/C Ratio NB 0.057 0.226 Opposing Lanes 1 0.12 0.013 2 8.1 7.4 2 7 8 9 2 HCM Lane LOS A Conflicting Approach Left SB A A NB A HCM 95th -tile Q EB 0.2 0.9 0 WB 0.4 0 Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 9.2 8 7.5 8.8 HCM LOS A A A A Lane ` NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 40% 0% 16% 0% 28% 88% 0% Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 84% 0% 3% 12% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 69% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 5 34 120 1 29 58 8 LT Vol 2 0 19 0 8 51 0 Through Vol 3 0 101 0 1 7 0 RT Vol 0 34 0 1 20 0 8 Lane Flow Rate 7 46 162 1 39 78 11 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.01 0.057 0.226 0.002 0.052 0.121 0.013 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.353 4.448 5.011 4.23 4.743 5.546 4.4 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 670 806 718 848 756 648 815 Service Time 3.074 2.169 2.726 1.945 2.763 3.265 2.12 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 0.057 0.226 0.001 0.052 0.12 0.013 HCM Control Delay 8.1 7.4 9.2 7 8 9 7.2 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile 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 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 482 0 0 116 0 0 597 Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 115 597 598 482 Stage 1 - - - - - - 115 115 - 482 482 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 109 1 0 458 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 109 1 0 458 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 115 1 0 482 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 482 0 0 116 0 0 597 597 115 597 598 482 Stage 1 - - - - - - 115 115 - 482 482 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 482 482 - 115 116 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1081 - - 1473 - - 415 416 937 415 416 584 Stage - - - - - - 890 800 - 565 553 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 553 - 890 800 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1081 - - 1473 - - 415 416 937 415 416 584 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 415 416 - 415 416 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 890 800 - 565 553 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 553 - 890 800 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.7 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 415 1081 - - 1473 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.7 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS B 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 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Project AM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 Int Delay, s/veh 0 176 618 617 441 Stage - - - - - - 176 176 - 441 441 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 176 0 0 441 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 617 176 618 617 441 Stage - - - - - - 176 176 - 441 441 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 441 441 - 177 176 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1119 - - 1400 - - 402 405 867 402 405 616 Stage - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 595 577 - 825 753 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1119 - - 1400 - - 402 405 867 401 405 616 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 402 405 - 401 405 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 595 577 - 823 753 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.2 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 867 1119 - - 1400 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 0 - - 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 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 Minor2 - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 89 0 0 131 0 0 223 Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 131 225 223 89 Stage 1 - - - - - - 131 131 - 92 92 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 124 0 1 85 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 124 0 1 85 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 131 0 1 89 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 Minor2 - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 89 0 0 131 0 0 223 223 131 225 223 89 Stage 1 - - - - - - 131 131 - 92 92 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 92 92 - 133 131 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1506 - - 1454 - - 733 676 919 730 676 969 Stage 1 - - - - - - 873 788 - 915 819 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 915 819 - 870 788 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1506 - - 1454 - - 732 675 919 725 675 969 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 732 675 - 725 675 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 873 788 - 915 818 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 914 818 - 865 788 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 8.9 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 919 1506 - - 1454 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 0 - - 7.5 0 - 0 HCM Lane LOS A 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 6 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Project AM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR - Lane Configurations Stage 1 22 - - - - - Stage 2 27 Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 0 0 26 19 4 Future Vol, veh/h 12 0 0 26 19 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 0 0 27 20 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 49 22 24 0 - 0 Stage 1 22 - - - - - Stage 2 27 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 960 1055 1591 - - - Stage 1 1001 - - - - - Stage 2 996 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 960 1055 1591 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 960 - - - - - Stage 1 1001 - - - - - Stage 2 996 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.8 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1591 - 960 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.013 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Existing + Project AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 Existing + Project AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Project AM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR - Lane Configurations Stage 1 18 - - - - - Stage 2 7 Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 0 0 6 15 4 Future Vol, veh/h 20 0 0 6 15 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 22 0 0 7 16 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 25 18 21 0 - 0 Stage 1 18 - - - - - Stage 2 7 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 986 1061 1595 - - - Stage 1 1001 - - - - - Stage 2 1015 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 986 1061 1595 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 986 - - - - - Stage 1 1001 - - - - - Stage 2 1015 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1595 - 986 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.022 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 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 5/10/2016 Intersection _ Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 0% 39% Vol Thru, % 50% Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 24 0 0 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 24 0 0 2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 36 54 1 0 0 70 26 0 0 2 2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Approach HCM Control Delay EB 7.8 7.5 7.4 WB A A A NB HCM 95th -tile Q Opposing Approach 0.4 WB 0.3 EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.5 7.1 HCM LOS A A A Lane ` NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 0% 39% Vol Thru, % 50% 59% 73% 0% Vol Right, % 50% 1% 27% 61% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 4 86 90 67 LT Vol 0 34 0 26 Through Vol 2 51 66 0 RT Vol 2 1 24 41 Lane Flow Rate 4 91 96 71 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.005 0.107 0.106 0.079 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.116 4.211 3.975 3.968 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 875 846 894 888 Service Time 2.116 2.263 2.031 2.058 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 0.108 0.107 0.08 HCM Control Delay 7.1 7.8 7.5 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.4 0.4 0.3 Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing + Proj PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection _ Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR _ Lane Configurations +14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 26 0 41 Future Vol, veh/h 0 26 0 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 28 0 44 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Approach SB _ Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 7.4 HCM LOS A Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing + Proj PM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection _ Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 +T I 5% 0% 45% 0% 24% 77% 0% r 95% 0% 55% r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 5 6 1 0 40 75 50 0 1 20 18 0 37 11 16 Future Vol, veh/h 0 5 6 1 0 40 75 50 0 1 20 18 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 Mvmt Flow 0 5 7 1 0 43 82 54 0 1 22 20 0 40 12 17 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB 703 820 WB 842 768 661 NB Service Time 2.82 2.093 SB 1.977 2.71 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 EB 0.017 0.001 0.233 SB 0.021 HCM Control Delay 8 NB 8 7 Opposing Lanes 1 7.2 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A A 2 A A HCM 95th -tile Q 2 0.1 0.1 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.3 0.1 NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 7.9 9.1 7.6 8.2 HCM LOS A A A A Lane ` NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 5% 0% 45% 0% 24% 77% 0% Vol Thru, % 95% 0% 55% 0% 45% 23% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 30% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 21 18 11 1 165 48 16 LT Vol 1 0 5 0 40 37 0 Through Vol 20 0 6 0 75 11 0 RT Vol 0 18 0 1 50 0 16 Lane Flow Rate 23 20 12 1 179 52 17 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.032 0.024 0.017 0.001 0.234 0.079 0.021 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.107 4.38 5.193 4.262 4.699 5.44 4.35 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 703 820 691 842 768 661 826 Service Time 2.82 2.093 2.908 1.977 2.71 3.152 2.062 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 0.024 0.017 0.001 0.233 0.079 0.021 HCM Control Delay 8 7.2 8 7 9.1 8.6 7.2 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 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 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 564 0 0 82 0 0 645 Int Delay, s/veh 0 81 645 646 564 Stage 1 - - - - - - 81 81 - 564 564 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 76 2 0 536 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 564 0 0 82 0 0 645 645 81 645 646 564 Stage 1 - - - - - - 81 81 - 564 564 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 564 564 - 81 82 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1008 - - 1515 - - 385 391 979 385 390 525 Stage - - - - - - 927 828 - 510 508 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 510 508 - 927 827 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1008 - - 1515 - - 385 391 979 385 390 525 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 385 391 - 385 390 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 927 828 - 510 508 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 510 508 - 927 827 - Approach EB WB NB SB _ HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 14.4 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 385 1008 - - 1515 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Proj PM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 Minor2 - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 720 Int Delay, s/veh 0 133 720 720 583 Stage - - - - - - 133 133 - 587 587 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 126 0 2 554 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 126 0 2 554 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 133 0 2 583 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 Minor2 - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 720 720 133 720 720 583 Stage - - - - - - 133 133 - 587 587 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 587 587 - 133 133 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 991 - - 1452 - - 343 354 916 343 354 512 Stage - - - - - - 870 786 - 496 497 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 496 497 - 870 786 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 991 - - 1452 - - 342 353 916 342 353 512 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 342 353 - 342 353 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 870 786 - 496 496 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 495 496 - 869 786 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 8.9 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 916 991 - - 1452 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 0 - - 7.5 0 - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Proj PM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 - 0.003 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 88 0 0 48 0 0 147 Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 48 148 147 88 Stage 1 - - - - - - 48 48 - 99 99 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 46 0 5 84 0 0 0 2 0 0 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 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 48 0 5 88 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 - 0.003 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 88 0 0 48 0 0 147 147 48 148 147 88 Stage 1 - - - - - - 48 48 - 99 99 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 99 99 - 49 48 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1508 - - 1559 - - 821 744 1021 820 744 970 Stage 1 - - - - - - 965 855 - 907 813 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 907 813 - 964 855 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1508 - - 1559 - - 819 742 1021 816 742 970 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 819 742 - 816 742 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 965 855 - 907 811 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 904 811 - 962 855 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 8.5 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1021 1508 - - 1559 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.003 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 - - 7.3 0 - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - Existing + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 Existing + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing + Proj PM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR _ Lane Configurations Stage 1 51 - - - - - Stage 2 44 Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 42 43 10 Future Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 42 43 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 0 44 45 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 _ Conflicting Flow All 95 51 56 0 - 0 Stage 1 51 - - - - - Stage 2 44 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 905 1017 1549 - - - Stage 1 971 - - - - - Stage 2 978 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 905 1017 1549 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 905 - - - - - Stage 1 971 - - - - - Stage 2 978 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1549 - 905 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.012 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - 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 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 32 23 20 Future Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 32 23 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 0 35 25 22 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 _ Conflicting Flow All 71 36 47 0 - 0 Stage 1 36 - - - - - Stage 2 35 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 920 1037 1560 - - - Stage 1 980 - - - - - Stage 2 981 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 920 1037 1560 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 920 - - - - - Stage 1 980 - - - - - Stage 2 981 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1560 - 920 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.012 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - 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 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 17% 0% 76% Vol Thru, % 100% 83% Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 27 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 57 0 0 0 26 27 0 0 0 0 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 13 60 0 0 0 27 28 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Approach A EB A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.3 WB 0.3 NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.6 7.1 0 HCM LOS A A - Lane ` NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 17% 0% 76% Vol Thru, % 100% 83% 49% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 51% 24% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 0 69 53 68 LT Vol 0 12 0 52 Through Vol 0 57 26 0 RT Vol 0 0 27 16 Lane Flow Rate 0 73 56 72 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0 0.083 0.059 0.083 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.214 4.138 3.81 4.168 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 0 861 933 854 Service Time 2.284 2.184 1.863 2.22 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.085 0.06 0.084 HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.6 7.1 7.6 HCM Lane LOS N A A A 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 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 + Proj AM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 52 0 16 Future Vol, veh/h 0 52 0 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 55 0 17 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 7.6 HCM LOS 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 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 +T I 40% 0% 16% 0% 28% 88% r Vol Thru, % 60% 0% r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 19 101 1 0 8 1 20 0 2 3 34 0 51 7 8 Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 101 1 0 8 1 20 0 2 3 34 0 51 7 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 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 Mvmt Flow 0 20 106 1 0 8 1 21 0 2 3 36 0 54 7 8 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB Yes Yes WB Yes Yes NB Cap 690 835 SB 868 780 Opposing Approach WB Service Time 2.917 EB 2.627 1.846 SB 3.123 1.979 HCM Lane V/C Ratio NB 0.043 0.172 Opposing Lanes 1 0.092 0.01 2 8 7.2 2 6.9 7.8 8.7 2 HCM Lane LOS A Conflicting Approach Left SB A A NB A HCM 95th -tile Q EB 0.1 0.6 0 WB 0.3 0 Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 8.7 7.8 7.3 8.5 HCM LOS A A A A Lane ` NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 40% 0% 16% 0% 28% 88% 0% Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 84% 0% 3% 12% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 69% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 5 34 120 1 29 58 8 LT Vol 2 0 19 0 8 51 0 Through Vol 3 0 101 0 1 7 0 RT Vol 0 34 0 1 20 0 8 Lane Flow Rate 5 36 126 1 31 61 8 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.008 0.043 0.173 0.001 0.039 0.092 0.01 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.205 4.302 4.927 4.146 4.605 5.411 4.267 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 690 835 733 868 780 665 841 Service Time 2.917 2.014 2.627 1.846 2.62 3.123 1.979 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 0.043 0.172 0.001 0.04 0.092 0.01 HCM Control Delay 8 7.2 8.7 6.9 7.8 8.7 7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A 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 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj AM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 482 0 0 116 0 0 597 Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 115 597 598 482 Stage 1 - - - - - - 115 115 - 482 482 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 109 1 0 458 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 109 1 0 458 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 115 1 0 482 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 482 0 0 116 0 0 597 597 115 597 598 482 Stage 1 - - - - - - 115 115 - 482 482 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 482 482 - 115 116 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1081 - - 1473 - - 415 416 937 415 416 584 Stage - - - - - - 890 800 - 565 553 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 553 - 890 800 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1081 - - 1473 - - 415 416 937 415 416 584 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 415 416 - 415 416 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 890 800 - 565 553 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 553 - 890 800 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.7 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 415 1081 - - 1473 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.7 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj AM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 Int Delay, s/veh 0 176 618 617 441 Stage - - - - - - 176 176 - 441 441 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 167 0 0 419 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 176 0 0 441 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 176 0 0 617 617 176 618 617 441 Stage - - - - - - 176 176 - 441 441 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 441 441 - 177 176 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1119 - - 1400 - - 402 405 867 402 405 616 Stage - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 595 577 - 825 753 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1119 - - 1400 - - 402 405 867 401 405 616 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 402 405 - 401 405 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 826 753 - 595 577 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 595 577 - 823 753 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.2 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 867 1119 - - 1400 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj AM 108: East Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 Minor2 - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 89 0 0 131 0 0 223 Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 131 225 223 89 Stage 1 - - - - - - 131 131 - 92 92 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 124 0 1 85 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 124 0 1 85 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 131 0 1 89 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 Minor2 - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 89 0 0 131 0 0 223 223 131 225 223 89 Stage 1 - - - - - - 131 131 - 92 92 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 92 92 - 133 131 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1506 - - 1454 - - 733 676 919 730 676 969 Stage 1 - - - - - - 873 788 - 915 819 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 915 819 - 870 788 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1506 - - 1454 - - 732 675 919 725 675 969 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 732 675 - 725 675 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 873 788 - 915 818 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 914 818 - 865 788 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 8.9 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 919 1506 - - 1454 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 0 - - 7.5 0 - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 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 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Stage 1 22 - - - - - Stage 2 27 Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 0 0 26 19 4 Future Vol, veh/h 12 0 0 26 19 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 0 0 27 20 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 49 22 24 0 - 0 Stage 1 22 - - - - - Stage 2 27 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 960 1055 1591 - - - Stage 1 1001 - - - - - Stage 2 996 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 960 1055 1591 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 960 - - - - - Stage 1 1001 - - - - - Stage 2 996 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.8 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1591 - 960 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.013 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj AM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Stage 1 18 - - - - - Stage 2 6 Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 0 0 6 15 4 Future Vol, veh/h 20 0 0 6 15 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 21 0 0 6 16 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 24 18 20 0 - 0 Stage 1 18 - - - - - Stage 2 6 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 987 1061 1596 - - - Stage 1 1001 - - - - - Stage 2 1016 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 987 1061 1596 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 987 - - - - - Stage 1 1001 - - - - - Stage 2 1016 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1596 - 987 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.021 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 2035 + Proj AM 7:00 am 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 + Proj PM 103: Pacific St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 0% 39% Vol Thru, % 50% Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 24 0 0 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 51 1 0 0 66 24 0 0 2 2 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 36 54 1 0 0 69 25 0 0 2 2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Approach HCM Control Delay EB 7.8 7.5 7.4 WB A A A NB HCM 95th -tile Q Opposing Approach 0.4 WB 0.3 EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.5 7.1 HCM LOS A A A Lane ` NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 0% 39% Vol Thru, % 50% 59% 73% 0% Vol Right, % 50% 1% 27% 61% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 4 86 90 67 LT Vol 0 34 0 26 Through Vol 2 51 66 0 RT Vol 2 1 24 41 Lane Flow Rate 4 91 95 71 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.005 0.106 0.105 0.078 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.112 4.21 3.974 3.964 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 876 846 895 889 Service Time 2.112 2.26 2.028 2.054 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 0.108 0.106 0.08 HCM Control Delay 7.1 7.8 7.5 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.4 0.4 0.3 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 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 26 0 41 Future Vol, veh/h 0 26 0 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 27 0 43 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 7.4 HCM LOS A 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC 2035 + Proj PM 104: S. B St & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 +T I 5% 0% 45% 0% 24% 77% 0% r 95% 0% 55% r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 5 6 1 0 40 75 50 0 1 20 18 0 37 11 16 Future Vol, veh/h 0 5 6 1 0 40 75 50 0 1 20 18 0 37 11 16 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 Mvmt Flow 0 5 6 1 0 42 79 53 0 1 21 19 0 39 12 17 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Approach EB 706 823 WB 845 769 663 NB Service Time 2.803 2.076 SB 1.961 2.699 Opposing Approach WB HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 EB 0.017 0.001 0.226 SB 0.021 HCM Control Delay 8 NB 8 7 Opposing Lanes 1 7.1 HCM Lane LOS 2 A A A 2 A A HCM 95th -tile Q 2 0.1 0.1 Conflicting Approach Left SB 0.2 0.1 NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 7.9 9.1 7.6 8.2 HCM LOS A A A A Lane ` NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 5% 0% 45% 0% 24% 77% 0% Vol Thru, % 95% 0% 55% 0% 45% 23% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 30% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 21 18 11 1 165 48 16 LT Vol 1 0 5 0 40 37 0 Through Vol 20 0 6 0 75 11 0 RT Vol 0 18 0 1 50 0 16 Lane Flow Rate 22 19 12 1 174 51 17 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.031 0.023 0.017 0.001 0.227 0.076 0.02 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.09 4.363 5.18 4.25 4.699 5.423 4.333 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 706 823 694 845 769 663 829 Service Time 2.803 2.076 2.892 1.961 2.699 3.137 2.046 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 0.023 0.017 0.001 0.226 0.077 0.021 HCM Control Delay 8 7.2 8 7 9.1 8.6 7.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.9 0.2 0.1 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj PM 106: West Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 564 0 0 82 0 0 645 Int Delay, s/veh 0 81 645 646 564 Stage 1 - - - - - - 81 81 - 564 564 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 76 2 0 536 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 Minor2 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 564 0 0 82 0 0 645 645 81 645 646 564 Stage 1 - - - - - - 81 81 - 564 564 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 564 564 - 81 82 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1008 - - 1515 - - 385 391 979 385 390 525 Stage - - - - - - 927 828 - 510 508 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 510 508 - 927 827 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1008 - - 1515 - - 385 391 979 385 390 525 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 385 391 - 385 390 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 927 828 - 510 508 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 510 508 - 927 827 - Approach EB WB NB SB _ HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 14.4 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 385 1008 - - 1515 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 0 - - 0 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj PM 107: Ctr Dwy & E 6th St 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 Minor2 - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 720 Int Delay, s/veh 0 133 720 720 583 Stage - - - - - - 133 133 - 587 587 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 126 0 2 554 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 126 0 2 554 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 0 133 0 2 583 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 Minor2 - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 583 0 0 133 0 0 720 720 133 720 720 583 Stage - - - - - - 133 133 - 587 587 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 587 587 - 133 133 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 991 - - 1452 - - 343 354 916 343 354 512 Stage - - - - - - 870 786 - 496 497 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 496 497 - 870 786 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 991 - - 1452 - - 342 353 916 342 353 512 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 342 353 - 342 353 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 870 786 - 496 496 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 495 496 - 869 786 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 8.9 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 916 991 - - 1452 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.001 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 0 - - 7.5 0 - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - 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 5/10/2016 Intersection Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 - 0.003 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 88 0 0 48 0 0 147 Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 48 148 147 88 Stage 1 - - - - - - 48 48 - 99 99 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 46 0 5 84 0 0 0 2 0 0 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 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 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 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 48 0 5 88 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 - 0.003 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 88 0 0 48 0 0 147 147 48 148 147 88 Stage 1 - - - - - - 48 48 - 99 99 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 99 99 - 49 48 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 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 1508 - - 1559 - - 821 744 1021 820 744 970 Stage 1 - - - - - - 965 855 - 907 813 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 907 813 - 964 855 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1508 - - 1559 - - 819 742 1021 816 742 970 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 819 742 - 816 742 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 965 855 - 907 811 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 904 811 - 962 855 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 8.5 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1021 1508 - - 1559 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.003 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 - - 7.3 0 - 0 HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj PM 109: S. B St & N Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Stage 1 51 - - - - - Stage 2 44 Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 42 43 10 Future Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 42 43 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 0 44 45 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 95 51 56 0 - 0 Stage 1 51 - - - - - Stage 2 44 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 905 1017 1549 - - - Stage 1 971 - - - - - Stage 2 978 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 905 1017 1549 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 905 - - - - - Stage 1 971 - - - - - Stage 2 978 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1549 - 905 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.012 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 + Proj PM 110: S. B St & S Dwy 5/10/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 32 23 20 Future Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 32 23 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 0 34 24 21 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 69 35 45 0 - 0 Stage 1 35 - - - - - Stage 2 34 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 923 1038 1563 - - - Stage 1 981 - - - - - Stage 2 982 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 923 1038 1563 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 923 - - - - - Stage 1 981 - - - - - Stage 2 982 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.9 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1563 - 923 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.011 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - 2035 + Proj PM 5:00 pm 2/2/2016 2035 + Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Q F - Q r) J W r) O 75