Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 2021/05/24.pdf
City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, May 24 , 2021 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairperson: Kimberly Keys • Chairperson Pro-Tempore: Natalie Meeks • Commissioners: Lucille Kring, Rosa Mulleady, LuisAndres Perez Dave Vadodaria, Steve White • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment SPECIAL NOTICE DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID- 19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act-related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body. Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, please be advised that Planning Commission members may participate in this meeting remotely. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 and given the current health concerns, members of the public can access the meeting live on-line, with audio and limited video, at www.anaheim.net/planning. Public participation may occur in three ways: (1) members of the public can submit comments electronically for Planning Commission consideration by sending them to planningcommission@anaheim.net or directly to the project planner as indicated on each item below. To ensure distribution to the Planning Commission prior to consideration of the agenda, please submit comments prior to 1:30 p.m. the day of the meeting. Public comments submitted after 1:30 p.m. will be posted to the Planning Commission website the day after the meeting. Email addresses and phone numbers will be redacted; (2) members of the public can provide in-person comments during the Planning Commission meeting in the City Council Chambers. Social distancing measures will be in place, and masks are required. The participant will be asked to exit the building once the Chamber has reached health and safety capacity; and (3) members of the public can contact the Planning and Building Department at 714-765-5139, the project planner as indicated on each item below, or planningcommission@anaheim.net with any questions. A copy of the staff report may be obtained on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday before the meeting, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection by contacting the Planning and Building Department at 714-765- 5139 during regular business hours, or by contacting the project planner as indicated on each item below. 05-24-2021 Page 2 of 5 ACCESSIBILITY: If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, in order to observe and/or offer public comment may request such reasonable modification, accommodation, aid, or service by contacting the Planning and Building Department at 714-765-5139 or planningcommission@anaheim.net, no later than 8:00 a.m. on the day of the scheduled meeting. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. 05-24-2021 Page 3 of 5 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06098 AND DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2021-00156 (DEV2021-00045) Location: 212 South State College Boulevard Request: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit and a determination of public convenience or necessity to permit the sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption (Type 41 On-Sale Eating Place ABC License) for a restaurant (Wingstop). Environmental Determination The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. Project Planner: Thomas Gorham tgorham@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-006090 (DEV2020-00269) Location: 2000 Corporate Way Request: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to establish an adult daycare facility (OC Health) within an existing industrial building. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. Project Planner: Thomas Gorham tgorham@anaheim.net 05-24-2021 Page 4 of 5 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06087 (DEV2020-00211) Location: 1100 North Euclid Street Request: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to permit a hydrogen fueling dispenser and associated equipment at an existing automotive-service station. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Nick Taylor njtaylor@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Location: 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Request: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) a conditional use permit to construct a new 118 unit, 2-story state-licensed senior living facility and a coordinated sign program; (ii) a variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code; and (iii) a specimen tree removal permit to allow removal of two existing specimen trees. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332 (Class 32 Infill Development). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Joanne Hwang jhwang@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, June 7, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. 05-24-2021 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 9:00 a.m. May 20, 2021 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning and Building Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 8:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting. La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal. Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 8:00 de la mañana un día hábil antes de la reunión programada. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: May 24, 2021 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06098; PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2021-00156 LOCATION: 212 S. State College Boulevard (Wingstop) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Daniel Sonendhine with Far West Restaurant Group, LLC. The agent representing the applicant is Sheryl Brady with Permit Place, and the property owner is NMC Anaheim, LLC. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit and a determination of public convenience or necessity to permit the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption (Type 41 On-Sale Eating Place ABC License) for a restaurant (Wingstop). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities), and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06098 and Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2021-00156. BACKGROUND: This 27.3-acre property is developed with a 381,000 square foot retail center. The property is located in the “C-G” General Commercial zone, and the General Plan designates this property for Regional Commercial land uses. The property is surrounded by apartments to the south, retail uses to the west across State College Boulevard, retail uses and single-family residences to the north across Lincoln Avenue, and apartments to the east across Peregrine Street. The sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption requires approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Municipal Code. In this instance, however, a determination of public convenience or necessity is required for this application because this property is located within a reporting district with a crime rate above the City average. As such, both the subject conditional use permit and determination of public convenience or necessity are being presented to the Planning Commission for review and approval. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to open a 2,008 square foot Wingstop restaurant. This space is currently vacant and was previously occupied by a Togo’s restaurant. The restaurant would seat approximately 32 patrons and offer a lunch and dinner menu with hours of operation from 10:30 am to midnight daily. The business would operate with an On-Sale Beer and Wine-Eating Place (Type 41) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license, and would strictly serve beer and wine only. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06098; PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2021-00156 May 24, 2021 Page 2 of 4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this Zoning Code; 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The Code requires a conditional use permit to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages in a restaurant in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. The proposed restaurant would be located within a retail center in a commercial area and would operate with a business model that focuses on quick lunch and dinner meals. There would not be a designated bar area, and all alcoholic beverages would be consumed at the patrons’ table with their meals. Beer and wine would represent approximately two (2%) percent of the overall sales. Access to the site is by means of State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, and the traffic generated by the proposed use would not impose an undue burden on streets and highways in the area. The on-site sale of beer and wine associated with the proposed restaurant use is consistent with approvals for other restaurants in the retail center and general vicinity. Staff believes in this instance that the serving of beer and wine will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, the growth and development of the area, or the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding area. Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN): State law limits the issuance of new alcohol sales licenses when a license is requested in a police reporting district with a crime rate above the City average or when there is an overconcentration in the number of ABC licenses within a census tract. A determination of Public Convenience or Necessity is required for this application because this property is located within a reporting district with a crime rate above the City average. State law also states that such restrictions can be waived if the local jurisdiction makes a determination that the proposed business would serve "public convenience or necessity." CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06098; PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2021-00156 May 24, 2021 Page 3 of 4 The location is in Census Tract Number 863.04 which has a population of 4,847. This population allows for 5 on-sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses, and there are presently 2 licenses in the tract. It also allows for 2 off-sale licenses, and there are presently 6 licenses in the tract. This location is within Reporting District 1628 which is 116% above the city average in crime. There were 15 calls for service to this location in the last year, and they were for trespassing. As outlined in the applicant’s Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity (Attachment No. 2), various security measures would be provided to mitigate any adverse impacts on the surrounding area. Such measures would include: security cameras, staff with alcohol training, and installation of a panic button for staff when there is an imminent threat. Conditions of approval have been included in the attached draft resolution to ensure that the business is operated in a responsible manner. These conditions include a prohibition on any exterior advertising of alcoholic beverages and required ABC LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) training for employees. Staff conducted an inspection of the property and found it to be clean and well maintained. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement violations associated with this property. Staff does not anticipate that the addition of on-site alcoholic beverages sales at this location would contribute to an increase in crime and would not pose any additional safety or security risks. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). The Class 1 exemption consists of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of this determination. The proposed project is a request to a restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption, within a vacant tenant space, in an existing 381,000 square foot retail center. Pursuant to Section 15300.2 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project would be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: The sale of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) in conjunction with the proposed restaurant is consistent with approvals for other restaurants in the City and would be compatible with other uses in the retail center and the general vicinity. The recommended conditions of approval are intended to ensure compatibility, security and reduce any potential crime risks associated with the proposed use. . Based on the analysis contained herein and as outlined in the findings contained in the draft resolution, staff believes that the service of beer and wine associated with the proposed restaurant is a compatible use and would provide a public convenience as enjoyed by similar restaurants in the retail center and general vicinity. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and the public convenience or necessity request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06098; PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2021-00156 May 24, 2021 Page 4 of 4 ` Prepared by, Submitted by, Thomas Gorham Niki Wetzel, AICP Contract Planner Deputy Director of Planning and Building Attachments: 1. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2. Applicant Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity 3. Applicant Letter of Operation 4. Police Memorandum 5. Site Plan 6. Floor Plan C-G DEV 2021-00045 ANAHEIM TOWN SQUARE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4 LAS CASAS APARTMENT 37 DU C-G ANAHEIM TOWN SQUARE C-G ANAHEIM TOWN SQUARE C-G RETAIL C-G RESTAURANT C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G MEDICAL OFFICE C-G SERVICE STATION C-G AUTO REPAIR/ SERVICEC-G FOURPLEX C-G OFFICE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S - 2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RS-2 SFR C-G OFFICES C-G OFFICES C-G RETAIL C -G R E S T A U R A N T C-G TAMPICO MOTEL RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T NURSING HOME C-G EVERGREEN ROYALLE T SFR C-G RESTAURANT C-G OFFICES O-L OFFICES C-G RESTAURANT RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S - 2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E C -G S E R V I C E S T A T I O N R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE E LINCOLN AVE S S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D E B R O A D W A Y E C E N T E R S T S A S H S T E WARD TER E E L M S T S C E N P L A W A Y E FRONTAGE RD E. LA PALM A AVEN . E A S T S T E. SOUTH ST S . E A S T S T S . S U N K I S T S T E . L I N C O L N A V E S . R I O V I S T A S TE. B R O A D W A Y N . S U N K I S T S T N . R I O V I S T A S T E .B R O A D W A Y 212 Sout h State Colle ge B o u l e va r d DE V N o. 202 1 -0 0 0 4 5 Subject Property APN: 083-051-15 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 E LINCOLN AVE S S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D E B R O A D W A Y E C E N T E R S T S A S H S T E WARD TER E E L M S T S O L A N A W A Y S C E N P L A W A Y E FRONTAGE RD S A S H S T E. LA PALM A AVEN . E A S T S T E. SOUTH ST S . E A S T S T S . S U N K I S T S T E . L I N C O L N A V E S . R I O V I S T A S TE. B R O A D W A Y N . S U N K I S T S T N . R I O V I S T A S T 212 Sout h State Colle ge B o u l e va r d DE V N o. 202 1 -0 0 0 4 5 Subject Property APN: 083-051-15 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 - 1 - PC 2021-*** [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06098, AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2021-00156, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2021-00045) (212 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2021- 06098 and (ii) Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2021-00156 to permit the sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant within a portion of an existing commercial retail center (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for premises located at 212 South State College Boulevard in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the premises is located within a commercial retail center approximately 27.3 acres in size (the "Property"). The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Regional Commercial land uses. The Property is located in the "C-G" Commercial Zone and is, therefore, subject to the zoning and development standards set forth in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (“Code”); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act-related provisions of Executive Order N- 25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeing to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 24 , 2021 at 5:00 p.m. and notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06090 and to investigate and make findings and recommendation in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedures, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 2 - PC 2021-*** WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within those classes of projects which involve negligible or no expansion of an existing use [i.e., Section 15301 (Existing Facilities)]. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06098, does find and determine the following: 1. The proposed restaurant with the sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under 18.08.030. 2. The proposed conditional use permit to permit alcoholic beverages within a restaurant, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the restaurant would be located within a tenant space of an existing commercial retail center surrounded by compatible buildings and uses. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the restaurant with the sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the facility would be located within an commercial retail center building that is surrounded by other commercial use land uses. 4. The traffic generated by the restaurant with the sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed land use will continue to be integrated with the surrounding retail use area and would not pose a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2021-00156, does find and determine the following facts: 1. On July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the determination of "Public Convenience or Necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior - 3 - PC 2021-*** to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC"). 2. Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an "undue concentration" of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that "public convenience or necessity" would be served by the issuance of a license. For purposes of Section 23958.4, "undue concentration" means the case in which the Property is located in an area where any of the following conditions exist: (a) The Property is located in a crime reporting district that has a 20 percent greater number of reported crimes than the average number of “reported crimes” (as defined in Section 23958.4), as determined from all crime reporting districts within the City of Anaheim. (b) As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the Property is located exceeds the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. (c) As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the Property is located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county. 3. Notwithstanding the existence of the above-referenced conditions, ABC may issue a license if the Planning Commission determines that the "public convenience or necessity" would be served by the issuance. 4. Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to make recommendations related to "public convenience or necessity" determinations; and, when the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption is permitted by the Code, said recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area. 5. The Property is located within Census Tract Number 863.04 which has a population of 4,847. This population allows for 5 on-sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses and there are presently 2 licenses in the tract. It also allows for 2 off-sale licenses and there are presently 6 licenses in the tract. This location is within Reporting District 1628 which is 116% above the city average in crime. Since the crime rate is above the citywide average, a determination of "public convenience or necessity" is required. 6. The request to permit alcoholic beverage sales for on-premises consumption in conjunction with a restaurant would not adversely affect the surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located - 4 - PC 2021-*** because the sale of alcoholic beverages would be compatible with the surrounding area. The subject site is a predominantly commercial area consisting of other restaurant and retail uses. The addition of the sales of alcoholic beverages at this location would not contribute to an increase in crime, would not pose any additional safety or security risks, and would provide a public convenience. 7. The determination of "Public Convenience or Necessity" can be made based on the finding that the license requested is consistent with the Planning Commission guidelines for such determinations and further that the granting of the determination of Public Convenience or Necessity, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that negate the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. No. 2021-05805 and Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2021-00156, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of that portion of the Property for which Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05805 and Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2021-00156 is applicable in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to - 5 - PC 2021-*** compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2021. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Simonne Fannin, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on May 24, 2021 by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of May, 2021. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 6 - PC 2021-*** EXHIBIT “A” DEV NO. 2021-00045 - 6 - PC 2021-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06098; AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2021-00156 (DEV2021-00045) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the business premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the business owner shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied or discovered by the business owner. Planning & Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 2. The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation, as described in that document, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division 3. There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. Police Department 4. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. Police Department 5. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code. Police Department 6. At all times when the premise is open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such a restaurant. Police Department 7. Parking lots, driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings, shall be provided with enough lighting to illuminate and make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles onsite. Police Department 8. There shall be no entertainment or amplified music on the premise at any time. Police Department 9. The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. Police Department 10. The managers/owners shall contact the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol Police Department - 7 - PC 2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT and Drugs Program) or a similar certificate training program for themselves and service employees. 11. There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police Department 12. The number of persons shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupancy load shall be posted in a conspicuous place. Police Department 13. The door(s) shall be kept closed at all times during the operation of the business except in cases of emergency. Said door(s) shall not consist of a screen or ventilated security door. Police Department 14. The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the business premises over which they have control, as depicted on the plans submitted to and approved by the City. Police Department 15. The petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons about the premises. Police Department 16. There shall be a sign posted on the inside of the main doors facing the restaurant that reads, "No alcohol beyond this point." Police Department 17. Restaurant must have meal service with the service of beer or wine. Customers may not just order alcohol. Police Department 18. The door(s) shall be kept closed at all times during the operation of the business premises except in cases of emergency. Said door(s) shall not consist of a screen or ventilated security door. Police Department GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 19. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division - 8 - PC 2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 20. The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division 21. The business premises shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner, which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division April 14, 2021 City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department Attn: Thomas Gorham, Contract Planner Re: Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity Wingstop – 212 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 DEV2021-00045/CUP2021-06098 Mr. Gorham: Daniel Sonenshine, President of Far West Restaurant Group, LLC, is requesting a Type 41-On Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place license for their newest “Wingstop” location at 212 South State College Boulevard within the Anaheim Town Square. Far West Restaurant Group, LLC has many licensed Wingstop locations throughout the California area including two (2) current location in Anaheim (1217 South Euclid Street and 5631 East LaPalma Avenue #8). Wingstop is a fast-casual restaurant serving made to order “Chicken Wings.” The proposed Anaheim location space is 2,008 square feet in size and will seat approximately 32 patrons. Operational hours will be 10:30am – midnight daily. We are not a 24-hour operation. These hours have been established to not interfere with the lifestyle of the neighboring residential. We care about the local area which our restaurant serves. Wingstop is a bona fide fast casual family restaurant serving distinctive flavors of chicken wings. The chicken wings are offered in a variety of sauces and tossed to order. This ensures that our guests get hot and crunchy chicken wings These distinctive sauces include mango habanero, spicy Korean Q, Hawaiian, garlic parmesan, lemon pepper, hickory smoked BBQ, mild, Louisiana rub, original hot, Cajun, and atomic. The sole purpose of our restaurant is the serving of deliciously favored chicken wings made fresh to order for our guests. Similar comparable restaurants within the general vicinity include, but not limited to, Soup Shop, El Ranchito Autentica Comida Mexicana, and Angelo’s Hamburger. These additional food service establishments differ fundamentally from style of service and type of cuisine. Soup Shop serves authentic Vietnamese soup and noodles. El Ranchito Autentica Comida Mexicana serves authentic traditional Mexican food. Angelo’s Hamburger serves a variety of burgers that are considered the best in the Orange County area. Our concept is very simple in terms of the menu. We concentrate on what makes us unique and good as oppose to comparable restaurants in the area. We see no need to diversify into other menu categories, staying sharply focused on our core product being “chicken wings.” Everything is fresh. We even hand cut our fries. Although we feature a limited menu and a design that promotes speed and efficiency, our culinary staff will not cook any chicken wing until a customer places an order and each order requires 14 minutes. Unlike our competitors, we provide a larger, wider, more inviting store that caters to our guests who choose to dine-in. Ownership does not provide an on-premises bar area designated primarily for the service of alcoholic type beverages on the premise. Many of the guests, visiting Wingstop, find the beer and wine to be a perfect complement to an order of hot wings, especially in a concept that operates daily until midnight. ATTACHMENT 2 The beer and wine will represent approximately two (2%) percent of the overall sales, which is not much a factor in the sales mix. This minor addition of beer and wine will not pose any additional safety or security risks. Ownership is committed to keeping Wingstop clean inside and outside and not add anything that will disturb the community such as live music or improper lighting, and etc. The employees will be responsible for keeping the premises free of trash. All lighting, existing and proposed, has been positioned to not shine on adjacent residential areas. Various security measures will be imposed which seek to mitigate any adverse impacts on the surrounding vicinity area. Such measures include, security cameras, staff with alcohol training, installation of a panic button for staff when there is an imminent threat, and etc. Ownership is aware that neighboring residential and commercial businesses could potentially be impacted. However, the diversity and proximity amongst the various uses is not uncommon. If patron to patron disturbances arise, the trained local police will be contacted to handle the matter without disturbance to our neighbors. However, we promise to make sure Wingstop is a compatible neighbor in the area. Far West Restaurant Group, LLC is committed to the community. February 24, 2021 City of Anaheim Planning Department Re: Letter of Operation Far West Restaurant Group, LLC / Wingstop – 212 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 My name is Daniel Sonenshine and I am President of Far West Restaurant Group, LLC. We are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the sale and on-site consumption of beer and wine for our newest “Wingstop” location in the Anaheim area at 212 South State College Boulevard within the Anaheim Town Square. We have many licensed Wingstop locations throughout Southern California area. Wingstop is a fast casual restaurant serving made to order “Chicken Wings.” Our proposed Anaheim location will employ approximately ten (10) employees at any given time. The Anaheim location is within an existing retail center. The space was previously occupied by Baskin Robbins. The space is 2,008 square feet in size and will seat approximately 48 guests. The restaurant will be open between the hours of 10:30am –midnight daily. Wingstop is a bona fide family restaurant serving distinctive flavors of chicken wings. The chicken wings are offered in a variety of sauces and tossed to order. This ensures that our guests get hot and crunchy chicken wings These distinctive sauces include mango habanero, spicy Korean Q, Hawaiian, garlic parmesan, lemon pepper, hickory smoked BBQ, mild, Louisiana rub, original hot, Cajun, and atomic. These distinctive sauces include teriyaki, Hawaiian, garlic parmesan, lemon pepper, hickory smoked BBQ, mild, Louisiana rub, original hot, Cajun, and atomic. The menu is limited to the bone-in wings, boneless wings, tenders, side dishes, and beverages. Such side dishes include fresh cut seasoned fries, fried corn, loaded fries, and fresh baked yeast rolls. Guests can also choose from among a la carte dips and sauces (buttermilk ranch, blue cheese, honey mustard, and hot ages cheddar cheese sauce) to enjoy with their wings and/or fries. The sole purpose of our restaurant is the serving of deliciously favored chicken wings made fresh to order for our guests. There is no other restaurant in the immediate area that provides such a unique experience and a similar concept to Wingstop. Wingstop is all about its flavor. Our restaurant offers a variety of distinctive flavors for our chicken wings ranging from our original mild taste to the spiciest/high level of chili in the Atomic flavor which is unique and a necessity for the immediate area. Whether it is through one of our signature sauced and tossed flavors, awesome dips, or our range of delicious sides, flavor comes through everything we do. We keep it real with everything always made fresh to order and served piping hot for an experience unparalleled anywhere else. Flavor is who we are and flavor is what we bring to each and everyone’s table. We do not provide an on premise bar area designated primarily for the service of alcoholic type beverages on the premise. Many of the guests, visiting our Wingstop, find the beer and wine to be a perfect complement to an order of hot wings, especially in a concept that operates daily until midnight. The beer and wine will represent approximately two (2%) percent of the overall sales, which is not much a factor in the sales mix. This minor addition of beer and wine will not pose any additional safety or security risks. We are committed to keeping Wingstop clean inside and outside and not add anything that will disturb the community such as live music or improper lighting, and etc. If patron to patron disturbances arise, the trained local police will be contacted to handle the matter without disturbance to our adjacent neighbors. We are committed to the Anaheim community. ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 L I N C O L N A V E . S. STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN PARKING ON L Y MINIMUM FINE $ 2 5 0 VANACCESSIB L E INT. SYM. O F A C C E S S I B I L I T Y S I T E P L A N A R M E T D A V I S N E W L O V E & A S S O C I A T E S , A I A A R C H I T E C T S 1 3 3 0 O L Y M P I C B L V D . S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 4 0 4 P H 3 1 0 4 5 2 - 5 5 3 3 F A X 3 1 0 4 5 0 - 4 7 4 2 S P 1 . 0 A T T A C H M E N T 5 E Q U I P M E N T P L A N L E G E N D W A L K - I N C O O L E R / F R E E Z E R S P E C I F I C A T I O N S · · · E Q U I P M E N T P L A N N O T E S E Q U I P M E N T P L A N 431. FLAT PANEL TV DISPLAY WALL MOUNTING BRACKET & MONITOR BRAND SELECTION TO BE DETERMINED BY OWNER.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ITEM #58 WITH OWNER FOR INSTALLATION.2. THE OWNER SHALL PROVIDE WALL MOUNTED DECOR ITEMS. THESE ITEMS ARE TO BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THECONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND SCHEDULE THE DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION OF ALL DECOR ITEMS WITH THE OWNER.REFER TO A3.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH ALL LOCAL AGENCIES QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF ALL FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.4. ALL KITCHEN EQUIPMENT SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION (NSF).5. THE EXHAUST HOOD, EXHAUST FAN, EXHAUST DUCT, EXHAUST DUCT FIRE WRAP AND MAKE-UP AIR FAN SHALL BE SUPPLIED BYTHE OWNER AND INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE MAKE-UP AIR DUCT SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY THECONTRACTOR.6. THE EXHAUST HOOD FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY THE OWNER. THE CONTRACTORSHALL SUPPLY AND INSTALL THE EMERGENCY GAS SHUT-OFF VALVE FOR THE EXHAUST HOOD FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM.115 VOLTS, 9.2 AMPS / WITH CASTO R S / N O T E 0 9 KM-515MAHEQUIPMENT LEGEND NOTES:115 VOLTS, 8.6 AMPS / WITH INTEGRAL SH E L V I N G # 3 8 / N O T E 0 9 115 VOLTS, 5.8 AMPS / WITH CASTO R S / N O T E 0 9 NOTE 09 / WSPROTO-1 -REFER TO EQUIPMENT PLAN FOR SI Z E S WITH (1) 18" DRAIN BOARDS, (2) 8" SIDE SP L A S H E S W I T H O P T I O N A L L I D C O V E R S . 5 TIERS HIGH, REFER TO EQUIPMEN T P L A N F O R S I Z E S REFER TO EQUIPMENT PLAN FOR SI Z E S & M O U N T I N G H E I G H T S REFER TO EQ1 FOR SIZE -ITEM NOT INDICATED ON EQUIPMEN T P L A N ----- -2 ROWS INTEGRAL W/ #03 & 10 REF E R T O E Q . 2 F O R H E I G H T 105,000 BTU, 75 LBS (OIL CAPACITY) / W I T H 6 " C A S T O R S REFER TO PLUMBING PLANS FOR S P E C I F I C A T I O N S -MOUNTED ON BASE AS REQUIRED / COOR D I N A T E T Y P E W I T H O W N E R CLASS: K (AT HOOD), CLASS: 2A10B C ( S T A N D A R D ) -NOTES 05, 06, 07 - VERIFY TYPE, SIZ E & S E R I E S A G A I N S T H O O D D R A W I N G S 2 ROWS OF 18" x 48" (TOP), 2 ROWS O F 1 8 " x 3 6 " ( B O T T O M ) - REFER TO EQUIPMENT PLAN FOR S I Z E S A N D N U M B E R O F T I E R S WITH 6" HIGH LEGS SUPPLIED BY COCA COLA PRODUC T S 120 VOLTS, 6.2 AMPS / ITEM IS AN INTEGR A L P A R T O F T H E F R Y E R S PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY OWN E R WALL MOUNTED MANAGER STATIO N NOTE 11 ------110 VOLTS, 15 AMPS / S.B. MODEL: B - 3 0 0 / W I T H 6 " H I G H L E G S WITH (2) 8" HIGH SIDE SPLASHES 24" TALL WITH UNDERSHELF / WITH INTEGRA L S H E L V I N G # 3 8 WITH BUILT-IN ANTI SIPHON DEVICEWITH SHOVEL LEVER ----WITH DRAWER / WITH INTEGRAL SH E L V I N G # 3 8 / W I T H C A S T O R S -01 ITEM0203040506070809101112B13141516171819202123242526A272829303132343536373839404142SAFE & STAND 4445464748495152535455565759A60A61626364676869707172737475767778798182838586878990919296949593 NSFXCONT.SUPPLIERXOWNER-CONT.INSTALLATIONXOWNER-MODELDESCRIPTIONBY CONTRACTOR COORD./SUPERVISED-GLASS DOOR MERCHANDISERSANDWICH/SALAD UNIT1-DR. REACH-IN REFRIGERATOR48" WOODEN BENCHS.S. 3-COMPARTMENT SINK, 96"L.MOP SERVICE BASINS.S. WORK TABLE 30"D. x 36"L.S.S. WORK TABLE 30"D. x 96"L.S.S. WORK TABLE 30"D. x 18"LPOTATO SLICERICE MACH. W/ STORAGE BINTANKLESS WATERHEATERSOLSTICE SUPREME GAS FRYERCOOKING & HOLDING TIMERSOLSTICE SUPREME FILTER24" x 30" TABLE & BASE30" x 42" TABLE & BASEWOOD CHAIRSLIM-JIM TRASH RECEPTACLESANITARY NAPKIN RECEPTACLETRASH RECEPTACLECARBONATORBIB FLEX RACK SYSTEMCO2 SYSTEMSOLID SHELVESDRY STORAGE SHELVINGDUNNAGE RACK (PRODUCE STAND)SCULLERY SHELVING (2 ROWS)12'-0" TYPE 1 EXHAUST HOODS.S. WORK TABLE 48" (FRY TABLE)BROOM & MOP RACKFIRE EXTINGUISHERPOINT-OF-SALE SYSTEMSMARTRACK 9U WALL-MOUNT RACKPOINT-OF-SALE EQUIPMENT SATELLITE RECEIVER1/2 PAN X 4"EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNAGE 'WINGSTOP'HAND SOAP DISPENSERNOT USEDNOT USED 36" x 1 1/2" GRAB BAR42" x 1 1/2" GRAB BARTOILET PAPER DISPENSERWIRE WALL SHELVINGCOOLER DUNNAGE RACKCOOLER SHELVINGWALK-IN COOLERKNIFE HOLDERTICKET RAILHIGH CHAIRS.S. 2-COMPARTMENT SINK, 60"L.DRY STORAGE WIRE SHELVINGCOMMERCIAL MOP BUCKETCONDIMENT DISPENSERS.S. STAND LV38-1-BHR1SPE48-08CUSTOMCUSTOMMSB-2424CUSTOMCUSTOMPBHS-W-KVMB-SSP-X300 SERIES1991-DVSSH75U160DKB7503SFSH75CUSTOMCUSTOM6305P8323G41102MODEL VARIESN/A44239CARBO-MIZER 450CUSTOMEG01.00DR362012EG01.00ND SERIES40731REFER NOTE 03RZ-X750SRW9U-P060413-03MODEL VARIES#5124CUSTOMS4025--B-6106B-61068735020DR362012EG01.00CUSTOM2918PCHH-104CUSTOMEG01.007580-88CUSTOM METRO N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AXN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A N/A N/A --N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A XN/A XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX--X -XX XXX-X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X-X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -- -- -- X- XX -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -X -- XX -X -X -- X- X- X-- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X---- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- -- -- X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X - X- X- X- X- X- X- X- X --XX--XXXXXXX-X ----TEA DISPENSER -----------------------XX----XX-------------EQUIP. LEGEND & AREA OF RESPONSIBI L I T Y RE M A R K S -X --S.S. WORK TABLE 30"W. x 26"D X 30" H CUSTOM X X - - X-WITH UNDERSHELFVERTICAL GRAB BARB-6106 N/A -X -26BACCESSIBLE 30" x 42" TABLE & BASECUSTOM N/A X - - X-120 VOLTS, 60HZ, 25-125 PSIBIB-X XX WITH (2) 18" DRAIN BOARDS, (2) 8" SIDE SP L A S H E S . X VERIFY W/ LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FOR DR A I N B O A R D & B O W L S I Z E . VERIFY W/ LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FOR DR A I N B O A R D & B O W L S I Z E . -59B HAND SANITIZER DISPENSERS4025 N/A X - - X-REF. TO HOOD DRAWINGS FIRE SUPPRES S I O N P E R M I T T E D / I N S T A L L E D B Y C A P T I V E A I R E CUSTOMHOOD FIRE ANSUL SUPPRESSION SYSTEMX115 VOLTS, 20 AMPS / GROUNDED D U P L E X O U T L E T FREESTYLE DISPENSERXCOCA COLA X XCUSTOM- X -XCUSTOM X X - - X--CUSTOM84PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY THE S I G N V E N D O R . 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND SCHEDULE THE DELIVERY OF A L L K I T C H E N E Q U I P M E N T W I T H T H E E Q U I P M E N T VENDOR.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL FINAL ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS REQ U I R E D F O R T H E O W N E R P R O V I D E D S I G N A G E . 9. ALL SPECIFIED REFRIGERATION UNITS SHALL BE SELF-CONTAINED AND SEL F E V A P O R A T I N G . 10. NO GREASE LADEN FOODS SHALL BE PREPARED IN THE CONVECTION OVE N ( I T E M # 8 7 ) , I T I S U S E D F O R B A K I N G R O L L S O N L Y . 11. CONTACT SMARTRACK 9U WALL-MOUNT RACK SUPPLIER FOR ADDITIONAL I N F O R M A T I O N : C H R I S I A N N U Z Z I O F I T S A V V Y ( 6 3 0 ) 396-6315 X-NOT USED-- - - - --1" DIA. X 10" LONG PRETHREADED GA L V . M E T A L P I P E , W / 1 " C A P A N D 1 " F L A N G E PAPER TOWEL HOLDERCUSTOM X X -X--14AICE MACH. FILTERX X - - XXCUSTOMSUPPLIED BY EQUIPMENT VENDOR34APROVIDED BY COCA COLAFREESTYLE DISPENSER FILTERCOCA COLA X XX-BEVERAGE / CONDIMENTS COUNTER CUSTOM N/A X - - X-PROVIDED OWNER AND INSTALLED B Y C O N T R A C T O R POS COUNTERCUSTOM N/APOS SHROUD - ---PROVIDED OWNER AND INSTALLED B Y C O N T R A C T O R -X X - - X-STAINLESS STEEL FLEX HOSE --80ANOT USED- 24" OFFICE BAR STOOL4202P N/A X - - X-CUSTOM X X - - X--WALL MOUNTED MIXING FAUCETCONVECTION OVENX X - - X-REACH-IN FREEZERHFI X X - - X-PROVIDED BY CHEESE DISPENSER COMP A N Y 97 NACHO CHEESE DISPENSER N/A X - X --GEHLS STOREFRONT VINYL GRAPHICSCUSTOM N/A X - X -X-PROVIDED OWNER AND INSTALLED B Y C O N T R A C T O R LOW WALL CAPCUSTOM N/A - - - ---PROVIDED OWNER AND INSTALLED B Y C O N T R A C T O R CUSTOM-N/A- ---9899STAINLESS STEEL CORNER GUARDN/AX-X--STAINLESS STEEL END CAPN/A- X-- X --X -18x36, 4 TIER WITH SOLID SHELVES A N D 6 " C A S T E R S TO-GO RACKCUSTOM- ---PASS-THRU COUNTERCUSTOM - X - - X--SWING GATECUSTOM - X - - X-COORDINATE WITH EQUIPMENT MA N U F A C T U R E R X --NOT USED- MANAGER'S DESKCUSTOM X XX -NOT USED-- - - - ---NOT USED-- - - - --NOT USED-- -PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER--N/A-NOT USED --- - - - ---NOT USED-- - - - ---NOT USED-- - - - ---NOT USED-- - - - --80B -NOT USED-- - - - ---60BT1290WSX--X -NOT USED-- - -------OVEN STAND WITH WHEELSSK2731U208V, 14 AMPS / NEMA 6-15P CORDS E T F I T T E D / N O T E 1 0 E31D4FF1836G 4 TIERS HIGH, FG063G POS T S 100 FREEZER SHELVINGEG01.00 X X - - X-X XX 28A-NOT USED-- - - - --WITH (2) 8" HIGH SIDE SPLASHES12 HAND SINK W/ SIDE SPLASH (R & L)7-PS-66 X X - - X--NOT USED-- --FLY FAN / AIR CURTAIN 88---- - - --12" W X 12" H X 18" D / 6-TIERS / WIT H 6 " A . F . F . EMPLOYEE LOCKERSKMXEL6 N/A X - - X-H.S. W/ SIDE SPLASH (R & L)WITH DOOR ACTIVATED MICROSWIT C H STD236-1UA-OB N/A X - - X-REFER TO A2.0 FOR MORE INFORM A T I O N REFER TO A2.0 FOR MORE INFORM A T I O N 223350586566SHORTENING SHUTTLESTEREO (AMP.) RECEIVERT.V., WALL BRACKET & STANDGREASE INTERCEPTOR SS-611-TAA35GMODEL VARIESMODEL VARIES N/AN/A N/A X X -- X- X-- X - X- X- X X -X-ITEM # NOT INDICATED ON EQUIPM E N T P L A N . R E F . T O P L U M B . F O R S P E C S . ITEM NUMBER NOT INDICATED ON E Q U I P M E N T P L A N STEAM TABLE PAN RACK & COVER1509/PRC 12 X X - X -XXX-SEAT COVER DISPENSERFMP 141-1090 - X - - -X - 5 8 5 1 2 7 2 7 2 5 2 7 2 7 2 5 2 7 2 7 2 5 2 7 2 7 2 5 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 B A C C E S S I B L E 6 2 6 4 9 1 3 0 6 3 6 2 6 4 9 1 3 0 6 3 71 100 1836-4 7 6 1860-1 6 8 3 3 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 A 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 A 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 A 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 A 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 A 5 9 A 3 1 5 9 A 3 1 2 7 2 7 2 5 2 7 2 7 2 5 3 3 8 8 5 4 1 1 4 5 2 1 1 8 8 4 3 8 7 5 1 0 3 8 5 3 8 6 8 7 9 9 2 0 4 2 6 7 4 2 1 1 8 2 1 1 8 2 1 1 8 2 1 1 8 4 3 8 5 9 7 1 1 2 5 9 A 6 0 B 1860-1 6 8 4 7 5 0 4 8 1860-1 6 8 5 1 2 B 5 9 A 6 0 B 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 A 2 0 6 0 - 1 4 0 7 8 1 3 7 7 4 1 7 4 1 5 9 B 5 6 4 1 6 7 1 2 5 9 A 6 0 B 1 5 7 8 4 4 8 3 7 3 5 3 6 1 4 1 4 A 3 9 1 8 4 8 - 5 3 9 1 8 4 8 - 5 3 9 1 8 4 8 - 5 2 5 2 3 2 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 A 3 9 1 8 4 8 - 5 1860-1 6 8 1860-1 6 8 3 9 1 8 4 8 - 5 1860-1 6 8 3 9 1 8 4 8 - 5 7 0 1 8 3 6 - 5 7 0 1 8 4 8 - 5 2 0 3 6 - 1 6 9 2 0 4 8 - 1 6 9 2 0 3 6 - 1 6 9 2 0 3 6 - 1 6 9 7 8 9 7 3 2 8 8 1 8 2 3 4 3 4 A 8 8 7 9 9 9 1 6 5 4 4 9 2 9 4 6 5 5 2 9 4 6 5 5 2 9 4 6 5 5 9 0 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 6 B A C C E S S I B L E 6 6 6 6 5 8 5 1 5 7 S A L E S 1 0 4 C O O K I N G 1 0 5 O R D E R 1 0 1 S E A T I N G 1 0 2 J A N I T O R 1 0 7 P R E P 1 0 6 C O O L E R 1 0 8 F R E E Z E R 1 0 9 H A L L W A Y 1 0 3 U N I S E X 1 1 1 U N I S E X 1 1 0 E Q 1 . 0 A R M E T D A V I S N E W L O V E & A S S O C I A T E S , A I A A R C H I T E C T S 1 3 3 0 O L Y M P I C B L V D . S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 4 0 4 P H 3 1 0 4 5 2 - 5 5 3 3 F A X 3 1 0 4 5 0 - 4 7 4 2 A T T A C H M E N T 6 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: May 24, 2021 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06090 LOCATION: 2000 Corporate Way (OC Health Adult Daycare) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is OC Health, Inc. represented by Philip Schwartze as the agent. The property owner is 1110 Anaheim, LLC. REQUEST: The applicant proposes a conditional use permit to establish an adult daycare facility within an existing industrial office building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06090. BACKGROUND: The subject 1.85-acre property is developed with an approximately 31,648 square foot, one story, industrial office building. The building includes three tenant spaces consisting of a 9,565 square foot vacant space formerly occupied by an engineering and electronics company, an approximate 10,000 square foot tenant space occupied by a packaging services company, and an approximately 11,500 square foot tenant space occupied by a machine tools business and showroom. The property is zoned “I” Industrial and is designated for Industrial land uses in the General Plan. The project site is located within the Crescent Corporate Center and is bordered by light industrial and office use to the north, south, and east, and multi- family residential uses to the west. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval to permit an adult day care center located in the 9,565 square foot vacant suite in the existing industrial office building. The interior layout of the proposed adult daycare facility would consist of office space, a nursing station, classrooms, an activity room, and restrooms. The facility would operate between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with a maximum of 150 adult participants. The facility would have a total of fifteen employees, all of which would work one shift, and would consist of management staff (program director and administrator), nursing staff (registered nurse, license vocation nurse, and nurse aid), social worker, physical therapist, occupational therapist, activity coordinator, program aide, and per diem staff (dietitian, clinical social worker, and speech therapist). Services provided for the participants would consist of counseling, education, evening care (at participant’s residence), exercise, health screening, meals, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06090 May 24, 2021 Page 2 of 5 medical care, physical therapy, recreation, respite care, and medication management. The proposed facility would be fully licensed by the California Department of Public Health and the California Department of Aging. The center would serve senior and disabled adults in the City of Anaheim and surrounding area and would provide physical, emotional and cognitive health care and supportive services to enhance the wellbeing of participants. The goals of the program are to delay and prevent institutionalization of participants by offering intensive health, therapeutic, and social services for participants with serious medical conditions and those at risk of requiring nursing home care. The applicant does not propose any interior improvements to the office suite other than the addition of two new bathrooms and a laundry room. The primary exterior improvement consists of a new drop-off and pick-up area in front of the building and adding an approximate 400 square foot seating area in the southeastern portion of the building enclosed with a new six-foot high metal fence. The seating area would be used by the participants and staff for breaks and to get fresh air. FLOOR PLAN All participants would be transported to and from their homes via passenger vans operated by the program or through a separate shuttle program from OCTA Access. One 14-passenger and three mini vans would be utilized for participant’s transportation and would be parked on-site. Approximately nine OCTA Access buses would drop off participants in the morning and pick up participants in the afternoon. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06090 May 24, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Each bus will have up to eight passengers. The morning drop-off would occur between 7:30 AM and 9:30 PM and the afternoon pick-up would occur between 12:30 PM and 2:00 PM. The primary vehicular access points would be provided by existing entrance/exit driveways on Corporate Way. The subject building has 127 on-site parking spaces. Of these spaces, 42 would be reserved for the proposed adult daycare facility (including 36 spaces for employees and six spaces for the drop-off and pick-up area). SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06090 May 24, 2021 Page 4 of 5 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a Conditional Use Permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code; 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The Anaheim Municipal Code (“AMC”) permits an adult day care center in the “I” Industrial Zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. An analysis of the traffic and circulation, parking, and compatibility is described in more detail below. Traffic/Circulation: The proposed use was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Section. It was determined that the facility would not have a significant impact on traffic, contingent upon the property operating consistent with the project operation plans as described in OC Health, Inc. letter to the City dated December 11, 2020 (Attachment No. 4). No further traffic impact analysis is required per the current City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Deliveries such as meals and supplies would be accommodated by the existing loading area at the rear of the building. In addition, fire truck and emergency service access was deemed adequate by the Fire Department. Based on the above, the traffic generated by the proposed use would not impose an undue burden on streets and highways in the area. Parking: The subject building has 127 on-site parking spaces for the three tenant spaces. The proposed use and the packing company (Brown Packaging) are allocated 42 spaces each; and the third tenant, Method Machine Tool, Inc. is allocated 43 spaces. The applicant would have 36 parking spaces available to its employees, inclusive of four spaces for its passenger vans, and six spaces would be used for the drop-off and pick-up area. The AMC parking requirements for day care centers is one space per employee, plus one space per 10 children or adult clients, plus one space for loading and unloading children or adult clients CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06090 May 24, 2021 Page 5 of 5 onsite. The proposed adult day care facility would have 15 employees and a maximum of 150 adult clients. Therefore, 31 parking spaces are required for the proposed use as outlined below: Proposed Use Required Parking Proposed Parking 15 employees @ 1 per employee = 15 15 150 clients @ 1 per 10 clients = 15 21 Loading/Unloading = 1 6 Total Required = 31 Total Provided = 42 spaces Existing Tenants Required Parking Parking Provided Method Machine Tool, Inc. 11,000 s.f. @ 1.55 spaces per 1,000 s.f. =17 43 spaces Brown Packaging 10,000 s.f. @ 1.55 spaces per 1,000 s.f. =16 42 spaces Total Parking Required = 64 Total Parking Provided = 127 spaces Based on the above analysis the proposed adult day care facility would meet the AMC parking requirements. Compatibility: The proposed adult day care center would not adversely impact adjoining residential and industrial land uses because all day care services and operations would be provided inside the building, with the exception of the enclosed outdoor seating area, and adequate parking, on-site circulation, and access would be provided. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). The Class 1 exemption consists of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of this determination. The proposed project is a request for approval of an adult day care facility within an existing industrial office building. Pursuant to Section 15300.2 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project would be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: The request to establish an adult day care center within an existing industrial office building would be compatible with the surrounding residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Based on the type of full service adult day care proposed, the project would meet the AMC required number of parking spaces. The traffic generated by the proposed use would not impose an undue burden on streets and highways in the area, and adequate on-site circulation and access would be provided. Based on the analysis included in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for the proposed adult day care facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06090 May 24, 2021 Page 6 of 5 Prepared by, Submitted by, Thomas Gorham Niki Wetzel, AICP Contract Planner Deputy Director of Planning and Building Attachments: 1.Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2.Project Plans 3.Letter of Operation 4.December 11, 2020 Applicant Response Letter I DEV 2020-00269 INDUSTRIAL FOURPLEX RM-4 CHATEAU DE VILLE APARTMENTS 254 DU I INDUSTRIAL I RELIGIOUS USE I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL RM-2 STANFORD COURT 130 DU I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E N M U L L E R S T W ALAMEDA AVE N C A R O L D R N D A H L I A D R N A L A D D I N D R N B E R N I E C E D R W CORPORATE WAY W H ASTI NGS WAY W LA FAYET TE D R N C L E M S O N D R N D A R T M O U T H W A Y W H A R T F O R D P L N D A R T M O U T H W A Y W. BROADWAY W. LA PALMA AVE W. LINCOLN AVE W. N . E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T S . E U C L I D S T W. CRESCENT AVE W. LINCOLN AVE W. CRESCENT AVE 2000 Wes t Corporate Wa y DE V N o. 202 0 -0 0 2 6 9 Subject Property APN: 072-071-22 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 N M U L L E R S T W ALAMEDA AVE N C A R O L D R N D A H L I A D R N A L A D D I N D R N B E R N I E C E D R W CORPORATE WAY W H ASTI NGS WAY W LA FAYET TE D R N C L E M S O N D R N D A R T M O U T H W A Y W H A R T F O R D P L N D A R T M O U T H W A Y W. BROADWAY W. LA PALMA AVE W. LINCOLN AVE W. N . E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T S . E U C L I D S T W. CRESCENT AVE W. LINCOLN AVE W. CRESCENT AVE 2000 Wes t Corporate Wa y DE V N o. 202 0 -0 0 2 6 9 Subject Property APN: 072-071-22 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2021-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06090 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2020-00269) (2000 CORPORATE WAY) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (herein referred to as the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06090 to permit an adult day care facility within an existing industrial office building (the “Proposed Project”), at a certain real property located at 2000 Corporate Way in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 1.85-acres and is currently developed with an existing one-story industrial office building. The Property is designated for Industrial land uses by the Anaheim General Plan. The Property is also located in the "I" Industrial zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.10 (Industrial Zones) of the Code; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act-related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeing to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing and in-person public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 24, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. and notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06090 and to investigate and make findings and recommendation in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedures , the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and - 2 - PC2021-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, this Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit 2020-06090, does find and determine the following: 1. The Proposed Project is an allowable use within the "I" Industrial Zone under subsection .010 of Section 18.10.030.010 (Uses) of Chapter 18.10 (Industrial Zone) of the Code, subject to a conditional use permit and the zoning and development standards of the "I" Industrial Zone. 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located, because the adult day care center would be located within an existing industrial office building and would be compatible with the surrounding residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Further, the project would meet the AMC required number of parking spaces, traffic generated by the proposed use would not impose an undue burden on streets and highways in the area, and adequate on-site circulation and access would be provided. 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety because the proposed use would occupy a suite within an existing building without any expansion, and accommodate the parking, traffic flows, and circulation without creating detrimental effects on adjacent properties. 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets. 5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim in that any potential impacts on the surrounding uses would be minimal; and WHEREAS, this Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff - 3 - PC2021-*** presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that negate the findings made in this Resolution. This Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06090, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of that portion of the Property for which Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06090 is applicable in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2021. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. - 4 - PC2021-*** CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Simonne Fannin, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on May 24, 2021, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of May, 2021. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2021-*** EXHBIT “A” (DEV2020-00269) - 6 - PC2021-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06090 (DEV2020-00269) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 1 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 2 The Owner/Developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division PRIOR TO THE BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 3 The Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property, behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 4 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault will have to be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 5 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division - 7 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 6 “PASSENGER LOADING ONLY” marking and sign (R25C) shall be installed at the passenger pick-up/drop-off area. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering GENERAL 7 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-way, public utility easement or City easement area including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included in the recorded Master CC&Rs for the project and the City easement deeds. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 8 The following minimum horizontal clearances shall be maintained between proposed water main and other facilities: • 10-feet minimum separation (outside wall-to-outside wall) from sanitary sewer mains and laterals • 5-feet minimum separation from all other utilities, including storm drains, gas, and electric • 6-feet minimum separation from curb face • 10-feet minimum separation from structures, footings, and trees. The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new and existing public water facilities (e.g. water mains, fire hydrants, service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.): • 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power poles, street lights, and trees. • 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground facilities. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 9 No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or parking lots. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 10 Ongoing during project operations, vehicle deliveries including loading and unloading shall be performed on site. Delivery vehicles shall not block any part of the public right of way. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering - 8 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 11 Ongoing during project operations, day care participants’ pick- up/drop-off by transportation services, including OCTA Access, shall be performed on site. Passenger pick-up/drop-off shall not take place on any part of the public right of way. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 12 All vehicles associated with this facility, including staff, visitors and transportation services, shall be operable and parked on site. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 13 Vehicle gates shall not be installed across the project driveways or access roads as the site design does not allow any such gates to conform to City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 pertaining to gate set back distance, turnaround area, guest phone, separate lane for guest access, and minimum width for ingress/egress as required by the Fire Department. Should gates be desired in the future, gates shall comply with the current version of City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 and are subject to approval by the City Engineer. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 14 All new landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division 15 The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation as described in that document shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 16 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division - 9 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 17 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division 18 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division PROJECTLOCATION VICINITY MAP GENERAL DATA:PROPERTY OWNER:PROJECT ADDRESS:CONSTRUCTION TYPE:PRESENT USE/OCCUPANCY:PROPOSED USE/OCCUPANCY:MAX. OCCUPANT LOAD:EXIT REQUIRED:EXIT PROVIDED:PATH OF TRAVEL DISTANCE:STORIES:FIRE SPRINKLER:PARKING REQUIRED:PARKING PROVIDED:ZONE:ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:LOT SIZE:BUILDING SIZE: EXIST. AREA:TOTAL (Footprint) :LOT COVERAGE:1110 ANAHEIM LLCP.O. Box 1959, Corona, CA 921212000 W. Corporate Ave.Anaheim, CA 92801V-B, SPRINKLEREDIB202250 FEETONE STORYYES3636I (INDUSTRIAL)072-071-22PBK188PG23PAR580,646 SQUARE FEET28,647 S.F.28,647 S.F.28,647 SQUARE FEET35.21 %CONDITION USE PERMIT:CODE REQUIREMENTS: ( E ) S U I T E 9 , 5 6 5 S . F . (N) Outdoor Relax Area S C A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N ( E ) A S P H A L T P A V E M E N T ( E ) A S P H A L T P A V E M E N T (E) ASPHALT PAVEMENT ( E ) T R A S H E N C L O S U R E ( E ) L O A D I N G T R U C K ( N ) 6 ' H t . M e t a l F e n c e 2 6 2 . 4 1 ' P R O P E R T Y L I N E 330.51' PROPERTY LINE 2 4 6 . 3 9 ' P R O P E R T Y L I N E 240.94' PROPERTY LINE ( E ) A S P H A L T P A V E M E N T ( E ) 6 " S e w e r C l e a n O u t ( E ) 4 " S e w e r C l e a n O u t (E) 4" Cast Iron Sewer ( N ) P i c k - u p & D r o p - o f f L o c a t i o n ( E ) A D A P a t h o f T r a v e l A T T A C H M E N T N O . 2 (E) ADA MEN RESTROOM (E) ADA WOMEN RESTROOM (E) PROGRAM DIRECTOR OFFICE (E) SOCIAL WORKERS OFFICE (E) REGULAR OFFICE (E) INTERVIEW OFFICE (E) QUIET OFFICE (E) REGULAR OFFICE (E) REGULAR OFFICE (E) CLASS ROOM TWO (E) INTERVIEW OFFICE (E) CHARTING ROOM (E) REGULAR OFFICE (E) NURSING STATION (E) UTILITY ROOM (E) CLASS ROOM ONE (E) ACTIVITY ROOM SCALE : 3/16"=1'-0"EXISTING FLOOR PLAN (E) FIRE PUMP (E) REGULAR ROOM (E) REGULAR ROOM FRAMING LEGENDS (N) WOMEN RESTROOM (N) MEN RESTROOM EXTENDSION (N) LAUNDRY ROOM SCALE : 3/16"=1'-0"PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN (E) ADA MEN RESTROOM (E) ADA WOMEN RESTROOM (E) PROGRAM DIRECTOR OFFICE (E) SOCIAL WORKERS OFFICE (E) REGULAR OFFICE (E) INTERVIEW OFFICE (E) QUIET OFFICE (E) REGULAR OFFICE (E) REGULAR OFFICE (E) REGULAR ROOM (E) CLASS ROOM TWO (E) INTERVIEW OFFICE (E) CHARTING ROOM (E) REGULAR ROOM (E) REGULAR OFFICE (E) NURSING STATION (E) UTILITY ROOM (E) CLASS ROOM ONE (E) ACTIVITY ROOM (E) FIRE PUMP ATTACHMENT NO. 3 OC HEALTH, INC 886 E. CAMERON COURT, BREA, CA 92821 TEL: 714‐932‐7373 December 11, 2020 City of Anaheim Planning & Building Department Attention: Peter Lange 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suit #162 Anaheim, Subject: incomplete letter for 2000 Corporate Way (DEV 2020‐00269) Dear Mr. Lange The following please kindly find more details of Operation: 1.Project description: Types of employees for the facility: Management staff (program director, administrator), Nursing staff (Register Nurse, License Vocation Nurse, Nurse Aid), Social worker, Physical therapist, Occupational therapist, Activity coordinator, program aide, per diem staff (dietitian, clinical social worker, speech therapist) The number of busses to transport the participants to and from the facility and whether the busses will be sorted on site: One 14 ‐passage and three mini vans will use for participants transportation, they will be stored on site. How the OCTA transportation component will function OCTA service is by reservation. Transportation staff will arrange OCTA reservation 2‐3 days prior to the day that participant will come to the center. The staff will have a list of OCTA transportation users who decide to use OCTA bus and the staff will ensure OCTA transportation pickup/ drop‐off schedule at center is arranged every day. Approximately, 9 OCTA Access buses will drop off participants in the morning and 9 buses to pick participants up at center in the afternoon. Each bus will have 2‐8 passengers according to OCTA arrangement and our request The Drop‐off hour/pickup schedule Morning drop‐off hour, 7:30 am – 9:30 am Afternoon pickup hour, 12:30 pm – 2:00pm ATTACHMENT NO. 4 OC HEALTH, INC 886 E. CAMERON COURT, BREA, CA 92821 TEL: 714‐932‐7373 Whether participants will be able to drive their own vehicles to the facility or will be required to utilize the facility bus system: All participants will have transportation services arranged. No participant needs parking space. 2. Parking justification Please kindly find Exhibit A and site plans a. Parking space location b. Drop off/Pick up/ loading area next to front door. c. OCTA & company bus Drop off‐ pick up route 3. Revised site plan ADA path of travel. Location of drop ‐off and pick‐up area, , Playground specification , It is a resting area , just add fence. And existing sewer line add to new site plan. Others: 1. The meal delivery will arrive center around 11:30 am at loading area. 2. Trash service twice a week provided by property manage company though Republic Service. 3. Building and safe department change occupancy: I. Indoor Building size: 9393 Square feet, 4 activity rooms, more than 4,000 square feet, Maximum Participants 160 plus 15 employee, total 175 peoples, 53 square feet per participants is more than double than State Department of Aging suggest MIN 20 square feet per participant. II. Previous tenant use building for light assembling, building design for large people occupancy. Full A/C , emergency exits, sprinkles. 4. Fire truck route Please refer to Goggle map, Fire truck will be able to circulate the site. Building is capable for commercial container unloading Respectfully submit Chiaping Juan OC Health, Inc. Enclosure (4) Exhibit A & Revise site plan A‐1~3 džŚŝďŝƚ͗WĂƌŬŝŶŐ:ƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͗ϯϲ 7 parking spaces5 parking spaces + Loading area 18 parking spaces 6 parking spaces assign to drop off/ Pick up area 6 parking spaces Bu s d r o p o f f / p i c k up a r e a Bu s / O C T A r o u t e 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 24, 2021 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06087 LOCATION: 1100 North Euclid Street (Iwatani Hydrogen Fueling Upgrade) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Ben Steckler of the Fiedler Group. The property owner is Emad Aziz Awad Awadalla and Nevin Y. Farag. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to permit a new hydrogen fuel dispenser and associated equipment at an existing automotive service station. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06087. BACKGROUND: This 0.49-acre property is located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue. The site is developed with an automotive service station with six pump islands, a 919 square foot convenience store, and a 1,234 square foot automotive repair bay. The property is located in the “C-G” General Commercial zone and has a General Plan designation for General Commercial land uses. The surrounding land uses include a dental office to the north, a church to the east, a commercial center to the south across La Palma Avenue, and automotive repair shop across Euclid Street to the west. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06087 May 24, 2021 Page 2 of 4 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to add a new hydrogen fuel dispenser adjacent to the existing southerly fueling canopy, as well as associated equipment located to the rear (east) of the existing building. The equipment would be enclosed with a 12 foot high concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall on the north and east property lines, and a steel fence and gates to the south of the equipment to allow access for maintenance and fuel delivery personnel. The existing driveway approaches would remain to allow for adequate vehicular and fuel delivery circulation. The parking spaces would be reconfigured and restriped to accommodate the new equipment. The service station and convenience store would continue to operate without any proposed changes, other than the hydrogen fueling capabilities. SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06087 May 24, 2021 Page 3 of 4 The Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) requires eight parking spaces for the existing use. As proposed, five parking spaces would be located to the rear of the store along the east property line, and an accessible space and loading zone would be located at the front of the store. In addition, the Code permits half of the fuel pump spaces to be counted towards the required number of parking spaces. Because 14 spaces would be located at fuel pumps, seven spaces can be counted toward required parking. Therefore, 13 parking spaces would be proposed onsite. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code; 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The Code allows automotive service stations in the C-G zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to ensure that fuel dispensing is compatible with surrounding uses, and that the service station is properly designed for on-site vehicular circulation. The service station has been in operation since the 1950s, and there have not been any significant code enforcement complaints or land use impacts identified to date. The fuel pump island and equipment have been designed so that vehicles and delivery trucks would not block the adjacent public right-of-way. La Palma Avenue, east of Euclid Street, is not a designated truck route; therefore, fuel truck and hydrogen delivery truck access would be from Euclid Street. Conditions of approval have been included to require fuel truck deliveries to occur from Euclid Street and to prohibit blocking of the public right-of-way. Further, the proposed equipment would be located at the rear (northeast) corner of the property and enclosed with a 12 foot decorative masonry wall. The mechanical equipment would also be fully enclosed in a separate metal container that houses a compressor motor and cooling system within the walled enclosure. Based on the applicant’s studies for other projects using the same equipment within a 12 foot high masonry enclosure, it is not anticipated that the equipment will cause noise to increase more than one decibel above existing ambient noise. Therefore, the equipment is not anticipated to create any noise impacts to the adjacent church or other surrounding CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06087 May 24, 2021 Page 4 of 4 uses. Staff has recommended a condition of approval in the draft resolution that allows the Planning Director to require an acoustical analysis and further sound attenuation should any noise complaints arise. Based on these factors, staff believes that the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area and recommends approval of the conditional use permit. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 consists of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. In urbanized areas, this section defines commercial buildings as “small structures” if they do not exceed 10,000 square feet. The proposed project is a request to add a new hydrogen fuel dispenser adjacent to the existing southerly fueling canopy, as well as associated equipment located to the rear (east) of the existing building. These improvements meet the criteria for new small structure or facilities; and, therefore, this exemption is applicable. Pursuant to Section 15300.2 (c) and 15303 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the proposed hydrogen fuel dispenser and equipment would be compatible with the surrounding commercial and church uses because it would provide adequate vehicular circulation and parking, would not create adverse noise impacts, and would also continue to operate in a manner similar to that of the existing service station. Staff believes that the proposed project would have a positive community impact as it provides alternative fueling capabilities for the surrounding area by enhancing the services of the existing use. Based upon these reasons, staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Nick Taylor, AICP Niki Wetzel, AICP Associate Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2. Conditional Use Permit Justification Letter 3. Project Plans 4. Site Photographs C-G DEV 2020-00211 SERVICE STATION R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-2 BRAMBLE VILLAGE CONDOS 30 DU RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX C-G RETAIL C-G MEDICAL OFFICE C-G RETAIL C-G SERVICE STATION RM-3 CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES 32 DU C-G RETAIL C-G AUTO REPAIR/ SERVICE RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 APTS 6 DU RM-4 WATER WHEEL APTS 64 DU RM-2 CONDOS 53 DURM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 THE VIRGINIAN APTS 14 DU RM-4 BAHAMA VILLAGE APTS 21 DU C-G RESTAURANT C-G RETAIL C-G OFFICE C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL T CHURCH C-G DENTAL OFFICE C-G RETAIL C-G RETAILC-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G CAR WASH RM-2 CONDOS 53 DU RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-2 CONDOS 53 DU RM-4 FOURPLEX N E U C L I D S T W LA PA L MA AVE W G L EN AV E N D R E S D E N S T W FR AN CIS DR W FRANCES DR W DO GW OO D AV E W FRANCES DR W CUT TER RD N D R E S D E N S T DRESDE N ST N DRESDEN ST W. LA PALMA AVE N . E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . A N A H E I M B L V D W. ROMNEYA DR N . H A R B O R B L V D 1100 North Eu clid Stre e t DE V N o. 202 0 -0 0 2 1 1 Subject Property APN: 271-031-11 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 N E U C L I D S T W LA PA L MA AVE W G L EN AV E N D R E S D E N S T W FR AN CIS DR W FRANCES DR W DO GW OO D AV E N M O H I C A N W A Y W FRANCES DR W CUT TER RD N D R E S D E N S T DRESDE N ST N DRESDEN ST DRESDE N ST W. LA PALMA AVE N . E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . A N A H E I M B L V D N . H A R B O R B L V D 1100 North Eu clid Stre e t DE V N o. 202 0 -0 0 2 1 1 Subject Property APN: 271-031-11 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2021-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06087, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2020-00211) (1100 NORTH EUCLID STREET) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (herein referred to as the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020- 06087 to permit a hydrogen fuel dispenser and associated equipment at an existing automotive-service station (“Proposed Project”) at that certain real property located at 1100 North Euclid Street in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property, approximately 0.49-acres in size, is currently developed with an automotive service station, convenience store, and automotive repair bay. The Property is located within the "General Commercial” land use designation of the Anaheim General Plan. The Property is also located in the "C-G" General Commercial Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Code; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act -related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing, and in-person, public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 24, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedures, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e., Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) which - 2 - PC2021-*** consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, this Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06087, does find and determine the following: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Code which allows a service station in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 18.08.030 of the Code. 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the Proposed Project will continue the existing service station use with the addition of one new hydrogen fuel pump and associated equipment that would not create any adverse noise impacts, and the Proposed Project is compatible with the scale, mass, bulk, and orientation of existing buildings in the surrounding area. 3) That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the Proposed Project , in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety because the Proposed Project is designed to ensure vehicle circulation that is compatible with the adjacent commercial uses and therefore is not anticipated to adversely affect development of the area. 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding street. 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the impact upon the surrounding area has been minimized to the extent practicable as the site development standards proposed for the Proposed Project are consistent with the development standards of the "C-G" General Commercial zone ; and WHEREAS, this Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that negate the findings made in this Resolution. This Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06087, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of that portion of the Property for which Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06087 is applicable in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to - 3 - PC2021-*** complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein conta ined, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2021. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Simonne Fannin, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on May 24, 2021, by the following vote of the members thereof: - 4 - PC2021-*** AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of May, 2021. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2021-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06087, (DEV2020-00211) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 1 A Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the Development Services Division for all work performed in the public right-of-way. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 2 The applicant shall provide building plans showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Detail 115-B pertaining to driveway design, sight distance visibility for signs, landscaping, and fence/wall locations and pertaining to commercial driveway radii, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 3 If the project requires a new or upgraded electric meter service, the applicant shall contact APU Electrical Engineering (Jonathan Corcio, jcorcio@anaheim.net, 714-765-4212) to plan for service. Public Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division 4 All plans and permit requests shall be submitted by the applicant to the Planning and Building Department and Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department and shall follow all applicable codes and standards; specifically 2019 California Building Code, 2019 California Fire Code, and NFPA 2. Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department 5 The applicant shall provide plans that show t raffic bollards capable of stopping a moving vehicle. Said bollards shall be evenly spaced to protect the new hydrogen pumps and shall be maintained by the property owner/business operator for the duration of the use. Anaheim Police Department 6 The applicant shall provide plans showing proposed above-ground utilities relocated outside the required street setback. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 7 The applicant shall provide plans showing the proposed fuel spanner to be no wider than 13-feet and in compliance with all other requirements specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.44.120 Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 6 - PC2021-*** PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 8 The property owner shall complete all construction inspections for building and fire permits prior to dispensing of hydrogen fuel. Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department 9 The property owner/business operator shall install closed circuit television (CCTV) security camera system, with coverage of the new hydrogen dispenser and point-of-sale area. Said CCTV shall be maintained for the duration of the use. Anaheim Police Department OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 10 Ongoing during project operations, the property owner and business operator shall ensure that vehicle deliveries, including loading and unloading, shall be performed on site, and that delivery vehicles shall not block any part of the public right of way. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 11 Ongoing during project operations, the property owner and business operator shall ensure that fuel deliveries shall be performed on site, and fuel delivery vehicles shall not block any part of the public right of way. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 12 Ongoing during project operations, fuel truck and hydrogen delivery truck access shall be from Euclid Street. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering 13 All new landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 14 The Planning and Building Director may require the applicant to provide an acoustical analysis within 30 days of any noise complaint filed with the City. In the event that the acoustical analysis determines that noise levels are in excess of those allowed by the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC), the applicant shall implement sound attenuation measures to achieve compliance with the AMC, and to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division GENERAL 15 The property owner shall not commence construction until all applicable permits are obtained. Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department - 7 - PC2021-*** 16 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 17 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 18 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division Iwatani – Anaheim, CA – 1100 N Euclid Ave. CUP Justification Statements: 1.That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit or a minor conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. According to Table 8-A, service stations are allowed in the General Commercial Zone with approval of a CUP. This site is an existing service station that was constructed in the mid-late 1950’s, which is asking permission to add the equipment so they can offer Hydrogen as a fuel for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles. This proposal is consistent with the intent of the municipal code and the historical use of the site. 2.That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is located. The site is an existing service station which has been operating in harmony with the existing community for over 60 years, and the proposal is to add a zero-emission alternative fuel (Hydrogen). The site is proposed to retain the same use it has, in substantially the same layout it has currently, and to continue to operate in harmony with the existing community. 3.That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to health and safety. The site is a fully developed existing service station. The proposal is to add zero-emission Hydrogen fuel into the offerings for vehicle fuel at the service station. The site will continue to operate as a service station after the proposed project is complete. There is no reason the addition of a zero-emission alternative fuel would be detrimental to the area or to the health and safety of the citizens. On the contrary, the use of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles will be beneficial to the local community, in that the only emission is water vapor. The air will essentially become cleaner with every mile driven in zero-emission vehicles. The addition of this fuel and the use of the vehicles will be a benefit to the community and the region in years to come. 4.That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. The site is an existing service station which has been operating at this location for over 60 years and the request is to add Hydrogen into the fuel options at the site. The anticipated customers for the hydrogen are the same patrons who use the site now for gasoline or diesel. The addition of Hydrogen infrastructure at this facility will allow for the existing users of the site to switch from gasoline or diesel vehicles to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, which are zero-emissions and provide the closest user experience between traditional fossil-fuels and electric vehicles. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Iwatani – Anaheim, CA – 1100 N Euclid Ave. There is no significant increase in traffic anticipated because each driver can only drive one vehicle at a time, so they would either drive their fossil-fuel powered vehicle or their Hydrogen powered vehicle to the station. 5. That the granting of the conditional use permit or the minor conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim. The site is an existing service station which has operated at this location for over 60 years. The proposed project is to add an alternative (zero-emission) fuel at the station. The new fuel has been tested over the course of the past two decades and is regulated by the California Fire Code and the National Fire Prevention Association for safety protocols. Due to the regulations in place for using this kind of fuel for vehicles as well as the fact that the site is an operating service station, there are no anticipated detriments to the health or safety of the citizens of Anaheim. In all actuality, the more people choose to drive zero-emission vehicles, the better the air quality will become throughout southern California. CUP Questions: A. Indicate how the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area. The project site is an operating service station that will continue to operate as it has for over 60 years once the project is complete. There is no reason to anticipate the project will have any negative impacts on the adjoining land uses or the growth in the area. B. Explain how the site proposed for the use is large enough to accommodate anticipated growth of the development and allow the continued operation without causing a detriment to the particular area or to health and safety. The site is an existing service station, proposed to continue operating as a service station with an alternative fuel option after the proposed project is complete. The proposed project is not anticipated to intensify the use, but to allow for the existing users to have the option to use an alternative (zero-emission) fuel. The addition of the Hydrogen infrastructure will provide the residents of Anaheim the ability to drive Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (which have the most similar operating experience to fossil-fuel vehicles). Since each driver is only able to drive one vehicle at a time, the users of the station will either bring a their existing fossil-fuel vehicle, or they will bring their new Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle, thus no anticipated increase in the intensity of the existing use. C. Indicate how the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the roads designed and constructed to handle the traffic in the area. The site is developed as a service station and has been operating as a service statin for over 60 years at this site. The station will remain substantially as it is today with the addition of the Iwatani – Anaheim, CA – 1100 N Euclid Ave. proposed Hydrogen fuel. It is anticipated that most of the users for the Hydrogen will be the existing users of this service station, who after seeing the addition will be able to either change over to a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle or add one into their household. D. Indicate how approval of this Conditional Use Permit or Minor Conditional Use Permit with any conditions of approval, will not harm the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Approval of the proposed project will allow the Citizens of Anaheim to use Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles instead of fossil-fuel vehicles. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles only produce water vapor, not any toxic emissions. The site is an existing service station (operating for over 60 years at this location) and the intensity of the use is not anticipated to increase due to the project. The use of Hydrogen Fuel Powered Vehicles is not something that would be detrimental to the health and safety of the community, but rather is actually anticipated to have a beneficial impact on the health of the community, by reducing air pollution with every mile driven. C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y S T A T E M E N T : D E V E L O P M E N T I N F O R M A T I O N : S I T E A D D R E S S : D E S I G N E D B Y : F G P M : C H E C K E D B Y : M E P P M : D R A W N B Y : C O N S U L T A N T P M : D A T E : P R O J E C T N O . : D R A W I N G T I T L E : S H E E T N O . : D A T E N O . R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N I:\projects\16430\Design\200 Entitlement Documents\Civil Design\16430-C0.0.dwg - PLOTTED: Mar 15, 2021 - 5:13pm I W A T A N I H Y D R O G E N F U E L I N G S T A T I O N 1 1 0 0 N . E U C L I D S T . @ W . L A P A L M A A V E . A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 0 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 1 6 4 3 0 - 1 1 0 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 2 1 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 3 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 4 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 1 S A F E T Y U P D A T E S 6 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S K n o w w h a t ' s b e l o w . C a l l b e f o r e y o u d i g . C A L L A T L E A S T T W O D A Y S B E F O R E Y O U D I G w w w . c a l l 8 1 1 . c o m T H I S D O C U M E N T A N D T H E I N F O R M A T I O N H E R E I N R E L A T I N G T O F I E D L E R G R O U P A N D I T S C L I E N T H A S B E E N F U R N I S H E D I N C O N F I D E N C E F O R T H E P R I V A T E U S E O F A U T H O R I Z E D P E R S O N N E L . N O P A R T H E R E O F S H A L L B E C O P I E D , D U P L I C A T E D , D I S T R I B U T E D , D I S C L O S E D O R M A D E A V A I L A B L E T O O T H E R S O R U S E D T O A N Y E X T E N T E X C E P T A S E X P R E S S L Y A U T H O R I Z E D I N W R I T I N G B Y F I E D L E R G R O U P . A N Y P E R S O N , F I R M O R C O R P O R A T I O N R E C E I V I N G T H I S D O C U M E N T , S H A L L B E H E L D T O T H E F O R E G O I N G R E S T R I C T I O N S . D J K J G D D J K P O F - - T I T L E S H E E T C 0 . 0 F O R EN T I T L E M E N T D O C U M E N T S I W A T A N I 1 1 0 0 N . E U C L I D S T . A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 V I C I N I T Y M A P P R O J E C T T E A M LEGAL DESCRIPTIONBASIS OF BEARINGSBENCHMARKFLOOD STATEMENT S I T E I N F O R M A T I O N S H E E T I N D E X E A S E M E N T N O T E S S C O P E O F W O R K P R O J E C T S C O P E I S T O I N S T A L L H Y D R O G E N F U E L I N G E Q U I P M E N T A T T H E E X I S T I N G G A S S T A T I O N L O C A T E D A T : 1 1 0 0 N . E U C L I D S T . , A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 I N S T A L L A T I O N O F H Y D R O G E N F U E L I N G E Q U I P M E N T C O N S I S T S O F , B U T I S N O T L I M I T E D T O : 1 . N E W 1 , 5 1 1 S Q U A R E F O O T E N C L O S E D E Q U I P M E N T E N C L O S U R E T H A T H O L D S S T O R A G E A N D C O M P R E S S I O N E Q U I P M E N T . 2 . N E W ( 2 ) H Y D R O G E N D I S P E N S E R S . 3 . F U E L I N G S P A N N E R 4 . N E W I N T E R C O N N E C T I N G M E C H A N I C A L P I P I N G & E L E C T R I C A L C O N D U I T S 5 . N E W S A F E T Y S Y S T E M S & S I G N A G E ; & 6 . O T H E R M I N O R S I T E I M P R O V E M E N T W . L A P A L M A A V E . P R O J E C T S I T E N. EUCLID ST. 3 4 5 6 9 8 GRID NORTH BASE UPON THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COOR D I N A T E S Y S T E M , ZONE 6, NAD 83, EPOCH 2020.00THE BEARING EQUATION FOR THIS PROJECT WOULD BE THE TH E B A S I S O F BEARINGS IS NORTH 89°26'16" WEST BEING THE CENTERLINE OF L A P A L M A AVENUE, ALSO BEING NORTH 89°45'22" WEST AS SHOWN IN BOO K 1 1 2 , P A G E 2 O F PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER, ORANGE COU N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A . A N E A S E M E N T F O R R O A D S , R A I L R O A D S A N D D I T C H E S O V E R T H E 3 0 F E E T O F S A I D L A N D . A L S O T H E U S E A N D C O N T R O L O F C I E N E G A S A N D N A T U R A L S T R E A M S O F W A T E R , I F A N Y , N A T U R A L L Y U P O N , F L O W I N G A C R O S S , I N T O O R B Y S A I D T R A C T , A N D T H E R I G H T O F W A Y F O R A N D T O C O N S T R U C T I R R I G A T I O N O R D R A I N A G E D I T C H E S T H R O U G H S A I D L A N D T O I R R I G A T E O R D R A I N T H E A D J A C E N T L A N D A N D I N C I D E N T A L P U R P O S E S I N T H E D O C U M E N T R E C O R D E D I N B O O K 2 8 O F D E E D S , P A G E 3 9 9 O F L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y . ( A F F E C T S - P L O T T E D O N M A P ) A N E A S E M E N T F O R S T R E E T W I D E N I N G A N D I N C I D E N T A L P U R P O S E S I N T H E D O C U M E N T R E C O R D E D A S B O O K 2 9 7 4 P A G E 3 7 4 O F O F F I C I A L R E C O R D S . ( A F F E C T S - P L O T T E D O N M A P ) A N E A S E M E N T F O R R O A D A N D P U B L I C U T I L I T I E S A N D I N C I D E N T A L P U R P O S E S I N T H E D O C U M E N T R E C O R D E D A S B O O K 8 4 0 7 P A G E 2 5 2 O F O F F I C I A L R E C O R D S . ( A F F E C T S - P L O T T E D O N M A P ) T H E T E R M S A N D P R O V I S I O N S C O N T A I N E D I N T H E D O C U M E N T E N T I T L E D " A G R E E M E N T F O R A C C E S S T O P R E M I S E S A F T E R T R A N S F E R O F T I T L E " R E C O R D E D S E P T E M B E R 1 6 , 1 9 9 4 A S I N S T R U M E N T N O . 1 9 9 4 - 0 5 6 3 0 7 8 O F O F F I C I A L R E C O R D S . ( A F F E C T S - B L A N K E T I N N A T U R E ) T H E T E R M S A N D P R O V I S I O N S C O N T A I N E D I N T H E D O C U M E N T E N T I T L E D " R E C O G N I T I O N A G R E E M E N T " R E C O R D E D J A N U A R Y 0 8 , 2 0 1 8 A S I N S T R U M E N T N O . 2 0 1 8 - 6 2 6 4 O F O F F I C I A L R E C O R D S . ( A F F E C T S - B L A N K E T I N N A T U R E ) W A T E R R I G H T S , C L A I M S O R T I T L E T O W A T E R , W H E T H E R O R N O T S H O W N B Y T H E P U B L I C R E C O R D S . THE SOUTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OFSECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUANCAJON DE SANTA ANA, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, AS THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAIDSECTION, IS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 55, PAGE 38 OFMISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAIDCOUNTY.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A SHADED ZONE " X " D E S I G N A T I O N PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO. 06059C0127J WITH AN EF F E C T I V E D A T E O F DECEMBER 3, 2009. AREAS OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; A R E A O F 1 % A N N U A L CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAT 1 FOOT O R W I T H D R A I N A G E AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AEAS PROTECTED BY L E V E E S F R O M 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.ORANGE COUNTY VERTICAL CONTROL POINT DESCRIBED BY OC S 2 0 0 2 - F O U N D 3 3/4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED "1A-112-68", SE T I N T H E NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF A 15 FT. BY 35 FT. CONCRETE SL A B . M O N U M E N T I S LOCATED IN THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE INTERSEC T I O N O F C R E S C E N T WAY AND MULLER STREET 44 FT. NORTHERLY OF THE CENTERLI N E O F C R E S C E N T AND 51 FT. WESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF MULLER. MONU M E N T I S S E T L E V E L WITH THE SLAB.ELEVATION: 125.40 (US SURVEY FEET) NAVD88 (O.C.S. 1995 ADJU S T M E N T ) W S N E N. MOHICAN AVE. N. DRESDEN ST. A T T A C H M E N T N O . 3 C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y S T A T E M E N T : D E V E L O P M E N T I N F O R M A T I O N : S I T E A D D R E S S : D E S I G N E D B Y : F G P M : C H E C K E D B Y : M E P P M : D R A W N B Y : C O N S U L T A N T P M : D A T E : P R O J E C T N O . : D R A W I N G T I T L E : S H E E T N O . : D A T E N O . R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N I:\projects\16430\Design\200 Entitlement Documents\Civil Design\16430-C0.0.dwg - PLOTTED: Mar 15, 2021 - 5:13pm I W A T A N I H Y D R O G E N F U E L I N G S T A T I O N 1 1 0 0 N . E U C L I D S T . @ W . L A P A L M A A V E . A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 0 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 1 6 4 3 0 - 1 1 0 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 2 1 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 3 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 4 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 1 S A F E T Y U P D A T E S 6 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S K n o w w h a t ' s b e l o w . C a l l b e f o r e y o u d i g . C A L L A T L E A S T T W O D A Y S B E F O R E Y O U D I G w w w . c a l l 8 1 1 . c o m T H I S D O C U M E N T A N D T H E I N F O R M A T I O N H E R E I N R E L A T I N G T O F I E D L E R G R O U P A N D I T S C L I E N T H A S B E E N F U R N I S H E D I N C O N F I D E N C E F O R T H E P R I V A T E U S E O F A U T H O R I Z E D P E R S O N N E L . N O P A R T H E R E O F S H A L L B E C O P I E D , D U P L I C A T E D , D I S T R I B U T E D , D I S C L O S E D O R M A D E A V A I L A B L E T O O T H E R S O R U S E D T O A N Y E X T E N T E X C E P T A S E X P R E S S L Y A U T H O R I Z E D I N W R I T I N G B Y F I E D L E R G R O U P . A N Y P E R S O N , F I R M O R C O R P O R A T I O N R E C E I V I N G T H I S D O C U M E N T , S H A L L B E H E L D T O T H E F O R E G O I N G R E S T R I C T I O N S . R Y P O F R Y K B - - A L T A / N S P S L A N D T I T L E S U R V E Y C 0 . 1 F O R I N F O R M A T I O N O N L Y & N O T T O S C A L E N O P A R K I N G L O A D I N G O N L Y WS NE G R A P H I C S C A L E : 1 " = 0 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 2 0 ' 2 0 ' 1 0 ' 2 0 ' S I T E P L A N C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y S T A T E M E N T : D E V E L O P M E N T I N F O R M A T I O N : S I T E A D D R E S S : D E S I G N E D B Y : F G P M : C H E C K E D B Y : M E P P M : D R A W N B Y : C O N S U L T A N T P M : D A T E : P R O J E C T N O . : D R A W I N G T I T L E : S H E E T N O . : D A T E N O . R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N \\fiedler-project\data\projects\16430\Design\200 Entitlement Documents\Civil Design\16430-C1.0.dwg - PLOTTED: Apr 21, 2021 - 11:37am I W A T A N I H Y D R O G E N F U E L I N G S T A T I O N 1 1 0 0 N . E U C L I D S T . @ W . L A P A L M A A V E . A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 0 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 1 6 4 3 0 - 1 1 0 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 2 1 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 3 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 4 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 1 S A F E T Y U P D A T E S 6 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 7 0 4 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S K n o w w h a t ' s b e l o w . C a l l b e f o r e y o u d i g . C A L L A T L E A S T T W O D A Y S B E F O R E Y O U D I G w w w . c a l l 8 1 1 . c o m T H I S D O C U M E N T A N D T H E I N F O R M A T I O N H E R E I N R E L A T I N G T O F I E D L E R G R O U P A N D I T S C L I E N T H A S B E E N F U R N I S H E D I N C O N F I D E N C E F O R T H E P R I V A T E U S E O F A U T H O R I Z E D P E R S O N N E L . N O P A R T H E R E O F S H A L L B E C O P I E D , D U P L I C A T E D , D I S T R I B U T E D , D I S C L O S E D O R M A D E A V A I L A B L E T O O T H E R S O R U S E D T O A N Y E X T E N T E X C E P T A S E X P R E S S L Y A U T H O R I Z E D I N W R I T I N G B Y F I E D L E R G R O U P . A N Y P E R S O N , F I R M O R C O R P O R A T I O N R E C E I V I N G T H I S D O C U M E N T , S H A L L B E H E L D T O T H E F O R E G O I N G R E S T R I C T I O N S . T H P F T H P F S I T E P L A N C 1 . 0 ( E ) L U B E B A Y S ( E ) C - S T O R E ( S A L E S A R E A ) L E G E N D # E A S E M E N T N O T E . S E E S H E E T C 0 . 0 # P A R K I N G C O U N T A C C E S S I B L E R O U T E E Q U I P M E N T L I S T # K E Y N O T E S E Q U I P M E N T # N O T E 41'-5" (N) EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE N. EUCLID ST.(E) CANOPY(E) UNDERGROUNDSTORAGE TANKS 4 2 ' - 3 " ( N ) E Q U I P M E N T E N C L O S U R E 2 9 ' - 9 " ± ( E ) D R I V E W A Y 29'-6" ±(E) DRIVEWAY 30'-3" ±(E) DRIVEWAY 25'-6" ±NARROWED (E) DRIVEWAY G A R A G E O P E N I N G S C H U R C H ( N O T A P A R T ) D E N T I S T O F F I C E ( N O T A P A R T ) W. LA PALMA AVE.1.51.9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 1 0 9 1211 4 ' - 0 " 8 7 2 3 P A R K I N G T A B U L A T I O N M A T R I X S E E S H E E T C 2 . 0 : E Q U I P M E N T P L A N 53'-0"TO C/L320'-0"30'-0"3'-0"45 20'-0" 53'-0" TO C/L 30'-0"3'-0" 3 4 5 42'-10" ±(E) CURB TO C/L 42'-11" ± (E) CURB TO C/L R = 23'-6" ±10'-2" ± 7'-1" ± 11'-6" ± TYP. LANE 11'-0" ±TYP. LANE ( E ) S T R I P I N G , T Y P . N O T E : N O T A L L K E Y N O T E S S H O W N O N P L A N H E R E . S E E S H E E T C 2 . 0 S I G N A G E N O T E ( E ) W I N D O W S I G N S W I L L B E R E Q U I R E D T O B E R E D U C E D I N A R E A T O C O M P L Y W I T H M U N I C I P A L C O D E S T A N D A R D S A S A C O N D I T I O N O F A P P R O V A L . 25'-0"TYP.25' X 25' CLEARZONE (E) 36'± TALL ONE-POLE PYLON SIGN(E) YARD LIGHT (E) YARD LIGHT(E) MINIATUREPALM TREE, TYP.(E) PLANTER5 24'-9" ± TO R/W 20'-0" ±TO R/W (E) MINIATUREPALM TREE, TYP.(E) YARD LIGHT(E) YARD LIGHT (E) BUS SHELTER7' X 50' SITETRIANGLE, TYP. ( E ) Y A R D L I G H T , T Y P . 1 2 ' X 2 0 ' L O A D I N G A R E A ( E ) B I L L B O A R D S I G N C O L U M N , T Y P . O F 2 ( E ) Y A R D L I G H T ( E ) S C R E E N W A L L (E) PROPANE TANK ( E ) A I R / W A T E R U N I T A N D V A C U U M (E) ABANDONEDPAYPHONE (TO BEREMOVED)(E) GUARD POSTTO BE REMOVED,TYP. ( E ) L O W C M U W A L L ( T O B E M O D I F I E D ) ( E ) Y A R D L I G H T ( T O B E R E L O C A T E D ) 105'-5" 1 8 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 5 " ± T O ( E ) B U I L D I N G 32'-0"8'-6" TYP. 24'-10" (E) ELECTRICALVAULT1.4 1 . 5 4 1 . 1 7 1 . 1 6 1 . 1 1 1 . 2 1 . 7 1.7 6 1 3 1 5 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 6 " 1 1 ' - 6 " 5 ' - 1 1 " 3 ' - 3 " 2 ' - 4 " 5'-2" 1 . 1 1 . 1 0 (E) WATER METER1.14 12'-0" (N) TRASH ENCLOSURE 14'-0" 4'-0"TYP.(E) PROPANE CAGE (E) CANOPY TO BE SHIFTEDTO ACCOMMODATE PATHOF TRAVEL 5 1 1 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 . 0 5 ( E ) C A N O P Y 3 A 3 B 7 ' - 1 0 " 1.2 1 . 7 (E) LOW CMU WALL (TOBE MODIFIED)(E) YARD LIGHT (TOBE RELOCATED) N O P A R K I N G L O A D I N G O N L Y S t e e r i n g A n g l e L o c k t o L o c k T i m e A r t i c u l a t i n g A n g l e L i n d e T u b e T r a i l e r T r a i l e r T r a c k T r a c t o r T r a c k T r a i l e r W i d t h T r a c t o r W i d t h 1 5 . 3 3 4 . 1 7 f e e t 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 0 : 8 . 0 0 8 . 0 0 : : : 1 . 4 2 1 . 8 1 2 3 . 0 0 9 . 4 2 2 8 . 5 0 : : : 6 . 0 3 5 . 5 7 0 . 0 WS NE G R A P H I C S C A L E : 1 " = 0 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 2 0 ' 2 0 ' 1 0 ' 2 0 ' C I R C U L A T I O N P L A N C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y S T A T E M E N T : D E V E L O P M E N T I N F O R M A T I O N : S I T E A D D R E S S : D E S I G N E D B Y : F G P M : C H E C K E D B Y : M E P P M : D R A W N B Y : C O N S U L T A N T P M : D A T E : P R O J E C T N O . : D R A W I N G T I T L E : S H E E T N O . : D A T E N O . R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N \\fiedler-project\data\projects\16430\Design\200 Entitlement Documents\Civil Design\16430-C1.0.dwg - PLOTTED: Apr 21, 2021 - 11:37am I W A T A N I H Y D R O G E N F U E L I N G S T A T I O N 1 1 0 0 N . E U C L I D S T . @ W . L A P A L M A A V E . A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 0 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 1 6 4 3 0 - 1 1 0 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 2 1 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 3 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 4 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 1 S A F E T Y U P D A T E S 6 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 7 0 4 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S K n o w w h a t ' s b e l o w . C a l l b e f o r e y o u d i g . C A L L A T L E A S T T W O D A Y S B E F O R E Y O U D I G w w w . c a l l 8 1 1 . c o m T H I S D O C U M E N T A N D T H E I N F O R M A T I O N H E R E I N R E L A T I N G T O F I E D L E R G R O U P A N D I T S C L I E N T H A S B E E N F U R N I S H E D I N C O N F I D E N C E F O R T H E P R I V A T E U S E O F A U T H O R I Z E D P E R S O N N E L . N O P A R T H E R E O F S H A L L B E C O P I E D , D U P L I C A T E D , D I S T R I B U T E D , D I S C L O S E D O R M A D E A V A I L A B L E T O O T H E R S O R U S E D T O A N Y E X T E N T E X C E P T A S E X P R E S S L Y A U T H O R I Z E D I N W R I T I N G B Y F I E D L E R G R O U P . A N Y P E R S O N , F I R M O R C O R P O R A T I O N R E C E I V I N G T H I S D O C U M E N T , S H A L L B E H E L D T O T H E F O R E G O I N G R E S T R I C T I O N S . T H P F T H P F C I R C U L A T I O N P L A N C 1 . 1 ( E ) L U B E B A Y S N. EUCLID ST.(E) CANOPY(E) UNDERGROUNDSTORAGE TANKS ( E ) C A N O P Y 2 9 ' - 9 " ± ( E ) D R I V E W A Y 29'-6" ±(E) DRIVEWAY 30'-3" ±(E) DRIVEWAY C H U R C H ( N O T A P A R T ) D E N T I S T O F F I C E ( N O T A P A R T ) W. LA PALMA AVE. ( E ) C - S T O R E ( S A L E S A R E A ) 53'-0"TO C/L20'-0"30'-0"3'-0" 20'-0" 53'-0" TO C/L 30'-0"3'-0" 42'-10" ±(E) CURB TO C/L 42'-11" ± (E) CURB TO C/L R = 23'-6" ±10'-2" ± 7'-1" ± 11'-6" ± TYP. LANE 11'-0" ±TYP. LANE ( E ) S T R I P I N G , T Y P . 25'-6" ±NARROWED (E) DRIVEWAY L o c k t o L o c k T i m e W i d t h T r a c k : : : f e e t P 6 . 0 6 . 0 0 7 . 0 0 1 1 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 1 9 . 0 0 S t e e r i n g A n g l e 3 1 . 6 : F i r s t U n i t W i d t h T r a i l e r W i d t h F i r s t U n i t T r a c k T r a i l e r T r a c k : : : : S t e e r i n g A n g l e L o c k t o L o c k T i m e : : f e e t L W A - A 4 3 0 . 0 6 . 0 8 . 2 0 8 . 2 0 8 . 2 0 8 . 2 0 1 5 . 7 5 9 . 8 4 3 . 9 4 1 6 . 4 0 5 . 5 8 7 . 5 5 2 3 . 6 2 2 9 . 5 3 A r t i c u l a t i n g A n g l e 9 0 . 0 : WS N E 0 G R A P H I C S C A L E : 1 " = 4 ' 2 ' 4 ' 8 ' 1 2 ' 4 ' E Q U I P M E N T E N C L O S U R E P L A N C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y S T A T E M E N T : D E V E L O P M E N T I N F O R M A T I O N : S I T E A D D R E S S : D E S I G N E D B Y : F G P M : C H E C K E D B Y : M E P P M : D R A W N B Y : C O N S U L T A N T P M : D A T E : P R O J E C T N O . : D R A W I N G T I T L E : S H E E T N O . : D A T E N O . R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N \\fiedler-project\data\projects\16430\Design\200 Entitlement Documents\Civil Design\16430-C1.0.dwg - PLOTTED: Apr 21, 2021 - 11:40am I W A T A N I H Y D R O G E N F U E L I N G S T A T I O N 1 1 0 0 N . E U C L I D S T . @ W . L A P A L M A A V E . A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 0 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 1 6 4 3 0 - 1 1 0 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 2 1 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 3 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 4 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 1 S A F E T Y U P D A T E S 6 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 7 0 4 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S K n o w w h a t ' s b e l o w . C a l l b e f o r e y o u d i g . C A L L A T L E A S T T W O D A Y S B E F O R E Y O U D I G w w w . c a l l 8 1 1 . c o m T H I S D O C U M E N T A N D T H E I N F O R M A T I O N H E R E I N R E L A T I N G T O F I E D L E R G R O U P A N D I T S C L I E N T H A S B E E N F U R N I S H E D I N C O N F I D E N C E F O R T H E P R I V A T E U S E O F A U T H O R I Z E D P E R S O N N E L . N O P A R T H E R E O F S H A L L B E C O P I E D , D U P L I C A T E D , D I S T R I B U T E D , D I S C L O S E D O R M A D E A V A I L A B L E T O O T H E R S O R U S E D T O A N Y E X T E N T E X C E P T A S E X P R E S S L Y A U T H O R I Z E D I N W R I T I N G B Y F I E D L E R G R O U P . A N Y P E R S O N , F I R M O R C O R P O R A T I O N R E C E I V I N G T H I S D O C U M E N T , S H A L L B E H E L D T O T H E F O R E G O I N G R E S T R I C T I O N S . T H A M T H A M E Q U I P M E N T E N C L O S U R E P L A N C 2 . 0 E Q U I P M E N T L I S T # K E Y N O T E S E Q U I P M E N T # N O T E CC2.1 1 2 B 2 A 1 . 6 ( R E T R A C T A B L E , T Y P . ) A C 2 . 1 B C 2 . 1 D C 2 . 1 4 1 ' - 5 " ( N ) E Q U I P M E N T E N C L O S U R E 1 . 1 0 1 . 1 3 2" TO (E) P/L 9 8 1 0 4(E) SCREEN WALL 1 . 1 2 ( T Y P . ) 4 ' - 1 1 " 42'-3" (N) EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE 4 1 ' - 6 " ( N ) E Q U I P M E N T E N C L O S U R E 6 8 ' - 6 " T Y P . 18'-0"TO P/L 24'-5" ±TO (E) BUILDING ( E ) A / C U N I T T O B E R E L O C A T E D 1 . 3 1 . 6 ( T Y P . ) 2 " T O ( E ) P / L ( E ) L O W W A L L T O B E R E M O V E D ( E ) B U I L D I N G R O O F O V E R H A N G ( E ) V E N T S T A C K S A T T O P O F B U I L D I N G (E) TRASH ENCLOSURETO BE REMOVED (E) ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEARTO BE REMOVED(E) GUARD POST TO BEREMOVED, TYP.(E) PARKING, TYP. OF 8(TO BE REMOVED) 1 . 1 2 ( T Y P . ) N O T E : N O T A L L K E Y N O T E S S H O W N O N P L A N H E R E . S E E S H E E T C 1 . 0 1.181.6 G A S E O U S H Y D R O G E N S T O R A G E D E S I G N C A P A C I T Y : 8 5 0 K G O F H Y D R O G E N M A X I M U M P R E S S U R E : 7 , 2 5 2 P S I ( 5 0 0 B A R ) 1.17 1.15(TYP.)1.16 1 . 1 9 1 . 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 . 7 1 2 9 ' - 0 " 9'-0" 2" ±TO (E) WALL 1.10 C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y S T A T E M E N T : D E V E L O P M E N T I N F O R M A T I O N : S I T E A D D R E S S : D E S I G N E D B Y : F G P M : C H E C K E D B Y : M E P P M : D R A W N B Y : C O N S U L T A N T P M : D A T E : P R O J E C T N O . : D R A W I N G T I T L E : S H E E T N O . : D A T E N O . R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N I:\projects\16430\Design\200 Entitlement Documents\Civil Design\16430-C2.1.dwg - PLOTTED: Mar 15, 2021 - 5:11pm I W A T A N I H Y D R O G E N F U E L I N G S T A T I O N 1 1 0 0 N . E U C L I D S T . @ W . L A P A L M A A V E . A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 0 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 1 6 4 3 0 - 1 1 0 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 2 1 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 3 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 4 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 1 S A F E T Y U P D A T E S 6 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S K n o w w h a t ' s b e l o w . C a l l b e f o r e y o u d i g . C A L L A T L E A S T T W O D A Y S B E F O R E Y O U D I G w w w . c a l l 8 1 1 . c o m T H I S D O C U M E N T A N D T H E I N F O R M A T I O N H E R E I N R E L A T I N G T O F I E D L E R G R O U P A N D I T S C L I E N T H A S B E E N F U R N I S H E D I N C O N F I D E N C E F O R T H E P R I V A T E U S E O F A U T H O R I Z E D P E R S O N N E L . N O P A R T H E R E O F S H A L L B E C O P I E D , D U P L I C A T E D , D I S T R I B U T E D , D I S C L O S E D O R M A D E A V A I L A B L E T O O T H E R S O R U S E D T O A N Y E X T E N T E X C E P T A S E X P R E S S L Y A U T H O R I Z E D I N W R I T I N G B Y F I E D L E R G R O U P . A N Y P E R S O N , F I R M O R C O R P O R A T I O N R E C E I V I N G T H I S D O C U M E N T , S H A L L B E H E L D T O T H E F O R E G O I N G R E S T R I C T I O N S . T H A M T H A M E Q U I P M E N T E N C L O S U R E E L E V A T I O N S C 2 . 1 E Q U I P M E N T L I S T # E Q U I P M E N T A - E A S T E L E V A T I O N S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 0'FINISHED SURFACE F I N I S H S C H E D U L E 23'-0"TOP OF STATION MODULEVENT8'-0"TOP OF FENCE0'FINISHED SURFACE0'FINISHED SURFACE B - W E S T E L E V A T I O N S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " C-SOUTH ELEVATION D - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " ( N ) E Q U I P M E N T E N C L O S U R E W A L L A (N) EQUIPMENTENCLOSURE FENCEB(N) GUARDPOSTC 0 ' F I N I S H E D S U R F A C E E - P E R S P E C T I V E V I E W S C A L E : N O T T O S C A L E 15'-10"TOP OF VENT 2 B ( N ) E Q U I P M E N T E N C L O S U R E W A L L A 12'-0"TOP OF CMU WALL(N) EQUIPMENTENCLOSURE FENCEB 2B 22' ±TOP OF (E) BUILDING (E) BUILDING ( E ) V E N T S T A C K S 2 A (E) BUILDING (E) VENT STACKS 2 A 2 B NOTE: (E) BUILDING NOTSHOWN HERE FOR CLARITY (N) EQUIPMENTENCLOSURE WALLA ( N ) G U A R D P O S T C R E L O C A T E D ( E ) A / C U N I T 1 2A 2 A 2 B ( E ) B U I L D I N G ( E ) V E N T S T A C K S SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"RELOCATED (E)A/C UNIT 1 2 12 8 1 0 1 3 1 9 8 1 0 12 26'-9"TOP OF STORAGE VENT23'-0"TOP OF STATION MODULEVENT8'-0"TOP OF FENCE 15'-10"TOP OF VENT12'-0"TOP OF CMU WALL 22' ±TOP OF (E) BUILDING 26'-9"TOP OF STORAGE VENT23'-0"TOP OF STATION MODULEVENT8'-0"TOP OF FENCE 15'-10"TOP OF VENT12'-0"TOP OF CMU WALL 22' ±TOP OF (E) BUILDING 26'-9"TOP OF STORAGE VENT 2 3 ' - 0 " T O P O F S T A T I O N M O D U L E V E N T 8 ' - 0 " T O P O F F E N C E 1 5 ' - 1 0 " T O P O F V E N T 1 2 ' - 0 " T O P O F C M U W A L L 2 2 ' ± T O P O F ( E ) B U I L D I N G 2 6 ' - 9 " T O P O F S T O R A G E V E N T C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y S T A T E M E N T : D E V E L O P M E N T I N F O R M A T I O N : S I T E A D D R E S S : D E S I G N E D B Y : F G P M : C H E C K E D B Y : M E P P M : D R A W N B Y : C O N S U L T A N T P M : D A T E : P R O J E C T N O . : D R A W I N G T I T L E : S H E E T N O . : D A T E N O . R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N I:\projects\16430\Design\200 Entitlement Documents\Civil Design\16430-C3.0.dwg - PLOTTED: Mar 15, 2021 - 5:10pm I W A T A N I H Y D R O G E N F U E L I N G S T A T I O N 1 1 0 0 N . E U C L I D S T . @ W . L A P A L M A A V E . A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 0 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 1 6 4 3 0 - 1 1 0 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 2 1 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 3 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 4 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 1 S A F E T Y U P D A T E S 6 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S K n o w w h a t ' s b e l o w . C a l l b e f o r e y o u d i g . C A L L A T L E A S T T W O D A Y S B E F O R E Y O U D I G w w w . c a l l 8 1 1 . c o m T H I S D O C U M E N T A N D T H E I N F O R M A T I O N H E R E I N R E L A T I N G T O F I E D L E R G R O U P A N D I T S C L I E N T H A S B E E N F U R N I S H E D I N C O N F I D E N C E F O R T H E P R I V A T E U S E O F A U T H O R I Z E D P E R S O N N E L . N O P A R T H E R E O F S H A L L B E C O P I E D , D U P L I C A T E D , D I S T R I B U T E D , D I S C L O S E D O R M A D E A V A I L A B L E T O O T H E R S O R U S E D T O A N Y E X T E N T E X C E P T A S E X P R E S S L Y A U T H O R I Z E D I N W R I T I N G B Y F I E D L E R G R O U P . A N Y P E R S O N , F I R M O R C O R P O R A T I O N R E C E I V I N G T H I S D O C U M E N T , S H A L L B E H E L D T O T H E F O R E G O I N G R E S T R I C T I O N S . T H A M T H A M T R A S H E N C L O S U R E D E T A I L S C 3 . 0 T. O . S L A B 0' - 0" 6 Ø B O L L A R D , T Y P C -3 DI S P E N S E R , T Y P . SP A N N E R AC M -1, C -1 12 " Ø H S S -1 C O L U M N W/ V I N Y L W R A P C -1, C -3 T. O . S P A N N E R 12 ' - 6" CA R D R E A D E R , T Y P . UL T R A V I O L E T / I N F R A R E D DE T E C T O R SE C U R I T Y C A M E R A BE Y O N D 2' - 8 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 7 " 1' - 4 " 1' - 4 " 1 0 ' - 6 " T.O. SLAB 0' -0"6" Ø BOLLARD, TYP C -3SPANNERACM-1, C -1, C -3 12 " Ø H S S -1 C O L U M N W/ V I N Y L W R A P C -1, C -3 T.O. SPANNER 12' -6" CA R D R E A D E R , TY P . DISPENSER, TYP. 15 ' - 0 " 3' - 6 " 13 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 6 " UL T R A V I O L E T / I N F R A R E D DE T E C T O R SE C U R I T Y C A M E R A 10' - 6" A1 . 0 3 A1 . 0 4 6" Ø BOLLARD, TYP C -1DISPENSER, TYP.SPANNER OUTLINE ABOVE CA R D R E A D E R . TY P . 12 " Ø H S S -1 C O L U M N , C -1, C -3 7' - 0" 5' - 1 1 " 1' - 4 " 4' - 0 " UL T R A V I O L E T / I N F R A R E D DE T E C T O R A B O V E SE C U R I T Y C A M E R A AB O V E 2' - 1 " 12 ' - 1 0 " 15 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 2 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 7 " 2 ' - 7 " 1 ' - 4 " 1 ' - 4 " 3' - 3 " 7' - 0 " C -1 COLOR 1 NAME:EVERGREEN STYLE: C -2 COLOR 2 NAME:RED STYLE: COLOR LEGEND C -3 COLOR 3 NAME:WHITE STYLE: MATERIAL LEGEND ACM -1 COLOR: 3 (WHITE)NAME: ALUMINUM METAL PANEL STYLE: HI -GLOSS FINISH HSS -1 COLOR: SEE ELEVATIONS NAME: HOLLOW STEEL STRUCTURE STYLE: ROUND 12" Ø, W/ VINYL WRAP SNEW CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DATE:DESIGNED BY:SITE ADDRESS:FG PM:MEP PM:CONSULTANT PM:PROJECT NO.CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT:DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:DRAWING TITLE:THIS DOCUMENT AND THE INFORMATION HEREIN RELATING TO FIEDLER GROUP AND ITS CLIENT HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE PRIVATE USE OF AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL. NO PART HEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DUPLICATED, DISTRIBUTED, DISCLOSED OR MADE AVAILABL E TO OTHERS OR USED TO ANY EXTENT EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY FIEDLER GROUP. ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION RECEIVING THIS DOCUMENT, SHALL BE HELD TO THE FOREGOING RESTRICTIONS.SHEET No.: C : \ U s e r s \ j c h a n g \ D o c u m e n t s \ _ R e v i t P r o j e c t s \ 1 6 4 3 0 \ 1 6 4 3 0 - I W A T A N I - R 2 0 _ C H A N G _ 2 0 0 . r v t A1.0PLAN &ELEVATIONSIWATANIFUTURITY HYDROGEN DISPENSER 10/16/2020JCPOFJC1100 N EUCLID ST 16430ANAHEIM, CA 92801@ W LA PALMA AVE SC A L E : A1 . 0 1/ 2 " = 1 ' -0" 4 W E S T E L E V A T I O N SC A L E : A1 . 0 1/ 2 " = 1 ' -0" 3 SO U T H E L E V A T I O N SC A L E : A1 . 0 1/ 2 " = 1 ' -0" 1 FL O O R P L A N No. D A T E D E S C R I P T I O N 1 1 0 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 2 1 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 3 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 0 C I T Y C O M M E N T S 4 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 1 C I T Y C O M M E N T S Iwatani – Anaheim, CA – 1100 N Euclid Ave. Existing Site – Photographs: A)View of Project Site from North: B)View of Project Site from East: C)View of Project Site from South: D)View of Project Site from West: ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Iwatani – Anaheim, CA – 1100 N Euclid Ave. Surrounding Area – Photographs: E) View North from Property: F) View East from Property: G) View South from Property: H) View West from Property: Iwatani – Anaheim, CA – 1100 N Euclid Ave. Photo Map: 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 24, 2021 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048 VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 LOCATION: 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road APPLICANT/AGENT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Michael Wilborn with Alliance Realty Partners, LLC, and the agent is Zeshaan Younus of Curt Pringle & Associates. The property owner is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following zoning entitlements: 1) A conditional use permit to construct a new 118-unit, 2-story state-licensed Senior Living Facility with a coordinated sign program in the RH-3 zone; 2) A variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code where 102 spaces are required and 55 spaces are proposed; and 3) A specimen tree removal permit to allow removal of two existing specimen trees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that the proposed requests are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects), and approving a Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048, Variance No. 2020-05114, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001. BACKGROUND: The project site is approximately 2.99 acres in size (excluding areas required for public right-of-way dedication) and is currently developed with a 17,217 square-foot church and associated surface parking lot. The project site is located in the “RH-3” Single-Family Hillside Residential and Scenic Corridor “SC” Overlay zones, and is designated for Low Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. The surrounding uses include single-family residences to the north and west, across Nohl Ranch Road to the south, and across Royal Oak Road to the east. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 May 24, 2021 Page 2 of 9 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing church and associated parking lot and construct a new 118 unit, 98,504 square-foot, two-story Senior Living Facility with a basement. The facility would be comprised of 94 assisted living units with 96 beds and 24 memory care units with 31 beds, providing a total of 127 beds within the facility. The units range in size from 381 square feet to 917 square feet. The proposed building would be 25 feet in height with a few architectural embellishments (i.e. a chimney and elevator overruns) reaching up to 30 feet in height, measured from the finished grade. The proposed building would also include a number of indoor amenity areas for residents such as a bistro, a family room, a discovery room, a fitness center, a beauty salon, a kitchen, laundry facilities, storage areas, a theater room, and separate dining areas and living/activity centers for assisted living and memory care residents. In addition, outdoor amenities on the ground floor include separate courtyards for assisted living and memory care residents, which include a dining terrace, lounge areas, walking paths and seating areas, secured for the safety of residents. The proposed facility would be staffed on a 24 hour basis, with a total of 45 staff divided into three 8- hour shifts (28 staff between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m., 13 staff between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m., and 4 staff between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.). Although the facility is open 24 hours, there will be limited access after dusk. The proposed project would include 55 on-site parking spaces, all of which are provided within the surface parking lot. Residents of the proposed facility are not allowed to bring personal vehicles, except that one vehicle per unit is allowed for the residents of two, 2-bedroom assisted living units. Vehicle ingress and egress would be provided by two driveways, one on Nohl Ranch Road and the other on Royal Oak Road. An emergency generator, which is enclosed by 10-foot high walls, is proposed within the north parking lot area. Operation of this generator would be limited to emergency situations (i.e. prolonged power outage) and during periodic testing. Site Plan N CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 May 24, 2021 Page 3 of 9 The proposed design represents a Mediterranean architectural style and incorporates decorative stucco, decorative accent wall tiles, wrought iron details, tile roofs, and a neutral color palette. The proposed building utilizes different textures, colors, setbacks, materials, and distinctive architectural treatments, including Juliet balconies and awnings. A mixture of hip and gable roof lines create visual interest, avoid repetitive facades, and break up the building mass. The project site will also be improved with new landscaping, and, as part of the proposal, two Specimen Trees in Platanus variety (Sycamore) are proposed to be removed. Two monument signs with halo illuminated letters are proposed as part of a coordinated sign program, which are located near the Nohl Ranch Road driveway and at the southeast corner of the project site. Each monument sign structure is 55 square feet in size and 5’6” in height. Elevation rendering as viewed from the corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road The Applicant’s letter of request and the project plans are provided as Attachments 2 and 3 to this report, respectively. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve the conditional use permit (CUP), it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code; 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. A Senior Living Facility with seven or more residents (“Senior Living Facility – Large” land use) is allowed in the “RH-3” Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone subject to approval of a CUP to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. As a State-licensed Residential Care Facility for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 May 24, 2021 Page 4 of 9 the Elderly (RCFE), the proposed facility would operate as a residential care facility for seniors, serving individuals who are in need of assisted living and memory care services. The operation of the proposed facility would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses as the main purpose of the facility is to provide living accommodations to seniors in need of certain assistance in their daily lives. The services provided at the facility are limited to assistance with daily living activities such as dressing, bathing, toileting, medication management, monitoring, and meals. The facility does not provide medical services. The project’s design and site layout account for the proximity to the surrounding single-family residential properties by providing landscaping and structural setbacks that far exceed the minimum required setbacks. The property would implement a number of security measures, including an enhanced security system for memory care residents, visitor management that requires a thorough screening of all visitors, a check-in/check-out system for assisted living residents, and limited access during afterhours. A more detailed description of the proposed facility’s security measures is provided as Attachment 4 to this report. All exterior lighting within the proposed site would be required to comply with the Code, which includes provisions that are intended to minimize light spillover to the neighboring properties. Non-emergency delivery and service activities (i.e. food deliveries, trash pick-up services) would occur between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. to avoid any night-time noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. An acoustical analysis was prepared for the emergency generator and is provided as Attachment 5 to this report. The analysis determined that, with the implementation of the proposed noise mitigation instruments (i.e. weather/noise enclosure, a silencer on the exhaust, and 10-foot walls around the generator), the noise generated by the emergency generator during its operations would be a maximum of 59 dBA at the north property line, and reduced to 51 dBA at the second floor of the closest neighboring residence. As such, the study concluded that the operation of the proposed emergency generator complies with the City’s noise standards, which allows a maximum of 60 dBA at the property line. As a reference, 60 dBA can be compared to a normal conversation and background music, and 50 dBA can be compared to a quiet suburb and conversation at home. The size and shape of the project site is sufficient to allow the full development of the proposed use, as the proposed project complies with all required development standards applicable to the site (i.e. setbacks, lot coverage, height), with the exception of the minimum required parking spaces. However, based on the parking study prepared for the project, the proposed 55 on-site parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate the parking demand for the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of the requested reduction of the required on-site parking spaces is provided in the Parking Variance section of this report below. The proposed building either meets or exceeds the required setbacks, and the footprint of the proposed building is under the maximum lot coverage allowed. Also, the height of the proposed building and the architectural embellishments, measured from the finished grade as allowed by the Code, complies with the Code required maximum height limitation. The basement is not included in the overall structural height as it is located entirely below the finished grade. Also, neither the City’s Code nor the General Plan provide for view protection or preservation standards; as such, private view is not a protected feature in the City. In addition, the City’s Traffic Engineering staff reviewed the trip generation memo prepared for the project (Attachment 6 to this report). The trip generation memo concluded that the project would generate approximately 18 net new trips during the AM peak hour, 25 net new trips during the PM peak hour, and 210 net new daily trips. Based on the established thresholds of significance, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 May 24, 2021 Page 5 of 9 the proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts nor impose an undue burden upon the City’s streets. Lastly, in order to ensure the proposed facility operates in a responsible manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding area, staff has included conditions of approval in the draft resolution, which include limiting non-emergency deliveries and service vehicles to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., prohibiting all vehicles associated with the facility from parking on public and private streets in the vicinity, prohibiting resident vehicle ownership (except for the two assisted living units), and requiring adherence with operational details specified in the letter of request and the parking study (i.e. number of beds, number of employees). Coordinated Sign Program: The City’s Code requires that projects proposed on properties larger than 40,000 square feet that include signs to submit a Coordinated Sign Program which is subject to approval by the Planning and Building Director. Because the proposed project requires approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission, the Planning and Building Director has referred the review of the proposed coordinated sign program as part of the CUP. The proposed project includes two monument signs which are located near the Nohl Ranch Road driveway and at the southeast corner of the project site. Each monument sign structure is 55 square foot in size, and 5’6” in height. The design of the proposed monument signs is compatible with the architectural style of the proposed project as they utilize the same materials and color scheme as the proposed building, and the size of the proposed monument signs is consistent with the scale of the proposed facility. In addition, although the Code does not specify a maximum size standard for signs proposed as a part of a coordinated sign program on a property located within RH-3 Zone, the size of the proposed monument signs are consistent with the maximum size standard applicable to similarly sized properties in other zones. As such, staff finds that the proposed monument signs are compatible with the proposed project and the neighborhood, and supports this request. Rendering of the proposed sign at the corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Roads Parking Variance: Before the Planning Commission may approve a parking variance, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that the following conditions exist: 1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 May 24, 2021 Page 6 of 9 2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; 3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; 4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and 5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow fewer parking spaces than required by Code. The Code requires 102 parking spaces for the proposed project and 55 parking spaces are proposed. The applicant submitted a parking study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) dated February 19, 2021 (Attachment 7) to justify the requested reduction in the parking requirement. In order to estimate the parking demand for the proposed project, the study identified and quantified all sources that would generate parking demand for the proposed project based on the project operations. Such sources include employees, third-party care givers, visitors, facility operated vehicles, and resident vehicles for the two assisted living units. In order to accurately account for the expected parking demand from these sources, the study accounted for the overlap in employee parking demand during shift changes, and presumed one vehicle space per employee, third-party caregiver, and visitor. The number of third-party caregivers and visitors were derived from a survey data of 51 other similarly sized assisted living/memory care communities, which was obtained from a senior living facility management system used nationwide (AccuShield). Based on the analysis, the proposed project would have a peak parking demand of 44 spaces, which is 11 spaces less than the proposed supply of 55 spaces. In addition, the study also includes two additional assessments to supplement the analysis. First, the study reviewed the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition, January 2019) and found that applying the ITE’s ratio for assisted living communities would result in a peak parking demand of 49 spaces, which is 6 spaces less than the proposed supply of 55 spaces. The study also reviewed number of parking spaces provided at other assisted living communities in the region and the associated parking studies, where available, to identify a typical average parking ratio utilized for these types of communities. Based on the data available, the study found the estimated parking demand for the proposed project would be 46 spaces when the average parking ratio is applied, which is 9 spaces less than the proposed supply of 55 spaces. Lastly, the proposed facility would implement a number of parking management measures, including a resident transportation program, an employee incentive program for utilizing carpool and alternative transit, and a visitor program during major holidays. Based on this analysis, staff finds that the proposed supply of 55 on-site spaces is adequate to accommodate the parking demand of the proposed project. To ensure that the operation of the proposed facility remains consistent with the analysis conducted in the parking study, staff has included conditions of approval, prohibiting residents from vehicle ownership (except for the two assisted living units) and prohibiting all vehicles associated with the facility from parking on public and private streets in the vicinity. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 May 24, 2021 Page 7 of 9 Specimen Tree Removal Permit: The Code designates Quercus (Oak), Schinus (Pepper), and Platanus (Sycamore) varieties of certain size as Specimen Trees in the SC Overlay Zone and requires that an administrative specimen tree removal permit be approved by the Planning Director prior to removal of any Specimen Tree. The Code also requires that if Specimen Trees are removed, that they be replaced at a ratio based on the size of the trees being removed. Because the proposed project requires an approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission, the Planning Director has referred this permit to the Planning Commission as a discretionary specimen removal permit. Before the Planning Commission may approve a discretionary specimen tree removal permit, it must make a one or more of the following findings: 1) That principles of good forest management will best be served by the proposed destruction; 2) That a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the tree is located requires destruction of the tree or trees; 3) That the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect to treescape will not be materially affected by the proposed destruction; 4) That the topography of the building site renders destruction reasonably necessary; or 5) That regard for the safety of persons or property requires the destruction. According to the tree evaluation report prepared by Greg Applegate, a certified arborist, provided as Attachment 8 to this report, there are two existing Specimen Trees (Sycamores) among the list of trees that are proposed to be removed as part of the proposed project. These two Specimen Trees are located within the construction footprint of the proposed project, and, therefore, removal of these two trees is necessary to allow reasonable and practical development of the property. In addition, the project complies with the required replacement tree standards. Based on the size of the two Specimen Trees proposed to be removed, the project is required to provide five qualifying replacement trees. As proposed, the project’s conceptual landscaping plan includes six new Oak trees that qualify as the required replacement trees. As such, staff recommends approval of the Specimen Tree Removal permit. Community Outreach: The applicant conducted the following community outreach: • At the end of October 2019, the applicant conducted a door-to-door outreach for the properties located within a close proximity to the project site, which included distribution of a physical FAQ flyer. The FAQ flyer included a dedicated email address for the project (ahseniorcommunity@gmail.com). • Between March and June 2020, a dedicated website (www.holdenanaheimhills.com) and Facebook page (@holdenanaheimhills) were published for the proposed project. • In August 2020, a community hotline was established for the proposed project (714-442- 0006). • The applicant continued to monitor above mentioned email, websites and the hotline and communicated with the neighbors who have contacted the applicant. • On April 28, 2021, the Applicant hosted a virtual open house to introduce the project team, review the proposed plans, and answer any questions from the community. The invite for this event was mailed to properties within 500 feet of the project site. Approximately 18 neighbors attended this event. The comments and concerns expressed at this event were CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 May 24, 2021 Page 8 of 9 related to site circulation, trash, potential traffic, height, safety, maintenance, and details on the specific type of care provided to residents. The FAQ flyer from 2019 and the mailer for 2021 virtual open house are provided as Attachment 9 to this report. As of writing of this staff report (noon, May 19, 2021), staff received a total of 91 public correspondences pertaining to the proposed project, which includes 46 emails and 45 postcards from approximately 60 households in opposition, and 5 emails in support. In general, the basis for opposition includes concerns regarding incompatibility of the proposed use, potential traffic and parking impacts, increased noise, lights and odor, slope stability, size and height of the proposed building, view impacts, and decreased property values. The emails in support of the proposed project voiced the importance and the need for senior facilities in the City. The public comments received are included as Attachment 10 to this report. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332, Class 32 (In-fill Development). Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in Section 15332. These conditions include that the proposed project is: a) Consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, b) Occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, c) Has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, d) Would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and e) Would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The CEQA checklist, attached to this staff report as Attachment 11, provides evidence that the proposed project meets these conditions. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and Section 15332 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment, and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that, as designed and with the proposed conditions imposed, the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and would provide a quality living environment for its future residents. The conditions of approval relating to limiting non-emergency delivery and service activities to certain hours, requiring all vehicles associated with the facility to be parked on-site, prohibiting resident vehicle ownership, and requiring adherence with the letter of request and the parking study would ensure that the proposed project would not be detrimental to the surrounding area. In addition, the proposed project meets the goals of the General Plan to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. Based upon these reasons, staff recommends approval of this request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 May 24, 2021 Page 9 of 9 Prepared by, Submitted by, Joanne Hwang, AICP Niki Wetzel, AICP Senior Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2. Letter of Request 3. Project Plans 4. Security Memo 5. Acoustical Analysis for Emergency Generator 6. Trip Generation Memo 7. Parking Study 8. Tree Evaluation Report 9. Applicant’s Outreach Flyer and Mailer 10. Public Correspondence 11. CEQA Checklist RH-3 (SC) DEV 2019-00172 RH-3 (SC) RECREATIONAL AREA RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R H -3 (S C ) S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R H -3 (S C ) S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-3 (SC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE E N O H L R A N C H R D S R O Y A L O A K R D E GATEWOOD LN E HON EYW OOD LN E R O L L I N G H I L L S D R S R U R A L R I D G E D R E WESTRI DGE RD S SANTIAGO WAY S B R O O K L N S S I L V E R B R O O K D R S A N D O V ER D R S A V E N I D A M A R G A R I T A E F A I R L E E C T E H O N E Y W O O D L N E .N O H L R A N C H R D E .S A N T A A NA C A N Y O N RDE.SANTA ANA C A N Y O N R D 5275 Eas t Nohl Ran c h R o a d DE V N o. 201 9 -0 0 1 7 2 Subject Property APN: 361-291-51 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 E N O H L R A N C H R D S R O Y A L O A K R D E GATEWOOD LN E RURAL RIDGE CIR E HON EYW OOD LN E R O L L I N G H I L L S D R S R U R A L R I D G E D R E WESTRI DGE RD S SANTIAGO WAY S B R O O K L N S S I L V E R B R O O K D R S R O L L I N G H I L L S P L S A N D O V ER D R S A V E N I D A M A R G A R I T A E F A I R L E E C T E H O N E Y W O O D L N E .N O H L R A N C H R D E .S A N T A A NA C A N Y O N RDE.SANTA ANA C A N Y O N R D 5275 Eas t Nohl Ran c h R o a d DE V N o. 201 9 -0 0 1 7 2 Subject Property APN: 361-291-51 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: May 2020 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2021-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2019-00172) (5275 EAST NOHL RANCH ROAD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048 to allow construction of a new 118-unit Senior Living Facility with a coordinated sign program; (ii) Variance No. 2020-05144 to allow reduction in the required number of on-site parking spaces from 102 to 55 spaces; and (iii) Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 to allow removal of two existing specimen trees (herein referred to as the “Proposed Project”) on that certain real property generally located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road, and commonly referred to as 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 2.99 acres in size (excluding areas required for public right-of-way dedication) and is currently developed with a 17,217 square-foot church and associated surface parking lot. The Property is located in the “RH-3” Hillside Single- Family Residential and Scenic Corridor “SC” Overlay zones, and is, therefore, subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapters 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) and 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone). The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Low Density Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act-related provisions of Executive Order N- 25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing and in-person public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 24, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.; notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA - 2 - PC2021-*** Procedures, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e., Class 32 – In-fill Development projects) which consists of in-fill development meeting the conditions described in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; that is, (a) the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Property is located within an "urbanized area", as that term is defined in Section 15387 of the CEQA Guidelines, and meets the aforementioned conditions and will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing pertaining to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-0604, including the Coordinated Sign Program, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The Proposed Project, which is a “Senior Living Facility – Large,” is an allowable use within the "RH-3" Single-Family Residential Zone under Section 18.04.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) of the Code, subject to a conditional use permit. 2. The request to permit the Proposed Project would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area because the main purpose of the proposed facility is to provide living accommodations to seniors in need of certain assistance in their daily lives. The services provided on-site is limited to assistance with daily living activities, and does not include medical services. The proposed facility would implement a number of security measures, and the proposed facility would be required to comply with the Code standards established to minimize any nuisance (i.e. excessive exterior light, noise). In addition, the conditions of approval contained herein will mitigate potential impacts to surrounding residential properties. 3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the Proposed Project in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area nor to the health and safety. As designed, the project’s design and site layout account for the proximity to the surrounding single- family residential properties by providing landscaping and structural setbacks that far exceeds the minimum required setbacks, and the Proposed Project also complies with all other required development standards applicable to the site (i.e. lot coverage, height), with an exception of minimum on-site parking. However, based on the parking study prepared for the project, the proposed 55 on-site parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate the parking demand for the proposed use. In addition, size and design of the proposed two monument signs are compatible with the Proposed Project and the neighborhood. 4. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic - 3 - PC2021-*** generated by the Proposed Project will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the future uses. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the Proposed Project, with conditions of approval contained herein, would operate in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, based upon a parking study submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for Variance No. 2020-05144 to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces. (102 spaces required; 55 spaces proposed) 1. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off- street parking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to the proposal under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use because the parking study prepared for the Proposed Project determined that the proposed 55 on-site parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate the anticipated parking demand of the Proposed Project. 2. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the Property because the proposed number of parking spaces within the Property is sufficient to accommodate the proposed use on site, as determined by the applicant’s parking study. In addition, the conditions of approval require all vehicles associated with the Proposed Project be parked on- site. 3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the proposed number of parking spaces located on the Property is sufficient to accommodate the proposed use on site, as determined by the parking study. In addition, the conditions of approval require all vehicles associated with the Proposed Project be parked on-site. 4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the project site provides adequate ingress and egress via two driveways (one on Nohl Ranch Road and the other on Royal Oaks Road). 5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the project site has sufficient ingress or egress access points that are designed to allow adequate on-site circulation and, therefore, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 should be approved for the following reasons: - 4 - PC2021-*** 1. The two Specimen Trees (Platanus Variety – Sycamores) proposed to be removed are located within the construction footprint of the Proposed Project and therefore removal of these two trees is necessary to allow reasonable and practical development of the property. 2. The Proposed Project complies with the required replacement tree standards, which requires five replacement trees. The project’s landscaping plan includes six new trees (Quercus agrifolia) that qualify as the required replacement trees; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that negate the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim does approve and adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048, Variance No. 2020-05144, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of the permits may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. - 5 - PC2021-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2021. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Simonne Fannin, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on May 24, 2021, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of May, 2021. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 6 - PC2021-*** EXHIBIT “A” - 7 - PC2021-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT 1 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing building footprints, pad elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements and other pertinent information in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code and the California Building Code, latest edition. Public Works, Development Services 2 Prepare and submit a final drainage study, including supporting hydraulic and hydrological data to the City of Anaheim for review and approval. The study shall confirm or recommend changes to the City's adopted Master Drainage Plan by identifying off-site and on-site storm water runoff impacts resulting from build-out of permitted General Plan land uses. In addition, the study shall identify the project's contribution and shall provide locations and sizes of catchments and system connection points and all downstream drainage- mitigating measures including but not limited to offsite storm drains and interim detention facilities. Public Works, Development Services 3 The developer shall execute a Save Harmless Agreement with the City of Anaheim for any storm drain connections to a City storm drain system. The agreement shall be recorded by the applicant on the property prior to the issuance of any permits. Public Works, Development Services 4 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer. Public Works, Development Services 5 The OWNER shall obtain the required coverage under California’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number. Public Works, Development Services 6 The owner shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for Public Works Development Services Division review upon request. Public Works, Development Services 7 Submit Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for review and approval. The WQMP shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/Significant Redevelopment projects. Identify potential sources of pollutants during the long-term on-going maintenance and use of the proposed project that could affect the quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site; define Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control (if applicable), best management practices (BMPs) to control or eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the surface water runoff; and provide a monitoring program to address the long-term implementation or and compliance with the defined BMPs. Public Works, Development Services 8 Submit a Preliminary Geotechnical Report to the Public Works Development Services Division for review and approval. The report shall address any proposed infiltration features of the WQMP. Public Works, Development Services - 8 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 9 The proposed project is within an area designated as a “Hillside Area” by the City Engineer. Security will be required for all hillside grading plans in the form of a surety bond, letter of credit or cash deposit. In addition, a public grading meeting will be required to be scheduled in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code 17.06.047 prior to grading permits. Public Works, Development Services 10 The Owner/Developer shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project. Public Utilities, Water Engineering PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 11 Final landscaping plans in compliance with all Code requirements, including clearance with the line of site triangle, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. The said landscaping plan must be in conformance with the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (Chapter 10.19) and the Zoning Code. Landscaping shall be installed prior to the final zoning inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 12 All above-ground utility devices including, but no limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, air condition facilities, and etc., shall be located outside all required street setbacks and screened. Location of such devices shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatment of each device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of all appropriate City departments. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 13 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on building plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 14 Plans shall be submitted showing stop control for driveways. A stop sign shall be installed and stop legend shall be painted on the driveways prior to final building and zoning inspection. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 15 The project driveway on Nohl Ranch Drive shall be a right-turn in/out only driveway. Plans shall be submitted showing R1-1 (STOP) sign, R3-5(R) (RIGHT- TURN-ONLY) sign, STOP pavement legend, and right-turn arrow pavement legend at the project driveway on Nohl Ranch Drive. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 16 Provide a certificate, from a Registered Civil Engineer, certifying that the finished grading has been completed in accordance with the City approved grading plan. Public Works, Development Services 17 The property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim the following easements: • 6 ft. in width on Royal Oak Road • 3 ft. in width on Nohl Ranch Road • Corner cutback at Royal Oak Road and Nohl Ranch Road Public Works, Development Services - 9 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 18 Design per City Standards full improvements for all impacted and hillside secondary arterial streets/facilities in accordance with City Code, Standards and Specifications. Such improvements may include, but not be limited to the following: curb, curb and gutter, landscape parkway, irrigation, sidewalk adjacent to ultimate right of way, curb ramps relocation of utilities, asphalt repair, utility trenching. Public Works, Development Services 19 An 8-inch sewer main is available for connection by this project on Royal Oak Road. Public Works, Development Services 20 The developer shall submit street improvement plans, obtain a right of way construction permit, and post a security (Performance and Labor & Materials Bonds) in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney for the construction of all required off-site and public improvements within the City street right of way of Royal Oak Rd. and Nohl Ranch Rd. Improvements shall conform to City of Anaheim Public Works requirements, approved traffic study requirements, and as approved by the City Engineer. The street improvement plans shall include all traffic related improvements adjacent to the project site including all driveways, utility installations, signing and striping, traffic signal relocation, and all other offsite work Public Works, Development Services 21 All Landscape plans shall comply with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AV 1881). Public Works, Development Services 22 A cash-in-lieu payment based on the project engineer’s cost estimate, in an amount determined by the City Engineer to be sufficient to pay for future street widening along Royal Oak Road and Nohl Ranch Road, including but not limited to, curb and gutter, utility relocations, concrete driveway, concrete sidewalk, street trees, landscape irrigation, relocation of street lights, relocation of traffic signal, required offsite BMPs, etc. necessary for the widening to its ultimate location, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim. Public Works, Development Services 23 A private water system with separate water service for fire protection and domestic water shall be provided and shown on plans submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 24 Per California Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537-537.5) as amended by Senate Bill 7, water submetering shall be furnished and installed by the Owner/Developer and a water submeter shall be installed to each individual unit. Provisions for the ongoing maintenance and operation (including meter billing) of the submeters shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 25 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault will have to be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 26 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities, Water Engineering - 10 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 27 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 28 The Owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (i) an easement for all large domestic above-ground water meters and fire hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement for all water service mains and service laterals all to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department’s standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 29 The Owner/Developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 30 Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 31 The property owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 32 Provide a Fire Master Plan for review and approval prior. Plan shall include (but not be limited to) emergency vehicle site access, water availability and fire flow requirements, any interior laddering requirements, and fire protection features like fire sprinklers and alarms. Anaheim Fire & Rescue 33 Permanent, temporary, and phased emergency access roads shall be designed and maintained to support an imposed load of 78,000 lbs. and surfaced to provide all- weather driving capabilities. Anaheim Fire & Rescue 34 Fire hydrants shall meet minimum Fire Department Specifications and Requirements for spacing, distance to structure and available fire flow. A fire flow report shall be required. Anaheim Fire & Rescue 35 Emergency vehicular access shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Fire Department Specifications and Requirements. Anaheim Fire & Rescue - 11 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 36 All buildings equipped with openings, as required by the Fire and Building Code shall be provided with an approved direct access route from the fire access road to accommodate fire department operations. The access route shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in width and be designed to accommodate a twenty-one (21) foot fire department ladder. A clear area of at least eight (8) feet in width shall be maintained free of permanent obstructions below all required rescue windows to allow for fire department ladder placement. Anaheim Fire & Rescue ON-GOING DURING CONSTRUCTION 37 Prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and approved by the Fire Department. A fire hydrant shall be located within 100 feet of the proposed FDC location. There might be a need for an additional fire hydrant if FDC connection is location where the proposed DCDA location is situated. Anaheim Fire & Rescue 38 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on the approved utility service plan. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 39 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 40 R1-1 (STOP) sign, R3-5(R) (RIGHT-TURN-ONLY) sign, STOP pavement legend, and right-turn arrow pavement legend shall be installed at the project driveway exit on Nohl Ranch Drive per the approved plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 41 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 42 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer, inspected and accepted by Construction Services prior to final building and zoning inspection. Public Works, Development Services 43 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must be paid in full. Public Works, Development Services 44 Record Drawings and As-Built Plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division. Public Works, Development Services 45 Record Drawings and As-Built Plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division. Public Works, Development Services 46 Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property, behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements. Public Utilities Water Engineering 47 File Emergency Listing Card, Form APD-281, with the Police Department. In addition, a detailed emergency action plan, for persons both with and without disability, shall be provided to the Police and Fire Departments. This shall include, but not limited to, Emergency Evacuation Plan, Shelter in Place Plan, etc. Police Department - 12 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 48 Post “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” at the entrances of parking structure and other appropriate places (i.e. resident gathering points and access points, bicycle parking, etc.). Such signs must be at least 1’ wide and 2’ high in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering. Police Department 49 All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C. to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owner’s/manager’s request. Police Department 50 Rooftop address numbers shall be provided for the police helicopter. Numbers shall be a minimum size of 4 feet in height and 2 feet in width. The lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of 6 inches thick. Numbers should be spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. Numbers should be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the roofing material. Numbers should face the street to which the structure is addressed. Numbers are not to be visible from ground level. Police Department 51 Address numbers shall be positioned to be readily readable from the street. Main building numbers should be a minimum height of 12”. Numbers should be illuminated during hours of darkness. Police Department 52 Closed circuit television (CCTV) security camera are recommended, with the following coverage areas: • Lobby Entrances, interior and exterior • Dining Areas • Building perimeter • Parking lot If security cameras are not monitored, signs indicating so should be placed at each camera. CCTV monitors and recorders should be secured in a separate locked compartment to prevent theft of, or tampering with, the recording. CCTV recordings should be kept for a minimum of 30 days before being deleted or recorded over. If used, CCTV videotapes should not be recorded over more than 10 items per tape. Police Department GENERAL 53 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in private alleys or paseo areas. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 54 The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new and existing public water facilities (e.g. water mains, fire hydrants, service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.): • 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power poles, street lights, and trees. • 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground facilities. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 55 No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or parking lots. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 56 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals. Public Utilities, Water Engineering 57 Monument signs and addresses shall be well lighted during hours of darkness. Police Department - 13 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 58 Adequate lighting of parking lots and parking structure, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Police Department 59 Ongoing during project operations, vehicle deliveries including loading and unloading shall be performed on site. Delivery vehicles shall not block any part of the public right of way. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 60 The project driveway on Nohl Ranch Drive shall be a right-turn in/out only driveway Should the measures constructed at the driveway on Nohl Ranch Road to prevent westbound left-turns in and southbound left-turns out of the project prove to be ineffective, project owner shall be required to revise the measures and construct alternative measures, at owner cost, until an effective measure is found and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 61 Vehicle gates shall not be installed across the project driveways or access roads as the site design does not allow any such gates to conform to City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 pertaining to gate set back distance, turnaround area, guest phone, separate lane for guest access, and minimum width for ingress/egress as required by the Fire Department. Should gates be desired in the future, gates shall comply with the current version of City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Detail 475 and are subject to approval by the City Engineer. Public Works, Traffic Engineering 62 Ongoing during project operations, all vehicles associated with the facility shall be parked on-site, and be prohibited from parking on public and private streets in the vicinity, including the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Should vehicle associated with the facility be found be parking on public streets, the applicant may be required to meet with the City of Anaheim to discuss corrective measures. This does not preclude the operator from securing an off-site parking arrangement to accommodate special event/holiday visitors as specified in the parking study on file with the Planning Services Division. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement and Planning Services Divisions; Public Works, Traffic Engineering 63 All non-emergency delivery and service activities shall be limited to hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Planning and Building, Code Enforcement Division 64 All new landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement and Planning Services Divisions 65 The noise mitigation instruments specified in the acoustical analysis prepared for the emergency generator, submitted as part of this application, shall be maintained in perpetuity to ensure compliance with the City’s noise standards. Planning and Building Department Planning Services Division 66 All trash generated from the facility shall be properly contained in trash bins located within an approved trash enclosure(s). The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. Planning and Building, Code Enforcement Division; and Public Works, Operations Division - 14 - PC2021-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 67 The senior living facility shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request and Parking Study submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the facility operation as described in these documents shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and Parking Study and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning and Building Department Planning Services Division 68 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department and as conditioned herein. Planning and Building Department Planning Services Division 69 Residents of the facility shall not be allowed to bring any personal vehicles, except that one vehicle per unit can be allowed for residents of two, 2-bedroom assisted living units. Planning and Building, Planning Services Division 70 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 71 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division 72 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division Page 1 of 1 To: Planning Department Staff, City of Anaheim From: Michael Wilborn - Alliance Residential Date: March 12, 2021 Case Number: CUP2019-06048 DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Re: Holden Anaheim Hills, 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road - Letter of Request V2 Please accept this Letter of Request for Holden Anaheim Hills senior housing community. Alliance is requesting to process this 118 unit new development senior housing community for a conditional use permit. The subject parcel is zoned RH-3 which allows for Group Care Facilities as an allowed use with an approval of a conditional use permit. The description of a Group Care Facility use includes the Health and Safety Code Section 1569 which is the Residential Care For The Elderly (RCFE) Act. Please see the pertinent project information and estimated timing below. Project Description The proposed project located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, CA consists of developing a new 118 unit, 2-story licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (“RCFE”). There will be 94 Assisted Living Units and 24 Memory Care units for a total of 127 beds. After the project receives its entitlement approvals and building permits to commence construction, it will take approximately 20 months to complete construction. The project will begin preleasing units 12 months before construction completion. Units will be ready for move- in once the RCFE license is obtained from the State of California. The license is typically secured a month after final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. This new senior community will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, providing a much needed retirement community for seniors in the Anaheim Hills neighborhood. The community will offer many services to residents needing Assisted Living and Memory Care services. The community will provide an environment that is safe, tranquil, promotes socialization and enriches the lives of all its residents. This is a place where families will be happy and proud to visit their loved ones. Services that will be available are: • Assistance with eating, bathing, dressing, toileting and walking • Access to health and medical services • 24/7 security and staff availability • Emergency call system for each resident’s home • Health promotion and exercise programs • Medication reminders • Personal laundry services • Social and recreational activities • Three meals a day served in a common dining area • Housekeeping services • Transportation via van for group events or private chauffeured car The project will be designed to be a Best in Class community with upgraded finishes such as luxury vinyl plank flooring, granite or quartz countertops and stainless steel appliances. The community will provide a resort-like experience through the architecture, landscaping, interior finishes and amenities. Common areas within the community will include two dining rooms, a bistro, living room, activity room, fitness room, theatre, salon and reception lobby. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 2 of 2 Site: On site sits a 17,217 SF Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints which will be demolished. The new building pad will sit on the same elevation as the existing church. Because the church is 30’ tall and the proposed building will be 25’ tall, the overall height will be reduced by 5’. The building is situated away from the neighboring residential homes, buffered by a driveway, parking stalls and landscaping. There are two entry drives for the community, one off E. Nohl Ranch Road with one off S. Royal Oaks Road. All services for the community, trash and deliveries, will be off S. Royal Oaks Road. New stepped retaining walls to the north and east will be added. Landscaping will be provided throughout. Building: The new building will be of Type VA-1hour wood construction comprised of 118 units (127 beds) with a total of approximately 98,504 SF. The 2-story building will have a height of 25’-0”, measured from the adjacent grade to the highest point of the roof. This falls below the height of the existing church which stands at 30’ high. Amenities for the senior residents will include a full restaurant style kitchen, dining rooms for both Assisted Living and Memory Care residents, a bistro, library, fitness room, living rooms, activity rooms, therapy room, theatre, laundry room and medication rooms in additional to a reception area, staff lounge and administrative office spaces. Outdoor amenities will include private internal courtyards that will be secured for the safety of residents. The courtyards will contain both walking paths for exercise, quiet contemplative areas for visiting with family and tables for outdoor activities. There will be kitchenettes in all assisted living units (sink, microwave and refrigerator) with granite or quartz countertops. Memory care units will not have a kitchenette and instead a counter top and storage area. Architectural Style: The proposed architectural style is a Mission/Spanish Revival style which is prevalent in Southern California. It will include cement plaster walls, tile roof, wood rafter details, accent tile details & wrought iron detailing. Colors will be primarily warm off-white walls with terracotta colored roof and dark brown wood. See Imagery sheet for examples. We feel this style will blend well and be respectful of the surrounding community Parking: In Assisted Living & Memory Care communities, parking is necessary only for staff and visitors as residents no longer drive. On grade parking is being proposed at a rate of .43 stalls/bed. A total of 55 stalls are being proposed for this project. In addition, the community will provide a van and a private car with chauffer that can transport residents around town, to doctor’s appointments and to offsite activities. Of the many possible building types allowed on this site, an assisted living community requires one of the least number of parking stalls and minimizes the traffic impact to the neighborhood. Please review submitted traffic report for additional information Operations: The community will be open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. It will be licensed by the State of California as a Residential Care For The Elderly and will comply with all the state regulations. Staff will be on site 24 hours a day with the following 3 shifts: 6AM-2PM – 28 regular staff members 2PM-10PM – 13 staff members 10PM–6AM – 4 staff members ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Elevator Overrun Chimney Exterior Cement Plaster Color 1, Typ Tile Roof, Typ Fabric Awning, TypDecorative Wrought Iron Screen Vinyl Window, TypJuliet Balcony, Typ Metal Railing, Typ Decorative Accent Wall Tile, Typ Exterior Cement Plaster Color 1, Typ Tile Roof, Typ Fabric Awning, TypAluminum Storefront Window System, Typ Vinyl Window, Typ Juliet Balcony, Typ Metal Railing, Typ Faux Window Shutters, Typ Exterior Cement Plaster Color 2, Typ Aluminum Storefront Window System, Typ Elevator Overrun Chimney Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun Elevator Overrun Exterior Cement Plaster Color 1, Typ Tile Roof, TypFabric Awning, Typ Precast Concrete Trim Vinyl Window, Typ Precast Concrete Columns, Typ Faux Window Shutters, Typ Exterior Cement Plaster Color 2, Typ Decorative Wrought Iron Screen Juliet Balcony, Typ Decorative Accent Wall Tile, Typ Exterior Cement Plaster Color 1, Typ Tile Roof, TypFabric Awning, Typ Aluminum Storefront Window System, Typ Vinyl Window, Typ Faux Window Shutters, Typ Decorative Wrought Iron Screen Juliet Balcony, Typ Decorative Accent Wall Tile, Typ Wood Trellis, Typ Elevator Overrun BeyondElevator Overrun BeyondChimeny Beyond Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun BeyondChimney Beyond Entry Reference Images Outdoor Spaces Architectural Details Building Massing Reference Only Not Part of Submission A13 1. Exterior Cement Plaster Color 1 10. Decorative Accent Wall Tile Ar c a d i a # 8 5 B l a c k A B - 8 Ar c a d i a # 8 8 S t a n d a r d D a r k B r o n z e A B - 7 Da r k B r o n z e A B - 6 St a n d a r d M e d i u m B r o n z e A B - 5 Ar c a d i a # 1 1 C l e a r A C - 2 Me d i u m B r o n z e A B - 4 Li g h t B r o n z e A B - 3 Ch a m p a g n e A B - 2 Li g h t C h a m p a g n e A B - 1 © C o l o r n o d i c An o d i z e d A l u m i n u m 5. Aluminum Storefront 1 2. Accent Color 2 6. Vinyl Window Color 3. Tile Roof 8. Metal Elements (Juliet Balconies, Railings, Etc) 4. Awning Sunbrella - Colonnade Seaglass or similar Outdoor Light Fixture 7. GFRC Elements (Arch Trim, Column Cover, Finials, etc) 9. Accent Color (Window Shutters) 2 3 4 56 7 8910 SW Natural Tan SW Otter Cemento Collection - Stelle III or similar Arcadia - Standard Medium Bronze AB5 or similar MI Windows - Bronze Exterior with Simulated Divided Lite or similar Boral - Red or similar SW Iron Ore Kichler Franceasi or similar Davis Colors - Pebble or similar SW Marea Baja A15 REVISION 4 - 31 MARCH 2021 L1.1CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 0’20’40’ AL COURTYARD • see enlargemtn, sheet L1.3 MC COURTYARD • see enlargement, sheet L1.4 OUTDOOR DINING • dining tables with shade umbrellas • enhanced pacving SLOPED PLANTING SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR STREET WIDTHS and PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION ROYAL OAK ROAD STREETSCAPE • new sidewalk & parkway • street trees • lush planting R O Y A L O A K R D NOHL RANCH RD EXSITING RESIDENTIAL EXSITING RESIDENTIAL EXSITING RESIDENTIAL AL LIVING / ACTIVITY FITNESSFAMILY ROOM DISCOVERY ROOMBISTRO GENERATOR TRASH LOBBY BEAUTY SALON MAIN KITCHEN T MC DINING MC LIVING / ACTIVITY PROJECT ENTRY • olive grove • upgraded paving • bougainvillea trellis LOW GROUND COVER TO BE PLANTED TO ALLOW FOR FIRE ACCESS AND LADDER PADS NOHL RANCH ROAD STREETSCAPE • new sidewalk & parkway • upgraded paving • lush landscape frontage • street trees AL DINING REVISION 4 - 31 MARCH 2021 L1.2LANDSCAPE IMAGERY REVISION 4 - 31 MARCH 2021 L1.3AL COURTYARD 0’8’16’ DINING TERRACE • accent tree • dining / game tables with umbrellas • festival lights • low wall FIRESIDE LOUNGE • fireplace • wood shade trellis • cement tile carpet • lounge furniture ENTRY COURT • fountain with decorative painted tile • specimen tree • lounge furniture GARDEN WALK • pergola with hanging light • pottery wall treatment AL LIVING / ACTIVITY FITNESSFAMILY ROOM LOGGIA DISCOVERY ROOMBISTRO LOBBY AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL REVISION 4 - 31 MARCH 2021 L1.4MC COURTYARD 0’8’16’ SHADE COURT • specimen tree in raised planter • pottery • seating MEMORY CARE GARDEN • circumambulatory strolling walk • specimen tree • bird and butterfly friendly planting • shade trees • seating nodes with low wall and umbrellas • pergola with hanging lights • screening for al units FOUNTAIN COURT • fountain with decorative painted tile • pottery • shade trellis • seating OFFICE OFFICE BEAUTY SALON MAIN KITCHEN MC DINING MC LIVING / ACTIVITY AL AL AL AL MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC LOBBY REVISION 4 - 31 MARCH 2021 L1.5TREE PLAN 0’20’40’ TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 36"BOX LOW 41 CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS 24"BOX LOW 14 JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA MULTI-TRUNK 36"BOX MODERATE 1 MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA CAJEPUT TREE MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX MEDIUM 4 OLEA EUROPAEA `WILSONII` WILSON OLIVE 60"BOX LOW 15 OLEA EUROPAEA `WILSONII` WILSON OLIVE - MAINTAIN AT 15` MAX. HT. 60"BOX LOW 8 PINUS ELDARICA AFGHAN PINE 48"BOX LOW 20 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 36"BOX VERY LOW 6 QUERCUS VIRGINIANA SOUTHERN LIVE OAK 36"BOX VERY LOW 3 RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC - MAINTAIN AT 15` MAX HT. 24`B.T.H.12 ULMUS PARVIFOLIA `TRUE GREEN` TRUE GREEN ELM 24"BOX MODERATE 5 TREE LEGEND PROPOSED PLANT LIST THIS PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT A TYPICAL SAMPLE OF THE PROPOSED PLANTS BUT DOES NOT INDICATE THE EXACT SPECIES WHICH WILL BE DEVELOPED ON THE DETAILED PLANS. ALL PLANTS ARE CAP-IPC NON-INVASIVE and WUCOLS MEDIUM/LOW WATER CONSUMPTION (REGION 3 - SOUTH COASTAL) VARIETIES FOR THEIR PROPOSED GROWING CONDITIONS. THESE PLANTS ARE WATER CONSERVING and USED FOR THEIR DEEP ROOT SYSTEMS WHICH STABILIZES SOIL and MINIMIZES EROSION IMPACTS. *REPLACEMENT TREE PER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 18.18.040.0603 *REPLACEMENT TREE PER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 18.18.040.0603 PLANTING SPECIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS SUBJECT TO REVIEWAND APPROVAL BY PUBLIC WORKS DURING FINAL ENGINEERING.NOTE: TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 36"BOX LOW 41 CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS 24"BOX LOW 14 JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA MULTI-TRUNK 36"BOX MODERATE 1 MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA CAJEPUT TREE MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX MEDIUM 4 OLEA EUROPAEA `WILSONII` WILSON OLIVE 60"BOX LOW 15 OLEA EUROPAEA `WILSONII` WILSON OLIVE - MAINTAIN AT 15` MAX. HT. 60"BOX LOW 8 PINUS ELDARICA AFGHAN PINE 48"BOX LOW 20 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 36"BOX VERY LOW 6 QUERCUS VIRGINIANA SOUTHERN LIVE OAK 36"BOX VERY LOW 3 RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC - MAINTAIN AT 15` MAX HT. 24`B.T.H.12 ULMUS PARVIFOLIA `TRUE GREEN` TRUE GREEN ELM 24"BOX MODERATE 5 TREE LEGEND PROPOSED PLANT LIST THIS PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT A TYPICAL SAMPLE OF THE PROPOSED PLANTS BUT DOES NOT INDICATE THE EXACT SPECIES WHICH WILL BE DEVELOPED ON THE DETAILED PLANS. ALL PLANTS ARE CAP-IPC NON-INVASIVE and WUCOLS MEDIUM/LOW WATER CONSUMPTION (REGION 3 - SOUTH COASTAL) VARIETIES FOR THEIR PROPOSED GROWING CONDITIONS. THESE PLANTS ARE WATER CONSERVING and USED FOR THEIR DEEP ROOT SYSTEMS WHICH STABILIZES SOIL and MINIMIZES EROSION IMPACTS. *REPLACEMENT TREE PER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 18.18.040.0603 *REPLACEMENT TREE PER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 18.18.040.0603 PLANTING SPECIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY PUBLIC WORKS DURING FINAL ENGINEERING. NOTE: RHUS LANCEA • maintain at 15’ max. ht. • parking lot is approx. 15’ lower then adjacent parcels to the west OLEA EUROPAEA ‘WILSONII’ • maintain at 15’ max. ht. • parking lot is approx. 15’ lower then adjacent parcels to the west ON-SITE WALLS TO BE SCREENED WITH 5 GALLON VINES AND SHRUBS Screening of utility devices. All new utility devices, including but not limited to utility boxes and irrigation back-flow devices visible to any public right of way shall be screened by landscaping and/or decorative fences or walls, except life- safety equipment that is required to be completely or partially visible by the city. Plans shall be submitted to the City, including site, elevation and landscape plans indicating compliance with this provision. Plan shall also be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for line of sight visibilty. Plants used to screen equipment shall be a minimum size adequate to fully screen the equipment within one (1) year of planting. LOCATIONS OF LANDSCAPE SCREENING On-site walls visible from any public right of way to be screened with 5 gallon vines and shrubs planted a minimum of 5 feet on center. Plant species within the public right of way is subject to review and approval of Public Works during Final Engineering. UTILITY SCREENING NOTE: WALL SCREENING NOTE: PUBLIC WORKS NOTE: SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR STREET WIDTHS and PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION T TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 36"BOX LOW 41 CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS 24"BOX LOW 14 JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA MULTI-TRUNK 36"BOX MODERATE 1 MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA CAJEPUT TREE MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX MEDIUM 4 OLEA EUROPAEA `WILSONII` WILSON OLIVE 60"BOX LOW 15 OLEA EUROPAEA `WILSONII` WILSON OLIVE - MAINTAIN AT 15` MAX. HT. 60"BOX LOW 8 PINUS ELDARICA AFGHAN PINE 48"BOX LOW 20 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 36"BOX VERY LOW 6 QUERCUS VIRGINIANA SOUTHERN LIVE OAK 36"BOX VERY LOW 3 RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC - MAINTAIN AT 15` MAX HT. 24`B.T.H.12 ULMUS PARVIFOLIA `TRUE GREEN` TRUE GREEN ELM 24"BOX MODERATE 5 TREE LEGEND PROPOSED PLANT LIST THIS PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT A TYPICAL SAMPLE OF THE PROPOSED PLANTS BUT DOES NOT INDICATE THE EXACT SPECIES WHICH WILL BE DEVELOPED ON THE DETAILED PLANS. ALL PLANTS ARE CAP-IPC NON-INVASIVE and WUCOLS MEDIUM/LOW WATER CONSUMPTION (REGION 3 - SOUTH COASTAL) VARIETIES FOR THEIR PROPOSED GROWING CONDITIONS. THESE PLANTS ARE WATER CONSERVING and USED FOR THEIR DEEP ROOT SYSTEMS WHICH STABILIZES SOIL and MINIMIZES EROSION IMPACTS. *REPLACEMENT TREE PER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 18.18.040.0603 *REPLACEMENT TREE PER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 18.18.040.0603 IRRIGATION ZONES: IRRIGATION HYDRO-ZONES SHALL HAVE PLANTS GROUPED with SIMILAR WATERING REQUIREMENTS. DEPTH OF IRRIGATION LINES: ALL ON-GRADE LATERAL LINES SHALL BE BURIED TO A DEPTH OF 18" MIN. ALL ON-GRADE MAINLINES SHALL BE BURIED TO A DEPTH OF 24" MIN. BACKFLOW PREVENTER: BACKFLOW PREVENTER SHALL BE A REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE BACKFLOW PREVENTER (FEBCO 825Y OR EQUAL) TYPE AS APPROVED BY WATER PURVEYOR and SCREENED with LANDSCAPING from PUBLIC VIEW. IRRIGATION EMITTERS: ALL SHRUB AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED USING DRIP TYPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED USING BUBBLER AND/OR DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL GROUNDCOVER AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED USING DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. IRRIGATION CONTROLLER: CONTROLLER SHALL BE AUTOMATIC WITH MULTIPLE PROGRAMMING CAPABILITY. CONTROLLER TO BE REPROGRAMMED SEASONALLY TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF AND OVER WATERING. "SMART" CONTROLLER WEATHER TRACKING DEVICES SHALL BE UTILIZED TO CONTROL IRRIGATION CYCLES ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS. CLASS OF IRRIGATION PIPE: ALL MAINLINE SHALL BE CLASS 315 PVC. ALL LATERAL LINE SHALL BE CLASS 200 PVC. * * * SPECIAL PROJECT IRRIGATION NOTES * * * 1. THE IRRIGATION DESIGN SHALL COMPLY with THE CRITERIA of CITY of ANAHEIM WATER CONSERVATION POLICIES and REQUIREMENTS. 2. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SERVING LANDSCAPE and TREES in the PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY will be CONNECTED to the ON-SITE WATER SUPPLY. PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE THE MAINTENANCE STAFF A MECHANICAL DEVICE TO DISTRIBUTE WATER AND ENSURE PLANT SURVIVAL IN THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNER AND WITHIN A TIME FRAME THAT LEAST INTERFERES WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RESIDENTS. CONCEPT: THE SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE DRIP and BUBBLER IRRIGATION COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA BEING WATERED AND INFILTRATION RATES OF THE SOIL. THE SYSTEM WILL BE CONTROLLED BY A 'WEATHER TRAK' or 'SMART' CONTROLLER. VALVES PROGRAMMED FROM AUTOMATIC CONTROLLERS WILL MAXIMIZE EFFICIENT WATER APPLICATION. TO AVOID WATER RUNOFF, THE CONTROLS WILL BE OVERSEEN BY A FLOW MONITOR THAT WILL DETECT ANY BROKEN BUBBLER HEADS or DRIP TUBING TO STOP THAT STATION'S OPERATION, ADVANCING TO THE NEXT WORKABLE STATION. IN THE EVENT OF PRESSURE SUPPLY LINE BREAKAGE, IT WILL COMPLETELY STOP THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. ALL MATERIAL WILL BE NON-FERROUS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BRASS PIPING INTO AND OUT OF THE BACKFLOW UNITS. ALL WORK WILL BE IN THE BEST ACCEPTABLE MANNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS PREVAILING IN THE INDUSTRY. IRRIGATION CONCEPT STATEMENT WATER CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES LANDSCAPING WILL BE OF THE TYPE AND SITUATED IN LOCATIONS TO MAXIMIZE OBSERVATION WHILE PROVIDING A DEGREE OF AESTHETICS . SECURITY PLANTING MATERIALS ARE ENCOURAGED ALONG PROPERTY LINES AND WALLS AND UNDER VULNERABLE WINDOWS. TREES WILL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE STRUCTURE TO ALLOW EASY ACCESS TO THE ROOF, OR SHOULD BE KEPT TRIMMED TO MAKE CLIMBING DIFFICULT. ALL LANDSCAPING WILL BE MAINTAINED IN A MANNER THAT ALLOWS FOR THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE BY ADJACENT LIGHT FIXTURES. LANDSCAPE SECURITY MEASURES:. . . LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTED LANDSCAPE WATER EFFICIENCY GUIDELINES. THIS ORDINANCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (AV1881). 2. ANY TREE OR PALM WITHIN 5 FEET OF HARDSCAPE AREA WILL RECEIVE ROOT CONTROL BARRIERS. 3. ALL PLANTING AREAS WILL RECEIVE 3" THICK LAYER OF SHREDDED WOOD MULCH. 4.ALL NEW LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.46 “LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING” OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE REPLACED IN A TIMELY MANNER IN THE EVENT THAT IT IS REMOVED, DAMAGED, DISEASED AND/OR DEAD. WUCOLS, Water Use Classification of Landscape Species, is a University of California Cooperative Extension Publication and is a guide to the water needs of landscape plants. CROP FACTOR PERCENT OF ETo H - HIGH 70% - 90% M - MEDIUM 40% - 60% L - LOW 10% - 30% VL - VERY LOW < 10% WUCOLS NOTES: NOHL RANCH RD & ROYAL OAK RD: 570' L.F. with 20' O.C. MIN: 29 TREES REQUIRED 41 TREES PROVIDED. PERIMETER TREE REQUIREMENTS PLANTING SPECIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY PUBLIC WORKS DURING FINAL ENGINEERING. NOTE: Agave attenuata Foxtail Agave Cercis canadensis 'Forest Pansy'Eastern Redbud Furcraea mediopicta Mauritius Hemp Ligustrum japonicum Japanese Privet Pittosporum tobira Japanese Pittosporum Rhaphiolepis indica 'Clara'White Indian Hawthorn LARGE SHRUBS (MINIMUM 5 GALLON SIZE AT 3' O.C.): MEDIUM SHRUBS (MINIMUM 5 GALLON SIZE) Camellia japonica 'Bob Hope'Bob Hope Camellia Dianella revoluta 'Little Rev'Black Anther Flax Lilly Dietes iridioides 'Vegeta'Fortnight Lily Phormium x 'Surfer'New Zealand Flax Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Viburnum tinus 'Spring Bouquet'Spring Bouquet Viburnum LOW SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS (MINIMUM 1 GALLON SIZE) Bougainvillea 'San Diego Red'Red Bougainvillea Buxus japonica Japanese Boxwood Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet'Natal Plum Ficus pumila Creeping Fig Lantana x. 'Confetti'Confetti Lantana Rosa floribunda 'Iceberg'Iceberg Rose Rosmarinus officinalis 'Irene'Rosemary Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine INFILTRATION BASIN (1 GALLON SIZE) Carex Densa Dense Sedge Festuca californica California Fescue Juncus Patens Gray Rush LOW MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW SHRUBS and GROUNDCOVERS: 50% OF GROUNDCOVER PLANTS TO BE MINIMUM 5 GALLON SIZE GROUNDCOVER NOTE:. 24" BOX MIN. TREES REQUIRED ALONG NOHL RANCH RD SETBACK AREA: 15 TREES PROPOSED ALONG NOHL RANCH RD SETBACK AREA: 16 24" BOX MIN. TREES REQUIRED ALONG ROYAL OAK RD SETBACK AREA: 14 TREES PROPOSED ALONG NOHL RANCH RD SETBACK AREA: 19 1.NO TREES TO REMAIN ON SITE. TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED: 43 2. 115 TREES PROPOSED FOR NEW IMPROVEMENTS 3. NO KNOWN "HERITAGE" or HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT or ENDANGERED TREE SPECIES ARE ON THIS PROPERTY EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED: NOTES: # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 BOTANICAL NAME MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDES PYRUS KAWAKAMII PYRUS KAWAKAMII LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA FICUS BENJAMINA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA FICUS BENJAMINA MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA PYRUS KAWAKAMII PYRUS KAWAKAMII PYRUS KAWAKAMII WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA PYRUS KAWAKAMII PYRUS KAWAKAMII PINUS HALEPENSIS LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA PINUS HALEPENSIS EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOS LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA PINUS HALEPENSIS PINUS HALEPENSIS PLATANUS RACEMOSA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA PINUS HALEPENSIS PINUS HALEPENSIS LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA PLATANUS RACEMOSA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA COMMON NAME SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA MEXICAN FAN PALM MEXICAN FAN PALM CARROT WOOD EVERGREEN PEAR EVERGREEN PEAR AMERICAN SWEETGUM WEEPING FIG AMERICAN SWEETGUM AMERICAN SWEETGUM AMERICAN SWEETGUM WEEPING FIG SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA AMERICAN SWEETGUM EVERGREEN PEAR EVERGREEN PEAR EVERGREEN PEAR MEXICAN FAN PALM MEXICAN FAN PALM MEXICAN FAN PALM EVERGREEN PEAR EVERGREEN PEAR ALEPPO PINE AMERICAN SWEETGUM ALEPPO PINE RED BOX AMERICAN SWEETGUM AMERICAN SWEETGUM AMERICAN SWEETGUM ALEPPO PINE ALEPPO PINE WESTERN SYCAMORE AMERICAN SWEETGUM AMERICAN SWEETGUM ALEPPO PINE ALEPPO PINE AMERICAN SWEETGUM WESTERN SYCAMORE AMERICAN SWEETGUM AMERICAN SWEETGUM AMERICAN SWEETGUM AMERICAN SWEETGUM CONDITION GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR FAIR FAIR POOR POOR FOR TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION SPECIFICATION SEE ARBORIST REPORT BY ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. CONDUCTED ON 02.01.2021 ARBORIST REPORT NOTE: REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES WILL REQUIRE REPLACEMENT TREES TO BE PLANTED PER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 18.18.040. SPECIMEN TREES REMOVED: 2 REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED: 5 REPLACEMENT TREES PROVIDED: 9 (QUERCUS) SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NOTE: 1 2 3 4 43 42 41 36 35 30 37 33 34 38 3231 22 28 2521 23 26 24 20 19 1817 16 10 13 15 14 9 8 12 7 6 5 11 27 29 REVISION 4 - 31 MARCH 2021 L1.6PLANTING PALETTE AND NOTES THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING CONCEPT IS TO PROVIDE LEVELS OF LIGHTING SUFFICIENT TO MEET SAFETY AND ORIENTATION NEEDS. WITHIN PUBLIC AREAS LIGHTING WILL BE WARM COLORED AND UNOBTRUSIVE. LIGHT SOURCES WILL BE TUNGSTEN OR METAL HALIDE. LIGHTING SOURCES FOR THE LANDSCAPE AND PAVED AREAS WILL BE CONCEALED AND THE LIGHTING INDIRECT NOT VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC VIEWPOINT. LIGHT SOURCES SHOULD BE DIRECTED SO THAT IT DOES NOT FALL OUTSIDE THE AREA TO BE LIGHTED. ALL EXTERIOR SURFACE AND ABOVE-GROUND MOUNTED FIXTURES WILL BE SYMPATHETIC AND COMPLIMENTARY TO THE ARCHITECTURAL THEME. PHOTOMETRICS TO BE PROVIDED BY ELECTRICAL CONSULTANT. LIGHTING CONCEPT: EXTERIOR LIGHTING LEGEND LOCATION:SYMBOL TYPE/TECHNIQUE: 12' HT POLE EXISTING STREET LIGHT EXTERIOR ROADS BOLLARD - 42" HT.PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS OVERHEAD FESTIVAL LIGHTING MINIMUM 12' ABOVE FINISH SURFACE BUILDING MOUNTED SCONCE TO BE SELECTED BY ARCHITECT TRELLIS STRUCTURES / ARCHITECTURE. FIXTURE WILL NOT PRODUCE OFF-SITE GLARE CEILING LIGHT PENDANT LIGHT ENTRY DRIVES INTERIOR ROADS FIXTURE WILL NOT PRODUCE OFF-SITE GLARE REVISION 4 - 31 MARCH 2021 L1.7CONCEPTUAL LIGHTING PLAN 0’20’40’ THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING CONCEPT IS TO PROVIDE LEVELS OF LIGHTING SUFFICIENT TO MEET SAFETY AND ORIENTATION NEEDS. WITHIN PUBLIC AREAS LIGHTING WILL BE WARM COLORED AND UNOBTRUSIVE. LIGHT SOURCES WILL BE TUNGSTEN OR METAL HALIDE. LIGHTING SOURCES FOR THE LANDSCAPE AND PAVED AREAS WILL BE CONCEALED AND THE LIGHTING INDIRECT NOT VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC VIEWPOINT. LIGHT SOURCES SHOULD BE DIRECTED SO THAT IT DOES NOT FALL OUTSIDE THE AREA TO BE LIGHTED. ALL EXTERIOR SURFACE AND ABOVE-GROUND MOUNTED FIXTURES WILL BE SYMPATHETIC AND COMPLIMENTARY TO THE ARCHITECTURAL THEME. PHOTOMETRICS TO BE PROVIDED BY ELECTRICAL CONSULTANT. LIGHTING CONCEPT: EXTERIOR LIGHTING LEGEND LOCATION:SYMBOL TYPE/TECHNIQUE: 12' HT POLE EXISTING STREET LIGHT EXTERIOR ROADS BOLLARD - 42" HT.PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS OVERHEAD FESTIVAL LIGHTING MINIMUM 12' ABOVE FINISH SURFACE BUILDING MOUNTED SCONCE TO BE SELECTED BY ARCHITECT TRELLIS STRUCTURES / ARCHITECTURE. FIXTURE WILL NOT PRODUCE OFF-SITE GLARE CEILING LIGHT PENDANT LIGHT ENTRY DRIVES INTERIOR ROADS FIXTURE WILL NOT PRODUCE OFF-SITE GLARE SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR STREET WIDTHS and PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION PRIVATE LIGHT POLES ARE LOCATED BEHIND THE SETBACK - 20’ FROM THE ULTIMATE ROW PRIVATE BOLLARDS ARE LOCATED AT LEAST 8’FROM THE ULTIMATE ROW PRIVATE BOLLARDS ARE LOCATED AT LEAST 8’FROM THE ULTIMATE ROW PRIVATE LIGHT POLES ARE LOCATED BEHIND THE SETBACK -9’ FROM THE ULTIMATE ROW. ALL POLE LIGHTS ARE A MIN. OF 15’ FROM ADJACENT NEIGHBORS PROPERY LINES. DESIGNER:CLIENT APPROVAL:(Please Check Box) AS SHOWN CLIENT SIGNATURE DATE DESIGNS ARE THE PROPERTY OFOUTDOOR DIMENSIONS UNTIL PURCHASED BY CLIENT.CONCEPTS:WORKING DRAWING:PROOF: (Initial) R. COLEMAN .5 SCALE:AS NOTED WITH CHANGES YOUR SIGNATURE ACKNOWLEDGES FULL APPROVAL OF DESIGN LAYOUT AND CONTENT, RELEASING OUTDOOR DIMENSIONS FROM RESPONSIBILITY IN REGARD TO INCORRECT DESIGN AND INFORMATION. THE COLORS SHOWN ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF ACTUAL PMS COLOR CALL OUTS. FINAL COLOR WILL BE MATCHED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE, DUE TO MATERIALS USED. PROOF: REVISIONS: (Initial) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 MA ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLSPROJECT:CLIENT: SALES REP:D. HACKETT 03/11/20DATE:PERMIT MAP.1.2_0 5325 E. HUNTER AVENUEANAHEIM, CA 92807714-578-9555 FAX 714-693-9578 RUSH HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Rd. Anaheim, CA 92807 TYPE DESCRIPTION QTY ELC.01 Monument 2 03/31/21 Monument Sign 1 Monument Sign 2 (Same As Monument Sign 1) FRONT VIEW 10.92 SQ. FT.1 SCALE: 1” = 1’ - 0” 1'-4 3/8" 8'-7 1/4" 6" (L) 6" (H) 10" DESIGNER:CLIENT APPROVAL:(Please Check Box) AS SHOWN CLIENT SIGNATURE DATE DESIGNS ARE THE PROPERTY OFOUTDOOR DIMENSIONS UNTIL PURCHASED BY CLIENT.CONCEPTS:WORKING DRAWING:PROOF: (Initial) R.COLEMAN .5 SCALE:AS NOTED WITH CHANGES YOUR SIGNATURE ACKNOWLEDGES FULL APPROVAL OF DESIGN LAYOUT AND CONTENT, RELEASING OUTDOOR DIMENSIONS FROM RESPONSIBILITY IN REGARD TO INCORRECT DESIGN AND INFORMATION. THE COLORS SHOWN ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF ACTUAL PMS COLOR CALL OUTS. FINAL COLOR WILL BE MATCHED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE, DUE TO MATERIALS USED. PROOF: REVISIONS: (Initial) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 MA ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLSPROJECT:CLIENT: SALES REP:D. HACKETT 03/11/21DATE:SIGN TYPE: ELC.1.4_0 5325 E. HUNTER AVENUEANAHEIM, CA 92807714-578-9555 FAX 714-693-9578 RUSH FIELD MEASURE REQUIRED TO CONFIRM METHOD OF ATTACHMENT FIELD MEASURE REQUIREDFRONT VIEW 3 SCALE: 5/16” = 1’ - 0” FRONT VIEW 1.68 SQ. FT.2 SCALE: 1” = 1’ - 0” HALLO ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERS WITH 1” DEEP RETURNS. ILLUMINATED WITH MINI LED’S LETTERS ARE MECHNICALLY SECURED TO A 12H”X 5D”X 9’-6”W ALUMINUM RACEWAY ADDRESS NUMBERS ARE 1/2” THICK ALUMINUM DIMENTIONAL PIN MOUTED LETTES UNIV. BLACK PATINA IRON FAUX FINISH HALO ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS ON A RACEWAY 1 2 3 ALL PENETRATIONS TO BE FILLED WITH INDUSTRIAL GRADE SILICONE 4 A9" 2'-3" ELECTRICAL NOTES PRIMARY ELECTRICAL FEED. CLIENT TO PROVIDE ONE (1) DEDICATED 120V/20A, ELECTRICALCIRCUIT. SIGN CIRCUITS MUST NOT BE SHARED WITH OTHER LOADS SUCH AS LIGHTING, AIR CONDITIONING AND OTHER EQUIPMENT AND LOCATED NO FARTHER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM CONNECTION POINT OF THE SIGN. A UL LISTED DISCONNECT SWITCH IS IN THE SIGN. SIGN CIRCUIT MUST BE ON A ON LIGHTING CONTROL PANEL OR ASTRONOMICAL TIME CLOCK OR PHOTO CELL ALONG WITH 24 HOUR TIME CLOCK. SIGN MUST SATISFY ALL TITLE 24 REQUIREMENTS. ALL FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND PRINCIPAL LED POWER SUPPLYMOUNTED AT LEAST 1/2” ABOVEFLOOR OF METAL TRANSFORMER BOX 2 SECTION 12” H x 14’-8”W. 0.063 ALUMINUM TRANSFORMER BOX 1/4” DRAIN HOLES 12 AWG PRIMARY WIRE GROUNDING/BONDING TERMINAL PART #SW20-2HP UL “E” #E469421WATERPROOF SINGLEPOLE TOGGL SWITCH HEYCO STRAIN RELIEF SNAP BUSHING #2053 #10 FLAT HEAD METAL SCREW,PTM RETURN, ATTACHED TOLEXAN CLIP 4” #10 SCREWS W/ NYLON ANCHORS,4 PER LETTER MIN. (OVER 36” HIGH) 4” LAG SCREWS W/ ANCHORS BUILDING WALL ALUM. OR PVC STANDOFF SPACER,PTM WALL COLOR, TYP. DEPTH: 1 1/2”. .090” ALUM. RETURN INSIDES OF FACE & RETURNSTO BE PAINTED POLAR WHITE 1/8” ALUM. FACE 1/4” Ø DRAIN HOLE@ EVERY LOW POINTIN EACH LETTER(W/ LIGHT BAFFLE IFNECESSARY) IDEAL® #73B®ORANGE WIRE NUTS 18 AWG SECONDARY WIRE 3/16” LEXANLETTER BACKS,BLIND RIVETEDTO 1” x 1”LEXANANGLE CLIPS WHITE LED MODULESPRINCIPAL LED#PL-SP3-WH2-P 1" 5'-6" 10'-0" 1'-6" 03/31/21 Page 3 of 5 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS 431. The Owner/Developer shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project. Public Utilities Water Engineering PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 420. A private water system with separate water service for fire protection and domestic water shall be provided and shown on plans submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities Water Engineering 444. Per California Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537-537.5) as amended by Senate Bill 7, water submetering shall be furnished and installed by the Owner/Developer and a water submeter shall be installed to each individual unit. Provisions for the ongoing maintenance and operation (including meter billing) of the submeters shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. Public Utilities Water Engineering 421. All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault will have to be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector. Public Utilities Water Engineering 422. All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities Water Engineering 426. All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. Public Utilities Water Engineering 427. The Owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (i) an easement for all large domestic above-ground water Public Utilities Water Engineering Page 4 of 5 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT meters and fire hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement for all water service mains and service laterals all to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department’s standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. 430. The Owner/Developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities Water Engineering 432. Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. Public Utilities Water Engineering PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION 443. Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property, behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements. Public Utilities Water Engineering GENERAL CONDITIONS 439. The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new and existing public water facilities (e.g. water mains, fire hydrants, service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.): 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power poles, street lights, and trees. Public Utilities Water Engineering Page 5 of 5 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground facilities. 440. No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in private alleys or paseo areas. Public Utilities Water Engineering 441. No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or parking lots. Public Utilities Water Engineering 442. All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals. Public Utilities Water Engineering Page 4 of 5 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT meters and fire hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement for all water service mains and service laterals all to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department’s standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include language that requires the Owner to be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project. 430. The Owner/Developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities Water Engineering 432. Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. Public Utilities Water Engineering PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION 443. Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property, behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements. Public Utilities Water Engineering GENERAL CONDITIONS 439. The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new and existing public water facilities (e.g. water mains, fire hydrants, service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.): 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power poles, street lights, and trees. Public Utilities Water Engineering A16 S T O P STOP PROPOSED BUILD I N G 498' FFEAST N O H L R A N C H R O A D CL R O Y A L O A K R O A D C L P R O P O S E D B U I L D I N G 4 9 8 ' F F B A S E M E N T 4 8 5 ' F F ( P U B L I C ) ( P U B L I C ) P R O J E C T L O C A T I O N H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y 5 2 7 5 E N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 8 0 7 GNIREENE IGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.co m R e v i s i o n 4 3 1 M a r c h 2 0 2 1 C O N C E P T U A L S I T E P L A N V I C I N I T Y M A P 1 O F 5 E A S T N O H L R A N C H R O A D C L R O Y A L O A K R O A D C L P R O P O S E D B U I L D I N G 4 9 8 ' F F B A S E M E N T 4 8 6 ' F F P R O P O S E D B U I L D I N G 4 9 8 ' F F P R O P O S E D B U I L D I N G 4 9 8 ' F F ( P U B L I C ) ( P U B L I C ) T R A S H R O O M ( 4 8 5 . 4 1 - 4 8 5 . 2 6 F F ) S T O P N O H L R A N C H R O A D S T O P ROYAL OAK ROAD H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y 5 2 7 5 E N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 8 0 7 GNIREENE IGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.co m R e v i s i o n 4 3 1 M a r c h 2 0 2 1 2 O F 5 C O N C E P T U A L G R A D I N G P L A N E A S T N O H L R A N C H R O A D C L R O Y A L O A K R O A D C L ( P U B L I C ) ( P U B L I C ) H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y 5 2 7 5 E N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 8 0 7 GNIREENE IGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.co m R e v i s i o n 4 3 1 M a r c h 2 0 2 1 3 O F 5 C O N C E P T U A L U T I L I T Y P L A N U T I L I T Y C R O S S I N G S H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y 5 2 7 5 E N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 8 0 7 GNIREENE IGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.co m R e v i s i o n 4 3 1 M a r c h 2 0 2 1 A H D EFCGB 4 O F 5 C O N C E P T U A L S I T E S E C T I O N S H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y 5 2 7 5 E N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 8 0 7 GNIREENE IGN16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.co m R e v i s i o n 4 3 1 M a r c h 2 0 2 1 C 5 O F 5 C O N C E P T U A L S I T E S E C T I O N S A B D Holden Anaheim Hills Security Memo 5.12.2021 Holden Anaheim Hills is designed to monitor residents 24 hours a day and to control / confirm anyone entering or exiting the property. Security protocols are also designed to prevent someone from getting into the building at night without proper approval. Any guest visiting Holden Anaheim Hills will, and must, come through the primary main entrance lobby. There they will be screened, checked for Covid (per the current / applicable regulations), be required to identify themselves, and then be escorted or approved to proceed into the building. An example of an approval would be a well-known family member. Unapproved visitors are not allowed to enter or wander through the community. The coming and going of all Holden Anaheim Hills residents will be monitored. As a licensed RCFE (Residential Care Facility for the Elderly), this monitoring is required. If residents leave the senior living community they must sign out and indicate a return time as well as with whom they anticipate to return with. The Memory Care wing at Holden Anaheim Hills will have its own security system that is called “delayed egress.” This system keeps the exit doors secure and will not open without a code (in case of a fire the doors are opened automatically). If a resident were to push on the exit door latch an audible alarm will sound and staff has 15 seconds to redirect the resident away from the door or address the situation. This is a proven and state approved system through experience and research at many other similar communities. After dusk, Holden Anaheim Hills will be locked down. Only being open to known / screened staff or family members that have notified the community that they are coming in ahead of time. All internal protocols and systems are designed to prevent someone from entering after hours, as well as to monitor a resident leaving unattended out of the community. The vast majority of senior living communities do not have security guards and neither will Holden Anaheim Hills. The senior living community security is done through multiple internal protocols that ensure there is only one main entrance into the building and that the entrance is monitored through multiple processes. There has not been a need industry-wide to have a guard outside of communities like Holden Anaheim Hills. Staff at this site will be in the building, and awake, 24 hours a day. If an issue arises outside of the community staff would simply call the police and allow the public safety professionals to handle it. Holden Anaheim Hills leadership has reached out to the appropriate law enforcement department to notify them about this potential senior living community and to inquire about patrol rotations within this specific Anaheim Hills area. Senior living communities in this regard rarely experience break-ins or other threats. The priority of Holden Anaheim Hills will be to ensure a comfortable, safe, luxurious, and consistent level of care for generations of local residents. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Veneklasen Associates Consultants in Acoustics | Noise | Vibration | AV | IT 1711 Sixteenth Street • Santa Monica California 90404 • tel: 310.450.1733 • fax: 310.396.3424 • www.veneklasen.com March 10, 2021 Alliance Residential Company 2462 Dupont Drive Irvine, California 92612 Attention: Ron Schulman | Vice President of Preconstruction Subject: Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study VA Project No. 5313-016 Dear Ron: Veneklasen Associates, Inc. (VA) was contracted to perform a noise study to evaluate the noise from the emergency generator at the proposed Holden Senior Living Community in Anaheim, California, and propose mitigation as necessary. This report documents our findings. INTRODUCTION The project site is located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road at the intersection with South Royal Oak Road. An emergency generator will be located near the northeast corner of the property about 25 feet from the property line. The nearest adjacent properties are existing single-family homes on Honeywood Lane. See Figure 1. The project site is higher in elevation than Honeywood Lane, with the generator pad about 15 feet higher than the lots of the nearest homes. Figure 2 shows a section through the generator. Figure 1. Project Site 5246 Honeywood Ln 5250 Honeywood Ln Generator Proposed Holden Senior Living Community, 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road Walls ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 2 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 2 of 8 www.veneklasen.com Figure 2. Section through site at generator CRITERIA The Anaheim Municipal Code section 6.70.010 prohibits any sound “radiated for extended periods … which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line in excess of 60 decibels.” The sound level is specified to be measured using the A-weighting scale and slow response of a sound level meter. EMERGENCY GENERATOR The following parameters were used for the analysis, based on information provided by others. The generator is a Rolls-Royce MTU 6R0225DS400 provided with a Level 3 weather and sound enclosure. The sound pressure level generated at full load with the Level 3 enclosure is 75.5 dBA at 7 meters (23 feet). The data sheet is attached in Appendix B for reference. A hospital-grade silencer should be provided on the exhaust. The generator with enclosure, including fuel tank (which is located below the generator) is 8 feet high. The generator will be surround by walls for visual and acoustic screening. The wall construction will be masonry or stucco and will be a minimum of 10 feet high as measured from the elevation of the generator pad. The wall is a minimum of 5 feet from the generator on all sides. Walls on three sides, as shown on Figure 1, was analyzed for acoustical purposes. A wall on the fourth side may be included but is not required, as the calculation were performed with walls on three sides. NOISE MODELING, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS Noise propagation calculations were performed using Predictor-LimA1 noise modeling software. The calculations include the effect of terrain, shielding from walls and buildings, air and ground absorption, and reflections. Terrain contours were provided by the civil engineer. The generator pad elevation was 477.75 feet per the civil drawings. It was verified that the predicted noise level from the generator matched the published data when there was no shielding from walls or terrain. Noise level contours were calculated at 5 feet above the ground corresponding to head height. We also calculated the noise level at the second floor of the residences on Honeywood Lane. Although farther away, the second floor locations have more direct exposure due to the differences in elevation. The contours at ground level are shown in Figure 1, and the noise levels at the receptor locations are shown in Table 1. The calculations indicate that the requirement of the municipal code will be satisfied. 1 https://softnoise.com/products/predictor-lima/ 5250 Honeywood Ln Generator Property Line Wall Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 3 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 3 of 8 www.veneklasen.com Figure 3. Calculated Noise Contours Table 1. Calculated Noise Levels Location Noise Level (dBA) Property line 59 Second floor 51 SUMMARY Veneklasen evaluated the project site with the following provisions: • The specified emergency generator will be provided with a Level 3 noise enclosure and a hospital-grade silencer on the exhaust. • The generator will be surrounded with minimum 10-foot-high walls on the three sides facing the homes to the north. With the above provisions, the noise from the operation of the emergency generator is calculated to comply with the requirements of the City of Anaheim noise ordinance. Property Line Generator Walls Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 4 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 4 of 8 www.veneklasen.com If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Veneklasen Associates, Inc. Wayland Dong Associate Principal Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 5 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 5 of 8 www.veneklasen.com APPENDIX A Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term Definition Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound in a logarithmic ratio to a reference value. A-weighted Decibels (dBA) A filter applied to sound pressure levels in decibel to simulate the response of the human ear at the threshold of hearing. A-weighting de-emphasizes the low frequency components of a sound similar to the human ear at these levels. This metric has been closely tied to subjective reactions of annoyance to noise, and is used as a noise metric in this and in many other environmental acoustics reports. In this report, all dBA levels reported refer to the sound pressure level, referenced to 20µPa Sound Pressure Level (Lp) The amplitude of sound compared to the reference value of 20µPa. Sound Pressure Level is what we perceive as audible sound. Sound Pressure Level decreases as distance from the source to the receiver increases. Sound Power Level (Lw) The amplitude of sound compared to the reference value of 1pW. Sound Power Level does not vary with distance, and represents the level of sound emitted by a given source. The sound power level is generally used to model the sound pressure level of a source at a given distance or location. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The time-weighted average sound or vibration level for a given period of time. Use of this metric allows the observation of the overall sound level for the measurement period. Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The instantaneous maximum sound or vibration level of an event. The Lmax can occur over very short periods of time, and fluctuates much more than the Leq due to the presence of intermittent events in the noise environment. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The time-weighted noise level representing the noise exposure over a 24-hour period. Noise events that occur within the evening hours (7pm to 10pm) are given a +5dB penalty, and noise events that occur within the nighttime hours (10pm to 7am) are given a +10dB penalty, to account for increased sensitivity to noise during these hours. This metric has units of A-weighted decibels, and has been correlated to probability of annoyance. Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 6 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 6 of 8 www.veneklasen.com APPENDIX B Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 7 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 7 of 8 www.veneklasen.com Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 8 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 8 of 8 www.veneklasen.com May 12, 2021 Alliance Realty Partners, LLC and Assigns C/O Michael Wilborn 450 Newport Center Drive, Ste 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 LLG Reference: 2.20.4251.1 Subject: Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Anaheim, California Dear Mr. Wilborn: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit the findings of this Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project located on the site currently occupied by the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church in Anaheim Hills, California. This analysis evaluates the potential traffic circulation impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment Project. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project site is currently occupied with a 17,217 square-foot (SF) Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church with driveway access on both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The Project applicant is proposing to construct a 98,504 SF assisted living facility with 96 beds within 94 assisted living dwelling units and 31 beds within 24 memory care dwelling units. The Project will include three shifts consisting of a maximum of 45 employees on a typical day. The development will include 55 parking spaces for Staff and guests. Figure 1, attached, presents a Vicinity Map that illustrates the general location of the Project site and surrounding street system and Figure 2 presents an existing site aerial. Access for the Project site will continue to be provided via the existing right- in/right-out access driveway located along Nohl Ranch Road and the existing full movement driveway along Royal Oak Road. Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan for the Project, prepared by Shelter Architects. ATTACHMENT NO. 6 Mr. Michael Wilborn May 12, 2021 Page 2 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Trip Generation Forecast Comparison Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the Tenth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017]. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the existing/entitled use and proposed Project and also presents the existing/entitled use and proposed Project’s forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. As shown in the upper portion of Table 1, the trip generation potential of the proposed assisted living facility was estimated using ITE Land Use 254: Assisted Living trip rates whereas the existing entitled church was estimated using ITE Land Use 560: Church trip rates. Review of the middle of Table 1 indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate 330 daily trips, with 24 trips (15 inbound, 9 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 33 trips (13 inbound, 20 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Next, review of the following section of Table 1 indicates that the existing/entitled church use is forecast to generate 120 daily trips, with 6 trips (4 inbound, 2 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 8 trips (4 inbound, 4 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Lastly, as shown on the last row of Table 1, the net trip generation potential of the proposed Project compared to the trip generation of the existing/entitled church is 210 net greater daily trips, with 18 net greater trips (11 inbound, 7 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 25 net greater trips (9 inbound, 16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As a result, based on the nominal net AM peak hour trip generation and relatively nominal net PM peak hour trip generation increase with the proposed Project (i.e. < 50 peak hour trips), the proposed Project will not significantly impact the surrounding transportation system. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION EVALUATION The two (2) stop-controlled site access driveways were analyzed based on the Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis for unsignalized intersections for the existing with Project traffic conditions. The Project driveway along Royal Oak Road is forecast to operate at LOS C (16.9 s/v) and LOS B (13.1) Mr. Michael Wilborn May 12, 2021 Page 3 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, for existing with Project conditions while the Project driveway along Nohl Ranch Road is forecast to operate at LOS B (12.2 s/v) and LOS A (9.6) during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, for existing with Project conditions. Appendix A contains the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for the Existing With Project Traffic Conditions. The on-site circulation layout of the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project on an overall basis is adequate. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are generally adequate for service/delivery trucks and trash trucks. CONCLUSION Based on the results of the aforementioned net project trip generation forecast between the existing/entitled 17,217 SF church and proposed 127 bed assisted living/memory care facility with 45 employees, which is +210 net daily trips, with +18 net trips (+11 inbound, +7 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and +25 net trips (+9 inbound, +16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday, we conclude that the proposed Project’s traffic circulation impact is considered “insignificant” based on the “50 peak hour trip” threshold. Therefore, using the “50 trip” threshold, the Project would not require any specific intersection analysis and further yet, it can be concluded that the Project’s potential traffic impact would be insignificant. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Traffic Impact Assessment. Should you need further assistance, or have any questions regarding this analysis, please call us at (949) 825-6175. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Keil D. Maberry, P.E. Principal Attachments TABLE 1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON 1 ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, ANAHEIM ITE Land Use Code / Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Factors: 254: Assisted Living (TE/Beds) 2.60 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.10 0.16 0.26 560: Church (TE/1,000 SF) 6.95 0.20 0.13 0.33 0.20 0.29 0.49 Proposed Project Generation Forecast: Proposed Anaheim Senior Living Facility (127 Beds) 330 15 9 24 13 20 33 Existing Entitled High-Turnover Restaurant Generation Forecast: Existing Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Church (17,217 SF) 120 4 2 6 4 4 8 Net Project Trip Generation Potential +210 +11 +7 +18 +9 +16 +25 Note: • TE/1,000 SF = trip end per 1,000 SF of development 1 Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4251-1 Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Misc\4251 Dividers.doc APPENDIX A PROJECT DRIVEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 0.007Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 16.9Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Royal Oak Road at Project Driveway No.1 Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 3234274636Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1111071162Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 3234274636Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 3234274636Base Volume Input [veh/h] Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-1 CIntersection LOS 0.13d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BAAApproach LOS 13.250.000.10d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.860.860.000.000.000.4095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.030.030.000.000.000.0295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] BCAAAAMovement LOS 10.8416.860.000.000.008.20d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.010.000.000.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-2 0.008Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 12.2Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 2: Project Driveway No.2 at Nohl Ranch Road Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruThruLeftRightLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundApproach Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 61023634040Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2256159010Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 61023634040Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 61023634040Base Volume Input [veh/h] Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-3 BIntersection LOS 0.03d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] AABApproach LOS 0.000.0012.18d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.000.000.000.000.600.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.000.000.000.000.020.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] AAABMovement LOS 0.000.000.000.0012.180.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.010.010.000.010.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] Flared Lane FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-4 0.009Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 13.1Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Royal Oak Road at Project Driveway No.1 Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 8433292805Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 21182701Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 8433292805Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 8433292805Base Volume Input [veh/h] Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-5 BIntersection LOS 0.28d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BAAApproach LOS 11.170.000.14d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 1.541.540.000.000.000.3195th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.060.060.000.000.000.0195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] BBAAAAMovement LOS 10.1913.130.000.000.007.95d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.010.010.000.000.000.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-6 0.010Volume to Capacity (v/c): ALevel Of Service: 9.6Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 2: Project Driveway No.2 at Nohl Ranch Road Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruThruLeftRightLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundApproach Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5413783080Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1103196020Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 5413783080Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 5413783080Base Volume Input [veh/h] Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-7 AIntersection LOS 0.06d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] AAAApproach LOS 0.000.009.56d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.000.000.000.000.760.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.000.000.000.000.030.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] AAAAMovement LOS 0.000.000.000.009.560.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.000.010.000.010.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] Flared Lane FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-8 MEMORANDUM N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\4251 Addendum Memo 5-19-21.doc To: Joanne Hwang, AICP City of Anaheim Date: 5/19/21 From: Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E. LLG, Engineers LLG Ref: 2.20.4251.1 Subject: Addendum to the Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is providing this Addendum to the Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project dated February 19, 2021 to make the following clarification on the first bullet point on Page 6: Oakmont Assisted Living, 630 The City Drive South, Fullerton Orange. This community has a supply of 61 parking spaces and 118 beds, resulting in a parking supply ratio of: 0.52 spaces/bed The location of the above facility is in the City of Orange, not in the City of Fullerton as reported in the February 2021 study. ATTACHMENT NO. 7 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc February 19, 2021 Alliance Realty Partners, LLC and Assigns C/O Michael Wilborn 2462 Dupont Drive Irvine, CA 92612 LLG Reference: 2.20.4251.1 Subject: Updated Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Anaheim, California Dear Mr. Wilborn: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit the findings of this Updated Parking Demand Analysis for the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project located on the site currently occupied by the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church in Anaheim Hills, California. This letter report updates our prior reports dated March 18, 2020 and August 27, 2020 to address City staff comments related to a comparative analysis of parking demand between the Project and existing assisted living communities. This analysis applies three different approaches to quantifying the parking needs of the Project and then compares these findings with the proposed supply to identify any parking surplus or deficiency with development of the Project. It should be noted that the parking study was prepared during the COVID pandemic. Based on this, if actual parking demand observations were conducted at any comparable assisted living/memory care sites, it will likely represent atypical tripmaking and parking conditions, and may therefore be perceived as inadequate basis for estimating parking needs for the Project. Due to the lack of a more current, empirical/field-study basis for parking demand, the three aforementioned approaches were employed in the study to provide solid and reasonable validation that the proposed on-site parking supply for the Project would meet the peak “design-level” demand. In order to satisfy the need for a more thorough comparative analysis, and without a reasonable basis for counting actual demand at any of the comparable communities Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 2 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc due to atypical conditions during this pandemic, a detailed assessment of anticipated operational characteristics was conducted through a refined staffing model and use of a database (Accushield) that provides additional information on caregivers and visitors. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project site is currently occupied with a 17,217 square-foot (SF) Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church with driveway access on both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The Project applicant is proposing to construct a 98,504-SF assisted living facility with 96 beds within 94 assisted living dwelling units and 31 beds within 24 memory care dwelling units. The project will have a maximum of 45 employees on a typical day and the 45 employees are spread over three shifts each 24 hour day. The number of staff is based on the detailed staffing model in Attachment Table 1. The number of third-party caregivers and visitors are sourced from AccuShield. AccuShield is a national leader in senior living visitor management technology with a trusted system that provides a sign-in process for staff members, visitors, and third- party caregivers. Thousands of senior living communities across the U.S. utilize this visitor management system to track the flow of people into their communities. This is the most robust, objective database we can utilize to clearly understand the parking demand for a senior living community. The survey-data research compilation used for this parking demand study represents a sample set of 51 assisted living/memory care communities with an average size of 100 rooms, which is similar to the Proposed Project. To be conservative, since the Project is proposing a 118 Unit Community, an 18% increase has been applied to the third-party caregivers and visitor counts. The development will include 55 parking spaces for Staff and guests. Figure 1, attached, presents a Vicinity Map that illustrates the general location of the Project site and surrounding street system and Figure 2 presents an existing site aerial. Access for the Project site will continue to be provided via the existing right-in/right- out access driveway located along Nohl Ranch Road and the existing full movement driveway along Royal Oak Road. Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan for the Project, prepared by Shelter Architects. Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 3 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS The top portion of Table 1 presents the City Code parking requirement for the Project (total of 127 beds, comprised of 96 beds within 94 assisted living dwelling units and 31 beds within 24 memory care dwelling units) based on direct application of the City Code parking ratio for “Senior Living Facility (Large)” (0.8 parking spaces bed). The City Code-based parking requirement for the Project totals 102 spaces, and corresponds to a Code-based deficiency of 47 spaces when compared to the proposed on-site supply of 55 spaces. The actual parking requirements for assisted living/ memory care communities have been found to be less than the City Code requirement. Variances from the Code-based parking requirements substantiated by a parking study may be approved through the discretionary review required (City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.42.110: Parking Variances). The Project qualifies for this exception based on the findings of this study. PEAK DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR THE PROJECT Approach #1: Using the ITE Parking Generation Manual The latest ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition, January 2019) includes 85th percentile ratios for “Assisted Living” communities, which are expressed in terms of the number of beds and number of employees. ITE describes the land use as: “An assisted living complex is a residential setting that provides either routine general protective oversight or assistance with activities necessary for independent living to mentally or physically limited persons…Alzheimer’s and ALS care are commonly offered by these facilities…” Based on the above, the proposed Project, which consists of 96 assisted living beds and 31 memory care beds, is better represented by ITE’s land use description compared to City Code. It should be noted that the number of employees at an Assisted Living complex is the parameter that best correlates with, and indicative of, the community’s parking demand. Also, the application of ITE ratios result in total demand estimates that account for the parking needs of both employees and visitors. Table 1 summarizes the parking requirements for the proposed Project using Approach #1, which indicates that the application of ITE’s 85th percentile ratio of 1.08 spaces per employee to the anticipated total number of employees (45) results in a peak total demand of 49 spaces. This 49-space demand is considered to be the most Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 4 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc representative of the Project’s total parking needs (employee and visitor demand), and the greatest number of employees (based on peak shift/load) and visitors during a typical weekday. Parking needs during all other hours of a typical weekday and weekend are expected to be less than the 49-space peak demand. Table 1 indicates that by comparing the 49-space peak demand against a proposed parking supply of 55 spaces, a parking surplus of 6 spaces is forecast for the Project using Approach #1. Approach #2: Practical Estimation of Parking Demand This approach identifies and quantifies all sources of parking demand from the Project. The operational parameters anticipated for the Project (i.e., the number of regular staff, third-party givers, and visitors anticipated to be present during a given hour) are presented on Table 2. As a conservative step, Table 2 accounts for the overlap in employee parking demand during shift changes, and presumes one vehicle space per employee, third-party caregiver, and visitor. Table 2 also includes the two spaces designated for two 2- bedroom assisted living units, and two spaces for parking a shuttle van and a community car. The highlighted row on Table 2 (also reported on Table 1, under Approach #2) indicates a peak demand of 44 spaces (at 12:00 PM), which is the absolute peak demand for the Project based on 28 employees, 4 third-party caregivers, 8 visitors, 2 spaces designated for assisted living units, and 2 spaces for the shuttle van and community car. Demand is less during all other hours of a typical weekday, and on a weekend day. On weekends, there would be five fewer employees (Executive Director, Maintenance Director, Engage Life Director, Community Business Director, and Director of Culinary Services), 50% of third-party caregivers, and the same number of visitors, assisted living-designated spaces, and shuttle van/community car spaces, resulting in a weekend demand of 37 spaces (23 employees, 2 third-party caregivers, 8 visitors), which is less than the 44-space absolute peak demand previously derived under typical weekday conditions. Comparing the 44-space peak demand against the future on-site supply of 55 spaces results in a surplus of 11 spaces using Approach #2, as indicated on Table 1. Approach #3: Parking Demand Comparative Analysis Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 5 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc Notwithstanding the application of the ITE parking ratio for assisted living communities, and the practical estimation of parking demand (which takes a conservative assumption that each employee and visitor present at the site would require one space), as described in the prior sections, empirical information from existing assisted living communities were compiled from available sources. Parking demand counts and field observations at any existing assisted living community were not conducted due to the present COVID pandemic, which would yield atypical conditions that are not a reasonable basis for comparison to the Project’s parking needs. The following presents a summary of available data obtained: • Trip Generation and Parking – Proposed Oakmont of Valencia, Santa Clarita, CA - Assisted Living Facility dated January 17, 2017, prepared by Crane Transportation Group. Oakmont of Valencia is a proposed assisted living facility that will accommodate 90 units and up to 95 beds. That study presents a summary of parking ratios calculated based on actual Use Permit approvals of assisted care facilities in various California cities (Alameda, Corte Madera, Danville, Novato, San Francisco, Concord, Upland, Carmichael, Thousand Oaks, Pleasant Hill, and Moraga). In addition, the findings from the American Seniors Housing Association’s (ASHA’s) study of assisted living residences were presented in that study. The parking demand ratios reported are as follows: CA sampling 0.41 spaces/bed 100th percentile rate (maximum ratio) 0.37 spaces/bed 80th percentile rate (design ratio) 0.33 spaces/bed 50th percentile rate (average ratio) ASHA 0.22 spaces/bed • Oakmont Assisted Living, 18922 Delaware Street, Huntington Beach. This community has a supply of 37 parking spaces and 89 beds, resulting in a parking supply ratio of: 0.42 spaces/bed • Oakmont Assisted Living, 433 W. Bastanchury Road, Fullerton. Based on LLG’s Traffic and Parking Study (dated September 13, 2017) for this project, the total parking demand was estimated to be 52 spaces for 112 beds, corresponding to a parking demand ratio of: 0.46 spaces/bed Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 6 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc • Oakmont Assisted Living, 630 The City Drive South, Fullerton. This community has a supply of 61 parking spaces and 118 beds, resulting in a parking supply ratio of: 0.52 spaces/bed As indicated on Table 1, excluding the ASHA demand ratio of 0.22 spaces per bed (as a conservative step in the estimation procedure), but taking the average of the 80th percentile rate for California cities, Oakmont Huntington Beach, and the two Oakmont Fullerton sample sites (0.37, 0.42, 0.46, 0.52) results in a parking demand ratio of 0.44 spaces per bed. This empirical ratio derived from five existing assisted living communities is similar to the Project’s supply ratio of 0.43 spaces per bed (derived by dividing the proposed on-site supply of 55 spaces by 127 beds). Conversations with Oakmont Senior Living and Sunrise Senior Living staff also indicate that it is typical to include one parking space for 15% of the assisted living (not including memory care) units. This is an important distinguishing factor when comparing the Project to other assisted living/memory care communities. The other communities all allow assisted living residents to park their cars at the community. The Project will not allow assisted living residents to bring a car to the community (except for the two 2-bedroom units). Because the Project will not be allowing the assisted living units to bring vehicles (except for two spaces that will be allocated as part of the proposed 55-space supply), the supply provisions for the Project are expected to have an inherent contingency of 15% for the assisted living units. As indicated on Table 1, this translates to a 14-space reduction in the 55-space demand (as generated from other communities that allow assisted living residents to bring and park a car), and an increase of two spaces (allocated to the two 2-bedroom units) plus two spaces for a shuttle van and a community car, which result in a total adjusted demand of 46 spaces. Table 1 indicates that, compared against the proposed supply of 55 spaces, the 46- space demand corresponds to a surplus of 9 spaces using Approach #3. PARKING MANAGEMENT Parking management measures will be implemented to help ensure the adequacy of on-site parking for the Project. The following information was provided by the Project’s operator (Milestone), which has successfully implemented the following programs at other sites, and will be using for the Project: A) Employee Transportation Incentive Program: Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 7 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc In order to help achieve our goal of minimizing our environmental footprint and impact, we encourage and incentivize our team members to use alternative transportation strategies. We will provide up to $100 per month to each team member who participates in any of the following modes of transportation to and from the community: • Carpool with a fellow team member or as part of a community carpool • Utilizes public transportation – Bus, train, metro rail, etc. • Bike or walk to work • Uber to work - we pay up to $10 each way from home to work and back. Balance is a payroll deduction. • Pick up and drop off staff at xyz and deliver staff to/from that location B) Resident Transportation Program • We will provide a van for group offsite events. The van is available 7 days a week. • We will provide a private car with a driver for residents who want to do something on their own. This service will be available x hours per day and y days per week. • We will provide UBER services for residents from the front reception concierge desk C) Visitor Program During Major Holidays: The community plans well in advance for major holidays and increased visitors on those days. The plans include: • Securing offsite temporary parking with a local church, school or office complex • Staff parking in this offsite parking area thereby freeing up on site parking • The community will either shuttle visitors from the parking location to the community and back and/or hire a valet service to bring cars to the offsite parking area • It should be noted that for special holidays such as Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Christmas etc a significant percentage of the visitors simple come to pick up their loved one and then celebrate off site (at a restaurant, their home etc). The visitors that stay at the community and visit their loved ones often times dine with them. For those dining, a reservation system is used to accommodate everyone and space out the arrivals and departures between a breakfast, brunch, lunch and dinner. Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 8 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc CONCLUSION: PARKING DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY Based on the above, we conclude that the proposed supply of 55 on-site spaces will be adequate in meeting the Project’s total parking needs. Based on the demand estimation Approach #1, comparing the 49-space peak demand calculated per the application of the ITE ratio against a parking supply provision for 55 spaces (6 surplus spaces) results in a 11% contingency in the supply. Based on Approach #2, comparing the 44-space peak demand calculated from an operational/practical standpoint against the 55-space supply (11 surplus spaces) results in an even greater supply contingency (20%). Based on Approach #3, because the Project will not be allowing the assisted living units to bring vehicles (except for two spaces that will be allocated to two 2-bedroom units), the supply provisions for the Project are expected to have an inherent contingency of 15% for the assisted living units, which result in a total adjusted demand of 46 spaces, a surplus of 9 spaces, and supply contingency of 16%. ● ● ● ● ● We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this Revised Parking Demand Analysis. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 825-6175. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Keil D. Maberry, P.E. Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E. Principal Senior Transportation Engineer Attachments Beds, Employees, Caregivers, Visitors, Parking Description Units, or Vehicles Spaces City Code Calculation Based on Senior Living Facility (Large) 0.8 sp per bed 127 beds 102 Total City Code Requirement: 102 Proposed Supply: 55 Code-based Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-):(47) Approach #1: ITE Parking Calculation ITE 5th Edition (85th percentile): 1.08 sp per employee 45 employees 49 Total Project Peak Demand (Approach #1): 49 Proposed Supply: 55 Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-):6 Approach #2: Practical Estimation of Parking Demand Anticipated Project Operations During Peak Condition 28 regular staff 28 (Day Shift) per Table 2 4 third-party caregivers 4 8 visitors 8 Plus 2 spaces designated for two 2-bedroom AL units 2 units 2 Plus 2 spaces designated for shuttle van & community car vehicles 2 44 Total Project Peak Demand (Approach #2): 44 Proposed Supply: 55 Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-):11 Approach #3: Parking Demand Comparative Analysis Oakmont Valencia, Santa Clarita: 0.37 sp per bed Oakmont Huntington Beach: 0.42 sp per bed Oakmont Bastanchury, Fullerton: 0.46 sp per bed Oakmont City Drive, Fullerton: 0.52 sp per bed Average of Sample Sites Above: 0.44 sp per bed 127 beds 56 Less 15% of 94 Assisted Living Units @ 1 sp per unit 14 units (14) 42 Plus 2 spaces designated for two 2-bedroom AL units 2 units 2 Plus 2 spaces designated for shuttle van & community car vehicles 2 46 Total Project Peak Demand (Approach #3): 46 Proposed Supply: 55 Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-):9 TABLE 1 PARKING SUMMARY Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Number of Regular Staff per Hour (from Attachment Table 1) Cumulative Hourly Regular Staff (8-hour shifts; 50% of staff each shift presumed to overlap with next shift change) Third-Party Caregivers per Hour [a] Cumulative Hourly Total Staff + Third-Party Caregivers 6-7 am 10 12 4 16 0 2 2 20 7-8 am 5 15 2 17 1 2 2 23 8-9 am 6 21 1 22 5 2 2 31 9-10 am 7 28 0 28 8 2 2 40 10-11 am 0 28 2 30 6 2 2 40 11-12 pm 0 28 0 28 8 2 2 40 12-1 pm 0 28 4 32 8 2 2 44 1-2 pm 0 28 4 32 5 2 2 40 2-3 pm 11 34 1 35 3 2 2 42 3-4 pm 0 27 4 30 2 2 2 36 4-5 pm 2 23 2 25 10 2 2 39 5-6 pm 0 17 4 20 7 2 2 31 6-7 pm 0 13 1 14 1 2 2 19 7-8 pm 0 13 5 18 0 2 2 22 8-9 pm 0 13 0 13 0 2 2 17 9-10 pm 0 13 0 13 0 2 2 17 10-11 pm 4 12 0 12 0 2 2 16 11-12 pm 0 6 0 6 0 2 2 10 12-1 am 0 5 0 5 0 2 2 9 1-2 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 2-3 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 3-4 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 4-5 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 5-6 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 Daily Total 45 33 64 Note: [a] Source: AccuShield - 51 communities included in sample set with an average size of 100 rooms. Average length of stay = 1 hour. The Project is proposing a 118 Unit Community. Therefore, an 18% increase has been applied to the Third-Paty Caregivers and Visitor counts. Hour Visitors [a] Hourly Parking Demand (presuming 1 person per vehicle space) Employees (Staff & Third-Party Caregivers) TABLE 2 PARKING DEMAND BASED ON ANTICIPATED PROJECT OPERATIONS Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Spaces Designated for Shuttle Van & Community Car Spaces Designated for two 2- bedroom AL Units AT T A C H M E N T 1 - H o l d e n o f A n a h e i m H i l l s 52 7 5 E . N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 11 8 - U n i t R C F E , 1 2 7 T o t a l B e d s To t a l E m p l o y e e s B y S h i f t : 28 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 6 A M - 2 P M S h i f t 13 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 2 P M - 1 0 P M S h i f t 4 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 1 0 P M - 6 A M S h i f t Ho u r o f D a y 6 A M 7 A M 8 A M 9 A M 1 0 A M 1 1 A M 1 2 P M 1 P M 2 P M 3 P M 4 P M 5 P M 6 P M 7 P M 8 P M 9 P M 1 0 P M 1 1 P M 1 2 A M 1 A M 2 A M 3 A M 4 A M 5 A M As s i s t e d L i v i n g S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Re s i d e n t S e r v i c e s D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 Re s i d e n t S e r v i c e s S u p e r v i s o r RN AL L P N / L V N 1. 0 1 Me d - T e c h s ( 1 s t S h i f t ) Me d - T e c h s ( 2 n d S h i f t ) Le a d C a r e g i v e r AL C a r e g i v e r s ( 1 s t S h i f t ) 5. 0 5 AL C a r e g i v e r s ( 2 n d S h i f t ) 4. 0 4 AL C a r e g i v e r s ( 3 r d S h i f t ) 2. 0 2 AS S I S T E D L I V I N G T O T A L 1 3 . 0 50 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Me m o r y C a r e S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Li f e G u i d a n c e D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 RN LG L P N / L V N Li f e G u i d a n c e P r o g r a m S p e c i a l i s t 1. 0 1 Li f e G u i d a n c e L e a d C a r e g i v e r LG C a r e g i v e r s ( 1 s t S h i f t ) 3. 0 3 LG C a r e g i v e r s ( 2 n d S h i f t ) 3. 0 3 LG C a r e g i v e r s ( 3 r d S h i f t ) 2. 0 2 ME M O R Y C A R E T O T A L 1 0 . 0 31 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Di e t a r y S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Di r e c t o r C u l i n a r y S e r v i c e s 1. 0 1 0. 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t C o o r d i n a t o r Ho s t / H o s t e s s Ch e f Co o k s 3. 0 21 Gr i l l e / B i s t r o C h e f / B a r t e n d e r Wa i t S t a f f - B r e a k f a s t 4. 0 4 Wa i t S t a f f - L u n c h Wa i t S t a f f - D i n n e r 3. 0 3 Di s h w a s h e r 2. 0 11 LG W a i t s t a f f DI E T A R Y T O T A L 1 3 . 0 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ma r k e t i n g S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Co m m u n i t y S a l e s D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 Mo v e - I n C o o r d i n a t o r Co m m u n i t y S a l e s A s s i s t a n t s MA R K E T I N G T O T A L 1 . 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ma i n t e n a n c e S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Ma i n t e n a n c e D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 Ma i n t e n a n c e T e c h . AT T A C H M E N T 1 - H o l d e n o f A n a h e i m H i l l s 52 7 5 E . N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 11 8 - U n i t R C F E , 1 2 7 T o t a l B e d s To t a l E m p l o y e e s B y S h i f t : 28 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 6 A M - 2 P M S h i f t 13 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 2 P M - 1 0 P M S h i f t 4 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 1 0 P M - 6 A M S h i f t Ho u r o f D a y 6 A M 7 A M 8 A M 9 A M 1 0 A M 1 1 A M 1 2 P M 1 P M 2 P M 3 P M 4 P M 5 P M 6 P M 7 P M 8 P M 9 P M 1 0 P M 1 1 P M 1 2 A M 1 A M 2 A M 3 A M 4 A M 5 A M Le a d M a i n t e n a n c e T e c h MA I N T E N A N C E T O T A L 1 . 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ac t i v i t i e s S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r En g a g e L i f e D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 AC T I V I T I E S T O T A L 1 . 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ho u s e k e e p i n g S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Ho u s e k e e p i n g D i r e c t o r Le a d H o u s e k e e p e r Ho u s e k e e p e r s - I L / A L 2. 0 2 Ho u s e k e e p e r s - L G La u n d r y A t t e n d a n t s HO U S E K E E P I N G T O T A L 2 . 0 00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Sr . E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r Ex e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 As s i s t a n t E D Co m m u n i t y B u s i n e s s D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e A s s i s t a n t Re s i d e n t R e l a t i o n s D i r e c t o r Fi r s t I m p r e s s i o n s M a n a g e r Te n a n t M a n a g e r Co n c i e r g e Re c e p t i o n i s t 1. 0 1 Se c u r i t y Dr i v e r 1. 0 1 AD M I N I S T R A T I O N T O T A L 4 . 0 00 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ar r i v a l T o t a l b y H o u r o f D a y 1 0 56 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO M M U N I T Y VI S I T O R S T H I R D PA R T Y CA R E G I V E R S Av e r a g e ov e r 51 Co m m u n i t i e s A v e r a g e ov e r 51 Co m m u n i t i e s Ra w da t a fr o m 51 AL , MC se n i o r li v i n g co m m u n t i e s th r o u g h o u t CA Fr o m Da t a He r e i n Su m m a r i z e d Da t a Fr o m Fi r s t Re p o r t Fr o m Da t a He r e i n Su m m a r i z e d Data From First Report Ti m e of da y 5 ‐6 am 0 0 0 0 6 ‐7 am 0 0 3 3 7 ‐8 am 1 1 2 2 8 ‐9 am 4 4 1 1 9 ‐10 am 7 7 0 0 10 ‐11 am 5 5 2 2 11 ‐12 pm 7 7 0 0 12 ‐1 pm 7 7 3 3 1 ‐2 pm 4 4 3 3 2 ‐3 pm 2 2 1 1 3 ‐4 pm 2 2 3 3 4 ‐5 pm 8 8 2 2 5 ‐6 pm 6 6 3 3 6 ‐7 pm 1 1 1 1 7 ‐8 pm 0 0 4 4 8 ‐9 pm 0 0 0 0 9 ‐10 pm 0 0 0 0 10 ‐11 pm 0 0 0 0 11 ‐12 pm 0 0 0 0 TO T A L 5 4 5 4 2 8 2 8 # of Un i t s pe r co m m u n i t y Av e # of un i t s ov e r 51 co m m u n i t i e s 1 0 0 Av e & To t a l Co m m u n i t y Vi s i t o r s Fr o m Ra w Da t a 54 2, 7 7 7 Av e & To t a l 3r d Pa r t y Ca r e g i v e r s Fr o m Ra w Da t a 28 1, 4 2 7 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 41 3 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 76 8 7 7 7 6 52 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 76 8 7 7 7 6 73 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 3 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 82 7 2 9 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 7 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 4 4 54 2 8 5 1 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 1 2 8 95 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 9 8 54 5 1 6 0 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 51 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 87 7 7 6 8 7 52 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 87 7 7 6 8 7 73 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 41 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 2 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 92 8 2 8 2 8 2 7 2 9 2 8 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 4 4 60 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 1 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 60 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 6 0 5 4 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 41 4 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 77 6 8 7 7 7 22 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 27 6 8 7 7 7 23 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 23 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 2 1 3 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 82 8 2 7 2 9 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 12 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 4 4 45 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 1 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 7 1 0 0 45 5 4 5 1 6 0 5 4 5 4 5 4 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 31 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 68 7 7 7 7 8 52 5 2 5 1 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 2 68 7 7 7 7 8 73 7 3 6 3 8 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 31 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 23 2 3 3 4 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 72 9 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 9 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 5 3 4 4 4 51 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 9 5 4 2 7 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 6 0 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 9 9 51 6 0 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 0 28 2 8 2 9 2 7 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 41 2 1 6 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 77 7 7 8 7 7 52 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 77 7 7 8 7 7 73 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 6 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 82 8 2 8 2 8 2 9 2 8 2 8 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 4 4 54 2 8 5 3 2 8 5 5 2 8 5 4 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 3 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 54 5 3 5 5 5 4 6 0 5 4 5 3 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 41 4 1 5 1 2 1 6 1 4 1 4 1 77 8 7 7 7 7 52 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 3 5 2 77 8 7 7 7 7 73 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 8 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 3 82 8 2 9 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 3 4 54 2 8 5 4 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 3 2 8 5 5 2 8 5 4 2 7 5 4 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 54 5 4 6 0 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 7 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 21 6 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 6 1 4 1 77 7 7 7 7 7 52 5 2 5 1 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 2 77 7 7 6 8 7 73 7 3 6 3 8 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 23 2 3 3 4 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 82 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 21 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 44 5 3 4 4 4 53 2 8 5 5 2 8 5 4 2 9 5 4 2 7 5 2 2 8 5 6 2 8 5 4 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 53 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 5 6 5 4 28 2 8 2 9 2 7 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s 33 12 1 2 21 6 1 77 52 5 2 77 73 7 3 43 4 3 21 2 1 23 2 3 82 8 2 63 6 3 21 1 44 53 2 8 5 5 2 8 10 0 1 0 1 53 5 5 28 2 8 Ap p l i c a t i o n of ab o v e to 11 8 Un i t Co m m u n i t y 11 8 un i t co m m u n i t y is 18 . 0 % la r g e r th a n th e av e r a g e 10 0 un i t co m m m u n i t y Sp r e a d i n g th i s 18 % in c r e a s e ac r o s s co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s an d ca r e g i v e r s yi e l d s th e be l o w Co m m u n i t y Vi s i t o r s T h i r d Pa r t y Ca r e g i v e r s Ra w da t a fr o m 51 AL , MC se n i o r li v i n g co m m u n t i e s th r o u g h o u t CA Fr o m Da t a He r e i n F r o m Da t a He r e i n Ti m e of da y 5 ‐6 am 0 0 6 ‐7 am 0 4 7 ‐8 am 1 2 8 ‐9 am 5 1 9 ‐10 am 8 0 10 ‐11 am 6 2 11 ‐12 pm 8 0 12 ‐1 pm 8 4 1 ‐2 pm 5 4 2 ‐3 pm 3 1 3 ‐4 pm 2 4 4 ‐5 pm 1 0 2 5 ‐6 pm 7 4 6 ‐7 pm 1 1 7 ‐8 pm 0 5 8 ‐9 pm 0 0 9 ‐10 pm 0 0 10 ‐11 pm 0 0 11 ‐12 pm 0 0 TO T A L 6 4 3 3 Consulting Arborist's Report February 1, 2021 Tree Evaluation Report For: Holden Senior Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd., Anaheim Hills Prepared for: Mr. Michael Wilborn Managing Director Alliance Residential Company Orange County/San Diego 2462 Dupont Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Prepared by: Greg Applegate, RCA #365 Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 1131 Lucinda Way Tustin, CA 92780 714/ 731-6240 © Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2021 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Table of Contents• 1 Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Project Description and Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Assignment ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Aerial View & Tree Map ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Findings.................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 General Conditions Affecting the Trees’ Health .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Matrix of Tree Observations .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Key to Abbreviations and Codes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Measurements......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Site Tree Health and Condition by Species ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Suitability for the Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Botanic name / Common name Cross-Reference ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Construction Accommodations ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Soil Conditions and Replacement Trees ............................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Specimen Tree Removal ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Recommendations ...............................................................................................................................................................................................14 Specific Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Photographic Documentation ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Disclaimer ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................36 Appendix .............................................................................................................................................................................................................37 A. Resume ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 B. Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 C. Verification of Current Registration and Certifications .................................................................................................................................................. 43 Certification ........................................................................................................................................................................................................46 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Introduction• 2 2 Introduction Project Description and Background Alliance Residential Company is planning a proposed 118 units senior housing project in the City of Anaheim, at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. The property is now occupied by a vacant church building and parking lot. There are no street trees adjoining this property but several trees on the site are close to the street. The existing structures will be removed and all of the forty- three trees, due to demolition and grading activities and underground work on site. The whole property and trees were examined on December 18, 2020, and all living trees over 6-inch trunk diameter are included in this report. Representative photographs of the trees and present conditions are enclosed. Assignment Arborgate Consulting, Inc. was retained by Alliance Residential Company to review and provide an arboricultural evaluation of 43 trees' health and condition, professional opinions on possible transplanting options. This report is provided for submission to the City of Anaheim consideration. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Introduction• 3 3 Aerial View & Tree Map North Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 4 4 Findings General Conditions Affecting the Trees’ Health This site is on the southwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The church appears to still have lights on, but is no longer in use. The parking lot was totally unused during my site inspection. The surrounding area is all residential. The property is open and unfenced. The landscape is still being irrigated and the lawn is green and being mowed. The property is clean and free of litter. The trees appear to be unmaintained lately. One of the sweet gums had recently dropped a dead limb into the parking lot, but it had not been removed or cleaned up. No demolition, grading and other site work had yet begun anywhere on site at the time of my inspection. Over all parts of the site there are 43 trees of reportable size (>6” caliper), none were noted on the adjoining properties as being a concern for development of this site. There is one Eucalyptus sp., one Cupaniopsis anacardioides, two Ficus benjamina, sixteen Liquidambar styraciflua, six Pinus halepensis, three Magnolia grandiflora, two Platanus racemosa, seven Pyrus kawakamii, and five Washingtonia robusta. There no Quercus species or Schinus species. The sweet gums and magnolias appear to have suffered drought stress, as noted by having dead top portions. The sweet gums may either or also have a Xylella infection. Ficus, Mexican fan palms, eucalyptus, and pines were mostly in good health and suffered no ill effects related to drought. Possibly related to lack of irrigation, more of the more riparian trees were in decline. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 5 5 Matrix of Tree Observations Following this table is an explanation of the codes used in the comments column. Health and structure grades are like school grades: A= excellent; B= good; C = okay; D = poor or declining; and F = dead or close to it. An “m” preceding an abbreviation means a minor condition. Tree # Species Dia @ 4' Circf Ht. Wd. Health Structure Comments 1 Magnolia grandiflora 11 34.6 30 22 A B Cod 2 Washingtonia robusta N/A 70 11 A A mSkirt 3 Washingtonia robusta N/A 60 11 A A mSkirt mGaff 4 Cupaniopsis anacardioides 12 37.7 25 20 C C- Cod inc MB DL Hd 5 Pyrus kawakamii 7.7 24.2 16 22 C C Cod DL 6 Pyrus kawakamii 8.2 25.8 22 22 B C- FB LB CrS cod DL 7 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 31.4 33 22 C B Epis 8 Ficus benjamina 12+13 75.0 35 40 B C Cod inc-T OL Sh 9 Liquidambar styraciflua 17 53.4 40 24 D D Part gird, T-split failed, 2long Db 10 Liquidambar styraciflua 13 40.8 40 25 B C 1sRF cod top 11 Liquidambar styraciflua 13 40.8 40 27 C C Circ 2long 12 Ficus benjamina 12 37.7 30 28 C C- Cod inc CrS Sh Ol mDb 13 Magnolia grandiflora 6 18.9 18 15 B B 2long 14 Magnolia grandiflora 9 28.3 30 22 C C Dead top DLT 1sRF 15 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 31.4 32 24 C- C Cr FC TO 2long 16 Pyrus kawakamii 13 40.8 30 38 C C- FB CrS Hd topd DL 2long 17 Pyrus kawakamii 10 31.4 18 18 D D FB CrS Hd topd leans Sh 18 Pyrus kawakamii 9 28.3 25 22 B C NoRF 2long 1s DL 19 Washingtonia robusta N/A 60 11 A A mSkirt no Gaff 20 Washingtonia robusta N/A 70 11 A A mSkirt no Gaff Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 6 6 Tree # Species Dia @ 4' Circf Ht. Wd. Health Structure Comments 21 Washingtonia robusta N/A 70 11 A A mSkirt no Gaff 22 Pyrus kawakamii 11 34.6 28 28 B C Cod mDkS Xing epi mTO 23 Pyrus kawakamii 12 37.7 30 30 C C Cod inc FC Sup under #27 24 Pinus halepensis 28 88.0 80 36 B C 1sRF leans out over St. Cod 25 Liquidambar styraciflua 7 22.0 32 18 C C Sp topd 26 Pinus halepensis 25 78.5 70 28 B C- Cod Tinj 1s Cr#25 & 27 27 Eucalyptus polyanthemos 29 91.1 75 40 B C mLean 1s cod 1sRF 28 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 31.4 35 25 B C T-bow DL epi 29 Liquidambar styraciflua 14 44.0 40 25 C C Cod Sh epi Hd SW-lift 30 Liquidambar styraciflua 12 37.7 40 20 C- C Sup seedy cod top, epi Db 31 Pinus halepensis 24 75.4 90 45 B C Cr#30 & 32, mbleeding Sh Dk? 32 Pinus halepensis 18,18,24,12 226.2 80 50 A D Cod inc-T 1s leans @ bldg 33 Platanus racemosa 18 56.6 80 40 C C OL Cr#32 mbleeding Sh Dk? 34 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 31.4 40 30 C C Cod epi 35 Liquidambar styraciflua 7.8 24.5 35 18 D D Dead top Sup 36 Pinus halepensis 12+17 91.1 55 40 C- D Cod inc-T 1s leans Sp Sh Cr 37 Pinus halepensis 18+20 119.4 80 45 C- D Cod inc-T OL Sp 38 Liquidambar styraciflua 11 34.6 45 22 D D Cod inc dead top, topd 39 Platanus racemosa 23 72.3 75 60 B C Cod 2long DL 40 Liquidambar styraciflua 11 34.6 50 30 B B Epi Sh mDb 41 Liquidambar styraciflua 12 37.7 40 25 C- C- MB Db Sh 42 Liquidambar styraciflua 14 44.0 35 22 D D MB Db Sh 1sRF - HANGER 43 Liquidambar styraciflua 13 40.8 35 20 D D MB Db 1sRF - HANGER by SW Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 7 7 Key to Abbreviations and Codes 1s = one-sided 1sRF = one-sided root flare 2long= too long Brks = breaks Circf = circumference Cod = codominant Cr = crowded, Cr#x = crowds tree number Crk = cracked CrS = crowded scaffolds Db = dieback Dk = decay DL = dogleg branching DLS = dogleg scaffold limb Epis = epicormic shoots FC = flush cut FB = fire blight Hd = headed Inc = included bark Lt = lion-tailed OL = over-lifted (high headed) Sh = shallow roots Sp = sparse TDk= trunk decay TO = torn out limb Tinj = trunk injury T-bow = bowed trunk Top’d = topped Xing = crossing limbs B = base, e.g. DkB = decayed base R = root, e.g. R-epis=root shoots S = scaffold limb T = trunk, e.g. Xing = crossing limbs Measurements According to City of Anaheim requirements, the trunk diameters were measured at four feet above grade versus ANSI Z60 and standard arboricultural practice of measuring at 4.5 feet. According to ANSI Z60, standards for container size and for appraisal related to diameter. Diameter measurements were taken using calipers for trees up to eight inches in diameter, and a Biltmore stick for larger calipers. For circumference comparisons, diameters were multiplied by 3.1417 and listed as well. Trunk diameter was not used for palm sizing. According to ANSI Z60 palms are measured and sold by trunk feet or overall height. In this report height is trunk height. The City’s standard for palm size was not found. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 8 8 Site Tree Health and Condition by Species The one carrotwood, Cupaniopsis anacardioides, was healthy, but not structurally sound. The trunk is codominant with severely included bark between the primary limbs. As is typical of the species, it was shallow rooted, exacerbated by being in turf. The one Silver Mountain gum, Eucalyptus polyanthemos, is near and hangs over the parking lot. It is healthy, but in poor structural condition, being codominant, shallow rooted and one sided. This is a large tree and would be a risk to those who might park in that part of the lot. The lerp psyllids and tortoise beetles have not bothered this species. There are two Benjamin figs, Ficus benjamina. Both are next to the outbuilding in the parking lot. Their health is fairly good, but it looks like they were pruned for other reasons than sound structure. There are codominant stems with included bark, and the canopies have been over-lifted. As would be expected for almost any ficus, the roots are shallow and lifting paving nearby. Most of the sweetgums, Liquidambar styraciflua, are unhealthy, and have dead upper portions. Most would have benefitted from more professional training. This is a shallow rooted, more riparian species. Periods of drought or competition for water could explain the dead tops, however there is a bacterial disease that has been infecting this and several other species of trees and shrubs. Originally it was called Pierce’s disease, and more recently called oleander scorch, i.e. Xylella fastidiosa. There is no true cure. Trunk injections can keep otherwise healthy trees alive longer. The three southern magnolias, Magnolia grandiflora, are in fair to good health. This is a thirstier species, and lately has been infested and many killed by tulip scale. None had symptoms of that on this site. Structurally, they all had small problems. This species is difficult to transplant. The two sycamores, Platanus racemosa, are in fair to good health. One has few lower limbs. The other is very wide. There were minor symptoms of flat-head borers in the outer bark on one tree, but there were no symptoms of the more deadly invasive shot-hole borer. Although sycamores transplant easily in winter, neither is a good candidate for transplanting here. There are six Aleppo pines, Pinus halepensis. found along the northeast corner of the site. Three have multiple trunks and run the risk of splitting due to included bark between the trunks. The Aleppo pines always have a wider range of structural problems, pest problems and root problems. Three Aleppo pines are leaning, codominant, and two severely bowed out over the street. Transplanting is not an option for any of these. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 9 9 Two of the evergreen pears, Pyrus kawakamii, are infected with fire blight, a common, but not usually fatal disease. Two have poor structure. Tree are in good health, but none have good structure. The transplanting season is very short, but none of these justify the expense and risk of transplanting. Suitability for the Proposed Project The provided plans show that the current parking lot will remain about where it is and how it is now. The small outbuilding and church will be removed. Grading along the east and south edges and pad preparation for the new buildings will require removal of all the trees. Oaks, pepper trees, and sycamores are protected species in Anaheim. There are no oaks or peppers on this site. There are two sycamores on site. They are attractive and tolerate turf conditions, but are in ivy. They are also in the footprint or the grading for the new buildings. However, this species is now the favorite for the invasive shot-hole borer (ISHB), but ISHB does seem to prefer individual sycamores in wetter conditions. It is also a known host for the three fungus strains vectored by the borer. They are not recommended for preservation here, mostly due to the demolition, grading and construction that will occur in their space. There are two Mexican fan palms that might be outside grading and construction. Mexican fan palm is effectively a “weed species”. This species grows well in turf conditions, non-turf conditions and many places where it is not wanted. It is the least expensive palm species, so much so that it is usually cheaper to buy new ones than to try to save ones on site. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 10 0 Botanic name / Common name Cross-Reference Botanical name Common name Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silver Mt. gum Ficus benjamina Benjamin fig Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet gum Pinus halepensis Aleppo pine Platanus racemosa California sycamore Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen pear Washingtonia robusta Mexican can palm Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Discussion• 11 1 Discussion Construction Accommodations Considering the planned development, the trees at the site now are not situated in patterns that are useful in a typically arranged housing complex. The trees around the northeast corner are on slopes and too close together, thus cannot be transplanted. There will be many opportunities across the new grounds and around the perimeter to plant replacement trees, and they will be more attractive and complementary to the grounds and structures of the new site. The new development pattern will include areas for a substantial tree canopy, both for aesthetics as well as comfort in the Orange County climate. No trees will be transplanted. Few have sufficient quality and health to justify the risk and expense. There is no known place to store trees on site during grading and no room to work around them unless the work is done in phases. Preserving these trees by transplanting them is not practical or cost effective, unless it saves a useful tree for a good place on site, which is very unlikely to apply to any of these trees. Transplanted trees lose about 90 percent of their roots and take years to recover, if they ever do. In my experience planting new, young, better suited trees of appropriate species, would provide the better solution. In just a few years newly established trees, appropriately trained and cared for, will be full and useful to the site and to the community. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Discussion• 12 2 Soil Conditions and Replacement Trees Within the scope of this report there is no soil testing included. Top soil is a great asset for any new landscape. However, typical demolition and grading does not preserve it, except possibly where trees are scheduled to remain. Top soil should remain on site and ultimately on top. It takes decades for subsoils to weather sufficiently to function even nearly as well as the topsoil that is here now. To aid in selection of the new landscape trees the soil should be tested after grading by an agronomic laboratory. If topsoil will be protected and stockpiled, it can be tested now. If not, it should be tested after grading and the tree list amended as needed based on the soil test results. There may be a large number of trees removed, but hopefully not taken to the land fill. Organic matter in the soil helps buffer salts, returns most elements to the ground for use by the new trees, and is a basis of a healthy soil biological web that helps protect and feed the new trees. If the existing trees and tree debris can be fed through a large tub-grinder, this resource can be composted, save dump fees, and help the new landscape trees and shrubs as a surface mulch. Despite common warnings about eucalyptus-based mulch being allelopathic, this has been proven false by recent research. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Discussion• 13 3 Specimen Tree Removal In Section 18.18.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code it says: TREE PRESERVATION. Discretionary Specimen Tree Removal Permit. Applications for authority to destroy Specimen Trees shall be filed with the Planning and Building Department on forms provided for such purpose, together with a filing fee as established by resolution of the City Council. A City Arborist shall review and provide a recommendation for all Discretionary Specimen Tree Removal Permits. Applications that do not meet the requirements of subsection .030 above shall be referred directly to the Planning Commission for determination. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.60 (Procedures). Permits are valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of issuance. A new application shall be filed for requests that have not been exercised within the established time frames. Prior to the City granting any permit to destroy a “Specimen Tree”, the above section requires that the Planning Commission or City Council find that the project meet one or more of the five listed findings. The appropriate finding is .0502 “That a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the tree is located requires destruction of the tree or trees” The site needs extensive grading and demolition to build the Holden Senior Living facility. This project cannot be developed without removal of nearly all the trees including “Specimen Trees”. In addition, as stated above .0504 “That the topography of the building site renders destruction reasonably necessary.” There are two trees that are protected specimen trees on this site, from the Platanus genus (Tree #33 and 39). As such, an administrative specimen tree removal permit is required to remove these two specimen trees. The removal of these two specimen trees is warranted as the proposed project meets two of the required findings. Specifically, the project meets two findings listed in Section 18.18.040.050.0502 and 18.18.040.050.0504. In addition, per Table 18-A in Chapter 18.18 of the Zoning Code, five replacement trees are required., which need to be one of the tree types listed in Table 18-B in Chapter 18.18 of the Zoning Code. This is a function of the landscape architect in planning where best to plant them and the proper species. Refer to the project landscape plan for location(s) and type(s) of the required five replacement trees. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 14 4 Recommendations Specific Recommendations 1. Rip and remove the roots from the formerly treed areas. If there are signs of disease, take them to the dump. 2. Tub-grind existing trees and tree debris. Stockpile and turn the piles to compost the mulch to kill off possible disease and weeds. Apply mulch 2-3” deep to the soil surface below new trees. Where possible mulch should cover the entire planted area, except in planted ground cover spaces. 3. Stockpile top soil where possible, if the grade will be changed. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 15 5 Photographic Documentation Southern magnolia #1 Mexican fan palms #2 & 3, right to left Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 16 6 Carrotwood #4 Evergreen pear #5 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 17 7 Evergreen pear #6 Sweetgum #7 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 18 8 Benjamin fig #8 Sweetgum #9 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 19 9 Sweetgum #10 Sweetgum #11 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 20 20 Benjamin fig #12 Southern magnolia #13 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 21 21 Southern magnolia #14 Sweetgum #15 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 22 22 Evergreen pear #16 – note fire blight. Evergreen pear #17 – note fire blight. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 23 23 Evergreen pear #18 Mexican fan palms #19, 20, and 21, right to left Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 24 24 Evergreen pear #22 Evergreen pear #23 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 25 25 Aleppo pine #24 and #26, right to left Sweetgum #25 between #24 and #26 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 26 26 Silver Mt. gum #27 Silver Mt. gum #27 – one-sided and hangs over parking lot Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 27 27 Sweetgum #28 Sweetgum #29 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 28 28 Sweetgum #29 – tear-out and decay Sweetgum #30 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 29 29 Aleppo pines #31 & 32, sycamore #33 and sweetgum #34, right to left. Aleppo pine #32, sycamore #33, sweetgums #34 & 35 right to left. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 30 30 Sweetgum #35 is suppressed under Aleppo pine #36 Aleppo pines #36 and 37, with sweetgum #38 at left. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 31 31 Sweetgum #38 Sycamore #33 at right Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 32 32 Aleppo pine #36 Aleppo pine #37 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 33 33 Sycamore #39 Sweetgum #40 at right Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 34 34 Sweetgum #40 Sweetgum #41 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 35 35 Sweetgum #42 – note past topping Sweetgum #42 & 43 – note hanger Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Disclaimer• 36 36 Disclaimer Since Arborgate Consulting may not have direct review or supervision of demolition or construction as it takes place, we must remind you that there are certain risks involved. Trees are living, dynamic organisms that respond to changes in their environment, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly. Working around trees in this condition will be risky. Good, current information on tree preservation has been applied. A complete risk assessment was not requested or performed. Weather, winds and the magnitude and direction of storms are not predictable and a failure may still occur despite the best application of high professional standards. Future maintenance will also affect the trees’ health and stability and is not under the supervision or scrutiny of this consultant. This consultant does not assume liability for any tree failures involved with this property. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 37 37 Appendix A. Resume B. Glossary C. Verification of Current Registration and Certifications Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 38 38 A. Resume GREGORY W. APPLEGATE, ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #365 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: American Society of Consulting Arborists Registered Consulting Arborist #365 International Society of Arboriculture, Certified Arborist Number WE-0180a American Society of Consulting Arborists – Tree & Plant Appraisal Qualified International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified EXPERIENCE: Mr. Applegate is an independent consulting arborist. He has been in the horticulture field since 1963, providing professional arboricultural consulting since 1984 within both private and public sectors. His expertise includes appraisal, tree preservation, diagnosis of tree growth problems, construction impact mitigation, environmental assessment, expert witness testimony, hazard evaluation, pruning programs, species selection and tree health monitoring. Mr. Applegate has consulted for insurance companies, major developers, theme parks, homeowners, homeowners' associations, landscape architects, landscape contractors, property managers, attorneys and governmental bodies. Notable projects on which he has consulted are: Disneyland, Disneyland Hotel, DisneySeas-Tokyo, Disney’s Wild Animal Kingdom, the New Tomorrowland, Disney’s California Adventure, Disney Hong Kong project, Knott’s Berry Farm, J. Paul Getty Museums, Tustin Ranch, Newport Coast, Crystal Court, Newport Fashion Island Palms, Bixby Ranch Country Club, Playa Vista, Laguna Canyon Road and Myford Road for The Irvine Company, MTA Expo and Purple Lines, MWD- California Lakes, Paseo Westpark Palms, Loyola-Marymount campus, Cal Tech, Cal State Long Beach, Pierce College, The Irvine Concourse, UCI, USC, UCLA, LA City College, LA Trade Tech, Riverside City College, Crafton Hills College, MTA projects, and the State of California review of the Landscape Architecture License exam (re: plant materials) EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 1973 ASCA Arboricultural Consulting Academy, Arbor-Day Farm, Kansas City 1995, #3 graduate Continuing Education Courses in Arboriculture required to maintain Certified Arborist status and for ASCA membership PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), Registered Member American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), Full Member International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Regular Member California Tree Failure Report Program, UC Davis, Participant Street Tree Seminar (STS), Associate Member COMMUNITY AFFILIATIONS: SoCalif ASLA visibility committee 1980-82 Landscape Arch. License Exam prep, Instructor, Cal Poly Pomona (1986-90) American Institute of Landscape Architects, LA Chapter Board of Directors (1980-82) California Landscape Architect Student Scholarship Fund-Chairman (1985) International Society of Arboriculture-Examiner-tree worker certification (1990) ASCA, Industry definitions committee and A3G committee 2009-2010 ASCA web site, west coast tree question responder (2007 and continuing) Guest lecturer at UCLA, Cal Poly, Saddleback College, & Palomar Junior College Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 39 39 B. Glossary Allelopathy a biological phenomenon by which an organism produces one or more biochemicals that influence the germination, growth, survival, and reproduction of other organisms. ANSI-A300 American National Standards Institute performance standards for the care and maintenance of trees, shrubs and other woody plants. Copies are available from International Society of Arboriculture bookstore 888-ISA-TREE ANSI-Z60-1 American National Standards Institute standards sizing and describing trees, shrubs and other nursery stock. Appraisal Plant appraisal - The act or process of developing an opinion of a defined value or defined cost. This may apply to plants, landscape elements, or services. (per Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers) Arboricultural Pertaining to the awareness, care, evaluation, identification, growing, maintenance, management, planting, selection, treatment, understanding, valuation and so forth of trees and other woody plants and their growing environments, particularly in shade and ornamental (non-crop/commodity) settings. Arboriculture The selection, cultivation, and care of trees, vines, and shrubs. Arborist A person possessing the technical competence through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the management of trees or other woody plants in a landscape setting. ASCA The American Society of Consulting Arborists, Inc. a professional society, as described in its by-laws. Bark Tissue on the outside of the vascular cambium. Bark is usually divided into inner bark - active phloem and aging and dead crushed phloem - and outer bark. Basal flare Most trees have a rapid increase in diameter as the trunk meets the soil line or root crown. This area is associated with both trunk and root tissue. Caliper Diameter of a tree trunk. Larger trees are usually measured at 4½ feet (see DBH) Trees with calipers 4 inches and below are measured at 6 inches above grade(ANSI Z60-1-1990) Trees above 4 inches, but still transplantable are measured at 12 inches above grade. Canopy The live, foliage-bearing part of a tree. Codominant Leaders equal in size and relative importance, developed from 2 apical buds at the top of a stem. Each codominant stem is an extension of the stem below it. There are no branch collars or trunk collars at the bases of codominant stems. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 40 40 Compaction (Soil Compaction) The compression of soil, causing a reduction of pore space and an increase in the bulk density of the soil. Tree roots cannot grow in compacted soil. Crotch The union of two or more branches; the axillary zone between branches. Crown The upper portions of a tree or shrub, including the main limbs, branches, and twigs. Crown reduction Reducing the size of the canopy using thinning versus heading cuts. Should not exceed 20 to 25 percent branch removal. Crown restoration Restoration of natural and/or structurally sound form to a tree which has been previously topped, headed or damaged. (synonym – crown restructure pruning) Cultivar A unique form or type propagated through selective breeding and maintained for specific purposes and retains those attributes in further propagation. An acronym for "cultivated variety"; cultivars can be naturally occurring plants, but usually have been cultivated with specific desirable characteristics in appearance and/or resilience. Maybe a field selection or a horticultural variety that has originated and persisted under cultivation. Usually enclosed in single quotes after the genus and species names. DBH Diameter of the trunk, measured at breast height or 54 inches above the average grade. See caliper. Decay Progressive deterioration of organic tissues, usually caused by fungal or bacterial organisms, resulting in loss of cell structure, strength, and function. In wood, the loss of structural strength. Decline Progressive reduction of health or vigor of a plant. Deep ripping Sub-soiling. - Cultivating below normal plow or roto-tiller depth. Dog-leg crooked or bent like a dog's hind leg. Epicormic Epi - upon; cormic – stem. Branches that are upon the stem, i.e. sprouting from either dormant buds in the cambial zone, or from buds sprung anew from ray traces. Epicormic shoots are a sign that energy reserves have been lowered. Excurrent Referring to crowns having a strong central leader. Foliage The live leaves or needles of the tree; the plant part primarily responsible for photosynthesis. Flush cut Pruning technique in which both branch and stem tissue are removed, generally considered poor practice Full skirt Dead fronds retained on palms trunks to near the ground. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 41 41 Girdling root A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthate and/or water and nutrients up. Ground cover Plants, usually herbaceous, used to spread, stay low and cover ground. They are usually not suited for foot traffic and do not usually need to be mowed and as such are distinguished from lawns. Any relatively low- growing plant. Can be Herbaceous or Woody. Hanger a broken or partly broken limb still hung up in the canopy, considered a hazardous condition! Heading Pruning techniques where the cut is made to a bud, weak lateral branch or stub. Included bark The pattern of development at branch junctions where bark is turned inward rather than pushed out forming a branch bark ridge. Bark embedded within the crotch between a branch and the trunk or between two or more stems that prevents the formation of a normal branch bark ridge. This often occurs in branches with narrow- angled attachments or branches resulting from the loss of the leader. Such attachments are weak and subject to splitting out. Lion-tailing The removal of all, or a great deal of, the inner branches and/or watersprouts from the crown of a tree. Lion’s Tailing is not an acceptable pruning practice, see ANSI A-300.10.1.7. Live crown ratio The relative proportion of green crown to overall tree height. Mature Plant will respond to flower-inducing conditions, in contrast with juvenile. Mulch Substances spread on top of the ground to conserve water, protect against erosion, retain moisture, and protect the roots of trees from heat, cold or drought. The substances are typically organic, such as compost, manure or bark chips. Narrow crotch for eucalyptus a branch angle of less than 15 degrees – for other trees a branch angle less than 30 degrees. Native A plant that grows naturally in a particular country, state, or region, and is neither introduced through planting, nor naturalized. Over pruned removal of more than 10 to 30 percent, depending on health, species and time of year – often evidenced by formation of epicormic shoots. Over-lifted removing more than the lower one third of scaffold limbs. Palm A tropical or subtropical monocotyledonous tree or shrub, usually having a woody, unbranched trunk and large, evergreen, fan or feather-shaped leaves at the top. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 42 42 Pencil In palms, declining health resulting in diminishing trunk diameter. Percolation The downward movement of water through soil. Root crown Area at the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge (synonym - root flare) Root system The portion of the tree containing the root organs, including buttress roots, transport roots, and fine absorbing roots; all underground parts of the tree. Root zone The area and volume of soil around the tree in which roots are normally found. May extend to three or more times the branch spread of the tree, or several times the height of the tree. Root sprung the roots are compromised by being pulled out of the ground on the side opposite a lean. (USDA Danger Tree pub) Scaffold limb Primary structural branch of the crown. Species Taxonomic classification below genus.. 1. A group of plants with common characteristics or consistent differences in morphology, ecology or reproductive behavior, distinct from others of the same genus. 2. The basic unit in plant taxonomy; the Latin binomial consisting of the genus and specific epithet; it is both singular and plural. Stress "Stress is a potentially injurious, reversible condition, caused by energy drain, disruption, or blockage, or by life processes operating near the limits for which they were genetically programmed." Alex Shigo Suppressed Trees which have been overtopped and whose crown development is restricted from above. They usually occupy the understory and grow slowly. Topping Pruning technique to reduce height - heading of large branches. Value The relative worth, merit, or importance of a thing, expressed as a single point, a range, or a relationship to a benchmark. Wound Any injury, which induces a compartmentalization response. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 43 43 Verification of Current Registration and Certifications Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 44 44 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 45 45 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Certification • 46 Certification I, Gregory W. Applegate, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief: That the statements of fact contained in this report, are true and correct. That the report analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal unbiased professional analysis, opinions and conclusions. That I have no present or prospective interest in the vegetation that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting or a predetermined outcome that favors the cause of the client, or the attainment of stipulated result. That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the standards of ASCA and customary arboricultural practice. That I have made a personal inspection of the plants that are the subject of this report. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. Arborgate Consulting, Inc. Gregory W. Applegate, ASCA_____________________________________ Date: 2/1/2021 Registered Consulting Arborist #365 Certified Arborist #WE-0180a WHAT IS THE ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY? The proposed project, located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, consists of developing a new two-story licensed senior living community. This community will provide services to residents needing Assisted Living and Memory Care within a welcoming and safe environment. It will consist of 118 units within a resort-like traditional Spanish style architecture building with two beautifully landscaped courtyards. The “Best in Class” design will include luxury finishes in the common areas and resident units including granite or quartz counter tops, stainless-steel appliances, beautiful artwork and custom mill work. Common area amenities for residents and loved ones will include two dining rooms, a bistro, living room, activity room, fitness room, theatre, salon, and reception lobby. It will be a haven for the elderly population and fill a market gap of new and modern North Orange County senior living options. WHO IS BUILDING IT? Shelter LLP is the architect who is designing the senior living community. They have a foundation of quality place-making, social and environmental responsibility and collaborative partnerships. They work hands-on to create memorable places - particularly for seniors and their families. Alliance Residential will entitle, permit, and build the community. Leadership from both Alliance and Shelter worked hand in hand together to build Saphire at Emerald Court, an award-winning senior living community offering assisted living located in West Anaheim. HOW WILL THE EXISTING SITE BE CHANGED FOR THIS USE? Currently at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Alliance Residential Company and Shelter LLP are working closely with the City of Anaheim to explore the greatest and best use of this site. The senior living community is a generally low-impact use. It will use the existing site pad and the proposed development anticipates falling below or matching the current site’s existing elevation. IS THIS GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC? Senior living communities offering assisted living and memory care do not generate very much traffic at all. Most assisted living residents do not drive and none of the memory care residents drive. The community will provide transportation via shuttle for group events and a private vehicle with a chauffeur for personal needs. Finally, Alliance Residential Company plans to put together a traffic memo that will assess and address traffic logistics. IS THIS COMMUNITY AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT? No. This community will be a top-of-the-line luxury development. Anaheim HillsSenior LivingCommunity FAQ ATTACHMENT NO. 9 CAN I GET MY ELDERLY RELATIVE A UNIT AT THIS COMMUNITY? You bet! We will have the pre-leasing sales office established 10-12 months prior to opening (date TBD). Historically, most senior community residents come from within a 5 mile radius. There will be ample time for local Anaheim Hills residents to visit and place a deposit before the community opening. Typically our facilities are 30-50% pre-leased. Those who deposit early will be given the opportunity to join the “Founder’s Club,” which will offer a variety of promotions and incentives. WHAT IS THE APPROVAL PROCESS? The process that the City of Anaheim has designed to build senior living communities includes input from City staff, the Planning Commission, and eventually, the City Council. The timing of those meetings depends on the completion of application submittals, review, and follow-up from City staff. Alliance Residential Company is working closely with City staff throughout the submittal and review processes to move through the next few steps proactively and with full transparency. WHAT’S NEXT? Today, our primary goal is simply to introduce the proposed senior living community to you. We anticipate over the next few weeks that site plans will be reviewed by the City and we will officially enter the approval process timeline described above. In the meantime, we remain open and accessible to address any questions or concerns you may have. We anticipate hosting intimate community forums within the near future as we continue working through the details of this proposed development. IF YOU’D LIKE TO STAY UP-TO-DATE ON THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJECT LOCATED AT: 5275 E. NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM, CA 92807 PLEASE CONTACT US USING THE INFORMATION BELOW AND WE WILL PLACE YOU ON OUR FOLLOW-UP LIST: AHSENIORCOMMUNITY@GMAIL.COM Anaheim HillsSenior LivingCommunity FAQ Mailer for April 28, 2021 Virtual Open House From: To:Joanne Hwang Subject:FW: Variance No, 2020-05144 118 units Sr. Facility Date:Friday, May 14, 2021 2:41:04 PM From: Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 2:10 PM To: 'kimberly.keys ; 'Lucille.kring 'lbperez 'awhistle 'natalieameeks 'rmulleady dhiruhv 'jhwang@anaheim.net'' <jhwang@anaheim.net'> Cc: Calazans, Eduardo [JJCUS] ( 'planningcommision@anaheim.net' <planningcommision@anaheim.net> Subject: FW: Variance No, 2020-05144 118 units Sr. Facility Honorable Members of the Anaheim Planning Commission. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed 118 unit Senior Facility at the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak in Anaheim Hills. I have lived in that area for 21 years and have witnessed a fair number of accidents on that street, including one involving my family, as people drive very fast on the curvy road. The backyard of my house overlooks the church and Nohl Ranch Road. This development will increase the traffic count significantly. At this time, there is no protected left turn from East Bound Nohl Ranch to North Bound Royal Oak. I am concerned with the reduction in parking that just benefits the Developer, at the expense of the Community. The Developer gets an economic benefit of building more units but the parking will be reduced, which may spill over to the adjoining streets. I work in the real estate and development field and understand that what the EIR or parking analysis says may not be totally accurate or come to pass. We are going from a Church that was used on Sundays and a few evenings to a full-time apartment facility. That is quite a change for the area, which we do not support. Having talked with the neighbors, it seems to me that most of them are against this project and will be contacting the city shortly. I request you to vote no. ATTACHMENT NO. 10 From:Bilal R To:Planning Commission Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills 5275 E Nohl Ranch Project Date:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 1:27:51 PM Dear Planning Commission. As a resident at , Anaheim, CA 92807 We are concerned with this project in relationship to the increased traffic, noise, and parking issues that will materialize if this project is approved as per the plans on File ID: C8K-6K%. In addition, the height of the proposed building is a grave concern for us as it will affect the view from our neighborhood. Please address the concerns regarding, noise, traffic, and parking as we live in a quiet neighborhood with young children. For the residents of our community, this project is a concern and we request the commission to readjust the plans so the disturbance to our neighborhood is as limited as possible. Appreciate your time and diligence in looking for the best interests of our city, neighborhood, and community. Thank you -- Bilal Ruknuddeen From:Dhillon Alamshaw To:Planning Commission Subject:Holden Support Date:Wednesday, May 12, 2021 2:48:47 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Dhillon Alamshaw. I am an Anaheim Hills resident reaching out to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. This senior living community is crucial for our local residents. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you. From:Dianne Harwell To:Planning Commission; Scott Koehm Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 4:22:08 PM Hello Scott and the Planning Committee, I am writing because I live across the street from the pending development of Holden Anaheim Hills. I did some research and found that it is a retirement community that is quite large. My concern is the location. This lot is much too small for a retirement community of the capacity that is being submitted. As it is, the street is very narrow for a busy street. The street has only residential homes surrounding it and to put in a business where cars will come and go all day will be a huge problem. The church that was there already caused members to make illegal left turns whenever there is service. Many times we have to maneuver around these cars which can cause a pile up accident. The street is very residential and putting in a full time business in this lot is not only distasteful but dangerous for drivers. I am very concerned for my family who has young drivers living in my home that a auto accident may occur. I am also concerned about the lot size not being scalable for this size of business. Why put a retirement community smack in the middle of residential community? This also causes home prices to decrease which is not fair to those who live nearby. I feel very badly for the homes that their yards face the large building that is being developed. I lived in Anaheim for my entire adult life I a proud to be here and own properties in our community because I believe in this great city. I am writing because I hope that what I am doing will not only help me and my family but also those who live in the area. Please consider our concerns and understand that we are looking out for community and want to live peacefully and not worry about accidents and cars coming and going right outside of our street. I am sure there are plenty of lots that they can put this business on maybe they should consider that? Thanks in advance for the opportunity to hear our concerns. Best Regards, Dianne From:Edward Rutherford To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Subject:Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 Date:Wednesday, May 5, 2021 5:54:56 PM Dear Sirs.. I am a resident of Anaheim Hills. I live just down the street from the proposed Assisted Living Project planned at Nohl Ranch Blvd. and Royal Oak. This site was the former home of the LDS church. The church was never much of a problem in that the major services were scheduled for Sundays and some smaller group meetings during the week. The proposed assisted living facility will change the tenor of the entire community. This project will have a detrimental effect on homeowners and the community on several fronts. First, this is a commercial project being placed in a residential community. The facility is a cash flow generator for the owners. It will take away from the tranquility of our neighborhood. The additional traffic from visitors and employees will increase traffic congestion in the area. The neighborhood already suffers from traffic congestion by people from Corona and the Inland Empire using the community streets to bypass the congested traffic on the 91 freeway. The traffic from 3 pm until 6pm is tenfold already on both Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak. The noise generated by the facility will effect all those living with an one or to block radius of the facility. Unfortunately, there will be increase traffic flow from shift changes and visitors. There will also be emergency vehicles rushing to aid patients and other care issues. The traffic patterns will also create a safety issue. I have seen patients from the facilities of like kind that evade the security measures and end up walking away from the care property. These people could walk into the street and with the traffic issue they could become victims or cause accidents. Our community already has several of these facilities located in the commercial area of Anaheim Hills Road and Nohl Ranch Blvd. We do not need another facility placed the middle of a tranquil and peaceful neighborhood. I would encourage you to reject this project. I understand that several other bidders were in play for the property. The other bidders would build either another church or more homes on that property. That would seem to be a benefit to both the city and the local community. Thank you for the consideration. Edward Rutherford Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 From:Eric Mouness To:Joanne Hwang Subject:DEV # 2019-00172 Date:Sunday, May 09, 2021 10:44:08 PM Dear Ms Hwang, PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE the Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community project on Nohl Ranch Rd . This massive project simply does not fit in this residential neighborhood. Increased traffic, noise and inadequate parking (by 50%!!) will forever change this once tranquil neighborhood and compromise our way of life. The proposed employee transportation incentive program of the parking analysis proposes some off-beat solutions such as public transportation..... where no busses run! And off site parking on someone else's crowded parking lot not to mention bicycles, of course. I'm certain none of the designers have ever ridden on Nohl Ranch Rd. This project will erase what little privacy this neighborhood enjoys. Please turn it down. Regards, Eric and Barbara Mouness. From:Gary Cutshall To:Scott Koehm Subject:proposed construction Date:Friday, October 02, 2020 10:18:04 AM Sir, I live very close to the intersection of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road. Royal Oak is a main entry and exit to a lot of houses south of Nohl Ranch Road. The impact of traffic coming into this neighborhood for visits, support and logistics for a complex of this size would be detrimental to our neighborhood. I am thoroughly against that type of development inside a single family home area. This is not a commercial location. Gary Cutshall Anaheim, CA From:Planning Commission To:Scott Koehm; David See Subject:FW: Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Wednesday, September 23, 2020 6:53:23 PM Hi Scott, Not sure if you received the email below as your email address is incorrect. From: Harwell, Greg Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 6:09 AM To: Planning Commission <PCommision@anaheim.net>; skoehm@anahiem.net Cc: Dianne Harwell >; Greg Harwell Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills To the Planning Commission and Scott Koehm: Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Case Number CUP2019-60048 DEV Number DEV2019-00172 I am writing to oppose this project for two primary reasons with the first being a safety issue and the second being inappropriate for the dense single family dwelling surrounding this property. I quick background of myself as I am a long time resident of the houses located in Point Quissett which is across and to the right of the property in question. The primary route to the freeway and market places is past this property which is done on a daily basis. When we purchased our residents, we understood there was a church in this location yet the activity was limited to a Sunday service and minor meetings during the week making this a non-invasive institution. The proposed property would drastically change this environment. One primary concern is the safety of the residents and others as they drive past this proposed assisted living complex. The complex is reporting a 2-story 118 unit, senior living community with 98 assisted living units and 20 memory care units. The description alone outlines the high traffic condition where there is two entrances with one limited to a right turn only. The entrances are from the high volume street of Kohl Ranch Road with is a primary street running across Anaheim Hills and Royal Oak. The Kohl Ranch Road entrance is stripped to prohibit a left into the property due to the traffic volume ; however, it is a is a common occurrence since most of the travelers use Kohl Ranch Road to get to this property. This is the east bound route coming from the 55 freeway. This road is windy and his traveled with speed so stopping unexpectedly can cause a serious accident leading to a fatality or major injuries. It is one thing to watch for the occasional church goer and it will be another with erratic traffic patterns due to the size of the facility. I am also deeply concerning about the inappropriateness of this complex located within a residential community. Not only is it grossly out of place but it introduces an undesirable environment due to the volume of activity. Keep in mind there are only single family dwellings located within the surrounding area of about a mile before there is an elementary school across from Santa Ana Canyon. I want to point out that this is an assisted living, and memory care unit where there will be an abnormally high volume of ambulances and hearses due to the very nature of the complex. That is not the residential community I chose to raise my family and I do not believe it is appropriate in the heart of this community. Further there will also be a derogation of our property value as this unit will not increase our value. This is a big concern that cannot be ignored. There many other locations within Anaheim Hills that are more geared for this type of assisted living complex. I believe I have clearly outlined why this project is inappropriate for the location and am deeply concerned and opposed. Please contact me if I can provide any other insights. Best Regards, Greg Harwell From:g w To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Date:Wednesday, May 12, 2021 5:07:05 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Greg Webb. I am an Anaheim resident and am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24. 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. This senior living community is a much needed resource for our aging population. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you. Greg Webb Anaheim resident. From:Irma Ramirez To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Wednesday, May 12, 2021 12:23:21 PM Dear City of Anaheim Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and Staff: My name is Irma Ramirez, I live in Anaheim and am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtedly provide meaningful care for generations to come. It will be a beautiful and crucial addition to our community. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! From:Jill Cook To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living project Date:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 6:51:17 AM To Joanne and the Anaheim City Planning Department, I am very concerned about the size of the proposed Holden Senior Living complex that is proposed in Anaheim Hills. This structure and the number of proposed residents seems much too large for this site. A senior living facility at this site would be ok if it was built to scale to fit into the site and the surrounding neighborhood. My concerns related to the size of the facility include: 1)The overall building size going from the current medium size church building of 17,500 sq feet to a facility of 98,500 Square feet which is 5.6 times as large is not acceptable and creates so many associated issues 2) Parking- the proposed 52 parking spots is severely under what is needed to allow parking for care staff, residents with cars (if they are allowed), visitors, doctors, cleaning staff, sales staff, cooks, doctors or nurses, activity personnel, transport vans, etc.. Neighbors are very concerned that people will be forced to park on the surrounding neighborhood streets. 3)Water runoff- a building this large without associated natural open ground will create a tremendous runoff issue. 4) This urban type building will change the neighborhood 5)Traffic concerns- both Royal Oak and Noel Ranch Road are busy with fast speeds, This will be a hazard to any residents that are walking and crossing these streets as well as people going in and out of the parking areas will create a hazard 6) The height of the building is listed as a maximum of 25”. This lot has a significant slope with the lower area to the north. If the building height is carried back from the front elevation it will be much higher than the 25’, it may be as high as 50’ from current ground elevation. This makes a significant difference to local residents. 7) The slope to the north is a natural area that has current established vegetation to help hold the slope and prevent erosion. I feel that this needs to be addressed very carefully as any changes to this slope and vegetation could negatively effect neighbors to the north. Anaheim Hills has historically maintained this type of slope without multiple retaining walls and tried to have open space. Thank you. I hope my concerns will be heard and considered in this planning process. Jill Cook DVM Sent from for Windows 10 From:Jill Cook To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Project; CUP2019-06048/DEV Number DEV2019-00172 Date:Monday, May 10, 2021 9:12:31 AM Dear Planning Commission: I am very concerned about the size and scale of the proposed Holden Assisted living/memory care complex that is proposed at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. This proposal is exceeding the capacity of this piece of property and the neighborhood that surrounds it. My late husband and I bought a house just north of this property for our retirement home as we appreciate the quiet neighborhood and beautiful backyard that this home has. He passed in October and now I am holding on to the wish to continue to enjoy this property and the privacy and safety that it allows my family. I appreciate the landowner of the church property’s right to develop their property to the best use but also do not think that city regulations should be waived or stretched to allow for overbuilding on this site. I have several major areas of concern: 1. The size of the proposed building- The proposal calls for a building 5.6 times as large as the current medium size church that is on the site. Going from 17,500 square feet to 98,500 square feet is unfathomable. As this property has very significant slope from the south downward to the north the actual height of the building may well be 45-50 feet on the north, although the builder is saying the lower areas are “terraces” and therefore do not count in the 25 foot height limit of the city. This is not acceptable as the height of the building should be calculated from the current ground level. The effective building height is from the ground, not from the construction of terraces. This overall height is what the community will see and what will tower over their homes. 2. Parking- The builder is proposing approximately 50% of current required parking for this type of facility. They are asking for a variance to allow the construction of a facility that far exceeds the number of parking spaces that are designed. This creates an unsafe and undesirable situation at the facility and the surrounding neighborhoods. There are going to be 127 residents, staff, specialty staff (3rd party caregivers, physical therapists, activity directors, hair stylists, drivers, etc.) as well as many visitors. There are only 54 current parking spots planned, at least 4 of those are already taken by two residents allowed to have car and two transport vehicles advertised by the facility. My mother was in a memory care facility and she typically had 3 visitors a day and I spent a lot of time there and saw numerous people in and out of the facility. We had several events for her that had 10-15 people just for her. I am concerned that the data that the builder is presenting to the planning commission may have been obtained during Covid and is totally not a true picture of the visitors and additional people that typically visit a care facility. Family should be encouraged to visit loved ones in a care facility and not burdened by lack of available parking. I worry that as this problem develops, staff will start using our neighborhood streets for parking which is not ok with us. 3. Slope to the north- There is a very steep slope going down from this parcel to the houses to the north of it. The property line is actually at the bottom of this slope but historically this slope has been maintained primarily by the homeowners to the north. Vegetation has been established to help hold the slope and maintain the “feel” of the Anaheim Hills community. There are two huge iconic palms on this slope that are very dear to me and provide food and shelter for lots of wildlife. I do not think that this slope should be made into a retaining wall staircase with backfill so that the builder can squeak a few more feet out of the site that is too small for the proposal. I worry about construction on this slope and the instability that it will cause and the disruption to the trees, wildlife habitat, and groundcover that we have worked so hard to establish. 4. Noise- The noise of construction of this large project that is anticipated to take 20-24 months will be unbearable to the surrounding neighbors. This is a very quiet neighborhood and we appreciate it as such. We are also worried about the ongoing noise that a facility this large will generate. There will be people coming and going at all hours of the day and night. Emergency vehicles (ambulance and fire) are frequently needed at a facility of older residents such as this as well as multiple delivery trucks etc.. There is a generator placed along the north boundary which will be tested twice a month as well as used 24/7 when there is a power outage. 5. Safety- Both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak are busy neighborhood roads that have quickly moving traffic with limited visibility due to the hills and turns in the roads. I believe that residents of an assisted living facility that go for walks on this corner will be at risk. This facility should have enough outside space for residents to take walks and enjoy the beautiful southern California climate. Vehicles turning in and out of the proposed driveways will create additional hazards. I appreciate the planning commission evaluating the pros and cons of this assisted living facility. We definitely need good places for our older residents and I am not opposed to that overall use for this piece of property but I think it is imperative that it fit into the neighborhood, provide adequate facilities and parking for its use, and not negatively change the neighborhood around it. My impression is that a facility approximately half the size of this proposal would fit well on this property. Sincerely Jill Cook DVM Sent from for Windows 10 From:Jolynn Mahoney To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Subject:SUPPORT FOR HOLDEN - ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY 5275 E Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim Date:Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:38:54 AM Dear City of Anaheim Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and Staff: My name is Jolynn Mahoney and I am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed best-in-class senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! Jolynn Mahoney From:Julia Humphrey To:Planning Commission Subject:Holden Care Facility Proposal Date:Wednesday, May 12, 2021 6:11:29 PM Ms. Hwang, Please investigate carefully the proposal for the facility on Royal Oak and 5275 Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim Hills. The size of facility at 98,500 sq ft and variances got height/ parking, etc. requested are not reasonable for the size of the lot or for the zoning of the neighborhood. A facility smaller than the one proposed AND with fewer variance requests should be considered. Thank you, 50 year Anaheim resident, Julia Humphrey From:Karla To:Planning Commission Subject:Ref: Case #cup2019-06048/Dev#Dev2019-00172 Date:Sunday, May 2, 2021 6:46:29 AM Hello, I am a resident at Westridge rd which is one street down from this church. My house’s backyard is already facing Nohl Ranch and every day I have to be dealing with the increase of noise from cars, dirt, smoke etc. I consider my neighbor a beautiful peaceful safe neighborhood for most of the time. However, I am very concerned about this company wanting to come and build APARTMENTS!. I didn’t come to this area for this. I have been living here for ten years and it is not fair that big corporations come and disturb our hard life work with their own minds of profits. Please stop this project, our neighborhood will become noisier, will be an eyesore to see an apartment building in that corner and the safety of all of us will be in jeopardy. I don’t believe the elderly can do much damage but I am talking about all people who will come to work there without even mentioning visitors, deliver trucks, etc. please Anaheim city, work for us YOUR people and not for the benefit of big companies. Don’t allow money destroy the beauty of this city. Anaheim Hills is one of the only left areas that make this city more valuable. I beg you Anaheim City to don’t let us down and listen to the people who have been here before this corporations. Karla Sent from my iPad From:k-dunham To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Wednesday, May 12, 2021 3:57:41 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff, My name is Keri Dunham-Muniz. I am an Anaheim resident reaching out to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. This senior living community will provide a much needed resource to the local aging population. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you. Keri Dunham-Muniz Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone From:Scott Koehm To:Joanne Hwang Subject:FW: Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Monday, April 19, 2021 1:47:10 PM Hi Joanne. I just received this today. Scott From: Kim Davis <kimdavis592@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 1:45 PM To: Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.net>; aseniorcommunity@gmail.com Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Hello, We live in Anaheim Hills. A lovely planned community of which we pay approx. $50 a month for maintenance and landscaping. Well until recently. The Development company, Alliance Realty Partners, LLC has let the grounds go. The grass is not mowed. It looks like a dump site. Is this what we can expect from this developer? I oppose this development on two grounds: 1. The developer is not maintaining the grounds 2. It will cause too much traffic in an already heavy traffic accident intersection. Regards, Kim Davis <Jglover@anaheim.net> Cc: Sent: Tue, Jun 23, 2020 11:00 am Subject: Proposed Holden Senior Community - Anaheim Hills Hi Councilman O’Neil Re: Holden Anaheim Hills https://www.holdenanaheimhills.com/ I am writing as a concerned resident in Anaheim Hills upon learning that a recent commercial development is being proposed in our residential neighborhood. I have learned that Holden Anaheim Hills is proposing to build a 118 bed senior living community on the property at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Rd. Anaheim 92807, where the existing Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints currently sits. My property is adjacent to the Church property. I bought this property because my I knew that a Church as a neighbor is generally a good place to live. I have spoken to several of the neighbors surrounding the Church and we will be objecting to the building of 118 bed facility in such a small property. The property is not zoned for a senior housing facility and all of the problems that develop. There needs to be an environmental impact assessment report on the neighborhood, traffic, affect on values of property when a builder decides to change a residential neighborhood. There needs to be community input, especially to those most affected. The obvious changes this will bring include, first, that the corner of Nohl Ranch Rd. and Royal Oak, where this development will be, is known to having many vehicle accidents already. Adding additional vehicles to the traffic to this location is going to ruin the residential neighborhood having to deal with more vehicles and that intersection will get more dangerous. The speed limit on Nohl Ranch Rd. is 45 MPH but vehicles travel much faster. Getting in and out of the property will create more dangerous situations for the residents. Second, the Church was a good neighbor, they only held mass on early Sundays so the noise levels were minimal. They purposely avoided making noise and the neighbors greatly appreciated them. Some days were so quiet you could not even tell the Church was full. Third, adding an 118 bed facility is going to create a lot more visitors to the property, family and friends of the residents will be constant, and accommodating parking will be impossible. As these will be seniors, there is likely going to be more ambulances and ER vehicles arriving at all hours of the day. If there are not enough parking spaces, it will mean that visitors and parking will spill out into our streets. My street will be the closest for spill-over parking. The regular delivery trucks for supplies, transportation services for the residents, and other traffic will increase noise and parking issues. Fourth, the trash that will be generated will attract even more rodents and other animals into our neighborhood we already have to maintain control. The constant smells of trash and food for 118 people will be a daily routine. The smells in the air will be every breakfast, lunch, and dinner, ruing the smell of the outdoors around this neighborhood. Fifth, the lighting for the property will be increased. Currently, Anaheim Hills remains an oasis of solitude and peace, without the lights within a residential neighborhood. Stadium or pole lights will increase the light at night . Currently the Church has minimal lighting that face down and not at its neighbors. Most affected will be those homes in the HOA directly above the Church, who may now have to come out to their back yard at night and see it all lit up. Nuisance issues are going to come up, traffic, parking, noise, trash, and smells are a nuisance under current city ordinances and a 118 bed facility will not be able to control it. Finally, these changes in status of our Anaheim Hills residential neighborhood will decrease our property values. A senior community center is not the same kind of property or equivalent to a Church that has existed in the neighborhood for many years. A senior living community should not be allowed to be built inside a residential neighborhood. The other two senior living facilities in Anaheim Hills are within/adjacent to a commercial area with high traffic streets. Anaheim Hills has a great reputation, let’s not ruin it solely to generate revenue. I moved to Anaheim Hills to move away from the hustle and bustle madness that is Southern California. I would like to come home from work to a residential neighborhood and relax, not fight traffic, noise, smells, and lighting once I get home. I urge urge you to please review this proposed development and consider how the residents will be affected. Please advise how I can submit and file my objections. Please let me know what we can do. I have already discussed this with my neighbors who may also begin to get involved. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, Manny Dominguez Anaheim, CA 92807 From:mdesq1 To:Joanne Hwang Cc:Trevor O"Neil; glover@anaheimn.net Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Assisted and Memory Living Structure (Nohl Ranch Rd. ) Date:Friday, May 07, 2021 1:30:42 PM Hi Ms. Hwang I am a resident at ., Anaheim CA. My property backs up to the proposed Holding Anaheim Hills assisted living structure that is being considered. I was advised to send my written opposition to the city planning commission prior to the scheduled meeting on May 24th. I am completely surprised and angry the city would even consider this type of structure at this location. It is completely unsuitable for the single-family homes that surround it. The intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak has had many, many serious accidents over the last 10 years. The city acknowledged this danger at the intersection by putting in a left turn arrow. In addition the entrance from eastbound Nohl Ranch Road to that property creates serious rear end accidents from eastbound traffic because drivers are blind to stopped vehicles waiting to turn left onto the property. Over the last 10 years I have witnessed several accidents at the location, as well as many close accidents. At 45 mph (vehicles travel much faster) vehicles cannot stop in time as they come around the turn. Next, I’m just appalled the city would allow reduced parking spots for such a big facility. 118 patients and many employees, estimates of 20-50 and there is no doubt that overflow visitors will park on my street and those around us. There is already minimal parking on our streets. Why would the city seek to degrade such nice neighborhoods with more traffic and parking? The property owner should be forced to reduce the amount of patients to confirm with the available parking. Please find out how many employees will be at the proposed facility that will reduce the 55 parking spots even further (which includes handicapped parking already). The value of this neighborhood and our properties are at stake here and the city should not just rubber stamp this structure. It is more suitable for another location, maybe off Santa Ana Canyon or Imperial Blvd. Additional concerns: 1. Trucks and semi trucks bringing food and supplies regularly up and down a crowded street (Royal Oaks). The bottom of this street already backs up on weekdays due to the school below. 2. The constant daily smell of food for 118 people, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. 3. The noises, intercoms, parking vehicles with doors opening and closing, groups of people gathering, generator noise. 4. Increase in the rodent population (large rats) from the garbage that will increase significantly. (The average person consumes 2000 lbs of food per year. So, 118 people are going to generate 236,000 lbs of food or 147.5 tons of food.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inverse.com/article/38623-pounds-of-food-united- states-calories/amp) 5. Lights in the property are going to disrupt the serenity and darkness in the neighborhood that attracted us to this neighborhood. The LDS church respected the neighborhood and has minimal lights. I don’t want my backyard lit up or lights shining through my windows at night when I want to sleep. 6. Medical vehicles like ambulances regularly disrupting the intersection. 7. The monstrosity of the structure that will detract from the single family residence neighborhood. Why is the city changing the zoning for this project? The zoning was created to keep up and continue with the theme of the residential neighborhood. At almost 35 feet high, they will change our privacy in our back yard and my view on the side becomes an ugly assisted living building. 8. The projected 30 months of building is going to create noise, dust, dirt, and traffic disruption. This neighborhood has just undergone street and wiring construction already. It’s not fair to us residents to endure more disruption. I intend to hold anyone, including the city, legally responsible for any trespass or nuisance that may arise from any of the aforementioned issues. Along with the construction, I believe there will be continuous nuisance events for which the city is now on notice. By it’s own code, all of the above are a nuisances. I will attend the hearing on May 24th too. Do you know the single posted notice is only on Royal Oak and Morningside St. one block from the property. That is not proper notice to the community. Finally, please confirm that you have started to receive the postcards mailed in by the neighboring residents who are all joining in this opposition that are being sent to the city planning commission. Thank you. Manny Dominguez From:Marcia Zonitch To:Planning Commission Subject:Boho Ranch & Royal Oak Date:Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:01:30 PM We do not want this giant, unlawful building on this site! Please save our neighborhood from this. Vote no!! Thank you. Very concerned neighbor Marcia Zonitch Sent from my iPhone From:Marla Tatarian To:Planning Commission Subject:referencing Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 Date:Thursday, May 6, 2021 5:58:40 PM To whom it may concern: In regards of referencing Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 (I Disagree 100% Do not allow to be built). Do NOT allow an assisted living facility to be built in place of the church, located at the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak. My disagreement reasons are below list. 1. Increased Traffic 2. Noise 3. Slope stability 4. Parking not Compliance with the code 5. Size of structure too large. Best Regards, Marla Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From:Mary Paul To:Joanne Hwang Cc:Kimberly Keys; Lucille Kring; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; ; Luis Andres Perez; Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Subject:DEV # DEV2019-00172 Date:Monday, May 03, 2021 3:39:39 PM Dear Ms. Hwang, We are residents near the proposed large assisted living facility on the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak. We oppose the development under consideration because the size exceeds Anaheim codes for residential/hillside development, and proposes inadequate parking that Anaheim codes do not permit. When we purchased our home in Anaheim Hills, it was in anticipation that Anaheim would comply with the codes that ensure health and safety of all the residents. We reread the codes and it is clear that when community care facilities are permitted they are to be small (see below) to ensure the residential appearance and hillside stability of the area. 18.16.058 COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES–UNLICENSED (SMALL) AND SOBER LIVING HOMES (SMALL). It would seem prudent that when large facilities that require sufficient parking, increased traffic, and delivery space for businesses are proposed, they should be permitted along major corridors of commercial enterprise or stand-alone acreage. It is clear that the proposed 127 bed facility is a large 24-hour business with many employees, visitors and increased traffic including emergency vehicles. We ask that you oppose this proposed 24-hour business to maintain the integrity of a long-standing Anaheim residential area where health and safety is paramount for its families and all residents. Kind regards, Mary and Brian Paul From:Matthew Brady To:Joanne Hwang Cc:Courtney Brady Subject:Opposition to Proposed Anaheim Hills Holden Facility at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 8:33:12 AM Attachments:Opposition to Anaheim Hills Holden Facility.pdf Dear Ms. Hwang, Attached please find our opposition to the requests for Conditional Use Permit (No. 2019- 06048), Variance (No. 2020-05144), and Specimen Tree Removal (2021-00001) regarding the property at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim Hills. We understand that a public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission on May 24, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. Please let us know if you have any issues opening the attached correspondence. Thank you, Matt and Courtney Brady 1 ANAHEIM HILLS RESIDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO THE HOLDEN COMMUNITY’S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL AT 5275 EAST NOHL RANCH ROAD PROPERTY Dear Anaheim Planning Commission, Please accept this correspondence as our vehement opposition and objections to the planned Holden Community being built in Anaheim Hills, California. We live directly across from 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints located at the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road ("site"). The planned Holden Community will have a substantial negative impact on our lives and our children's lives, if it is allowed to be built. We urge you to deny the entirety of the plan (No. DEV2019-00172) and specifically deny the applications for a Conditional Use Permit (No. 2019-06048), Variance (No. 2020-05144), and Specimen Tree Removal (No. 2021-00001). We have reviewed the claims contained in the Holden Community project plan ("PROJECT PLAN"). Hopefully, you have caught the major deficiencies, mistakes and deceitful statements included in the PROJECT PLAN. I. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE PROHIBITS THE PROJECT PLAN’S REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Simply put, the PROJECT PLAN violates the intent of Anaheim's RH-3 Zoning, which states: Single-Family Hillside Residential. The intent of the "RH-3" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. [emphasis added] (Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.020.030) The PROJECT PLAN is the antithesis of every single element of RH-3 Zoning. The PROJECT PLAN is ugly; will decrease safety; will decrease the health of the environment via diesel fumes emitted by numerous emergency vehicles, constant sirens, noxious smells, and more; looks unnatural and nothing like the surrounding neighborhood; and will block existing views destroying the scenic resources of the area. Most importantly in regards to zoning, the PROJECT PLAN is not for single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The PROJECT PLAN flagrantly violates the intent of the neighborhood's RH-3 Zoning and should be denied without further consideration. Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.030 Table 4-A identifies the permissible uses, prohibited uses, and those that require a conditional use permit. The PROJECT PLAN indicates that Holden Community will be what amounts to a convalescent and rest home that will have 31 beds 2 in "memory care dwelling units." Convalescent and rest homes are expressly prohibited in Anaheim's RH-3 Zone. Do not be deceived into believing that the PROJECT PLAN is simply for a Senior Living Facility (Large) or Senior Citizens' Apartment Project that would require a conditional use permit. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a rest home as “an establishment that provides housing and general care for the aged or the convalescent. (https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/rest%20home) Holden's own website FAQs for the proposed development states "Residents will receive help with activities of daily living, including: bathing, dressing, grooming, medication management, assistance with ambulation...and 24 hour monitoring." Those are the services for the most able-bodied proposed residents. The memory care patients will be placed in "a secured wing for those impacted by dementia and dementia related diseases." (holdenanaheimhills.com/faq) The PROJECT PLAN is clearly a convalescent and rest home; any other interpretation is disingenuous. If your commission takes the developer's word that this is a Senior Living Facility (Large), the applications should still be denied. The classification of uses that a Senior Living Facility (Large) would fall under is controlled by Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.36.020 which requires “uses that have similar functional characteristics or impacts upon the surrounding area.” In this case, a Senior Living Facility (Large) IS DESIGNATED AS A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE under Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.36.040.190. A non-residential use should not be built smack dab in the middle of one of the nicest residential-only areas in Orange County. For context, this designation would fall under the same code section as a self-storage facility, sports arena or a sex club. No matter what nomenclature the PROJECT PLAN uses to attempt to fool the Planning Commission with, there can be no doubt that a 118-unit gigantic complex on two-plus acres does not have similar functional characteristics or impacts upon the surrounding area that is surrounded by single family homes with real property lots that measure 10,000 square feet to multiple acres. If your commission is to take the position that the PROJECT PLAN is a Senior Citizens' Apartment Project, it would not meet the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.50.040.040 et seq. which states that the minimum floor area of any senior citizen dwelling must be 400 square feet. 63 of the 118 units in the PROJECT PLAN are less than the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED, including more than 70% of the memory care units. This is evident in Architectural Site Plan page A2 (Revision 4, dated March 31, 2021). The attempt to cram in more paying customers into a dwelling that is below the minimum allowed square footage is disgusting and disturbing for the planned residents. It presents obvious safety and ethical concerns. A. THE SITE IS IN A PROTECTED LOW DENSITY AREA The City of Anaheim’s General Plan – Land Use has designated the area that includes the site at issue as being one of low density. This designation includes a maximum of 6.5 dwelling units per acre, which the surrounding area is well below. The PROJECT PLAN seeks to place 118 units on 2.99 acres. That is the equivalent of 39.5 dwellings per acre! The PROJECT PLAN does not conform to the low density area and is woefully out of place in our neighborhood. 3 B. OUR VIEWS MUST BE PRESERVED The first goal of the City of Anaheim’s General Plan – Land Use for the area where the site is located is to “Encourage the preservation of scenic vistas and views through Green Element Policies and Zoning Code development standards.” Allowing the PROJECT PLAN will be in direct contradiction to the City of Anaheim’s General Plan to preserve views. Any argument that views are not protected in this area of Anaheim Hills is simply false and misleading. As the City of Anaheim recognizes in its General Plan: Since the 1960s, the Hill and Canyon Area has become home to thousands of hillside residents and one of Orange County’s most desired communities. Scenic views, well-planned residential development, access to a variety of natural, scenic and recreational resources like the Santa Ana River, Deer Canyon Park Preserve and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, all contribute to the sense of pride felt by area residents. The General Plan seeks to preserve those characteristics that make the Hill and Canyon Area a special place and to provide current and future residents with adequate community services and facilities. It is further intended to encourage and maintain living areas which preserve the amenities of hillside living and retain the overall lower density, semi-rural, uncongested character of the Santa Ana Canyon Area. Careful planning and protection of the area’s scenic views, lower density, and uncongested character are what makes this area of Anaheim Hills one of Orange County’s most desired communities. Allowing the PROJECT PLAN will irreparably harm all of the qualities that make the area so desirable. C. THE SITE IS IN A PROTECTED SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE AND IT SUPERSEDES ANY REGULATIONS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH The area where the site is located is in a protected Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. As stated in Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.18.010 et seq.: Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, is to provide for and promote orderly growth in certain areas of the City designated as being of distinctive, scenic importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the unique and natural scenic assets of these areas as a valuable resource to the community. This area has been designated as an area of distinctive natural and rural beauty, characterized and exemplified by the interrelationship between such primary natural features as the rolling terrain, winding river, Specimen Trees, and the profusion of natural vegetation. This site at issue is subject to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, which is defined as: 4 The area of the City designated as being within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone is defined as that area lying easterly of the intersection of the State Route 55/Costa Mesa and State Route 91/Riverside Freeways, westerly of the Orange County line, southerly of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of- way, and northerly of the present or any future south city limits of the City of Anaheim. Further, "The (SC) Overlay Zone is combined with any zone ("underlying zone") within the scenic corridor. The regulations contained in this chapter shall apply in addition to, and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the zone with which the (SC) Overlay Zone is combined." Building a monstrous, nearly-100,000 square feet convalescent and rest home would only harm the natural beauty of the area. Any regulation inconsistent with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone must be denied. People driving from miles away will be able to see it hideously sticking out on the hillside. The City of Anaheim is required to protect and preserve the natural scenic assets of the area. As such, the PROJECT PLAN must be denied. D. THE AREA DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN INSTITUTION If the developer claims that the PROJECT PLAN is for an institution, then please see statements above that this is actually a planned convalescent and rest home. If you still find that the site will not be a convalescent and rest home, then note that per the Anaheim General Plan “institutional facilities should be clustered in activity centers to support other similar uses and benefit from access to various modes of transportation.” The site could not possibly be considered an activity center as it is smack dab in the middle of single family homes in every direction. There are no similar uses nearby the site to be support. There is also not access to various modes of transportation to the site. The only mode of transportation to the site is by way of motor vehicle, which there will be many more of in the area if the PROJECT PLAN is approved. E. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOES NOT MEET ANY OF THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS, LET ALONE ALL OF THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS IN THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE The requirements to obtain a conditional use permit are stated in Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.010: The purpose of this chapter is to provide a process to accommodate certain uses which, because of their characteristics, size of the area required for full development of such uses, traffic problems incidental to their operation, or potential effects of such uses on adjoining land uses and on the growth and development of the area, and to ensure compatibility with the General Plan, need to be reviewed in accordance with the provisions in this chapter. As stated above, the PROJECT PLAN is in direct contradiction to the City of Anaheim General Plan. Further, traffic problems in the area will be worse than they already are. We witness 5 numerous traffic collisions often and near-collisions on a daily basis at the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road. The proposed PROJECT PLAN will only create more traffic on a dangerous stretch of road. It also creates a serious potential problem with clogging an important evacuation route. During the fires a few years ago, it was incredibly distressing to see dead-stopped traffic on East Nohl Ranch Road while we were packing to evacuate exactly where the site is located. Allowing this development will put many lives in danger due to extreme congestion in an area designed for low density when the next fires occur. Specific conditions are required in order to grant the conditional use permit: In approving minor conditional use permits and conditional use permits, the approval authority may establish such conditions as it may determine to be reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the public health and safety, promote the general welfare, and ensure the development of any use authorized in accordance with approved plans, provided such conditions are reasonably related to the impacts of the use of the property for which the minor conditional use permit or conditional use permit is requested. (Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.050) These conditions will not be remotely satisfied in this matter. Granting the proposed conditional use permit is not reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the public health and safety. It will only serve to make the area more dangerous due to increased traffic, stress, noise, environmental pollution, light pollution and clogging an important evacuation route. The Planning Commission must make a finding of fact per Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.060 et seq. that the evidence presented, including this written objection, other written objections, all oral objections made at the Planning Commission Hearing scheduled to take place on May 24, 2021, and any such hearings regarding the PROJECT PLAN thereafter that each of the following conditions exist: .010 That the proposed use is properly one for which a minor conditional use permit or a conditional use permit is authorized by this code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority); .020 That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; .030 That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; .040 That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and .050 That the granting of the minor conditional use permit or conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6 As thoroughly described above, the proposed conditional use permit must be denied as it violates every applicable zoning code section to this area. The proposed conditional use permit also cannot meet every single one of the required conditions and, as such, must be denied. The PROJECT PLANS flagrantly violate required condition of Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.060.20 as it would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and development of the area for which it is located. The proposed project would be detrimental to the particular area as there are numerous zoning code provisions that would have to be violated or disregarded in order for it to be constructed. The proposed project would also be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the surrounding neighborhood. That alone requires the denial of the conditional use permit. Traffic would obviously increase and parking would an undue burden upon the adjacent streets. Further, the proposed project will be detrimental to the health and safety to the local citizens of Anaheim via increased traffic, noise, lights, etc. All citizens of the City of Anaheim would have their safety compromised by allowing the congestion of this major evacuation route. II. THE VARIANCE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE AND MUST BE DENIED Since the PROJECT PLAN does not comply with the City of Anaheim General Plan nor its Municipal Zoning Code, the developers are seeking a variance. Municipal Code section 18.74.060 et seq. identifies the findings that must be made for the Planning Commission to grant a variance, which we are sure you are familiar with. Of particular importance, there must be a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 18.74.060.0201: That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; 18.74.060.0202: That, because of special circumstances shown in subsection .0201, strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. There can be no finding that the site at issue has “special circumstances” applicable to the property. The site is adjacent to Peralta Hills, which would allow a maximum of two single family homes on a lot of its size. Point being, the site is not of special size. The shape of the site is fairly rectangular, similar to a vast majority of the surrounding properties. The topography is essentially similar to the surrounding neighborhood. There is nothing about the location or surroundings which do not apply to other property in identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Further, no conceivable “special circumstances” associated with the site would be deprived by the application of the Zoning Code under identical zoning classifications in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood is single family homes that comply with the Zoning Code. The PROJECT PLAN does not comply with the variance requirements and thus must be denied. 7 A. THE PROJECT PLAN’S “UPDATED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS” MAKES FALSE CLAIMS AND IS DECEITFUL The PROJECT PLAN readily admits that the proposed parking for the site is well below the amount that is required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. In fact, it only provides for about half of the required parking spaces in an area that is not accessible by mass transit, walking is impractical, and bicycling is possible only for the greatest of athletes. So, that leaves motor vehicles that will take up lots of parking on the adjoining residential streets. The “Updated Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project” portion of the PROJECT PLAN dated February 19, 2021, is full of misleading statements and outright fiction. It purports to identify three similar development for comparison regarding parking. To say that these comparisons are “apples and oranges” is an extreme understatement. The first identified comparison is located at 18922 Delaware Street in Huntington Beach, California. This facility is located next door to an 11-story medical complex and apartment buildings. The area is comprised of shopping centers, other convalescent and rest homes, and car dealerships. It is also located approximately one block west of Beach Boulevard in the heart of Huntington Beach with lots of mass transit availability. Quite simply, this is a deceitful comparison to the site located in Anaheim Hills. The second comparison is at 433 W. Bastanchury Road in Fullerton, California. That facility is located across the street from the St. Jude Medical Center complex that encompasses numerous city blocks, multiple convalescent and rest homes, restaurants, and shopping centers. It is also located on a six-lane highway with many available forms of mass transportation. This is also a deceitful comparison to the site located in Anaheim Hills. The third comparison is allegedly located at 630 The City Drive South also in Fullerton, California. However, this site does not exist. Go ahead, search for it. You will not find it in Fullerton despite multiple citations in the “updated analysis” that it is there. This comparison is a false claim that attempts to fool the Planning Commission. The “updated analysis” also purports that employees are encouraged to walk or bike to work. Clearly, these folks have no idea how steep the terrain is in this area. Mass transit is also non- existent in this area. There is no other church or school parking lot to make arrangements with on holidays and special occasions because they purchased the only one in the area and hope to make it dramatically smaller to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. As such, the requested variance should be denied. B. A SOUND ATTENUATION STUDY MUST BE CONDUCTED IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE PROJECT PLAN IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.40.090.010 states, “Residential developments involving the construction of two (2) or more dwelling units, or residential subdivisions resulting in two (2) or 8 more parcels, and located within six hundred (600) feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, shall comply with the provisions of this section.” Nohl Ranch Road, which the site is located adjacent to, is a second arterial, which makes this code section applicable if the development is considered to be residential (which it should not be as described above). However, if this project is considered to be residential, Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.40.090.020 requires that a sound study be performed: A noise level analysis shall be performed for any new residential development or subdivision to determine the projected interior and exterior noise levels within the development. The study shall include mitigation measures that would be required to comply with applicable City noise standards, as identified in this section. The study shall be provided by the applicant, at its sole expense, to the City at the time of application for development of the residential development or subdivision. The PROJECT PLAN materials made available to the public via the City of Anaheim website do not include a noise level analysis of what heavy machinery will sound like in the surrounding residential community for the years it would take to build the proposed development. As such, the requested variance should be denied. III. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL The trees that the PROJECT PLAN seeks to cut down are mature specimen trees that have been identified as being important to the history and nature of the area. They have been growing for many decades and should be protected. Planting a few small trees in their place and claiming that is sufficient is pathetic in this day and age when society is more cognizant of the importance of these vital pillars of our environment. IV. CONCLUSION The Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Specimen Tree Removal applications submitted by the PROJECT PLAN must all be denied. The proposed gigantic development is not permitted whatsoever in RH-3 zoning where the site is located. If the Planning Commission finds that the requested purpose is subject to a potential conditional use permit, said conditional use permit should be denied as it cannot possibly meet each and every requirement in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Further, the development would build a massive non-residential facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood of single family homes and no similar uses nor supporting similar projects. Anaheim Municipal Code protects the low density, attractiveness, safety and scenic views of the area and strictly prohibits this proposed development. 9 We ask that you follow the City of Anaheim’s General Plan and Municipal Code which require that the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Specimen Tree Removal applications presented in the PROJECT PLAN be denied. Sincerely, Matthew S. Brady Courtney M. Brady Matthew S. Brady, Esq. Courtney M. Brady, Esq. Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 From:Mike Price To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Holden Anaheim HillsProject Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Date:Friday, April 30, 2021 5:56:37 PM Dear Planning Commision, As a homeowner I am deeply concerned about the proposed assisted living community on the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak. It is my hope that the planning commission rejects this proposal at the upcoming meeting. The sheer size of the structure seems entirely too large for the lot. The property currently consists of a 17,500 sq. ft. church. The new structure would be over 5 1/2 times this size. At nearly 100,000 sq. ft. it will be the size of an average grocery store. A building of this size would create a plethora of problems for the surrounding residents. While the height of the building may be 25 feet, this is only from the highest point of the lot. This lot is sloped. The building on the north side will far exceed 25 feet. All the homes along the north and west side of the property will now have a mega structure towering over their backyards. This will create a complete lack of privacy and lower the property values of these homes. The proposed parking is significantly under what the code requires. The parking analysis provided is flawed and deceptive. The number of employees listed has been purposefully under reported. The facility is offering many “first class” amenities but does not account for employees to staff them. These amenities include 24 hour security, a full service hair salon, theater, and bistro. The lack of on-site parking will force visitors, employees, and third-party healthcare workers to park on surrounding residential streets. This is an unacceptable burden to put on homeowners. Additionally, the study mentions incentives for employees to take public transportation (which does not exist in this neighborhood) as well as Uber and carpooling. This raises concern that they are already aware there will be a parking shortage. These are just two examples of the deceptive information contained in this parking study paid for by the developer. The noise a building of this size will create is unimaginable. There will be constant traffic from three shifts of employees, visitors, emergency vehicles and delivery trucks, not to mention noise from a generator located on the outskirts of the parking lot closer to homes. There are NO plans to build any sound walls. Why? Our quiet residential community will be gone! This lot, like most in the area, contains a slope. The proposed plans include backfilling part of the north slope to create part of the parking lot. This slope is currently covered with established vegetation to prevent erosion and provide stability. Disrupting this slope in any way could cause it to become unstable and this would be disastrous to the surrounding homes. The proposal calls for moving the driveway on Royal Oak closer to the homes on Honeywood Lane. This not only brings the vehicle noise closer to these homes, but headlights from vehicles going in and out of the driveway will be visible and shining into the homes. I hope you take my concerns to heart. Our neighborhood consists of hard working residents that have invested their life savings to live here. If we have learned anything over this past year, it is that our homes are our private sanctuaries. We live, work, home school, exercise, and relax here. We have all come to appreciate the quiet, calm beautiful setting we call home and would be devastated if anything disturbed that. Sincerely, Michael G. Price From:Richard Bright To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Development Date:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 2:46:03 PM May 18, 2021 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed commercial development at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Rd. in Anaheim Hills. The surrounding area is all single-family homes and the church that is currently on the property occupied a relatively small portion of the lot and with the large trees surrounding much of the building has been an un-obtrusive and quiet neighbor for the 25 years I have lived here. The proposed development calls for a building almost six times the size of the current one, removal of all the trees, a retaining wall to expand the usable property size while creating a parking lot that does not meet zoning requirements for the number of parking stalls and will be completely inadequate for the size of the facility. The size of the development will be an eyesore in my opinion. I will be looking at it from my front yard and I can tell you I never would have considered purchasing my house if the complex was there at the time. The statement in the cities mail out that two specimen trees will be removed is accurate but misleading. There are over forty trees on the property, all of which will have to be removed. Perhaps time to change the Anaheim Scenic Corridor to the Development Corridor? I have read the parking study and its conclusions are laughable. Reduced parking stalls are fine because employees and guests can park at other commercial complexes or parks and be shuttled to the facility? Parking lots at parks are intended for people using the parks, not to subsidize commercial developments, and the shopping centers in our area all have signs stating they are for customers only. Where are people going to park? In front of my house where they can walk 50 yards to the entrance to the development. I appreciate the fact that we need facilities like this-they provide a valuable service as well as jobs. However, few if any of the people living in the immediate area are likely to use the facility and because of the high cost of area housing I doubt any of the employees could afford to live in our area. This strikes me as a project that could be easily built in another location where there would be minimal impact and easier access for employees, residents and visitors. If this project is approved, I expect my property value, and that my immediate neighbors, to go down 10% to 20%. In effect, the city will be facilitating a wealth transfer from long time residents to the current property owner and developer. My understanding is that an offer has been made by another church group that wants to relocate, a much better option in my opinion. From:R Guercio To:Joanne Hwang; Lucille Kring; Kimberly Keys; Natalie Meeks; Rmullleady ; Dave Vadodaria; Luis Andres Perez; awhistle Subject:Case #CUP2019-06048/DEV#DEV2019-00172 Date:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 4:10:21 PM As long time residents of Anaheim Hills we would like to voice our objection to the subject development and urge you to deny its construction for the following reasons: Environmental impact due to the size of the structure and the proposed backfilling of the north slope . Increased traffic and noise levels due to delivery trucks and workers coming and going as well as Emergency Vehicle traffic 24/7. Inadequate parking at 45% less than code. This will result in the overflow of vehicles onto our neighborhood streets. The potential negative impact on home valuations We believe this facility is better suited to be built elsewhere and not in the middle of this single family residential neighborhood. We believe this property is better suited for single family residences. Yours truly Richard and Marilyn Guercio Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From:Rick Pollgreen To:ahseniorcommunity@gmail.com Cc:Scott Koehm Subject:My view being wrecked! Date:Saturday, December 14, 2019 4:27:01 PM Attachments:ATT00001.txt Hello developer, So here is a shot from Google earth showing your approximate planned building and how it will totally obliterate my view out my backyard. Just in case you didn’t believe me. Road and S. Royal Oak Road). If you recall, I emailed you, and others, about this project back in December, 2019 when it was first being considered. Well, they have now officially submitted plans and an application to proceed with the project. My wife and I bought this house in June 2016, with the intention of it becoming our "Forever Home". I had just retired and we wanted to downsize and also get a single-story house so we would not have to deal with stairs in the future when that may be a problem. After purchasing the house, we spent over $500K remodeling and redoing the whole house from stem to stern! We spent lots of time and money to make this place a wonderful oasis/retreat for us and our kids/grandkids! This neighborhood is a great one with lots of nice and friendly neighbors. This proposed project totally ruins that dream for us! So, I hope you can appreciate where we are coming from. The property is zoned RH-3 which, by its true definition is for “Single-Family Residential” as seen below in the city’s own definition: RH-3: Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone. The intent of the RH-3 Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. I am all for them building more houses on that lot. I believe that they could maybe put about 13 based upon the size and RH-3 zoning. I believe that is 4 houses per acre and that lot is about 3.1 acres. Even if every house had a family of 4, that would put the number of new residents at 52! Their impact would be severely less on my privacy and solitude! A facility as proposed with 118 beds would be a huge impact on the surrounding areas. I know they apparently only need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to build this monstrosity here, but I implore you to take our residents into account and deny this project! There are plenty of other places they could go build such a facility. And, I would suppose now that COVID has hit, they could likely find some cheap property nearby to build on. One that is already suited for such a facility and not a residential neighborhood. I would ask that you require the developer to provide an environmental impact assessment report on the neighborhood, traffic, property values and more. I know that the city of Anaheim does not have any “View Protection” as other cities do in OC. But that does not mean we have to just totally ignore the fact that some homes in the city DO HAVE VIEWS! And those views are valuable as shown by the associated property values of those homes. This project will likely reduce my property values by $30,000 or more. Who would want to look out their backyard at a 2-story building with windows/lights looking right into their backyard? But more important to me since I planned on living here until I died, is my privacy and tranquility. I would urge you to come visit my house. Seriously. I would gladly have you over and give you a tour. Specifically of my backyard. You would then be able to appreciate how devastating this project will be to my wife and I. We have a large jacuzzi that we use 2-3 times a week. As it is now, we have awesome views Eastward and Northward. This building will put essentially a block wall right in front of that Eastern view! And even from our great room where we spend ALL our time faces that awesome open space view to the east. This beast would be in our sights basically 24/7! Right now, the LDS church is the best neighbor one could desire. They are only there on Sundays and they make little/no noise. They maintain the landscaping very well and we really enjoy having that open space behind our house. Many Anaheim Police personnel use that parking lot to take breaks/lunch in all through the week. That gives my wife some level of comfort knowing the police are often there. On a daily basis, there will be big changes with this facility present. There will be lots of traffic and noise. Employees in/out. Deliveries daily. Transportation of patients to dialysis or other treatments. My parents are in a similar facility in Orange and whenever I visit them, there are all sorts of employees outside in the alleyway smoking and eating their lunches. I am pretty sure this would be the case here and that smoke would waft its way up to my house! I also suspect that the kitchen for the residents will be emitting smells all day and night. It has to go somewhere. As this is a senior facility, there is likely going to be more ambulances and ER vehicles arriving at all hours of the day. Also, the trash that will be generated will attract even more rodents and other animals into our neighborhood. It is currently a battle with rats and coyotes and racoons and possums on this very property! The lighting on the property will likely be increased. Currently, Anaheim Hills remains an oasis of solitude and peace. If you go out my backyard at night I can look up and marvel at the stars and planets! The additional lighting will totally wreck that vibe! So, to reiterate my concerns, this project will create/add: 1. Noise Pollution 2. Light Pollution 3. Smell Pollution 4. More Traffic 5. Decrease in property values. A senior living community should not be allowed to be built inside a residential neighborhood. The other two senior living facilities in Anaheim Hills are within/adjacent to a commercial area with high traffic streets. Let them go find a more suitable property for their project! I urge you to please review this proposed development and consider how the residents will be affected. Please advise how I can submit and file my objections. Please let me know what we can do. I have already discussed this with my neighbors who also are very concerned. I have also attached a video my wife took from our backyard the other night so you can get an appreciation of the truly solitude we enjoy now. Feel free to share this video with others on the planning commission. Seriously concerned resident, Rick Pollgreen . Anaheim, CA 92807 [Home phone] From:Rick Pollgreen To:Steve White; Dave Vadodaria; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); John Armstrong; Joanne Hwang; Justin Glover; Kimberly Keys; Luis Andres Perez; Lucille Kring; Michelle Lieberman; Natalie Meeks; Planning Commission; Rosa Mulleady; Trevor O"Neil Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Date:Saturday, May 8, 2021 6:40:49 PM Holden Senior Development Hi, I am an Anaheim Hills resident that happens to live adjacent the Mormon church property. I am opposed to this project and will explain why. Our current neighborhood is a quiet, sleepy residential neighborhood with NO BUSINESSES! This NOT the location for a facility such as this! Find a better spot please! One of the other more reasonable options (IMHO) for this property would be to build single family residences on it. That would be fine with me. That would finish off our family friendly, quiet and peaceful neighborhood! I believe that the zoning of RH-3 means they could put 12 houses on that plot of land. This would be EXACTLY what should be put there! Now I know that VIEWS ARE NOT PROTECTED in Anaheim. But bear with me for a moment. Imagine you bought a house that had an awesome view and planned on spending the rest of your life there. And then someone came in an built a HUGE 2 STORY STRUCTURE right in front of your view! How would you feel? Would you be happy? I think not! The Anaheim Hills general design is a layered and terraced one where most people that have a view will have that view forever by design. We would NEVER have bought our house in 2016 knowing about this project! I imagine that some of you might possibly live in Anaheim Hills and so understand this issue. Please have a little compassion for the current residents in making this decision. It is us that will have to live with this from now on, not you! Your job is relatively easy tonight. You can vote YES on this project and then go back to your normal daily lives with no impact whatsoever. But, I on the other hand will have to live with your YES decision for the rest of my life! And If I were to try to sell, my property is now worth at least $50,000 less than it should because of this project! Seriously, each and every day I will walk in and around my house and see this monstrosity of a structure looming out my backyard view. And continually put up with the noises and traffic associated with it as well. I IMPLORE YOU TO CONSIDER THE EXISTING RESIDENTS AND VOTE NO ON THIS PROJECT! A very concerned and worried Anaheim resident! Rick Pollgreen Anaheim, CA 92807 From:Rick Pollgreen To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Subject:Anaheim Hills Senior Project [Holden Anaheim HillsProject Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019- 00172] Date:Monday, May 3, 2021 9:54:28 AM Dear Planning Commission, This email is in regards to the upcoming May 24 planning meeting where the fate of my neighborhood will be determined by the planning commission. I do not know if you are all up to speed on what this planned project entails. And so, I thought I would bring you up to speed. According to the city code, a facility of this size should have 102 parking spots. But they are only providing 55 and they have some long-winded study that supposedly justifies that number! I call BS on that report. This means that when people can't find parking on site, they will spill over to the nearest street and that happens to be mine! S. Rolling Hills Place has ALMOST NO STREET PARKING AS IT IS! Having people seek parking on our street will just create a major headache for our residents/family/friends! Perhaps they should reduce the facility capacity by making it a single-story facility and then the 55 parking spots would be the perfect number! Another major issue I have with this proposal is that I had been led to believe they were adhering to a 25-foot maximum height restriction for RH-3 zoning! But what I have now found out is they are only following that rule at the HIGHEST POINT ON THE PROPERTY! That property has a slope downward when going from Nohl Ranch road northwards. This slope is about 6-10 feet from one end of the property to the other. So, at the northern end, they are actually going to be like 35 feet tall! And this is a MAJOR ISSUE! It obstructs more of my view out my backyard than ever and will have me face a huge structure instead of trees, mountains, city lights, and quietness! Now, I know that VIEWS ARE NOT PROTECTED in the city. But this monstrosity will cost the adjacent neighbors greatly by reducing property values substantially. I am sure you understand that VIEWS COMMAND PREMIUM PRICES in real estate, so whether they are protected or not, you should appreciate that losing views is never a good thing! I predict a $50,000 reduction in our property values if this monstrosity is built! I believe if they would change the facility to a single story one, they would not get nearly as much opposition. I would be fine with that as the impact on all of us neighbors would be minimized in that case. We are concerned about added noise, lighting, smells and traffic to our VERY QUIET RESIDENTAIL NEIGHBORHOOD!. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS PROJECT AND DENY THEM THEIR APPLICATION! OR HAVE THEM REDUCE THE SCOPE AND SIZE OF IT AT LEAST! PS. I am willing and able to have any and all of you over to my house to directly see the impact this facility/project will have on my home and lifestyle! Seriously, please take me up on it so you can see it live and in person and not just on some piece of paper where MONEY is likely the only consideration. I bought this house in 2016 EXACTLY FOR THE VIEWS AND PEACE AND QUIET HERE! And this will WRECK ALL OF THAT! Seriously concerned RESIDENT and NEIGHBOR, Rick Pollgreen again!? It is cruel and inhumane especially when there are MANY outlets available for taking care of an elderly person in their home! We have seen how traumatic it has been for our loved ones to be locked up in facilities with no abilities to come or go as they please, or have family members who cannot come and see them as so many are shut- ins! I’m sorry, but I would never want my mom or my dad to be in a place where I wasn’t allowed to sit by their side in their rooms without frightening masks on, tending to their needs and not having to hand them over to nurses and other medical staff to deal with them on a daily basis! This entire COVID-19 crisis should truly be causing these builders who are proposing this preposterous “prison” to definitely shut down their entire idea! How could anyone do that at this time, and have a clear conscience about it? I’m guessing they don’t! Even IF they claim to be caring... I cannot and will not believe that! Besides the fact that I oppose this facility due to the above paragraph… I have many other thoughts about this place and the awful ruin it’s going to bring to this beautifully quiet peaceful neighborhood where there are no other medical facilities nearby whatsoever! Not one!!!! If you look at maps and find all of the places that are for assisted-living, skilled nursing, memory care, etc., you will see that 99% of them are next to a hospital or other doctor and medical offices! Please note that this ridiculous proposal is for a facility that sits right in the middle of a VERY QUIET neighborhood! It is ALL houses all the way around for several miles! It makes NO sense to approve of this building plan! When the church members were on the property, they were extremely quiet and were only there, for the most part, on Sundays. This will now constitute busyness 7 days a week...day and night! The surrounding area is quiet, dark, low traffic, etc. This proposed facility would bring in a large amount of patients, a large staff of workers, non-stop delivery trucks, MANY ambulances, lots of visitors, etc! The noise, the parking, the employees smoking behind the buildings, the trash, the nonstop smells of food being cooked round the clock, the rats etc., would be a huge, huge disaster for all the residents that live nearby! Again, it’s a very selfish proposal on their part in NOT considering local residents who were here FIRST and have chosen to live in this precious quiet community! The spill over from the parking lot will impede in our surrounding neighborhoods with an over abundance of vehicles! We don’t have a lot of parking on our streets and yet we know that there will be extra cars on all the residential streets nearby due to this facility. There will be transporting vehicles taking patients to doctors, hospitals, dialysis centers, etc. all day long! The intersection nearby already sees its share of too many accidents and this will intensify that tenfold! Property values in the neighborhood will definitely go down for those who have chosen this quiet area to be their home! Again, unfair on the builders part! Light pollution will be a major factor as it is completely dark here at night other than a few street lights. And although the facility claims the lighting will be low, it will still be way too much extra lighting that has not ever been here...nor needs to be here! All in all, the builder has been kind to the local residents in trying to persuade us, explaining the situation and telling us this would be the “lesser of two evils” since there is a potential for houses to be built on that same property. However, we know the area would only hold approximately 12 homes, legally, and we see THAT as the “lesser of the two evils!” (And yes... those were their very own marketing words!) Think of it this way, the amount of people housed in the facility, the medical staff, the cafeteria workers, the maintenance crew, the delivery trucks and all of the above that I had mentioned before, etc., would be way more the amount of people than a housing track of 12 homes! This is so unacceptable and we will fight as much as we can for this property to not be approved, built, or inhabited! We pray that you will make the right decision, and weigh ALL of the odds when it comes to approving or disapproving, as I said before, this absurd proposition! Thank you for your time and God bless you! Sincerely, Mrs. Sandy Pollgreen To whom it may concern: My heart is extremely heavy as I write this, and I pray you do what is right! Please consider the following: I am writing this letter in regards to the proposed senior facility (with assisted living and memory care - Holden Anaheim Hills) on the former property of the Latter Day Saints church - corner of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Rds in Anaheim Hills. I believe it is absurd! At this unprecedented time with COVID-19 still rearing its ugly head, this is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen or heard of in my lifetime! How can anyone with a good conscience, even begin to consider building a facility such a time as this? Shame on them! The elderly are such a fragile crowd, and compassionate, concerned family members will most likely be reconsidering entrusting their loved ones with assisted-living or memory care buildings any time in the foreseeable future! The entire world has suffered because of this horrible virus! Why, then, would anyone even begin to consider this a “great idea” to build yet another facility where a deadly outbreak could occur?!?!? It’s complete insanity, unless the heartless builders see this as some kind of huge money maker for themselves! We have parents that are in facilities at this time and wish, with all of our hearts we had NEVER allowed them to move to such a place that can be Petrie dishes filled with bacteria and germs! (even if they claim to be “state of the art” in all aspects, and “high tech”!) We have several friends, and even our own parents whose facility has now had patients and workers who have tested positive for the deadly virus of COVID-19! Why on earth would anybody in their right mind ever send a family member to an assisted living or memory care facility ever again!? It is cruel and inhumane especially when there are MANY outlets available for taking care of an elderly person in their home! We have seen how traumatic it has been for our loved ones to be locked up in facilities with no abilities to come or go as they please, or have family members who cannot come and see them as so many are shut-ins! I’m sorry, but I would never want my mom or my dad to be in a place where I wasn’t allowed to sit by their side in their rooms without frightening masks on, tending to their needs and not having to hand them over to nurses and other medical staff to deal with them on a daily basis! This entire COVID-19 crisis should truly be causing these builders who are proposing this preposterous “prison” to definitely shut down their entire idea! How could anyone do that at this time, and have a clear conscience about it? I’m guessing they don’t! Even IF they claim to be caring... I cannot and will not believe that! Besides the fact that I oppose this facility due to the above paragraph… I have many other thoughts about this place and the awful ruin it’s going to bring to this beautifully quiet peaceful neighborhood where there are no other medical facilities nearby whatsoever! Not one!!!! If you look at maps and find all of the places that are for assisted-living, skilled nursing, memory care, etc., you will see that 99% of them are next to a hospital or other doctor and medical offices! Please note that this ridiculous proposal is for a facility that sits right in the middle of a VERY QUIET neighborhood! It is ALL houses all the way around for several miles! It makes NO sense to approve of this building plan! When the church members were on the property, they were extremely quiet and were only there, for the most part, on Sundays. This will now constitute busyness 7 days a week...day and night! The surrounding area is quiet, dark, low traffic, etc. This proposed facility would bring in a large amount of patients, a large staff of workers, non-stop delivery trucks, MANY ambulances, lots of visitors, etc! The noise, the parking, the employees smoking behind the buildings, the trash, the nonstop smells of food being cooked round the clock, the rats etc., would be a huge, huge disaster for all the residents that live nearby! Again, it’s a very selfish proposal on their part in NOT considering local residents who were here FIRST and have chosen to live in this precious quiet community! The spill over from the parking lot will impede in our surrounding neighborhoods with an over abundance of vehicles! We don’t have a lot of parking on our streets and yet we know that there will be extra cars on all the residential streets nearby due to this facility. There will be transporting vehicles taking patients to doctors, hospitals, dialysis centers, etc. all day long! The intersection nearby already sees its share of too many accidents and this will intensify that tenfold! Property values in the neighborhood will definitely go down for those who have chosen this quiet area to be their home! Again, unfair on the builders part! Light pollution will be a major factor as it is completely dark here at night From: To:Planning Commission; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O"Neil Subject:Case# CUP2019-06048 / DEV#2019-00172 Date:Friday, May 14, 2021 11:47:02 AM Planning Commission; The purpose of this email is voice our strong objection to the above captioned project at the site of the LDS Church located at Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Rd. We feel that the developer has significantly understated the negative impact on the nearby residents. The proposed excavation and construction of a facility will generate a drastic increase in noise, traffic and inconvenience. These detrimental factors will surely continue after the project is completed because of the daily activity of the facility's residents, visitors, employees, commercial deliveries and medical personnel. This increase in traffic will also exacerbate an already existing dangerous situation. The uncontrolled intersection of Royal Oak Rd and Honeywood Lane is inherently dangerous. As you probably know, the roadway of Royal Oak Road north of Nohl Ranch Road descends at a very steep angle. As a result, drivers proceeding north bound on Royal Oak Rd and drivers attempting to turn left from west bound Honeywood Lane to southbound Royal Oak Rd have very restricted views of approaching traffic. The intersection of Royal Oak Rd and Honeywood lane can be very busy. It is not only used by residents of the Shadow Run Housing tract, it is also a shortcut by drivers who use Honeywood Lane and Avenida Marguerita to access the commercial facilities at and around Imperial Hwy and Santa Ana Canyon. There are routinely serious accidents at Honeywood Lane and Royal Oak Road because of the restricted view. These accidents will certainly increase when traffic increases. These factors will most assuredly have a detrimental effect on the value of local residences including our own. Sincerely, Robert and Barbara Grandolfo Anaheim, CA 92807 From:Angela O"Donnell To:Scott Koehm Cc:; Michael J Whelan; David Harlin Subject:Shadow Run---Proposed Senior Living Community Date:Tuesday, October 06, 2020 2:31:27 PM Attachments:CityOfAnaheim.SeniorCenterLttr092820.pdf Hi Scott, Hope you are doing well. Please see the attached letter from Shadow Run Anaheim HOA, regarding the proposed Senior Living Community initiative. Our association members have voiced concerns to the Board and have asked that the association send a letter to you on their behalf. I am the property manager for the community. If there is anything further we need to do to make the community’s opposition known, please let me know. Thank you! Sincerely, Angela O’Donnell, CCAM Property Manager | DRE Lic 01889431 INTERPACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT DRE Lic 01073855 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., #150, Westminster, CA 92683 P: 714.891.8804 x 109 | F: 714.894.5643 | www.interpacificmgmt.com EMAILS ARE NOT REGULARLY MONITORED; FOR AFTER-HOURS EMERGENCIES, PLEASE CALL (800) 408-3469. In Continuation of his Legacy | William Garrett, Jr., Co-Founder of Interpacific Asset Mgmt. | Jul 1951-Apr 2016 _______________________________________________ The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. From:Jamcluckey To:Planning Commission Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills project at Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak, Anaheim, CA Date:Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:25:12 PM I have recently been informed that Holden Anaheim Hills is proposing to build an assisted living facility at the subject location in Anaheim. I strongly object to the proposed size of the facility which I understand is proposed at 98,500 square ft., vs. the current building at that site which is only 17,500 square ft. I have also heard that the proposal contains a total of 54 parking spaces which, if I understand correctly, is only about half that the city currently requires for that size building. I also object to the variance they are seeking regarding the current height requirement of 25 ft. While I have no objection to a facility being located at that location, I strongly object to the additional noise, traffic in this quiet neighborhood and request the city not allow a structure anywhere near the requested size. I urge the city to think of the existing neighborhood and not allow a structure of that magnitude be built at that site. Your consideration of my request is appreciated Sharon McLuckey Peralta Hills Homeowner 6. Traffic: The intersection of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak has had numerous accidents. The increased traffic to the Senior Hospital will only add to the number of potential accidents and injuries. 7. Emergency vehicles: At all hours of the day and especially at night, fire trucks and EMT units will be coming across Nohl Ranch Rd. and/or up Royal Oak. Presently, there are very, very few occasions when a fire truck or EMT unit drive up Royal Oak (even with their sirens off) in low gear and the sound resonates throughout the neighborhood. With 127 senior residents/patients at the facility, the need for EMT to be called to the facility is bound to substantially increase. Homeowners did not buy single family residences in Anaheim Hills to be next to a senior facility/hospital. 8. Noise from the HVAC system: With almost 100,000 sq. ft., the facility will have to have their heating and air conditioning systems on 24 hours a day. The sounds from the HVAC units, ESPECIALLY at night, is not what homeowners want to listen to. The piece and quiet, especially during the night, will be gone because of the sounds resonating from the HVAC system. 9. Building Height: The building is stated to be only 25 ft. high at the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak. With 2 stories and a full “basement” it is misstated as a 2-story struck when, in fact, it is 3 stories building per the grading plan. The north end of the facility will most likely EXCEED 50+ feet. This is totally unacceptable for a neighborhood of single-family homes! 10. Slope and backfilling: The plot plan calls for backfilling and slope rearrangement to make the size of their facility to fit on a small lot. A building of this size is NOT suited in a residential neighborhood. At the northwest corner of the property is a generator (per the plot plan). This alone will generate a significant amount of noise. 11. Holden Westlake Village: Holden’s website lists an assisted living /memory care facility at 31200 Cedar Valley Drive, Westlake Village CA (visit Goggle Earth for a satellite picture). It is in an Industrial Park off the Ventura 101 Freeway…across the street from an animal hospital and numerous industrial buildings. Not a single-family residence within a 3/4 miles radius. 12. Holden Laguna Niguel: Holden lists on their website with Alliance a facility in Laguna Niguel. It is not to be found. From the above, it is obvious that my wife and I oppose the Anaheim Hills Project being considered by the Planning Commission. We ask each member of the Anaheim Planning Commission consider the negative affect this development will have to the homeowners and quality of life in Anaheim Hills and that you each vote to oppose. Respectfully submitted, Terry Cressman CA Insurance License 0E83670 Please note that you may not rely on email communication to us to report a claim or to give us instructions to place, bind, change or terminate coverage unless we have subsequently confirmed to you in wri ing that we have received your message and will be taking the action you have requested. Please refer to your policy’s requirement for reporting incidents, losses or claims. Failure to report per the carrier’s requirements may lead to a loss of coverage. This message is intended for the use of the individual entity to which it is addressed and may contain information hat is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of his message is not the intended recipient, or he employee or agent responsible for delivering he message to he intended recipient, you are hereby notified hat any dissemination, distribution or copying of his communication is stric ly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by calling 949-250-7172, and return the original message to us. Thank You Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From:Terry Cressman To:Joanne Hwang Cc:Robert Frohn; Subject:Anaheim Hills Senior Community Information Date:Tuesday, May 11, 2021 5:08:02 PM Ms. Hwang: Goggle has information on Holden’s “proposed” assisted living center in Westlake Village, https://holdenwestlakevillage.com/. In the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) tab, their description is in red: “A proposed senior living community to be located at 31200 Cedar Valley Drive Westlake Village, consisting of a three-story building replacing the existing MWS Wire Industries building.” My response is that, per Goggle maps, there are NO single family residences in the area. “Currently 31200 Cedar Valley Drive is a vacant tilt-up concrete industrial/ manufacturing facility. MWS Wire Industries shut down this facility late 2020.” My reason is that their proposed facility is NOT in a neighborhood of single family residences. Their proposed facility is to replace an industrial/manufacturing facility. Much like Holden could build on LaPalma between Imperial and Lakeview….away from single family residences! ” Leadership from both Alliance and Shelter worked hand in hand to build Sapphire at Emerald Court, an award- winning senior living community offering Assisted Living located in Anaheim. Per the website, this facility is located at 1731 West Medical Center Drive., Anaheim. They offer independent living, assisted living and memory care. There are 150+/- parking spaces per their plot plan next to Miller Toyota, a medical center, medical group, etc. It is not located in Anaheim Hills specific to single family residences. “Development approval…The project sits within the Mixed-Use Cedar Valley zoning district. The corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak is not a mixed-use zone, to my knowledge. It is suited for a church which has been there for 42 years and an asset to the surrounding area. A 100,000 sq. ft. 3 story building MUST not be considered for this site, surrounded by single family residences. Please consider the above and please vote to oppose the Anaheim facility being built on this site. Terry Cressman Anaheim Hills, CA CA Insurance License 0E83670 Please note that you may not rely on email communication to us to report a claim or to give us instructions to place, bind, change or terminate coverage unless we have subsequently confirmed to you in wri ing that we have received your message and will be taking the action you have requested. Please refer to your policy’s requirement for reporting incidents, losses or claims. Failure to report per the carrier’s requirements may lead to a loss of coverage. This message is intended for the use of the individual entity to which it is addressed and may contain information hat is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of his message is not the intended recipient, or he employee or agent responsible for delivering he message to he intended recipient, you are hereby notified hat any dissemination, distribution or copying of his communication is stric ly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by calling 949-250-7172, and return the original message to us. Thank You Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Attachment No. 11 CEQA Checklist https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/37356/ATT-11-CEQA-Checklist Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Class 32 Categorical Exemption May 2021 Prepared For: Andy Uk, Associate Planner City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 633 W 5th Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 (818) 356-9496 or (805) 907-2342 ATTACHMENT 11 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Development Project No. 2019-00172 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PREPARED FOR: The City of Anaheim Planning & Building Planning Services Division 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 APPLICANT: Alliance Realty Partner, LLC PREPARED BY: EcoTierra Consulting, Inc. 633 W. 5th Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 May 2021 Table of Contents Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER DATA SHEET I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... I-1 II. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ANALYSIS ................................................................ II-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Parking Demand Analysis Appendix B Biological Constraints Desktop Review Appendix C Final Traffic Impact Assessment Appendix D Preliminary Hydrology Report Appendix E Noise Data Appendix F Generator Acoustical Analysis Appendix G Air Quality Data Appendix H Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix I Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix J Civil Planning Submission Plans Appendix K Geotechnical Investigation Appendix L Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Appendix M Tree Evaluation Report Appendix N Cultural Resource Records Search Results Appendix O Traffic Data Change Memo Table of Contents Page ii LIST OF FIGURES: Figure I-1, Regional Vicinity and Project Location Map ............................................................. I-3 Figure I-2, Aerial View of the Project Site ................................................................................... I-4 Figure I-3, Views of the Project Site, Views 1, 2, and 3 .............................................................. I-5 Figure I-4, Views of Surrounding Uses, Views 1, 2, and 3 .......................................................... I-6 Figure I-5, Views of Surrounding Uses, Views 4, 5, and 6 .......................................................... I-7 Figure I-6, Basement .................................................................................................................. I-12 Figure I-7, 1st Floor Plan ............................................................................................................. I-13 Figure I-8, 2nd Floor Plan ........................................................................................................... I-14 Figure I-9, Roof Plan .................................................................................................................. I-15 Figure I-10, West and South Elevations ..................................................................................... I-16 Figure I-11, East and North Elevations ...................................................................................... I-17 Figure I-12, Project Renderings .................................................................................................. I-18 Figure I-13, Assisted Living Common Area .............................................................................. I-19 Figure I-14, Memory Care Common Area ................................................................................. I-20 Figure I-15, Landscape Plan ....................................................................................................... I-21 Figure II-1, Noise Measurement Location Map ........................................................................ II-22 Table of Contents Page iii LIST OF TABLES: Table I-1, Project Development Summary ................................................................................... I-8 Table II-1, Project Consistency with the General Plan ................................................................ II-2 Table II-2, Zoning Consistency ................................................................................................... II-6 Table II-3, Typical Noise Levels ............................................................................................... II-13 Table II-4, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure (Exterior) ...................... II-16 Table II-5, Existing Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................... II-23 Table II-6, Construction Noise Levels (by Phase) at Nearest Receptors .................................. II-24 Table II-7, SCQAMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ..................................................... II-28 Table II-8, Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions ............................................... II-31 Table II-9, Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors ......................................... II-32 Table II-10, Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions ............................................................ II-34 Table II-11, Project-Related GHG Emissions ........................................................................... II-45 Table II-12, Scoping Plan Consistency Summary ..................................................................... II-47 CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING FACILITY CASE NUMBER: Development Project No. 2019-00172 Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048 Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 Variance No. 2020-05144 PROJECT LOCATION: 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 PROJECT APPLICANT: NAME: Michael Wilborn COMPANY: Alliance Realty Partners, LLC ADDRESS: 450 Newport Center Drive Suite #550 CITY/ST/ZIP: Newport Beach, CA 92660 E-MAIL: mwilborn@ allresco.com PHONE: (949) 706 - 8460 LEAD AGENCY AND STAFF CONTACT: LEAD AGENCY: City of Anaheim STAFF CONTACT: Andy Uk ADDRESS: 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard CITY/ST/ZIP: Anaheim, CA 92805 E-MAIL: auk@anaheim.net PHONE: (714) 765-5238 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Residential land use ZONING: “RH-3” Single Family Hillside Residential Zone and Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption Project Description Page II-1 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING a) Project Location The Project is located at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 in the City of Anaheim (the “City”) and is associated with the following Assessor Parcel Number (the “Project Site”): 361- 291-51. The Project Site is approximately 2.99 acres (130,244 square feet), exclusive of the required dedications, and comprised of one parcel of land at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road (see Figures I-1, Regional Vicinity and Project Location Map and I-2, Aerial View of Project Site). Regional vehicular access to the Project Site includes SR-91(Riverside Freeway), with access via South Lakeview Avenue, approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the Project Site. Local access to the Project Site is available from Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. b) Existing Conditions Existing development on the Project Site consists of a 17,217 square-foot church and associated surface parking lot. The Project Site is accessible by one existing driveway located on Nohl Ranch Road and one existing driveway on Royal Oak Road. See Figure I-3, Views of the Project Site. The General Plan designates the Project Site for Low Density Residential land use. The Low Density Residential designation provides for the development of conventional single-family detached houses. The typical implementing zones for the Low Density Residential land use designation are the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3 and RH-3 zones. Typical development consists of single- family lots of 5,000 to 10,000 square-feet. The permitted density range is from zero up to 6.5 dwelling units per gross acre. The General Plan designates over half of all residential land in Anaheim as Low Density Residential. The Project Site is within the “RH-3” Single Family Hillside Residential Zone and Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone. The intent of the “RH-3” Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. The “Senior Living Facility (Large)” land use is a permitted use within the “RH- 3” Zone, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The purpose of the SC Overlay Zone is to provide for and promote orderly growth in certain areas of the City designated as being of distinctive, scenic importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the unique and natural, scenic assets of these areas as a valuable resource to the community. This area has been designated as an area of distinctive natural and rural beauty, characterized and exemplified by the interrelationship between such City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption I. Project Description Page I-2 primary natural features as the rolling terrain, winding river, Specimen Trees, and the profusion of natural vegetation.1 c) Surrounding Land Uses Single family residential homes are directly adjacent to the Project Site to the north and the west and across the street from the project site to east and south of Royal Oak Road and Nohl Ranch Road, respectively. Figures I-4 and I-5 provide views of the surrounding land uses. 2. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS a) Project Overview The Project includes the demolition of an existing 17,217 square-foot church and associated surface parking lot, and the construction of a new 118-unit, two-story senior living facility with a basement. The Project is located in the “RH-3” Zone and the use is subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed building would be approximately 98,504 square feet in size, inclusive of a basement. The Project would result in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.76. The building would have a height of approximately 25 feet, plus rooftop appurtenances. The facility consists of 118 units, which would accommodate 96 beds within 94 Assisted Living units and 31 beds within 24 Memory Care units, resulting in 127 beds. The units will range in size from 381 square feet to 917 square feet. Several of the Assisted Living units will include small kitchen areas. The remainder of the building is comprised of administrative offices, lobby area, a bistro, family room, discovery room, fitness center, beauty salon, theater, lounge areas, kitchens, ancillary storage and mechanical rooms. In addition, the building includes separate dining areas and living/activity centers for Assisted Living and Memory Care residents. Outdoor amenities on the ground floor include an Assisted Living courtyard with a dining terrace, walking paths and lounge areas and a separate Memory Care courtyard with walking paths and seating areas, secured for the safety of residents. Vehicles will access the property from two driveways, one located on Nohl Ranch Road and the other located on Royal Oak Road. All service vehicles for the community, such as trash and deliveries, will access the site through the Royal Oak Road driveway. The proposed project will include 55 vehicle parking spaces in a surface parking lot. The community would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 1 Anaheim Municipal Code, Sections 18.04.020 and 18.18.010. Source: OpenStreetMaps, January 2021. Figure I-1 Regional and Project Vicinity Location Map Project Site PROJECT SITE Source: Google Earth, January 2021. Figure I-2 Aerial Photograph of the Project Site Project Site S R O Y A L O A K R O A D NOHL RANC H R O A D S R O L L I N G H I L L S P L A C E E HONEYWOOD LANE R U R A L R I D G E CI R C L E Figure I-3 Views of the Project Site Views 1, 2, and 3 View 1: View of the Project Site looking northwest across Nohl Ranch Road. PHOTO LOCATION MAP PROJECT SITE 1 3 2 View 2: View of the Project Site looking north across Nohl Ranch Road. View 3: View of the Project Site looking west across S. Royal Oak Road. S R O Y A L O A K R O A D NOHL RANC H R O A D S R O L L I N G H I L L S P L A C E E HONEYWOOD LANE R U R A L R I D G E C I R C LE Source: GoogleEarth, January 2021. Figure I-4 Views of the Surrounding Uses Views 1, 2, and 3 View 1: View of the single-family use directly north of the Project Site. PHOTO LOCATION MAP PROJECT SITE 1 3 2 View 2: View looking west of Nohl Ranch Road. View 3: View looking east of Nohl Ranch Road. S R O Y A L O A K R O A D NOHL RANC H R O A D S R O L L I N G H I L L S P L A C E E HONEYWOOD LANE R U R A L R I D G E C I R C LE Source: GoogleEarth, January 2021. Figure I-5 Views of the Surrounding Uses Views 4, 5, and 6 View 4: View looking east of Nohl Ranch Road. PHOTO LOCATION MAP PROJECT SITE 4 6 5 View 5: View of the single-family use directly west of the Project Site. View 6: View of the single-family neighborhood west of the Project Site. S R O Y A L O A K R O A D NOHL RANC H R O A D S R O L L I N G H I L L S P L A C E E HONEYWOOD LANE R U R A L R I D G E C I R C LE Source: GoogleEarth, January 2021. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption I. Project Description Page I-8 Table I-1, Project Development Summary, summarizes the proposed land uses. The Project’s floor plans are shown on Figures I-6 through I-9. In order to permit development of the Project, the City would require approval of the following discretionary actions: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the development of a Senior Living Facility (Large) land use in a RH-3 Zone and a coordinated sign program; (2) Variance to allow reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 102 to 55 spaces; and, (3) Administrative Specimen Tree Removal Permit to remove two existing specimen trees. The Project would potentially require other ministerial permits and approvals, including, but not limited to, temporary street closure permits, demolition permits, grading permits, excavation/shoring permits, building permits, and sign permits in order to fully execute and implement the Project. Table I-1 Project Development Summary Land Use Amount Number of Units Assisted Living Studios/Alcoves (one bed) 56 One-Bedroom (one bed) 36 Two-Bedroom (two beds) 2 Total Assisted Living Units 94 (96 Beds) Memory Care Studios – Individual (one bed) 17 Studios – Shared (two beds) 7 Total Memory Care Units 24 (31 Beds) Total Units 118 (127 Beds) Parking Spaces Standard Parking 52 Standard Accessible 2 Van Accessible 1 Total Automobile Parking Spaces 55 Open Space (sf) Common Open Space Ground Floor Assisted Living Courtyard 5,653 sf Memory Care Courtyard 4,200 sf Total Common Open Space (sf) 9,853 sf Landscaped Area 38,689 sf Total Landscaped Area (sf) 38,689 sf Total Open Space (sf) 48,542 sf sf = square feet Source: Shelter Architects, March 2021. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption I. Project Description Page I-9 b) Design and Architecture The Project design provides a variety of architectural materials and building planes. The overall design represents a Mediterranean architectural style and incorporates decorative stucco, decorative accent wall tiles, wrought iron details, tile roofs, and a neutral color palette generally consisting of neutral tones. The Project’s use of different textures, colors, setbacks, materials, and distinctive architectural treatments, including Juliet balconies, awnings, and mixture of hip and gable roof lines creates visual interest, avoids repetitive facades, and breaks up the building mass consistent with the Community Design Element of the General Plan. Pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code (Code) Section 18.04.100 (Structural Setbacks), the Project either meets or exceeds the setback requirements for “RH-3” Single Family Hillside Residential Zone. The Code requires front setback of 20 feet, street side setback of nine feet, rear yard setback of 15 feet, and interior side setback of six feet, and the Project would have a front setback of 24 feet, street side setback of nine feet or greater, rear setback of 80 feet or greater, and interior side setback of 57 feet or greater. The Project complies with all other applicable provisions of Code Chapter 18.04 (Single Family Zones) as the Project proposes a maximum building height of 25 feet and a lot coverage of 37 percent. See Figures II-10 through II-12 for the Project’s elevations and conceptual renderings, found at the end of Section 2. Project Characteristics. c) Open Space and Landscaping As shown in Table II-1, the Project would provide 48,542 square feet of open space. The Project’s open space amenities would include a first-floor open-to-sky Assisted Living courtyard with a dining terrace, fireside lounge area with seating, fountain, walking paths and landscaping, and a separate first-floor open-to-sky Memory Care courtyard with a fountain, interactive garden area, landscaping, walking paths and seating areas. The Project’s landscape plan proposes street trees along Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The Project would remove the existing 43 ornamental trees located throughout the Project Site, inclusive of two California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), which are specimen trees that require an administrative Specimen Tree Removal Permit pursuant to Code Section 18.18.040 of Chapter 18.18, Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone.2 The Project would plant approximately 129 trees on- site, as part of the landscape plan, and comply with the minimum specimen tree replacement requirement of Chapter 18.18 of the Zoning Code. See Figures II-13 through II-15 for the Project’s landscape plans (found at the end of Section 2. Project Characteristics). d) Access, Circulation, and Parking Pedestrians would access the reception/lobby area from the surface parking area located west of the proposed building and the pedestrian walkway leading from Nohl Ranch Road. Vehicular access to the senior living facility would be via the two-way driveway off of Nohl Ranch Road and the two-way driveway off of Royal Oak Road. 2 MJS Landscape Architecture, November 2020. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption I. Project Description Page I-10 As detailed in Appendix A, Parking Study, the City Code parking requirement for the Project (118 units with a total of 127 beds) based on direct application of the City Code parking ratio for “Senior Living Facility (Large)” is 102 parking spaces (0.8 parking spaces per bed) and corresponds to a Code-based deficiency of 47 spaces when compared to the proposed on-site supply of 55 spaces. City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.42.110 (Parking Variances) allows a reduction in the Code required minimum parking standards through a variance process, which is a discretionary review process. Such variance request must be substantiated by a parking study. Based on the findings of Appendix A, which found that the proposed on-site supply of 55 parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate the actual parking demand for the Project, the Project meets the required conditions for such variance. The parking lot would also meet all ADA parking requirements. e) Lighting and Signs The Project would include a coordinated sign program for building identification, wayfinding, and security, which would the Planning Commission would review for approval, as part of the required entitlement process for the Project. Exterior lights would be wall- and ground-mounted and shielded away from adjacent properties. The Project would provide building security lighting at all entry/exits and would remain on from dusk to dawn, but by design would prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. f) Site Operation and Security The facility would have on-site managers and/or lead shift supervisors 24 hours a day seven days a week. Staff would be comprised of the following three shifts: 28 staff members working 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., 13 staff members working 2 p.m. to 10 p.m., and 4 staff members working 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. There would not be a restriction on visiting hours; however, early morning and late-night visitors are rare. The majority of residents would be over 80 years old, are unable to live independently, and need assistance with taking care of their daily household needs and meal preparation. Therefore, the facility will offer room and board, and recreational amenities (common entertainment areas, a fitness center, access to computers, beauty salon, and theater room). All night activities would likely end by 9 p.m. when residents would be expected to retire to their rooms. g) Sustainability Features The Project would be compliant with the California Energy Code/Title 24 requirements, and would include, but not be limited to, the following features: • Energy efficient elevator; • Low-flow faucets, shower heads, and toilets; • Energy efficient mechanical systems; • Energy efficient glazing and window frames; and • Energy efficient lighting City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption I. Project Description Page I-11 As also required by the City Building Code, the proposed building would provide conduit for on- site future electric automobile charging stalls in the surface parking area. h) Anticipated Construction Schedule The Applicant anticipates constructing the Project over approximately 20 months. Construction activities would include the demolition of the existing pavement, grading, and building construction. The applicant anticipates that demolition activities would start in June of 2022, and construction completion and occupancy would occur in February of 2024. The Project would export approximately 3,200 cubic yards of excavated earth. Exported materials would be disposed at one of the County’s operating inert landfills (Olinda Alpha, Frank R. Bowerman, and Prima Deshecha). The City will review the Project’s haul route as part of its review of the Project’s grading permit. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As demonstrated in the Section II, Categorical Exemption Analysis, this Project has been determined to qualify as a Class 32 In-Fill Development Project, which is a categorical exemption under CEQA. Figure I-6 Basement Floor Plan Source: Shelter Architects, April 2021. Figure I-7 1st Floor Plan Source: Shelter Architects, April 2021. Figure I-8 2nd Floor Plan Source: Shelter Architects, April 2021. Figure I-9 Roof Plan Source: Shelter Architects, April 2021. Figure I-10 West and South Elevations Source: Shelter Architects, April 2021. Elevator Overrun Exterior Cement Plaster Color 1, Typ Tile Roof, TypFabric Awning, Typ Precast Concrete Trim Vinyl Window, Typ Precast Concrete Columns, Typ Faux Window Shutters, Typ Exterior Cement Plaster Color 2, Typ Decorative Wrought Iron Screen Juliet Balcony, Typ Decorative Accent Wall Tile, Typ Exterior Cement Plaster Color 1, Typ Tile Roof, TypFabric Awning, Typ Aluminum Storefront Window System, Typ Vinyl Window, Typ Faux Window Shutters, Typ Decorative Wrought Iron Screen Juliet Balcony, Typ Decorative Accent Wall Tile, Typ Wood Trellis, Typ Elevator Overrun BeyondElevator Overrun BeyondChimeny Beyond Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun BeyondChimney Beyond Figure I-11 East and North Elevations Elevator Overrun Chimney Exterior Cement Plaster Color 1, Typ Tile Roof, Typ Fabric Awning, TypDecorative Wrought Iron Screen Vinyl Window, TypJuliet Balcony, Typ Metal Railing, Typ Decorative Accent Wall Tile, Typ Exterior Cement Plaster Color 1, Typ Tile Roof, Typ Fabric Awning, TypAluminum Storefront Window System, Typ Vinyl Window, Typ Juliet Balcony, Typ Metal Railing, Typ Faux Window Shutters, Typ Exterior Cement Plaster Color 2, Typ Aluminum Storefront Window System, Typ Elevator Overrun Chimney Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun Beyond Elevator Overrun Source: Shelter Architects, April 2021. Figure I-12 Project Rendering Entry Source: Shelter Architects, April 2021. Figure I-13 Landscape Plan for Assisted Living Common Area 24 NOVEMBER 2020 Source: MJS Landscape Architecture, April 2021. Figure I-14 Landscape Plan for Memory Care Common Area 24 NOVEMBER 2020 Source: MJS Landscape Architecture, April 2021. Figure I-15 Landscape Plan 24 NOVEMBER 2020 Source: MJS Landscape Architecture, April 2021. 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-1 II. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ANALYSIS 1. EXEMPTION This analysis has been prepared to substantiate staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission find and determine that the Project qualifies for a Class 32 – In-Fill Development Project Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000-21189.57) as set forth in Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). 2. EXEMPTION RATIONALE Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, of the State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15300 – 15333) lists classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA as required by Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code. This section provides an analysis demonstrating that the Project meets the conditions for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption and that none of the possible exceptions to a Categorical Exemption listed in Section 15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines is applicable to this Project. The specific language of each condition of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption and each possible exception is in italics below under their respective headings, followed by the Project analysis for each condition and exception. a) Conditions of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines Section] 15332. In-Fill Development Projects Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section. • The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. • The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. • The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. • Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. • The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-2 3. PROJECT ANALYSIS Condition (a): The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. a) Land Use and Planning 1) City of Anaheim General Plan The City of Anaheim General Plan (General Plan) guides land use throughout the City. The General Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and programs to guide day-to-day land use policies and to meet the existing and future needs and desires of the community, while integrating a range of State-mandated elements including Land Use, Circulation, Green Element, Public Services, Growth Management, Safety, Noise, Economic Development, Community Design, and Housing. The Land Use Element of the General Plan consists of nine community policy areas that guide land use at a neighborhood level. The Project Site is located within the Hill and Canyon Area, which is intended to encourage and maintain living areas which preserve the amenities of hillside living and retain lower density, semi-rural, uncongested character of the Santa Ana Canyon Area.3 The General Plan designates the Project Site for Low Density Residential land use. This land use designation includes a variety of types of residential land uses, including additional uses in residential areas such as schools, parks, child care facilities, and other public/institutional uses that are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards the needs of the immediate neighborhood. The Residential-Low Density designation provides for the development of single- family detached houses and corresponds with RS-1, RS-2, RS-3 and RH-3 zones. Typical development consists of single-family lots of 5,000 to 10,000 square-feet. The permitted density range is from zero up to 6.5 dwelling units per gross acre.4 Table II-1, Project Consistency with the General Plan presents an analysis between the applicable goals and policies in the General Plan. As shown, the Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies. Table II-1 Project Consistency with the General Plan Goal/Policya Project Consistency Land Use Element Goal 1.1: Preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s mosaic of unique neighborhoods. Consistent: The Project design provides a variety of architectural materials and building planes. The use of quality materials in combination with a clear architectural design would enhance the overall neighborhood context. The Project has given specific attention to fenestration and material composition that is responsive to the human scale. 3 City of Anaheim General Plan, Land Use Element, Revised June 2020, page LU-49. 4 City of Anaheim General Plan, Land Use Element, Revised June 2020, page LU-23. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-3 Table II-1 Project Consistency with the General Plan Goal/Policya Project Consistency Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. Consistent: The Project would develop a senior living facility on a site surrounded by a residential neighborhood. The Project would increase the diversity of housing by providing senior living options in the immediate area. Policy 2.1.6: Ensure quality development through appropriate development standards and by adherence to related Community Design Element policies and guidelines. Consistent: The Project would incorporate high quality, permanent building materials and would comply with Community Design Element policies and guidelines, as discussed below under the Community Design Element heading. Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses. Consistent: The building footprint of the Project would be greater than the existing Church. The Project is directly adjacent to residential uses to the west (interior side) and north (rear), and provides a minimum 57-foot interior side setback and an 80-foot rear setback. Though the Project would have a greater footprint than the existing church, the proposed setbacks would provide sufficient separation of the uses and would minimize impacts to the surrounding residential uses. Policy 4.1.1: Ensure that land uses develop in accordance with the Land Use Plan and Zoning Code in an effort to attain land use compatibility. Consistent: The Anaheim Municipal Code (Code) establishes the zoning for the Project Site, which is RH-3 and SC Overlay. The RH-3 Zone allows a “Senior Living Facility (Large)” subject to the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP), With the approval of the CUP the Project would be consistent with this policy and a compatible use within the immediate area of the Project Site. Policy 4.1.2: Promote compatible development through adherence to Community Design Element policies and guidelines. Consistent: The Project’s use of different textures, colors, setbacks, materials, and distinctive architectural treatments, including Juliet balconies, designed to create visual interest, avoid repetitive facades, and break up the building’s mass consistent with the Community Design Element. Refer to the Community Design Element heading, below. Policy 4.1.3: Ensure that developers consider and address project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods during the design and development process. Consistent: Though the building footprint of the Project would be greater than the existing use, a church, the proposal would only have a 37 percent lot coverage and include a minimum of 57-foot interior side and 80-foot rear setbacks, which are directly adjacent to residential uses; thus, reducing impacts to the immediate neighboring uses. Policy 4.1.4: Require new or expanded uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur. Consistent: The Project would provide a minimum of 57- foot interior side and an 80-foot rear setback, which are adjacent to residential uses, thus creating buffers to the immediate neighboring uses. The existing west side property line wall will remain, and additional trees and landscaping would be provided under future project conditions. In addition, there will be additional landscaping with trees along the north property line, along with a new six-foot high wall at the top of the slope along the new parking area to provide additional buffer from the adjacent residential uses. Policy 8.1.4: Ensure quality development through the policies and guidelines of the Community Consistent: The Project complies with development standards required by the RH-3 and SC Overlay Zones. The Project uses different textures, colors, setbacks, materials, City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-4 Table II-1 Project Consistency with the General Plan Goal/Policya Project Consistency Design Element and Zoning Code development standards. and distinctive architectural treatments; including, Juliet balconies, awnings and varying roof elevations, to create visual interest, avoid repetitive facades, and break up the building’s mass consistent with the Community Design Element. Refer to the Community Design Element heading, below. Community Design Element Policy 5.1.1: Design facades of residences facing arterial corridors to include richly articulated surfaces, walls, and roofline treatments. Consistent: The overall design represents a Mediterranean architectural style and incorporates decorative stucco, decorative accent wall tiles and wrought iron details, tile roofs, and a neutral color palette generally consisting of neutral tones. The Project’s use of different textures, colors, setbacks, materials, and distinctive architectural treatments, including Juliet balconies, awnings, arched windows and varying gable and hip roof lines, creates visual interest, avoids repetitive facades, and breaks up the building’s mass. Policy 5.1.10: Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size them to be as inconspicuous as possible. Consistent: The Project would screen above-ground utility equipment from the public right-of-way, as required by the Zoning Code. In addition, the SC Overlay Zone prohibits roof-mounted utility equipment; and the Project complies with this requirement as shown on the project plans. Policy 11.1.2: Encourage architectural designs that are visually stimulating and varied, yet tasteful, containing rich contrasts and distinctive architectural elements. Consistent: Refer to Policy 5.1.1 above. Policy 11.1.3: Ensure that the scale, materials, style and massing of new development is consistent with its surroundings and any larger vision for an area. Consistent: Though the scale and massing are larger than the single-family residences surrounding the site, the design evokes a residential facility. The design includes arched windows, hip and gable roof lines that are typically of residential structures versus the flat roof lines that are typical of commercial buildings. The Project design includes extensive use of architectural details (i.e. decorative wrought iron railings, Juliet balconies, accent wall tiles) that are not typically on commercial structures. The overall design would be consistent with the surrounding area. Policy 11.1.5: Encourage energy and environmental efficiency – such as “Green Development Standards” (see Green Element) – in the design and approval of new projects. Consistent: The Project would be compliant with the California Energy Code/Title 24 requirements, and would include, but not be limited to, the following features: energy efficient elevators; low-flow faucets, shower heads, and toilets; energy efficient mechanical systems; energy efficient glazing and window frames; and energy efficient lighting. As also required by the City Building Code, the proposed building would provide conduit for on-site future electric automobile charging stalls, in the surface parking area. Green Element Goal 7.1: Reduce urban run-off from new and existing development. Consistent: The Project Site does not currently operate under a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). As such, implementation of the Project with a SUSMP would improve water quality leaving the Project Site compared to existing conditions. Further, as detailed in the Preliminary City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-5 Table II-1 Project Consistency with the General Plan Goal/Policya Project Consistency Hydrology Report prepared for the Project, the Project would not adversely affect the downstream facilities or neighborhood and would reduce the impact on the existing infrastructure.5 Policy 7.1.1: Ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, including developing and requiring the development of Water Quality Management Plans for all new development and significant redevelopment in the City. Consistent: In accordance with the requirements of NPDES permit, the Project would implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies Best Management Practices and erosion control measures during construction to manage runoff flows and prevent pollution. In addition, in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Permit requirements, the Project would be required to implement Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan and Low Impact Development requirements throughout the operational life of the Project. The Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan would outline and require stormwater treatment measures or post-construction Best Management Practices to control pollutants of concern. In addition, consistent with the City’s Low Impact Development requirement to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of rainfall runoff that leaves the Project Site, the Project would include the installation of an infiltration system as established by the Low Impact Development Manual. Policy 7.1.4: Require new development and significant redevelopment to utilize site preparation, grading and best management practices that provide erosion and sediment control to prevent construction-related contaminants from leaving the site and polluting waterways. Consistent: The Project would be required to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit. In accordance with the requirements of this permit, the Project would implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies the implementation of Best Management Practices and erosion control measures during construction to manage runoff flows and prevent pollution. Policy 8.1.2: Regulate construction practices, including grading, dust suppression, chemical management, and encourage pre-determined construction routes that minimize dust and particulate matter pollution. Consistent: SCAQMD’s Rule 403 minimum requirements require the application of the best available dust control measures for all grading operations and include the application of water or other soil stabilizers in sufficient quantity to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Compliance with Rule 403 would require the use of water trucks during all phases where earth moving operations would occur. The emissions modeling that the Project would comply with SCAQMD’s Rule 403. a City of Anaheim General Plan. Source (table): EcoTierra Consulting, 2021. 5 Refer to Appendix D, Preliminary Hydrology Report for the Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., September 2020. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-6 2) City of Anaheim Zoning Code All on-site development activity is subject to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Code. The Zoning Code includes development standards for the various districts in the City. The Zoning Code establishes the underlying zoning for the Project Site, which is RH-3. Per the Zoning Code, the intent of the “RH-3” Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single- family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet.6 Land uses allowed in the RH-3 Zone include a variety of residential type uses (including single- family uses, community care facilities, small senior living facilities/homes, sober living homes, etc.). A Senior Living Facility (Large) is a permitted use within the RH-3 Zone, subject to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). As such, the Project requires an approval of a CUP, inclusive of a coordinated sign program as permitted by the Code Section 18.44.055 In addition, the Project Site is located in the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, which promotes orderly growth in certain areas of the City designated as being of distinctive, scenic importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the unique and natural scenic assets of these areas as a valuable resource to the community. The development standards as specified for the SC Overlay Zone are in addition to, and, where inconsistent therewith, supersedes standards of the underlying base zone The Project is consistent with the development standards of both RH-3 and SC Overlay Zones as explained below in Table II-2, Zoning Consistency. Table II-2 Zoning Consistency RH-3 and SC Overlay Development Standards Project Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF 130,244 SF Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 304 feet Maximum Height 25 feet/2 storiesa 25 feet/2 stories Maximum Site Coverage 40% 37% Setbacks Front (Nohl Ranch Rd.) 20 feet 24 feet Street Side (Royal Oak Rd.) 9 feet >9 feet Interior Side (west) 15 feet >57 feet Rear (north) 15 feet >80 feet Parking 102 55b a SC Overlay allows an exceedance of ten feet in height, not to exceed ten percent of the roofline, for nonhabitable architectural embellishments. b The proposed project requires approval of a variance to permit a reduced number of on-site parking spaces than required by the Code. A parking demand study has been prepared to ensure that the proposed 55 on-site parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate the expected parking demand of the Project. Refer to Appendix A. 6 Code Section 18.04.020.030. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-7 In addition, implementation of the Project would require removal of the site’s existing 43 ornamental trees, inclusive of two California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), which are specimen trees that require an administrative Specimen Tree Removal Permit pursuant to Code Section 18.18.040 of Chapter 18.18, Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone. The Project meets the required findings of the administrative Specimen Tree Removal Permit. The reasonable and practical development of the property requires destruction of the subject trees. The topography of the building site renders destruction reasonably necessary, because the subject trees are in the footprint of the proposed building and are not good candidates for transplanting. In addition, the Project would comply with the specimen tree replacement requirement of the Code. 3) City of Anaheim Building Code The City of Anaheim has adopted the California Building Code as Title 15 (Building and Housing) of the Code, inclusive of the California Green Building Standards Code (commonly known as CALGreen). The State developed CALGreen, and mandates that local jurisdictions adopt CALGreen, to attain consistency among the various jurisdictions within the State with the specific goals to reduce a building’s energy and water use, reduce waste, and reduce the carbon footprint. The following types of projects are subject to the Green Building Code: • All new buildings (residential and non-residential); • Every building alteration with a building permit valuation of $200,000 or more (residential and non-residential); • Residential alterations that increase the building’s conditioned volume; and, • Every building addition (residential and non-residential). The Project would be compliant with the Green Building Code and California Energy Code/Title 24 requirements, and would include, but not be limited to, the following features: • Thirty percent of the parking spaces would be pre-wired for electric vehicle charging, of these parking spaces, ten percent of the total number of parking spaces will have chargers for electric vehicles; • Air tight and insulated envelope; • Low-E windows; • Low-water use plumbing fixtures; • MERV 13 air filters; • Low-water use landscaping and weather-sensor controlled drip irrigation; and • Solar thermal or photovoltaic systems. As also required by the CALG, the proposed building would include space to accommodate future rooftop solar panels and conduit, to provide electricity to the on-site electric vehicle charging stalls. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-8 (a) Summary As discussed above, with the approval of above referenced CUP, parking variance, and specimen tree removal permit, the Project would be consistent with its general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as, with its zoning designation and regulations. Condition (b): The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project Site is located entirely within the City limits on a site that is approximately 130,244 square feet (2.99-acre) in size. Figures I-1 through I-5 in Section I, Project Description show views of the Project Site and its regional vicinity; as shown therein, the Project Site is located in an urbanized setting characterized by residential uses. As such, the Project meets this condition. Condition (c): The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. a) Conservation Plans The City encompasses a variety of open space and natural areas that serve as habitat for sensitive species. Portions of the City of Anaheim, including the Hill and Canyon Area where the Project Site is located, are within the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Plan Subregion (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).7 The NCCP/HCP provides for the protection of a number of plant and animal species, referred to as target species and identified species, and considered sensitive. A background search and literature review was conducted of existing biological resources data within the Project footprint and a 1-mile buffer in all directions (study area), focusing on species that are subject to state or federal regulation.8 This search also included a review of on-site conditions as reported by Google Earth, California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare Threatened and Endangered Plants, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) list. This search resulted in lists of potentially occurring biological resources, compiled from these queries.9 These results include special status plant and wildlife species (including state or federally listed as rare, threatened, endangered, species of special concern, or unique species) and natural communities. 1) CNDDB and USFW IPaC Special Status Wildlife Of the six (6) CNDDB special status wildlife species, three (3) may occur within the study area: American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum – CDFW Fully Protected [FP]), yellow- breasted chat (Icteria virens – CDFW SSP), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus – CDFW FP). 7 Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR, May 2004. 8 Refer to Appendix B, Biological Constraints Desktop Review for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, February 3, 2021. 9 Refer to Appendix B, Biological Constraints Desktop Review for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, February 3, 2021, Appendix B, Tables 1 and 2. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-9 Potential foraging habitat, but no suitable nesting habitat, is present within the project footprint and surrounding area for American peregrine falcon. The shrubs within and near the Project footprint provide potential habitat during migration for yellow-breasted chat, however no suitable nesting habitat is present.10 CNDDB reports white-tailed kites have successfully nested within 0.5 miles of the study area. 2) CNDDB and CNPS/CalFlora Special Status Plants The CNDDB search, resulted in one special status plant and the CNPS Inventory of Rare Threatened and Endangered Plants and Calflora special status plant search found four species. However, the Biological Constraints Desktop Review (refer to Appendix B of this document), concluded that none of these species would occur on the Project Site.11 The study area consists of developed and landscaped areas that do not support habitat suitable for special status plant species. Therefore, Project activities would not affect special status plant habitat. 3) CNDDB Natural Community and USFWS IPaC Critical Habitat The CNDDB query identified the Southern California arroyo chub and Santa Ana sucker stream natural community and the USFWS IPac query identified the Santa Ana sucker critical habitat. The Federal Endangered Species Act protects critical habitat and taken into consideration upon CEQA review. These two records overlap within the Santa Ana River and its tributaries.12 The development of the Project Site would not increase impacts to the critical habitat, as the Project would be replacing one development structure for another. During construction there could be an opportunity for sediment to leave the site and discharge into the Santa Ana River with potential to affect the Santa Ana sucker critical habitat. However, compliance with the California Water Boards Construction Stormwater Program, as discussed below under subheading (e), would eliminate these off-site sediment impacts to the Santa Ana sucker critical habitat. 4) Summary As the Project Site is completely developed, including hardscapes, within an urbanized area of the City, the Project Site does not contain any habitat capable of sustaining any species identified as endangered, rare, or threatened. No such species or habitats occur at the Project Site per local or regional plans by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, there are no known locally designated natural communities at the Project Site or in the immediate vicinity, nor is the Project Site located near undeveloped natural/undisturbed open space or a natural water source that may otherwise serve as habitat for State- or federally-listed 10 Refer to Appendix B, Biological Constraints Desktop Review for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, February 3, 2021, Appendix A, Figure 6. 11 Refer to Appendix B, Biological Constraints Desktop Review for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, February 3, 2021. 12 Refer to Appendix B, Biological Constraints Desktop Review for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, February 3, 2021, Appendix A, Figure 4. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-10 species. Furthermore, the Project Site and its vicinity are not part of any draft or adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.13 Therefore, as the Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, the Project meets this condition. Condition (d): Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gases, or water quality. The following provides a Project-specific analysis of the impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gases, and water quality. a) Project-Specific Transportation Impacts Refer to Appendix O – Traffic Data Change Memo, regarding new/updated information in the Final Traffic Impact Assessment and VMT Assessment. The following transportation impact analysis summarizes and incorporates by reference the information provided in the Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Center, Anaheim, CA, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, November 2020 (Impact Assessment) and the Final Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Center, Anaheim, CA, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, November 2020 (Trip Generation Assessment). The Final Traffic Impact Assessment are available as Appendix C to this document. 1) Project Trip Generation Forecast Comparison The amount of one-way vehicular movement, either entering or exiting the generating land use, referred to as “vehicle trip ends,” determines the number of trips generated for a project. Traffic generation rates used in traffic forecasting procedures are found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual; the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 2017], was utilized to forecast these results. The Project is forecast to generate 328 daily trips, with 24 trips (15 inbound, nine outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 33 trips (13 inbound, 20 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.14 The existing church use is forecast to generate 120 daily trips, with six trips (four inbound, two outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and eight trips (four inbound, four outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. The net trip generation potential of the Project compared to the trip generation of the existing church is 208 net greater daily trips, with 18 net greater trips (11 inbound, seven outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 25 net greater trips (nine inbound, 16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As a result, based on the nominal net AM peak hour trip generation and relatively nominal net PM 13 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Regional Conservation Plans, April 2019. 14 Refer to Appendix C, Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Center, Anaheim, CA, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, November 2020, Table 1. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-11 peak hour trip generation increase with the proposed Project (i.e. < 50 peak hour trips), the Project would not significantly impact the surrounding transportation system.15 2) Project Trip Generation Assessment The State of California defines the Project as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE).16 Under the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for CEQA - VMT, developed by the City of Anaheim in compliance with CEQA, project screening can determine if a project will be required to conduct a detailed VMT analysis. As such, the following guidance summarizes the potential project screening, developed for the City of Anaheim: Type 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts” Subsection (b)(1) states in part: “Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” Pursuant to the statute, the City may screen out development projects from VMT analysis based on proximity to certain transit facilities due to the presumption of less than significant impacts. The Technical Advisory reiterates this screening criteria, but also highlights certain project- specific or location-specific characteristics which may indicate the project will still generate “significant levels of VMT”, even when located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor. These characteristics relate to the project’s FAR, parking supply, and number of dwelling units, as well as consistency with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). If the project has any characteristics that indicate that the presumption of less than significant impacts as stated in the CEQA Guidelines may not be appropriate, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends that the Lead Agency should not screen out the project from further VMT analysis. The City of Anaheim has a developed a TPA map, which was utilized to determine whether this Project can be screened out based on the TPA criteria. Based on the above, the Project would not screen-out under this criteria since it is not within the TPA.17 Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening An additional screening methodology is provided for residential and office land use projects. Lead agencies may prepare maps based on a regional travel demand model or travel survey data to illustrate areas that are currently below the selected VMT threshold. OPR reasons that if a project has similar characteristics to the existing area (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit service, etc.), it will tend to exhibit similar VMT. Therefore, if a project is fully located within an area identified 15 The threshold criteria is outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria For Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. 16 Refer to Appendix C, Final Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Center, Anaheim, CA, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, November 2020, for specific criteria. 17 Attachment A of the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA Analysis, June 2020. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-12 as having a below-threshold VMT, the Lead Agency may determine that the Project has less than significant VMT impacts and is screened out from requiring a detailed VMT analysis. The City of Anaheim has a developed a map showing low VMT-generating zones as compared to the County. Based on this map, the Project would not screen-out under this criteria since it is not located within a low VMT-generating area (<15% below the Orange County Average).18 Type 3: Project Type Screening OPR provides additional recommendations on when the presumption of less than significant impacts may be appropriate, in addition to the formally recommended screening criteria described above. For instance, in the discussion regarding retail projects, the OPR Technical Advisory advises lead agencies that because local serving retail projects tend to improve retail destination proximity, shorten trips, and reduce VMT, they may be presumed to have less than significant impacts. Agencies may choose to define what constitutes local serving retail in their jurisdiction, although OPR suggests a threshold size of 50,000 square feet or less. Thus, lead agencies may choose to screen out projects based on the type and size of the land use(s) for the Project. Further, OPR states that mixed-use projects should analyze each land use individually. The City of Anaheim’s TIA Guidelines provides a detailed list of uses, screened-out from project- level assessment because the local-serving nature of these uses would have a less than significant impact on VMT. Since this facility is not an independent living facility, it was determined that convalescent & rest home fits better for this facility. The facility is an assisted living facility with memory care units, residents will not have vehicles, and dining would be provided by the facility. The Project qualifies as a project listed as a “Convalescent & Rest Homes,” which considered based on State of California and City of Anaheim criteria. . Based on the above, the Project would screen-out and be presumed to cause less than significant impacts since it is considered a “Convalescent & Rest Homes” project. 3) Site Access and On-Site Circulation Evaluation The Project driveway along Royal Oak Road is forecast to operate at Level of Service (LOS) C (16.9 s/v) and LOS B (13.1) during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This forecast is for existing with Project conditions. The Project driveway along Nohl Ranch Road is forecast to operate at LOS B (12.2 s/v) and LOS A (9.6) during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, for existing with Project conditions.19 The conditions of approval for the Project CUP require the driveway on Nohl Ranch Drive to be a right-turn in/out only driveway. The on-site circulation layout of the Project on an overall basis is adequate. 18 Attachment B of the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA Analysis, June 2020. 19 Refer to Appendix C, Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Center, Anaheim, CA, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, November 2020, Appendix A. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-13 4) Transportation Impact Summary As indicated above, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to traffic. Therefore, as the Project Site would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, the Project meets this condition for traffic. b) Project-Specific Noise Impacts Refer to Appendix O – Traffic Data Change Memo, regarding new/updated information in the Final Traffic Impact Assessment and VMT Assessment and how that would affect the Noise Analysis. Noise is typically defined as a sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable and is described in terms of a sound’s amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The ambient noise environment is comprised of stationary and mobile noise sources. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on- site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line-source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.20 The physical measure of sound, or sound level, is in decibels (dB), based on a logarithmic scale. Therefore, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; a halving of the energy would result in a 3 dB decrease. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). The A-weighted decibel scale relates noise to human sensitivity. The “A-weighted decibel”, abbreviated dBA, is the measurement used for common noise levels. Table II-3, Typical Noise Levels, provides examples of various noises and their typical A-weighted noise level. Table II -3 Typical Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet Fly-Over at 100 Feet 105 100 Gas Lawnmower at 3 Feet 95 90 85 Food Blender at 3 Feet Diesel Truck Traveling at 50 MPH at 50 Feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 Feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime 75 Gas Lawnmower at 100 Feet 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Feet Commercial Area 65 Normal Speech at 3 Feet 20 City of Anaheim, The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339, August 2010, pages 5.5-1 and 5.5-2. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-14 Table II -3 Typical Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities Heavy Traffic at 300 Feet 60 55 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime 50 Dishwasher in Next Room 45 Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime 35 30 Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime 25 Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 15 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 5 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, 2009. Although human perception of sound is somewhat subjective, it is widely accepted that the average healthy ear (1) can barely perceive an increase or decrease of 3 dBA; (2) can perceive a change of 3 dBA in outdoor environments; and (3) can notice that an increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud. Noise, or sound over a period of time, can be measured using a number of methods. The two most common methods are the community noise equivalent (CNEL) and the equivalent sound level (Leq). dBA Leq is the term for measurement of the average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours. The CNEL scale represents the average of 24 hourly noise measurements and adjusts or penalizes the dBA during certain sensitive time periods to account for increased noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime periods. The evening time period (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. 1) Regulatory Setting (a) State of California Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, establishes building standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the state. Section 1207.11.2 requires that the design of residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior noise attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room. Section 1207.12 states, “if interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be inoperable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior requirement. The ventilation system must not compromise the dwelling unit or guest room noise reduction.” (i) City of Anaheim City of Anaheim General Plan City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-15 The City has adopted the State of California’s exterior noise and land use compatibility standards for land use development in the Noise Element of its General Plan, as shown in Table II-4, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure. These Guidelines establish standards for outdoor noise levels that are acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and unacceptable for a variety of land uses. For industrial uses, noise levels of up to 75 dBA CNEL are “normally acceptable.” Noise environments with noise levels up to 80 dBA CNEL are “conditionally acceptable”; under this circumstance, the City may permit the development only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features are included in the project design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and a fresh air supply system or air conditioning, will normally suffice as a noise insulation feature for these conditionally acceptable environments. These standards apply to the Project itself. The City of Anaheim General Plan contains goals and policies that address noise. The following General Plan goals and policies are applicable to the Project: • Goal 1.1: Protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise through diligent planning and regulation. • Goal 2.1: Encourage the reduction of noise from transportation-related noise sources such as motor vehicles, aircraft operations, and railroad movements. o Policy 3: Require that development generating increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses provide appropriate mitigation measures. • Goal 3.1: Protect residents from the effects of “spill over” or nuisance noise emanating from the City’s activity centers. o Policy 1: Discourage new projects located in commercial or entertainment areas from exceeding stationary-source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses, as appropriate. o Policy 2: Prohibit new industrial uses from exceeding commercial or residential stationary-source noise standards at the most proximate land uses, as appropriate. (Industrial noise may spill over to proximate industrial uses so long as the combined noise does not exceed the appropriate industrial standards.) o Policy 3: Enforce standards to regulate noise from construction activities. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the restriction of the hours in which work other than emergency work may occur. Discourage construction on weekends or holidays except in the case of construction proximate to schools where these operations could disturb the classroom environment. o Policy 4: Require that construction equipment operate with mufflers and intake silencers no less effective than originally equipped. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-16 o Policy 3: Encourage the use of portable noise barriers for heavy equipment operations performed within 100 feet of existing residences or make applicant provide evidence as to why the use of such barriers is infeasible. In the City of Anaheim General Plan Noise Element, the City adopted land use-noise compatibility standards shown in Table II-4, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure. Table II-4 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure (Exterior)1 Land Use Community Noise Exposure dBA CNEL or Ldn 55 60 65 70 75 Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made with needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Construction cost to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be usable. Residential- Low Density, Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential- Multiple Family Transient Lodging- Motels, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-17 Table II-4 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure (Exterior)1 Land Use Community Noise Exposure dBA CNEL or Ldn 55 60 65 70 75 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Notes: (1) Source: City of Anaheim General Plan Noise Element, Figure N-2, May 2004. Anaheim Municipal Code The following sections, Chapter 6.70 (Sound Pressure Levels) and Chapter 6.72 (Amplified Sound) of Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Code apply to the Project: 6.70.010 ESTABLISHED: Sound produced in excess of the sound pressure levels permitted herein are hereby determined to be objectionable and constitute an infringement upon the right and quiet enjoyment of property in this City. No person shall within the City create any sound radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line in excess of sixty decibels (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer’s instructions, using the slowest meter response. The sound level measuring microphone shall be placed at any point on the property line, but not closer than three (3) feet from any wall and not less than three (3) feet above the ground, where the above listed maximum sound pressure level shall apply. At any point the measured level shall be the average of not less than three (3) readings taken at two (2) minute intervals. To have valid readings, the levels must be five (5) decibels or more above the levels prevailing at the same point when the sources of the alleged objectionable sound are not operating. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-18 Sound pressure levels shall be measured with a sound level meter manufactured according to American Standard S1.4-1961 published by the American Standards Association, Inc., New York City, New York. Traffic sounds sound created by emergency activities and sound created by governmental units or their contractors shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or Building Official. (Ord. 2526 § 1 (part); June 18, 1968; Ord. 3400 § 1; February 11, 1975: Ord. 6020 § 1; April 25, 2006.) 6.72.010 PURPOSE: This City Council enacts this legislation for the sole purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety, and welfare of its citizenry. While recognizing that certain uses of sound-amplifying equipment are protected by the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, the City Council, nevertheless, feels obligated to reasonably regulate the use of sound-amplifying equipment in order to protect the correlative constitutional rights of the citizens of this community to privacy and freedom from public nuisance of loud and raucous noise (Ord. 4059 § 1 (part); October 9, 1979; Ord. 5941 § 1 (part); September 14, 2004.) 6.72.020 REGULATION OF AMPLIFIED SOUND: Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 6.70 of this code, it shall be unlawful for any person to use or operate, or cause to be used or operated, within the City of Anaheim any sound-amplifying equipment in a fixed or movable position, or mounted upon any vehicle, except when used or operated in compliance with the following provisions: .010 In all residential zones and within two hundred feet of any boundary thereof, no sound-amplifying equipment shall be operated or used for commercial purposes, except sound-amplifying equipment may be used for commercial purposes upon a moving vehicle between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. to announce the presence of such vehicle in an area or location for commercial purposes; provided that such sound-amplifying equipment shall not be used during periods that the vehicle is stopped, parked or otherwise in a stationary position. .020 In all residential zones and within two hundred feet of any boundary thereof, no sound-amplifying equipment shall be operated or used for noncommercial purposes between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day. .030 In all non-residential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-19 .040 In all non-residential zones, except such portions thereof as may be included within two hundred feet of the boundary of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound-amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day. .050 Sound emanating from sound-amplifying equipment shall not be audible to a person of normal hearing acuity within an enclosed building (other than a building within which the sound emanate) at a distance in excess of two hundred feet from the sound amplifying equipment. .060 In no event shall the sound-amplifying equipment be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring or disturbing to a person of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility, or disturb the peace or quiet of any neighborhood. .070 It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or use any sound-amplifying equipment within, upon or adjacent to the premises of any hospital, school, or publicly owned or operated arena, stadium, convention center or auditorium, while in use, in a manner which disturbs, disrupts or interferes with the conduct of any event, business or activity of any nature then occurring within such building or premises. Nothing contained in this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit any conduct which is otherwise prohibited by California Penal Code Sections 302 or 403, or any other provision of State law. (Ord. 4059 § 1 (part); October 9, 1979; Ord. 5781 § 1; September 25, 2001; Ord. 5941 § 1 (part); September 14, 2004.) 6.73.020 NOISE RESTRICTIONS. It shall be unlawful and constitute a public nuisance for any owner or responsible person to conduct or allow to be conducted any party or similar event from which loud and unreasonable noise originates between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Continuation of any activity prohibited by this section after written notification by a peace officer as provided in Section 6.73.030 that the activity is disturbing the comfort, health, peace, safety, quiet enjoyment or repose of one or more other persons shall be prima facie evidence of willful intent within the meaning of Section 6.73.010.010.(Ord. 5337 § 1 (part); October 20, 1992: Ord. 6259 § 1 (part); November 20, 2012.) In addition, while not specifically applicable, due to the residential nature of the Project, Section 18.40.090 (Sound Attenuation for Residential Developments) of Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards) of the Zoning Code generally applies to the Project: 18.40.090 SOUND ATTENUATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: .010 Applicability. Residential developments involving the construction of two (2) or more dwelling units, or residential subdivisions resulting in two (2) or more parcels, and located within six hundred (600) feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, shall comply City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-20 with the provisions of this section. The construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Accessory Dwelling Unit – Junior shall not constitute a residential development subject to the provisions of this section. .020 Study Required. A noise level analysis shall be performed for any new residential development or subdivision to determine the projected interior and exterior noise levels within the development. The study shall include mitigation measures that would be required to comply with applicable City noise standards, as identified in this section. The study shall be provided by the applicant, at its sole expense, to the City at the time of application for development of the residential development or subdivision. .030 Attenuation. Mitigation measures, without limitation, may include masonry walls, an earthen berm or a combination thereof. Masonry walls must comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening). The height of any proposed walls shall be determined by the approval authority based on the recommendation of a sound attenuation study prepared by a state-licensed acoustical engineer, unless a variance is granted by the approval authority, or City Council on appeal, in accordance with the procedures established in Chapter 18.60 (Common Procedures) for the processing of variances. .040 Single-Family Detached. Exterior noise within the private rear yard of any single family lot and/or within any common recreation areas, shall be attenuated to a maximum of sixty-five (65) dB CNEL. Interior noise levels shall be attenuated to a maximum of forty-five (45) dB CNEL, or to a level designated by the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City. .050 Single-Family Attached or Multiple Family. Exterior noise within common recreation areas of any single family attached or multiple family dwelling project shall be attenuated to a maximum of sixty-five (65) dB CNEL. Interior noise levels shall be attenuated to a maximum of forty-five (45) dB CNEL, or to a level designated by the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City. .060 Minor Deviations. Notwithstanding any provision of this Code to the contrary, the Planning Commission may grant a deviation from the requirements imposed by subsections .040 and .050 of this section pertaining to exterior noise levels in accordance with the procedures established in Chapter 18.60 (Common Procedures) for the processing of variances except that the findings set forth in Section 18.74.060 (Findings) of Chapter 18.74(Variances) shall not be required and provided that before any such deviation is granted by the Planning Commission, the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: .0601 The deviation from prescribed levels does not pertain to interior noise levels; City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-21 .0602 The deviation does not exceed five (5) dB CNEL above the prescribed levels for exterior noise; and .0603 Measures to attenuate noise to the prescribed levels would compromise or conflict with the aesthetic value of the project. 2) Existing Conditions The State of California defines sensitive receptors as those land uses that require serenity or otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, single and multiple-family residential, including transient lodging, motels and hotel uses make up the majority of these types of areas. A residential neighborhood with single-family uses surrounds the Project Site. Sensitive land uses that may be affected by project noise include: the residential uses directly west of the site, north of the site, approximately 75 feet east of the site (across Royal Oaks Road), and approximately 105 feet south of the site (across Nohl Ranch Road). To identify existing noise conditions, four short-term (10-minute) noise levels were measured in the vicinity of the project site. Figure II-1, Noise Measurement Location Map depicts the locations of the noise measurements. EcoTierra Consulting (“Consultant”) conducted the noise survey on Monday, February 1, 2021 between 10:51 AM and 12:25 PM using the Larson Davis Sound Track LxT1 sound level meter, which conforms to industry standards set forth in ANSI S1.4-1983 (R2006) – Specification for Sound Level Meters/Type 1 and meets the requirements set forth in City of Anaheim municipal code 6.70.010. The Consultant calibrated and operated the instrument according to the manufacturer’s written specifications. At the measurement sites, the Consultant placed the microphone at a height of approximately five feet above grade. At the time of the noise measurements, the sky was overcast with thinning clouds; and the temperature was 64 degrees Fahrenheit with calm wind conditions (2 to 5 mph) and approximately 54 percent humidity. As shown on Figure II-1, Noise Measurement Location Map, the Consultant took the noise measurements near the closest residential uses to: the south, north of Rural Ridge Circle and south of Nohl Ranch Road (NM1); to the east, off of Westridge Road, east of Royal Oaks Road (NM2); to the north, south of Honeywood Lane (NM3); and at the western portion of the site, east of Rolling Hills Drive and north of Nohl Ranch Road (NM4). Table II-5, Existing Ambient Noise Levels, provides a summary of the ambient noise data. Ambient average noise levels were between 48.7 and 64.8 dBA Leq. Appendix E to this document includes photos, field sheet, and measured noise data. The dominant noise sources were from vehicles traveling along the adjacent roadways, helicopter and other aircraft, distant barking dogs, and gardening equipment (leaf blower, mowers, strimmer etc.). Figure II-1 Noise Measurement Location Map NM: Noise Measurement Location Source: Google Earth, February 2021. NM4 NM3 NM2 NM1 S R O Y A L O A K R O A D NOHL RANC H R O A D S R O L L I N G H I L L S P L A C E E HONEYWOOD LANE R U R A L R I D G E CI R C L E Project Site City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-23 Table II-5 Existing Ambient Noise Levels Noise Measurement Location Location Primary Noise Sources Noise Levelsa Leq Lmax Lmin NM1 Adjacent to the residential uses on the northern side of Rural Ridge Circle (south of Nohl Ranch Road) Traffic noise along Nohl Ranch Road and surrounding roads. The local buildings reflect much of the sound. Other noise sources include bird song, humming birds, occasional low altitude aircraft both fixed wing propeller, jets and helicopters, residential ambiance, distant dogs barking, gardening equipment in operation, lawn mowers, strimmers and leaf blowers and leaf rustle from a slight breeze. 54.3 72.5 48.8 NM2 Adjacent to the residential uses on the western end of Westridge Road, east of Royal Oaks Road. 48.7 59.6 45.6 NM3 Adjacent to the residential uses south of E. Honeywood Lane, and west of Royal Oaks Road, just north of the project’s northern boundary. 53.7 65.3 49.7 NM4 On the western portion of the site, adjacent to the single family residential uses east of Rolling Hills Place and north of Nohl Ranch Road. 64.8 79.3 48.5 a See Figure III-1 for noise measurement locations. Each noise measurement was over a 10-minute duration. b Noise measurements performed on February 1, 2021. Ambient noise data details are available in Appendix E to this document. 3) Construction Noise The Applicant expects construction of the Project to last approximately 20 months and require the use of heavy equipment. The Applicant anticipates that the construction phases for the Project would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. During each construction phase there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of each activity. As stated above, the nearest sensitive receptors that could potentially be subject to noise impacts associated with demolition/construction of the Project include residential uses directly west of the site, north of the site, approximately 75 feet east of the site (across Royal Oaks Road), and approximately 105 feet south of the site (across Nohl Ranch Road). However, any increase in noise levels at off-site receptors during construction of the Project would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from construction are possible. In addition, the construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction (i.e., demolition and site preparation work) would typically be reduced in the later construction phases (i.e., interior building construction at the proposed building) as the physical structure of the proposed structure would break the line-of-sight noise transmission from the construction area to the nearby sensitive receptors. As shown in Table II- City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-24 5 above, sensitive receptors in the area are already exposed to maximum (Lmax) noise levels up to 79.3 dBA. A summary of noise level data for a variety of construction equipment compiled by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is available in Appendix E of this document. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels associated with each phase of construction were modeled utilizing worksheets based on the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RNCM), together with several key construction parameters including: distance to each sensitive receiver, equipment usage, percent usage factor, and baseline parameters for the Project Site. This analysis based distances to receptors on the acoustical center of the proposed construction activity, and calculated the construction noise levels for each phase. To be conservative, the noise generated by each piece of equipment was added together for each phase of construction; however, it is unlikely (and unrealistic) that every piece of equipment will be used at the same time, at the same distance from the receptor, for each phase of construction. Table II-6, Construction Noise Levels (by Phase) at Nearest Receptors provides a summary of anticipated noise levels during each construction phase at the closest receptors; and, worksheets are included as Appendix E to this document. Table II-6 Construction Noise Levels (by Phase) at the Nearest Receptors Construction Phase Receptor Location Existing Ambient Noise Levels (dBA Leq)1 Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2 Demolition South (NM1) 54.3 69.5 East (NM2) 48.7 71.5 North (NM3) 53.7 72.5 West (NM4) 64.8 73.7 Site Preparation South (NM1) 54.3 68.9 East (NM2) 48.7 70.9 North (NM3) 53.7 71.8 West (NM4) 64.8 73.1 Grading South (NM1) 54.3 68.2 East (NM2) 48.7 70.3 North (NM3) 53.7 71.2 West (NM4) 64.8 72.4 Building Construction South (NM1) 54.3 65.3 East (NM2) 48.7 67.3 North (NM3) 53.7 68.3 West (NM4) 64.8 69.5 Paving South (NM1) 54.3 67.1 East (NM2) 48.7 69.2 North (NM3) 53.7 70.1 City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-25 Table II-6 Construction Noise Levels (by Phase) at the Nearest Receptors Construction Phase Receptor Location Existing Ambient Noise Levels (dBA Leq)1 Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2 West (NM4) 64.8 71.3 Architectural Coating South (NM1) 54.3 58.5 East (NM2) 48.7 60.5 North (NM3) 53.7 61.4 West (NM4) 64.8 62.7 Notes: (1) Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure II-3. (2) Construction noise calculation details available in Appendix E. Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation afforded by intervening structures or topography. As shown in Table II-6 above, construction noise levels could reach up to 73.7 dBA during the noisiest phase (demolition) at the residential receptors closest to the western boundary of Project Site (NM4), located east of Rolling Hills Place and north of Nohl Ranch Road. However, the residential uses at this location are elevated by approximately 10 to 13 feet above the level of the Project Site and there are intervening screening structures, including a five-foot tall block wall and other fencing, separating the backyards of the residential uses from the Project Site. Therefore, much of the construction activity would occur below the line-of-sight of these nearby receptors (depending on the type of fencing installed by the residents). Construction noise levels could also reach up to 72.5 dBA during demolition at the residential receptors closest to the northern boundary of Project Site (NM3), located south of Honeywood Lane, and west of Royal Oaks Road. However, although the homes at this location are at an elevation that is approximately 13 feet lower than the Project Site, there is an existing approximately four foot block wall running along the top of slope at the Project Boundary, and only the tops of roofs are visible from the existing parking lot within the Project Site. Therefore, as these residential structures are below the line-of-sight and screened from the majority of construction activities, there would be a reduction in the construction noise l over those reported in Table II-6 above. Although construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above the existing levels within the project vicinity, the Code requires construction to occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Sound created by construction is exempt from the Code standards during this period. Therefore, with compliance with City noise regulations, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. 4) Operational Noise (a) Parking Noise The proposed parking areas have the potential to generate noise due to cars entering and exiting, engines accelerating, braking, car alarms, squealing tires, and other general activities associated with people using the parking areas (i.e., talking, opening/closing doors, etc.). Noise levels within the parking areas would fluctuate with the amount of automobile and human activity. Activity levels would be highest in the early morning and evening when the largest number of people would enter and exit. However, these events would occur at low exiting and entering speeds, which City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-26 would not generate high noise levels. During these times, the noise levels can range from 44 to 63 dBA Leq.21 In addition, the parking area will be separated from the adjacent receptors to the west and north by existing and/or new walls and additional landscaping along and near the western and northern property lines; and, the parking lot would not be within the line-of-sight of the closest receptors (due to differences in elevation). Therefore, noise generated from within the parking area would be attenuated by at least five dBA, as such it would not exceed the “normally acceptable” 60 dBA noise level at the closest receptor locations; and would be less than significant. (b) Stationary Noise Sources Upon completion and operation of the Project, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) equipment, installed for the new structure, would generate on-site operational noise. No details were available regarding type and location of the HVAC at the time of this analysis. However, this analysis anticipates that the noise levels generated by these equipment types would not be substantially greater than the noise generated by the HVAC equipment serving the existing use on the Project Site or adjacent buildings in the Project vicinity. As such, the HVAC equipment associated with the Project would not represent a new source of noise in the Project Site vicinity. The Project includes the installation of an emergency back-up generator that will be located toward the northeastern portion of the site. As detailed in Appendix F, the generator will be surrounded by walls that are constructed of masonry and will be a minimum of 10 feet high as measured from the elevation of the generator pad. The wall is a minimum of 5 feet from the generator on all sides. Further, the specified emergency generator will be provided with a Level 3 noise enclosure and a hospital-grade silencer on the exhaust. Walls on three sides were analyzed for acoustical purposes and it was determined that sound pressure level at any point on the property line would not be in excess of 60 decibels.22 Both the HVAC units and the emergency generator are subject to Municipal Code Section 6.70.010, which states that no person within the City shall create any sound radiated for extended periods from any premises, which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line in excess of 60 dBA. The City bases this measurement in accordance with the noise measurement requirements listed in the noise ordinance. Therefore, with compliance with City regulations, impacts from stationary noise sources to nearby sensitive receptors are less than significant. (c) Traffic Noise In order for a new noise source to be audible, there would need to be a three dBA or greater CNEL noise increase. The traffic volume on any given roadway would need to double in order for a three dBA increase in ambient noise to occur. 23 Per the traffic study,24 the greatest increase in net Project 21 Gordon Bricken & Associates, 1996. Estimates are based on actual noise measurements taken at various parking lots. 22 Refer to Appendix F. Holden Senior Living Community, Anaheim, California, Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study VA Project No. 5313-016, Veneklasen Associates, March 10, 2021. 23 2018 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, page 210. 24 Refer to Appendix C. Linscott, Law & Greenspan (2020). Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project. November 18. Table 1 and Appendix A, Page A-1. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-27 traffic volume would be 33 vehicles during PM Peak Hour and the existing traffic volume is 463 vehicles per hour along the northbound segment of Royal Oak Road. Therefore, as the highest Project-related increase in traffic would not result in a doubling of the existing traffic volume, the net increase in traffic noise would not result in a significant (3 dBA or greater) increase in traffic noise from the Project. The number of Project-related trips would not have the potential to double the traffic volumes on any roadway segment in ¼ mile of the Project Site. As such, the Project would not have the potential to increase any roadway noise level in the Project vicinity by 3 dBA, and thus traffic generated noise impacts would be considered less than significant. (d) Airport-Related Noise The nearest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately 10 miles northwest of the Project Site. As such, air traffic noise from Fullerton Municipal Airport would not be a source that contributes to the ambient noise levels on the project site. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. 5) Noise Impact Summary The Project would not result in any significant noise impacts during the construction and operations phases. c) Project-Specific Air Quality Impacts Refer to Appendix O – Traffic Data Change Memo, regarding new/updated information in the Final Traffic Impact Assessment and VMT Assessment and how that would affect the Air Quality Analysis. This checklist has evaluated the Project to determine if it will violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, this analysis evaluated the Project to determine if it will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The significance of these potential impacts is below. 1) Standards of Significance The SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds for regulated pollutants, as summarized in Table II-7, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. The SCAQMD also provides a threshold for emissions of lead; however, this analysis did not calculate lead emissions because the Project does not include substantive sources of lead emissions. Additionally, the air quality- modeling program (discussed below) does not calculate any emissions of lead from typical construction or operational activities. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-28 Table II-7 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Daily Thresholdsa Pollutant Construction Operation NOx 100 pounds/day 55 pounds/day VOCb 75 pounds/day 55 pounds/day PM10 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day PM2.5 55 pounds/day 55 pounds/day SOx 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day CO 550 pounds/day 550 pounds/day Lead 3 pounds/day 3 pounds/day Toxic Air Contaminants and Odor Thresholds Toxic Air Contaminants (including carcinogens and non-carcinogens) Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2eq for industrial facilities Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants c NO2 1-hour average Annual arithmetic mean SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 0.18 ppm (state) 0.03 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal) PM10 24-hour average Annual average 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)d & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) 1.0 µg/m3 PM2.5 24-hour average 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)d & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) Sulfate 24-hour average 25 µg/m3 (state) CO 1-hour average 8-hour average SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal) 9.0 ppm (state/federal) Notes: ppm = parts per million by volume; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter a Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993). b The definition of VOC includes ROG compounds and additional organic compounds not included in the definition of ROG. However, for the purposes of this evaluation, VOC and ROG will be considered synonymous. c Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, table A-2 unless otherwise stated. d Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993), SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, revised April 2019 2) Construction Emissions The analysis estimated emissions using the CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2) software, which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions from a variety of land use projects. The SCAQMD developed CalEEMod in collaboration with the air districts of California.25 Regional data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) from the various California air districts 25 SCAQMD. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-29 accounts for local requirements and conditions. The model is an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects throughout California and recommended for use in CEQA documents by the SCAQMD.26 The analysis forecasts daily regional emissions during construction by assuming a conservative estimate of construction activities (i.e., assuming all construction occurs at the earliest feasible date) and applying the mobile source and fugitive dust emissions factors. The analysis adjusts the input values used to be project-specific for the construction schedule and, uses CalEEMod defaults for the construction equipment that the Project will use. The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2014 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for Orange County for construction-related employee vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. EMFAC2014 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by California Air Resources Board (CARB) that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. The program reports emission rates in either grams per trip and grams per mile, or grams per running hour. The analysis uses daily truck trips and CalEEMod default trip length data to assess roadway emissions from truck exhaust. The maximum daily emissions are estimated values for the worst-case day and do not represent the emissions that would occur for every day of project construction. The analysis then compares maximum daily emissions to the SCAQMD daily regional numeric indicators. Detailed construction equipment lists, construction scheduling, and emission calculations are available in the CalEEMod Output provided in Appendix G of this document. Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 from the following construction activities: • Demolition • Site Preparation • Grading • Building Construction • Paving • Architectural Coating The Applicant expects construction to start no sooner than June 2022 and take approximately 20 months. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario even if construction was to occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent.27 The construction activities for the Project are anticipated to include: 26 South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model. 27 As shown in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2, Section 4.3 “OFFROAD Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-30 demolition of an existing 17,217 square foot church building and approximately 58,000 SF of hardscape, site preparation and grading of approximately 2.99 acres, construction of an approximately 98,504 SF, 118-unit (127 bed), two-story senior living facility with a basement, paving of a 55-space parking lot, and application of architectural coatings. Approximately 3,200 CY of dirt will be exported offsite during grading. Dust is typically a major concern during demolition, site preparation and rough grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are “fugitive emissions”. Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). CalEEMod calculated fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of activity. The Project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. The Project would comply with this rule through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities. These activities include the application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of the Project area (approximately 2.99 acres) a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or Large Operation Notification would not be required. SCAQMD’s Rule 403 minimum requirements require that the application of the best available dust control measures are used for all grading operations and include the application of water or other soil stabilizers in sufficient quantity to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Compliance with Rule 403 would require the use of water trucks during all phases where earth-moving operations would occur; the emissions modeling assumes that the project will comply with Rule 403. CalEEMod estimated construction emissions for construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site, as well as vendor trips (construction materials delivered to the Project site). SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The Analysis considers these Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) as standard regulatory requirements and provides credit for Rule 403 and Rule 1113. Table II-8, Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions summarizes the estimated maximum daily construction emissions. Appendix G to this document provides detailed construction model outputs. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-31 Table II-8 Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition On-Sitea 1.69 16.62 13.96 0.02 2.28 1.00 Off-Siteb 0.14 3.40 1.34 0.01 0.37 0.11 Subtotal 1.83 20.03 15.30 0.04 2.65 1.11 Site Preparation On-Sitea 1.38 15.67 10.06 0.02 1.22 0.61 Off-Siteb 0.04 0.19 0.28 0.00 0.10 0.03 Subtotal 1.41 15.86 10.33 0.03 1.32 0.64 Grading On-Sitea 1.54 16.98 9.22 0.02 3.30 2.00 Off-Siteb 0.15 3.94 1.42 0.01 0.37 0.11 Subtotal 1.69 20.92 10.64 0.03 3.68 2.11 Building Construction On-Sitea 1.86 14.60 14.35 0.03 0.70 0.67 Off-Siteb 0.45 1.99 3.41 0.02 1.29 0.35 Subtotal 2.31 16.60 17.76 0.04 1.99 1.03 Paving On-Sitea 0.94 8.61 11.68 0.02 0.43 0.40 Off-Siteb 0.06 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.17 0.05 Subtotal 1.00 8.64 12.08 0.02 0.60 0.45 Architectural Coating On-Sitea 31.83 1.22 1.81 0.00 0.07 0.07 Off-Siteb 0.07 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.24 0.06 Subtotal 31.90 1.26 2.33 0.01 0.31 0.13 Total for overlapping phasesc 35.21 26.49 32.17 0.06 2.90 1.61 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No a On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. On-site grading and site preparation PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions show mitigated values for fugitive dust for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. b Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. c Construction, painting and paving phases may overlap. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.Output, available in Appendix G. As shown in Table II-8, Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions, emissions resulting from the Project construction would not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for Project-related construction-source emissions. (a) Localized Significance-Construction The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are localized significance thresholds (LSTs). City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-32 The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels within 500 meters (0.31 miles) of any given project are above or below State standards. In the case of CO and NO2, if ambient levels are below the standards, a project has a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state or federal standard, then project emissions are significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. This would apply to PM10 and PM2.5; both of which are non-attainment pollutants. The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-4. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. To address the issue of localized significance, the SCAQMD adopted LSTs that show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology). SCAQMD’s Methodology clearly states, “Off-site mobile emissions from the Project should NOT be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.”28 Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, this analysis only considers emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs. The land uses immediately surrounding the Project Site include: the residential uses directly west of the site, north of the site, approximately 75 feet east of the site (across Royal Oaks Road), and approximately 105 feet south of the site (across Nohl Ranch Road). According to LST Methodology, “any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter thresholds.” The Project Site is approximately 2.99 acres and the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site include the residential uses adjacent to the site; therefore, the analysis used SCAQMD Look-up Tables for 2 acres at a distance of 25 meters. Other air quality sensitive land uses are located further from the Project Site and would experience lower impacts. Table II-9, Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors, shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the LST emissions thresholds. Table II-9 Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors Activity On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 16.62 13.96 2.28 1.00 Site Preparation 15.67 10.06 1.22 0.61 Grading 16.98 9.22 3.30 2.00 Building Construction 14.60 14.35 0.70 0.67 Paving 8.61 11.68 0.43 0.40 Architectural Coating 1.22 1.81 0.07 0.07 SCAQMD Thresholdsa 115 715 6 4 28 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology, 2003. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-33 Table II-9 Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors Activity On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No a The nearest sensitive receptors to the project include: directly west of the site, directly north of the site, ~75 feet east of the site (east of S. Royal Oaks Road), and ~105 feet south of the site (south of Nohl Ranch Road); therefore, the 25 meter threshold was used. Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2 acres at a distance of 25 m in SRA 17 Central Orange County. The data provided in Table II-9, Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors, shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the Project. 3) Operational Emissions Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 from the following primary sources: • Area Source Emissions • Energy Source Emissions • Mobile Source Emissions (a) Area Source Emissions Architectural Coatings: Over a period of approximately 20 days the buildings that are part of this Project will be subject to emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings as part of Project maintenance. Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) limits paints applied to buildings to 50g/L VOC content. Consumer Products: Consumer products include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these products contain organic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants. Fireplaces: The Project is not proposing to install any fireplaces; and therefore, does not result in any emissions associated with hearths/fireplaces. Landscape Maintenance Equipment: Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. (b) Energy Source Emissions Combustion Emissions Associated with Natural Gas and Electricity: Most projects have criteria pollutant emissions emitted through the generation of electricity and consumption of natural gas. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-34 Anaheim Public Utilities’ power supply comes from resources located in Anaheim and across the Western United States.29 (c) Source Emissions Vehicles: Project mobile source air quality impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the Project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in ¼ mile of the Project. The Project-related operational air quality impacts are primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. According to the project-specific traffic analysis (TIA)30, the Project would generate 328 daily trips. Using the trip generation rates from the TIA, the Project would generate 2.60 daily trips/bed. As the Congregate Care/Assisted Living land use in CalEEMod only has the size metric of dwelling units (DU) available; the number of trips per day was divided by 118 DU, to yield a trip generation rate of 2.78 trips/DU/day. The project includes the demolition of the existing church use. According to the TIA, the existing 17.217 thousand square feet (TSF) church generates 120 trips per day, with a trip generation rate of 6.95 trips/TSF. Therefore, as the Project will replace the existing church use, the Project’s net daily trips will be 208 (328 minus 120 trips). The CalEEMod program then applies the emission factors for each trip, provided by the EMFAC2014 model, to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. Fugitive Dust Related to Vehicular Travel: Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of tire wear particulates. (d) Emissions Summary The analysis included the potential operations-related air emissions for the criteria pollutants and cumulative impacts. The analysis calculated the worst-case summer or winter criteria pollutant emissions created from the Project’s long-term operations, which are below in Table II-10, Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions. Table II-10 Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area Sourcesa 2.46 0.11 9.74 0.00 0.05 0.05 Energy Usageb 0.04 0.34 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 Mobile Sourcesc 0.43 1.56 5.87 0.02 2.39 0.65 Subtotal Emissions 2.93 2.01 15.75 0.03 2.47 0.73 - Existing Church Use Being Removed -0.54 -0.66 -1.74 -0.01 -0.55 -0.16 Total Emissions 2.39 1.35 14.01 0.02 1.92 0.58 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No 29 https://www.anaheim.net/2104/About-Electric-Services 30 Linscott, Law & Greenspan. Final Traffic Impact Assessment for Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project. November 18, 2020. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-35 Table II-10 Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 a Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. b Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on-site natural gas usage. c Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; the higher of either summer or winter emissions, available in Appendix G. The results from Table II-10, Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions, show that the Project does not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the Project. No mitigation measures are required. 4) Localized Significance – Operation Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, onsite usage of natural gas appliances as well as the operation of vehicles on-site may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards within 500 meters (0.31 miles of the Project Site. However, these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site include: the residential uses directly west of the site, north of the site, approximately 75 feet east of the site (across Royal Oak Road), and approximately 105 feet south of the site (across Nohl Ranch Road). According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources (such as heavy-duty trucks) that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site; such as industrial warehouse/transfer facilities. The Project involves the construction and operation of an assisted living facility. However, due the lack of on-site/stationary source emissions, the Project does not warrant a long-term localized significance threshold analysis. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative regional emissions would not be considerable and, thus, would be less than significant. 5) Toxic Air Contaminants Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and require special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. AQMD defines “sensitive receptors” to be to be a receptor such as residence, hospital, convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site include: the residential uses directly west of the site, north of the site, approximately 75 feet east of the site (across Royal Oak Road), and approximately 105 feet south of the site (across Nohl Ranch Road).31 31 AQMD. Website http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-36 (a) Construction With respect to TACs, the greatest potential for TAC emissions resulting from construction of the Project would involve diesel particulate emissions associated with trucks and heavy equipment. Based on SCAQMD guidance, health effects from TACs are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk, which is the likelihood that a person exposed to TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer. Project construction activity would not result in long-term substantial sources of TAC emissions (i.e., 30 or 70 years) and would not generate ongoing construction TAC emissions. Given the temporary and short-term construction schedule (approximately 20 months), the Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure because of Project construction. Furthermore, as shown above, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. In addition, the construction activities associated with the Project would be similar to other development projects in the City, and would be subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at the regional, State, and Federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial concentrations of these emissions. The Project would be consistent with applicable AQMP requirements for control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. The Project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five (5) minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these regulations would minimize emissions of TACs during construction. The Project would also comply with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1403 in the event that the demolition activities discover asbestos. (b) Operation In an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. Consequently, the highest CO concentrations are generally close to congested intersections. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the emissions source (e.g., congested intersection) increases. Therefore, for purposes of providing a conservative worst-case impact analysis, CO concentrations the analysis typically includes congested intersection locations. If the analysis finds that impacts are less than significant close to congested intersections, impacts also would be less than significant at more distant sensitive-receptor and other locations. The Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) provides an initial screening procedure to determine whether a project poses the potential to generate a CO hotspot (UCD ITS 1997). The key criterion is whether the Project would worsen traffic congestion at signalized intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F. If a project poses a potential for a CO hotspot, a quantitative screening is required. Per the TIA prepared for the Project, implementation of the Project would not worsen traffic at any of the analyzed signalized intersections operating at LOS E or F (LLG 2020). Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 6) Odors Odors are typically associated with the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-37 Quality Handbook, land uses and industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies and fiberglass molding. The Project involves the construction and operation of a senior living facility, which is not typically associated with odor complaints. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. Objectionable odors produced during the construction process are short-term in nature and would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials, no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the Project. The Project would result in the emission of diesel exhaust and VOCs during construction, which would be objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the Project Site and therefore should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. As the Project involves no operational elements related to industrial projects, there would be no long-term operational objectionable odors. Therefore, potential impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. 7) AQMP Consistency The City, including the Project Site, is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile and indirect sources to meet federal and State ambient air quality standards. The SCAQMD has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of AQMPs. The 2016 AQMP identifies the implementation of control measures over a 20-year horizon to reduce major sources of pollutants. Control measures established in previous AQMPs have substantially decreased exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Basin. The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as, explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair- share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels.32 Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). These indicators are below: Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. 32 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), March 2017. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-38 (a) Construction Impacts The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (“CAAQS”) and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if the Project exceeds localized significance thresholds (“LSTs”) or regional significance thresholds. The Project would not exceed the applicable LSTs or regional significance thresholds for construction activity. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion. (b) Operational Impacts The Project would not exceed the applicable LST or regional significance thresholds for operational activity. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion. Based on the preceding discussion, the Project is consistent with the first criterion. Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. (c) Overview The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. (d) Construction Impacts Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. (e) Operational Impacts The Anaheim General Plan designated the Project Site Low Density Residential land use. The maximum density for this land use designation is 6.5 dwelling units/acre. The Anaheim Zoning Map establishes the zoning for the Project Site, which is RH-3 (Hillside Single-Family Residential). Land uses allowed by the Code in the RH-3 zone include a variety of residential type uses (including single-family uses, community care facilities, small senior living facilities/homes, sober living homes, etc.), and Senior Living Facilities (Large) is a permitted use within RH-3 Zone, subject to an approval of a CUP. With the approval of a CUP, the Project would be consistent with the current underlying RH-3 zoning at the Project Site per the Code. Therefore, the development proposed by the Project would be consistent with regional growth projections and consistent with the AQMP. As further discussed above, the Project would not exceed regional or local thresholds and would have a less than significant impact. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-39 Based on the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion. (f) AQMP Consistency Conclusion The Project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. The Project would not result in any construction-source or operational-source emissions exceedances. The Project is therefore consistent with the AQMP. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. 8) Air Quality Impact Summary As explained in detail in above subsections, the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to air quality. d) Project-Specific Greenhouse Gas Impacts Refer to Appendix O – Traffic Data Change Memo, regarding new/updated information in the Final Traffic Impact Assessment and VMT Assessment and how that would affect the GHG Analysis. Greenhouse gases (GHG) are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and human generated, that absorbs and emits radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of terrestrial radiation emitted by the earth’s surface, the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. GHGs, as defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). General discussions on climate change often include water vapor, atmospheric ozone, and aerosols in the GHG category. Water vapor and atmospheric ozone are not gases that are formed directly in the construction or operation of development Projects, nor can they be controlled in these Projects. Aerosols are not gases. While these elements have a role in climate change, regulatory bodies, such as CARB, or climate change groups, such as the California Climate Action Registry, do not consider these elements as gases that CEQA documents need to report or analyze for control. Therefore, this document does not provide any further discussion of water vapor, atmospheric ozone, or aerosols. 1) Regulatory Background On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The principal overall State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 recognizes that California is the source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions. The statute states the following: City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-40 “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health- related problems.” In order to avert these consequences, AB 32 establishes a State goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, codifying the goal of EO S-3-05. CARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan as required by AB 32 in 2008; CARB updates this plan every five years as required by State law. The Climate Change Scoping Plan proposes a “comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health”33. The Climate Change Scoping Plan has a range of GHG-reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation regulation to fund the program. On February 10, 2014, CARB released the Draft Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan34. The board approved the final First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The first update describes California’s progress towards AB 32 goals, stating that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 greenhouse gas limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32”28. The latest update occurred in January 2017 and incorporates the 40 percent reduction to 1990 emissions levels by 2030. The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375, established a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 required SCAG to incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) into its regional transportation plans (RTPs) that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets though several measures, including land use decisions. SCAG’s SCS is included in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. The goals and policies of the RTP/SCS that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) focus on transportation and land use planning that include building infill projects; locating residents closer to where they work and play; and designing communities so there is access to high quality transit service. On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which ordered an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 33 2008 (December). Climate Change Scoping Plan—Pursuant to AB 32. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. 34 2014 (February). Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. Sacramento, CA: CARB. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/draft_proposed_first_update.pdf City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-41 2050. Five key goals for reducing GHG emissions through 2030 include (1) increasing renewable electricity to 50 percent; (2) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved in existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (3) reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; (4) reducing emissions of short-lived climate pollutants; and (5) managing farms, rangelands, forests and wetlands to increasingly store carbon. EO B-30-15 also directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) to codify the GHG reduction goals of EO B-30-15, requiring the State to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (Health and Safety Code Section 38566). As stated above, the State expects this goal to keep the State on track to meeting the goal set by EO S-3-05 of reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In addition, the Governor of California signed AB 197 to ensure that the State meets the SB 32 goals by requiring CARB to provide annual reports of GHGs, criteria pollutants, and TACs by facility, City and sub-county level, and sector for stationary sources and at the County level for mobile sources. It also requires the CARB to prioritize specified emission reduction rules and regulations and to identify specified information for emission reduction measures (e.g., alternative compliance mechanism, market-based compliance mechanism, and potential monetary and nonmonetary incentive) when updating the Scoping Plan. SB 350, signed October 7, 2015, is the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB 350 is the implementation of some of the goals of EO B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are as follows: 1. To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent, the procurement of our electricity from renewable sources 2. To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation The text of SB 350 sets a December 31, 2030, target for the State to generate 50 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. SB 350 also requires the State to double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. Additionally, SB 350 sets requirements for large utilities to develop and submit integrated resources plans (IRPs), which detail how utilities would meet their customers’ resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and integrate clean energy resources.35 On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018. SB 100 requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by December 31, 2045. This policy requires the transition to zero-carbon electric systems 35 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020 (June 1, last accessed). Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act— SB 350. Sacramento, CA: CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-andregulations/ energy-suppliers- reporting/clean-energy-and-pollution-reduction-act-sb-350. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-42 that do not cause contributions to increase of GHG emissions elsewhere in the western electricity grid.36 SB 100 also creates new standards for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals established by SB 350 in 2015. Specifically, the bill increases required energy from renewable sources for both investor-owned utilities and publicly owned utilities from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030. Further, on September 10, 2018, Governor Brown also signed California EO B-55-18, which sets a new statewide goal of carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045 and achieve net negative emissions thereafter. EO B-55-18 was added to the existing Statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions, including the targets previously established by Governor Brown of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (EO B-30-15 and SB 32), and by Governor Schwarzenegger of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040 (EO S- 3-05). 2) SCAQMD Significance Criteria On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board presented the staff proposal for a tiered threshold approach wherein Tier 1 determines if a project qualifies for an applicable CEQA exemption, Tier 2 determines consistency with GHG reduction plans, and Tier 3 proposes a numerical screening value as a threshold. At their September 28, 2010, meeting, the Working Group suggested a Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year for all land use types.37 Tier 4 determines if the project meets performance standards. Tier 4 has three options: 1) Option 1: percent emission reduction target; 2) Option 2: early implementation of applicable measures; and 3) Option 3: sector-based standard. Tier 5 determines mitigation for CEQA offsets. In the absence of adopted thresholds, this analysis uses the Tier 3 standard.38 The development of project-level thresholds in accordance with CEQA is an ongoing effort at the State, Regional, and County levels, and significance thresholds may differ for future projects based on new or additional data and information that may be available at that time for consideration. The City of Anaheim has not officially adopted any GHG CEQA significance threshold. The City defers to assessment methods and significance thresholds developed by the SCAQMD. This impact analysis evaluates consistency with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions and that contribute to the achievement of the goals of AB 32 and SB 32 as the primary significance criterion. In addition, this impact analysis also evaluates the Project’s estimated emissions compared to the Tier 3 threshold (as discussed above) for impacts related to GHG emissions proposed by staff of the SCAQMD, but not adopted by the SCAQMD Board. 36 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020 (June 1, last accessed). SB 100 Joint Agency Report. Sacramento, CA: CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100. 37 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2010 (September 28). Minutes for the GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD 38 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2008 (December 5). PROPOSAL: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significancethresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-43 The Tier 3 threshold is an industry standard for the assessment of potential GHG impacts within the South Coast Air Basin and represents the best available guidance in the assessment of potential GHG impacts. 3) GHG Emissions Thresholds Neither the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim, nor the County of Orange has adopted a significance threshold for GHG emissions from non-industrial development projects. Consequently, pursuant to the discretion afforded by Sections 15064.4(a) and 15064.4(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the impact of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions is assessed based on the methodologies proposed by SCAQMD’s GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group, as described above. 4) Impact Analysis The Project would generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste, water/wastewater, and construction equipment. The following provides the methodology used to calculate the Project-related GHG emissions and the Project impacts. The analysis used CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 to calculate the GHG emissions from the Project. The CalEEMod Annual Outputs for year 2024 for the Project and 2022 for the existing use are available in Appendix H of this document. Each source of GHG emissions is described below. (a) Area Sources Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. The analysis did not make any changes to the default area source emissions. (b) Energy Use Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on-site. The analysis did not make any changes to the default energy usage parameters. (c) Mobile Sources Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the Project. Per the Final Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project (LLG 2020), this analysis screens out the Project and presumes it to cause less than significant impacts since it is a “convalescent & rest homes” project. Therefore, this analysis uses the trip generation rates from the TIA to analyze the GHG emissions from the vehicle trips associated with the Project. The basis for the emissions of GHGs associated with mobile sources from operation of the Project are the average daily trip generation rate, trip distance, the GHG emission factors for the mobile sources, and the GWP values for the GHGs emitted. The types of vehicles that would visit the Project Site include all vehicle types including automobiles, light-duty trucks, delivery trucks, and waste haul trucks. The modeling for the Project used the vehicle fleet mix for the Orange County portion of the South Coast Air Basin as provided in EMFAC2014 and CalEEMod. The calculations for annual mobile source GHG emissions, in units of MTCO2e, are as follows: City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-44 Annual Emissions [MTCO2e] = ( Σi (Units × ADT × DTRIP × Days × EF × GWP)i ) ÷ 2204.6 Where: Units = Number of vehicles (same vehicle model year and class) ADT = Average daily trip rate [trips/day] DTRIP = Trip distance [miles/trip] Days = Number of days per year [days/year] EF = GHG emission factor [pounds per mile] GWP = Global warming potential [CO2 = 1, CH4 = 25, N2O = 298] 2204.6 = Conversion factor [pounds/MT] i = Summation index" According to the TIA, the Proposed Project would generate 328 daily trips. Using the trip generation rates from the TIA, the project would generate 2.60 daily trips/bed. As the Congregate care/assisted living land use in CalEEMod only has the size metric of dwelling units (DU) available; the analysis divided the number of trips per day by 118 DU, to yield a trip generation rate of 2.78 trips/DU/day. The project includes the demolition of the existing church use. According to the TIA, the existing 17,217 thousand square feet (TSF) church generates 120 trips per day, with a trip generation rate of 6.95 trips/TSF. Therefore, as the Project will replace the existing church use, the Project’s net daily trips will be 208 (328-120 trips). (d) Waste Waste includes the GHG emissions generated from the processing of waste from the Project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once interred into a landfill. AB 341 requires the diversion of 75 percent of waste from landfills by 2020. To be conservative, the analysis did not make any reductions for compliance with AB 341. The analysis did not make any other changes were made to the default waste parameters. (e) Waste/Wastewater Water includes the water used for the interior of the building as well as for landscaping and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy associated with supplying and treating water and wastewater. California Green Building Standards require a 20 percent reduction in indoor water usage. To be conservative, the analysis did not take any reductions or make any changes to the default water usage parameters. (f) Construction The construction-related GHG emissions were also included in the analysis and based on a 30- year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. CalEEMod calculated the construction-related GHG emissions using the City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-45 parameters described above. A summary of the results are below in Table II-11, Project-Related GHG Emissions, and the CalEEMod Model runs for the Project are provided in Appendix H of this document. Table II-11, Project-Related GHG Emissions, shows that the Project’s net GHG emissions would be 718.16 MTCO2e per year. Table II-11 Project-Related GHG Emissions Emissions Source Estimated Project Generated CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Area Sources 2.04 Energy Usage (Electricity & Natural Gas) 406.69 Mobile Sources (Motor Vehicles) 395.15 Solid Waste Generation 54.15 Water/Wastewater 118.41 Construction Emissions 23.24 Project Subtotal 999.67 -Existing Church Use Being Removed -281.52 Total Net GHG Emissions 718.16 SCAQMD-Recommended Threshold (Tier 3) 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? No Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix H of this document. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 for Opening Year 2024.Exising emissions were modeled for year 2022, the starting year of construction. As it is noted, there are no established applicable quantitative federal, State, regional, or local CEQA significance criteria for GHG emissions for non-industrial projects in the SoCAB. The SCAQMD has proposed, but not adopted, a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for non-industrial land use projects. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from the Proposed Project would be less than this suggested threshold. The impact would be less than significant. (g) Consistency with Scoping Plan (AB 32) The City of Anaheim has not adopted a Climate Action Plan; therefore, this analysis compares the Project to the CARB Scoping Plan. CARB’s Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce California’s GHG emissions in support of Assembly Bill (“AB”) 32, which requires the State to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Many of the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan are not applicable at the project level, such as long-term technological improvements to reduce emissions from vehicles. Some measures are applicable and supported by the Project, such as energy efficiency. Finally, while some measures are not directly applicable, the Project would not conflict with their implementation. Reduction measures are in 18 action categories, as follows: 1. California Cap-and-Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Initiative Partner Jurisdictions. Implement a broad-based California cap-and-trade program to provide a firm limit on emissions. Link the California cap-and-trade program with other Western City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-46 Climate Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market system to achieve greater environmental and economic benefits for California. Ensure California’s program meets all applicable AB 32 requirements for market-based mechanisms. 2. California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards. Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals. 3. Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California (including both investor-owned and publicly owned utilities). 4. Renewables Portfolio Standards. Achieve 33 percent renewable energy mix statewide. 5. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 6. Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets. Develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. 7. Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. 8. Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in goods movement activities. 9. Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 megawatts of solar-electric capacity under California’s existing solar programs. 10. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Adopt medium- (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) vehicle efficiencies. Aerodynamic efficiency measures for HD trucks pulling trailers 53-feet or longer that include improvements in trailer aerodynamics and use of rolling resistance tires were adopted in 2008 and went into effect in 2010.5 Future, yet to be determined improvements, includes hybridization of MD and HD trucks. 11. Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine whether individual sources within a facility can cost-effectively reduce GHG emissions and provide other pollution reduction co-benefits. Reduce GHG emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive methane emissions and reduce flaring at refineries. 12. High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high-speed rail system. 13. Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. 14. High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt measures to reduce high warming global potential gases. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-47 15. Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting and other beneficial uses of organic materials, and mandate commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste. 16. Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy generation. The 2020 target for carbon sequestration is 5 million MTCO2e/yr. 17. Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. 18. Agriculture. In the near-term, encourage investment in manure digesters and at the five- year Scoping Plan update determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020. Table II-12, Scoping Plan Consistency Summary, summarizes the Project’s consistency with the State Scoping Plan. As summarized, the Project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories through energy efficiency, water conservation, recycling, and landscaping. Table II-12 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary Action Supporting Measures Consistency Cap-and-Trade Program -- Not Applicable. These programs involve capping emissions from electricity generation, industrial facilities, and broad scoped fuels. Caps do not directly affect commercial/residential projects. Light-Duty Vehicle Standards T-1 Not Applicable. This is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. Energy Efficiency E-1 No Conflict. The Project will include a variety of building, water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with current CALGREEN requirements. E-2 CR-1 CR-2 Renewables Portfolio Standard E-3 Not Applicable. Establishes the minimum statewide renewable energy mix. Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Not Applicable. Establishes reduced carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Regional Transportation- Related Greenhouse Gas Targets T-3 Not Applicable. This is a statewide measure and is not within the purview of this Project. Vehicle Efficiency Measures T-4 Not Applicable. Identifies measures such as minimum tire- fuel efficiency, lower friction oil, and reduction in air conditioning use. Goods Movement T-5 T-6 Not Applicable. Identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories. While these measures are yet to be implemented and will be voluntary, the Project would not interfere with their implementation. Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Program E-4 Not Applicable. The MSR program sets a goal for use of solar systems throughout the state as a whole. The project currently does not include solar energy generation; however, the building City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-48 Table II-12 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary Action Supporting Measures Consistency roof structure will be designed to support solar panels in the future. Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles T-7 Not Applicable. MD and HD trucks and trailers accessing the Project will be subject to aerodynamic and hybridization requirements as established by ARB; no feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of these requirements and programs. T-8 Industrial Emissions I-1 Not Applicable. These measures are applicable to large industrial facilities (> 500,000 MTCO2e/yr) and other intensive uses such as refineries. I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 High Speed Rail T-9 Not Applicable. Supports increased mobility choice. Green Building Strategy GB-1 Consistent. The Project will include a variety of building, water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with CALGREEN requirements. High Global Warming Potential Gases H-1 Not Applicable. The proposed Project is not a substantial source of high GWP emissions and will comply with any future changes in air conditioning, fire protection suppressant, and other requirements. H-2 H-3 H-4 H-5 H-6 H-7 Recycling and Waste RW-1 No Conflict. The Project will recycle a minimum of 75 percent diversion to recycling from construction activities and operations pursuant to AB 939, AB 341 and AB 75 requirements. RW-2 RW-3 Sustainable Forests F-1 No Conflict. The Project will increase carbon sequestration by increasing on-site trees per the Project landscaping plan. Water W-1 No Conflict. The Project will include use of low-flow fixtures and efficient landscaping pursuant to CalGreen requirements. W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 W-6 Agriculture A-1 Not Applicable. The Project is not an agricultural use. Source: 2008 CARB Scoping Plan As shown above, the Project would be consistent with the applicable measures established in the Scoping Plan. At the state level, Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15 are orders from the State’s Executive Branch for reducing GHG emissions. The Legislature codified Executive Order S-3-05, to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). The Project, as analyzed above, is consistent with AB 32. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with this component of Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Orders also establish goals to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-49 2050. However, studies have shown that, in order to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets, aggressive technologies in the transportation and energy sectors, including electrification and the decarbonization of fuel, will be required. In its Climate Change Scoping Plan, CARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail.” In the First Scoping Plan Update, however, CARB generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target: “energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; largescale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” Unlike the 2020 and 2030 reduction targets of AB 32 and SB 32, respectively, the State legislature has not codified the 2050 target of Executive Order S-3-05 h, so the 2050 reduction target has not been the subject of any analysis by CARB. For example, CARB has not prepared an update to the aforementioned Scoping Plan that provides guidance to local agencies as to how they may seek to contribute to the achievement of the 2050 reduction target. In 2017, the California Supreme Court examined the need to use the Executive Order S-3-05 2050 reduction target in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497 (Cleveland National). The case arose from SANDAG’s adoption of its 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, which included its Sustainable Communities Strategy, as required by SB 375. On review, the Supreme Court held that SANDAG did not violate CEQA by not considering the Executive Order S-3-05 2050 reduction target. Accordingly, since the Project is much smaller in size and scope in comparison to the Regional Transportation Plan examined in Cleveland National, assessing the Project’s consistency with regard to the 2050 target of Executive Order S-3-05 is not necessary for determining compliance with CEQA. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds on the 2008 Scoping Plan in order to achieve the 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2030. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework that will achieve the GHG reductions include: • Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) buses and trucks. When adopted, this measure would apply to all trucks accessing the Project site; this may include existing trucks or new trucks purchased by the project proponent, which could be eligible for incentives that expedite the Project’s implementation of ZEVs. • Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030). When adopted, this measure would apply to all fuel purchased and used by the Project in the state. • Implementing SB 350, which expands RPS to 50 percent and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030. When adopted, this measure would apply when electricity is provided to the Project by a utility company. • California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. When adopted, City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-50 this measure would apply to all trucks accessing the Project site, this may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector. • Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on reducing methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent by year 2030. When adopted, the Project would be required to comply with this measure and reduce SLPS accordingly. • Continued implementation of SB 375. The Project is not within the purview of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict with this measure. • Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps. When adopted, the Project would be required to comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program if it generates emissions from sectors covered by Cap-and-Trade. • 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from refineries by 2030. When adopted, the Project would be required to comply with this measure if it were to utilize any fuel from refineries. • Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink. This is a statewide measure that would not apply to the Project. As shown above, the Project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the Project. Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.39 5) Summary As explained in detail in above subsections, the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to greenhouse gases. e) Project-Specific Water Quality Impacts 1) Groundwater The Project does not involve the extraction of groundwater and it would not result in a reduction in aquifer volume or lower the local groundwater table. The historically highest groundwater level is greater than 30 feet below grade.40 The proposed basement level would only extend up to a depth of 12 feet below the existing grade. Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. However, due to the depth of the groundwater anticipated on the Project Site, the operation of the Project would not interfere with any 39 California Legislative Information, Senate Bill No. 32. 40 Refer to Appedendix F, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, January 2021. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-51 groundwater recharge activities within the area.41 The Project Site’s existing condition is a developed property and the degree to which any surface water infiltration and groundwater recharge occurs on-site is negligible. Moreover, the Project would redevelop the entire site. Therefore, impacts to groundwater would be less than significant. Therefore, as the Project Site would not result in any significant effects related to groundwater water quality, the Project meets this condition for water quality. 2) Surface Water The following surface water impact analysis summarizes and incorporates by reference the information provided in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, January 2021 (WQMP). The WQMP is available as Appendix I to this document A project would normally have a significant impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with a project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Section 13050 of the California Water Code (CWC) or that cause regulatory standards to be violated, as defined in the applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit or Water Quality Control Plan for the receiving water body. For the purpose of this issue, a significant impact may occur if a project would discharge water which does not meet the quality standards of agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts would also occur if a project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include compliance with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements to reduce potential water quality impacts. (a) Construction During construction, the Project Site would contain a variety of construction materials such as adhesives, cleaning agents, landscaping, plumbing, painting, heat/cooling, masonry materials, floor and wall coverings, and demolition debris. Spills of construction materials can be a source of stormwater pollution and/or soil contamination. All hazardous materials are to be stored, labeled and used in accordance with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. These regulations for routine handling and storing of hazardous materials effectively control the potential stormwater pollution caused by these materials. Earth moving activities would involve preparation of the Project Site for Project construction. Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from the land surface, by wind, water and/or gravity. Soil particles removed by stormwater runoff can have negative impacts on downstream conditions through increased sedimentation as well as spread of contaminants found in the exposed soil of the Project Site. Grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes. Two general strategies are typically required to prevent construction silt from entering drainage 41 Refer to Appendix K, Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Assisted Living and Memory Care Residential Facility, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim Hills, CA, prepared by Geocon West, Inc., October 2020. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-52 courses. First, the amount of exposed soil is typically limited and erosion control procedures are implemented for those areas that must be exposed. Common methods for controlling fugitive dust emissions, such as covering truck loads and street sweeping, are also effective in controlling stormwater quality. Second, the construction area would be secured to control off-site migration of pollutants. Erosion control devices, including temporary diversion dikes/berms, drainage swales, and siltation basins, are typically required around construction areas to ensure that sediment is trapped and properly removed. The Project’s proposed construction activities would be required to comply with the State’s General Construction National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the development of a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) because the Project Site is greater than one acre in size. The Project SWPPP would identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharge associated with construction activity, identify non- storm water discharges, and provide design features to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into the public storm drain system during construction. The Applicant has prepared a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Project Site to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program. The WQMP specifies best management practices (BMPs) that the Applicant will use during construction, which include but are not be limited to, erosion control, sediment control, non-stormwater management, and materials management. When properly designed and implemented, BMPs would ensure that construction of the Project would not result in degradation of surface water quality through increased sedimentation or spread of soil contaminants. Accordingly, required compliance with the City of Anaheim grading permit regulations and implementation of BMPs would ensure that Project construction would not create a significant impact by degrading surface water quality, or by causing a violation of applicable water quality standards. Therefore, as the Project Site would not result in any significant effects related to construction surface water quality, the Project meets this condition for water quality. (b) Operation Operation of the Project would introduce sources of potential water pollution that are typical of residential developments Anticipated and potential pollutants generated by the Project are sediment, nutrients, pesticides for landscaping, metals, pathogens, oil and grease and cleaning solvents. The Project’s proposed residential land use does not represent the type of use that would otherwise degrade water quality (e.g., an industrial land use that could adversely affect water quality). Furthermore, operation of the Project would not result in discharges that would cause regulatory standards to be violated. The Project Site currently has approximately 60 percent impervious surfaces. Project development would increase the impervious surfaces to 67 percent. Project site BMPs have been designed to prevent storm water pollution that include minimalization of impervious areas, preserve existing drainage patterns, bio-filtration, protection of existing vegetation and revegetate disturbed areas, and native and/or tolerant landscaping. These site BMPs are briefly described below. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-53 Though impervious surfaces would increase by 7 percent, landscaping would be provided throughout the site within the common areas, as well as the perimeter of the building to minimize the impervious area. Landscaping would be provided adjacent to sidewalks and between the proposed buildings. Runoff from the site would continue to flow similar to existing conditions. Low-flows and first-flush runoff would drain to two modular wetland units for water quality treatment via bio-filtration. Landscaping around the perimeter will be persevered where feasible and new landscaping provided. Finally, native and /or tolerant landscaping would be incorporated into the site design consistent with City of Anaheim’s guidelines. In addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges, Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs are also required. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. The 4th Term MS4 Storm Water Permit (Order R8-2009-0030) requires the evaluation and use of LID features using the following hierarchy of treatment: infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvest/reuse and biotreatment. Infiltration BMPs are LID BMPs that capture, store and infiltrate storm water runoff. These BMPS are engineered to store a specified volume of water util this volume is exceeded. Due to steep slopes (on the perimeter), proximity to landslide areas, proposed retaining walls and proposed basement, infiltration of stormwater is not recommended. Evapotranspiration BMPs are a class of retention BMPS that discharges stored volume predominately to evapotranspiration. Since biotreatment BMPs are proposed to be utilized for treating the 80 percent of capture efficient on- site, evapotranspiration BMPs were not included for the project. Biotreatment BMP was chosen for the project based on its ability to treat the project’s pollutants of concern to a medium or high effectiveness. In addition to project site and LID BMPs, the Project would mitigate surface runoff conditions and would reduce runoff onto adjacent private properties while matching historic drainage patterns by carrying flows from the southwest to the northeast.42 Currently, water is running from the southwest to the northeast, however there are several catch basin inlets which connect to an underground storm drainage system. At the northeast corner of the Project Site is an existing side opening catch basin within the public right-of-way that collects all flows. This catch basin connects to an 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) mainline within the right-of-way, which flows to the north. Pipes would collect flows from the proposed interior courtyards. The design of these pipes is for a 100-year storm event and carry flows to the exterior of the building down to a Municipal Water System (MWS) on the northwest side of the Project Site. These flows join surface flows on the west side of the Project Site and are conveyed via a proposed ribbon gutter to the proposed MWS BMP, which is fitted with an overflow bypass to handle flows up to the 100-year storm event. From there, the MWS carries treated flows east along the northern border of the property, where northern flows join them, for ultimate disposal at the existing catch basin located on the northeastern corner of the Project Site. 42 Refer to Appendix I for detailed drainage data. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-54 Swales would carry flows on the eastern and southern sides of the Project Site to catch basins connected to a MWS on the southwest corner. A bypass diversion system in the driveway would bypass the MWS during larger stormwater events. These flows will join the prior system, for ultimate disposal at the existing catch basin located on the northeastern corner of the Project Site. The existing MWS would route drainage on South Royal Oak Road from the gutter into a new curb opening MWS within the right-of-way just upstream of the existing catch basin. This MWS would include an automatic retractile screening system and would capture the necessary flows for treatment. Flows in excess of the MWS capacity would continue downstream to the existing catch basin, also now outfitted with a connector pipe screen and automatic retractable screen system. Overall, the Project would comply with all applicable State, regional, and local regulations, policies, and requirements with regard to surface water quality and implement BMPs for the control and retention of stormwater and eroded sediments. Based on the above, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to surface water quality during operation. Therefore, as the Project Site would not result in any significant effects related to operation surface water quality; therefore, the Project meets this condition for water quality. 3) Summary As the approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gases, or water quality, the Project meets this condition. Condition (e): The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The following provides a Project-specific analysis of the impacts to utilities and public services that would serve the Project. f) Utilities 1) Water Treatment Facilities and Existing Infrastructure Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD) currently supplies water to the Project Site. APUD is responsible for ensuring that the City meets its water demand and that it can achieve State and federal water quality standards. The APUD ensures the reliability and quality of its water supply through an extensive distribution system that includes more than 752 miles of pipes, 4 active wells, and 13 treated water reservoirs.43 44 The APUD divides the City’s water distribution system into two main geographic areas; the “Flatland Area” and the “Hill and Canyon Area.” The Project Site is located within the “Hill and Canyon Area.” The “Hill and Canyon Area” is approximately 9,060 acres, situated generally south and east of the Santa Ana River, and served primarily by the imported water from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and the City’s Lenain Water Treatment 43 2015 UWMP, June 2016. 44 There are additional wells that are temporarily inactive due to water quality and mechanical issues. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-55 Plant (LWTP). Water entering the LWTP, which treats 20 million gallons per day, undergoes treatment and disinfection before APUD distributes it throughout the area. 45 Implementation of the Project would not measurably reduce LWTP’s treatment capacity, and as such, no new or expanded water treatment facilities would be required. Further, the Project would be within the growth projections of the APUD and it is, therefore, APUD anticipates that it would be able to meet the Project’s water treatment demand.46 Therefore, APUD can adequately serve the site with respect to LWTP. In addition to supplying water for domestic uses, APUD also supplies water for fire protection services, in accordance with the Fire Code. The Anaheim Fire and Rescue Department (AFR) requires a water flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm). If water main or infrastructure upgrades are required to serve the Project, the Code requires the Project Applicant to pay for such upgrades, which the Project Applicant or APUD would construct. To the extent such upgrades result in a temporary disruption in service, proper notification to APUD customers would take place, as is standard practice. In the event that water main and other infrastructure upgrades are required, it would not be expected to create a significant impact to the physical environment because: (1) any disruption of service would be of a short-term nature; (2) replacement of the water mains would be within public rights-of-way; and (3) any foreseeable infrastructure improvements would be limited to the immediate Project vicinity. Therefore, APUD can adequately serve the Project Site with respect to fire flow requirements. Furthermore, the Project would comply with the City’s mandatory water conservation measures that, relative to the City’s increase in population, have reduced the rate of water demand in recent years. APUD bases its growth projections on conservation measures and adequate treatment capacity that is, or would be, available to treat APUD’s projected water supply, as well as the APUD’s expected water sources. Compliance with water conservation measures, including Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code would serve to reduce the projected water demand. Chapter 10.18 of Code comprises the City’s Water Conservation and Water Contingency Rules and Regulations. The Water Conservation Water Contingency Rules and Regulations stipulate conservation measures pertaining to water closets, showers, landscaping, maintenance activities, and other uses. At the State level, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code contains the California Building Standards, including the California Plumbing Code (Part 5), which promotes water conservation. Title 20 of the California Administrative Code addresses Public Utilities and Energy and includes appliance efficiency standards that promote conservation. Various sections of the Health and Safety Code also regulate water use. On April 7, 2017, following unprecedented water conservation averaging approximately 25 percent across the State and plentiful winter rain and snow, the governor ended the drought state of emergency in most of California (including Orange County) through Executive Order B40-17. Executive Order B-40-17 builds on actions taken in Executive Order B-37-16, which remains in 45 City of Anaheim-Public Utilities-Water Services-About Water Services website: http://www.anaheim.net/1694/About-Water-Services, accessed: January 2021. 46 2015 UWMP, June 2016. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-56 effect, to continue making water conservation a way of life in California.47 Executive Order B-37- 16 (Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life) directs the California Department of Water Resources to work with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to make some of the requirements of the emergency conservation regulation permanent so as to build upon and exceed the existing State law requirements to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban water usage by 2020. The basis for these water use targets are strengthened standards that were developed in response to the State’s conservation mandate regarding indoor residential per capita water use; outdoor irrigation, in a manner that incorporates landscape area, local climate, and new satellite imagery data; commercial, industrial, and institutional water use; and water lost through leaks. Overall, the Project’s water demand would comprise a small percentage of APUWS’ existing water supplies. Moreover, as discussed below, the Project’s anticipated water demand is consistent with demand projected under the Anaheim 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Therefore, APUD can adequately serve the site with respect to water conservation. 2) Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Existing Infrastructure The City’s Sewer and Storm Drain Maintenance Division provides sewer service to the Project area. The Project Site has existing sewer connections to the City’s sewer system via a sewer lateral that conveys wastewater into an 8-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) located along Royal Oak Road.48 Sewage from the Project Site is proposed to be discharged into a new 6-inch VCP sewer connection near the driveway located along Royal Oak Road. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) treats the wastewater collected within City. Sewage from the Project Site is ultimately conveyed via existing sewer infrastructure to either Reclamation Plant No. 1, located in the City of Fountain Valley, which has the capacity to treat approximately 182 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater to full secondary treatment level and currently treats 121 mgd; or, Reclamation Plant No. 2, located in the City of Huntington Beach, which has the capacity to treat approximately 150 mgd of wastewater to full secondary treatment level and currently treats 90 mgd. The remaining capacity at Reclamation Plant No. 1 is approximately 61 million gpd or approximately 34 percent of its total capacity, and the remaining capacity at Reclamation Plant No. 2 is approximately 60 million gpd or approximately 40 percent of its total capacity.49 Although these treatment capacities would expand in the future, these existing design capacities would be sufficient to serve the Project. Therefore, OCSD can adequately serve the site with respect to wastewater treatment. Given the infill location of the Project Site, surrounded by residential uses served by existing utility infrastructure, it is reasonable to anticipate that the existing sewer lines have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flow. Nonetheless, prior to issuance of building permits, the City would require detailed gauging and evaluation of the Project’s wastewater connection point at the time of connection to the system. If the City identifies deficiencies at that time, the Project Applicant would be required, at its own cost, to build secondary sewer lines to a connection point 47 State Water Resources Control Board, Press Room, Announcements, State Releases Plan to Make Water Conservation a Way of Life, April 7, 2017. 48 Refer to Appendix J, Civil Planning Submission Plans. 49 Orange County Sanitation District, Budget Update, Fiscal Year 2019-2020. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-57 in the sewer system with sufficient capacity, in accordance with standard City procedures. The installation of any such secondary lines, if needed, would require minimal trenching and pipeline installation in accordance with all City permitting requirements, which would be a temporary action and would not result in any adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the site can be adequately served by OCSD with respect to sewer line infrastructure. 3) Existing and Projected Water Supply The City’s water supply primarily comes from a mixture of groundwater and imported. Historically, approximately 70 percent groundwater pumped came from local wells and approximately 30 percent from the MWD, obtained from the Colorado River Aqueduct.50 However, the 70/30 split no longer applies since most of the City’s wells have been taken offline as of March 2020. As of April 2021, there are only 4 active wells, while the remainder of wells have been taken offline due to either PFAS (a group of chemicals referred to as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) or mechanical issues. Currently, the majority of the City’s water supply comes from imported water. Over the next several years, the City will be working on constructing groundwater treatment facilities to treat PFAS. Nevertheless, the City’s UWMP anticipates the same water supply mix to be available to the City through 2040. Further, MWD uses a land use-based planning tool that allocates projected demographic data from SCAG into water service areas for each of MWD’s member agencies. These sources, along with recycled water, would supply the City’s water needs in the years to come. The 2015 UWMP water demand projection for 2040 is approximately 67,143 acre-feet for a normal year and 71,172 acre-feet for a single-dry and multiple-dry years. The 2015 UWMP states that the available demand will be due to diversified supply and conservation measures.51 The City is also making efforts to increase the availability of water supplies, including increasing recycled water use and identification of alternative water supplies, such as water transfer and stormwater runoff reuse, as well as implementing management agreements for long-term groundwater use strategies to prevent overdraft. Consideration of existing sources of supply, coupled with the combined effect of these City efforts to increase available water supplies, would assure adequate water supplies for the Orange County Water District (OCWD) service area through at least 2040. Therefore, the amount of new annual demand from the Project would be insignificant relative to available supplies through 2040, projected growth in Anaheim, and planned water resource development by OCWD. OCWD’s Water System Budget Report for the Fiscal Years 2020-2021 details OCWD’s process of capital upgrades to the water infrastructure system of the City and increasing its water resources, enhance the quality of water it distributes, and improve the security of the water supply. These goals are accomplished by replacing and/or adding to the water system infrastructure, complying with and/or exceeding all state and federal water regulations, looking for new sources of water supply as well as conserving those already in existence, and adopting new and improved security measures to ensure the safety of the City’s water. Through this program, OCWD can provide 50 2015 UWMP, June 2016. 51 Ibid. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-58 reliable sources of water to the residents of the City.52 Thus, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be necessary. Moreover, the Project’s housing and population increases are consistent with the RTP/SCS and UWMP (making the addition of 118 senior living facility units resulting from the Project consistent with regional growth). Thus, the Project’s estimated water usage is within applicable projections and does not exceed the amount anticipated by the City’s long-range land use and planning efforts. The Project would also comply with Chapter 10.19 of Title 10 Code (Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance), which imposes numerous water conservation measures in landscaping, installation, and maintenance (e.g., use drip irrigation and soak hoses in lieu of sprinklers to lower the amount of water lost to evaporation and overspray, set automatic sprinkler systems to irrigate during the early morning or evening hours to minimize water loss due to evaporation, and water less in the cooler months and during the rainy season), therefore helping to reduce the Project’s water demand. Thus, the Project would not create any water system capacity issues, and sufficient reliable water supplies would be available to meet Project demands. Therefore, the site can be adequately served by OCWD with respect to water supply. 4) Solid Waste Disposal Solid waste generated within the City is disposed of at privately-owned landfill facilities throughout Orange County. The Sanitation Services Division, in coordination with Republic Services, a private waste, recycling and disposal company, provides waste collection services for developments within the City. As is typical for most solid waste haulers in the Anaheim area, Republic Services separates and recycles all reusable material collected from the Project Site at a local materials recovery facility. The remaining solid waste would be disposed of at a variety of landfills. Most commonly, the Olinda Alpha Landfill serves the City. This Class III landfill accepts non-hazardous solid waste including construction and demolition waste.53 Additionally, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill near the City of Irvine and the Prima Deshecha Landfill near the City of San Juan Capistrano receives refuse, generated from the City. (a) Construction Implementation of the Project would generate construction and demolition waste. Construction and demolition debris includes concrete, asphalt, wood, drywall, metals, concrete rubble, and other miscellaneous and composite materials. Construction debris would consist primarily of debris from the demolition of the 17,217 square foot church building and the 58,000 square foot associated surface parking area that would be disposed of as inert waste. The Project would be required to implement a construction waste management plan to achieve a minimum 75 percent 52 Orange County Waster District, Budget Report for Fiscal Years 2020-2021. 53 County of Orange Waste & Recycling-Landfills website: https://oclandfills.com/landfills/active-landfills/olinda- landfill, accessed: January 2021. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-59 diversion from landfills. Much of this material would be recycled and salvaged to the maximum extent feasible at a minimum of 75 percent diversion from the landfill. Construction activities generate a variety of scraps and wastes, with the majority of recyclables being wood waste, drywall, metal, paper, and cardboard. The construction of the Project would generate approximately 201 tons of solid waste,54 and approximately 2,274 tons of demolition debris.55 As required by the City of Anaheim Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Application, permitted haulers would haul Project construction waste to City-certified construction and demolition processing facilities, monitored for compliance with recycling regulations. The inert solid waste and soil would require disposal at the County’s operating inert landfills (Olinda Alpha, Frank R. Bowerman, and Prima Deshecha) or at any of a number of state-permitted Inert Debris Engineered Fill Operations in the County. This does not include any asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paints (LBPs), polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), contaminated soil, or other contaminated waste, which would be disposed of at facilities licensed to accept such waste. In compliance with the requirements of SB 1374, the Applicant would implement a construction waste management plan to recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 65 percent of non-hazardous demolition and construction debris. This forecasted solid waste generation is a conservative estimate as it assumes no reductions in solid waste generation would occur due to recycling. Moreover, there is current capacity available in the County for the disposal of waste. Olinda Alpha Landfill has an 18 percent remaining capacity, Frank R. Bowman Landfill has a 67 percent remaining capacity, and Prima Deshecha Landfill has a 99 percent remaining capacity.56 Therefore, the Project-generated demolition debris of 2,274 tons and construction waste of 201 tons (i.e., asphalt and construction debris) would represent a small percentage of the inert waste disposal capacity in the region. Thus, the Project would not generate construction-generated inert waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise affect the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the site can be adequately served by landfills with respect to construction solid waste disposal. (b) Operation AB 374 mandates a 75 percent landfill diversion rate by 2020.57 The City’s Public Works Department develops and implements source reduction, recycling, and re-use programs in the City. The Sanitation Services Section provides technical assistance to public and private recyclers, manages the collection and disposal programs for Household Hazardous Waste, and helps create 54 A construction waste generation rate of 4.02 pounds per square foot was used. 100,133 square feet of construction multiplied by 4.02 pounds is 402,535 pounds (201.3 tons). Source: U.S. EPA, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, Table A-2, June 1998. 55 A building demolition waste generation rate of 0.046 tons per square foot was used. 17,217 square feet of demolition multiplied by 0.046 tons is 792 tons. Source: CalEEMod User Guide Appendix A, page 13: 1 sf of building space represents 0.046 ton of waste material. A surface parking demolition waste generation rate of 58,000 square feet of surface area @ 1 foot deep slab = 58,000 cubic feet of demolition volume, or 2,148 cubic yards was used. The asphalt conversion factor is 1 cubic yard of asphalt/paving = 1,380 pounds of waste. Therefore, the parking areas would generate approximately 2,964,240 pounds, or 1,482 tons of demolition debris. Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Total demolition debris is 2,075 tons (792 + 1,482 = 2,274). 56 Orange County Landfills: Trash Talk, Grand Jury 2017-2018. 57 California Department of Resources and Recycling, California’s 75 Percent Initiative. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-60 markets for recycled materials. With the State-mandated minimum diversion rate of 75 percent, there would be adequate landfill capacity for the Project’s operational impact. Therefore, the site can be adequately served by landfills with respect to operational solid waste disposal. 5) Natural Gas Existing Infrastructure Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service to the City, including the Project Site. The 2020 California Gas Report presents a comprehensive outlook for natural gas requirements and supplies for California through 2035. SCG expects its active meter growth to increase by an annual average of 0.58 percent from the period 2019 through 2035; however, SCG expects natural gas demand in its service area will decline at an annual rate of 1.0 percent during this same period. Specifically, the SCG expects residential load in Southern California to decline by 1.7 percent annually from 238 billion cubic feet in 2019 to 198 billion cubic feet in 2035. The decrease in gas demand results from a combination of continued decline in residential use per meter, increases in marginal gas rates, the impact of savings from SCG’s Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project deployment, which began in 2013, and CPUC authorized energy efficiency program savings in this market. SCG forecasts that these energy efficiency savings would lead to very large reductions in residential gas use equaling a total of 18.8 billion cubic feet in year 2035.58 The Project’s natural gas consumption would represent an extremely small percentage of SCG’s total usage supplied to residential buildings. Also, as the Project would be infill redevelopment, there is already a natural gas connection point; expansion for distribution infrastructure would not be required and capacity-enhancing alterations to existing facilities would be highly unlikely. SCG is satisfactorily meeting its obligations to its current customers and projects to meet obligations of its future customers. As such, SCG’s existing infrastructure and storage supplies are well-prepared for the long-term forecasts. However, in the event SCG cannot provide service from the existing infrastructure, a system analysis would be conducted by SCG to determine the best method to provide service and appropriate actions such as pressure betterments may be initiated to resolve the issue. Thus, any corrective action, albeit unlikely, would be minimal and temporary, and would not result in any adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, SCG can adequately serve the Project Site with respect to natural gas. 6) Electrical Power Existing Infrastructure APUD provides electrical service to the City, including the Project Site. On February 28, 2017, APUD adopted the 2018 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which provides a 20-year roadmap to guide APUD in meeting future energy needs by forecasting demand for energy and determine how APUD will meet that demand by executing new projects and replacement projects and programs.59 The IRP lays out alternative strategies for meeting APUD’s regulatory requirements and environmental policy goals for increasing renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions, while maintaining power reliability. The IRP provides detailed analysis and results of resource cases, 58 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2020 California Gas Report, page 99. 59 Anaheim Public Utilities, 2018 Integrated Resource Plan, February 2017. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-61 which investigate the economic and environmental impact of increased Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), local solar, energy storage, and various levels of transportation electrification within a 20-year horizon. APUD generates power from a variety of different sources that include renewable energy, hydroelectric, natural gas, and other fuels. APUD utilizes renewable energy sources and is committed to meeting the requirement of the RPS Enforcement Program to use at least 33 percent of the State’s energy from renewables by 2020.60 Current installed generation capacity is over 8,589 megawatts of power per day.61 The APUD serves the Project Site for electrical power. APUD routinely plans capacity additions and changes at existing and new facilities as needed to supply area load. The Project’s electrical consumption would be part of the total load growth forecast for the City and accounted for in the planned growth of the City’s power system. Furthermore, as the Project would be infill redevelopment, there is already an electrical power connection point, and expansion for distribution infrastructure would not be required, nor would capacity-enhancing alterations to existing facilities be required from Project implementation. Therefore, APUD can adequately serve the Project Site with respect to electrical power. g) Public Services 1) Fire Protection The AFR provides fire protection services in the City and operates 11 fire stations, comprised of 11 engine companies, and employs approximately 270 firefighters along with various other support staff.62 The Project is closest to Fire Station No. 8, located at 4555 E. Riverdale Avenue, approximately 1.5-roadway-miles to the northwest from the Project Site.63 Fire Station No. 8 includes an engine company, a truck company, a medic unit, and a wildland unit comprised of an engine company and a patrol unit. Furthermore, Fire Station No. 9, located at 6300 E. Nohl Road, approximately 1.8-roadway-mile to the southeast from the Project Site, would also aid as needed. Fire Station No. 9 includes an engine company, an ambulance, and a wildland unit comprised of a patrol unit. The AFR bases the adequacy of its fire protection upon the required fire flow, equipment access, and AFR’s safety requirements regarding needs and service for the area. The required fire flow necessary for fire protection varies with the type of development, life hazard, occupancy, and the degree of fire hazard. Pursuant to Code Title 16, City-established fire flow requirements vary from 1,500 gpm in low-density residential areas to 8,000 gpm in high-density commercial or industrial areas. In any instance, a minimum residual water pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (PSI) is to remain in the water system while the required gpm is flowing. Code Title 16 identifies a fire 60 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Renewable Portfolio Standard. 61 Anaheim Public Utilities-About Electric Services, website: https://www.anaheim.net/2104/About-Electric- Services, accessed: January 2021. 62 City of Anaheim Fire and Rescue Department-Administration, website: https://www.anaheim.net/665/Administration, accessed: January 2021. 63 City of Anaheim Fire and Rescue Department-Facilities, website: https://www.anaheim.net/Facilities?clear=False, accessed: January 2021. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-62 flow requirement of 4,500 gpm for high-density residential projects such as the Project. Moreover, the Project would include automatic fire sprinkler systems as required by the Fire Code, which would allow for a reduction in required fire flow of up to 50 percent. When a reduction in fire flow is used, fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gpm. AFR would confirm the adequacy of existing water pressure and availability in the Project area with respect to required fire flow prior to issuance of building permits. As part of the normal building permit process, the Project would be required to upgrade water service laterals, meters, and related devices, as applicable, in order to provide required fire flow; however, the AFD does not anticipate the need for new water facilities to serve the Project. Moreover, if needed, the Project would implement such improvements either on-site or off-site within the right-of-way, and as such, the construction activities would be temporary and not result in disruption of service to neighboring properties. Code Title 16 (Fire) addresses land use-based requirements for fire hydrant spacing and type, which states that no structure shall be more than 300 feet travel distance from a fire hydrant. The nearest fire hydrant is located on the corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road, directly adjacent to the Project Site. The Project would implement City Building and Fire Code requirements regarding Project components including, but not limited to, structural design, building materials, site access, clearance, hydrants, fire flow, storage and management of hazardous materials, alarm and communications systems, and building sprinkler systems. The Applicant would demonstrate compliance with these requirements prior to issuance of a building permit in accordance with City regulations as part of AFR’s plan review. AFR would confirm implementation through its safety inspection for new construction projects. Construction activities to install any new pipes or pumping infrastructure would be temporary and of short duration and would not result in any disruption of service to neighboring properties. AFR would continue to provide emergency vehicle access to the Project Site from local roadways. All improvements proposed would comply with the Fire Code, including any additional access requirements of AFR. Additionally, the Applicant would maintain emergency access to the Project Site at all times during both Project construction and operation pursuant to the Worksite Traffic Control Plan that would be prepared for the Project and approved by the City. Therefore, the AFR can adequately serve the Project Site by fire facilities including adequate proximity to a fire station, fire flow, fire hydrants, and emergency access. 2) Police Protection The City of Anaheim Police Department’s (APD) East Station would serve the Project Site. The East Station is located at 8201 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately 4.3-roadway-mile to the northeast of the Project Site.64 (a) Construction Construction sites, if not properly managed, have the potential to attract criminal activity (such as trespassing, theft, and vandalism) and can become a distraction for local law enforcement from 64 City of Anaheim Police Department, Locations-website: https://www.anaheim.net/363/Locations, accessed: January 2021. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-63 more pressing matters that require their attention. However, as required by the City as a regulatory compliance measure, the Project would employ construction safety features including erecting temporary fencing along the periphery of the active construction areas to screen as much of the construction activity from view at the local street level and to deter trespassing, vandalism, short- cut attractions, potential criminal activity, and other nuisances. Therefore, the APD can adequately serve the site with respect to police protection and services during construction. (b) Operation Responses to thefts, vehicle burglaries, vehicle damage, traffic-related incidents, and crimes against persons may increase because of the Project due to increased on-site activity and increased traffic on adjacent streets and arterials. The Project would include adequate and strategically positioned lighting to enhance public safety. Visually obstructed and infrequently accessed “dead zones” would be limited, and, where possible, security controlled to limit public access. The building and layout design of the Project would also include nighttime security lighting. Additionally, the continuous visible and non-visible presence of staff and residents at all times of the day would provide a sense of security during evening and early morning hours. As such, the Project’s staff and residents would be able to monitor suspicious activity at the building entry points. These preventative and proactive security measures would decrease the amount of service calls that APD would otherwise receive. Therefore, the APD can adequately serve the site with respect to police protection and services during operation. 3) Schools The Project is in an area that is currently served by the Orange Unified School District (OUSD). The Project would construct a 118-unit senior living facility and would not directly increase the student population. The approximately 60 people that would be employed by the Project’s 98,504 square foot senior facility uses are not anticipated to generate significant numbers of new students that would be introduced to project area schools. It should be noted that State-mandated open enrollment policy enables students anywhere in OUSD to apply to any regular, grade-appropriate OUSD school with designated “open enrollment” seats. The number of open enrollment seats is determined annually. Each individual school is assessed based on the principal’s knowledge of new housing and other demographic trends in the attendance area. Open enrollment seats are granted through an application process that is completed before the school year begins. Students living in a particular school’s attendance area are not displaced by a student requesting an open enrollment transfer to that school. To reduce any potential population growth impacts on public schools, the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of facilities (pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1)). The Developer Fee Justification Studies for OUSD were prepared to support the school district’s levy of the fees authorized by Section 17620 of the California Education Code. The Project would be required to pay the appropriate fees, based on the square footage, to both OUSD. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-64 The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50) sets a maximum level of fees a developer may be required to pay to address a project’s impacts on school facilities. The maximum fees authorized under SB 50 apply to zone changes, general plan amendments, zoning permits, and subdivisions. SB 50 is deemed to fully address school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in CEQA or other State or local law. Therefore, the site can be adequately served by OUSD with respect to schools and education. 4) Parks and Recreation The City of Anaheim Parks Division of the Community Services Department is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of nearly 800 acres that make up the 57 parks in the City.65 The following parks and recreational facilities are available to serve the Project Site:66 • Riverdale Park, located at 4545 E. Riverdale Avenue • Peraita Canyon Park, located at 115 N. Pinney Drive • Pelanconi Park, located at 222 S. Avenida Margarita • Imperial Park, located at 450 S. Imperial Highway • Olive Hills Park, located at 700 S. Nohl Canyon Road The Project would construct a 118-unit senior living facility. Residents are more likely to remain on-site and utilize the proposed open space uses, which are comprised of two private courtyards with walking paths and lounge areas, secured for the safety of residents. The approximately 60 people that the Project’s 98,504 square foot senior facility would employ are less likely to patronize parks during working hours, as they are more likely to use parks and recreational facilities near their homes during non-work hours. As such, the Project would not increase the demand for parks in the vicinity. Regardless, the City requires the payment of the park fees for residential projects. The City would collect these park fees based on their current rate and fee schedule. The City requires park fees to reduce the park- and open space-related impacts of new residential development projects and requires payment of these fees prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, the site can be adequately served by Anaheim Parks Division of the Community Services Department with respect to parks and recreation. 5) Libraries Anaheim Public Library (APL) provides library services to the City. The APL system includes a network of seven library branches serving the City of Anaheim and surrounding communities, a Mobile Library (Bookmobile), a book vending machine at the Anaheim Regional Transportation 65 City of Anaheim Community Services Department-Parks & Facilities-website: https://www.anaheim.net/916/Parks-Facilities, accessed: January 2021. 66 Ibid. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-65 Intermodal Center (ARTIC) transportation center and the Anaheim Heritage Center with the historical Founders Park.67 Essentially, the provision of library services is the responsibility of local government, typically financed through the City general funds. The APL also receives additional funding through donations to the Library Foundation. Regardless, the City would continue to maintain the library’s existing service levels with the Project without an additional library or alterations to the existing libraries. Therefore, APL can serve this the site with respect to libraries. 6) Summary As demonstrated above, the Project would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services, the Project meets this condition. 4. CONCLUSION OF CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CONDITIONS CONSISTENCY The Project meets all five conditions enumerated for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under CEQA. a) Exceptions to a Categorical Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines Section] 15300.2. Exceptions (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially 67 City of Anaheim Community Services Department-Libraries-About-website: hhttp://www.anaheim.net/1222/About, accessed: January 2021. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-66 designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. (e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. b) Project Analysis Exception (a): Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. This exception does not apply to the Project as the Project is seeking Class 32 Categorical Exemption. Nonetheless, the Project would not affect an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern (see also the discussion for Exception [e]), below). As discussed under Condition (C), above, the Project Site does not contain any habitat capable of sustaining any species identified as endangered, rare, or threatened. Therefore, the exception is not applicable to the Project. Exception (b): Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. Cumulative impacts are two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Cumulative impacts may be analyzed by considering a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b][1][A]). An overview of each impact discussion is provided below, and as shown, the Project would not result in any Project-specific significant impacts and would not have any impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 1) Local Land Use Plans and Zoning Development of related projects would occur in accordance with adopted plans and regulations. Most of related projects would be compatible with the zoning and land use designations of each related project site and its existing surrounding uses. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that related projects under consideration in the surrounding area would implement and support local and regional planning goals and policies. Therefore, cumulative land use impacts would be less than significant. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-67 2) Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species The Project Site is located in an urbanized area and does not consists of any endangered, rare, or threatened species. However, it is unknown whether or not any of the properties on which related projects may be located contain biological resources, such as sensitive species listed at the federal or State level as endangered, rare, or threatened. Nonetheless, as the Project would not result in a potentially significant impact to listed species or habitat, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulative impact. 3) Transportation With respect to construction traffic, it is unknown whether any related projects would have overlapping construction schedules with the Project. However, similar to the Project, and pursuant to existing City regulations and policies, related projects would be required to submit formal construction staging and traffic control plans for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of construction permits. These plans, identified as a Work Area Traffic Control Plan herein, would identify all traffic control measures, signs, delineators, and work instructions through the duration of construction activities. Related projects would comply with this requirement, similar to the Project, and as such, cumulative construction traffic impacts would be less than significant. With respect to cumulative operational traffic impacts, analyses should consider both short-term and long-term project effects on VMT. This document analyzed short-term effects in the project- level VMT analysis summarized above. Long-term, or cumulative, effects are determined through a consistency check with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is the regional plan that demonstrates compliance with air quality conformity requirements and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. As such, projects that are consistent with this plan, such as the Project, in terms of development, location, density, and intensity, are part of the regional solution for meeting air pollution and GHG goals. Projects deemed consistent would have a less than significant cumulative impact on VMT. Furthermore, the Project would not result in significant VMT impacts to the surrounding transportation system. Therefore, as no VMT analysis was required for the Project, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to operational traffic impacts. As such, cumulative operational transportation impacts would be less than significant. 4) Noise Development of the Project in combination with related projects in ¼ mile of the Project Site could result in an increase in construction noise in an already urbanized area of the City. With respect to construction impacts, it is unknown whether any potential nearby projects would have overlapping construction schedules with the Project. However, as with the Project, any nearby project built simultaneously with the Project would be required to meet the same Code requirements regarding construction noise levels. Specifically, construction of all projects would be subject to Code Section 6.72, which limits the hours of allowable construction activities. In addition, each project would be subject to Code Section 6.70, which prohibits any powered equipment or powered hand tool from producing noise levels that exceed 60 dBA for extended periods of time. To comply with this standard, nearby development projects, much like the Project would implement best practices and/or project design features to reduce construction noise levels. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-68 Accordingly, while concurrent construction of nearby projects in ¼ mile of the Project Site could potentially contribute to cumulative increases in ambient noise levels, because the Project would not result in any significant construction noise increases, it would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such increase. Therefore, potential construction-related noise impacts would not be significant. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily because of increased traffic on local roadways due to the Project and related projects within the study area. The net trip generation potential of the Project compared to the trip generation of the existing/entitled church is 208 net greater daily trips, with 18 net greater trips (11 inbound, 7 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 25 net greater trips (9 inbound, 16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As a result, based on the nominal net AM peak hour trip generation and relatively nominal net PM peak hour trip generation increase with the proposed Project (i.e. < 50 peak hour trips), the Project is not anticipated to make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative noise impact associated traffic noise sources. In addition to cumulative mobile source noise levels, operation of the Project in combination with other projects that could develop nearby could result in an increase in operational noise in this urbanized area of the City. However, as described above, long-term noise impacts from Project operations would be negligible, as building operations and human activities inside and outside the Project would generate minimal noise impacts. Moreover, as with the Project, other developments in ¼ mile of the Project would be required to comply with the City’s extensive regulatory requirements that limit operational noise sources to minimal levels. Accordingly, as the Project would not produce any significant operational noise impacts, it would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant operational noise impacts. As such, cumulative on-site operational noise impacts would be less than significant. 5) Air Quality SCAQMD recommends that any construction-related emissions and operational emissions from individual development projects that exceed the project-specific mass daily emissions thresholds identified above also be cumulatively considerable. Individual projects that generate emissions not in excess of SCAQMD’s significance thresholds would not contribute considerably to any potential cumulative impact. SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of the emissions generated by a set of cumulative development projects nor provides thresholds of significance to assess the impacts associated with these emissions. As described above, the Project does not generate any regional or localized emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, the Project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants, which the Basin is in nonattainment, and cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-69 6) Greenhouse Gases Although the Project would emit GHGs, the emission of GHGs by a single project into the atmosphere is not necessarily an adverse environmental effect. As discussed in CEQA case law,68 the global scope of climate change and the fact that carbon dioxide and other GHGs, once released into the atmosphere, are not contained in the local area of their emission means that the impacts to be evaluated are also global rather than local. For many air pollutants, the significance of their environmental impact may depend greatly on where they are emitted; for GHGs, it does not. For individual developments, like the Project, this fact gives rise to an argument that a certain amount of GHG emissions is as inevitable as population growth. Under this view, a significance criterion framed in terms of efficiency is superior to a simple numerical threshold because CEQA is not a population control measure. Meeting statewide reduction goals does not preclude all new development. Rather, the Scoping Plan, the State’s roadmap for meeting AB 32’s target, assumes continued growth and depends on increased efficiency and conservation in land use and transportation from all Californians. To the extent, a project incorporates efficiency and conservation measures sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall GHG reductions necessary; one can reasonably argue that the Project’s impact is not cumulatively considerable, because it is helping to solve the cumulative problem of GHG emissions as envisioned by California law. As discussed above, the Project would reduce GHGs in a manner consistent with applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, including AB 32 Scoping Plan, and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Similar to the Project, all future projects in the State are subject to review for consistency with applicable State, regional and local plans, policies, or regulations for the reduction of GHGs. Therefore, based on the discussion above, and consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the Project’s generation of GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable because the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purposes of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to GHGs would not be cumulative considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 7) Water Quality With respect to construction impacts, it is unknown whether any related projects would have overlapping construction schedules with the Project. However, similar to the Project, related projects would be required to comply with the City Building Code, NPDES requirements, etc. Assuming compliance with these regulatory requirements, similar to the Project, the cumulative water quality impact during construction would be less than significant. With respect to operational impacts, development of the Project in combination with related projects would result in the further infilling in an already developed area. The existing City storm drain system would continue to serve the Project Site and the surrounding area. Runoff from the 68 Supreme Court of California, Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015), S217763, 11-13. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-70 Project Site and the adjacent land uses is directed into the adjacent streets, where it flows to the drainage system. It is likely that most, if not all, related projects would also drain to the surrounding street system or otherwise retain stormwater on-site as all projects would comply with existing stormwater/LID requirements, which would ensure impacts are less than significant. The capture of runoff associated with related projects would occur in either non-erosive drainage devices to landscaped areas or an existing storm drain system and would not encounter exposed soils. Related projects would include a drainage system with pipes that would adequately convey surface water runoff into the existing storm drain or the on-site cisterns. Additionally, related projects would be required to implement BMPs and to conform to the existing NPDES water quality program. Therefore, cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts during operation would be less than significant. 8) Utilities (a) Water Implementation of the Project in combination with related projects within the service area of OCWD would generate demand for additional water supplies. In terms of the City’s overall water supply condition, the adopted 2015 UWMP accounts for water demand for any project that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and long-range SCAG growth projections. The 2015 UWMP anticipates that the future water supplies would be sufficient to meeting existing and planned growth in the City to the year 2040 (the planning horizon required of 2015 UWMPs) under wet and dry year scenarios. The Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation as well as SCAG growth projections, and therefore, has been accounted for in the 2015 UWMP and its water demand would not be cumulatively considerable. Related projects as well as other development in the OCWD service area will be required to comply with current Green Building Code requirements to conserve water, and in addition, larger projects with over 500 residential units would have to prepare a Water Supply Assessment (pursuant to SB 610) to be reviewed and certified by OCWD to demonstrate adequate water supply. Therefore, because the 2015 UWMP forecasts adequate water supplies to meet all projected water demands in the City through the year 2040, this analysis does not anticipate cumulative impacts with respect to water supply from the development of the Project and related projects. Development of the Project and future new development in ¼ mile of the Project Site would cumulatively increase demands on the existing water infrastructure system. Similar to the Project, related projects would be subject to APUD review to assure the existing public infrastructure would be adequate to meet the domestic and fire water demands of each project and individual projects would be subject to APUD and City requirements regarding infrastructure improvements needed to meet respective water demands, flow and pressure requirements. Furthermore, APUD through the five year updates of the 2015 UWMP and the AFD project specific checks would conduct on-going evaluations of its infrastructure. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-71 (b) Wastewater Implementation of the Project in combination with related projects within the service area of the Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Reclamation Plant No. 2 would generate the demand for treatment of additional wastewater. Currently, the remaining capacity at Reclamation Plant No. 1 is approximately 61 million gpd or approximately 34 percent of its total capacity, and the remaining capacity at Reclamation Plant No. 2 is approximately 60 million gpd or approximately 40 percent of its total capacity.69 Therefore, both treatment plants would have adequate capacity to serve the additional wastewater demanded by the Project and, as such, the Project’s demand would not be cumulatively considerable. With respect to wastewater infrastructure, the City’s Public Works Department assesses the anticipated wastewater flows from development projects at the time of connection and makes the appropriate decisions on how best to connect to the local sewer lines at the time of construction. The applicants of related projects will be required to submit a Sewer Capacity Availability Request to verify the anticipated sewer flows and points of connection and to assess the condition and capacity of the sewer lines receiving additional sewer flows from the Project and other cumulative development projects. If it is determined that the sewer system in the local area has insufficient capacity to serve a particular development, the developer of that project would be required to replace or build new sewer lines to a point in the sewer system with sufficient capacity to accommodate that project’s increased flows. Each project would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and comply with all applicable City and State water conservation programs and sewer allocation ordinances. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. (c) Solid Waste Implementation of the Project in combination with related projects within the Southern California region, serviced by area landfills, will increase regional demands on landfill capacities. Construction of the Project and related projects generate construction and demolition waste, resulting in a cumulative increase in the demand for inert (unclassified) landfill capacity. The Project and all other future cumulative development would be required to implement a construction waste management plan to achieve a minimum 75 percent diversion from landfills. Furthermore, as described above, the Olinda Alpha, Frank R. Bowerman, and Prima Deshecha Landfills all have sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project, and, as such, the Project’s demand would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts from demolition and construction waste would be less than significant. Operation of the Project in conjunction with related projects would generate municipal solid waste and result in a cumulative increase in the demand for waste disposal capacity at Class III landfills. The County Integrated Waste Management Plan Annual Report evaluates countywide demand for landfill capacity. Each Annual Report assesses future landfill disposal needs over a 10-year planning horizon. As such, the 2019 Annual Report projects waste generation and available landfill capacity through 2029. Based on the 2019 Annual Report, Orange County has the 69 Orange County Sanitation District, Budget Update, Fiscal Year 2019-2020. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-72 projected disposal capacity through 2029.70 The Project’s increase in operational solid waste generation, in conjunction with related projects, would represent an insignificant portion of the estimated approximately 2.44 million tons that is anticipated to be generated in 2024 (Project build-out year). 71 The County will continually address landfill capacity through the preparation of Annual Reports. The preparation of each Annual Report provides sufficient lead time (10 years) to address potential future shortfalls in landfill capacity. Moreover, a State-mandated 75 percent landfill diversion rate is required by 2020, which would reduce the amount of solid waste landfilled for related projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts from operational solid waste would be less than significant. (d) Natural Gas Implementation of the Project, in conjunction with related projects, would increase demands for natural gas. The State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, regulates energy consumption by new buildings in California i. The efficiency standards apply to new construction of both residential and non-residential buildings and regulate insulation, glazing, lighting, shading, and water- and space-heating systems. Local jurisdictions enforce these building efficiency standards through the local building permit process. Similar to the Project, related projects and future development must also abide by the same statues, regulations, and programs that mandate or encourage energy conservation. SCG is also required to plan for necessary upgrades and expansion to its systems to ensure that it will provide adequate service for other projects. Specifically, SCG regularly updates its infrastructure reports as required by law. Development projects within the SCG service area would incorporate site-specific infrastructure improvements, as appropriate. Therefore, cumulative impacts are less than significant. (e) Electrical Power Implementation of the Project, in conjunction with related projects, would increase demands for electrical power. As discussed above, APU utilizes renewable energy sources and is committed to meeting the requirement of the RPS Enforcement Program to use at least 33 percent of the State’s energy from renewables by 2020. State law requires all new development in California to be designed and constructed in conformance with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards outlined in Title 24. It is possible that implementation of related projects could require the removal of older structures that were not designed and constructed to conform to the more recent and stringent energy efficiency standards. Thus, it is possible that with implementation of related projects that the resulting demands for electricity supply could be the same or less than the existing condition. Nonetheless, the IRP considers a 20-year planning horizon to guide APUD as it executes major new and replacement projects and programs. The estimated power requirement for related projects would be part of the total load growth forecast for the City and accounted for in the planned growth of power system. APUD undertakes expansion or modification of electrical service infrastructure and distribution systems to serve future growth in the City as required in the normal process of providing electrical service. The APUD addresses any potential cumulative 70 Orange County Waste & Recycling, 2019 Annual Report. 71 Ibid. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-73 impacts related to electric power service through this process. Electrical service to related projects would also be in accordance with the APUD rules and regulations. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to electricity supply and infrastructure would be less than significant. 9) Public Services (a) Fire Protection Development of the Project in combination with related projects would cumulatively increase the demand for fire protection services. Over time, AFR would continue to monitor population growth and land development throughout the City and identify additional resource needs including staffing, equipment, trucks and engines, ambulances, other special apparatuses, and possibly station expansions or new station construction that may become necessary to achieve the desired level of service. The City’s regular budgeting efforts identify AFR’s resource needs and allocate funding according to the priorities at the time. Any new or expanded fire station would be funded via existing mechanisms (e.g., property and sales taxes, government funding, and developer fees) to which the Project and cumulative growth would contribute. Moreover, AFR would review all of the cumulative development in order to ensure adequate fire flow capabilities and adequate emergency access. Compliance with AFR, City Building Code, and Fire Code requirements related to fire safety, access, and fire flow would ensure that cumulative impacts to fire protection would be less than significant. (b) Police Protection The Project in combination with related projects would increase the demand for police protection services. This cumulative increase would increase demand for additional APD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. Similar to the Project, other projects served by APD would implement safety and security features according to APD recommendations. APD would continue to monitor population growth and land development throughout the City and identify additional resource needs including staffing, equipment, vehicles, and possibly station expansions or new station construction that may become necessary to achieve the desired level of service. The City’s regular budgeting efforts would identify APD’s resource needs and allocate funding according to the priorities at the time. Any new or expanded police station would be funded via existing mechanisms (e.g., property and sales taxes, government funding, and developer fees) to which the Project and cumulative growth would contribute. Therefore, the cumulative impact on police protection services would be less than significant. (c) Schools As discussed above, payment of developer impact fees in accordance with SB 50 and pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code would ensure that the impacts of the Project on school facilities would be less than significant. Similar to the Project, related projects would be required to pay school fees to the appropriate school district wherein their site is located. The payment of school fees would fully address any potential impacts to school facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-74 (d) Parks and Recreation As discussed above, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on parks and recreational facilities. Projects that meet the established criteria would be required to pay Parks and Recreation Fees to the City for the construction of residential dwelling units. The payment of fees would address potential impacts to park and recreational facilities. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. (e) Libraries Related projects within the City and with a residential component could generate additional residents who could increase the demand upon library services. Population growth affects online resources because the basis for licensing fees for these databases, eBooks, and other digital resources are generally the population of the library’s service area. With additional residents to serve, the proposed project would reduce the overall availability per capita of books, media, computers, and library public service space. Therefore, in order to maintain current per capita levels and licensing agreements, the City would need to provide additional physical and virtual resources to the Anaheim library system. The threshold for determining impacts pursuant to CEQA is based upon whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for 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 any of the public services. The impacts to the overall availability per capita of books, media, computers, and library public service space would not create significant physical or environmental impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 10) Historical Resources See the analysis under Exception (f), below, for Project-specific impacts to historic resources. The Project would not result in a significant impact to historical resources. It is unknown whether any of the properties on which related projects may be located contain historical resources. Any related project sites that contain historical resources would be required to comply with existing regulations and/or safeguard measures as appropriate for that project, including required compliance with CEQA’s provisions regarding historical resources. As the Project would not result in a significant impact to historical resources, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulative impact, and thus, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 11) Summary As no cumulatively significant impacts would result from the Project, the exception is not applicable to the Project. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-75 Exception (c): Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances with the Project Site or the Project that would create a reasonable possibility of significant effects to the environment. The Project Site is located within an urbanized, residential setting. The Project would replace a church use with a senior living facility, which is a typical urban land use appropriate for the residential area. Moreover, the Lead Agency has not determined an unusual circumstance is applicable to the Project. The Project is consistent with the underlying zoning. Moreover, as analyzed in Exception (b), above, the Project would not result in any Project-specific or cumulative traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas, or water quality impacts. The proposed land use is consistent and compatible with the Project Site’s urban, residential setting and is typical for an infill development. Therefore, as there are no unusual circumstances regarding the proposed Project or Project Site, the exception is not applicable to the Project. Exception (d): Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. There are no State-designated scenic highways or highways eligible for scenic designation in the Project Site vicinity.72 There are also no locally-designated scenic highways in the Project Site vicinity.73 The Project Site is located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and S. Royal Oak Road; neither of these roads are designated state scenic highways. However, the Project Site is located approximately 0.7 miles south of State Route 91(SR-91), which is a State Scenic Highway between the intersection of SR-55 and SR-91 to Weir Canyon Road, within the City of Anaheim. For this portion of the highway, the City has designated a Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone (Overlay Zone) that encompasses the area between the Atchison, Topeka and Sant Fe Railroad right-of way to the north and the southern City of Anaheim limits. The Project Site is situated within this designated area. The purpose of this Overlay Zone is to: “… promote orderly growth in certain areas of the City designated as being distinctive, scenic importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the unique and natural scenic assets of these areas as a valuable resource to the community. This area has been designated as an area of distinctive natural and rural beauty, characterized and exemplified by the interrelationship between such primary natural features as the rolling terrain, winding river, Specimen Trees, and the profusion of natural 72 CalTrans website, Scenic Highways. 73 City of Anaheim General Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C-3, July 2020. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-76 vegetation. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004: Ord. 6448 § 1 (part); (November 20, 2018.)” The Overlay Zone provides additional development regulations including: tree preservation standards; single-family and multi-family residential zone standards; commercial uses and standards; industrial uses and standards; and public and special purpose zones uses and standards. These standards apply to protecting this designated area’s “distinctive natural and rural beauty.” The multi-family standard applies only to project sites that are 5-acres or greater in size. The Project Site is approximately 2.99 acres (130,244 square feet) and, thus, is smaller than the minimum site size and the multi-family standards don’t apply. The most applicable standard involves tree preservation. The purpose of this standard is: “Preservation of significant stands and single specified trees in the (SC) Overlay Zone is necessary to preserve the natural beauty of the Santa Ana Canyon environment, increase the visual identity and quality of the area, and protect the remaining natural amenities from premature removal or destruction.” (Ord. § 18.18.040.) According to the Tree Report prepared for the Project74, there are 43 trees located on the Project Site. There is one Eucalyptus species, one Cupaniopsis anacardioides, two Ficus benjamina, sixteen Liquidambar styraciflua, six Pinus halepensis, three Magnolia grandiflora, two Platanus racemosa, seven Pyrus kawakamii, and five Washingtonia robusta. While grading for the new building will require removal of all 43 trees, the Project proposes to plant approximately 129 trees on site. Oaks, pepper trees, and sycamores are protected species in the City of Anaheim. There are no oaks or peppers on the Project Site. However, there are two sycamores on the Project Site and they are located in the footprint area for the new buildings. An administrative specimen tree removal permit is required to remove these two specimen trees. Specifically, the Project meets two findings listed in Code Section 18.18.040.050.0502 and 18.18.040.050.0504, and the Project would comply with the specimen tree replacement requirements. See Figures I-13 through I-15 for the Project’s landscape plans. Though the Project Site is located within the Overlay Zone, the site is not visible from SR-91(State Scenic Highway) as intervening buildings, landscaping and topography obstruct potential views. As discussed above, the Project would need to comply with the Overlay Zone’s tree preservation standard for specimen tree removal permit. Therefore, as the Project Site is not located along a State- or City-designated scenic highway and would not damage scenic resources, the exception is not applicable to the Project. 74 Refer to Appendix M, Tree Evaluation Report for Holden Senior Living, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA, prepared by Arborgate Consulting, Inc., February 2021. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-77 Exception (e): Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various State agencies to compile lists of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized releases from underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking water wells, and solid waste facilities where there is known migration of hazardous waste, and submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an annual basis. A significant impact may occur if a project site is included on any of the above lists and poses an environmental hazard to surrounding sensitive uses. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed by Tetra Tech (Consultant) in February 2020 (this report is available in Appendix L). The Consultant performed the ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13. The purpose of the ESA is to identify existing or potential recognized environmental conditions (“RECs”) affecting the Project Site. A REC is the presence or likely presence or any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the property due to release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The ESA also categorizes RECs as controlled RECs, and historical RECs. A controlled REC is an REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority. A historic REC is 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. The Project Site is currently developed with a 17,217 square foot church and associated surface parking lot; the church building was constructed in 1978. In October of 2019 an inspection of the Project Site was performed to visually inspect for evidence of possible past and/or current environmental concerns. The inspected included the following areas: • Landscaped areas appeared to be relatively well maintained, with no evidence of dead, distressed, discolored or stained vegetation that may be indicative of a REC; • Parking lot associated with the building contains several concrete surface swales in the western portion of the site, which at the time of the inspection were dry and had no staining or discoloration; • A pad-mounted transformer is located along the northernmost rear exit of the building and has no evidence of staining or leakage; • A small storage shed is located in the center of the parking lot and was locked, but it is understood to be used for storage and landscaping needs; • Five 55-gallon drums were observed on the northwestern corner of the parking lot, which contained soil cuttings generated by Geocon West during a recent geotechnical investigation. Additionally, five patched borings less than a foot wide were observed in various locations of the paved parking lot and grass areas; City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-78 • No landfills, dumps or evidence of burial activities were observed at the site; • Solid waste is disposed of into a dumpster, located within a concrete containment area and secured by a gate, at the northwest corner of the building, for off-site disposal and has no evidence of spills or staining; • Five air conditioning units were observed in a brick-fenced enclosure located on the northeastern side of the structure, outside the daycare playground and no staining was observed; and • Small containers (5-gallons or less) of chemicals, such as cleaners and disinfectants were observed in some of the custodial closets and kitchen spaces inside the building, along with multiple electrical breakers and air conditioning ducts were observed inside mechanical closets. A 55-gallon drum was observed in one of the mechanical closets, and appeared to be empty, the label identified its former contents as “Diet Pepsi”. The presence of these containers are considered a de minimis condition to the site. Overall, the inspection did not identify any RECs. GoSearch provided a records search of multiple Federal, State, and local environmental databases, which is included as Appendix I in the ESA (refer to the ESA found in Appendix L of this document for further details). The search identified four listings, which corresponded to approximately three sites located within one-mile radius of the Project Site. The database report did not include any findings for the Project Site and or for any properties adjacent to the Site. The record search disclosed the following listings for three nearby properties: • 555 S Silverado Way (Westridge Pump Station) is listed under the SWEEPS and Historical Underground Storage Tank (HISTUST) database. This property is approximately 1/4-mile south of the Project Site. SWEEPS (Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System) is a historical database (last updated in 1994), succeeded by Geotracker. The Geotracker does not include any listings for Westridge Pump Station, although the station is still located at this property. Based on information provided, an active 500-gallon capacity UST containing diesel is located at this site. Because there are no listings indicating a release, this property does not pose a threat to the Project Site. • 111 North Pinney Street (Pinney Street Sweeper Transfer Station) is listed under the Solid Waste Information System Sites (SWIS) database. This property is approximately 1/2- mile north of the Project Site. Based on the information provided in the GeoSearch report, Pinney Street Transfer Station accepts limited volume of non-hazardous municipal waste. This site is located cross- or downgradient from the Project Site. Based on its location and absence of any listings indicating a release, this property does not pose a threat to the Project Site. • 5566 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (Canyon Cleaners) is listed under Envirostor Cleanup Sites. This property is located more than 1/2-mile from the Project Site, and is likely to be downgradient from the Site with respect to groundwater flow. A review of the DTSC Envirostor records indicates that the site had a release of halogenated solvents (PCE) from dry-cleaning operations, which impacted soil at the site. A review of Geotracker indicated City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-79 that the site was granted “No Further Action” in late 1999, and the case was closed in January of 2000. Based on the closed regulatory status, this property does not pose a threat to the Project Site. The property is still currently a dry cleaners. In addition to the records search, Tetra Tech submitted requests for review of records maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and the AFR. Other sources of potential environmentally relevant information that were searched online, using publicly available databases, included the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) ENVIROSTOR database, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database, and the SCAQMD Facility Information Detail (F.I.N.D.) database. The OCHCA records searched included the Project Site and indicated that there are no records for the Site. The AFR records search indicated that there are no records for the Site. Additionally, neither Geotracker, EnviroStor nor SCAQMD F.I.N.D. databases included any records for the Site. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would not pose an environmental hazard to surrounding sensitive uses or the environment in regards to siting the Project on a known hazardous waste site or any other type of site appearing on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, and a less than significant impact would occur. Furthermore, the Project Site is not located within the boundaries of a known oil field, and the potential for the presence of methane or other volatile gases at the Site area considered low.75 Therefore, as the Project Site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, the exception is not applicable to the Project. Exception (f): Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as: (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; (2) A resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines; or (3) An object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided that the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. A significant adverse effect would occur if a project were to adversely affect an historical resource meeting one of the above definitions. A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic 75 Refer to Appendix K. Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Assisted Living and Memory Care Residential Facility, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim Hills, CA, prepared by GeoCon West, Inc., October 23, 2020. City of Anaheim Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project DEV2019-00172 Class 32 Exemption 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Class 32 Exemption II. Categorical Exemption Analysis Page II-80 resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. According to the ESA (found in Appendix L of this document), the Project Site was vacant and undeveloped from 1938 until 1972. In 1972, the Project Site underwent grading construction. By 1978, the Project Site included the present-day building. The surrounding vicinity became increasingly developed for residential land uses from at least 1972 until 2002, when all present- day properties surrounding the Site were constructed. Tetra Tech conducted a record search with the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS), housed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton, on January 28, 2021.76 The purpose of the records search, which encompassed the Project area and a 0.25-mile buffer radius, was to identify if any documented prehistoric and/or historic-period cultural resources and/or studies were in the search area. Tetra Tech also reviewed the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California Inventory of Historic Resources listings to determine if there were any resources listed or determined to be eligible for CRHR, NRHP, or local listing within the project area. Additionally, based on the proposed activity, which would be the demolition of existing Church upon previously disturbed soils, the area has a low-likelihood for buried cultural resources. In the unlikely case the Applicant discovers human remains during ground disturbing activities, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Orange County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further pursuant to California Public Health & Safety Code, Section 5097-98(b) remains shall be left in place and free of disturbance until a final decision as the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Orange County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Project Applicant must contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendants(s)" for purposes of receiving notification of discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historic resource. This exception is not applicable to the Project. 76 Refer to Appendix N. Cultural Resource Record Search Results for the Holden Hills Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, February 3, 2021. APPENDICES Appendix A Parking Demand Analysis Appendix B Biological Constraints Desktop Review Appendix C Final Traffic Impact Assessment Appendix D Preliminary Hydrology Report Appendix E Noise Data Appendix F Generator Acoustical Analysis Appendix G Air Quality Data Appendix H Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix I Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix J Civil Planning Submission Plans Appendix K Geotechnical Investigation Appendix L Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Appendix M Tree Evaluation Report Appendix N Cultural Resource Records Search Results Appendix O Traffic Data Change Memo APPENDIX A: PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\4251 Addendum Memo 5-19-21.doc To: Joanne Hwang, AICP City of Anaheim Date: 5/19/21 From: Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E. LLG, Engineers LLG Ref: 2.20.4251.1 Subject: Addendum to the Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is providing this Addendum to the Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project dated February 19, 2021 to make the following clarification on the first bullet point on Page 6: Oakmont Assisted Living, 630 The City Drive South, Fullerton Orange. This community has a supply of 61 parking spaces and 118 beds, resulting in a parking supply ratio of: 0.52 spaces/bed The location of the above facility is in the City of Orange, not in the City of Fullerton as reported in the February 2021 study. N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc February 19, 2021 Alliance Realty Partners, LLC and Assigns C/O Michael Wilborn 2462 Dupont Drive Irvine, CA 92612 LLG Reference: 2.20.4251.1 Subject: Updated Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Anaheim, California Dear Mr. Wilborn: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit the findings of this Updated Parking Demand Analysis for the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project located on the site currently occupied by the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church in Anaheim Hills, California. This letter report updates our prior reports dated March 18, 2020 and August 27, 2020 to address City staff comments related to a comparative analysis of parking demand between the Project and existing assisted living communities. This analysis applies three different approaches to quantifying the parking needs of the Project and then compares these findings with the proposed supply to identify any parking surplus or deficiency with development of the Project. It should be noted that the parking study was prepared during the COVID pandemic. Based on this, if actual parking demand observations were conducted at any comparable assisted living/memory care sites, it will likely represent atypical tripmaking and parking conditions, and may therefore be perceived as inadequate basis for estimating parking needs for the Project. Due to the lack of a more current, empirical/field-study basis for parking demand, the three aforementioned approaches were employed in the study to provide solid and reasonable validation that the proposed on-site parking supply for the Project would meet the peak “design-level” demand. In order to satisfy the need for a more thorough comparative analysis, and without a reasonable basis for counting actual demand at any of the comparable communities Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 2 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc due to atypical conditions during this pandemic, a detailed assessment of anticipated operational characteristics was conducted through a refined staffing model and use of a database (Accushield) that provides additional information on caregivers and visitors. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project site is currently occupied with a 17,217 square-foot (SF) Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church with driveway access on both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The Project applicant is proposing to construct a 98,504-SF assisted living facility with 96 beds within 94 assisted living dwelling units and 31 beds within 24 memory care dwelling units. The project will have a maximum of 45 employees on a typical day and the 45 employees are spread over three shifts each 24 hour day. The number of staff is based on the detailed staffing model in Attachment Table 1. The number of third-party caregivers and visitors are sourced from AccuShield. AccuShield is a national leader in senior living visitor management technology with a trusted system that provides a sign-in process for staff members, visitors, and third- party caregivers. Thousands of senior living communities across the U.S. utilize this visitor management system to track the flow of people into their communities. This is the most robust, objective database we can utilize to clearly understand the parking demand for a senior living community. The survey-data research compilation used for this parking demand study represents a sample set of 51 assisted living/memory care communities with an average size of 100 rooms, which is similar to the Proposed Project. To be conservative, since the Project is proposing a 118 Unit Community, an 18% increase has been applied to the third-party caregivers and visitor counts. The development will include 55 parking spaces for Staff and guests. Figure 1, attached, presents a Vicinity Map that illustrates the general location of the Project site and surrounding street system and Figure 2 presents an existing site aerial. Access for the Project site will continue to be provided via the existing right-in/right- out access driveway located along Nohl Ranch Road and the existing full movement driveway along Royal Oak Road. Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan for the Project, prepared by Shelter Architects. Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 3 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS The top portion of Table 1 presents the City Code parking requirement for the Project (total of 127 beds, comprised of 96 beds within 94 assisted living dwelling units and 31 beds within 24 memory care dwelling units) based on direct application of the City Code parking ratio for “Senior Living Facility (Large)” (0.8 parking spaces bed). The City Code-based parking requirement for the Project totals 102 spaces, and corresponds to a Code-based deficiency of 47 spaces when compared to the proposed on-site supply of 55 spaces. The actual parking requirements for assisted living/ memory care communities have been found to be less than the City Code requirement. Variances from the Code-based parking requirements substantiated by a parking study may be approved through the discretionary review required (City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.42.110: Parking Variances). The Project qualifies for this exception based on the findings of this study. PEAK DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR THE PROJECT Approach #1: Using the ITE Parking Generation Manual The latest ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition, January 2019) includes 85th percentile ratios for “Assisted Living” communities, which are expressed in terms of the number of beds and number of employees. ITE describes the land use as: “An assisted living complex is a residential setting that provides either routine general protective oversight or assistance with activities necessary for independent living to mentally or physically limited persons…Alzheimer’s and ALS care are commonly offered by these facilities…” Based on the above, the proposed Project, which consists of 96 assisted living beds and 31 memory care beds, is better represented by ITE’s land use description compared to City Code. It should be noted that the number of employees at an Assisted Living complex is the parameter that best correlates with, and indicative of, the community’s parking demand. Also, the application of ITE ratios result in total demand estimates that account for the parking needs of both employees and visitors. Table 1 summarizes the parking requirements for the proposed Project using Approach #1, which indicates that the application of ITE’s 85th percentile ratio of 1.08 spaces per employee to the anticipated total number of employees (45) results in a peak total demand of 49 spaces. This 49-space demand is considered to be the most Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 4 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc representative of the Project’s total parking needs (employee and visitor demand), and the greatest number of employees (based on peak shift/load) and visitors during a typical weekday. Parking needs during all other hours of a typical weekday and weekend are expected to be less than the 49-space peak demand. Table 1 indicates that by comparing the 49-space peak demand against a proposed parking supply of 55 spaces, a parking surplus of 6 spaces is forecast for the Project using Approach #1. Approach #2: Practical Estimation of Parking Demand This approach identifies and quantifies all sources of parking demand from the Project. The operational parameters anticipated for the Project (i.e., the number of regular staff, third-party givers, and visitors anticipated to be present during a given hour) are presented on Table 2. As a conservative step, Table 2 accounts for the overlap in employee parking demand during shift changes, and presumes one vehicle space per employee, third-party caregiver, and visitor. Table 2 also includes the two spaces designated for two 2- bedroom assisted living units, and two spaces for parking a shuttle van and a community car. The highlighted row on Table 2 (also reported on Table 1, under Approach #2) indicates a peak demand of 44 spaces (at 12:00 PM), which is the absolute peak demand for the Project based on 28 employees, 4 third-party caregivers, 8 visitors, 2 spaces designated for assisted living units, and 2 spaces for the shuttle van and community car. Demand is less during all other hours of a typical weekday, and on a weekend day. On weekends, there would be five fewer employees (Executive Director, Maintenance Director, Engage Life Director, Community Business Director, and Director of Culinary Services), 50% of third-party caregivers, and the same number of visitors, assisted living-designated spaces, and shuttle van/community car spaces, resulting in a weekend demand of 37 spaces (23 employees, 2 third-party caregivers, 8 visitors), which is less than the 44-space absolute peak demand previously derived under typical weekday conditions. Comparing the 44-space peak demand against the future on-site supply of 55 spaces results in a surplus of 11 spaces using Approach #2, as indicated on Table 1. Approach #3: Parking Demand Comparative Analysis Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 5 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc Notwithstanding the application of the ITE parking ratio for assisted living communities, and the practical estimation of parking demand (which takes a conservative assumption that each employee and visitor present at the site would require one space), as described in the prior sections, empirical information from existing assisted living communities were compiled from available sources. Parking demand counts and field observations at any existing assisted living community were not conducted due to the present COVID pandemic, which would yield atypical conditions that are not a reasonable basis for comparison to the Project’s parking needs. The following presents a summary of available data obtained: • Trip Generation and Parking – Proposed Oakmont of Valencia, Santa Clarita, CA - Assisted Living Facility dated January 17, 2017, prepared by Crane Transportation Group. Oakmont of Valencia is a proposed assisted living facility that will accommodate 90 units and up to 95 beds. That study presents a summary of parking ratios calculated based on actual Use Permit approvals of assisted care facilities in various California cities (Alameda, Corte Madera, Danville, Novato, San Francisco, Concord, Upland, Carmichael, Thousand Oaks, Pleasant Hill, and Moraga). In addition, the findings from the American Seniors Housing Association’s (ASHA’s) study of assisted living residences were presented in that study. The parking demand ratios reported are as follows: CA sampling 0.41 spaces/bed 100th percentile rate (maximum ratio) 0.37 spaces/bed 80th percentile rate (design ratio) 0.33 spaces/bed 50th percentile rate (average ratio) ASHA 0.22 spaces/bed • Oakmont Assisted Living, 18922 Delaware Street, Huntington Beach. This community has a supply of 37 parking spaces and 89 beds, resulting in a parking supply ratio of: 0.42 spaces/bed • Oakmont Assisted Living, 433 W. Bastanchury Road, Fullerton. Based on LLG’s Traffic and Parking Study (dated September 13, 2017) for this project, the total parking demand was estimated to be 52 spaces for 112 beds, corresponding to a parking demand ratio of: 0.46 spaces/bed Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 6 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc • Oakmont Assisted Living, 630 The City Drive South, Fullerton. This community has a supply of 61 parking spaces and 118 beds, resulting in a parking supply ratio of: 0.52 spaces/bed As indicated on Table 1, excluding the ASHA demand ratio of 0.22 spaces per bed (as a conservative step in the estimation procedure), but taking the average of the 80th percentile rate for California cities, Oakmont Huntington Beach, and the two Oakmont Fullerton sample sites (0.37, 0.42, 0.46, 0.52) results in a parking demand ratio of 0.44 spaces per bed. This empirical ratio derived from five existing assisted living communities is similar to the Project’s supply ratio of 0.43 spaces per bed (derived by dividing the proposed on-site supply of 55 spaces by 127 beds). Conversations with Oakmont Senior Living and Sunrise Senior Living staff also indicate that it is typical to include one parking space for 15% of the assisted living (not including memory care) units. This is an important distinguishing factor when comparing the Project to other assisted living/memory care communities. The other communities all allow assisted living residents to park their cars at the community. The Project will not allow assisted living residents to bring a car to the community (except for the two 2-bedroom units). Because the Project will not be allowing the assisted living units to bring vehicles (except for two spaces that will be allocated as part of the proposed 55-space supply), the supply provisions for the Project are expected to have an inherent contingency of 15% for the assisted living units. As indicated on Table 1, this translates to a 14-space reduction in the 55-space demand (as generated from other communities that allow assisted living residents to bring and park a car), and an increase of two spaces (allocated to the two 2-bedroom units) plus two spaces for a shuttle van and a community car, which result in a total adjusted demand of 46 spaces. Table 1 indicates that, compared against the proposed supply of 55 spaces, the 46- space demand corresponds to a surplus of 9 spaces using Approach #3. PARKING MANAGEMENT Parking management measures will be implemented to help ensure the adequacy of on-site parking for the Project. The following information was provided by the Project’s operator (Milestone), which has successfully implemented the following programs at other sites, and will be using for the Project: A) Employee Transportation Incentive Program: Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 7 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc In order to help achieve our goal of minimizing our environmental footprint and impact, we encourage and incentivize our team members to use alternative transportation strategies. We will provide up to $100 per month to each team member who participates in any of the following modes of transportation to and from the community: • Carpool with a fellow team member or as part of a community carpool • Utilizes public transportation – Bus, train, metro rail, etc. • Bike or walk to work • Uber to work - we pay up to $10 each way from home to work and back. Balance is a payroll deduction. • Pick up and drop off staff at xyz and deliver staff to/from that location B) Resident Transportation Program • We will provide a van for group offsite events. The van is available 7 days a week. • We will provide a private car with a driver for residents who want to do something on their own. This service will be available x hours per day and y days per week. • We will provide UBER services for residents from the front reception concierge desk C) Visitor Program During Major Holidays: The community plans well in advance for major holidays and increased visitors on those days. The plans include: • Securing offsite temporary parking with a local church, school or office complex • Staff parking in this offsite parking area thereby freeing up on site parking • The community will either shuttle visitors from the parking location to the community and back and/or hire a valet service to bring cars to the offsite parking area • It should be noted that for special holidays such as Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Christmas etc a significant percentage of the visitors simple come to pick up their loved one and then celebrate off site (at a restaurant, their home etc). The visitors that stay at the community and visit their loved ones often times dine with them. For those dining, a reservation system is used to accommodate everyone and space out the arrivals and departures between a breakfast, brunch, lunch and dinner. Mr. Michael Wilborn February 19, 2021 Page 8 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Parking Study\Parking Study February 2021\2-19-21\4251 - Parking Study 2-19-21.doc CONCLUSION: PARKING DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY Based on the above, we conclude that the proposed supply of 55 on-site spaces will be adequate in meeting the Project’s total parking needs. Based on the demand estimation Approach #1, comparing the 49-space peak demand calculated per the application of the ITE ratio against a parking supply provision for 55 spaces (6 surplus spaces) results in a 11% contingency in the supply. Based on Approach #2, comparing the 44-space peak demand calculated from an operational/practical standpoint against the 55-space supply (11 surplus spaces) results in an even greater supply contingency (20%). Based on Approach #3, because the Project will not be allowing the assisted living units to bring vehicles (except for two spaces that will be allocated to two 2-bedroom units), the supply provisions for the Project are expected to have an inherent contingency of 15% for the assisted living units, which result in a total adjusted demand of 46 spaces, a surplus of 9 spaces, and supply contingency of 16%. ● ● ● ● ● We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this Revised Parking Demand Analysis. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 825-6175. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Keil D. Maberry, P.E. Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E. Principal Senior Transportation Engineer Attachments Beds, Employees, Caregivers, Visitors, Parking Description Units, or Vehicles Spaces City Code Calculation Based on Senior Living Facility (Large) 0.8 sp per bed 127 beds 102 Total City Code Requirement: 102 Proposed Supply: 55 Code-based Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-):(47) Approach #1: ITE Parking Calculation ITE 5th Edition (85th percentile): 1.08 sp per employee 45 employees 49 Total Project Peak Demand (Approach #1): 49 Proposed Supply: 55 Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-):6 Approach #2: Practical Estimation of Parking Demand Anticipated Project Operations During Peak Condition 28 regular staff 28 (Day Shift) per Table 2 4 third-party caregivers 4 8 visitors 8 Plus 2 spaces designated for two 2-bedroom AL units 2 units 2 Plus 2 spaces designated for shuttle van & community car vehicles 2 44 Total Project Peak Demand (Approach #2): 44 Proposed Supply: 55 Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-):11 Approach #3: Parking Demand Comparative Analysis Oakmont Valencia, Santa Clarita: 0.37 sp per bed Oakmont Huntington Beach: 0.42 sp per bed Oakmont Bastanchury, Fullerton: 0.46 sp per bed Oakmont City Drive, Fullerton: 0.52 sp per bed Average of Sample Sites Above: 0.44 sp per bed 127 beds 56 Less 15% of 94 Assisted Living Units @ 1 sp per unit 14 units (14) 42 Plus 2 spaces designated for two 2-bedroom AL units 2 units 2 Plus 2 spaces designated for shuttle van & community car vehicles 2 46 Total Project Peak Demand (Approach #3): 46 Proposed Supply: 55 Surplus (+) or Deficiency (-):9 TABLE 1 PARKING SUMMARY Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Number of Regular Staff per Hour (from Attachment Table 1) Cumulative Hourly Regular Staff (8-hour shifts; 50% of staff each shift presumed to overlap with next shift change) Third-Party Caregivers per Hour [a] Cumulative Hourly Total Staff + Third-Party Caregivers 6-7 am 10 12 4 16 0 2 2 20 7-8 am 5 15 2 17 1 2 2 23 8-9 am 6 21 1 22 5 2 2 31 9-10 am 7 28 0 28 8 2 2 40 10-11 am 0 28 2 30 6 2 2 40 11-12 pm 0 28 0 28 8 2 2 40 12-1 pm 0 28 4 32 8 2 2 44 1-2 pm 0 28 4 32 5 2 2 40 2-3 pm 11 34 1 35 3 2 2 42 3-4 pm 0 27 4 30 2 2 2 36 4-5 pm 2 23 2 25 10 2 2 39 5-6 pm 0 17 4 20 7 2 2 31 6-7 pm 0 13 1 14 1 2 2 19 7-8 pm 0 13 5 18 0 2 2 22 8-9 pm 0 13 0 13 0 2 2 17 9-10 pm 0 13 0 13 0 2 2 17 10-11 pm 4 12 0 12 0 2 2 16 11-12 pm 0 6 0 6 0 2 2 10 12-1 am 0 5 0 5 0 2 2 9 1-2 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 2-3 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 3-4 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 4-5 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 5-6 am 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 8 Daily Total 45 33 64 Note: [a] Source: AccuShield - 51 communities included in sample set with an average size of 100 rooms. Average length of stay = 1 hour. The Project is proposing a 118 Unit Community. Therefore, an 18% increase has been applied to the Third-Paty Caregivers and Visitor counts. Hour Visitors [a] Hourly Parking Demand (presuming 1 person per vehicle space) Employees (Staff & Third-Party Caregivers) TABLE 2 PARKING DEMAND BASED ON ANTICIPATED PROJECT OPERATIONS Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Spaces Designated for Shuttle Van & Community Car Spaces Designated for two 2- bedroom AL Units AT T A C H M E N T 1 - H o l d e n o f A n a h e i m H i l l s 52 7 5 E . N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 11 8 - U n i t R C F E , 1 2 7 T o t a l B e d s To t a l E m p l o y e e s B y S h i f t : 28 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 6 A M - 2 P M S h i f t 13 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 2 P M - 1 0 P M S h i f t 4 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 1 0 P M - 6 A M S h i f t Ho u r o f D a y 6 A M 7 A M 8 A M 9 A M 1 0 A M 1 1 A M 1 2 P M 1 P M 2 P M 3 P M 4 P M 5 P M 6 P M 7 P M 8 P M 9 P M 1 0 P M 1 1 P M 1 2 A M 1 A M 2 A M 3 A M 4 A M 5 A M As s i s t e d L i v i n g S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Re s i d e n t S e r v i c e s D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 Re s i d e n t S e r v i c e s S u p e r v i s o r RN AL L P N / L V N 1. 0 1 Me d - T e c h s ( 1 s t S h i f t ) Me d - T e c h s ( 2 n d S h i f t ) Le a d C a r e g i v e r AL C a r e g i v e r s ( 1 s t S h i f t ) 5. 0 5 AL C a r e g i v e r s ( 2 n d S h i f t ) 4. 0 4 AL C a r e g i v e r s ( 3 r d S h i f t ) 2. 0 2 AS S I S T E D L I V I N G T O T A L 1 3 . 0 50 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Me m o r y C a r e S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Li f e G u i d a n c e D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 RN LG L P N / L V N Li f e G u i d a n c e P r o g r a m S p e c i a l i s t 1. 0 1 Li f e G u i d a n c e L e a d C a r e g i v e r LG C a r e g i v e r s ( 1 s t S h i f t ) 3. 0 3 LG C a r e g i v e r s ( 2 n d S h i f t ) 3. 0 3 LG C a r e g i v e r s ( 3 r d S h i f t ) 2. 0 2 ME M O R Y C A R E T O T A L 1 0 . 0 31 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Di e t a r y S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Di r e c t o r C u l i n a r y S e r v i c e s 1. 0 1 0. 0 0 Re s t a u r a n t C o o r d i n a t o r Ho s t / H o s t e s s Ch e f Co o k s 3. 0 21 Gr i l l e / B i s t r o C h e f / B a r t e n d e r Wa i t S t a f f - B r e a k f a s t 4. 0 4 Wa i t S t a f f - L u n c h Wa i t S t a f f - D i n n e r 3. 0 3 Di s h w a s h e r 2. 0 11 LG W a i t s t a f f DI E T A R Y T O T A L 1 3 . 0 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ma r k e t i n g S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Co m m u n i t y S a l e s D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 Mo v e - I n C o o r d i n a t o r Co m m u n i t y S a l e s A s s i s t a n t s MA R K E T I N G T O T A L 1 . 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ma i n t e n a n c e S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Ma i n t e n a n c e D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 Ma i n t e n a n c e T e c h . AT T A C H M E N T 1 - H o l d e n o f A n a h e i m H i l l s 52 7 5 E . N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m H i l l s , C A 9 2 8 0 7 11 8 - U n i t R C F E , 1 2 7 T o t a l B e d s To t a l E m p l o y e e s B y S h i f t : 28 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 6 A M - 2 P M S h i f t 13 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 2 P M - 1 0 P M S h i f t 4 T o t a l E m p l o y e e s D u r i n g 1 0 P M - 6 A M S h i f t Ho u r o f D a y 6 A M 7 A M 8 A M 9 A M 1 0 A M 1 1 A M 1 2 P M 1 P M 2 P M 3 P M 4 P M 5 P M 6 P M 7 P M 8 P M 9 P M 1 0 P M 1 1 P M 1 2 A M 1 A M 2 A M 3 A M 4 A M 5 A M Le a d M a i n t e n a n c e T e c h MA I N T E N A N C E T O T A L 1 . 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ac t i v i t i e s S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r En g a g e L i f e D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 AC T I V I T I E S T O T A L 1 . 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ho u s e k e e p i n g S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Ho u s e k e e p i n g D i r e c t o r Le a d H o u s e k e e p e r Ho u s e k e e p e r s - I L / A L 2. 0 2 Ho u s e k e e p e r s - L G La u n d r y A t t e n d a n t s HO U S E K E E P I N G T O T A L 2 . 0 00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n S t a f f i n g E m p l o y e e C o u n t Em p l o y e e A r r i v a l B y H o u r Sr . E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r Ex e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 As s i s t a n t E D Co m m u n i t y B u s i n e s s D i r e c t o r 1. 0 1 Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e A s s i s t a n t Re s i d e n t R e l a t i o n s D i r e c t o r Fi r s t I m p r e s s i o n s M a n a g e r Te n a n t M a n a g e r Co n c i e r g e Re c e p t i o n i s t 1. 0 1 Se c u r i t y Dr i v e r 1. 0 1 AD M I N I S T R A T I O N T O T A L 4 . 0 00 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ar r i v a l T o t a l b y H o u r o f D a y 1 0 56 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO M M U N I T Y VI S I T O R S T H I R D PA R T Y CA R E G I V E R S Av e r a g e ov e r 51 Co m m u n i t i e s A v e r a g e ov e r 51 Co m m u n i t i e s Ra w da t a fr o m 51 AL , MC se n i o r li v i n g co m m u n t i e s th r o u g h o u t CA Fr o m Da t a He r e i n Su m m a r i z e d Da t a Fr o m Fi r s t Re p o r t Fr o m Da t a He r e i n Su m m a r i z e d Data From First Report Ti m e of da y 5 ‐6 am 0 0 0 0 6 ‐7 am 0 0 3 3 7 ‐8 am 1 1 2 2 8 ‐9 am 4 4 1 1 9 ‐10 am 7 7 0 0 10 ‐11 am 5 5 2 2 11 ‐12 pm 7 7 0 0 12 ‐1 pm 7 7 3 3 1 ‐2 pm 4 4 3 3 2 ‐3 pm 2 2 1 1 3 ‐4 pm 2 2 3 3 4 ‐5 pm 8 8 2 2 5 ‐6 pm 6 6 3 3 6 ‐7 pm 1 1 1 1 7 ‐8 pm 0 0 4 4 8 ‐9 pm 0 0 0 0 9 ‐10 pm 0 0 0 0 10 ‐11 pm 0 0 0 0 11 ‐12 pm 0 0 0 0 TO T A L 5 4 5 4 2 8 2 8 # of Un i t s pe r co m m u n i t y Av e # of un i t s ov e r 51 co m m u n i t i e s 1 0 0 Av e & To t a l Co m m u n i t y Vi s i t o r s Fr o m Ra w Da t a 54 2, 7 7 7 Av e & To t a l 3r d Pa r t y Ca r e g i v e r s Fr o m Ra w Da t a 28 1, 4 2 7 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 41 3 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 76 8 7 7 7 6 52 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 76 8 7 7 7 6 73 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 3 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 82 7 2 9 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 7 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 4 4 54 2 8 5 1 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 1 2 8 95 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 9 8 54 5 1 6 0 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 51 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 87 7 7 6 8 7 52 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 87 7 7 6 8 7 73 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 41 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 2 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 92 8 2 8 2 8 2 7 2 9 2 8 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 4 4 60 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 1 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 60 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 1 6 0 5 4 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 41 4 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 77 6 8 7 7 7 22 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 27 6 8 7 7 7 23 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 23 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 2 1 3 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 82 8 2 7 2 9 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 12 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 4 4 45 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 1 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 7 1 0 0 45 5 4 5 1 6 0 5 4 5 4 5 4 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 31 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 68 7 7 7 7 8 52 5 2 5 1 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 2 68 7 7 7 7 8 73 7 3 6 3 8 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 31 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 23 2 3 3 4 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 72 9 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 9 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 5 3 4 4 4 51 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 9 5 4 2 7 5 4 2 8 5 4 2 8 6 0 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 9 9 51 6 0 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 6 0 28 2 8 2 9 2 7 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 41 2 1 6 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 77 7 7 8 7 7 52 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 77 7 7 8 7 7 73 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 6 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 82 8 2 8 2 8 2 9 2 8 2 8 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 4 4 54 2 8 5 3 2 8 5 5 2 8 5 4 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 4 2 8 5 3 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 54 5 3 5 5 5 4 6 0 5 4 5 3 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 41 4 1 5 1 2 1 6 1 4 1 4 1 77 8 7 7 7 7 52 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 3 5 2 77 8 7 7 7 7 73 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 8 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 23 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 3 82 8 2 9 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 4 4 4 3 4 54 2 8 5 4 2 8 6 0 2 8 5 3 2 8 5 5 2 8 5 4 2 7 5 4 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 54 5 4 6 0 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 28 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 7 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐party ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Community visitorsCommunity third ‐party caregivers and vendors 33 3 3 3 3 3 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 21 6 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 6 1 4 1 77 7 7 7 7 7 52 5 2 5 1 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 2 77 7 7 6 8 7 73 7 3 6 3 8 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 43 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 21 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 23 2 3 3 4 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 82 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 63 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 21 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 44 5 3 4 4 4 53 2 8 5 5 2 8 5 4 2 9 5 4 2 7 5 2 2 8 5 6 2 8 5 4 2 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 53 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 5 6 5 4 28 2 8 2 9 2 7 2 8 2 8 2 8 Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s Co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s Co m m u n i t y th i r d ‐pa r t y ca r e g i v e r s an d ve n d o r s 33 12 1 2 21 6 1 77 52 5 2 77 73 7 3 43 4 3 21 2 1 23 2 3 82 8 2 63 6 3 21 1 44 53 2 8 5 5 2 8 10 0 1 0 1 53 5 5 28 2 8 Ap p l i c a t i o n of ab o v e to 11 8 Un i t Co m m u n i t y 11 8 un i t co m m u n i t y is 18 . 0 % la r g e r th a n th e av e r a g e 10 0 un i t co m m m u n i t y Sp r e a d i n g th i s 18 % in c r e a s e ac r o s s co m m u n i t y vi s i t o r s an d ca r e g i v e r s yi e l d s th e be l o w Co m m u n i t y Vi s i t o r s T h i r d Pa r t y Ca r e g i v e r s Ra w da t a fr o m 51 AL , MC se n i o r li v i n g co m m u n t i e s th r o u g h o u t CA Fr o m Da t a He r e i n F r o m Da t a He r e i n Ti m e of da y 5 ‐6 am 0 0 6 ‐7 am 0 4 7 ‐8 am 1 2 8 ‐9 am 5 1 9 ‐10 am 8 0 10 ‐11 am 6 2 11 ‐12 pm 8 0 12 ‐1 pm 8 4 1 ‐2 pm 5 4 2 ‐3 pm 3 1 3 ‐4 pm 2 4 4 ‐5 pm 1 0 2 5 ‐6 pm 7 4 6 ‐7 pm 1 1 7 ‐8 pm 0 5 8 ‐9 pm 0 0 9 ‐10 pm 0 0 10 ‐11 pm 0 0 11 ‐12 pm 0 0 TO T A L 6 4 3 3 APPENDIX B: BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS DESKTOP REVIEW Page 1 of 12 February 3, 2021 Mr. Curtis Zacuto EcoTierra Consulting 5776-D Lindero Canyon Road #414 Westlake Village, CA 91362 SUBJECT: Biological Constraints Desktop Review for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California Dear Mr. Zacuto, Kleinfelder/ Garcia and Associates (GANDA) has prepared the following biological constraints desktop review for the proposed demolition of the existing church and associated surface parking lot, and construction of a new senior living facility (Project) at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, Orange County, California. A desktop review was completed by Kleinfelder biologist Jennifer Kellerman on January 30,2021. The primary objectives of the desktop review and report are to 1) identify known special status plant and animal species within the project footprint and surrounding area, 2) identify habitats onsite, 3) discuss the suitability of the site to support habitat for special-status species, 4) identify and discuss biological resource issues specific to the site that could be impacted as a result of project activities, and 5) identify potential avoidance and mitigation measures that could significantly reduce potential impacts to biological resources associated with future site development or construction activities. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project is located within a developed neighborhood within the City of Anaheim, approximately 0.60 miles south of CA-91 and 1.35 miles northeast of the Olive Hills Reservoir, at 5275 E Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, Orange County, California (Appendix A, Figure 1). The project site is located in the Orange 7.5” U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle in section 3 of township 4 south, range 9 west of the San Bernardino meridian (Appendix A, Figure 2). The project, as proposed, is to replace the existing church, which is approximately 17,217 square feet, and associated surface parking lot with a new two-story, 118-unit senior living facility with 55 on-site surface parking spaces and courtyards. Courtyards are proposed to include walking paths and tables for outdoor activities. The proposed facility is approximately 98, 412 square-feet, with a height of 25 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project is located in a heavily developed neighborhood within the City of Anaheim. Based on aerial imagery (Google 2020), only developed and landscaped habitat was observed within the study area, which is composed of the project footprint and the associated 500-foot buffer (Appendix A, Figure 3). Developed habitat is defined as areas with significant human impact where native vegetation has been Page 2 of 12 cleared for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, or transportation purposes. Landscaped habitat typically consists of non-native vegetation planted by humans to increase the aesthetic of an area. Developed and landscaped areas are often dominated by non-native species, resulting in what is considered low-quality habitat for native wildlife species. The project footprint is surrounded by residential development which suggests human activity in the area is high, resulting in a low likelihood that wildlife species sensitive to human disturbance will be present or use the study area. The study area is anticipated to support wildlife species that thrive in developed and disturbed habitats, sometimes referred to as urban wildlife, including but not limited to California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), raccoon (Procyon lotor), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), rock pigeon (Columba livia), house finch (Passer domesticus), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). ASSESSMENT METHODS Kleinfelder/GANDA conducted a background search and literature review of existing biological resources data within the project footprint and surrounding area, focusing on species that are subject to state or federal regulation. This assessment included a review of onsite conditions as reported by Google Earth, California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare Threatened and Endangered Plants, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) list (see Appendix C). The CNDDB query included the project footprint and a 1-mile buffer in all directions. The CNPS Inventory of Rare Threatened and Endangered Plants query was completed for the Orange 7.5” USGS Quadrangle. To reduce this search to the 1-mile buffer, the CNPS results were cross referenced with occurrence maps available through Calflora (a source database for CNPS). Lists of potentially occurring biological resources were compiled from these queries (Appendix B, Tables 1 and 2). These results include special status plant and wildlife species (including state or federally listed as rare, threatened, endangered, species of special concern, or unique species) and natural communities. Special status species definitions and information regarding select regularity agencies can be found in Appendix C. RESULTS The California Natural Diversity Database query with a 1-mile buffer around the project footprint resulted in 6 special status wildlife species, 1 special status plant species, and 1 natural community (Appendix B, Tables 1 and 2). The CNPS and Calflora query resulted in 4 special status plant species (Appendix B, table 2). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Information, Planning and Conservation (USFW IPaC) list query indicated two special status wildlife species and one critical habitat within the surrounding area (Appendix B, Table 1). Of the two special status wildlife species, none are expected to occur as the project site does not support suitable habitat for these species. The results are expanded upon below based on biological categories. CNDDB and USFW IPaC Special Status Wildlife Of the 6 CNDDB special status wildlife species, 3 may occur within the study area: American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum – CDFW Fully Protected [FP]), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens – CDFW Page 3 of 12 SSP), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus – CDFW FP). Potential foraging habitat, but no suitable nesting habitat, is present within the project footprint and surrounding area for American peregrine falcon. The shrubs within and near the project footprint provide potential habitat during migration for yellow- breasted chat, however no suitable nesting habitat is present. CNDDB reports white-tailed kites have successfully nested within 0.5 miles of the study area (Appendix A, Figure 6). The following is recommended as a condition of approval for the Project relating to nesting white-tailed kites: To avoid impacts to nesting white-tailed kites, project activities should be scheduled between September 16 and December 31, outside of the breeding season, which lasts from January 1 through September 15. If authorized project activities will start or restart following more than a two-week break during the nesting season, a qualified biologist should conduct a focused pre-construction survey for white-tailed kite nests in the project footprint and within 0.5 mile of the site, within 14 days prior to the start of initiation of construction activities. If one or more active nest (defined as containing eggs or young) is found, a 0.5-mile No Disturbance buffer shall be established around each nest. This buffer would remain in place until a qualified biologist or CDFW has confirmed in writing that the nest is no longer active, and the fledged chicks are no longer reliant on the nest site or the parents for survival. Avoidance buffer variances are not permitted unless CDFW has provided written authorization. Survey results must be submitted to CDFW within 7 days of survey completion. Raptors, Migratory, and Nesting Birds Suitable nesting habitat for raptors and migratory bird species is present within the study area. Raptors, migratory birds, and all nesting birds are protected under CDFW regulations and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA – see Appendix C). The following is recommended as a condition of approval for the Project relating to nesting birds: Vegetation removal or ground disturbance activities should be scheduled between September 1 and January 31, outside bird breeding season, which lasts from February 1 to August 31. If vegetation or ground disturbing activities must occur during the nesting bird season, a nesting bird pre-construction survey is required to remain in compliance. If an active nest is observed project activities may be delayed due to the No Disturbance buffer. If vegetation removal or ground disturbance will occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds within 10 days prior to the initiation of construction. This survey will cover all potential nest sites within a 300-foot buffer for all avian species and a 500-foot buffer for raptors. If one or more active nests, defined as containing eggs or young, is observed, one of the following should occur: a. The biologist will observe the breeding pair(s) to establish baseline behavior. A qualified biologist will continuously monitor nest(s) to detect signs of disturbance resulting from project activities. If signs of disturbance are observed, work will pause and additional avoidance and minimization measures will be established. b. If continuous monitoring of active nest(s) by a qualified biologist is not feasible, a minimum No Disturbance buffer will be established for each nest. The buffers are to remain in place until the breeding season is over or a qualified biologist has confirmed the nest is no longer active. A No Disturbance buffer of 250-feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and Page 4 of 12 500-feet around active nests of non-listed raptor species (CDFW 2013). A qualified biologist may determine a smaller buffer is acceptable when there is compelling biological reason to do so, such as topographic or structural barriers providing protection between the nest(s) and construction activities. CNDDB and CNPS/Calflora Special Status Plants Of the 1 CNDDB special status plant result and the 4 CNPS Inventory of Rare Threatened and Endangered Plants and Calflora special status plant results, none are expected to occur onsite. The study area consists of developed and landscaped areas which does not support habitat suitable for special status plant species. Therefore, project activities would not result in impacts to special status plant habitat. CNDDB Natural Community and USFWS IPaC Critical Habitat The Southern California arroyo chub and Santa Ana sucker stream natural community was identified in the CNDDB query and the Santa Ana sucker critical habitat was identified in the USFWS IPac query. These two records overlap within the Santa Ana River and its tributaries (Appendix A, Figure 4). The development of the site will not increase impacts to the critical habitat as the proposed project will be replacing one development structure for another. However, during construction there is an opportunity for sediment to be transported offsite with potential discharge into the Santa Ana River with potential to impact the Santa Ana sucker critical habitat. Critical habitat is protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA – see Appendix C), and therefore taken into consideration upon CEQA review. Compliance with the California Water Boards Construction Stormwater Program would mitigate potential offsite sediment impacts to the Santa Ana sucker critical habitat. Conclusion We recommend project activities occur September 1 to December 31 to avoid nesting bird seasons. If activities occur January through August, species-specific preconstruction surveys should be completed to assess presence and determine the extent to which nesting birds and/or roosting bats may restrict project activities. If nesting birds are determined to be onsite, mitigation measures are provided to avoid impacts to these special status species or reduce impacts to less-than-significant level. Compliance with the California Water Boards Construction Stormwater Program would mitigate potential offsite sediment impacts to critical habitats and natural communities. APPENDICES Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Tables Appendix C: Regulatory Setting Page 5 of 12 REFERENCES CITED Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. (2021). Calflora Database. http://www.calflora.org/ CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). (2013). CDFW Conservation Measures. CDFWs Conservation Measures. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=73979&inline CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). (2021). RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018407-rarefind-5 CNPS (California Native Plant Society), Rare Plant Program. (2021). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - CNPS. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ Google. 2020. 5275 E Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, Orange County, CA and surrounding area.” 33°50'41.81"N 117°48'6.03"W. GoogleEarth. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). (n.d.). Information Planning and Conservation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC. Retrieved January 21, 2021, from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Page 6 of 12 Appendix A: Figures Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Regional Vicinity Figure 3: Project Area Figure 4: CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences Figure 5: CNDDB Plant Occurrences Figure 6: CNDDB White-tailed kite Occurrences Page 7 of 12 Appendix B: Tables Table 1: CNDDB and USFW IPaC Special Status Wildlife, Natural Community, and Critical Habitat Table 2: CNDDB and CNPS Special Status Plants Page 8 of 12 Table 1: CNDDB and USFW IPaC Special Status Wildlife, Natural Community, and Critical Habitat Name Conservation Status Database Habitat Potential to Occur Federal State State Rank Birds American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Delisted Delisted; CDFW FP S3S4 CNDDB Urban Environments, Mountains and Cliff Sides, River Valleys, and Coasts. Low potential to occur: Marginal foraging habitat withing the study area. Not expected to nest due to lack of cliffs and tall buildings. CNDDB record covers the entire 1 mi buffer. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) None CDFW FP S3S4 CNDDB Open Oak Grassland, Desert Grassland, Farm Country, Marshes. Primary requirements: trees for perching and nesting, open ground with high populations of prey. Moderate potential to occur: CNDDB recorded nests in tall "pines" within 0.5 mi of the project footprint in 2008 and 2009. Tall pines present within study area provide potential nesting habitat. CNDDB record ~0.5 mi from the project footprint. California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) None Threatened; CDFW FP S1 CNDDB Riparian Marshes, Coastal Prairies, Saltmarshes, and Impounded Wetlands Not expected to occur: The study area does not support suitable wetland habitat for this species. CNDDB historic record (pre- 1996). Page 9 of 12 Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Threatened CDFW SSC S2 CNDDB and USFW IPaC Sage Scrub Not expected to occur: The project footprint does not support sage scrub habitat suitable for this species. CNDDB records ~1 mi and greater from the project footprint. Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Endangered Endangered S2 CNDDB and USFW IPaC Riparian Woodlands Not expected to occur: The study area does not support riparian woodland habitat suitable for this species. CNDDB record ~2 mi from the project footprint. Fish Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) Threatened None S1 CNDDB Permanent streams (~7m wide & a few centimeters deep to >1m) with cool water and gravel, rubble, and boulder substrates Does not occur: The study area does not support aquatic habitat suitable for this species and off- site impacts are not anticipated to extend to the Santa Ana River. CNDDB records along the Santa Ana River. Page 10 of 12 Steelhead - southern California DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10) Endangered None S1 CNDDB Cool, clear, well- oxygenated streams, rivers, and lakes Does not occur: The study area does not support aquatic habitats suitable for this species and off- site impacts are not anticipated to extend to the Santa Ana River. CNDDB records along the Santa Ana River. Natural Community and Critical Habitat Southern California arroyo chub/Santa Ana sucker stream natural community None None SNR CNDDB N/A Does not occur: The project site does not support Southern California arroyo chub or Santa Ana sucker habitat. Santa Ana sucker critical habitat Critical Habitat None SNR USFW IPaC N/A Does not occur: The project site does not support Santa Ana sucker critical habitat. Page 11 of 12 Table 2: CNDDB and CNPS Special Status Plants Name Federal/ State Listing Status Rare Plant/ State Rank CNDDB Record within 1 Mile CNPS Record within 7.5" USGS Quadrangle; Calflora Record Habitat and Threats Potential to Occur southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Australis) None/ None 1B.1/S2 No CNDDB record CNPS record; No Calflora record within 1 mi of the project footprint Margins of Marshes and Swamps, Vernally Mesic Valley and Foothill Grassland, Vernal Pools; Threatened by non-native plants, development, and other human disturbances Not expected to occur: The study area does not support suitable habitat for this species and is further unsuitable due to the abundance of non- native species and development. many- stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) None/ None 1B.2/S2 Historic CNDDB record (pre- 1996) approx.. 0.7 mi SE CNPS record; No Calflora record within 1 mi of the project footprint Often Clay Substrates; Chaparral, Coastal Scrub; Valley and Foothill grassland; Seriously threatened by non-native plants, development, and other human disturbances Not expected to occur: The study area does not support suitable vegetation community for this species and is further unsuitable due to the abundance of non- native species and development. Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) None/ None 4.2/S3S4 No CNDDB record CNPS record; Calflora historic record (pre- 1996) approx. 0.5 mi SE of the project footprint Chaparral, Cismontane Woodland, Coastal Scrub, Valley and Foothill Grassland; Threatened by development Not expected to occur: The study area does not support suitable vegetation community for this species and is further unsuitable due to the abundance of non- native species and development. Page 12 of 12 paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) None/ None 4.2/S4 No CNDDB record CNPS record; Calflora hirstoric record (pre- 1996) approx. 1 mi SE of the project footprint Vernally Mesic (sometimes Sandy) Substrates; Coastal Scrub, Valley and Foothill Grassland, Vernal Pools; Threatened by development Not expected to occur: The study area does not support suitable vegetation community for this species and is further unsuitable due to the abundance of non- native species and development. Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 NationalGeographic Society, i-cubed Project Location ^_ ± 0 300 600 Meters Project Location Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Orange County, California USGS 7.5' Quad: ORANGE (1981) Legal Description: T04S, R09W, SEC 10 Project Area 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 1 Inch = 2,000 Feet Scale 1:24,000 Cr e a t e d B y : a f r y j o f f h u n g D o c u m e n t P a t h : C : \ U s e r s \ A F r y j o f f H u n g \ O n e D r i v e - K l e i n f e l d e r \ D e s k t o p \ L o c a l P r o j e c t s \ _ P O S T _ M I G R A T I O N \ 2 0 2 1 3 2 7 0 . 0 0 1 A _ H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s _ S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y \ H o l d e n _ A n a h e i m _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d SANBERNARDINOCOUNTY LOS ANGELESCOUNTY RIVERSIDECOUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Æÿ74 Æÿ241 Æÿ60Æÿ2 Æÿ91 Æÿ39 Æÿ210 Æÿ1 Æÿ57 Æÿ60 Æÿ74 £¤101 §¨¦5 §¨¦10 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 ^_ Project Location Project Location ^_ ± 0 2.5 5 Kilometers Regional Vicinity Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Orange County, California01.5 3 Miles Cr e a t e d B y : a f r y j o f f h u n g D o c u m e n t P a t h : C : \ U s e r s \ A F r y j o f f H u n g \ O n e D r i v e - K l e i n f e l d e r \ D e s k t o p \ L o c a l P r o j e c t s \ _ P O S T _ M I G R A T I O N \ 2 0 2 1 3 2 7 0 . 0 0 1 A _ H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s _ S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y \ H o l d e n _ A n a h e i m _ R e g i o n a l _ V i c i n i t y . m x d Scale 1:190,080 Source: Bing Maps 1 in = 3 miles Service Layer Credits: © 2021 MicrosoftCorporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Project Location ^_ ±0 75 150 Meters Project Area Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Orange County, California Project Area Project Area 500-foot Buffer 0 200 400 Feet Scale 1:5,000 Cr e a t e d B y : a f r y j o f f h u n g D o c u m e n t P a t h : C : \ U s e r s \ A F r y j o f f H u n g \ O n e D r i v e - K l e i n f e l d e r \ D e s k t o p \ L o c a l P r o j e c t s \ _ P O S T _ M I G R A T I O N \ 2 0 2 1 3 2 7 0 . 0 0 1 A _ H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s _ S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y \ H o l d e n _ A n a h e i m _ P r o j e c t _ A e r i a l . m x d Source: Bing Maps California black rail American peregrine falcon Steelhead - southern california dps Santa Ana sucker White-tailed kite Coastal california gnatcatcher Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream Project Location ^_ ±0 0.5 1 Kilometers CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Orange County, California Project Area Project Area 1-mile Buffer CNDDB Occurrence Wildlife American peregrine falcon California black rail Coastal California gnatcatcher Santa Ana sucker Steelhead - southern california dps White-tailed kite Natural Community Southern California arroyo chub/Santa Ana sucker stream USFWS Critical Habitat Santa Ana sucker 0 0.25 0.5 Mile Scale 1:24,000 Cr e a t e d B y : a f r y j o f f h u n g D o c u m e n t P a t h : C : \ U s e r s \ A F r y j o f f H u n g \ O n e D r i v e - K l e i n f e l d e r \ D e s k t o p \ L o c a l P r o j e c t s \ _ P O S T _ M I G R A T I O N \ 2 0 2 1 3 2 7 0 . 0 0 1 A _ H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s _ S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y \ H o l d e n _ A n a h e i m _ C N D D B _ W i l d l i f e . m x d Source: CDFW CNDDB (2021) Many-stemmed dudleya Project Location ^_ ±0 0.5 1 Kilometers CNDDB Plant Occurrences Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Orange County, California Project Area Project Area 1-mile Buffer CNDDB Occurrence Plants Many-stemmed dudleya 0 0.25 0.5 Mile Scale 1:24,000 Cr e a t e d B y : a f r y j o f f h u n g D o c u m e n t P a t h : C : \ U s e r s \ A F r y j o f f H u n g \ O n e D r i v e - K l e i n f e l d e r \ D e s k t o p \ L o c a l P r o j e c t s \ _ P O S T _ M I G R A T I O N \ 2 0 2 1 3 2 7 0 . 0 0 1 A _ H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s _ S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y \ H o l d e n _ A n a h e i m _ C N D D B _ P l a n t s . m x d Source: CDFW CNDDB (2021) White-tailed kite White-tailed kite Project Location ^_ ±0 1 2 Kilometers CNDDB WTKI Occurrences Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Orange County, California Project Area Project Area 0.5 mile Buffer CNDDB Occurrence Wildlife White-tailed kite 0 0.5 1 Mile Scale 1:48,000 Cr e a t e d B y : a f r y j o f f h u n g D o c u m e n t P a t h : C : \ U s e r s \ A F r y j o f f H u n g \ O n e D r i v e - K l e i n f e l d e r \ D e s k t o p \ L o c a l P r o j e c t s \ _ P O S T _ M I G R A T I O N \ 2 0 2 1 3 2 7 0 . 0 0 1 A _ H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s _ S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y \ H o l d e n _ A n a h e i m _ C N D D B _ W T K I . m x d Source: CDFW CNDDB (2021) APPENDIX C: FINAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT November 18, 2020 Alliance Realty Partners, LLC and Assigns C/O Michael Wilborn 450 Newport Center Drive, Ste 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 LLG Reference: 2.20.4251.1 Subject: Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Anaheim, California Dear Mr. Wilborn: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit the findings of this Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project located on the site currently occupied by the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church in Anaheim Hills, California. This analysis evaluates the potential traffic circulation impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment Project. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project site is currently occupied with a 17,217 square-foot (SF) Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church with driveway access on both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The Project applicant is proposing to construct a 94,130 SF assisted living facility with 100 beds within 98 assisted living dwelling units and 26 beds within 20 memory care dwelling units. The Project will include three shifts consisting of a maximum of 44 employees on a typical day. The development will include 55 parking spaces for Staff and guests. Figure 1, attached, presents a Vicinity Map that illustrates the general location of the Project site and surrounding street system and Figure 2 presents an existing site aerial. Access for the Project site will continue to be provided via the existing right- in/right-out access driveway located along Nohl Ranch Road and the existing full movement driveway along Royal Oak Road. Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan for the Project, prepared by Shelter Architects. Mr. Michael Wilborn November 18, 2020 Page 2 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Trip Generation Forecast Comparison Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the Tenth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017]. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the existing/entitled use and proposed Project and also presents the existing/entitled use and proposed Project’s forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. As shown in the upper portion of Table 1, the trip generation potential of the proposed assisted living facility was estimated using ITE Land Use 254: Assisted Living trip rates whereas the existing entitled church was estimated using ITE Land Use 560: Church trip rates. Review of the middle of Table 1 indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate 328 daily trips, with 24 trips (15 inbound, 9 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 33 trips (13 inbound, 20 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Next, review of the following section of Table 1 indicates that the existing/entitled church use is forecast to generate 120 daily trips, with 6 trips (4 inbound, 2 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 8 trips (4 inbound, 4 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Lastly, as shown on the last row of Table 1, the net trip generation potential of the proposed Project compared to the trip generation of the existing/entitled church is 208 net greater daily trips, with 18 net greater trips (11 inbound, 7 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 25 net greater trips (9 inbound, 16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As a result, based on the nominal net AM peak hour trip generation and relatively nominal net PM peak hour trip generation increase with the proposed Project (i.e. < 50 peak hour trips), the proposed Project will not significantly impact the surrounding transportation system. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION EVALUATION The two (2) stop-controlled site access driveways were analyzed based on the Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis for unsignalized intersections for the existing with Project traffic conditions. The Project driveway along Royal Oak Road is forecast to operate at LOS C (16.9 s/v) and LOS B (13.1) Mr. Michael Wilborn November 18, 2020 Page 3 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, for existing with Project conditions while the Project driveway along Nohl Ranch Road is forecast to operate at LOS B (12.2 s/v) and LOS A (9.6) during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, for existing with Project conditions. Appendix A contains the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for the Existing With Project Traffic Conditions. The on-site circulation layout of the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project on an overall basis is adequate. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are generally adequate for service/delivery trucks and trash trucks. CONCLUSION Based on the results of the aforementioned net project trip generation forecast between the existing/entitled 17,217 SF church and proposed 126 bed assisted living/memory care facility with 44 employees, which is +208 net daily trips, with +18 net trips (+11 inbound, +7 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and +25 net trips (+9 inbound, +16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday, we conclude that the proposed Project’s traffic circulation impact is considered “insignificant” based on the “50 peak hour trip” threshold. Therefore, using the “50 trip” threshold, the Project would not require any specific intersection analysis and further yet, it can be concluded that the Project’s potential traffic impact would be insignificant. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Traffic Impact Assessment. Should you need further assistance, or have any questions regarding this analysis, please call us at (949) 825-6175. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Keil D. Maberry, P.E. Principal Attachments TABLE 1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON 1 ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, ANAHEIM ITE Land Use Code / Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Factors: 254: Assisted Living (TE/Beds) 2.60 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.10 0.16 0.26 560: Church (TE/1,000 SF) 6.95 0.20 0.13 0.33 0.20 0.29 0.49 Proposed Project Generation Forecast: Proposed Anaheim Senior Living Facility (126 Beds) 328 15 9 24 13 20 33 Existing Entitled High-Turnover Restaurant Generation Forecast: Existing Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Church (17,217 SF) 120 4 2 6 4 4 8 Net Project Trip Generation Potential +208 +11 +7 +18 +9 +16 +25 Note: • TE/1,000 SF = trip end per 1,000 SF of development 1 Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4251-1 Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Misc\4251 Dividers.doc APPENDIX A PROJECT DRIVEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 0.007Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 16.9Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Royal Oak Road at Project Driveway No.1 Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 3234274636Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1111071162Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 3234274636Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 3234274636Base Volume Input [veh/h] Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-1 CIntersection LOS 0.13d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BAAApproach LOS 13.250.000.10d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.860.860.000.000.000.4095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.030.030.000.000.000.0295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] BCAAAAMovement LOS 10.8416.860.000.000.008.20d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.010.000.000.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-2 0.008Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 12.2Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 2: Project Driveway No.2 at Nohl Ranch Road Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruThruLeftRightLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundApproach Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 61023634040Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2256159010Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 61023634040Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 61023634040Base Volume Input [veh/h] Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-3 BIntersection LOS 0.03d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] AABApproach LOS 0.000.0012.18d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.000.000.000.000.600.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.000.000.000.000.020.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] AAABMovement LOS 0.000.000.000.0012.180.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.010.010.000.010.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] Flared Lane FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-4 0.009Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 13.1Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Royal Oak Road at Project Driveway No.1 Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 8433292805Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 21182701Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 8433292805Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 8433292805Base Volume Input [veh/h] Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-5 BIntersection LOS 0.28d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BAAApproach LOS 11.170.000.14d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 1.541.540.000.000.000.3195th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.060.060.000.000.000.0195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] BBAAAAMovement LOS 10.1913.130.000.000.007.95d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.010.010.000.000.000.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-6 0.010Volume to Capacity (v/c): ALevel Of Service: 9.6Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 2: Project Driveway No.2 at Nohl Ranch Road Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruThruLeftRightLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundApproach Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5413783080Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1103196020Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 5413783080Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 5413783080Base Volume Input [veh/h] Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-7 AIntersection LOS 0.06d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] AAAApproach LOS 0.000.009.56d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.000.000.000.000.760.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.000.000.000.000.030.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] AAAAMovement LOS 0.000.000.000.009.560.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.000.010.000.010.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] Flared Lane FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-8 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Michael Wilborn Alliance Realty Partners, LLC and Assigns Date: November 18, 2020 From: Keil D. Maberry, P.E., Principal Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers LLG Ref: 2.20.4251.1 Subject: Final Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project, Anaheim As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Final Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment Technical Memorandum for the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community project (herein after referred to as Project) in Anaheim, California. This Technical Memorandum presents the VMT screening criteria and applies the criteria, accordingly. It should be noted that the approach and methodology outlined in this Technical Memorandum is based on the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (June 2020) and is generally consistent with the Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), December 2018 (OPR Technical Advisory), which provides additional detail on the language and approach described in this Technical Memorandum. On December 28, 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and LOS from consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled. Lead agencies are allowed to continue using their current impact criteria, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. However, the new guidelines must be used starting July 1, 2020, as required in CEQA section 15064.3. The City of Anaheim has adopted thresholds as contained in the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (June 2020). In late 2019, State courts stated that under section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law is that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. As a result of SB 743, the new metric in the CEQA guidelines for transportation impacts is VMT per capita. The legislative intent of SB 743 is to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals for infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Michael Wilborn November 18, 2020 Page 2 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Report\4251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Final VMT Assessment - Anaheim, 11-18-20.docx PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is currently occupied with a 17,217 square-foot (SF) Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church with driveway access on both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The Project applicant is proposing to construct a 94,130 SF assisted living facility with 100 beds within 98 assisted living dwelling units and 26 beds within 20 memory care dwelling units. The Project will include three shifts consisting of a maximum of 44 employees on a typical day. The development will include 55 parking spaces for Staff and guests. It should be noted that this Project is considered a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) as defined by the State of California and satisfies the following criteria: • "Residential care facility for the elderly" is a facility licensed by the State of California where care, services or treatment is provided to persons living in a community residential setting. • "Residential care facility for the elderly" shall mean a residential development licensed to provide care to the elderly pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 1569.10 and Chapter 8 of Division 6 of Title 22 of California Code of Regulations, as may be amended from time to time. A residential care facility for the elderly must meet the following requirements: • 100 percent of the residential units included in the residential care facility for the elderly must be covered by the license issued by the state of California to provide care to non-ambulatory elderly residents prior to occupancy of the first unit. • The residential care facility for the elderly must provide the following care and have the following attributes: a) Assistance in dressing, grooming, bathing and other personal hygiene; b) Assistance with taking medication; c) Central storing and distribution of medication; d) Arrangement of and assistance with medical and dental care, including transportation of residents to doctor or dentist appointments; e) Supervision of resident schedules and activities; f) Monitoring of food intake and special diets; g) Designed for residents who are physically incapable of travel outside the facility without personal assistance from the staff; and h) Residents receive transportation assistance from the facility on a limited basis for required activities such as medical appointments. Mr. Michael Wilborn November 18, 2020 Page 3 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Report\4251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Final VMT Assessment - Anaheim, 11-18-20.docx • The California Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) administers regulations (Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations) on Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE), which facilities may also be known as assisting living facilities, retirement homes, and board and care homes. An RCFE generally provides services to persons 60 years and over, with residents requiring varying levels of personal care and protective supervision. • The facility will provide treatment, services and 24 hour care, from specially trained caregivers, for the elderly. The facility will be 100% licensed by the State of California as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE). The elderly within the community could have significant health issues including dementia, Alzheimer’s and other types of memory impairment. Medication management and doctor visits are provided w/in the community. Consequently, based on the above, this Project is categorized as “Convalescent & Rest Homes” development according to the City of Anaheim requirements for VMT assessment purposes. PROJECT SCREENING CRITERIA Under the VMT methodology, screening is used to determine if a project will be required to conduct a detailed VMT analysis. There are three (3) types of screening that the lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment. As such, the following guidance summarizes the potential project screening, developed for the City of Anaheim: Type 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening As noted previously, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to include section 15064.3, “Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts”. Subsection (b)(1) states in part: “Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” Pursuant to the statute, development projects may be screened out of VMT analysis based on proximity to certain transit facilities due to the presumption of less than significant impacts. The Technical Advisory reiterates this screening criteria, but also highlights certain project-specific or location-specific characteristics which may indicate the project will still generate “significant levels of VMT”, even when located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor. These characteristics relate to the project’s floor area ratio (FAR), parking Mr. Michael Wilborn November 18, 2020 Page 4 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Report\4251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Final VMT Assessment - Anaheim, 11-18-20.docx supply, and number of dwelling units, as well as consistency with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). If the project has any characteristics which indicate that the presumption of less than significant impacts as stated in the CEQA Guidelines may not be appropriate, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends that the project should not be screened out of further VMT analysis. The City of Anaheim has a developed a TPA map, which was utilized to determine whether this Project can be screened out based on the TPA criteria. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not screen-out under this criteria since it is not within the TPA defined by Attachment A of the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (June 2020). Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening An additional screening methodology is provided for residential and office land use projects. Lead agencies may prepare maps based on a regional travel demand model or travel survey data to illustrate areas that are currently below the selected VMT threshold. OPR reasons that if a project has similar characteristics to the existing area (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit service, etc.), it will tend to exhibit similar VMT. Therefore, if a project is fully located within an area identified as having a below- threshold VMT, it may be presumed to also have less than significant VMT impacts and be screened out from requiring a detailed VMT analysis. The City of Anaheim has a developed a map showing low VMT-generating zones as compared to the County, which was utilized to determine whether this Project can be screened out based on the low VMT-generating area criteria. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not screen-out under this criteria since it is not located within a low VMT-generating area (<15% below the Orange County Average) defined by Attachment B of the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (June 2020). Type 3: Project Type Screening OPR provides additional recommendations on when the presumption of less than significant impacts may be appropriate, in addition to the formally recommended screening criteria described above. For instance, in the discussion regarding retail projects, the OPR Technical Advisory advises lead agencies that because local serving retail projects tend to improve retail destination proximity, shorten trips, and reduce VMT, they may be presumed to have less than significant impacts. Agencies may choose to define what constitutes local serving retail in their jurisdiction, although OPR suggests a threshold size of 50,000 square feet or less. Thus, lead agencies may choose to screen out projects based on the type and size of the land use(s) being Mr. Michael Wilborn November 18, 2020 Page 5 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Report\4251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Final VMT Assessment - Anaheim, 11-18-20.docx proposed. Further, OPR states that mixed-use projects should analyze each land use individually. For the City of Anaheim, a detailed list of uses is provided in the TIA Guidelines that can be screened from project-level assessment as they are presumed to have a less than significant impact due to their local serving nature. One of the uses included in the list is “Convalescent & Rest Homes”, which this Project is considered based on State of California and City of Anaheim criteria. Based on the above, the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Community Project will screen-out and be presumed to cause less than significant impacts since it is considered a “Convalescent & Rest Homes” project. CONCLUSION Consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory and City of Anaheim Guidelines the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Community Project will result in a less-than- significant transportation impact based on the City of Anaheim VMT Type 3: Project Type Screening criteria. * * * * * * * * * * * We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Technical Memorandum. Should you have any questions regarding the memorandum, please contact us at (949) 825-6175. Cc: File May 12, 2021 Alliance Realty Partners, LLC and Assigns C/O Michael Wilborn 450 Newport Center Drive, Ste 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 LLG Reference: 2.20.4251.1 Subject: Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project Anaheim, California Dear Mr. Wilborn: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit the findings of this Final Traffic Impact Assessment for the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project located on the site currently occupied by the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church in Anaheim Hills, California. This analysis evaluates the potential traffic circulation impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment Project. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project site is currently occupied with a 17,217 square-foot (SF) Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church with driveway access on both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The Project applicant is proposing to construct a 98,504 SF assisted living facility with 96 beds within 94 assisted living dwelling units and 31 beds within 24 memory care dwelling units. The Project will include three shifts consisting of a maximum of 45 employees on a typical day. The development will include 55 parking spaces for Staff and guests. Figure 1, attached, presents a Vicinity Map that illustrates the general location of the Project site and surrounding street system and Figure 2 presents an existing site aerial. Access for the Project site will continue to be provided via the existing right- in/right-out access driveway located along Nohl Ranch Road and the existing full movement driveway along Royal Oak Road. Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan for the Project, prepared by Shelter Architects. Mr. Michael Wilborn May 12, 2021 Page 2 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Trip Generation Forecast Comparison Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the Tenth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017]. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the existing/entitled use and proposed Project and also presents the existing/entitled use and proposed Project’s forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. As shown in the upper portion of Table 1, the trip generation potential of the proposed assisted living facility was estimated using ITE Land Use 254: Assisted Living trip rates whereas the existing entitled church was estimated using ITE Land Use 560: Church trip rates. Review of the middle of Table 1 indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate 330 daily trips, with 24 trips (15 inbound, 9 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 33 trips (13 inbound, 20 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Next, review of the following section of Table 1 indicates that the existing/entitled church use is forecast to generate 120 daily trips, with 6 trips (4 inbound, 2 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 8 trips (4 inbound, 4 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. Lastly, as shown on the last row of Table 1, the net trip generation potential of the proposed Project compared to the trip generation of the existing/entitled church is 210 net greater daily trips, with 18 net greater trips (11 inbound, 7 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 25 net greater trips (9 inbound, 16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As a result, based on the nominal net AM peak hour trip generation and relatively nominal net PM peak hour trip generation increase with the proposed Project (i.e. < 50 peak hour trips), the proposed Project will not significantly impact the surrounding transportation system. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION EVALUATION The two (2) stop-controlled site access driveways were analyzed based on the Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) Method of Analysis for unsignalized intersections for the existing with Project traffic conditions. The Project driveway along Royal Oak Road is forecast to operate at LOS C (16.9 s/v) and LOS B (13.1) Mr. Michael Wilborn May 12, 2021 Page 3 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, for existing with Project conditions while the Project driveway along Nohl Ranch Road is forecast to operate at LOS B (12.2 s/v) and LOS A (9.6) during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, for existing with Project conditions. Appendix A contains the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for the Existing With Project Traffic Conditions. The on-site circulation layout of the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Project on an overall basis is adequate. Curb return radii have been confirmed and are generally adequate for service/delivery trucks and trash trucks. CONCLUSION Based on the results of the aforementioned net project trip generation forecast between the existing/entitled 17,217 SF church and proposed 127 bed assisted living/memory care facility with 45 employees, which is +210 net daily trips, with +18 net trips (+11 inbound, +7 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and +25 net trips (+9 inbound, +16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday, we conclude that the proposed Project’s traffic circulation impact is considered “insignificant” based on the “50 peak hour trip” threshold. Therefore, using the “50 trip” threshold, the Project would not require any specific intersection analysis and further yet, it can be concluded that the Project’s potential traffic impact would be insignificant. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Traffic Impact Assessment. Should you need further assistance, or have any questions regarding this analysis, please call us at (949) 825-6175. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Keil D. Maberry, P.E. Principal Attachments TABLE 1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON 1 ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, ANAHEIM ITE Land Use Code / Project Description Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Factors: 254: Assisted Living (TE/Beds) 2.60 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.10 0.16 0.26 560: Church (TE/1,000 SF) 6.95 0.20 0.13 0.33 0.20 0.29 0.49 Proposed Project Generation Forecast: Proposed Anaheim Senior Living Facility (127 Beds) 330 15 9 24 13 20 33 Existing Entitled High-Turnover Restaurant Generation Forecast: Existing Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Church (17,217 SF) 120 4 2 6 4 4 8 Net Project Trip Generation Potential +210 +11 +7 +18 +9 +16 +25 Note: • TE/1,000 SF = trip end per 1,000 SF of development 1 Source: Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2017). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-20-4251-1 Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Misc\4251 Dividers.doc APPENDIX A PROJECT DRIVEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 0.007Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 16.9Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Royal Oak Road at Project Driveway No.1 Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 3234274636Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1111071162Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 3234274636Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 3234274636Base Volume Input [veh/h] Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-1 CIntersection LOS 0.13d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BAAApproach LOS 13.250.000.10d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.860.860.000.000.000.4095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.030.030.000.000.000.0295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] BCAAAAMovement LOS 10.8416.860.000.000.008.20d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.010.000.000.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-2 0.008Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 12.2Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 2: Project Driveway No.2 at Nohl Ranch Road Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruThruLeftRightLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundApproach Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 61023634040Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2256159010Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 61023634040Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 61023634040Base Volume Input [veh/h] Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-3 BIntersection LOS 0.03d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] AABApproach LOS 0.000.0012.18d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.000.000.000.000.600.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.000.000.000.000.020.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] AAABMovement LOS 0.000.000.000.0012.180.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.010.010.000.010.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] Flared Lane FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 1: 1 AM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-4 0.009Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 13.1Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Royal Oak Road at Project Driveway No.1 Intersection Level Of Service Report YesNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 8433292805Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 21182701Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 8433292805Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 8433292805Base Volume Input [veh/h] Project Driveway No.1Royal Oak RoadRoyal Oak RoadName Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-5 BIntersection LOS 0.28d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BAAApproach LOS 11.170.000.14d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 1.541.540.000.000.000.3195th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.060.060.000.000.000.0195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] BBAAAAMovement LOS 10.1913.130.000.000.007.95d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.010.010.000.000.000.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-6 0.010Volume to Capacity (v/c): ALevel Of Service: 9.6Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 6th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 2: Project Driveway No.2 at Nohl Ranch Road Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruThruLeftRightLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundApproach Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5413783080Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1103196020Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor 5413783080Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 5413783080Base Volume Input [veh/h] Nohl Ranch RoadNohl Ranch RoadProject Driveway No.2Name Volumes Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-7 AIntersection LOS 0.06d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] AAAApproach LOS 0.000.009.56d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.000.000.000.000.760.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.000.000.000.000.030.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] AAAAMovement LOS 0.000.000.000.009.560.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.000.010.000.010.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] Flared Lane FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme Intersection Settings Anaheim Hills Senior Living, Anaheim Scenario 2: 2 PM Ex + P Version 2020 (SP 0-3) Generated with A-8 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Michael Wilborn Alliance Realty Partners, LLC and Assigns Date: May 12, 2021 From: Keil D. Maberry, P.E., Principal Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers LLG Ref: 2.20.4251.1 Subject: Final Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project, Anaheim As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Final Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment Technical Memorandum for the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community project (herein after referred to as Project) in Anaheim, California. This Technical Memorandum presents the VMT screening criteria and applies the criteria, accordingly. It should be noted that the approach and methodology outlined in this Technical Memorandum is based on the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (June 2020) and is generally consistent with the Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), December 2018 (OPR Technical Advisory), which provides additional detail on the language and approach described in this Technical Memorandum. On December 28, 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and LOS from consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled. Lead agencies are allowed to continue using their current impact criteria, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. However, the new guidelines must be used starting July 1, 2020, as required in CEQA section 15064.3. The City of Anaheim has adopted thresholds as contained in the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (June 2020). In late 2019, State courts stated that under section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law is that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. As a result of SB 743, the new metric in the CEQA guidelines for transportation impacts is VMT per capita. The legislative intent of SB 743 is to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals for infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Michael Wilborn May 12, 2021 Page 2 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Report\4251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Final VMT Assessment - Anaheim, 05-12-21.docx PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is currently occupied with a 17,217 square-foot (SF) Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church with driveway access on both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The Project applicant is proposing to construct a 98,504 SF assisted living facility with 96 beds within 94 assisted living dwelling units and 31 beds within 24 memory care dwelling units. The Project will include three shifts consisting of a maximum of 45 employees on a typical day. The development will include 55 parking spaces for Staff and guests. It should be noted that this Project is considered a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) as defined by the State of California and satisfies the following criteria: • "Residential care facility for the elderly" is a facility licensed by the State of California where care, services or treatment is provided to persons living in a community residential setting. • "Residential care facility for the elderly" shall mean a residential development licensed to provide care to the elderly pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 1569.10 and Chapter 8 of Division 6 of Title 22 of California Code of Regulations, as may be amended from time to time. A residential care facility for the elderly must meet the following requirements: • 100 percent of the residential units included in the residential care facility for the elderly must be covered by the license issued by the state of California to provide care to non-ambulatory elderly residents prior to occupancy of the first unit. • The residential care facility for the elderly must provide the following care and have the following attributes: a) Assistance in dressing, grooming, bathing and other personal hygiene; b) Assistance with taking medication; c) Central storing and distribution of medication; d) Arrangement of and assistance with medical and dental care, including transportation of residents to doctor or dentist appointments; e) Supervision of resident schedules and activities; f) Monitoring of food intake and special diets; g) Designed for residents who are physically incapable of travel outside the facility without personal assistance from the staff; and h) Residents receive transportation assistance from the facility on a limited basis for required activities such as medical appointments. Mr. Michael Wilborn May 12, 2021 Page 3 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Report\4251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Final VMT Assessment - Anaheim, 05-12-21.docx • The California Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) administers regulations (Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations) on Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE), which facilities may also be known as assisting living facilities, retirement homes, and board and care homes. An RCFE generally provides services to persons 60 years and over, with residents requiring varying levels of personal care and protective supervision. • The facility will provide treatment, services and 24 hour care, from specially trained caregivers, for the elderly. The facility will be 100% licensed by the State of California as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE). The elderly within the community could have significant health issues including dementia, Alzheimer’s and other types of memory impairment. Medication management and doctor visits are provided w/in the community. Consequently, based on the above, this Project is categorized as “Convalescent & Rest Homes” development according to the City of Anaheim requirements for VMT assessment purposes. PROJECT SCREENING CRITERIA Under the VMT methodology, screening is used to determine if a project will be required to conduct a detailed VMT analysis. There are three (3) types of screening that the lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment. As such, the following guidance summarizes the potential project screening, developed for the City of Anaheim: Type 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening As noted previously, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to include section 15064.3, “Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts”. Subsection (b)(1) states in part: “Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” Pursuant to the statute, development projects may be screened out of VMT analysis based on proximity to certain transit facilities due to the presumption of less than significant impacts. The Technical Advisory reiterates this screening criteria, but also highlights certain project-specific or location-specific characteristics which may indicate the project will still generate “significant levels of VMT”, even when located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor. These characteristics relate to the project’s floor area ratio (FAR), parking Mr. Michael Wilborn May 12, 2021 Page 4 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Report\4251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Final VMT Assessment - Anaheim, 05-12-21.docx supply, and number of dwelling units, as well as consistency with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). If the project has any characteristics which indicate that the presumption of less than significant impacts as stated in the CEQA Guidelines may not be appropriate, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends that the project should not be screened out of further VMT analysis. The City of Anaheim has a developed a TPA map, which was utilized to determine whether this Project can be screened out based on the TPA criteria. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not screen-out under this criteria since it is not within the TPA defined by Attachment A of the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (June 2020). Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening An additional screening methodology is provided for residential and office land use projects. Lead agencies may prepare maps based on a regional travel demand model or travel survey data to illustrate areas that are currently below the selected VMT threshold. OPR reasons that if a project has similar characteristics to the existing area (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit service, etc.), it will tend to exhibit similar VMT. Therefore, if a project is fully located within an area identified as having a below- threshold VMT, it may be presumed to also have less than significant VMT impacts and be screened out from requiring a detailed VMT analysis. The City of Anaheim has a developed a map showing low VMT-generating zones as compared to the County, which was utilized to determine whether this Project can be screened out based on the low VMT-generating area criteria. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not screen-out under this criteria since it is not located within a low VMT-generating area (<15% below the Orange County Average) defined by Attachment B of the City of Anaheim Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (June 2020). Type 3: Project Type Screening OPR provides additional recommendations on when the presumption of less than significant impacts may be appropriate, in addition to the formally recommended screening criteria described above. For instance, in the discussion regarding retail projects, the OPR Technical Advisory advises lead agencies that because local serving retail projects tend to improve retail destination proximity, shorten trips, and reduce VMT, they may be presumed to have less than significant impacts. Agencies may choose to define what constitutes local serving retail in their jurisdiction, although OPR suggests a threshold size of 50,000 square feet or less. Thus, lead agencies may choose to screen out projects based on the type and size of the land use(s) being Mr. Michael Wilborn May 12, 2021 Page 5 N:\4200\2204251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, Anaheim\Report\4251 - Anaheim Hills Senior Living Final VMT Assessment - Anaheim, 05-12-21.docx proposed. Further, OPR states that mixed-use projects should analyze each land use individually. For the City of Anaheim, a detailed list of uses is provided in the TIA Guidelines that can be screened from project-level assessment as they are presumed to have a less than significant impact due to their local serving nature. One of the uses included in the list is “Convalescent & Rest Homes”, which this Project is considered based on State of California and City of Anaheim criteria. Based on the above, the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Community Project will screen-out and be presumed to cause less than significant impacts since it is considered a “Convalescent & Rest Homes” project. CONCLUSION Consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory and City of Anaheim Guidelines the proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Community Project will result in a less-than- significant transportation impact based on the City of Anaheim VMT Type 3: Project Type Screening criteria. * * * * * * * * * * * We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Technical Memorandum. Should you have any questions regarding the memorandum, please contact us at (949) 825-6175. Cc: File APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community F:\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\Hydrology\1391-013 Hydrology Report Sept 2020.docx PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT OTH 2020-01295 HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY ANAHEIM, CA 5275 E NOHL RANCH ROAD, ANAHEIM, CA ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL Prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 16795 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949) 474-1960 Supervising Engineer: Mark Nero, P.E. Project Number: 1391-013-01 Date Prepared: September 2020 11/24/2020 12:09:52 PM #[OTH2020-01295] 0013 HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community F:\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\Hydrology\1391-013 Hydrology Report Sept 2020.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................................ 1 1.4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC & HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................... 3 2.1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 3 2.2 EXISTING ON-SITE DRAINAGE PATTERN AND FACILITIES ................................................. 3 2.3 EXISTING OFF-SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND FACILITIES .............................................. 3 3.0 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN FACILITIES .............................................................................. 4 4.0 HYDROLOGY STUDY ....................................................................................................... 4 4.1 STORM FREQUENCY ..................................................................................................... 4 4.2 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 4 5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 6 6.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 7 6.1 SUMMARY OF FLOWS ................................................................................................... 7 7.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix 1 10, 25, 100-Year Hydrology Study: Existing Conditions Appendix 2 10, 25, 100-Year Hydrology Study: Proposed Conditions Appendix 3 FEMA Map Appendix 4 Soils Map Excerpt Appendix 5 Hydrology Maps: Existing and Proposed Conditions (In Pockets) HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING The proposed 2.9-acre senior living center building site is located at 5275 E Nohl Ranch Road within the City of Anaheim, California. The project is bounded to the south by E Nohl Ranch Road, the east by S Royal Road, the north by a thirty-foot-wide private utility easement, and to the west by several private properties. See Project Site Location Map on Page 2. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a redevelopment of an existing site and consists of a multi -story senior living and memory care facility, paved parking areas, and landscaping. The project is located within flood zone “X” per FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Ma p (FIRM) numbered 06059C0156J, revised December 3, 2009 as published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program. Zone “X” corresponds to areas determined to have a 0.2% annual chance flood hazard, ar eas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. See FEMA FIRMETTE in Appendix 3. 1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of this report is to accomplish the following objectives: • To determine pre-developed and developed storm water discharges generated within the project area for determination of design feasibility, detention requirements, constructability and impact on existing facilities. • To demonstrate that the "storm water" and "flood" protection goals as outlined in the Orange County Hydrology Manual have been met. • To indicate the level of mitigation, if any, for the protection of downstream properties and/or facilities due to changes in runoff quantities from this project and show that proposed measures are feasible. • As a supporting document for the project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP). 1.4 REFERENCES • City of Anaheim Drainage Manual for Public and Private Drainage Facilities, 2005 • Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM), 1986 with 1996 Addendum • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); FEMA Map Service Center (Web based) HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 2 HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 3 2.0 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC & HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 2.1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY The project site is continuously sloped from the southwest corner of the site to the northeast. On property, there is a single structure located on the southeast corner of the lot, with considerable landscaping to the structure’s southern and eastern sides. Generally, water is running from the southwest to the northeast, however there are several catch basin inlets which connect to an underground storm drainage system. It is unclear where the system discharges. While there are curb outlets on both E Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road, several of the catch basins are below the outlet locations and no sump is on site. It is likely that there is an additional discharge point on the northern end of the site otherwise obscured by vegetation. Steep slopes exist on the western border which approach the site. On the northern border of the site are additional steep slopes which lead offsite. 2.2 EXISTING ON-SITE DRAINAGE PATTERN AND FACILITIES The existing site is divided into five discrete drainage areas. Existing Drainage Area A consists of a large portion of the parking lot and conveys flows from the western border of the site to the northeast to an existing inlet. Enclosed by this area are Existing Drainage Areas B & C which have independent inlets for additional localized flows. Drainage Area D consists of the northern property boundary which sheet flows offsite into the private Easement. Drainage Area E consists of the southeastern property of the site which drains onto the neighboring public Right of Ways. Drainage Area F is a small southwestern corner of the site that drains onto E Nohl Ranch Road. 2.3 EXISTING OFF-SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND FACILITIES Storm drain runoff that approaches E Nohl Ranch Road is collected in a city gutter system. This gutter caries flows East through the curb return onto Royal Oak Road which drains to the north. At the northeast corner of the site is an existing side opening catch basin within the public right of way that collects all flows. This catch basin connects to an 18” RCP mainline within the Right of Way which flows to the north. HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 4 3.0 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN FACILITIES The developed project will mitigate surface runoff conditions. Additionally, the system will reduce runoff onto adjacent private properties while matching historic drainage patterns by carrying flows from the southwest to the northeast. Flows from interior courtyards are collected in pipes designed for the 100-year storm event and carried exterior of the building down to an MWS on the northwest side of the property. These flows are joined by surface flows on the west side of the site which are conveyed via a proposed ribbon gutter to the BMP. The MWS BMP is fitted with an overflow bypass to handle flows up to the 100 -year storm event. From there, treated flows are carried east along the northern border of the property and are joined by northern flows for ultimate disposal at the reconstructed city Catch Basin. Flows on the eastern and southern sides of the site will be carried via swales to catch basins connected to an MWS on the southwest corner. A bypass diversion system in the driveway will bypass the MWS during larger stormwater events. These flows will join the prior system, for ultimate disposal at the reconstructed city Catch Basin. Drainage on South Royal Oak Road will be routed from the gutter into a new Curb Opening MWS within the ROW just upstream of the reconstructed Catch Basin. This MWS will be outfitted with an Automatic Retractile Screening Systems and will capture the necessary flows for treatment. Flows in excess of the MWS capacity will continue downstream to the reconstructed city catch basin, also now outfitted with a Connector Pipe Screen and Automatic Retractable Screen System 4.0 HYDROLOGY STUDY 4.1 STORM FREQUENCY Frequencies of "10, 25, and 100-years" were chosen as the design criteria for the on-site inlets and conveyance structures. Storm flows were calculated for the 10, 25, and 100-year events and are included in Appendix’s 1 and 2. 4.2 METHODOLOGY This study was prepared in conformance with the City of Anaheim Drainage Manual for Public and Private Drainage Facilities. A.E.S. Computer Software (Version 23.0, 2016) was utilized to compile the hydrologic data and to determine the peak discharges. Copies of the computer print-outs and calculations are included in the appendices of this report. 4.3 HYDRAULICS The storm drain system on site will be designed to fully convey the 100 -year storm event. Storm events in excess of 100 years shall result in minor ponding per the Ponding Exhibit. Most ponding areas will be relieved by overflowing via surface conveyance and exiting into the public ROW, with two exceptions. On the Northwest side of the property, a small area (A2 -1& A2-2) will overflow directly to the north, which matches existing drainage conditions. The proposed condition mitigates this overflow event up to the 100-year storm event, which is improved over the full-flow existing condition. Additionally, both courtyards are designed with hydrostatic relief in the adjacent on-site driveway west of the building. The basement maintenance area also is designed with a hydrostatic relief downstream of the landing itself. These areas are carefully designed to eliminate all surface ponding. Any ponding that will occur, shall occur within the HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 5 pipe, a minimum of 1-foot below finished floor elevations. Calculations demonstrating this can be shown on the Ponding Exhibit. There, the Hydraulic Grade line is shown to be a minimum of one foot below the proposed Finished Floor Elevation. Swales on the South and West sides of the structure are designed t o carry the full flows of the 100-year storm event. The proposed Swale Section and Design Q (minimum at full flow) can be found on the ponding Exhibit. This value demonstrates that swales are adequate for the 100 - year storm event at adequate velocities for self-cleaning. Individual swale design will be performed with more precise numbers for final hydrology, when grading and design is prepared to a higher level of detail. HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 6 5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA The proposed storm drain systems will be designed to be consistent with the following goals and guidelines as outlined in the City of Anaheim Drainage Manual: All buildings shall be protected from flooding during a 100-year frequency storm. On local streets (drive aisles for purposes of this report), flow should not exceed top of curb, for a 10-year storm event, and in sump conditions, a 25-year storm event shall be used. Soil type ‘D’ for the areas to be used as shown on the Orange County Hydrology Manual, Plate A provided in Appendix 4. HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 7 6.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS This drainage study has been prepared to analyze hydrologic conditions associated with the proposed development. This report has been formatted to discuss the existing and proposed hydrologic conditions of the receiving system. The analysis provided in this report provides the following conclusions: 1. This project will not adversely affect the downstream facilities or neighborhood and will reduce the impact on the existing infrastructure. 2. Results of peak flows (Q) for each area can be seen on the existing and proposed hydrology maps (Appendix 4). 3. The proposed building is protected from the 100-year flood. 4. Facilities are appropriate for their designed purpose. 5. The proposed site is using similar drainage patters as existing 6. No incremental increase 7. Flows onto neighboring properties mitigated for the 100-year storm event These results indicate that the proposed project can be constructed in a manner that minimizes the impact of the proposed storm flow to the existing surrounding areas and neighborhood while providing safe and adequate drainage operation for the proposed project. 6.1 SUMMARY OF FLOWS EXISTING Area ID (Node) Area (Acres) 10 Year Flow (cfs) 25 Year Flow (cfs) 100 Year Flow (cfs) Notes A1 0.309 1.06 1.26 1.62 Flow to onsite Gutter A2 0.962 2.72 3.27 4.22 Gutter flow to inlet B 0.377 1.19 1.42 1.82 Flow to inlet C 0.168 0.5 0.59 0.76 Flow to inlet D 0.276 0.96 1.15 1.49 Flow offsite, N E 0.894 3.25 3.87 4.98 Flow offsite, SE F 0.003 0.03 0.04 0.05 Flow offsite, S TOTAL 2.989 9.71 11.60 14.94 HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 8 PROPOSED Area ID (Node) Area (Acres) 10 Year Flow (cfs) 25 Year Flow (cfs) 100 Year Flow (cfs) Notes A1-1 0.34 1.24 1.47 1.89 S. Courtyard Flows to MWS A A1-2 0.40 1.45 1.73 2.22 N. Courtyard Flows to MWS A A1-3 0.13 0.47 0.56 0.72 Overland Flows to A1-4 A1-4 0.76 2.38 2.84 3.67 Gutter Flows to MWS A A2-1 0.04 0.15 0.17 0.22 Joins outlet pipe for MWS A A2-2 0.20 0.64 0.77 0.99 Joins outlet pipe for MWS A A3-1 0.27 0.87 1.03 1.32 Swale Flows to MWS B A3-2 0.16 0.50 0.60 0.77 Swale, joins A3-1 flows to MWS B A3-3 0.17 0.52 0.62 0.80 Swale, joins A3-2 flows to MWS B A3-4 0.36 1.28 1.52 1.95 Flows to MWS B via pipe A3-5 0.15 0.45 0.54 0.69 Flows to MWS B via Curb Opening B 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.06 Offsite Flows TOTAL* 2.99 9.27 11.07 14.21 *Flows are not additive due to Confluencing RUNOFF COMPARISON Design Storm Proposed Flow (cfs) Existing Flow (cfs) ∆Q (cfs) % Change 10-Yr Design Storm 9.27 9.71 -0.37 -4.5% 25-Yr Design Storm 11.07 11.60 -0.44 -4.6% 100-Yr Design Storm 14.21 14.94 -0.65 -4.9% HYDROLOGY REPORT September 2020 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 9 7.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1 10, 25, 100- Year Hydrology Study: Existing Conditions Appendix 2 10, 25, 100- Year Hydrology Study: Proposed Conditions Appendix 3 FEMA Map Appendix 4 Soils Map Excerpt Appendix 5 Hydrology Maps: Existing and Proposed Conditions (In Pockets) Appendix 6 Ponding Exhibit (In pockets) Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community APPENDIX 1 10, 25, 100-YEAR HYDROLOGY STUDY: EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Q, 10 Year Flows Page 1 of 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Ave Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92606 Existing Q, 10 Year Flows Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community DATE: 03/11/2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 1391E010.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:47 03/11/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *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 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 Existing Q, 10 Year Flows Page 2 of 6 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 511.65 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 493.74 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.538 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.829 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.31 0.20 0.100 75 5.54 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.06 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.06 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.74 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.36 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 392.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 62.60 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 35.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.015 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.025 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.43 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.49 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.98 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.91 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.19 Tc(MIN.) = 7.73 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.163 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.96 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.72 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.27 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.60 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.87 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.28 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.12 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 722.00 FEET. Existing Q, 10 Year Flows Page 3 of 6 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 235.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 500.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.66 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.399 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.524 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.38 0.20 0.100 75 6.40 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.38 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.19 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 31.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 196.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 496.96 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.158 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.305 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.17 0.20 0.100 75 7.16 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.50 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 41.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 44.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 497.82 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 467.61 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 Existing Q, 10 Year Flows Page 4 of 6 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 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.) URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 0.28 0.20 1.000 82 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.96 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.96 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 51.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 192.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 500.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.47 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.89 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.25 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.25 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 61.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 21.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 511.65 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 505.29 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 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.) URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 0.01 0.20 1.000 82 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.03 ============================================================================ Existing Q, 10 Year Flows Page 5 of 6 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.0 TC(MIN.) = 5.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.000 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.03 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Existing Q, 10 Year Flows Page 6 of 6 Existing Q, 25 Year Flows Page 1 of 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Ave Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92606 Existing Q, 25 Year Flows Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community DATE: 03/11/2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 1391E025.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:49 03/11/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 25.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *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 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 Existing Q, 25 Year Flows Page 2 of 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 511.65 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 493.74 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.538 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.553 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.31 0.20 0.100 75 5.54 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.26 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.26 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 61 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.74 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.36 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 392.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 62.60 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 35.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.015 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.025 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.90 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.10 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.11 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.00 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.10 Tc(MIN.) = 7.64 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.795 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN Existing Q, 25 Year Flows Page 3 of 5 COMMERCIAL D 0.96 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.27 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.27 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.32 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.58 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.43 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 722.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 235.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 500.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.66 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.399 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.195 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.38 0.20 0.100 75 6.40 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.42 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.38 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.42 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 31.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 196.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 496.96 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.158 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.937 Existing Q, 25 Year Flows Page 4 of 5 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.17 0.20 0.100 75 7.16 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.59 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.59 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 41.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 44.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 497.82 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 467.61 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.824 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.) URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 0.28 0.20 1.000 82 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.15 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 51.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 192.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 500.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.47 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.824 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): Existing Q, 25 Year Flows Page 5 of 5 DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.89 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.87 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.87 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 61.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 21.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 511.65 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 505.29 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.824 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.) URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 0.01 0.20 1.000 82 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.04 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.04 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.0 TC(MIN.) = 5.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.000 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.04 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Existing Q, 100 Year Flows Page 1 of 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Ave Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92606 Existing Q, 100 Year Flows Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community DATE: 03/11/2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 1391E100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:53 03/11/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *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 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 Existing Q, 100 Year Flows Page 2 of 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 511.65 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 493.74 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.538 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.835 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.) COMMERCIAL D 0.31 0.20 0.100 91 5.54 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.62 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.62 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 61 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.74 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.36 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 392.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 62.60 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 35.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.015 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.025 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.74 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.02 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.31 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.14 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.97 Tc(MIN.) = 7.51 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.900 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN Existing Q, 100 Year Flows Page 3 of 5 COMMERCIAL D 0.96 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.22 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.27 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.58 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.65 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.65 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.40 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 722.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 235.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 500.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.66 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.399 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.372 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.) COMMERCIAL D 0.38 0.20 0.100 91 6.40 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.82 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.38 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.82 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 31.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 196.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 496.96 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.158 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.037 Existing Q, 100 Year Flows Page 4 of 5 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.) COMMERCIAL D 0.17 0.20 0.100 91 7.16 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.76 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 41.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 44.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 497.82 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 467.61 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 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.) URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 0.28 0.20 1.000 95 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.49 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 51.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 192.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 500.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.47 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): Existing Q, 100 Year Flows Page 5 of 5 DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.89 0.20 0.100 91 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.96 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.96 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 61.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 21.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 511.65 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 505.29 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 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.) URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 0.01 0.20 1.000 95 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.05 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.05 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.0 TC(MIN.) = 5.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.000 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.05 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community APPENDIX 2 10, 25, 100-YEAR HYDROLOGY STUDY: PROPOSED CONDITIONS Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 1 of 12 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Ave Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92606 Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community DATE: 09/30/2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 1391P010.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:14 09/30/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 10.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *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) = 35.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.16 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.34 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.24 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 2 of 12 >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 497.16 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 493.35 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 215.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.90 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.24 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.73 Tc(MIN.) = 5.73 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 250.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.73 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.75 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.24 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 71.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.05 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.40 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.45 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.45 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 497.05 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 493.35 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.90 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.45 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.40 Tc(MIN.) = 5.40 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 211.00 FEET. Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 3 of 12 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.40 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.89 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.45 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.24 5.73 3.754 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.3 100.00 2 1.45 5.40 3.886 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 100.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.66 5.40 3.886 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 2 2.64 5.73 3.754 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.66 Tc(MIN.) = 5.40 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 250.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 493.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.11 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 183.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.14 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.66 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.43 Tc(MIN.) = 5.82 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 433.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.82 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.72 Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 4 of 12 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.74 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.66 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 121.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 104.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 502.85 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.13 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.47 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 497.21 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 489.62 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 320.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.120 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.03500 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.67 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.500 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.76 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.63 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.61 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.47 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.48 Tc(MIN.) = 6.48 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.38 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.79 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.73 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.90 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 0.91 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 424.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 1 Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 5 of 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.48 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.79 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.66 5.82 3.720 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 1 2.64 6.16 3.602 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 2 2.79 6.48 3.500 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 120.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 5.32 5.82 3.720 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 100.00 2 5.37 6.16 3.602 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 3 5.35 6.48 3.500 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 120.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.37 Tc(MIN.) = 6.16 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 433.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.11 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 19.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.42 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.37 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 6.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 104.00 = 452.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.18 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.59 Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 6 of 12 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.63 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.37 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 73.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 507.92 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 489.23 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.04 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.15 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.15 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 5.32 5.84 3.712 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 100.00 1 5.37 6.18 3.595 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 1 5.35 6.50 3.493 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 120.00 2 0.15 5.00 4.060 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.0 130.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 5.13 5.00 4.060 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.3 130.00 2 5.46 5.84 3.712 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 3 5.50 6.18 3.595 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 4 5.48 6.50 3.493 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.7 120.00 Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 7 of 12 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.50 Tc(MIN.) = 6.18 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.63 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 104.00 = 452.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.18 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.595 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.20 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.64 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.83 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.88 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.1 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.30 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.88 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.56 Tc(MIN.) = 6.74 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 797.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 238.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 494.19 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.203 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.588 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.27 0.20 0.100 75 6.20 Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 8 of 12 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.87 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 494.19 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.98 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 128.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.00 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.87 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.30 Tc(MIN.) = 6.51 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 366.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.51 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.490 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.16 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.34 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.98 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 477.09 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 98.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.97 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.34 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.18 Tc(MIN.) = 6.69 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 203.00 = 464.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.69 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.436 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 9 of 12 COMMERCIAL D 0.17 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.52 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.84 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 477.09 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 476.63 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.27 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.84 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.20 Tc(MIN.) = 6.89 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 514.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.89 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.84 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 211.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 492.58 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.208 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.966 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.36 0.20 0.100 75 5.21 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.28 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.28 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 10 of 12 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 492.58 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 476.63 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 116.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.25 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.28 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.19 Tc(MIN.) = 5.40 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 316.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.40 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.89 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.28 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.84 6.89 3.379 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.6 200.00 2 1.28 5.40 3.886 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 210.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.94 5.40 3.886 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.8 210.00 2 2.96 6.89 3.379 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.96 Tc(MIN.) = 6.89 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 514.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 476.63 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 475.13 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 23.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.96 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.96 Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 11 of 12 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 Tc(MIN.) = 6.92 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 205.00 = 537.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.92 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.369 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.15 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.45 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.11 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.35 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.40 5.44 3.870 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 210.00 2 3.35 6.92 3.369 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 NEW PEAK FLOW DATA ARE: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.40 Tc(MIN.) = 5.44 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.98 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 475.13 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 13.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 19.09 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.40 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 Tc(MIN.) = 5.45 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 550.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.40 5.45 3.865 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 210.00 2 3.35 6.94 3.365 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 550.00 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 5.60 5.57 3.818 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 130.00 Proposed Q, 10 Year Flows Page 12 of 12 2 5.85 6.40 3.523 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.8 100.00 3 5.88 6.74 3.421 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.8 100.00 4 5.84 7.06 3.331 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.9 120.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 797.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 8.95 5.45 3.865 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.5 210.00 2 8.99 5.57 3.818 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.5 130.00 3 9.21 6.40 3.523 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.8 100.00 4 9.23 6.74 3.421 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.9 100.00 5 9.20 6.94 3.365 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 3.0 200.00 6 9.16 7.06 3.331 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 3.0 120.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.23 Tc(MIN.) = 6.740 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.92 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 797.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 479.25 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 476.57 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.060 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.01 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.04 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.04 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.0 TC(MIN.) = 5.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.04 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 1 of 12 _________________________________________________________________________ ************************************************************************* RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Ave Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92606 Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community DATE: 09/30/2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 1391P025.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:14 09/30/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 25.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 10.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *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) = 35.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.16 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.824 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.34 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.47 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 2 of 12 >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 497.16 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 493.35 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 215.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.13 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.47 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.70 Tc(MIN.) = 5.70 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 250.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.70 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.48 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.47 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 71.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.05 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.824 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.40 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.73 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.73 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 497.05 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 493.35 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.19 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.73 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.38 Tc(MIN.) = 5.38 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 211.00 FEET. Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 3 of 12 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.38 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.63 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.73 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.47 5.70 4.479 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.3 100.00 2 1.73 5.38 4.629 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 100.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.16 5.38 4.629 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 2 3.14 5.70 4.479 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.16 Tc(MIN.) = 5.38 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 250.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 493.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.11 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 183.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.4 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.47 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.16 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.41 Tc(MIN.) = 5.79 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 433.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.79 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.44 Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 4 of 12 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.74 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.16 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 121.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 104.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 502.85 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.824 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.13 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.56 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.56 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 497.21 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 489.62 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 320.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.120 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.03500 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.67 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.176 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.76 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.95 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.68 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.21 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.22 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.45 Tc(MIN.) = 6.45 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.84 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.33 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.60 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.97 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 0.98 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 424.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 1 Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 5 of 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.45 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.18 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.33 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.16 5.79 4.442 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 1 3.14 6.11 4.307 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 2 3.33 6.45 4.176 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 120.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 6.34 5.79 4.442 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 100.00 2 6.39 6.11 4.307 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 3 6.38 6.45 4.176 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 120.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.39 Tc(MIN.) = 6.11 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 433.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.11 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 19.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.4 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.05 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.39 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 6.13 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 104.00 = 452.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.13 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.30 Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 6 of 12 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.63 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.39 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 73.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 507.92 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 489.23 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.824 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.04 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.17 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.17 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.82 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.17 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 6.34 5.81 4.432 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 100.00 1 6.39 6.13 4.298 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 1 6.38 6.47 4.169 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 120.00 2 0.17 5.00 4.824 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.0 130.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 6.12 5.00 4.824 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.3 130.00 2 6.50 5.81 4.432 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 3 6.55 6.13 4.298 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 4 6.53 6.47 4.169 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.7 120.00 Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 7 of 12 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.55 Tc(MIN.) = 6.13 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.62 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 104.00 = 452.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.13 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.298 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.20 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.82 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.02 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.77 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.02 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.53 Tc(MIN.) = 6.66 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 797.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 238.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 494.19 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.203 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.269 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.27 0.20 0.100 75 6.20 Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 8 of 12 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.03 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 494.19 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.98 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 128.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.37 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.03 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.29 Tc(MIN.) = 6.49 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 366.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.49 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.161 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.16 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.60 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.60 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.98 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 477.09 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 98.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.47 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.60 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.17 Tc(MIN.) = 6.67 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 203.00 = 464.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.67 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.099 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 9 of 12 COMMERCIAL D 0.17 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.62 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.20 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 477.09 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 476.63 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.43 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.20 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.19 Tc(MIN.) = 6.85 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 514.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.85 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.20 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 211.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 492.58 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.208 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.714 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.36 0.20 0.100 75 5.21 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.52 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 10 of 12 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 492.58 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 476.63 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 116.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.79 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.52 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.18 Tc(MIN.) = 5.39 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 316.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.39 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.62 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.52 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.20 6.85 4.035 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.6 200.00 2 1.52 5.39 4.624 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 210.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.51 5.39 4.624 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.8 210.00 2 3.53 6.85 4.035 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.53 Tc(MIN.) = 6.85 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 514.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 476.63 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 475.13 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 23.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.43 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.53 Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 11 of 12 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 Tc(MIN.) = 6.89 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 205.00 = 537.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.89 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.023 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.15 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.11 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.00 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.05 5.42 4.606 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 210.00 2 4.00 6.89 4.023 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 NEW PEAK FLOW DATA ARE: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.05 Tc(MIN.) = 5.42 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.98 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 475.13 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 13.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 20.09 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.05 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 Tc(MIN.) = 5.43 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 550.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.05 5.43 4.601 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 210.00 2 4.00 6.90 4.020 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 550.00 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 6.69 5.54 4.551 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 130.00 Proposed Q, 25 Year Flows Page 12 of 12 2 6.99 6.34 4.217 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.8 100.00 3 7.02 6.66 4.100 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.8 100.00 4 6.98 7.01 3.985 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.9 120.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 797.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 10.69 5.43 4.601 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.5 210.00 2 10.74 5.54 4.551 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.5 130.00 3 11.00 6.34 4.217 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.8 100.00 4 11.03 6.66 4.100 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.9 100.00 5 10.99 6.90 4.020 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 3.0 200.00 6 10.95 7.01 3.985 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 3.0 120.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.03 Tc(MIN.) = 6.664 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.91 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 797.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 479.25 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 476.57 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.824 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.01 0.20 0.100 75 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.04 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.04 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.0 TC(MIN.) = 5.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.04 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 1 of 13 _________________________________________________________________________ ************************************************************************* RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Ave Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92606 Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community DATE: 09/30/2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 1391P100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 12:57 09/30/2020 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *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) = 35.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.16 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 2 of 13 DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.34 0.20 0.100 91 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.89 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.89 **************************************************************************** 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) = 497.16 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 493.35 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 215.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 12.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.4 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.47 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.89 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.65 Tc(MIN.) = 5.65 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 250.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.65 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.77 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.89 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 71.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.05 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 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.) COMMERCIAL D 0.40 0.20 0.100 91 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.22 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.22 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 31 Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 3 of 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 497.05 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 493.35 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 12.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.63 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.22 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 Tc(MIN.) = 5.35 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 211.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.35 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.95 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.22 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.89 5.65 5.766 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.3 100.00 2 2.22 5.35 5.951 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 100.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.06 5.35 5.951 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 2 4.04 5.65 5.766 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.06 Tc(MIN.) = 5.35 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 250.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** 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) = 493.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.11 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 183.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.91 Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 4 of 13 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.06 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.39 Tc(MIN.) = 5.74 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 433.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.74 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.74 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.06 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 121.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 104.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 502.85 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 497.20 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 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.) COMMERCIAL D 0.13 0.20 0.100 91 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.72 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.72 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 497.21 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 489.62 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 320.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.120 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.03500 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.67 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.379 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.76 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.52 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.85 Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 5 of 13 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.27 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.38 Tc(MIN.) = 6.38 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.67 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.29 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.82 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.15 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 1.12 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 424.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.38 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.29 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.06 5.74 5.718 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 1 4.04 6.04 5.552 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 100.00 2 4.29 6.38 5.379 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 120.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 8.17 5.74 5.718 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 100.00 2 8.23 6.04 5.552 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 3 8.20 6.38 5.379 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 120.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.23 Tc(MIN.) = 6.04 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 433.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.11 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 19.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.94 Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 6 of 13 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.23 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 6.06 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 104.00 = 452.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.06 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.54 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.63 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.23 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 73.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 507.92 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 489.23 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 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.) COMMERCIAL D 0.04 0.20 0.100 91 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.22 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.22 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.22 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 8.17 5.76 5.707 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 100.00 Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 7 of 13 1 8.23 6.06 5.541 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 1 8.20 6.40 5.369 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 120.00 2 0.22 5.00 6.187 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.0 130.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 7.91 5.00 6.187 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.4 130.00 2 8.37 5.76 5.707 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 3 8.43 6.06 5.541 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 100.00 4 8.40 6.40 5.369 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.7 120.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.43 Tc(MIN.) = 6.06 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.62 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 104.00 = 452.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.06 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.541 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.20 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.99 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.82 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.05 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 345.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.41 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.05 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.50 Tc(MIN.) = 6.57 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 797.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 8 of 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 238.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 494.19 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.203 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.468 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.) COMMERCIAL D 0.27 0.20 0.100 91 6.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.32 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 494.19 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.98 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 128.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 12.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.91 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.32 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.27 Tc(MIN.) = 6.47 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 366.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.47 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.336 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.16 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.06 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.98 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 477.09 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 98.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 12.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.7 INCHES Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 9 of 13 PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.15 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.06 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.16 Tc(MIN.) = 6.63 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 203.00 = 464.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.63 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.262 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.17 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.80 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.83 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 477.09 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 476.63 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.65 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.83 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.18 Tc(MIN.) = 6.81 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 514.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.81 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.18 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.83 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 211.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 498.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 492.58 Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 10 of 13 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.208 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.044 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.) COMMERCIAL D 0.36 0.20 0.100 91 5.21 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.95 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 492.58 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 476.63 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 116.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 12.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.60 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.95 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.17 Tc(MIN.) = 5.37 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 316.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.37 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.94 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.95 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.83 6.81 5.182 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.6 200.00 2 1.95 5.37 5.936 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 210.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.51 5.37 5.936 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.8 210.00 2 4.53 6.81 5.182 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 200.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.53 Tc(MIN.) = 6.81 Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 11 of 13 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 514.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 476.63 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 475.13 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 23.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.12 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.53 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 6.85 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 205.00 = 537.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.85 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.167 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.15 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.69 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.11 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.14 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 5.22 5.41 5.914 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 210.00 2 5.14 6.85 5.167 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 NEW PEAK FLOW DATA ARE: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.22 Tc(MIN.) = 5.41 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.98 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 475.13 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 470.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 13.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 12.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 21.56 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.22 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 Tc(MIN.) = 5.42 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 550.00 FEET. Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 12 of 13 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 5.22 5.42 5.908 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 210.00 2 5.14 6.86 5.163 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 200.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 550.00 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 8.67 5.51 5.853 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 130.00 2 9.02 6.26 5.439 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.8 100.00 3 9.05 6.57 5.293 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.8 100.00 4 9.00 6.91 5.141 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.9 120.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 797.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 13.82 5.42 5.908 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.5 210.00 2 13.88 5.51 5.853 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.6 130.00 3 14.19 6.26 5.439 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.8 100.00 4 14.21 6.57 5.293 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.9 100.00 5 14.15 6.86 5.163 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 3.0 200.00 6 14.12 6.91 5.141 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 3.0 120.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.21 Tc(MIN.) = 6.565 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.91 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 797.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 479.25 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 476.57 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.187 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.) COMMERCIAL D 0.01 0.20 0.100 91 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.06 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.06 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: Proposed Q, 100 Year Flows Page 13 of 13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.0 TC(MIN.) = 5.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.06 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community APPENDIX 3 FEMA MAP Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community APPENDIX 4 SOILS MAP EXCERPT PROJECT LOCATION Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community APPENDIX 5 HYDROLOGY MAPS: EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community APPENDIX 6 PONDING EXHIBIT City of Anaheim DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 276 Anaheim, CA 92805 TEL (714) 765-5176 FAX (714) 765-5225 www.anaheim.net Page 1 of 1 November 24, 2020 To: Mark Nero Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949) 474-1960 RE: Hydrology Report Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community OTH 2020-01295 Second Review Dear Mr. Nero: The Public Works Department has reviewed the Hydrology Study for the subject location and has deemed the report Approved with Conditions as noted below. • All comments have been closed. However, please note that the capacity of the proposed MWS to accept surface flows and to bypass the total 100-year flow within the system could not be verified. At final engineering the report must provide information demonstrating that the surface flow draining to the MWS (portion of drainage subarea A1-4) will be captured and that the total of the surface flow and flow arriving from the pipe can be bypassed within the MWS in the event of a clogged filter. If you have any technical questions regarding this review, please contact Anthony Cotts (Rick Engineering Company) at (619) 688-1444 or contact me at (714) 765-5286. Sincerely, Cesar Morales, PE Associate Engineer CC Mike Eskander, Development Service Manager File APPENDIX E: NOISE DATA Equipment Description Impact Device? Acoustical use Factor (%) Spec. Lmax @ 50ft (dBA, slow) Actual Measured Lmax @ 50ft (dBA, slow) No. of Actual Data Samples (Count) Compressor (air) No 40 80 78 18 Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 85 79 40 Concrete Saw No 20 90 89.6 55 Crane No 16 85 81 405 Dozer No 40 85 82 55 Excavator No 40 85 81 170 Flat Bed Truck No 40 84 74 4 Forklift1,2 No 50 n/a 61 n/a Front End Loader No 40 80 79 96 Generator No 50 82 81 19 Grader No 40 85 ‐N/A‐0 Paver No 50 85 77 9 Pickup Truck No 50 85 77 9 Paving Equipment No 20 90 ‐N/A‐9 Roller No 20 85 80 16 Scraper No 40 85 84 12 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe No 25 80 ‐N/A‐0 Welder/Torch No 40 73 74 5 Table A CA/T Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Acoustical Usage Factor Database 1 Warehouse & Forklift Noise Exposure ‐ NoiseTesting.info Carl Stautins, November 4, 2014 http://www.noisetesting.info/blog/carl‐strautins/page‐3/ 2 Data provided Leq as measured at the operator. Sound Level at 50 feet is estimated. Source: FHWA RCNM User's Guide, 2006 ABCDEFGHI Equipment Type # of Equipment Equipment Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1, 2 Distance to Receptor3 Equipment Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Noise Level Leq (dBA) at Receptor Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 89.6 300 20 0.20 ‐15.6 ‐7.0 67.0 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 300 40 0.40 ‐15.6 ‐4.0 62.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 80 300 25 0.75 ‐15.6 ‐1.2 63.2 Log Sum 69.5 Site Preparation Graders 1 85 300 40 0.40 ‐15.6 ‐4.0 65.5 Scrapers 1 84 300 40 0.40 ‐15.6 ‐4.0 64.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80 300 25 0.50 ‐15.6 ‐3.0 61.4 Log Sum 68.9 Grading Graders 1 85 300 40 0.40 ‐15.6 ‐4.0 65.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 300 40 0.40 ‐15.6 ‐4.0 62.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80 300 25 0.50 ‐15.6 ‐3.0 61.4 Log Sum 68.2 Cranes 1 81 300 16 0.16 ‐15.6 ‐8.0 57.5 Forklifts 2 64 300 50 1.00 ‐15.6 0.0 48.4 Generator Sets 1 81 300 40 0.40 ‐15.6 ‐4.0 61.5 Welders 3 73 300 40 1.20 ‐15.6 0.8 58.2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80 300 25 0.25 ‐15.6 ‐6.0 58.4 Log Sum 65.3 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 79 300 40 0.40 ‐15.6 ‐4.0 59.5 Pavers 1 77 300 50 0.50 ‐15.6 ‐3.0 58.4 Paving Equipment 1 85 300 20 0.20 ‐15.6 ‐7.0 62.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80 300 25 0.25 ‐15.6 ‐6.0 58.4 Rollers 2 80 300 20 0.40 ‐15.6 ‐4.0 60.5 Log Sum 67.1 Air Compressors 1 78 300 40 0.40 ‐15.6 ‐4.0 58.5 Log Sum 58.5 Notes: (2) Source: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.noisetesting.info/blog/warehouse‐forklift‐workplace‐noise‐ levels/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1545259247311000&usg=AFQjCNHFcKKoEKUjv5VZMOtw_KO977Em1A (3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to the structural façade of the nearest sensitive use. Paving Architectural Coating (1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018). Building Construction Table B Construction Noise by Phase ‐ Receptors South of the Project Site (NM1) Demolition ABCDEFGHI Equipment Type # of Equipment Equipment Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1, 2 Distance to Receptor3 Equipment Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Noise Level Leq (dBA) at Receptor Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 89.6 237 20 0.20 ‐13.5 ‐7.0 69.1 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 237 40 0.40 ‐13.5 ‐4.0 64.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 80 237 25 0.75 ‐13.5 ‐1.2 65.2 Log Sum 71.5 Site Preparation Graders 1 85 237 40 0.40 ‐13.5 ‐4.0 67.5 Scrapers 1 84 237 40 0.40 ‐13.5 ‐4.0 66.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80 237 25 0.50 ‐13.5 ‐3.0 63.5 Log Sum 70.9 Grading Graders 1 85 237 40 0.40 ‐13.5 ‐4.0 67.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 237 40 0.40 ‐13.5 ‐4.0 64.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80 237 25 0.50 ‐13.5 ‐3.0 63.5 Log Sum 70.3 Cranes 1 81 237 16 0.16 ‐13.5 ‐8.0 59.5 Forklifts 2 64 237 50 1.00 ‐13.5 0.0 50.5 Generator Sets 1 81 237 40 0.40 ‐13.5 ‐4.0 63.5 Welders 3 73 237 40 1.20 ‐13.5 0.8 60.3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80 237 25 0.25 ‐13.5 ‐6.0 60.5 Log Sum 67.3 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 79 237 40 0.40 ‐13.5 ‐4.0 61.5 Pavers 1 77 237 50 0.50 ‐13.5 ‐3.0 60.5 Paving Equipment 1 85 237 20 0.20 ‐13.5 ‐7.0 64.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80 237 25 0.25 ‐13.5 ‐6.0 60.5 Rollers 2 80 237 20 0.40 ‐13.5 ‐4.0 62.5 Log Sum 69.2 Air Compressors 1 78 237 40 0.40 ‐13.5 ‐4.0 60.5 Log Sum 60.5 Notes: Table C Construction Noise by Phase ‐ Receptors East of the Project Site (NM2) Demolition (1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018). (2) Source: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.noisetesting.info/blog/warehouse‐forklift‐workplace‐noise‐ levels/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1545259247311000&usg=AFQjCNHFcKKoEKUjv5VZMOtw_KO977Em1A (3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to the structural façade of the nearest sensitive use. Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating ABCDEFGHI Equipment Type # of Equipment Equipment Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1, 2 Distance to Receptor3 Equipment Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Noise Level Leq (dBA) at Receptor Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 89.6 213 20 0.20 ‐12.6 ‐7.0 70.0 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 213 40 0.40 ‐12.6 ‐4.0 65.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 80 213 25 0.75 ‐12.6 ‐1.2 66.2 Log Sum 72.5 Site Preparation Graders 1 85 213 40 0.40 ‐12.6 ‐4.0 68.4 Scrapers 1 84 213 40 0.40 ‐12.6 ‐4.0 67.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80 213 25 0.50 ‐12.6 ‐3.0 64.4 Log Sum 71.8 Grading Graders 1 85 213 40 0.40 ‐12.6 ‐4.0 68.4 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 213 40 0.40 ‐12.6 ‐4.0 65.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80 213 25 0.50 ‐12.6 ‐3.0 64.4 Log Sum 71.2 Cranes 1 81 213 16 0.16 ‐12.6 ‐8.0 60.5 Forklifts 2 64 213 50 1.00 ‐12.6 0.0 51.4 Generator Sets 1 81 213 40 0.40 ‐12.6 ‐4.0 64.4 Welders 3 73 213 40 1.20 ‐12.6 0.8 61.2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80 213 25 0.25 ‐12.6 ‐6.0 61.4 Log Sum 68.3 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 79 213 40 0.40 ‐12.6 ‐4.0 62.4 Pavers 1 77 213 50 0.50 ‐12.6 ‐3.0 61.4 Paving Equipment 1 85 213 20 0.20 ‐12.6 ‐7.0 65.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80 213 25 0.25 ‐12.6 ‐6.0 61.4 Rollers 2 80 213 20 0.40 ‐12.6 ‐4.0 63.4 Log Sum 70.1 Air Compressors 1 78 213 40 0.40 ‐12.6 ‐4.0 61.4 Log Sum 61.4 Notes: Table D Construction Noise by Phase ‐ Receptors North of the Project Site (NM3) Demolition (1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018). (2) Source: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.noisetesting.info/blog/warehouse‐forklift‐workplace‐noise‐ levels/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1545259247311000&usg=AFQjCNHFcKKoEKUjv5VZMOtw_KO977Em1A (3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to the structural façade of the nearest sensitive use. Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating ABCDEFGHI Equipment Type # of Equipment Equipment Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1, 2 Distance to Receptor3 Equipment Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Noise Level Leq (dBA) at Receptor Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 89.6 185 20 0.20 ‐11.4 ‐7.0 71.2 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 185 40 0.40 ‐11.4 ‐4.0 66.7 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 80 185 25 0.75 ‐11.4 ‐1.2 67.4 Log Sum 73.7 Site Preparation Graders 1 85 185 40 0.40 ‐11.4 ‐4.0 69.7 Scrapers 1 84 185 40 0.40 ‐11.4 ‐4.0 68.7 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80 185 25 0.50 ‐11.4 ‐3.0 65.6 Log Sum 73.1 Grading Graders 1 85 185 40 0.40 ‐11.4 ‐4.0 69.7 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 185 40 0.40 ‐11.4 ‐4.0 66.7 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80 185 25 0.50 ‐11.4 ‐3.0 65.6 Log Sum 72.4 Cranes 1 81 185 16 0.16 ‐11.4 ‐8.0 61.7 Forklifts 2 64 185 50 1.00 ‐11.4 0.0 52.6 Generator Sets 1 81 185 40 0.40 ‐11.4 ‐4.0 65.7 Welders 3 73 185 40 1.20 ‐11.4 0.8 62.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80 185 25 0.25 ‐11.4 ‐6.0 62.6 Log Sum 69.5 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 79 185 40 0.40 ‐11.4 ‐4.0 63.7 Pavers 1 77 185 50 0.50 ‐11.4 ‐3.0 62.6 Paving Equipment 1 85 185 20 0.20 ‐11.4 ‐7.0 66.6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80 185 25 0.25 ‐11.4 ‐6.0 62.6 Rollers 2 80 185 20 0.40 ‐11.4 ‐4.0 64.7 Log Sum 71.3 Air Compressors 1 78 185 40 0.40 ‐11.4 ‐4.0 62.7 Log Sum 62.7 Notes: Table E Construction Noise by Phase ‐ Receptors West of the Project Site (NM4) Demolition (1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018). (2) Source: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.noisetesting.info/blog/warehouse‐forklift‐workplace‐noise‐ levels/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1545259247311000&usg=AFQjCNHFcKKoEKUjv5VZMOtw_KO977Em1A (3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to the structural façade of the nearest sensitive use. Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Construction Phase Receptor Location Existing Ambient Noise Levels (dBA Leq)1 Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2 South (NM1)54.3 69.5 East (NM2)48.7 71.5 North (NM3)53.7 72.5 West (NM4)64.8 73.7 South (NM1)54.3 68.9 East (NM2)48.7 70.9 North (NM3)53.7 71.8 West (NM4)64.8 73.1 South (NM1)54.3 68.2 East (NM2)48.7 70.3 North (NM3)53.7 71.2 West (NM4)64.8 72.4 South (NM1)54.3 65.3 East (NM2)48.7 67.3 North (NM3)53.7 68.3 West (NM4)64.8 69.5 South (NM1)54.3 67.1 East (NM2)48.7 69.2 North (NM3)53.7 70.1 West (NM4)64.8 71.3 South (NM1)54.3 58.5 East (NM2)48.7 60.5 North (NM3)53.7 61.4 West (NM4)64.8 62.7 Construction Noise Levels (Leq) Table F (2) Construction noise calculated in Tables B through E Notes: Demolition Building Construction (1) Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure III‐3. Grading Paving Architectural Coating Site Preparation KW A Q N Office 7404 Kingsley Way,Riverside, CA Pr o j e c t : An a h e i m S e n i o r L i v i n g P r o j e c t . Si t e O b s e r v a t i o n s : Si t e A d d r e s s / L o c a t i o n : 52 7 5 N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m , C A Da t e : Fi e l d T e c h / E n g i n e e r : Ia n E d w a r d G a l l a g h e r Ge n e r a l L o c a t i o n : Ro y a l O a k R o a d & N o h l R a n c h R o a d i n t e r s e c t i o n . So u n d M e t e r : La r s o n D a v i s S o u n d T r a c k L x T 1 SN : 30 9 9 Si t e T o p o : Su b u r b i a , s t u c c o & b r i c k b l d g s , a s p h a l t p a v i n g , t r e e s & g r a s s . Se t t i n g s : A‐ w e i g h t e d , s l o w , 1 ‐ m i n , 1 0 ‐ m i n u t e i n t e r v a l Gr o u n d T y p e : Ha r d t o m e d i u m s i t e c o n d i t i o n s , r e f l e c t i v e , r e f r a c t i v e , s o m e a b s o r ption. Me t e o r o l o g i c a l C o n . : 64 d e g F , 2 t o 5 m p h w i n d , 5 4 % h u m i d i t y , o v e r c a s t , t h i n n i n g c l o u d . Si t e I D : NM ‐ 1 2 3 & 4 NM l o c a t i o n s , l a t , l o n g : Fi g u r e 1 : M o n i t o r i n g L o c a t i o n s 10 ‐ M i n u t e N o i s e M e a s u r e m e n t D a t a s h e e t Ma i n n o i s e s o u r c e s a r e f r o m v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c t r a v e l l i n g a l o n g N o h l R a n c h Ro a d & s u r r o u n d i n g r o a d s . T h e l o c a l b u i l d i n g s r e f l e c t m u c h o f t h e s o u n d . Ot h e r n o i s e s o u r c e s i n c l u d e b i r d s o n g , h u m m i n g b i r d s , o c c a s i o n a l l o w al t i t u d e a i r c r a f t b o t h f i x e d w i n g p r o p e l l e r , j e t s & h e l i c o p t e r s . R e s i d e n t i a l am b i a n c e , d i s t a n t d o g s b a r k i n g , g a r d e n i n g e q u i p m e n t i n o p e r a t i o n , l a w n mo w e r s , s t r i m m e r s a n d l e a f b l o w e r s . L e a f r u s t l e f r o m s l i g h t b r e e z e . 2/ 1 / 2 0 2 1 N M 1 M e t e r : 3 3 ° 5 0 ' 3 7 . 4 6 " N 1 1 7 ° 4 8 ' 4 . 1 6 " W N M 2 M e t e r : 3 3 ° 5 0 ' 4 1 . 9 6 " N 1 1 7 ° 4 8 ' 2 . 1 4 " W NM 3 M e t e r : 3 3 ° 5 0 ' 4 5 . 2 6 " N 1 1 7 ° 4 8 ' 9 . 0 9 " W NM 4 M e t e r : 3 3 ° 5 0 ' 4 0 . 0 4 " N 1 1 7 ° 4 8 ' 7 . 1 0 " W KW A Q N A n a h e i m S e n i o r L i v i n g , C i t y o f A n a h e i m N M ( 1 t h r u 4 ) 1 0 M i n _ N M F i e l d S h e e t . x l s x KW A Q N Office 7404 Kingsley Way,Riverside, CA Pr o j e c t : An a h e i m S e n i o r L i v i n g P r o j e c t . Si t e A d d r e s s / L o c a t i o n : 52 7 5 N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m , C A Si t e I D : NM ‐ 1 2 3 & 4 NM 1 l o o k i n g N W f r o m c e n t e r l i n e o f R u r a l R i d g e C i r c l e t o w a r d s r e s i d e n c e 5 3 0 3 R u r a l R i d g e C r c l e , NM 2 l o o k i n g W b e t w e e n r e s i d e n c e s 5 3 0 0 & 5 3 0 1 W e s t r i d g e R o a d , A n a h e i m An a h e i m Fi g u r e 2 : S T N M 1 P h o t o Fi g u r e 3 : S T N M 2 P h o t o 10 ‐ M i n u t e N o i s e M e a s u r e m e n t D a t a s h e e t ‐ C o n t . KW A Q N A n a h e i m S e n i o r L i v i n g , C i t y o f A n a h e i m N M ( 1 t h r u 4 ) 1 0 M i n _ N M F i e l d S h e e t . x l s x KW A Q N Office 7404 Kingsley Way,Riverside, CA 10 ‐ M i n u t e N o i s e M e a s u r e m e n t D a t a s h e e t ‐ C o n t . Pr o j e c t : An a h e i m S e n i o r L i v i n g P r o j e c t . Si t e A d d r e s s / L o c a t i o n : 52 7 5 N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m , C A Si t e I D : NM ‐ 1 2 3 & 4 Fi g u r e 4 : S T N M 3 P h o t o Fi g u r e 5 : S T N M 4 P h o t o NM 3 l o o k i n g S b e t w e e n r e s i d e n c e s 5 2 3 0 & 5 2 2 6 E a s t H o n e y w o o d L a n e , A n a h e i m . NM 4 l o o k i n g N E a c r o s s a s p h a l t p a r k i n g l o t t o w a r d s b u i l d i n g 5 2 7 5 N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m . 58 v e h i c l e s p a s s e d m i c r o p h o n e t r a v e l l i n g a l o n g N o h l R a n c h R o a d d u r i n g 1 0 m i n u t e s a m p l e . KW A Q N A n a h e i m S e n i o r L i v i n g , C i t y o f A n a h e i m N M ( 1 t h r u 4 ) 1 0 M i n _ N M F i e l d S h e e t . x l s x KW A Q N Office 7404 Kingsley Way,Riverside, CA Pr o j e c t : An a h e i m S e n i o r L i v i n g P r o j e c t . Si t e A d d r e s s / L o c a t i o n : 52 7 5 N o h l R a n c h R o a d , A n a h e i m , C A Si t e I D : NM ‐ 1 2 3 & 4 Ta b l e 1 : N o i s e M e a s u r e m e n t S u m m a r y Lo c a t i o n S t a r t S t o p L e q / d B L m a x / d B L m i n / d B L 2 / d B L 8 / d B L 2 5 / d B L 5 0 / d B L 9 0 / d B NM 1 10 : 5 1 A M 1 1 : 0 1 A M 5 4 . 3 7 2 . 5 4 8 . 8 6 2 . 8 5 3 . 8 5 1 . 5 5 0 . 8 49 . 8 NM 2 1 1 : 1 7 A M 1 1 : 2 7 A M 4 8 . 7 5 9 . 6 4 5 . 6 5 2 . 7 5 0 . 7 4 9 . 2 4 8 . 0 4 6 . 5 NM 3 1 1 : 4 3 A M 1 1 : 5 3 A M 5 3 . 7 6 5 . 3 4 9 . 7 5 8 . 8 5 5 . 2 5 3 . 8 5 2 . 9 5 1 . 4 NM 4 1 2 : 1 5 P M 1 2 : 2 5 P M 6 4 . 8 7 9 . 3 4 8 . 5 7 3 . 2 6 9 . 5 6 4 . 9 5 9 . 2 5 0 . 6 10 ‐ M i n u t e N o i s e M e a s u r e m e n t D a t a s h e e t ‐ C o n t . KW A Q N A n a h e i m S e n i o r L i v i n g , C i t y o f A n a h e i m N M ( 1 t h r u 4 ) 1 0 M i n _ N M F i e l d S h e e t . x l s x NM1 KWAQN Anaheim Senior Living, Anaheim Project Record # Record Type Date Time LAeq LZpeak LASmax LASmin nt. Temp (°FLCeq‐LAeq LAIeq‐LAeq OVLD Marker 1 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 10:50:36 AM 2 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 10:50:52 AM 3 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 10:51:07 AM 4 Run 2/1/2021 10:51:46 AM 5 2/1/2021 10:51:46 AM 50.3 76.4 50.3 49.8 68.2 9.4 1.8 No 6 2/1/2021 10:51:50 AM 50.3 75.3 51.2 49.3 68.5 9.6 0.6 No 7 2/1/2021 10:52:00 AM 50.0 75.7 50.9 49.5 68.7 10.9 1.1 No 8 2/1/2021 10:52:10 AM 50.8 77.5 51.8 49.9 68.7 11.8 0.9 No 9 2/1/2021 10:52:20 AM 55.9 84.3 59.6 51.8 69.0 12.6 0.0 No 10 2/1/2021 10:52:30 AM 67.2 97.1 72.5 55.1 69.2 13 3.5 No 11 2/1/2021 10:52:40 AM 51.0 76.2 55.1 49.9 69.2 9.9 1.6 No 12 2/1/2021 10:52:50 AM 50.1 77.2 51.0 49.5 69.6 10 0.4 No 13 2/1/2021 10:53:00 AM 50.9 77.2 51.3 50.4 69.7 10.3 0.7 No 14 2/1/2021 10:53:10 AM 51.5 77.9 52.2 50.7 69.7 10.2 1.0 No 15 2/1/2021 10:53:20 AM 52.2 78.6 53.8 51.0 70.0 9.7 ‐0.2 No 16 2/1/2021 10:53:30 AM 51.5 79.2 52.9 50.4 70.1 9.6 0.8 No 17 2/1/2021 10:53:40 AM 51.3 77.1 51.8 50.5 70.1 10.1 0.3 No 18 2/1/2021 10:53:50 AM 50.9 77.1 51.3 50.5 70.4 9.7 ‐0.2 No 19 2/1/2021 10:54:00 AM 51.1 77.2 51.9 50.5 70.6 9.9 5.6 No 20 2/1/2021 10:54:10 AM 49.8 77.5 51.8 49.1 70.6 11 1.0 No 21 2/1/2021 10:54:20 AM 49.7 78.0 50.0 49.2 70.9 10.5 0.2 No 22 2/1/2021 10:54:30 AM 50.4 76.6 50.7 49.9 71.1 9.7 0.5 No 23 2/1/2021 10:54:40 AM 51.0 78.1 52.0 50.4 71.1 9.2 0.5 No 24 2/1/2021 10:54:50 AM 51.2 78.3 53.0 50.7 71.1 9.8 1.9 No 25 2/1/2021 10:55:00 AM 50.3 84.5 51.7 49.6 71.3 11.7 4.5 No 26 2/1/2021 10:55:10 AM 50.7 83.7 51.4 49.9 71.6 10.6 1.8 No 27 2/1/2021 10:55:20 AM 50.4 80.6 51.3 49.9 71.6 11.4 0.8 No 28 2/1/2021 10:55:30 AM 50.3 80.5 50.6 49.9 71.6 10.4 0.6 No 29 2/1/2021 10:55:40 AM 51.0 75.8 51.5 50.5 72.0 9.2 0.9 No 30 2/1/2021 10:55:50 AM 50.6 78.9 51.8 49.8 72.0 10.7 0.9 No 31 2/1/2021 10:56:00 AM 50.9 85.4 51.6 49.7 72.0 10.5 1.7 No 32 2/1/2021 10:56:10 AM 50.4 76.9 51.7 49.7 72.0 10 0.4 No 33 2/1/2021 10:56:20 AM 50.8 76.1 51.5 50.0 72.4 9.3 1.0 No 34 2/1/2021 10:56:30 AM 50.0 75.2 51.1 49.0 72.5 9.9 3.4 No 35 2/1/2021 10:56:40 AM 49.7 77.5 50.9 49.2 72.5 9.9 0.2 No 36 2/1/2021 10:56:50 AM 50.4 80.3 51.2 49.3 72.5 9.5 3.6 No 37 2/1/2021 10:57:00 AM 50.4 83.2 51.1 49.8 72.6 10 0.9 No 38 2/1/2021 10:57:10 AM 50.5 84.5 51.3 49.9 73.0 9.3 0.7 No 39 2/1/2021 10:57:20 AM 49.9 76.7 50.5 49.5 73.0 9.5 0.3 No 40 2/1/2021 10:57:30 AM 50.3 76.4 51.2 49.3 73.0 9.6 0.6 No 41 2/1/2021 10:57:40 AM 51.2 81.2 51.8 50.7 73.0 9.5 0.2 No 42 2/1/2021 10:57:50 AM 51.2 78.9 51.8 50.8 73.0 9.5 0.2 No 43 2/1/2021 10:58:00 AM 50.7 77.8 51.3 50.2 73.3 9.5 0.3 No 44 2/1/2021 10:58:10 AM 50.7 76.7 51.4 50.3 73.5 9.5 0.2 No 45 2/1/2021 10:58:20 AM 51.8 75.3 52.5 50.5 73.5 9.3 0.6 No 46 2/1/2021 10:58:30 AM 52.8 80.4 54.0 51.5 73.5 8.6 2.2 No 47 2/1/2021 10:58:40 AM 52.2 78.1 53.6 51.1 73.5 8.5 1.0 No 48 2/1/2021 10:58:50 AM 52.2 77.3 52.7 51.1 73.7 8.5 0.6 No 49 2/1/2021 10:59:00 AM 52.0 77.0 52.5 51.2 73.8 8.9 0.4 No 50 2/1/2021 10:59:10 AM 51.4 77.3 52.9 50.4 73.9 9 0.2 No 51 2/1/2021 10:59:20 AM 53.0 87.2 59.0 50.2 73.9 7.6 14.4 No 52 2/1/2021 10:59:30 AM 51.6 81.4 57.6 50.9 73.9 9.6 0.0 No 53 2/1/2021 10:59:40 AM 63.2 85.1 67.5 51.8 74.1 4.8 4.6 No 54 2/1/2021 10:59:50 AM 53.8 78.6 62.3 51.2 74.1 8.9 ‐0.1 No 55 2/1/2021 11:00:00 AM 61.0 82.9 63.9 53.6 74.2 4.7 3.0 No 56 2/1/2021 11:00:10 AM 52.5 77.0 57.3 50.9 74.3 7.7 1.4 No 57 2/1/2021 11:00:20 AM 50.6 80.3 52.1 49.4 74.4 8.9 0.9 No 58 2/1/2021 11:00:30 AM 49.2 77.3 49.6 48.8 74.4 9.7 1.2 No 59 2/1/2021 11:00:40 AM 50.3 77.3 50.7 49.3 74.4 9.3 0.3 No 60 2/1/2021 11:00:50 AM 50.5 77.5 51.1 50.1 74.4 9.2 0.5 No 61 2/1/2021 11:01:00 AM 50.3 77.4 50.9 49.9 74.9 9.5 0.2 No 62 2/1/2021 11:01:10 AM 51.1 77.4 52.5 49.8 74.7 9.2 0.2 No 63 2/1/2021 11:01:20 AM 49.9 87.6 51.1 49.5 74.9 11.1 0.9 No 64 2/1/2021 11:01:30 AM 52.0 89.6 53.6 49.6 74.9 9.6 2.5 No 65 2/1/2021 11:01:40 AM 50.8 80.6 52.5 50.3 74.9 9.6 0.5 No 66 Stop 2/1/2021 11:01:46 AM NM2 KWAQN Anaheim Senior Living , Anaheim Project Record # Record Type Date Time LAeq LZpeak LASmax LASmin nt. Temp (°FLCeq‐LAeq LAIeq‐LAeq OVLD Marker 1 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:16:04 AM 2 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:16:19 AM 3 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:16:34 AM 4 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:16:50 AM 5 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:17:10 AM 6 Run 2/1/2021 11:17:37 AM 7 2/1/2021 11:17:37 AM 46.9 73.3 47.0 46.5 73.9 10.9 0.3 No 8 2/1/2021 11:17:40 AM 47.4 75.1 47.9 47.0 73.9 10.9 0.3 No 9 2/1/2021 11:17:50 AM 47.6 80.5 49.3 46.6 73.9 15.4 0.3 No 10 2/1/2021 11:18:00 AM 47.7 80.3 49.2 46.4 74.3 18.6 0.3 No 11 2/1/2021 11:18:10 AM 50.9 80.4 53.5 48.3 74.4 13.7 0.2 No 12 2/1/2021 11:18:20 AM 48.4 80.2 52.1 46.4 74.4 12.3 3.4 No 13 2/1/2021 11:18:30 AM 46.5 75.1 47.1 45.9 74.5 14 1.3 No 14 2/1/2021 11:18:40 AM 46.4 76.3 47.2 45.8 74.9 14 0.9 No 15 2/1/2021 11:18:50 AM 46.7 75.0 47.0 46.2 74.9 12.1 0.1 No 16 2/1/2021 11:19:00 AM 48.7 76.2 51.8 46.9 74.9 10.6 0.7 No 17 2/1/2021 11:19:10 AM 47.2 76.4 48.1 46.5 74.9 12.1 0.3 No 18 2/1/2021 11:19:20 AM 46.4 76.3 46.9 45.9 75.4 12.5 0.7 No 19 2/1/2021 11:19:30 AM 46.4 78.2 46.8 46.2 75.4 13.6 0.8 No 20 2/1/2021 11:19:40 AM 47.2 77.0 47.6 46.7 75.4 11.5 0.2 No 21 2/1/2021 11:19:50 AM 48.4 80.3 49.1 47.2 75.4 10.8 0.4 No 22 2/1/2021 11:20:00 AM 48.0 77.5 49.2 46.8 75.6 14.4 0.2 No 23 2/1/2021 11:20:10 AM 47.3 75.6 47.5 46.7 75.7 12.2 0.3 No 24 2/1/2021 11:20:20 AM 50.3 85.9 53.8 47.4 75.8 17.5 5.2 No 25 2/1/2021 11:20:30 AM 52.9 84.3 55.2 50.5 75.8 16.2 1.7 No 26 2/1/2021 11:20:40 AM 51.4 80.7 56.2 47.8 75.8 10.9 8.1 No 27 2/1/2021 11:20:50 AM 47.5 78.3 48.7 47.3 76.1 14.3 1.1 No 28 2/1/2021 11:21:00 AM 49.6 78.6 50.2 47.9 76.2 14.1 0.7 No 29 2/1/2021 11:21:10 AM 50.5 78.0 51.0 49.9 76.3 10.9 0.6 No 30 2/1/2021 11:21:20 AM 51.2 78.4 51.8 49.7 76.3 10 0.1 No 31 2/1/2021 11:21:30 AM 50.9 78.0 51.8 50.1 76.3 10.1 1.9 No 32 2/1/2021 11:21:40 AM 49.9 78.2 51.3 49.3 76.3 11.1 0.5 No 33 2/1/2021 11:21:50 AM 48.7 77.4 49.6 48.4 76.3 12 0.1 No 34 2/1/2021 11:22:00 AM 49.4 79.8 50.8 47.6 76.8 12.9 1.3 No 35 2/1/2021 11:22:10 AM 47.9 77.7 48.2 47.4 76.8 13.8 0.5 No 36 2/1/2021 11:22:20 AM 47.6 76.7 48.1 47.0 76.8 13.5 0.3 No 37 2/1/2021 11:22:30 AM 46.4 76.2 47.4 46.0 76.8 14.7 0.8 No 38 2/1/2021 11:22:40 AM 46.2 76.9 46.7 45.6 76.8 14.3 0.4 No 39 2/1/2021 11:22:50 AM 47.6 76.3 48.6 46.5 76.8 12.1 0.8 No 40 2/1/2021 11:23:00 AM 48.2 75.5 49.7 47.3 77.1 12.3 ‐0.1 No 41 2/1/2021 11:23:10 AM 46.9 75.2 47.8 46.3 77.1 12.6 0.2 No 42 2/1/2021 11:23:20 AM 47.5 75.6 49.2 46.0 77.3 11.6 0.4 No 43 2/1/2021 11:23:30 AM 48.7 76.3 49.4 47.9 77.3 10.9 0.5 No 44 2/1/2021 11:23:40 AM 48.1 75.3 48.8 47.7 77.3 11.8 2.8 No 45 2/1/2021 11:23:50 AM 48.2 75.8 49.7 47.7 77.3 11.7 0.7 No 46 2/1/2021 11:24:00 AM 47.4 78.3 48.1 46.9 77.3 13.7 0.0 No 47 2/1/2021 11:24:10 AM 47.2 77.0 47.6 46.7 77.6 14 0.0 No 48 2/1/2021 11:24:20 AM 48.5 79.1 50.2 47.5 77.7 11.8 0.4 No 49 2/1/2021 11:24:30 AM 48.8 78.2 49.5 48.0 77.7 12 0.2 No 50 2/1/2021 11:24:40 AM 49.4 76.9 50.3 48.4 77.7 11.2 1.0 No 51 2/1/2021 11:24:50 AM 47.9 76.4 48.4 47.5 77.7 11.2 0.4 No 52 2/1/2021 11:25:00 AM 48.0 76.9 48.6 47.5 77.7 10.7 0.6 No 53 2/1/2021 11:25:10 AM 49.0 78.2 50.5 47.6 77.7 14 1.9 No 54 2/1/2021 11:25:20 AM 48.2 76.7 50.4 47.8 77.7 13.8 0.8 No 55 2/1/2021 11:25:30 AM 47.8 76.7 49.5 47.1 77.7 13.5 0.1 No 56 2/1/2021 11:25:40 AM 47.5 76.2 48.0 47.2 78.2 13.9 ‐0.1 No 57 2/1/2021 11:25:50 AM 47.7 80.3 51.7 46.3 78.2 11.6 0.1 No 58 2/1/2021 11:26:00 AM 46.2 74.6 46.5 45.8 78.2 12.4 1.1 No 59 2/1/2021 11:26:10 AM 51.7 88.7 59.6 46.5 78.2 6.8 3.4 No 60 2/1/2021 11:26:20 AM 48.1 78.8 49.3 47.5 78.2 10.9 0.6 No 61 2/1/2021 11:26:30 AM 47.8 74.5 48.8 47.1 78.2 10.7 ‐0.1 No 62 2/1/2021 11:26:40 AM 49.4 77.5 50.2 47.6 78.2 10 0.6 No 63 2/1/2021 11:26:50 AM 50.1 76.8 51.1 49.0 78.2 10.3 0.9 No 64 2/1/2021 11:27:00 AM 50.4 78.3 52.3 49.1 78.5 10.9 0.5 No 65 2/1/2021 11:27:10 AM 49.5 84.8 51.0 48.3 78.6 10.3 0.8 No 66 2/1/2021 11:27:20 AM 48.7 77.6 49.4 48.0 78.7 10.1 1.0 No 67 2/1/2021 11:27:30 AM 49.1 74.8 49.4 48.9 78.7 9.5 0.9 No 68 Stop 2/1/2021 11:27:37 AM NM3 KWAQN Anaheim Senior Living , Anaheim Project Record # Record Type Date Time LAeq LZpeak LASmax LASmin nt. Temp (°FLCeq‐LAeq LAIeq‐LAeq OVLD Marker 1 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:41:38 AM 2 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:41:53 AM 3 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:42:09 AM 4 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:43:06 AM 5 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:43:22 AM 6 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 11:43:36 AM 7 Run 2/1/2021 11:43:49 AM 8 2/1/2021 11:43:49 AM 53.2 77.7 57.4 56.7 77.3 9.2 16.6 No 9 2/1/2021 11:43:50 AM 53.3 83.4 56.7 52.7 77.4 9.4 0.6 No 10 2/1/2021 11:44:00 AM 54.2 81.2 54.8 53.5 77.5 9.3 4.3 No 11 2/1/2021 11:44:10 AM 54.2 84.7 54.8 53.5 77.7 8.6 0.3 No 12 2/1/2021 11:44:20 AM 54.7 88.5 56.5 53.9 77.7 9.5 0.5 No 13 2/1/2021 11:44:30 AM 54.5 79.4 55.5 54.0 77.7 7.7 0.5 No 14 2/1/2021 11:44:40 AM 54.2 79.2 56.2 53.6 77.7 7.8 ‐1.3 No 15 2/1/2021 11:44:50 AM 54.8 80.3 58.4 53.3 77.7 7.2 1.7 No 16 2/1/2021 11:45:00 AM 53.6 78.8 54.1 52.8 78.0 7.8 1.5 No 17 2/1/2021 11:45:10 AM 53.7 78.6 54.5 53.2 78.1 7.8 0.3 No 18 2/1/2021 11:45:20 AM 53.6 79.3 54.2 53.3 78.2 8.1 ‐0.1 No 19 2/1/2021 11:45:30 AM 57.4 87.4 62.0 53.0 78.2 12.2 0.5 No 20 2/1/2021 11:45:40 AM 52.5 76.8 53.2 52.1 78.2 8.4 0.6 No 21 2/1/2021 11:45:50 AM 53.0 77.1 53.6 52.2 78.2 7.9 1.7 No 22 2/1/2021 11:46:00 AM 53.2 81.1 53.4 52.2 78.2 8.3 0.3 No 23 2/1/2021 11:46:10 AM 52.8 83.4 53.1 52.4 78.2 8.6 0.8 No 24 2/1/2021 11:46:20 AM 52.9 80.6 53.4 52.5 78.6 8.3 0.3 No 25 2/1/2021 11:46:30 AM 52.0 80.6 53.2 51.5 78.7 9.2 1.2 No 26 2/1/2021 11:46:40 AM 52.3 78.7 53.4 51.5 78.7 8.6 0.4 No 27 2/1/2021 11:46:50 AM 53.6 80.9 54.5 52.7 78.7 7.5 0.6 No 28 2/1/2021 11:47:00 AM 53.4 78.9 53.7 53.2 78.7 7.9 1.5 No 29 2/1/2021 11:47:10 AM 52.7 78.7 53.6 52.3 78.7 8.9 1.3 No 30 2/1/2021 11:47:20 AM 53.3 77.7 53.7 52.7 78.7 8.2 0.2 No 31 2/1/2021 11:47:30 AM 53.5 79.1 54.3 53.0 78.7 7.7 0.6 No 32 2/1/2021 11:47:40 AM 53.8 82.7 55.0 52.8 78.9 7.4 1.3 No 33 2/1/2021 11:47:50 AM 61.1 84.5 65.3 54.3 79.0 4.7 2.3 No 34 2/1/2021 11:48:00 AM 51.9 79.5 58.0 50.1 79.0 8.7 0.8 No 35 2/1/2021 11:48:10 AM 50.2 79.1 50.4 49.7 79.2 9.4 0.5 No 36 2/1/2021 11:48:20 AM 50.2 76.1 50.7 49.7 79.2 8.9 0.3 No 37 2/1/2021 11:48:30 AM 50.7 77.8 51.0 50.4 79.2 9 0.7 No 38 2/1/2021 11:48:40 AM 51.2 78.6 51.6 50.8 79.2 8.9 0.5 No 39 2/1/2021 11:48:50 AM 51.0 76.3 51.8 50.1 79.2 9.2 1.1 No 40 2/1/2021 11:49:00 AM 52.0 77.6 52.6 51.0 79.2 8.8 0.6 No 41 2/1/2021 11:49:10 AM 53.3 78.5 54.0 52.3 79.2 7.8 1.8 No 42 2/1/2021 11:49:20 AM 52.6 77.1 53.2 52.0 79.2 8.5 1.1 No 43 2/1/2021 11:49:30 AM 52.3 82.0 52.9 51.8 79.2 8.8 0.1 No 44 2/1/2021 11:49:40 AM 51.6 80.8 52.3 50.7 79.3 9 0.3 No 45 2/1/2021 11:49:50 AM 51.5 83.3 52.0 50.8 79.3 8.7 1.1 No 46 2/1/2021 11:50:00 AM 52.0 76.2 52.5 51.5 79.4 8.7 1.6 No 47 2/1/2021 11:50:10 AM 52.6 82.9 54.2 51.3 79.5 8.4 2.5 No 48 2/1/2021 11:50:20 AM 52.0 76.8 52.4 51.7 79.6 9.1 0.1 No 49 2/1/2021 11:50:30 AM 52.0 78.1 52.5 51.5 79.5 9.4 1.8 No 50 2/1/2021 11:50:40 AM 51.9 76.4 52.3 51.5 79.6 9.4 0.7 No 51 2/1/2021 11:50:50 AM 51.9 75.5 52.2 51.6 79.6 8.8 0.3 No 52 2/1/2021 11:51:00 AM 53.6 82.4 58.0 51.8 79.6 7.7 1.2 No 53 2/1/2021 11:51:10 AM 52.1 78.4 52.7 51.4 79.6 8.7 ‐0.2 No 54 2/1/2021 11:51:20 AM 54.7 79.4 55.8 52.7 79.6 6.9 0.6 No 55 2/1/2021 11:51:30 AM 55.6 80.1 56.1 55.0 79.6 6.4 0.3 No 56 2/1/2021 11:51:40 AM 55.4 78.7 56.5 54.0 79.6 6.8 1.0 No 57 2/1/2021 11:51:50 AM 54.1 77.3 55.0 53.6 79.6 7.1 0.6 No 58 2/1/2021 11:52:00 AM 53.5 77.1 54.8 52.1 79.6 7.6 0.5 No 59 2/1/2021 11:52:10 AM 53.3 79.6 55.1 52.0 79.6 7.9 2.5 No 60 2/1/2021 11:52:20 AM 52.7 83.2 54.9 52.2 79.6 8.3 1.2 No 61 2/1/2021 11:52:30 AM 51.7 77.3 52.3 51.4 79.6 9 0.4 No 62 2/1/2021 11:52:40 AM 52.1 77.9 52.5 51.6 79.8 8.7 1.0 No 63 2/1/2021 11:52:50 AM 52.9 81.5 54.7 51.9 80.0 8.4 0.4 No 64 2/1/2021 11:53:00 AM 59.0 85.1 62.6 53.2 80.1 6.7 0.6 No 65 2/1/2021 11:53:10 AM 52.1 79.5 53.2 51.8 80.1 9.4 1.1 No 66 2/1/2021 11:53:20 AM 52.2 78.9 52.9 51.7 80.1 9.2 2.3 No 67 2/1/2021 11:53:30 AM 54.0 78.0 55.3 52.2 80.1 7.9 0.6 No 68 2/1/2021 11:53:40 AM 53.4 77.9 54.6 52.5 80.1 7.9 0.5 No 69 Stop 2/1/2021 11:53:49 AM NM4 KWAQN Anaheim Senior Living , Anaheim Project Record # Record Type Date Time LAeq LZpeak LASmax LASmin nt. Temp (°FLCeq‐LAeq LAIeq‐LAeq OVLD Marker 1 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 12:14:42 PM 2 Calibration Change 2/1/2021 12:14:57 PM 3 Run 2/1/2021 12:15:11 PM 4 2/1/2021 12:15:11 PM 62.9 84.3 67.3 52.7 75.7 3.9 3.0 No 5 2/1/2021 12:15:20 PM 54.7 81.6 66.5 49.7 75.8 6.7 ‐0.8 No 6 2/1/2021 12:15:30 PM 52.2 83.9 53.4 51.1 75.8 8.9 0.1 No 7 2/1/2021 12:15:40 PM 68.1 88.1 73.5 51.8 76.2 1.1 3.4 No 8 2/1/2021 12:15:50 PM 65.0 85.1 72.9 58.1 76.3 2.1 0.3 No 9 2/1/2021 12:16:00 PM 64.1 85.7 69.5 58.5 76.3 2.9 0.1 No 10 2/1/2021 12:16:10 PM 66.8 92.0 71.8 60.6 76.3 7.4 2.4 No 11 2/1/2021 12:16:20 PM 64.5 87.4 68.2 59.3 76.7 8.1 0.6 No 12 2/1/2021 12:16:30 PM 63.9 89.0 68.3 61.4 76.8 11.3 0.6 No 13 2/1/2021 12:16:40 PM 56.5 83.4 61.4 53.5 76.8 14.1 0.2 No 14 2/1/2021 12:16:50 PM 63.1 94.5 66.5 54.9 76.8 7.2 0.8 No 15 2/1/2021 12:17:00 PM 62.3 85.9 68.1 53.0 76.8 4 3.2 No 16 2/1/2021 12:17:10 PM 61.4 82.5 66.2 52.9 77.3 3.4 0.5 No 17 2/1/2021 12:17:20 PM 56.5 80.8 66.2 51.9 77.3 6.7 0.2 No 18 2/1/2021 12:17:30 PM 67.4 88.0 72.3 53.3 77.3 3 5.5 No 19 2/1/2021 12:17:40 PM 58.0 84.8 67.2 53.3 77.3 11.5 1.2 No 20 2/1/2021 12:17:50 PM 65.9 87.6 70.4 60.0 77.3 5.4 4.6 No 21 2/1/2021 12:18:00 PM 51.7 77.3 60.0 48.9 77.5 9.2 0.9 No 22 2/1/2021 12:18:10 PM 50.6 75.6 52.9 48.9 77.7 9.2 0.2 No 23 2/1/2021 12:18:20 PM 63.7 84.1 67.7 53.0 77.7 3.2 5.1 No 24 2/1/2021 12:18:30 PM 60.5 81.0 64.7 51.8 77.7 3.4 3.5 No 25 2/1/2021 12:18:40 PM 58.0 77.5 62.4 54.1 77.7 4.3 0.9 No 26 2/1/2021 12:18:50 PM 63.0 85.3 67.5 54.0 77.7 5.9 0.8 No 27 2/1/2021 12:19:00 PM 63.2 89.6 66.2 54.1 77.9 9.8 1.9 No 28 2/1/2021 12:19:10 PM 53.6 79.1 63.1 49.9 78.1 7.4 0.9 No 29 2/1/2021 12:19:20 PM 51.8 79.5 52.5 50.3 78.2 8.3 0.7 No 30 2/1/2021 12:19:30 PM 49.4 79.4 51.2 49.0 78.2 10 1.1 No 31 2/1/2021 12:19:40 PM 50.6 78.6 51.7 49.2 78.2 10.4 0.5 No 32 2/1/2021 12:19:50 PM 63.2 84.4 68.9 51.0 78.2 2.2 1.2 No 33 2/1/2021 12:20:00 PM 61.4 84.1 69.3 52.2 78.2 4.1 0.0 No 34 2/1/2021 12:20:10 PM 64.1 87.7 70.2 52.3 78.3 4.8 0.9 No 35 2/1/2021 12:20:20 PM 66.4 88.0 71.2 61.3 78.3 3.5 0.2 No 36 2/1/2021 12:20:30 PM 72.3 90.4 75.3 68.8 78.6 2.5 0.3 No 37 2/1/2021 12:20:40 PM 70.2 90.3 73.9 59.7 78.7 2.8 2.8 No 38 2/1/2021 12:20:50 PM 52.1 84.8 59.7 50.8 78.7 8.2 0.2 No 39 2/1/2021 12:21:00 PM 58.2 85.2 64.4 50.6 78.7 5.1 0.5 No 40 2/1/2021 12:21:10 PM 66.8 86.2 68.9 61.2 78.7 2.8 2.1 No 41 2/1/2021 12:21:20 PM 60.4 80.9 65.2 55.8 78.7 3.2 0.7 No 42 2/1/2021 12:21:30 PM 72.4 96.3 77.4 65.3 78.7 2.2 10.1 No 43 2/1/2021 12:21:40 PM 62.3 82.1 69.8 60.5 78.8 4.1 ‐0.2 No 44 2/1/2021 12:21:50 PM 69.7 85.9 71.6 61.3 78.8 1.9 3.2 No 45 2/1/2021 12:22:00 PM 55.3 83.1 67.5 50.3 78.9 7.5 0.2 No 46 2/1/2021 12:22:10 PM 51.5 83.5 53.4 50.4 79.2 8.9 0.3 No 47 2/1/2021 12:22:20 PM 64.4 84.8 68.3 53.4 79.2 2.3 1.0 No 48 2/1/2021 12:22:30 PM 65.4 88.4 69.1 56.8 79.2 2 6.1 No 49 2/1/2021 12:22:40 PM 53.8 76.8 60.2 49.3 79.2 6.2 0.1 No 50 2/1/2021 12:22:50 PM 51.8 77.0 55.4 48.3 79.2 8.2 1.1 No 51 2/1/2021 12:23:00 PM 62.1 83.2 66.1 55.0 79.2 4.5 0.9 No 52 2/1/2021 12:23:10 PM 50.7 76.7 55.0 48.7 79.2 8.7 0.8 No 53 2/1/2021 12:23:20 PM 50.7 77.6 53.5 48.7 79.2 11.4 0.0 No 54 2/1/2021 12:23:30 PM 64.9 84.8 67.5 53.5 79.2 5.1 0.6 No 55 2/1/2021 12:23:40 PM 62.7 82.4 67.4 57.3 79.2 4.8 0.4 No 56 2/1/2021 12:23:50 PM 74.6 96.1 79.3 67.4 79.3 2.1 0.6 No 57 2/1/2021 12:24:00 PM 64.1 85.4 69.3 52.8 79.4 3.3 0.5 No 58 2/1/2021 12:24:10 PM 62.7 83.1 66.1 52.8 79.4 2.7 0.3 No 59 2/1/2021 12:24:20 PM 62.6 85.2 66.7 56.0 79.5 4.3 0.5 No 60 2/1/2021 12:24:30 PM 65.7 88.0 71.5 51.8 79.6 3 0.7 No 61 2/1/2021 12:24:40 PM 53.7 80.8 56.5 50.6 79.6 7.9 2.0 No 62 2/1/2021 12:24:50 PM 61.5 85.3 66.2 54.8 79.6 4.1 0.7 No 63 2/1/2021 12:25:00 PM 63.5 90.6 66.2 58.7 79.6 3.5 1.2 No 64 2/1/2021 12:25:10 PM 64.5 82.6 65.5 64.7 79.6 2.9 1.1 No 65 Stop 2/1/2021 12:25:11 PM APPENDIX F: GENERATOR ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS Veneklasen Associates Consultants in Acoustics | Noise | Vibration | AV | IT 1711 Sixteenth Street • Santa Monica California 90404 • tel: 310.450.1733 • fax: 310.396.3424 • www.veneklasen.com March 10, 2021 Alliance Residential Company 2462 Dupont Drive Irvine, California 92612 Attention: Ron Schulman | Vice President of Preconstruction Subject: Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study VA Project No. 5313-016 Dear Ron: Veneklasen Associates, Inc. (VA) was contracted to perform a noise study to evaluate the noise from the emergency generator at the proposed Holden Senior Living Community in Anaheim, California, and propose mitigation as necessary. This report documents our findings. INTRODUCTION The project site is located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road at the intersection with South Royal Oak Road. An emergency generator will be located near the northeast corner of the property about 25 feet from the property line. The nearest adjacent properties are existing single-family homes on Honeywood Lane. See Figure 1. The project site is higher in elevation than Honeywood Lane, with the generator pad about 15 feet higher than the lots of the nearest homes. Figure 2 shows a section through the generator. Figure 1. Project Site 5246 Honeywood Ln 5250 Honeywood Ln Generator Proposed Holden Senior Living Community, 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road Walls Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 2 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 2 of 8 www.veneklasen.com Figure 2. Section through site at generator CRITERIA The Anaheim Municipal Code section 6.70.010 prohibits any sound “radiated for extended periods … which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line in excess of 60 decibels.” The sound level is specified to be measured using the A-weighting scale and slow response of a sound level meter. EMERGENCY GENERATOR The following parameters were used for the analysis, based on information provided by others. The generator is a Rolls-Royce MTU 6R0225DS400 provided with a Level 3 weather and sound enclosure. The sound pressure level generated at full load with the Level 3 enclosure is 75.5 dBA at 7 meters (23 feet). The data sheet is attached in Appendix B for reference. A hospital-grade silencer should be provided on the exhaust. The generator with enclosure, including fuel tank (which is located below the generator) is 8 feet high. The generator will be surround by walls for visual and acoustic screening. The wall construction will be masonry or stucco and will be a minimum of 10 feet high as measured from the elevation of the generator pad. The wall is a minimum of 5 feet from the generator on all sides. Walls on three sides, as shown on Figure 1, was analyzed for acoustical purposes. A wall on the fourth side may be included but is not required, as the calculation were performed with walls on three sides. NOISE MODELING, ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS Noise propagation calculations were performed using Predictor-LimA1 noise modeling software. The calculations include the effect of terrain, shielding from walls and buildings, air and ground absorption, and reflections. Terrain contours were provided by the civil engineer. The generator pad elevation was 477.75 feet per the civil drawings. It was verified that the predicted noise level from the generator matched the published data when there was no shielding from walls or terrain. Noise level contours were calculated at 5 feet above the ground corresponding to head height. We also calculated the noise level at the second floor of the residences on Honeywood Lane. Although farther away, the second floor locations have more direct exposure due to the differences in elevation. The contours at ground level are shown in Figure 1, and the noise levels at the receptor locations are shown in Table 1. The calculations indicate that the requirement of the municipal code will be satisfied. 1 https://softnoise.com/products/predictor-lima/ 5250 Honeywood Ln Generator Property Line Wall Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 3 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 3 of 8 www.veneklasen.com Figure 3. Calculated Noise Contours Table 1. Calculated Noise Levels Location Noise Level (dBA) Property line 59 Second floor 51 SUMMARY Veneklasen evaluated the project site with the following provisions: • The specified emergency generator will be provided with a Level 3 noise enclosure and a hospital-grade silencer on the exhaust. • The generator will be surrounded with minimum 10-foot-high walls on the three sides facing the homes to the north. With the above provisions, the noise from the operation of the emergency generator is calculated to comply with the requirements of the City of Anaheim noise ordinance. Property Line Generator Walls Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 4 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 4 of 8 www.veneklasen.com If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Veneklasen Associates, Inc. Wayland Dong Associate Principal Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 5 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 5 of 8 www.veneklasen.com APPENDIX A Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term Definition Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound in a logarithmic ratio to a reference value. A-weighted Decibels (dBA) A filter applied to sound pressure levels in decibel to simulate the response of the human ear at the threshold of hearing. A-weighting de-emphasizes the low frequency components of a sound similar to the human ear at these levels. This metric has been closely tied to subjective reactions of annoyance to noise, and is used as a noise metric in this and in many other environmental acoustics reports. In this report, all dBA levels reported refer to the sound pressure level, referenced to 20µPa Sound Pressure Level (Lp) The amplitude of sound compared to the reference value of 20µPa. Sound Pressure Level is what we perceive as audible sound. Sound Pressure Level decreases as distance from the source to the receiver increases. Sound Power Level (Lw) The amplitude of sound compared to the reference value of 1pW. Sound Power Level does not vary with distance, and represents the level of sound emitted by a given source. The sound power level is generally used to model the sound pressure level of a source at a given distance or location. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The time-weighted average sound or vibration level for a given period of time. Use of this metric allows the observation of the overall sound level for the measurement period. Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The instantaneous maximum sound or vibration level of an event. The Lmax can occur over very short periods of time, and fluctuates much more than the Leq due to the presence of intermittent events in the noise environment. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The time-weighted noise level representing the noise exposure over a 24-hour period. Noise events that occur within the evening hours (7pm to 10pm) are given a +5dB penalty, and noise events that occur within the nighttime hours (10pm to 7am) are given a +10dB penalty, to account for increased sensitivity to noise during these hours. This metric has units of A-weighted decibels, and has been correlated to probability of annoyance. Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 6 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 6 of 8 www.veneklasen.com APPENDIX B Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 7 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 7 of 8 www.veneklasen.com Veneklasen Associates Holden Senior Living Community; Anaheim, California Emergency Generator Property Line Noise Study; VA Project No. 5313-016 March 10, 2021; Page 8 of 8 Month Day, Year; Page 8 of 8 www.veneklasen.com APPENDIX G: AIR QUALITY DATA 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.49 Acre 0.49 21,344.40 0 Parking Lot 55.00 Space 0.49 22,000.00 0 Congregate Care (Assisted Living)118.00 Dwelling Unit 2.01 100,133.00 337 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Anaheim Public Utilities 2024Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 1543.28 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Orange County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 1 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer Project Characteristics - Land Use - 118 unit (126 bed), 2-story, ~100,133 SF assisted living facility (87,710 [2.01 ac] SF footprint) on 2.99 acres. Construction Phase - Estimated start date for construction is ~June 2022, completion date is ~February 2024. Off-road Equipment - Trips and VMT - 13.6 miles to Olinda Alpha Landfill. 2 vendor trips each added to demolition, site prep and grading phases to account for water trucks. Demolition - demolition of: 17,217 SF structure and ~58,000 SF of existing parking lot and hardscape = 75,217 SF Grading - 3,200 CY of cut to be exported Architectural Coating - ~6% of Parking lot to be painted = 1,320 SF Vehicle Trips - Per TIA, project generates 328 trips. 328 trips/118 DUs = 2.78 trips/DU Woodstoves - No woodstoves or fireplaces will be installed. Area Coating - ~6% of Parking lot to be painted = 1,320 SF Land Use Change - Sequestration - 115 new trees proposed. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Parking 2,601.00 1,320.00 tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 2601 1320 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 350.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 100.30 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 5.90 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 2 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 3,200.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 118,000.00 100,133.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 7.38 2.01 tblSequestration NumberOfNewTrees 0.00 115.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 13.60 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 13.60 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 41.00 tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP 19.20 19.00 tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.20 2.78 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.44 2.78 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.74 2.78 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 5.90 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 5.90 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 3 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 2.2570 20.9068 17.7644 0.0404 6.9319 0.8474 7.6848 3.4684 0.7919 4.1615 0.0000 3,865.183 8 3,865.183 8 0.7778 0.0000 3,877.773 3 2023 2.0846 15.1487 17.3960 0.0398 1.2791 0.6224 1.9015 0.3421 0.5962 0.9383 0.0000 3,809.133 4 3,809.133 4 0.5447 0.0000 3,821.384 9 2024 31.8790 8.1276 12.0760 0.0193 0.2347 0.3967 0.5644 0.0623 0.3661 0.4106 0.0000 1,850.548 8 1,850.548 8 0.5446 0.0000 1,864.162 5 Maximum 31.8790 20.9068 17.7644 0.0404 6.9319 0.8474 7.6848 3.4684 0.7919 4.1615 0.0000 3,865.183 8 3,865.183 8 0.7778 0.0000 3,877.773 3 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 2.2570 20.9068 17.7644 0.0404 2.9239 0.8474 3.6769 1.4126 0.7919 2.1056 0.0000 3,865.183 8 3,865.183 8 0.7778 0.0000 3,877.773 3 2023 2.0846 15.1487 17.3960 0.0398 1.2791 0.6224 1.9015 0.3421 0.5962 0.9383 0.0000 3,809.133 4 3,809.133 4 0.5447 0.0000 3,821.384 9 2024 31.8790 8.1276 12.0760 0.0193 0.2347 0.3967 0.5644 0.0623 0.3661 0.4106 0.0000 1,850.548 8 1,850.548 8 0.5446 0.0000 1,864.162 5 Maximum 31.8790 20.9068 17.7644 0.0404 2.9239 0.8474 3.6769 1.4126 0.7919 2.1056 0.0000 3,865.183 8 3,865.183 8 0.7778 0.0000 3,877.773 3 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 4 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.46 0.00 39.48 53.08 0.00 37.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 5 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Energy 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Mobile 0.4270 1.5138 5.8650 0.0243 2.3765 0.0164 2.3929 0.6355 0.0152 0.6507 2,469.994 7 2,469.994 7 0.0941 2,472.345 9 Total 2.9312 1.9665 15.7466 0.0270 2.3765 0.0979 2.4744 0.6355 0.0967 0.7322 0.0000 2,922.166 3 2,922.166 3 0.1192 7.9700e- 003 2,927.521 5 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Energy 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Mobile 0.4270 1.5138 5.8650 0.0243 2.3765 0.0164 2.3929 0.6355 0.0152 0.6507 2,469.994 7 2,469.994 7 0.0941 2,472.345 9 Total 2.9312 1.9665 15.7466 0.0270 2.3765 0.0979 2.4744 0.6355 0.0967 0.7322 0.0000 2,922.166 3 2,922.166 3 0.1192 7.9700e- 003 2,927.521 5 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 6 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 6/1/2022 6/28/2022 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/29/2022 7/12/2022 5 10 3 Grading Grading 7/13/2022 8/9/2022 5 20 4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/10/2022 12/12/2023 5 350 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/10/2024 2/6/2024 5 20 6 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/9/2024 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 202,769; Residential Outdoor: 67,590; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 1,320 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0.98 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 7 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 8 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.7020 0.0000 3.7020 0.5605 0.0000 0.5605 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416 8 2,323.416 8 0.5921 2,338.219 1 Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 3.7020 0.8379 4.5399 0.5605 0.7829 1.3434 2,323.416 8 2,323.416 8 0.5921 2,338.219 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 2.00 342.00 14.70 6.90 13.60 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 2.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 2.00 400.00 14.70 6.90 13.60 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 103.00 20.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 21.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 9 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0868 3.1857 0.8839 9.1200e- 003 0.2026 8.2100e- 003 0.2108 0.0555 7.8500e- 003 0.0633 1,021.058 0 1,021.058 0 0.1080 1,023.756 9 Vendor 5.0200e- 003 0.1775 0.0491 4.9000e- 004 0.0128 3.4000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 003 53.2305 53.2305 4.0800e- 003 53.3326 Worker 0.0443 0.0257 0.3685 1.3200e- 003 0.1453 9.2000e- 004 0.1462 0.0385 8.5000e- 004 0.0394 131.7162 131.7162 2.6600e- 003 131.7827 Total 0.1362 3.3889 1.3016 0.0109 0.3606 9.4700e- 003 0.3701 0.0977 9.0200e- 003 0.1067 1,206.004 7 1,206.004 7 0.1147 1,208.872 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1.4438 0.0000 1.4438 0.2186 0.0000 0.2186 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 0.0000 2,323.416 8 2,323.416 8 0.5921 2,338.219 1 Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 1.4438 0.8379 2.2817 0.2186 0.7829 1.0015 0.0000 2,323.416 8 2,323.416 8 0.5921 2,338.219 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 10 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0868 3.1857 0.8839 9.1200e- 003 0.2026 8.2100e- 003 0.2108 0.0555 7.8500e- 003 0.0633 1,021.058 0 1,021.058 0 0.1080 1,023.756 9 Vendor 5.0200e- 003 0.1775 0.0491 4.9000e- 004 0.0128 3.4000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 003 53.2305 53.2305 4.0800e- 003 53.3326 Worker 0.0443 0.0257 0.3685 1.3200e- 003 0.1453 9.2000e- 004 0.1462 0.0385 8.5000e- 004 0.0394 131.7162 131.7162 2.6600e- 003 131.7827 Total 0.1362 3.3889 1.3016 0.0109 0.3606 9.4700e- 003 0.3701 0.0977 9.0200e- 003 0.1067 1,206.004 7 1,206.004 7 0.1147 1,208.872 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.5952 0.5952 0.5476 0.5476 2,375.156 9 2,375.156 9 0.7682 2,394.361 3 Total 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 1.5908 0.5952 2.1859 0.1718 0.5476 0.7193 2,375.156 9 2,375.156 9 0.7682 2,394.361 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 11 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0200e- 003 0.1775 0.0491 4.9000e- 004 0.0128 3.4000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 003 53.2305 53.2305 4.0800e- 003 53.3326 Worker 0.0273 0.0158 0.2268 8.1000e- 004 0.0894 5.7000e- 004 0.0900 0.0237 5.2000e- 004 0.0242 81.0561 81.0561 1.6400e- 003 81.0970 Total 0.0323 0.1933 0.2759 1.3000e- 003 0.1022 9.1000e- 004 0.1031 0.0274 8.4000e- 004 0.0282 134.2866 134.2866 5.7200e- 003 134.4296 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6204 0.0000 0.6204 0.0670 0.0000 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.5952 0.5952 0.5476 0.5476 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156 9 0.7682 2,394.361 3 Total 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.6204 0.5952 1.2156 0.0670 0.5476 0.6146 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156 9 0.7682 2,394.361 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 12 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0200e- 003 0.1775 0.0491 4.9000e- 004 0.0128 3.4000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 003 53.2305 53.2305 4.0800e- 003 53.3326 Worker 0.0273 0.0158 0.2268 8.1000e- 004 0.0894 5.7000e- 004 0.0900 0.0237 5.2000e- 004 0.0242 81.0561 81.0561 1.6400e- 003 81.0970 Total 0.0323 0.1933 0.2759 1.3000e- 003 0.1022 9.1000e- 004 0.1031 0.0274 8.4000e- 004 0.0282 134.2866 134.2866 5.7200e- 003 134.4296 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.5704 0.0000 6.5704 3.3702 0.0000 3.3702 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 1,995.482 5 1,995.482 5 0.6454 2,011.616 9 Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 6.5704 0.7423 7.3127 3.3702 0.6829 4.0531 1,995.482 5 1,995.482 5 0.6454 2,011.616 9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 13 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1016 3.7259 1.0338 0.0107 0.2369 9.6000e- 003 0.2465 0.0649 9.1800e- 003 0.0741 1,194.219 9 1,194.219 9 0.1263 1,197.376 5 Vendor 5.0200e- 003 0.1775 0.0491 4.9000e- 004 0.0128 3.4000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 003 53.2305 53.2305 4.0800e- 003 53.3326 Worker 0.0341 0.0198 0.2835 1.0200e- 003 0.1118 7.1000e- 004 0.1125 0.0296 6.5000e- 004 0.0303 101.3201 101.3201 2.0500e- 003 101.3713 Total 0.1407 3.9232 1.3664 0.0122 0.3615 0.0107 0.3721 0.0982 0.0102 0.1084 1,348.770 5 1,348.770 5 0.1324 1,352.080 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.5625 0.0000 2.5625 1.3144 0.0000 1.3144 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482 5 0.6454 2,011.616 9 Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 2.5625 0.7423 3.3048 1.3144 0.6829 1.9973 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482 5 0.6454 2,011.616 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 14 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1016 3.7259 1.0338 0.0107 0.2369 9.6000e- 003 0.2465 0.0649 9.1800e- 003 0.0741 1,194.219 9 1,194.219 9 0.1263 1,197.376 5 Vendor 5.0200e- 003 0.1775 0.0491 4.9000e- 004 0.0128 3.4000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 003 53.2305 53.2305 4.0800e- 003 53.3326 Worker 0.0341 0.0198 0.2835 1.0200e- 003 0.1118 7.1000e- 004 0.1125 0.0296 6.5000e- 004 0.0303 101.3201 101.3201 2.0500e- 003 101.3713 Total 0.1407 3.9232 1.3664 0.0122 0.3615 0.0107 0.3721 0.0982 0.0102 0.1084 1,348.770 5 1,348.770 5 0.1324 1,352.080 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 15 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0502 1.7751 0.4913 4.8800e- 003 0.1278 3.3900e- 003 0.1312 0.0368 3.2400e- 003 0.0400 532.3052 532.3052 0.0408 533.3261 Worker 0.3514 0.2038 2.9198 0.0105 1.1513 7.3100e- 003 1.1586 0.3053 6.7300e- 003 0.3121 1,043.597 3 1,043.597 3 0.0211 1,044.124 2 Total 0.4015 1.9789 3.4112 0.0153 1.2791 0.0107 1.2898 0.3421 9.9700e- 003 0.3521 1,575.902 5 1,575.902 5 0.0619 1,577.450 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 16 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0502 1.7751 0.4913 4.8800e- 003 0.1278 3.3900e- 003 0.1312 0.0368 3.2400e- 003 0.0400 532.3052 532.3052 0.0408 533.3261 Worker 0.3514 0.2038 2.9198 0.0105 1.1513 7.3100e- 003 1.1586 0.3053 6.7300e- 003 0.3121 1,043.597 3 1,043.597 3 0.0211 1,044.124 2 Total 0.4015 1.9789 3.4112 0.0153 1.2791 0.0107 1.2898 0.3421 9.9700e- 003 0.3521 1,575.902 5 1,575.902 5 0.0619 1,577.450 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523 3 0.4330 2,300.347 9 Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523 3 0.4330 2,300.347 9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 17 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.3398 0.4586 4.7200e- 003 0.1278 1.6100e- 003 0.1294 0.0368 1.5400e- 003 0.0383 516.1331 516.1331 0.0380 517.0821 Worker 0.3327 0.1850 2.7230 0.0101 1.1513 7.1800e- 003 1.1585 0.3053 6.6100e- 003 0.3119 1,003.477 0 1,003.477 0 0.0191 1,003.954 9 Total 0.3709 1.5248 3.1816 0.0148 1.2791 8.7900e- 003 1.2879 0.3421 8.1500e- 003 0.3503 1,519.610 1 1,519.610 1 0.0571 1,521.037 1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523 3 2,289.523 3 0.4330 2,300.347 9 Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523 3 2,289.523 3 0.4330 2,300.347 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 18 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.3398 0.4586 4.7200e- 003 0.1278 1.6100e- 003 0.1294 0.0368 1.5400e- 003 0.0383 516.1331 516.1331 0.0380 517.0821 Worker 0.3327 0.1850 2.7230 0.0101 1.1513 7.1800e- 003 1.1585 0.3053 6.6100e- 003 0.3119 1,003.477 0 1,003.477 0 0.0191 1,003.954 9 Total 0.3709 1.5248 3.1816 0.0148 1.2791 8.7900e- 003 1.2879 0.3421 8.1500e- 003 0.3503 1,519.610 1 1,519.610 1 0.0571 1,521.037 1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 31.6338 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 31.8145 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 19 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0645 0.0344 0.5168 1.9700e- 003 0.2347 1.4400e- 003 0.2362 0.0623 1.3200e- 003 0.0636 196.4850 196.4850 3.5400e- 003 196.5735 Total 0.0645 0.0344 0.5168 1.9700e- 003 0.2347 1.4400e- 003 0.2362 0.0623 1.3200e- 003 0.0636 196.4850 196.4850 3.5400e- 003 196.5735 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 31.6338 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 31.8145 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 20 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0645 0.0344 0.5168 1.9700e- 003 0.2347 1.4400e- 003 0.2362 0.0623 1.3200e- 003 0.0636 196.4850 196.4850 3.5400e- 003 196.5735 Total 0.0645 0.0344 0.5168 1.9700e- 003 0.2347 1.4400e- 003 0.2362 0.0623 1.3200e- 003 0.0636 196.4850 196.4850 3.5400e- 003 196.5735 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992 6 0.5420 1,723.541 4 Paving 0.0642 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9444 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992 6 0.5420 1,723.541 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 21 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.7 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0485 0.0270 0.3966 1.4600e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 146.1374 146.1374 2.7800e- 003 146.2070 Total 0.0485 0.0270 0.3966 1.4600e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 146.1374 146.1374 2.7800e- 003 146.2070 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992 6 1,709.992 6 0.5420 1,723.541 4 Paving 0.0642 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9444 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992 6 1,709.992 6 0.5420 1,723.541 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 22 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.7 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0485 0.0270 0.3966 1.4600e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 146.1374 146.1374 2.7800e- 003 146.2070 Total 0.0485 0.0270 0.3966 1.4600e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 146.1374 146.1374 2.7800e- 003 146.2070 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8425 8.1030 11.7069 0.0179 0.3957 0.3957 0.3652 0.3652 1,710.202 4 1,710.202 4 0.5420 1,723.752 9 Paving 0.0642 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9067 8.1030 11.7069 0.0179 0.3957 0.3957 0.3652 0.3652 1,710.202 4 1,710.202 4 0.5420 1,723.752 9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 23 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 3.7 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0461 0.0245 0.3691 1.4100e- 003 0.1677 1.0300e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.5000e- 004 0.0454 140.3465 140.3465 2.5300e- 003 140.4097 Total 0.0461 0.0245 0.3691 1.4100e- 003 0.1677 1.0300e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.5000e- 004 0.0454 140.3465 140.3465 2.5300e- 003 140.4097 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8425 8.1030 11.7069 0.0179 0.3957 0.3957 0.3652 0.3652 0.0000 1,710.202 4 1,710.202 4 0.5420 1,723.752 9 Paving 0.0642 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9067 8.1030 11.7069 0.0179 0.3957 0.3957 0.3652 0.3652 0.0000 1,710.202 4 1,710.202 4 0.5420 1,723.752 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 24 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0461 0.0245 0.3691 1.4100e- 003 0.1677 1.0300e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.5000e- 004 0.0454 140.3465 140.3465 2.5300e- 003 140.4097 Total 0.0461 0.0245 0.3691 1.4100e- 003 0.1677 1.0300e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.5000e- 004 0.0454 140.3465 140.3465 2.5300e- 003 140.4097 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 25 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.4270 1.5138 5.8650 0.0243 2.3765 0.0164 2.3929 0.6355 0.0152 0.6507 2,469.994 7 2,469.994 7 0.0941 2,472.345 9 Unmitigated 0.4270 1.5138 5.8650 0.0243 2.3765 0.0164 2.3929 0.6355 0.0152 0.6507 2,469.994 7 2,469.994 7 0.0941 2,472.345 9 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Congregate Care (Assisted Living)328.04 328.04 328.04 1,120,284 1,120,284 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 328.04 328.04 328.04 1,120,284 1,120,284 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.00 19.00 41.00 86 11 3 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 26 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 0.565244 0.042904 0.209304 0.108392 0.014546 0.005773 0.026273 0.017831 0.001792 0.001509 0.004953 0.000602 0.000877 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.565244 0.042904 0.209304 0.108392 0.014546 0.005773 0.026273 0.017831 0.001792 0.001509 0.004953 0.000602 0.000877 Parking Lot 0.565244 0.042904 0.209304 0.108392 0.014546 0.005773 0.026273 0.017831 0.001792 0.001509 0.004953 0.000602 0.000877 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 27 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3694.36 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3.69436 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 28 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Unmitigated 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 29 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1733 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9980 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.2931 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 17.9626 Total 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 30 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1733 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9980 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.2931 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 17.9626 Total 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 31 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:45 PMPage 32 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.49 Acre 0.49 21,344.40 0 Parking Lot 55.00 Space 0.49 22,000.00 0 Congregate Care (Assisted Living)118.00 Dwelling Unit 2.01 100,133.00 337 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Anaheim Public Utilities 2024Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 1543.28 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Orange County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 1 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter Project Characteristics - Land Use - 118 unit (126 bed), 2-story, ~100,133 SF assisted living facility (87,710 [2.01 ac] SF footprint) on 2.99 acres. Construction Phase - Estimated start date for construction is ~June 2022, completion date is ~February 2024. Off-road Equipment - Trips and VMT - 13.6 miles to Olinda Alpha Landfill. 2 vendor trips each added to demolition, site prep and grading phases to account for water trucks. Demolition - demolition of: 17,217 SF structure and ~58,000 SF of existing parking lot and hardscape = 75,217 SF Grading - 3,200 CY of cut to be exported Architectural Coating - ~6% of Parking lot to be painted = 1,320 SF Vehicle Trips - Per TIA, project generates 328 trips. 328 trips/118 DUs = 2.78 trips/DU Woodstoves - No woodstoves or fireplaces will be installed. Area Coating - ~6% of Parking lot to be painted = 1,320 SF Land Use Change - Sequestration - 115 new trees proposed. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Parking 2,601.00 1,320.00 tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 2601 1320 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 350.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 100.30 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 5.90 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 2 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 3,200.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 118,000.00 100,133.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 7.38 2.01 tblSequestration NumberOfNewTrees 0.00 115.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 13.60 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 13.60 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 41.00 tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP 19.20 19.00 tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.20 2.78 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.44 2.78 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.74 2.78 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 5.90 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 5.90 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 3 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 2.3070 20.9228 17.5817 0.0397 6.9319 0.8476 7.6851 3.4684 0.7921 4.1617 0.0000 3,796.208 0 3,796.208 0 0.7815 0.0000 3,808.816 7 2023 2.1326 15.1593 17.2140 0.0392 1.2791 0.6225 1.9016 0.3421 0.5963 0.9384 0.0000 3,742.965 0 3,742.965 0 0.5446 0.0000 3,755.229 2 2024 31.8882 8.1300 12.0461 0.0192 0.2347 0.3967 0.5644 0.0623 0.3661 0.4106 0.0000 1,843.046 3 1,843.046 3 0.5444 0.0000 1,856.656 5 Maximum 31.8882 20.9228 17.5817 0.0397 6.9319 0.8476 7.6851 3.4684 0.7921 4.1617 0.0000 3,796.208 0 3,796.208 0 0.7815 0.0000 3,808.816 7 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 2.3070 20.9228 17.5817 0.0397 2.9239 0.8476 3.6771 1.4126 0.7921 2.1059 0.0000 3,796.208 0 3,796.208 0 0.7815 0.0000 3,808.816 7 2023 2.1326 15.1593 17.2140 0.0392 1.2791 0.6225 1.9016 0.3421 0.5963 0.9384 0.0000 3,742.965 0 3,742.965 0 0.5446 0.0000 3,755.229 2 2024 31.8882 8.1300 12.0461 0.0192 0.2347 0.3967 0.5644 0.0623 0.3661 0.4106 0.0000 1,843.046 3 1,843.046 3 0.5444 0.0000 1,856.656 5 Maximum 31.8882 20.9228 17.5817 0.0397 2.9239 0.8476 3.6771 1.4126 0.7921 2.1059 0.0000 3,796.208 0 3,796.208 0 0.7815 0.0000 3,808.816 7 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 4 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.46 0.00 39.48 53.08 0.00 37.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 5 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Energy 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Mobile 0.4189 1.5560 5.5855 0.0232 2.3765 0.0164 2.3930 0.6355 0.0153 0.6508 2,362.497 4 2,362.497 4 0.0937 2,364.839 8 Total 2.9232 2.0086 15.4671 0.0259 2.3765 0.0979 2.4745 0.6355 0.0967 0.7322 0.0000 2,814.668 9 2,814.668 9 0.1189 7.9700e- 003 2,820.015 4 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Energy 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Mobile 0.4189 1.5560 5.5855 0.0232 2.3765 0.0164 2.3930 0.6355 0.0153 0.6508 2,362.497 4 2,362.497 4 0.0937 2,364.839 8 Total 2.9232 2.0086 15.4671 0.0259 2.3765 0.0979 2.4745 0.6355 0.0967 0.7322 0.0000 2,814.668 9 2,814.668 9 0.1189 7.9700e- 003 2,820.015 4 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 6 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 6/1/2022 6/28/2022 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/29/2022 7/12/2022 5 10 3 Grading Grading 7/13/2022 8/9/2022 5 20 4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/10/2022 12/12/2023 5 350 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/10/2024 2/6/2024 5 20 6 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/9/2024 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 202,769; Residential Outdoor: 67,590; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 1,320 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0.98 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 7 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 8 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.7020 0.0000 3.7020 0.5605 0.0000 0.5605 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416 8 2,323.416 8 0.5921 2,338.219 1 Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 3.7020 0.8379 4.5399 0.5605 0.7829 1.3434 2,323.416 8 2,323.416 8 0.5921 2,338.219 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 2.00 342.00 14.70 6.90 13.60 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 2.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 2.00 400.00 14.70 6.90 13.60 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 103.00 20.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 21.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 9 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0897 3.1981 0.9426 8.9300e- 003 0.2026 8.4300e- 003 0.2110 0.0555 8.0600e- 003 0.0635 999.3746 999.3746 0.1111 1,002.151 3 Vendor 5.2700e- 003 0.1770 0.0538 4.8000e- 004 0.0128 3.5000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.4000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 51.9179 51.9179 4.2700e- 003 52.0247 Worker 0.0503 0.0283 0.3395 1.2500e- 003 0.1453 9.2000e- 004 0.1462 0.0385 8.5000e- 004 0.0394 124.6672 124.6672 2.5200e- 003 124.7301 Total 0.1453 3.4034 1.3359 0.0107 0.3606 9.7000e- 003 0.3703 0.0977 9.2500e- 003 0.1069 1,175.959 7 1,175.959 7 0.1179 1,178.906 1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1.4438 0.0000 1.4438 0.2186 0.0000 0.2186 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 0.0000 2,323.416 8 2,323.416 8 0.5921 2,338.219 1 Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 1.4438 0.8379 2.2817 0.2186 0.7829 1.0015 0.0000 2,323.416 8 2,323.416 8 0.5921 2,338.219 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 10 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0897 3.1981 0.9426 8.9300e- 003 0.2026 8.4300e- 003 0.2110 0.0555 8.0600e- 003 0.0635 999.3746 999.3746 0.1111 1,002.151 3 Vendor 5.2700e- 003 0.1770 0.0538 4.8000e- 004 0.0128 3.5000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.4000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 51.9179 51.9179 4.2700e- 003 52.0247 Worker 0.0503 0.0283 0.3395 1.2500e- 003 0.1453 9.2000e- 004 0.1462 0.0385 8.5000e- 004 0.0394 124.6672 124.6672 2.5200e- 003 124.7301 Total 0.1453 3.4034 1.3359 0.0107 0.3606 9.7000e- 003 0.3703 0.0977 9.2500e- 003 0.1069 1,175.959 7 1,175.959 7 0.1179 1,178.906 1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.5952 0.5952 0.5476 0.5476 2,375.156 9 2,375.156 9 0.7682 2,394.361 3 Total 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 1.5908 0.5952 2.1859 0.1718 0.5476 0.7193 2,375.156 9 2,375.156 9 0.7682 2,394.361 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 11 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.2700e- 003 0.1770 0.0538 4.8000e- 004 0.0128 3.5000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.4000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 51.9179 51.9179 4.2700e- 003 52.0247 Worker 0.0310 0.0174 0.2089 7.7000e- 004 0.0894 5.7000e- 004 0.0900 0.0237 5.2000e- 004 0.0242 76.7183 76.7183 1.5500e- 003 76.7570 Total 0.0363 0.1944 0.2628 1.2500e- 003 0.1022 9.2000e- 004 0.1031 0.0274 8.6000e- 004 0.0283 128.6362 128.6362 5.8200e- 003 128.7817 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6204 0.0000 0.6204 0.0670 0.0000 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.5952 0.5952 0.5476 0.5476 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156 9 0.7682 2,394.361 3 Total 1.3784 15.6673 10.0558 0.0245 0.6204 0.5952 1.2156 0.0670 0.5476 0.6146 0.0000 2,375.156 9 2,375.156 9 0.7682 2,394.361 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 12 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.2700e- 003 0.1770 0.0538 4.8000e- 004 0.0128 3.5000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.4000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 51.9179 51.9179 4.2700e- 003 52.0247 Worker 0.0310 0.0174 0.2089 7.7000e- 004 0.0894 5.7000e- 004 0.0900 0.0237 5.2000e- 004 0.0242 76.7183 76.7183 1.5500e- 003 76.7570 Total 0.0363 0.1944 0.2628 1.2500e- 003 0.1022 9.2000e- 004 0.1031 0.0274 8.6000e- 004 0.0283 128.6362 128.6362 5.8200e- 003 128.7817 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.5704 0.0000 6.5704 3.3702 0.0000 3.3702 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 1,995.482 5 1,995.482 5 0.6454 2,011.616 9 Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 6.5704 0.7423 7.3127 3.3702 0.6829 4.0531 1,995.482 5 1,995.482 5 0.6454 2,011.616 9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 13 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1050 3.7405 1.1024 0.0104 0.2369 9.8600e- 003 0.2468 0.0649 9.4300e- 003 0.0743 1,168.859 2 1,168.859 2 0.1299 1,172.106 7 Vendor 5.2700e- 003 0.1770 0.0538 4.8000e- 004 0.0128 3.5000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.4000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 51.9179 51.9179 4.2700e- 003 52.0247 Worker 0.0387 0.0217 0.2612 9.6000e- 004 0.1118 7.1000e- 004 0.1125 0.0296 6.5000e- 004 0.0303 95.8979 95.8979 1.9400e- 003 95.9463 Total 0.1489 3.9392 1.4174 0.0119 0.3615 0.0109 0.3724 0.0982 0.0104 0.1086 1,316.674 9 1,316.674 9 0.1361 1,320.077 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.5625 0.0000 2.5625 1.3144 0.0000 1.3144 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482 5 0.6454 2,011.616 9 Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 2.5625 0.7423 3.3048 1.3144 0.6829 1.9973 0.0000 1,995.482 5 1,995.482 5 0.6454 2,011.616 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 14 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1050 3.7405 1.1024 0.0104 0.2369 9.8600e- 003 0.2468 0.0649 9.4300e- 003 0.0743 1,168.859 2 1,168.859 2 0.1299 1,172.106 7 Vendor 5.2700e- 003 0.1770 0.0538 4.8000e- 004 0.0128 3.5000e- 004 0.0131 3.6800e- 003 3.4000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 51.9179 51.9179 4.2700e- 003 52.0247 Worker 0.0387 0.0217 0.2612 9.6000e- 004 0.1118 7.1000e- 004 0.1125 0.0296 6.5000e- 004 0.0303 95.8979 95.8979 1.9400e- 003 95.9463 Total 0.1489 3.9392 1.4174 0.0119 0.3615 0.0109 0.3724 0.0982 0.0104 0.1086 1,316.674 9 1,316.674 9 0.1361 1,320.077 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 15 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.7697 0.5383 4.7600e- 003 0.1278 3.5200e- 003 0.1313 0.0368 3.3700e- 003 0.0401 519.1786 519.1786 0.0428 520.2473 Worker 0.3988 0.2239 2.6902 9.9000e- 003 1.1513 7.3100e- 003 1.1586 0.3053 6.7300e- 003 0.3121 987.7481 987.7481 0.0199 988.2464 Total 0.4515 1.9936 3.2284 0.0147 1.2791 0.0108 1.2899 0.3421 0.0101 0.3522 1,506.926 7 1,506.926 7 0.0627 1,508.493 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 16 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.7697 0.5383 4.7600e- 003 0.1278 3.5200e- 003 0.1313 0.0368 3.3700e- 003 0.0401 519.1786 519.1786 0.0428 520.2473 Worker 0.3988 0.2239 2.6902 9.9000e- 003 1.1513 7.3100e- 003 1.1586 0.3053 6.7300e- 003 0.3121 987.7481 987.7481 0.0199 988.2464 Total 0.4515 1.9936 3.2284 0.0147 1.2791 0.0108 1.2899 0.3421 0.0101 0.3522 1,506.926 7 1,506.926 7 0.0627 1,508.493 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523 3 0.4330 2,300.347 9 Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523 3 2,289.523 3 0.4330 2,300.347 9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 17 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0401 1.3321 0.4946 4.6100e- 003 0.1278 1.7100e- 003 0.1295 0.0368 1.6400e- 003 0.0384 503.6185 503.6185 0.0395 504.6067 Worker 0.3788 0.2033 2.5049 9.5200e- 003 1.1513 7.1800e- 003 1.1585 0.3053 6.6100e- 003 0.3119 949.8231 949.8231 0.0181 950.2747 Total 0.4189 1.5353 2.9995 0.0141 1.2791 8.8900e- 003 1.2880 0.3421 8.2500e- 003 0.3504 1,453.441 6 1,453.441 6 0.0576 1,454.881 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523 3 2,289.523 3 0.4330 2,300.347 9 Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523 3 2,289.523 3 0.4330 2,300.347 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 18 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0401 1.3321 0.4946 4.6100e- 003 0.1278 1.7100e- 003 0.1295 0.0368 1.6400e- 003 0.0384 503.6185 503.6185 0.0395 504.6067 Worker 0.3788 0.2033 2.5049 9.5200e- 003 1.1513 7.1800e- 003 1.1585 0.3053 6.6100e- 003 0.3119 949.8231 949.8231 0.0181 950.2747 Total 0.4189 1.5353 2.9995 0.0141 1.2791 8.8900e- 003 1.2880 0.3421 8.2500e- 003 0.3504 1,453.441 6 1,453.441 6 0.0576 1,454.881 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 31.6338 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 31.8145 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 19 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0736 0.0377 0.4749 1.8600e- 003 0.2347 1.4400e- 003 0.2362 0.0623 1.3200e- 003 0.0636 185.9815 185.9815 3.3400e- 003 186.0650 Total 0.0736 0.0377 0.4749 1.8600e- 003 0.2347 1.4400e- 003 0.2362 0.0623 1.3200e- 003 0.0636 185.9815 185.9815 3.3400e- 003 186.0650 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 31.6338 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 31.8145 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 20 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0736 0.0377 0.4749 1.8600e- 003 0.2347 1.4400e- 003 0.2362 0.0623 1.3200e- 003 0.0636 185.9815 185.9815 3.3400e- 003 186.0650 Total 0.0736 0.0377 0.4749 1.8600e- 003 0.2347 1.4400e- 003 0.2362 0.0623 1.3200e- 003 0.0636 185.9815 185.9815 3.3400e- 003 186.0650 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992 6 0.5420 1,723.541 4 Paving 0.0642 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9444 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992 6 1,709.992 6 0.5420 1,723.541 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 21 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.7 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0552 0.0296 0.3648 1.3900e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 138.3238 138.3238 2.6300e- 003 138.3895 Total 0.0552 0.0296 0.3648 1.3900e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 138.3238 138.3238 2.6300e- 003 138.3895 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992 6 1,709.992 6 0.5420 1,723.541 4 Paving 0.0642 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9444 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992 6 1,709.992 6 0.5420 1,723.541 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 22 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.7 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0552 0.0296 0.3648 1.3900e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 138.3238 138.3238 2.6300e- 003 138.3895 Total 0.0552 0.0296 0.3648 1.3900e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 138.3238 138.3238 2.6300e- 003 138.3895 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8425 8.1030 11.7069 0.0179 0.3957 0.3957 0.3652 0.3652 1,710.202 4 1,710.202 4 0.5420 1,723.752 9 Paving 0.0642 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9067 8.1030 11.7069 0.0179 0.3957 0.3957 0.3652 0.3652 1,710.202 4 1,710.202 4 0.5420 1,723.752 9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 23 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 3.7 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0526 0.0270 0.3392 1.3300e- 003 0.1677 1.0300e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.5000e- 004 0.0454 132.8439 132.8439 2.3900e- 003 132.9036 Total 0.0526 0.0270 0.3392 1.3300e- 003 0.1677 1.0300e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.5000e- 004 0.0454 132.8439 132.8439 2.3900e- 003 132.9036 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8425 8.1030 11.7069 0.0179 0.3957 0.3957 0.3652 0.3652 0.0000 1,710.202 4 1,710.202 4 0.5420 1,723.752 9 Paving 0.0642 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9067 8.1030 11.7069 0.0179 0.3957 0.3957 0.3652 0.3652 0.0000 1,710.202 4 1,710.202 4 0.5420 1,723.752 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 24 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0526 0.0270 0.3392 1.3300e- 003 0.1677 1.0300e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.5000e- 004 0.0454 132.8439 132.8439 2.3900e- 003 132.9036 Total 0.0526 0.0270 0.3392 1.3300e- 003 0.1677 1.0300e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.5000e- 004 0.0454 132.8439 132.8439 2.3900e- 003 132.9036 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 25 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.4189 1.5560 5.5855 0.0232 2.3765 0.0164 2.3930 0.6355 0.0153 0.6508 2,362.497 4 2,362.497 4 0.0937 2,364.839 8 Unmitigated 0.4189 1.5560 5.5855 0.0232 2.3765 0.0164 2.3930 0.6355 0.0153 0.6508 2,362.497 4 2,362.497 4 0.0937 2,364.839 8 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Congregate Care (Assisted Living)328.04 328.04 328.04 1,120,284 1,120,284 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 328.04 328.04 328.04 1,120,284 1,120,284 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.00 19.00 41.00 86 11 3 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 26 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 0.565244 0.042904 0.209304 0.108392 0.014546 0.005773 0.026273 0.017831 0.001792 0.001509 0.004953 0.000602 0.000877 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.565244 0.042904 0.209304 0.108392 0.014546 0.005773 0.026273 0.017831 0.001792 0.001509 0.004953 0.000602 0.000877 Parking Lot 0.565244 0.042904 0.209304 0.108392 0.014546 0.005773 0.026273 0.017831 0.001792 0.001509 0.004953 0.000602 0.000877 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 27 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3694.36 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3.69436 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0398 0.3405 0.1449 2.1700e- 003 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 434.6302 434.6302 8.3300e- 003 7.9700e- 003 437.2130 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 28 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Unmitigated 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 29 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1733 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9980 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.2931 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 17.9626 Total 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 30 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1733 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9980 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.2931 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 17.9626 Total 2.4644 0.1122 9.7367 5.1000e- 004 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0540 0.0000 17.5413 17.5413 0.0169 0.0000 17.9626 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 31 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:46 PMPage 32 of 32 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Winter Ar e a C o a t i n g - En e r g y U s e - Se q u e s t r a t i o n - 1. 3 U s e r E n t e r e d C o m m e n t s & N o n - D e f a u l t D a t a Pr o j e c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - O P E R A T I O N A L A N A L Y S I S O N L Y La n d U s e - R e m o v a l o f e x i s t i n g 1 7 , 2 1 7 S F c h u r c h . S i t e i s 2 . 9 9 a c. Co n s t r u c t i o n P h a s e - Ve h i c l e T r i p s - P e r T I A , c h u r c h g e n e r a t e d 6 . 9 5 d a i l y t r i p s / T S F . Wo o d s t o v e s - CO 2 I n t e n s i t y (l b / M W h r ) 15 4 3 . 2 8 CH 4 I n t e n s i t y (l b / M W h r ) 0. 0 2 9 N2 O I n t e n s i t y (l b / M W h r ) 0. 0 0 6 30 Cl i m a t e Z o n e 8 Op e r a t i o n a l Y e a r 20 2 2 Ut i l i t y C o m p a n y An a h e i m P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s 1. 2 O t h e r P r o j e c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Ur b a n i z a t i o n Ur b a n Wi n d S p e e d ( m / s ) 2. 2 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n F r e q ( D a y s ) Fl o o r S u r f a c e A r e a P o p u l a t i o n Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 7 . 2 2 1 0 0 0 s q f t 2 . 9 9 1 7 , 2 1 7 . 0 0 0 1. 0 P r o j e c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1. 1 L a n d U s a g e La n d U s e s S i z e M e t r i c L o t A c r e a g e Ca l E E M o d V e r s i o n : C a l E E M o d . 2 0 1 6 . 3 . 2 Pa g e 1 o f 1 D a t e : 2 / 3 / 2 0 2 1 3 : 0 4 P M Ho l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g E x i s t i n g U s e s O P S O N L Y - O r a ng e C o u n t y , S u m m e r Ho l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g E x i s t i n g U s e s O P S O N L Y Or a n g e C o u n t y , S u m m e r 73 2 . 6 2 9 4 7 3 2 . 6 2 9 4 0 . 0 2 8 0 2 . 1 3 0 0 e - 003733.9626 0. 5 4 1 4 0 . 0 1 1 8 0 . 5 5 3 2 0 . 1 4 4 8 0 . 0 1 1 5 0 . 1 5 6 3 To t a l 0 . 5 4 4 9 0 . 6 4 8 4 1 . 7 3 6 4 6 . 6 5 0 0 e - 00 3 61 6 . 6 4 3 3 6 1 6 . 6 4 3 3 0 . 0 2 5 8 6 1 7 . 2 8 7 0 0. 5 4 1 4 4 . 4 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 5 4 5 8 0 . 1 4 4 8 4 . 1 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 4 8 9 Mo b i l e 0 . 1 4 9 4 0 . 5 5 1 7 1 . 6 5 3 5 6 . 0 7 0 0 e - 00 3 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 00 3 2.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 En e r g y 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 Ar e a 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 2. 2 O v e r a l l O p e r a t i o n a l Un m i t i g a t e d O p e r a t i o n a l RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 2. 0 E m i s s i o n s S u m m a r y tb l V e h i c l e T r i p s S U _ T R 3 6 . 6 3 6 . 9 5 tb l V e h i c l e T r i p s W D _ T R 9 . 1 1 6 . 9 5 tb l L a n d U s e L o t A c r e a g e 0 . 4 0 2 . 9 9 tb l V e h i c l e T r i p s S T _ T R 1 0 . 3 7 6 . 9 5 Ta b l e N a m e C o l u m n N a m e D e f a u l t V a l u e N e w V a l u e 4. 0 O p e r a t i o n a l D e t a i l - M o b i l e 4. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s M o b i l e 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 NB i o - C O 2 T o t a l CO 2 CH 4 N 2 0 C O 2 e Pe r c e n t Re d u c t i o n 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 73 2 . 6 2 9 4 7 3 2 . 6 2 9 4 0 . 0 2 8 0 2 . 1 3 0 0 e - 003733.9626 0. 5 4 1 4 0 . 0 1 1 8 0 . 5 5 3 2 0 . 1 4 4 8 0 . 0 1 1 5 0 . 1 5 6 3 To t a l 0 . 5 4 4 9 0 . 6 4 8 4 1 . 7 3 6 4 6 . 6 5 0 0 e - 00 3 61 6 . 6 4 3 3 6 1 6 . 6 4 3 3 0 . 0 2 5 8 6 1 7 . 2 8 7 0 0. 5 4 1 4 4 . 4 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 5 4 5 8 0 . 1 4 4 8 4 . 1 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 4 8 9 Mo b i l e 0 . 1 4 9 4 0 . 5 5 1 7 1 . 6 5 3 5 6 . 0 7 0 0 e - 00 3 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 00 3 2.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 En e r g y 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 Ar e a 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 Mi t i g a t e d O p e r a t i o n a l RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 5. 0 E n e r g y D e t a i l Hi s t o r i c a l E n e r g y U s e : N 5. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s E n e r g y 0. 0 1 7 1 2 5 0 . 0 0 1 7 4 7 0 . 0 0 1 5 4 2 0 . 0 0 4 9 2 6 0 . 0 0 0 5 9 4 0 . 0 0 0 9 3 4 SBUS M H Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 0 . 5 6 1 3 7 8 0 . 0 4 3 2 8 4 0 . 2 0 9 4 7 3 0 . 1 1 1 8 2 6 0 . 0 1 5 5 4 5 0 . 0 0 5 7 9 5 0 . 0 2 5 8 2 9 LH D 2 M H D H H D O B U S U B U S M C Y La n d U s e L D A L D T 1 L D T 2 M D V L H D 1 95 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 6 4 2 5 1 1 4. 4 F l e e t M i x H- S o r C - C H - O o r C - N W P r i m a r y D i v e r t e d P a s s - b y Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 6 . 6 0 8 . 4 0 6 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 4. 3 T r i p T y p e I n f o r m a t i o n Mi l e s T r i p % T r i p P u r p o s e % La n d U s e H - W o r C - W H - S o r C - C H - O o r C - N W H - W o r C - W To t a l 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 An n u a l V M T Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 4. 2 T r i p S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n Av e r a g e D a i l y T r i p R a t e U n m i t i g a t e d M i t i g a t e d La n d U s e W e e k d a y S a t u r d a y S u n d a y A n n u a l V M T 61 6 . 6 4 3 3 6 1 6 . 6 4 3 3 0 . 0 2 5 8 6 1 7 . 2 8 7 0 0. 5 4 1 4 4 . 4 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 5 4 5 8 0 . 1 4 4 8 4 . 1 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 4 8 9 Un m i t i g a t e d 0 . 1 4 9 4 0 . 5 5 1 7 1 . 6 5 3 5 6 . 0 7 0 0 e - 00 3 61 6 . 6 4 3 3 6 1 6 . 6 4 3 3 0 . 0 2 5 8 6 1 7 . 2 8 7 0 0. 5 4 1 4 4 . 4 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 5 4 5 8 0 . 1 4 4 8 4 . 1 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 4 8 9 Mi t i g a t e d 0 . 1 4 9 4 0 . 5 5 1 7 1 . 6 5 3 5 6 . 0 7 0 0 e - 00 3 NB i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 0032.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 To t a l 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 0032.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 9 8 5 . 8 5 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e La n d U s e k B T U / y r l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - C O 2 5. 2 E n e r g y b y L a n d U s e - N a t u r a l G a s Un m i t i g a t e d Na t u r a l G a s U s e RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 00 3 2.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 Na t u r a l G a s Un m i t i g a t e d 0. 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 00 3 2.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 Na t u r a l G a s Mi t i g a t e d 0. 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 NB i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 Un m i t i g a t e d 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 Mi t i g a t e d 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 NB i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 6. 0 A r e a D e t a i l 6. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s A r e a RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 0032.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 To t a l 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 0032.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 0 . 9 8 5 8 5 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e La n d U s e k B T U / y r l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - C O 2 Mi t i g a t e d Na t u r a l G a s U s e RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 7. 0 W a t e r D e t a i l 7. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s W a t e r 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 To t a l 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 La n d s c a p i n g 1 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 2. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Co n s u m e r Pr o d u c t s 0. 3 4 0 9 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Co a t i n g 0. 0 4 3 7 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Su b C a t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 Mi t i g a t e d RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 To t a l 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 La n d s c a p i n g 1 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 2. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Co n s u m e r Pr o d u c t s 0. 3 4 0 9 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Co a t i n g 0. 0 4 3 7 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Su b C a t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 6. 2 A r e a b y S u b C a t e g o r y Un m i t i g a t e d RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 Us e r D e f i n e d E q u i p m e n t Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r 11 . 0 V e g e t a t i o n Lo a d F a c t o r F u e l T y p e Bo i l e r s Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r H e a t I n p u t / D a y H e a t I n p u t / Y e a r B o i l e r R a t i n g F ue l T y p e Fi r e P u m p s a n d E m e r g e n c y G e n e r a t o r s Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r H o u r s / D a y H o u r s / Y e a r H o r s e P o w e r Ho u r s / D a y D a y s / Y e a r H o r s e P o w e r L o a d F a c t o r F u e l T y p e 10 . 0 S t a t i o n a r y E q u i p m e n t 8. 0 W a s t e D e t a i l 8. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s W a s t e 9. 0 O p e r a t i o n a l O f f r o a d Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r Ar e a C o a t i n g - En e r g y U s e - Se q u e s t r a t i o n - 1. 3 U s e r E n t e r e d C o m m e n t s & N o n - D e f a u l t D a t a Pr o j e c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - O P E R A T I O N A L A N A L Y S I S O N L Y La n d U s e - R e m o v a l o f e x i s t i n g 1 7 , 2 1 7 S F c h u r c h . S i t e i s 2 . 9 9 a c. Co n s t r u c t i o n P h a s e - Ve h i c l e T r i p s - P e r T I A , c h u r c h g e n e r a t e d 6 . 9 5 d a i l y t r i p s / T S F . Wo o d s t o v e s - CO 2 I n t e n s i t y (l b / M W h r ) 15 4 3 . 2 8 CH 4 I n t e n s i t y (l b / M W h r ) 0. 0 2 9 N2 O I n t e n s i t y (l b / M W h r ) 0. 0 0 6 30 Cl i m a t e Z o n e 8 Op e r a t i o n a l Y e a r 20 2 2 Ut i l i t y C o m p a n y An a h e i m P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s 1. 2 O t h e r P r o j e c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Ur b a n i z a t i o n Ur b a n Wi n d S p e e d ( m / s ) 2. 2 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n F r e q ( D a y s ) Fl o o r S u r f a c e A r e a P o p u l a t i o n Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 7 . 2 2 1 0 0 0 s q f t 2 . 9 9 1 7 , 2 1 7 . 0 0 0 1. 0 P r o j e c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1. 1 L a n d U s a g e La n d U s e s S i z e M e t r i c L o t A c r e a g e Ca l E E M o d V e r s i o n : C a l E E M o d . 2 0 1 6 . 3 . 2 Pa g e 1 o f 1 D a t e : 2 / 3 / 2 0 2 1 3 : 0 5 P M Ho l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g E x i s t i n g U s e s O P S O N L Y - O r a ng e C o u n t y , W i n t e r Ho l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g E x i s t i n g U s e s O P S O N L Y Or a n g e C o u n t y , W i n t e r 70 5 . 0 3 9 5 7 0 5 . 0 3 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 1 2 . 1 3 0 0 e - 003706.3761 0. 5 4 1 4 0 . 0 1 1 8 0 . 5 5 3 2 0 . 1 4 4 8 0 . 0 1 1 5 0 . 1 5 6 3 To t a l 0 . 5 4 2 4 0 . 6 5 9 5 1 . 6 9 1 0 6 . 3 7 0 0 e - 00 3 58 9 . 0 5 3 3 5 8 9 . 0 5 3 3 0 . 0 2 5 9 5 8 9 . 7 0 0 5 0. 5 4 1 4 4 . 4 8 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 5 4 5 9 0 . 1 4 4 8 4 . 1 7 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 4 8 9 Mo b i l e 0 . 1 4 6 9 0 . 5 6 2 9 1 . 6 0 8 1 5 . 7 9 0 0 e - 00 3 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 00 3 2.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 En e r g y 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 Ar e a 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 2. 2 O v e r a l l O p e r a t i o n a l Un m i t i g a t e d O p e r a t i o n a l RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 2. 0 E m i s s i o n s S u m m a r y tb l V e h i c l e T r i p s S U _ T R 3 6 . 6 3 6 . 9 5 tb l V e h i c l e T r i p s W D _ T R 9 . 1 1 6 . 9 5 tb l L a n d U s e L o t A c r e a g e 0 . 4 0 2 . 9 9 tb l V e h i c l e T r i p s S T _ T R 1 0 . 3 7 6 . 9 5 Ta b l e N a m e C o l u m n N a m e D e f a u l t V a l u e N e w V a l u e 58 9 . 0 5 3 3 5 8 9 . 0 5 3 3 0 . 0 2 5 9 5 8 9 . 7 0 0 5 0. 5 4 1 4 4 . 4 8 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 5 4 5 9 0 . 1 4 4 8 4 . 1 7 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 4 8 9 Un m i t i g a t e d 0 . 1 4 6 9 0 . 5 6 2 9 1 . 6 0 8 1 5 . 7 9 0 0 e - 00 3 58 9 . 0 5 3 3 5 8 9 . 0 5 3 3 0 . 0 2 5 9 5 8 9 . 7 0 0 5 0. 5 4 1 4 4 . 4 8 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 5 4 5 9 0 . 1 4 4 8 4 . 1 7 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 4 8 9 Mi t i g a t e d 0 . 1 4 6 9 0 . 5 6 2 9 1 . 6 0 8 1 5 . 7 9 0 0 e - 00 3 NB i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 4. 0 O p e r a t i o n a l D e t a i l - M o b i l e 4. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s M o b i l e RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 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 NB i o - C O 2 T o t a l CO 2 CH 4 N 2 0 C O 2 e Pe r c e n t Re d u c t i o n 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 70 5 . 0 3 9 5 7 0 5 . 0 3 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 1 2 . 1 3 0 0 e - 003706.3761 0. 5 4 1 4 0 . 0 1 1 8 0 . 5 5 3 2 0 . 1 4 4 8 0 . 0 1 1 5 0 . 1 5 6 3 To t a l 0 . 5 4 2 4 0 . 6 5 9 5 1 . 6 9 1 0 6 . 3 7 0 0 e - 00 3 58 9 . 0 5 3 3 5 8 9 . 0 5 3 3 0 . 0 2 5 9 5 8 9 . 7 0 0 5 0. 5 4 1 4 4 . 4 8 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 5 4 5 9 0 . 1 4 4 8 4 . 1 7 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 4 8 9 Mo b i l e 0 . 1 4 6 9 0 . 5 6 2 9 1 . 6 0 8 1 5 . 7 9 0 0 e - 00 3 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 00 3 2.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 En e r g y 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 Ar e a 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 Mi t i g a t e d O p e r a t i o n a l RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 00 3 2.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 Na t u r a l G a s Un m i t i g a t e d 0. 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 00 3 2.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 Na t u r a l G a s Mi t i g a t e d 0. 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 NB i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 5. 0 E n e r g y D e t a i l Hi s t o r i c a l E n e r g y U s e : N 5. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s E n e r g y RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 0. 0 1 7 1 2 5 0 . 0 0 1 7 4 7 0 . 0 0 1 5 4 2 0 . 0 0 4 9 2 6 0 . 0 0 0 5 9 4 0 . 0 0 0 9 3 4 SBUS M H Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 0 . 5 6 1 3 7 8 0 . 0 4 3 2 8 4 0 . 2 0 9 4 7 3 0 . 1 1 1 8 2 6 0 . 0 1 5 5 4 5 0 . 0 0 5 7 9 5 0 . 0 2 5 8 2 9 LH D 2 M H D H H D O B U S U B U S M C Y La n d U s e L D A L D T 1 L D T 2 M D V L H D 1 95 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 6 4 2 5 1 1 4. 4 F l e e t M i x H- S o r C - C H - O o r C - N W P r i m a r y D i v e r t e d P a s s - b y Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 6 . 6 0 8 . 4 0 6 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 4. 3 T r i p T y p e I n f o r m a t i o n Mi l e s T r i p % T r i p P u r p o s e % La n d U s e H - W o r C - W H - S o r C - C H - O o r C - N W H - W o r C - W To t a l 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 An n u a l V M T Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 4. 2 T r i p S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n Av e r a g e D a i l y T r i p R a t e U n m i t i g a t e d M i t i g a t e d La n d U s e W e e k d a y S a t u r d a y S u n d a y A n n u a l V M T 6. 0 A r e a D e t a i l 6. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s A r e a 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 0032.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 To t a l 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 0032.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 0 . 9 8 5 8 5 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e La n d U s e k B T U / y r l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - C O 2 Mi t i g a t e d Na t u r a l G a s U s e RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 0032.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 To t a l 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 11 5 . 9 8 2 4 1 1 5 . 9 8 2 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 e - 0032.1300e-003116.6716 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 3 5 0 0 e - 00 3 Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 9 8 5 . 8 5 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 9 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 5 . 8 0 0 0 e - 00 4 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e La n d U s e k B T U / y r l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - C O 2 5. 2 E n e r g y b y L a n d U s e - N a t u r a l G a s Un m i t i g a t e d Na t u r a l G a s U s e RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 To t a l 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 La n d s c a p i n g 1 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 2. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Co n s u m e r Pr o d u c t s 0. 3 4 0 9 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Co a t i n g 0. 0 4 3 7 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Su b C a t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 6. 2 A r e a b y S u b C a t e g o r y Un m i t i g a t e d RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 Un m i t i g a t e d 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 Mi t i g a t e d 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 NB i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Fi r e P u m p s a n d E m e r g e n c y G e n e r a t o r s Ho u r s / D a y D a y s / Y e a r H o r s e P o w e r L o a d F a c t o r F u e l T y p e 10 . 0 S t a t i o n a r y E q u i p m e n t 7. 0 W a t e r D e t a i l 7. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s W a t e r 8. 0 W a s t e D e t a i l 8. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s W a s t e 9. 0 O p e r a t i o n a l O f f r o a d Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 To t a l 0 . 3 8 4 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 3. 7 7 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 4.0200e-003 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 La n d s c a p i n g 1 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 2. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 1. 7 6 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Co n s u m e r Pr o d u c t s 0. 3 4 0 9 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Co a t i n g 0. 0 4 3 7 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Su b C a t e g o r y l b / d a y lb / d a y PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 Mi t i g a t e d RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 Us e r D e f i n e d E q u i p m e n t Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r 11 . 0 V e g e t a t i o n Lo a d F a c t o r F u e l T y p e Bo i l e r s Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r H e a t I n p u t / D a y H e a t I n p u t / Y e a r B o i l e r R a t i n g F ue l T y p e Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r H o u r s / D a y H o u r s / Y e a r H o r s e P o w e r APPENDIX H: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DATA 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.49 Acre 0.49 21,344.40 0 Parking Lot 55.00 Space 0.49 22,000.00 0 Congregate Care (Assisted Living)118.00 Dwelling Unit 2.01 100,133.00 337 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Anaheim Public Utilities 2024Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 1543.28 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Orange County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 1 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual Project Characteristics - Land Use - 118 unit (126 bed), 2-story, ~100,133 SF assisted living facility (87,710 [2.01 ac] SF footprint) on 2.99 acres. Construction Phase - Estimated start date for construction is ~June 2022, completion date is ~February 2024. Off-road Equipment - Trips and VMT - 13.6 miles to Olinda Alpha Landfill. 2 vendor trips each added to demolition, site prep and grading phases to account for water trucks. Demolition - demolition of: 17,217 SF structure and ~58,000 SF of existing parking lot and hardscape = 75,217 SF Grading - 3,200 CY of cut to be exported Architectural Coating - ~6% of Parking lot to be painted = 1,320 SF Vehicle Trips - Per TIA, project generates 328 trips. 328 trips/118 DUs = 2.78 trips/DU Woodstoves - No woodstoves or fireplaces will be installed. Area Coating - ~6% of Parking lot to be painted = 1,320 SF Land Use Change - Sequestration - 115 new trees proposed. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Parking 2,601.00 1,320.00 tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 2601 1320 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 350.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 100.30 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 5.90 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 2 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 3,200.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 118,000.00 100,133.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 7.38 2.01 tblSequestration NumberOfNewTrees 0.00 115.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 13.60 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 13.60 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 41.00 tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP 19.20 19.00 tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.20 2.78 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.44 2.78 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.74 2.78 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 5.90 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 5.90 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 3 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.1588 1.3469 1.2182 2.8600e- 003 0.1830 0.0557 0.2387 0.0596 0.0528 0.1123 0.0000 251.8689 251.8689 0.0405 0.0000 252.8822 2023 0.2647 1.9315 2.2102 4.9900e- 003 0.1563 0.0797 0.2360 0.0419 0.0762 0.1181 0.0000 432.6971 432.6971 0.0581 0.0000 434.1498 2024 0.3221 0.0410 0.0652 1.2000e- 004 2.8800e- 003 2.0100e- 003 4.8900e- 003 7.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 003 2.6700e- 003 0.0000 10.1245 10.1245 1.9000e- 003 0.0000 10.1721 Maximum 0.3221 1.9315 2.2102 4.9900e- 003 0.1830 0.0797 0.2387 0.0596 0.0762 0.1181 0.0000 432.6971 432.6971 0.0581 0.0000 434.1498 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.1588 1.3469 1.2182 2.8600e- 003 0.1155 0.0557 0.1712 0.0351 0.0528 0.0878 0.0000 251.8687 251.8687 0.0405 0.0000 252.8820 2023 0.2647 1.9315 2.2102 4.9900e- 003 0.1563 0.0797 0.2360 0.0419 0.0762 0.1181 0.0000 432.6968 432.6968 0.0581 0.0000 434.1495 2024 0.3221 0.0410 0.0652 1.2000e- 004 2.8800e- 003 2.0100e- 003 4.8900e- 003 7.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 003 2.6700e- 003 0.0000 10.1245 10.1245 1.9000e- 003 0.0000 10.1721 Maximum 0.3221 1.9315 2.2102 4.9900e- 003 0.1563 0.0797 0.2360 0.0419 0.0762 0.1181 0.0000 432.6968 432.6968 0.0581 0.0000 434.1495 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 4 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.73 0.00 14.08 23.98 0.00 10.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.6786 0.6786 2 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.6137 0.6137 3 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.5737 0.5737 4 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.5669 0.5669 5 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.5662 0.5662 6 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.5614 0.5614 7 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 0.5002 0.5002 Highest 0.6786 0.6786 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 5 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.4329 0.0140 1.2171 6.0000e- 005 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 1.9892 1.9892 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 2.0369 Energy 7.2700e- 003 0.0621 0.0264 4.0000e- 004 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 0.0000 405.7172 405.7172 7.6500e- 003 2.6200e- 003 406.6883 Mobile 0.0741 0.2877 1.0313 4.2700e- 003 0.4249 2.9800e- 003 0.4279 0.1138 2.7700e- 003 0.1166 0.0000 394.7611 394.7611 0.0154 0.0000 395.1470 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.8560 0.0000 21.8560 1.2917 0.0000 54.1474 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4391 107.7728 110.2119 0.2525 6.3300e- 003 118.4131 Total 0.5143 0.3638 2.2749 4.7300e- 003 0.4249 0.0147 0.4397 0.1138 0.0145 0.1283 24.2951 910.2403 934.5354 1.5692 8.9500e- 003 976.4327 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 6 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.4329 0.0140 1.2171 6.0000e- 005 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 1.9892 1.9892 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 2.0369 Energy 7.2700e- 003 0.0621 0.0264 4.0000e- 004 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 0.0000 405.7172 405.7172 7.6500e- 003 2.6200e- 003 406.6883 Mobile 0.0741 0.2877 1.0313 4.2700e- 003 0.4249 2.9800e- 003 0.4279 0.1138 2.7700e- 003 0.1166 0.0000 394.7611 394.7611 0.0154 0.0000 395.1470 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.8560 0.0000 21.8560 1.2917 0.0000 54.1474 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4391 107.7728 110.2119 0.2525 6.3300e- 003 118.4131 Total 0.5143 0.3638 2.2749 4.7300e- 003 0.4249 0.0147 0.4397 0.1138 0.0145 0.1283 24.2951 910.2403 934.5354 1.5692 8.9500e- 003 976.4327 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 7 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.0 Construction Detail 2.3 Vegetation CO2e Category MT New Trees 81.4200 Vegetation Land Change -33.3000 Total 48.1200 Vegetation Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 6/1/2022 6/28/2022 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/29/2022 7/12/2022 5 10 3 Grading Grading 7/13/2022 8/9/2022 5 20 4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/10/2022 12/12/2023 5 350 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/10/2024 2/6/2024 5 20 6 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/9/2024 5 20 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0.98 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 8 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT Residential Indoor: 202,769; Residential Outdoor: 67,590; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 1,320 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 9 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0370 0.0000 0.0370 5.6100e- 003 0.0000 5.6100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0169 0.1662 0.1396 2.4000e- 004 8.3800e- 003 8.3800e- 003 7.8300e- 003 7.8300e- 003 0.0000 21.0777 21.0777 5.3700e- 003 0.0000 21.2120 Total 0.0169 0.1662 0.1396 2.4000e- 004 0.0370 8.3800e- 003 0.0454 5.6100e- 003 7.8300e- 003 0.0134 0.0000 21.0777 21.0777 5.3700e- 003 0.0000 21.2120 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 2.00 342.00 14.70 6.90 13.60 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 2.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 2.00 400.00 14.70 6.90 13.60 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 103.00 20.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 21.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 10 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 8.8000e- 004 0.0326 9.1100e- 003 9.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 8.0000e- 005 2.0800e- 003 5.5000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 9.1803 9.1803 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 9.2051 Vendor 5.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 003 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4779 0.4779 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4788 Worker 4.5000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.4800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.1482 1.1482 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1488 Total 1.3800e- 003 0.0347 0.0131 1.0000e- 004 3.5500e- 003 9.0000e- 005 3.6500e- 003 9.7000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 10.8064 10.8064 1.0500e- 003 0.0000 10.8327 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0144 0.0000 0.0144 2.1900e- 003 0.0000 2.1900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0169 0.1662 0.1396 2.4000e- 004 8.3800e- 003 8.3800e- 003 7.8300e- 003 7.8300e- 003 0.0000 21.0777 21.0777 5.3700e- 003 0.0000 21.2119 Total 0.0169 0.1662 0.1396 2.4000e- 004 0.0144 8.3800e- 003 0.0228 2.1900e- 003 7.8300e- 003 0.0100 0.0000 21.0777 21.0777 5.3700e- 003 0.0000 21.2119 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 11 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 8.8000e- 004 0.0326 9.1100e- 003 9.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 8.0000e- 005 2.0800e- 003 5.5000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 9.1803 9.1803 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 9.2051 Vendor 5.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 003 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4779 0.4779 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4788 Worker 4.5000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.4800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.1482 1.1482 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1488 Total 1.3800e- 003 0.0347 0.0131 1.0000e- 004 3.5500e- 003 9.0000e- 005 3.6500e- 003 9.7000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 10.8064 10.8064 1.0500e- 003 0.0000 10.8327 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 7.9500e- 003 0.0000 7.9500e- 003 8.6000e- 004 0.0000 8.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8900e- 003 0.0783 0.0503 1.2000e- 004 2.9800e- 003 2.9800e- 003 2.7400e- 003 2.7400e- 003 0.0000 10.7735 10.7735 3.4800e- 003 0.0000 10.8606 Total 6.8900e- 003 0.0783 0.0503 1.2000e- 004 7.9500e- 003 2.9800e- 003 0.0109 8.6000e- 004 2.7400e- 003 3.6000e- 003 0.0000 10.7735 10.7735 3.4800e- 003 0.0000 10.8606 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 12 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2390 0.2390 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2394 Worker 1.4000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3533 0.3533 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3535 Total 1.7000e- 004 9.9000e- 004 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.5922 0.5922 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5929 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 3.1000e- 003 0.0000 3.1000e- 003 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8900e- 003 0.0783 0.0503 1.2000e- 004 2.9800e- 003 2.9800e- 003 2.7400e- 003 2.7400e- 003 0.0000 10.7735 10.7735 3.4800e- 003 0.0000 10.8606 Total 6.8900e- 003 0.0783 0.0503 1.2000e- 004 3.1000e- 003 2.9800e- 003 6.0800e- 003 3.3000e- 004 2.7400e- 003 3.0700e- 003 0.0000 10.7735 10.7735 3.4800e- 003 0.0000 10.8606 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 13 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2390 0.2390 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2394 Worker 1.4000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3533 0.3533 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3535 Total 1.7000e- 004 9.9000e- 004 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.5922 0.5922 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5929 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0657 0.0000 0.0657 0.0337 0.0000 0.0337 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e- 004 7.4200e- 003 7.4200e- 003 6.8300e- 003 6.8300e- 003 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 18.2491 Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e- 004 0.0657 7.4200e- 003 0.0731 0.0337 6.8300e- 003 0.0405 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 18.2491 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 14 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.0300e- 003 0.0381 0.0107 1.1000e- 004 2.3300e- 003 1.0000e- 004 2.4300e- 003 6.4000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 0.0000 10.7372 10.7372 1.1600e- 003 0.0000 10.7662 Vendor 5.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 003 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4779 0.4779 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4788 Worker 3.5000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.6800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 2.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.8832 0.8832 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8837 Total 1.4300e- 003 0.0402 0.0139 1.2000e- 004 3.5600e- 003 1.1000e- 004 3.6600e- 003 9.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 12.0983 12.0983 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 12.1287 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0256 0.0000 0.0256 0.0131 0.0000 0.0131 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e- 004 7.4200e- 003 7.4200e- 003 6.8300e- 003 6.8300e- 003 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 18.2491 Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e- 004 0.0256 7.4200e- 003 0.0330 0.0131 6.8300e- 003 0.0200 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 18.2491 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 15 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.0300e- 003 0.0381 0.0107 1.1000e- 004 2.3300e- 003 1.0000e- 004 2.4300e- 003 6.4000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 0.0000 10.7372 10.7372 1.1600e- 003 0.0000 10.7662 Vendor 5.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 003 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4779 0.4779 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4788 Worker 3.5000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.6800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 2.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.8832 0.8832 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8837 Total 1.4300e- 003 0.0402 0.0139 1.2000e- 004 3.5600e- 003 1.1000e- 004 3.6600e- 003 9.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 12.0983 12.0983 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 12.1287 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0956 0.7521 0.7392 1.2900e- 003 0.0362 0.0362 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 106.9553 106.9553 0.0206 0.0000 107.4711 Total 0.0956 0.7521 0.7392 1.2900e- 003 0.0362 0.0362 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 106.9553 106.9553 0.0206 0.0000 107.4711 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 16 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.6400e- 003 0.0927 0.0265 2.5000e- 004 6.4800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 6.6600e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 2.0400e- 003 0.0000 24.6117 24.6117 1.9500e- 003 0.0000 24.6604 Worker 0.0184 0.0118 0.1421 5.2000e- 004 0.0582 3.8000e- 004 0.0586 0.0155 3.5000e- 004 0.0158 0.0000 46.8511 46.8511 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 46.8748 Total 0.0210 0.1046 0.1686 7.7000e- 004 0.0647 5.6000e- 004 0.0653 0.0173 5.2000e- 004 0.0179 0.0000 71.4629 71.4629 2.9000e- 003 0.0000 71.5352 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0956 0.7521 0.7392 1.2900e- 003 0.0362 0.0362 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 106.9551 106.9551 0.0206 0.0000 107.4710 Total 0.0956 0.7521 0.7392 1.2900e- 003 0.0362 0.0362 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 106.9551 106.9551 0.0206 0.0000 107.4710 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 17 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.6400e- 003 0.0927 0.0265 2.5000e- 004 6.4800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 6.6600e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 2.0400e- 003 0.0000 24.6117 24.6117 1.9500e- 003 0.0000 24.6604 Worker 0.0184 0.0118 0.1421 5.2000e- 004 0.0582 3.8000e- 004 0.0586 0.0155 3.5000e- 004 0.0158 0.0000 46.8511 46.8511 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 46.8748 Total 0.0210 0.1046 0.1686 7.7000e- 004 0.0647 5.6000e- 004 0.0653 0.0173 5.2000e- 004 0.0179 0.0000 71.4629 71.4629 2.9000e- 003 0.0000 71.5352 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2116 1.6826 1.7555 3.0900e- 003 0.0758 0.0758 0.0726 0.0726 0.0000 256.5121 256.5121 0.0485 0.0000 257.7248 Total 0.2116 1.6826 1.7555 3.0900e- 003 0.0758 0.0758 0.0726 0.0726 0.0000 256.5121 256.5121 0.0485 0.0000 257.7248 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 18 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.8200e- 003 0.1670 0.0590 5.8000e- 004 0.0156 2.0000e- 004 0.0158 4.4800e- 003 2.0000e- 004 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 57.2373 57.2373 4.3300e- 003 0.0000 57.3456 Worker 0.0418 0.0258 0.3173 1.1900e- 003 0.1397 8.9000e- 004 0.1405 0.0371 8.2000e- 004 0.0379 0.0000 108.0364 108.0364 2.0600e- 003 0.0000 108.0878 Total 0.0466 0.1928 0.3763 1.7700e- 003 0.1552 1.0900e- 003 0.1563 0.0416 1.0200e- 003 0.0426 0.0000 165.2737 165.2737 6.3900e- 003 0.0000 165.4333 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2116 1.6826 1.7555 3.0900e- 003 0.0758 0.0758 0.0726 0.0726 0.0000 256.5117 256.5117 0.0485 0.0000 257.7245 Total 0.2116 1.6826 1.7555 3.0900e- 003 0.0758 0.0758 0.0726 0.0726 0.0000 256.5117 256.5117 0.0485 0.0000 257.7245 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 19 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.8200e- 003 0.1670 0.0590 5.8000e- 004 0.0156 2.0000e- 004 0.0158 4.4800e- 003 2.0000e- 004 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 57.2373 57.2373 4.3300e- 003 0.0000 57.3456 Worker 0.0418 0.0258 0.3173 1.1900e- 003 0.1397 8.9000e- 004 0.1405 0.0371 8.2000e- 004 0.0379 0.0000 108.0364 108.0364 2.0600e- 003 0.0000 108.0878 Total 0.0466 0.1928 0.3763 1.7700e- 003 0.1552 1.0900e- 003 0.1563 0.0416 1.0200e- 003 0.0426 0.0000 165.2737 165.2737 6.3900e- 003 0.0000 165.4333 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.3163 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8100e- 003 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.5569 Total 0.3182 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.5569 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 20 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.6000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.3200e- 003 6.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.7129 1.7129 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7137 Total 6.6000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.3200e- 003 6.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.7129 1.7129 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7137 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.3163 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8100e- 003 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.5568 Total 0.3182 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.5568 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 21 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.6000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.3200e- 003 6.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.7129 1.7129 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7137 Total 6.6000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.3200e- 003 6.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.7129 1.7129 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7137 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 5.7200e- 003 0.0560 0.0760 1.2000e- 004 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 2.6000e- 003 2.6000e- 003 0.0000 10.0833 10.0833 3.2000e- 003 0.0000 10.1632 Paving 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.1400e- 003 0.0560 0.0760 1.2000e- 004 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 2.6000e- 003 2.6000e- 003 0.0000 10.0833 10.0833 3.2000e- 003 0.0000 10.1632 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 22 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.7 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8281 0.8281 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8285 Total 3.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8281 0.8281 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8285 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 5.7200e- 003 0.0560 0.0760 1.2000e- 004 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 2.6000e- 003 2.6000e- 003 0.0000 10.0833 10.0833 3.2000e- 003 0.0000 10.1632 Paving 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.1400e- 003 0.0560 0.0760 1.2000e- 004 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 2.6000e- 003 2.6000e- 003 0.0000 10.0833 10.0833 3.2000e- 003 0.0000 10.1632 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 23 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.7 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8281 0.8281 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8285 Total 3.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8281 0.8281 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8285 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.9500e- 003 0.0284 0.0410 6.0000e- 005 1.3800e- 003 1.3800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 5.4301 5.4301 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 5.4732 Paving 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.1700e- 003 0.0284 0.0410 6.0000e- 005 1.3800e- 003 1.3800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 5.4301 5.4301 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 5.4732 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 24 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 3.7 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.4282 0.4282 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4284 Total 1.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.4282 0.4282 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4284 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.9500e- 003 0.0284 0.0410 6.0000e- 005 1.3800e- 003 1.3800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 5.4301 5.4301 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 5.4732 Paving 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.1700e- 003 0.0284 0.0410 6.0000e- 005 1.3800e- 003 1.3800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 5.4301 5.4301 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 5.4732 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 25 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.4282 0.4282 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4284 Total 1.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.4282 0.4282 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4284 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 26 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.0741 0.2877 1.0313 4.2700e- 003 0.4249 2.9800e- 003 0.4279 0.1138 2.7700e- 003 0.1166 0.0000 394.7611 394.7611 0.0154 0.0000 395.1470 Unmitigated 0.0741 0.2877 1.0313 4.2700e- 003 0.4249 2.9800e- 003 0.4279 0.1138 2.7700e- 003 0.1166 0.0000 394.7611 394.7611 0.0154 0.0000 395.1470 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Congregate Care (Assisted Living)328.04 328.04 328.04 1,120,284 1,120,284 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 328.04 328.04 328.04 1,120,284 1,120,284 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.00 19.00 41.00 86 11 3 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 27 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 333.7593 333.7593 6.2700e- 003 1.3000e- 003 334.3028 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 333.7593 333.7593 6.2700e- 003 1.3000e- 003 334.3028 NaturalGas Mitigated 7.2700e- 003 0.0621 0.0264 4.0000e- 004 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 0.0000 71.9579 71.9579 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3855 NaturalGas Unmitigated 7.2700e- 003 0.0621 0.0264 4.0000e- 004 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 0.0000 71.9579 71.9579 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3855 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 0.565244 0.042904 0.209304 0.108392 0.014546 0.005773 0.026273 0.017831 0.001792 0.001509 0.004953 0.000602 0.000877 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.565244 0.042904 0.209304 0.108392 0.014546 0.005773 0.026273 0.017831 0.001792 0.001509 0.004953 0.000602 0.000877 Parking Lot 0.565244 0.042904 0.209304 0.108392 0.014546 0.005773 0.026273 0.017831 0.001792 0.001509 0.004953 0.000602 0.000877 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 28 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 1.34844e +006 7.2700e- 003 0.0621 0.0264 4.0000e- 004 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 0.0000 71.9579 71.9579 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3855 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.2700e- 003 0.0621 0.0264 4.0000e- 004 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 0.0000 71.9579 71.9579 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3855 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 1.34844e +006 7.2700e- 003 0.0621 0.0264 4.0000e- 004 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 0.0000 71.9579 71.9579 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3855 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.2700e- 003 0.0621 0.0264 4.0000e- 004 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 5.0200e- 003 0.0000 71.9579 71.9579 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3855 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 29 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 469085 328.3692 6.1700e- 003 1.2800e- 003 328.9039 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 7700 5.3902 1.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 5.3989 Total 333.7593 6.2700e- 003 1.3000e- 003 334.3028 Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 469085 328.3692 6.1700e- 003 1.2800e- 003 328.9039 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 7700 5.3902 1.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 5.3989 Total 333.7593 6.2700e- 003 1.3000e- 003 334.3028 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 30 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.4329 0.0140 1.2171 6.0000e- 005 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 1.9892 1.9892 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 2.0369 Unmitigated 0.4329 0.0140 1.2171 6.0000e- 005 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 1.9892 1.9892 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 2.0369 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 31 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0316 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.3646 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0366 0.0140 1.2171 6.0000e- 005 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 1.9892 1.9892 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 2.0369 Total 0.4329 0.0140 1.2171 6.0000e- 005 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 1.9892 1.9892 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 2.0369 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 32 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0316 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.3646 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0366 0.0140 1.2171 6.0000e- 005 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 1.9892 1.9892 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 2.0369 Total 0.4329 0.0140 1.2171 6.0000e- 005 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 1.9892 1.9892 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 2.0369 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 33 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 110.2119 0.2525 6.3300e- 003 118.4131 Unmitigated 110.2119 0.2525 6.3300e- 003 118.4131 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 7.68818 / 4.84689 110.2119 0.2525 6.3300e- 003 118.4131 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 110.2119 0.2525 6.3300e- 003 118.4131 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 34 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 7.68818 / 4.84689 110.2119 0.2525 6.3300e- 003 118.4131 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 110.2119 0.2525 6.3300e- 003 118.4131 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 35 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 21.8560 1.2917 0.0000 54.1474 Unmitigated 21.8560 1.2917 0.0000 54.1474 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 107.67 21.8560 1.2917 0.0000 54.1474 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 21.8560 1.2917 0.0000 54.1474 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 36 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 107.67 21.8560 1.2917 0.0000 54.1474 Other Non- Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 21.8560 1.2917 0.0000 54.1474 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 37 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT Unmitigated 48.1200 0.0000 0.0000 48.1200 11.1 Vegetation Land Change Initial/Fina l Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Acres MT Trees 0.3 / 0 -33.3000 0.0000 0.0000 -33.3000 Total -33.3000 0.0000 0.0000 -33.3000 Vegetation Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 38 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual 11.2 Net New Trees Number of Trees Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT Miscellaneous 115 81.4200 0.0000 0.0000 81.4200 Total 81.4200 0.0000 0.0000 81.4200 Species Class CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/3/2021 4:47 PMPage 39 of 39 Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community - Orange County, Annual Ar e a C o a t i n g - En e r g y U s e - Se q u e s t r a t i o n - 1. 3 U s e r E n t e r e d C o m m e n t s & N o n - D e f a u l t D a t a Pr o j e c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - O P E R A T I O N A L A N A L Y S I S O N L Y La n d U s e - R e m o v a l o f e x i s t i n g 1 7 , 2 1 7 S F c h u r c h . S i t e i s 2 . 9 9 a c. Co n s t r u c t i o n P h a s e - Ve h i c l e T r i p s - P e r T I A , c h u r c h g e n e r a t e d 6 . 9 5 d a i l y t r i p s / T S F . Wo o d s t o v e s - CO 2 I n t e n s i t y (l b / M W h r ) 15 4 3 . 2 8 CH 4 I n t e n s i t y (l b / M W h r ) 0. 0 2 9 N2 O I n t e n s i t y (l b / M W h r ) 0. 0 0 6 30 Cl i m a t e Z o n e 8 Op e r a t i o n a l Y e a r 20 2 2 Ut i l i t y C o m p a n y An a h e i m P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s 1. 2 O t h e r P r o j e c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Ur b a n i z a t i o n Ur b a n Wi n d S p e e d ( m / s ) 2. 2 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n F r e q ( D a y s ) Fl o o r S u r f a c e A r e a P o p u l a t i o n Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 7 . 2 2 1 0 0 0 s q f t 2 . 9 9 1 7 , 2 1 7 . 0 0 0 1. 0 P r o j e c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1. 1 L a n d U s a g e La n d U s e s S i z e M e t r i c L o t A c r e a g e Ca l E E M o d V e r s i o n : C a l E E M o d . 2 0 1 6 . 3 . 2 Pa g e 1 o f 1 D a t e : 2 / 3 / 2 0 2 1 3 : 0 6 P M Ho l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g E x i s t i n g U s e s O P S O N L Y - O r a ng e C o u n t y , A n n u a l Ho l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s S e n i o r L i v i n g E x i s t i n g U s e s O P S O N L Y Or a n g e C o u n t y , A n n u a l 20 . 0 9 4 5 2 3 1 . 0 1 8 8 2 5 1 . 1 1 3 2 1 . 2 0 1 8 1 . 2 1 0 0 e - 003281.5168 0. 0 9 6 8 2 . 1 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 9 9 0 0 . 0 2 5 9 2 . 0 9 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 2 8 0 To t a l 0 . 0 9 8 0 0 . 1 2 1 7 0 . 3 1 0 4 1 . 1 8 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 7 0 9 1 1 . 4 6 5 2 1 1 . 6 3 6 1 0 . 0 1 7 8 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00412.2173 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Wa t e r 19 . 9 2 3 6 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 9 . 9 2 3 6 1 . 1 7 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 9 . 3 5 9 8 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Wa s t e 0. 0 0 0 0 9 8 . 5 0 9 5 9 8 . 5 0 9 5 4 . 2 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0.0000 9 8 . 6 1 5 7 0. 0 9 6 8 8 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 9 7 6 0 . 0 2 5 9 7 . 5 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 2 6 7 Mo b i l e 0 . 0 2 5 8 0 . 1 0 4 1 0 . 2 9 5 3 1 . 0 7 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 . 0 4 3 7 1 2 1 . 0 4 3 7 2 . 2 8 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 5 0 0 0 e - 004121.3236 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 En e r g y 1 . 9 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 1 7 6 0 . 0 1 4 8 1 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 4 . 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 4. 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 004 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Ar e a 0 . 0 7 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 . 2 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 CH 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y t o n s / y r MT / y r Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 Un m i t i g a t e d O p e r a t i o n a l RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l 2. 2 O v e r a l l O p e r a t i o n a l 2. 0 E m i s s i o n s S u m m a r y tb l V e h i c l e T r i p s S U _ T R 3 6 . 6 3 6 . 9 5 tb l V e h i c l e T r i p s W D _ T R 9 . 1 1 6 . 9 5 tb l L a n d U s e L o t A c r e a g e 0 . 4 0 2 . 9 9 tb l V e h i c l e T r i p s S T _ T R 1 0 . 3 7 6 . 9 5 Ta b l e N a m e C o l u m n N a m e D e f a u l t V a l u e N e w V a l u e 4. 0 O p e r a t i o n a l D e t a i l - M o b i l e 4. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s M o b i l e 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 NB i o - C O 2 T o t a l CO 2 CH 4 N 2 0 C O 2 e Pe r c e n t Re d u c t i o n 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 20 . 0 9 4 5 2 3 1 . 0 1 8 8 2 5 1 . 1 1 3 2 1 . 2 0 1 8 1 . 2 1 0 0 e - 003281.5168 0. 0 9 6 8 2 . 1 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 9 9 0 0 . 0 2 5 9 2 . 0 9 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 2 8 0 To t a l 0 . 0 9 8 0 0 . 1 2 1 7 0 . 3 1 0 4 1 . 1 8 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 1 7 0 9 1 1 . 4 6 5 2 1 1 . 6 3 6 1 0 . 0 1 7 8 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00412.2173 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Wa t e r 19 . 9 2 3 6 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 9 . 9 2 3 6 1 . 1 7 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 9 . 3 5 9 8 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Wa s t e 0. 0 0 0 0 9 8 . 5 0 9 5 9 8 . 5 0 9 5 4 . 2 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0.0000 9 8 . 6 1 5 7 0. 0 9 6 8 8 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 9 7 6 0 . 0 2 5 9 7 . 5 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 2 6 7 Mo b i l e 0 . 0 2 5 8 0 . 1 0 4 1 0 . 2 9 5 3 1 . 0 7 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 . 0 4 3 7 1 2 1 . 0 4 3 7 2 . 2 8 0 0 e - 00 3 7. 5 0 0 0 e - 004121.3236 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 En e r g y 1 . 9 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 1 7 6 0 . 0 1 4 8 1 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 4 . 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 4. 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 004 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Ar e a 0 . 0 7 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 . 2 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y t o n s / y r MT / y r PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 Mi t i g a t e d O p e r a t i o n a l RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 5. 0 E n e r g y D e t a i l Hi s t o r i c a l E n e r g y U s e : N 5. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s E n e r g y 0. 0 1 7 1 2 5 0 . 0 0 1 7 4 7 0 . 0 0 1 5 4 2 0 . 0 0 4 9 2 6 0 . 0 0 0 5 9 4 0 . 0 0 0 9 3 4 SB U S M H Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 0 . 5 6 1 3 7 8 0 . 0 4 3 2 8 4 0 . 2 0 9 4 7 3 0 . 1 1 1 8 2 6 0 . 0 1 5 5 4 5 0 . 0 0 5 7 9 5 0 . 0 2 5 8 2 9 LH D 2 M H D H H D O B U S U B U S M C Y La n d U s e L D A L D T 1 L D T 2 M D V L H D 1 95 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 6 4 2 5 1 1 4. 4 F l e e t M i x H- S o r C - C H - O o r C - N W P r i m a r y D i v e r t e d P a s s - b y Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 6 . 6 0 8 . 4 0 6 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 4. 3 T r i p T y p e I n f o r m a t i o n Mi l e s T r i p % T r i p P u r p o s e % La n d U s e H - W o r C - W H - S o r C - C H - O o r C - N W H - W o r C - W To t a l 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 An n u a l V M T Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 2 5 5 , 2 0 6 4. 2 T r i p S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n Av e r a g e D a i l y T r i p R a t e U n m i t i g a t e d M i t i g a t e d La n d U s e W e e k d a y S a t u r d a y S u n d a y A n n u a l V M T 0. 0 0 0 0 9 8 . 5 0 9 5 9 8 . 5 0 9 5 4 . 2 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0.0000 9 8 . 6 1 5 7 0. 0 9 6 8 8 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 9 7 6 0 . 0 2 5 9 7 . 5 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 2 6 7 Un m i t i g a t e d 0 . 0 2 5 8 0 . 1 0 4 1 0 . 2 9 5 3 1 . 0 7 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 9 8 . 5 0 9 5 9 8 . 5 0 9 5 4 . 2 5 0 0 e - 00 3 0.0000 9 8 . 6 1 5 7 0. 0 9 6 8 8 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 9 7 6 0 . 0 2 5 9 7 . 5 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 2 6 7 Mi t i g a t e d 0 . 0 2 5 8 0 . 1 0 4 1 0 . 2 9 5 3 1 . 0 7 0 0 e - 00 3 NB i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y t o n s / y r MT / y r Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 19 . 2 0 2 2 3 . 7 0 0 0 e - 0043.5000e-00419.3163 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 19.3163 To t a l 1 . 9 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 1 7 6 0 . 0 1 4 8 1 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 3 . 7 0 0 0 e - 0043.5000e-004 1. 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 3 5 9 8 3 5 1 . 9 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 1 7 6 0 . 0 1 4 8 NB i o - C O 2 T o t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e La n d U s e k B T U / y r t o n s / y r MT / y r Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 5. 2 E n e r g y b y L a n d U s e - N a t u r a l G a s Un m i t i g a t e d Na t u r a l G a s U s e RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 0. 0 0 0 0 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 3 . 7 0 0 0 e - 00 4 3. 5 0 0 0 e - 00419.3163 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 Na t u r a l G a s Un m i t i g a t e d 1. 9 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 1 7 6 0 . 0 1 4 8 1 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 3 . 7 0 0 0 e - 00 4 3. 5 0 0 0 e - 00419.3163 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 Na t u r a l G a s Mi t i g a t e d 1. 9 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 1 7 6 0 . 0 1 4 8 1 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 . 8 4 1 5 1 0 1 . 8 4 1 5 1 . 9 1 0 0 e - 00 3 4. 0 0 0 0 e - 004102.0073 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 El e c t r i c i t y Un m i t i g a t e d 0. 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 . 8 4 1 5 1 0 1 . 8 4 1 5 1 . 9 1 0 0 e - 00 3 4. 0 0 0 0 e - 004102.0073 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 El e c t r i c i t y Mi t i g a t e d NB i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y t o n s / y r MT / y r Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 10 2 . 0 0 7 3 To t a l 1 0 1 . 8 4 1 5 1 . 9 1 0 0 e - 00 3 4. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 4 10 2 . 0 0 7 3 La n d U s e k W h / y r t o n MT / y r Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 4 5 4 8 4 1 0 1 . 8 4 1 5 1 . 9 1 0 0 e - 00 3 4. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 4 Un m i t i g a t e d El e c t r i c i t y Us e To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e 19 . 2 0 2 2 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 3 . 7 0 0 0 e - 0043.5000e-00419.3163 5. 3 E n e r g y b y L a n d U s e - E l e c t r i c i t y 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 3.5000e-00419.3163 To t a l 1 . 9 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 1 7 6 0 . 0 1 4 8 1 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 0 0 0 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 1 9 . 2 0 2 2 3 . 7 0 0 0 e - 004 0. 0 1 4 8 1 . 1 0 0 0 e - 00 4 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 1. 3 4 0 0 e - 00 3 CO2e La n d U s e k B T U / y r t o n s / y r MT / y r Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 3 5 9 8 3 5 1 . 9 4 0 0 e - 00 3 0. 0 1 7 6 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - C O 2 T o t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O SO 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 Na t u r a l G a s U s e RO G N O x C O Mi t i g a t e d 0. 0 0 0 0 4 . 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 4. 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 004 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Un m i t i g a t e d 0 . 0 7 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 . 2 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 4 . 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 4. 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 004 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Mi t i g a t e d 0 . 0 7 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 . 2 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 NB i o - CO 2 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Ca t e g o r y t o n s / y r MT / y r Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 6. 0 A r e a D e t a i l 6. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s A r e a RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 10 2 . 0 0 7 3 To t a l 1 0 1 . 8 4 1 5 1 . 9 1 0 0 e - 00 3 4. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 4 10 2 . 0 0 7 3 La n d U s e k W h / y r t o n MT / y r Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 1 4 5 4 8 4 1 0 1 . 8 4 1 5 1 . 9 1 0 0 e - 00 3 4. 0 0 0 0 e - 00 4 Mi t i g a t e d El e c t r i c i t y Us e To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e 7. 0 W a t e r D e t a i l 7. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s W a t e r 0. 0 0 0 0 4 . 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 4. 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 004 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 To t a l 0 . 0 7 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 . 2 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 4 . 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 4. 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 004 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 La n d s c a p i n g 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 0. 0 0 0 0 2 . 2 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Co n s u m e r Pr o d u c t s 0. 0 6 2 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 0 . 0 0 0 0 Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Co a t i n g 7. 9 8 0 0 e - 00 3 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Su b C a t e g o r y t o n s / y r MT / y r PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 Mi t i g a t e d RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 0. 0 0 0 0 4 . 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 4. 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 004 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 To t a l 0 . 0 7 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 . 2 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 4 . 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 4. 3 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 004 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 La n d s c a p i n g 2 . 0 0 0 0 e - 00 5 0. 0 0 0 0 2 . 2 0 0 0 e - 00 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Co n s u m e r Pr o d u c t s 0. 0 6 2 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 0 . 0 0 0 0 Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Co a t i n g 7. 9 8 0 0 e - 00 3 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Su b C a t e g o r y t o n s / y r MT / y r PM 1 0 To t a l Fu g i t i v e PM 2 . 5 Ex h a u s t PM 2 . 5 PM 2 . 5 To t a l Bi o - C O 2 N B i o - CO 2 6. 2 A r e a b y S u b C a t e g o r y Un m i t i g a t e d RO G N O x C O S O 2 F u g i t i v e PM 1 0 Ex h a u s t PM 1 0 12 . 2 1 7 3 To t a l 1 1 . 6 3 6 1 0 . 0 1 7 8 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 12 . 2 1 7 3 La n d U s e M g a l t o n MT / y r Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 0 . 5 3 8 7 9 5 / 0. 8 4 2 7 3 1 11 . 6 3 6 1 0 . 0 1 7 8 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 7. 2 W a t e r b y L a n d U s e Un m i t i g a t e d In d o o r / O u t do o r U s e To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Un m i t i g a t e d 1 1 . 6 3 6 1 0 . 0 1 7 8 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 12 . 2 1 7 3 Ca t e g o r y t o n MT / y r Mi t i g a t e d 1 1 . 6 3 6 1 0 . 0 1 7 8 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 12 . 2 1 7 3 To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e U n m i t i g a t e d 1 9 . 9 2 3 6 1 . 1 7 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 9 . 3 5 9 8 t o n MT / y r M i t i g a t e d 1 9 . 9 2 3 6 1 . 1 7 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 9 . 3 5 9 8 8. 0 W a s t e D e t a i l 8. 1 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s W a s t e Ca t e g o r y / Y e a r To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e 12 . 2 1 7 3 To t a l 1 1 . 6 3 6 1 0 . 0 1 7 8 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 12 . 2 1 7 3 La n d U s e M g a l t o n MT / y r Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 0 . 5 3 8 7 9 5 / 0. 8 4 2 7 3 1 11 . 6 3 6 1 0 . 0 1 7 8 4 . 6 0 0 0 e - 00 4 Mi t i g a t e d In d o o r / O u t do o r U s e To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Lo a d F a c t o r F u e l T y p e 10 . 0 S t a t i o n a r y E q u i p m e n t 9. 0 O p e r a t i o n a l O f f r o a d Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r H o u r s / D a y D a y s / Y e a r H o r s e P o w e r 49 . 3 5 9 8 To t a l 1 9 . 9 2 3 6 1 . 1 7 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 9 . 3 5 9 8 La n d U s e t o n s t o n MT / y r Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 9 8 . 1 5 1 9 . 9 2 3 6 1 . 1 7 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 Mi t i g a t e d Wa s t e Di s p o s e d To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e 49 . 3 5 9 8 To t a l 1 9 . 9 2 3 6 1 . 1 7 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 9 . 3 5 9 8 La n d U s e t o n s t o n MT / y r Pl a c e o f W o r s h i p 9 8 . 1 5 1 9 . 9 2 3 6 1 . 1 7 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 8. 2 W a s t e b y L a n d U s e Un m i t i g a t e d Wa s t e Di s p o s e d To t a l C O 2 C H 4 N 2 O C O 2 e Us e r D e f i n e d E q u i p m e n t Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r 11 . 0 V e g e t a t i o n Fu e l T y p e Bo i l e r s Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r H e a t I n p u t / D a y H e a t I n p u t / Y e a r B o i l e r R a t i n g F ue l T y p e Fi r e P u m p s a n d E m e r g e n c y G e n e r a t o r s Eq u i p m e n t T y p e N u m b e r H o u r s / D a y H o u r s / Y e a r H o r s e P o w e r L o a d F a c t o r APPENDIX I: PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY OTH2020-01294 www.fuscoe.com PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY 5275 E Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, County of Orange, CA 92807 OTH2020-01294 DEV2019-00172 APN: 361-291-51 Prepared for: ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 2462 Dupont Dr, Irvine, CA 92612 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.706.8461 Prepared by: FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 949.474.1960 Mark Nero, PE #80066 Date Prepared: 03/12/2020 Date Revised (Plan Check #1): 09/30/2020 Date Revised (Plan Check #2): 11/18/2020 Date Revised (Plan Check #3): 01/04/2021 P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC i OWNER’S CERTIFICATION PROJECT OWNER’S CERTIFICATION Permit/Application No.: OTH2020-01294 Grading Permit No.: PENDING Tract/Parcel Map and Lot(s)No.: PENDING Building Permit No.: PENDING Address of Project Site and APN: 5275 E Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, County of Orange, CA 92807 APN: 361-291-51 This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ADS) by FUSCOE ENGINEERING, 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: Alliance Realty Partners, LLC Name: Michael Wilborn Title: Vice President Company: Alliance Realty Partners, LLC Address: 2462 Dupont Drive, Irvine, CA 92612 Email: MWilborn@allresco.com Telephone #: 949.706.8461 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: P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ............................ 1 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 2 II.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 2 II.2 Potential Storm Water Pollutants .................................................................................... 6 II.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern ................................................................................. 7 II.4 Post Development Drainage Characteristics .................................................................... 8 II.5 Property Ownership/Management ................................................................................. 9 SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 10 III.1 Physical Setting .......................................................................................................... 10 III.2 Site Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 10 III.3 Watershed Description................................................................................................ 11 SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) ......................................................... 13 IV.1 Project Performance Criteria........................................................................................ 13 IV.2 Site Design and Drainage Plan .................................................................................... 14 IV.2.1 Site Design BMPs ................................................................................................ 14 IV.2.2 Drainage Management Areas .............................................................................. 15 IV.3 LID BMP Selection and Project Conformance Analysis ................................................... 16 IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) ....................................................................... 16 IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs .................................................................................................. 17 IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration & Rainwater Harvesting BMPs ................................................... 18 IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs .............................................................................................. 20 IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs .......................................................................... 23 IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs ......................................................................... 23 IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs ...................................................................................... 23 IV.3.8 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs..................................................................... 23 IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs ............................................................................ 25 IV.4 Alternative Compliance Plan ....................................................................................... 27 IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits .......................................................................................... 27 IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information ............................................................... 28 SECTION V INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs ................................... 29 SECTION VI SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN ................................................................... 36 SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ............................................................................ 38 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 39 P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC iii TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES Appendix A ............................................................................................... Supporting Calculations Appendix B ................................................................................. Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix C .................................................................................................. Educational Materials Appendix D .................................................................. BMP Maintenance Supplement / O&M Plan Appendix E ................................................................................................. Conditions of Approval Appendix F ............................................................................................ Geotechnical Investigation EXHIBITS & BMP DETAILS (INCLUDED IN SECTION VI) ▪ Vicinity Map ▪ Site Plan ▪ WQMP Exhibit ▪ Typical Cross Sections ▪ BIO-7: Proprietary Biotreatment Fact Sheet EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS (INCLUDED IN APPENDIX C) ▪ The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door ▪ Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use ▪ Household Tips ▪ Proper Disposal of Household hazardous Waste ▪ Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North County) ▪ Responsible Pest Control ▪ Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ▪ Tips for Pet Care ▪ Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardscape Drains ▪ Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business ▪ DF-1 Drainage System Operation & Maintenance ▪ R-3 Automobile Parking ▪ R-4 Home & Garden Care Activities ▪ R-5 Disposal of Pet Waste ▪ R-6 Disposal of Green Waste ▪ R-7 Household Hazardous Waste ▪ R-8 Water Conservation ▪ SD-10 Site Design and Landscape Planning ▪ SD-12 Efficient Irrigation ▪ SD-13 Storm Drain Signage P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 1 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS & WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PROJECT INFORMATION Permit/Application No.: OTH2020-01294 Grading or Building Permit No.: PENDING Address of Project Site (or Tract Map and Lot Number if no address) and APN: 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, CA 92807 APN: 361-291-51 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR ISSUANCE Discretionary Permit(s): PRE2019-00028 DEV2019-00172 Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance applied to this project: (Please list verbatim.) Pending – to be provided in Final WQMP CONCEPTUAL WQMP Was a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan previously approved for this project? N/A WATERSHED-BASED PLAN CONDITIONS Applicable conditions from watershed - based plans including WIHMPs and TMDLs: No WIHMPs finalized yet for the Santa Ana River. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION II.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community project site encompasses approximately 3.1 acres in the City of Anaheim, with 2.99 acres comprising the project area. The project site is bounded by S Royal Oak Rd to the east, Nohl Ranch Rd to the south, and residential units to the west and north. A Vicinity Map is included in Section VI. Under existing conditions, the project site is a vacant church property with associated parking areas, drive aisles, and landscaping. Adjacent land uses include conventional single-family track homes, open space, parks, and recreational trails The table below summarizes the proposed project. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Development Category (Model WQMP, Table 7.II-2; or 7.II-3): 6. Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more including associated drive aisle, and potentially exposed to urban stormwater runoff. A parking lot is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally, for business, or for commerce. 8. 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 health and safety. Project Area (ft2): 130,180 ft2 (2.99 acres) # of Dwelling Units: 118 SIC Code: 8361 - Residential Care Planning Area / Community Name: N/A P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Narrative Project Description: On site sits a 17,217 square foot Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints which will be demolished. The new building pad will sit on the same elevation as the existing church. Because the church is 30’ tall and the proposed building will be 25’ tall, the overall height will be reduced by 5’. The proposed project located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, CA consists of developing a new 2-story licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly. The community will offer many services to residents needing Assisted Living and Memory Care services. The community will provide a resort-like experience through the architecture, landscaping, interior finishes and amenities. Common areas within the community will include two dining rooms, a bistro, living room, activity room, fitness room, theatre, salon and reception lobby. Improvements to the City’s ROW are also proposed but not yet finalized. Details on these improvements, including RCP references and appropriate water quality BMPs (e.g. to satisfy Trash Amendment and LID requirements) will be provided in the Final WQMP. Project Area: Pervious Area Pervious Area Percentage Impervious Area Impervious Area Percentage Pre-Project Conditions: 1.22 ac 40% 1.77 ac 60% Post-Project Conditions: 0.99 ac 33% 2.00 ac 67% P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Drainage Patterns/ Connections: Existing Conditions Under existing conditions, the project site generally drains toward the northeast corner of the site to a public catch basin structure on Royal Oak Rd. Stormwater runoff flows in one of two directions before ultimately entering the 15’ wide curb inlet on Royal Oak Rd. Runoff flows southerly toward Nohl Ranch Rd from the southwestern parking lot and southern landscaping areas. Flows then travel east toward the intersection of Nohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd, whereby they flow north to the 15’ wide curb inlet. The other flow direction takes flows from the northwestern parking lot and northern and eastern landscaping areas directly to Royal Oak Rd. All flows enter the 18” RCP City of Anaheim storm drain system through the 15’ wide curb inlet on Royal Oak Rd. The storm drain flows northerly, connecting to the City of Anaheim storm drain system and eventually outletting into the Santa Ana River, Reach 2. Runoff will then flow from Santa Ana River, Reach 2 to Santa Ana River Reach 1, the Huntington Beach State Park, and finally to the Pacific Ocean. Proposed Conditions The post development drainage will be similar to existing drainage patterns. The 2.99 project area will collect on-site drainage via roof drains, surface flow, and curb-facing drains. Low flows and first flush runoff will be piped to one of two Modular Wetland System (MWS) units for water quality treatment in the northern areas of the project site. High flows will by-pass the MWS units and exit the site to Royal Oak Rd. DMA 1 includes interior portions of the proposed residential facility and the western parking lot and landscaping areas. DMA 1 will drain via sheet flow to the inlet of a MWS-L-8-12 in the northwest parking lot area. Flows will then be piped to the back of the 15’ wide curb inlet. DMA 2 is comprised of the exterior of the facility, walkways, remaining parking lots, trash storage areas, and landscaping. Flows within DMA 2 will either surface flow or be piped directly into the MWS-L-4-17. DMA 3 drainage is not yet finalized but will likely be considered a self-treating area as it is comprised of landscaped area in the north of the project site. DMA 3 will either be self-treating or will be routed to a BMP; final design will be confirmed in the Final WQMP for the Project. DMA 4 consists of a drive apron where flows will sheet flow directly to Royal Oak Rd and then enter the existing 15’ wide curb inlet. BMPs within DMAs 1 and 2 have been upsized to account for this. All flows will enter the 15’ wide curb inlet into an existing 18” RCP along Royal Oak Rd. From there flows will travel north, connecting to the City of Anaheim storm drain system and eventually outletting into the Santa Ana River, Reach 2. Runoff will then flow from Santa Ana River, Reach 2 to Santa Ana River Reach 1, the Huntington Beach State Park, and finally to the Pacific Ocean. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT FEATURES Building Summary: The new building will be of Type VA-1hour wood construction comprised of 118 units (126 beds) with a total of approximately 100,133 SF. The 2-story building will have a height of 25’-0”, measured from the adjacent grade to the highest point of the roof. This falls below the height of the existing church which stands at 30’ high. There will be kitchenettes in all assisted living units (sink, microwave and refrigerator) with granite or quartz countertops. Memory care units will not have a kitchenette and instead a counter top and storage area. Amenities: Amenities for the senior residents will include a full restaurant style kitchen, dining rooms for both Assisted Living and Memory Care residents, a bistro, library, fitness room, living rooms, activity rooms, therapy room, theatre, laundry room and medication rooms in additional to a reception area, staff lounge and administrative office spaces. Outdoor amenities will include private internal courtyards that will be secured for the safety of residents. The courtyards will contain both walking paths for exercise, quiet contemplative areas for visiting with family and tables for outdoor activities. Landscaped Areas: Landscaping will be dispersed throughout the site, but much it will be confined to exterior perimeter areas and the interior community areas. The total area of landscaping in the project site is 42,947 square feet. Parking Facilities: In Assisted Living & Memory Care communities, parking is necessary only for staff and visitors as residents no longer drive. On grade parking is being proposed at a rate of 48 stalls/bed. A total of 57 stalls are being proposed for this project. In addition, the community will provide a van and a private car with chauffer that can transport residents around town, to doctor’s appointments and to offsite activities. Other Project Features: There are two entry drives for the community, one off E. Nohl Ranch Road with one off S. Royal Oaks Road. All services for the community, trash and deliveries, will be off S. Royal Oaks Road. New stepped retaining walls to the north and east will be added. Outdoor Activities: Outdoor activities are anticipated with active and passive uses in the common landscaped areas surrounding the building. The central atrium areas will include fireplace BBQ areas and open lawn areas. All other outdoor areas will be used for walkways, common areas and landscaping, and other recreational purposes. All vehicular parking will be located in the subterranean parking structure. No outdoor storage of materials is anticipated. Materials Stored: No outdoor storage of materials is anticipated (materials will be stored indoors). P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT FEATURES Wastes Generated: The project is not anticipated to generate any wastes other than landscape clippings, typical trash, debris and refuse from the tenants. Trash receptacles will be provided throughout the interior of the building where building staff will collect tenants’ refuse in a proper manner, and property maintenance will provide trash and waste material removal to maintain a trash-free property. All wastes shall be collected and properly disposed of off-site. II.2 POTENTIAL STORM WATER POLLUTANTS The table below, derived from Table 2 of the Countywide Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document (December 2013), summarizes the categories of land use or project features of concern and the general pollutant categories associated with them. ANTICIPATED & POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS GENERATED BY LAND USE TYPE Priority Project Categories and/or Project Features General Pollutant Categories Su s p e n d e d So l i d / Se d i m e n t s Nu t r i e n t s He a v y Me t a l s Pa t h o g e n s (B a c t e r i a / Vi r u s ) Pe s t i c i d e s Oi l & Gr e a s e To x i c Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d s Tr a s h & De b r i s Detached Residential Development E E N E E E N E Attached Residential Development E E N E E E(2) N E Commercial/Industrial Development E(1) E(1) E(5) E(3) E(1) E E E Automotive Repair Shops N N E N N E E E Restaurants E(1)(2) E(1) E(2) E E(1) E N E Hillside Development >5,000 ft2 E E N E E E N E Parking Lots E E(1) E E(4) E(1) E E E Streets, Highways, & Freeways E E(1) E E(4) E(1) E E E Retail Gasoline Outlets N N E N N E E E P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANTICIPATED & POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS GENERATED BY LAND USE TYPE Priority Project Categories and/or Project Features General Pollutant Categories Su s p e n d e d So l i d / Se d i m e n t s Nu t r i e n t s He a v y Me t a l s Pa t h o g e n s (B a c t e r i a / Vi r u s ) Pe s t i c i d e s Oi l & Gr e a s e To x i c Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d s Tr a s h & De b r i s Notes: E = expected to be of concern N = not expected to be of concern (1) Expected pollutant if landscaping exists on-site, otherwise not expected. (2) Expected pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas, otherwise not expected. (3) Expected pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products, otherwise not expected. (4) Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff. (5) Expected if outdoor storage or metal roofs, otherwise not expected. Source: County of Orange. (2013, December 20). Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/ Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). Table 2.1. Priority Project Categories and/or Features: Attached Residential Development, Parking Lots POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN Pollutant E = Expected to be of concern N =Not Expected to be of concern Additional Information and Comments Suspended Solid/ Sediment E Nutrients E Heavy Metals E Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) E Pesticides E Oil & Grease E Toxic Organic Compounds E Trash & Debris E II.3 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN The purpose of this section is to identify any hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) with respect to downstream flooding, erosion potential of natural channels downstream, impacts of increased flows on P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION natural habitat, etc. As specified in Section 2.3.3 of the 2011 Model WQMP, projects must identify and mitigate any HCOCs. A HCOC is a combination of upland hydrologic conditions and stream biological and physical conditions that presents a condition of concern for physical and/or biological degradation of streams. In the North Orange County permit area, HCOCs are considered to exist if any streams located downstream from the project are determined to be potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts and either of the following conditions exists: ▪ Post-development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm exceeds the pre-development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm by more than 5 percent or ▪ Time of concentration (Tc) of post-development runoff for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event exceeds the time of concentration of the pre-development condition for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event by more than 5 percent. If these conditions do not exist or streams are not potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts, an HCOC does not exist and hydromodification does not need to be considered further. In the North Orange County permit area, downstream channels are considered not susceptible to hydromodification, and therefore do not have the potential for a HCOC, if all downstream conveyance channels that will receive runoff from the project are engineered, hardened, and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity, and no sensitive habitat areas will be affected. Is the proposed project potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts? Yes No (show map) According to Figure XVI-3a within the Technical Guidance Document, the proposed project falls within an area not susceptible to hydromodification impacts. All runoff from the site ultimately drains to the Santa Ana River, which is improved and maintained by the Orange County Flood Control District. A copy of Figure XVI-3a is included in Appendix A. II.4 POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS The post development drainage will be similar to existing drainage patterns. The 2.99 project area will collect on-site drainage via roof drains, surface flow, and curb-facing drains. Low flows and first flush runoff will be piped to one of two Modular Wetland System (MWS) units for water quality treatment in the northern edge of the project site. High flows will by-pass the MWS units and exit the site to Royal Oak Rd. DMA 1 includes interior portions of the proposed residential facility and the western parking lot and landscaping areas. DMA 1 will drain via sheet flow to the inlet of a MWS-L-8-12 in the northwest parking lot area. Flows will then be piped to the back of the 15’ wide curb inlet. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DMA 2 is comprised of the exterior of the facility, walkways, remaining parking lots, trash storage areas, and landscaping. Flows within DMA 2 will either surface flow or be piped directly into the MWS-L-4-17. DMA 3 drainage is not yet finalized but will likely be considered a self-treating area as it is comprised of landscaped area in the north of the project site. DMA 3 will either be self-treating or will be routed to a BMP; final design will be confirmed in the Final WQMP for the Project. DMA 4 consists of a drive apron where flows will sheet flow directly to Royal Oak Rd and then enter the existing 15’ wide curb inlet. BMPs within DMAs 1 and 2 have been upsized to account for this. All flows will enter the 15’ wide curb inlet into an existing 18” RCP along Royal Oak Rd. From there flows will travel north, connecting to the City of Anaheim storm drain system and eventually outletting into the Santa Ana River, Reach 2. Runoff will then flow from Santa Ana River, Reach 2 to Santa Ana River Reach 1, the Huntington Beach State Park, and finally to the Pacific Ocean. II.5 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT Public Streets: City of Anaheim Private Streets: Alliance Realty Partners, LLC Landscaped Areas: Alliance Realty Partners, LLC Easements: City of Anaheim Buildings: Alliance Realty Partners, LLC Structural BMPs: Alliance Realty Partners, LLC The Owner, Alliance Realty Partners, LLC shall assume all BMP maintenance and inspection responsibilities for the proposed project. Inspection and maintenance responsibilities are outlined in Section V of this report. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 10 SITE DESCRIPTION SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION III.1 PHYSICAL SETTING Planning Area/ Community Name: Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Address: 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, CA 92807 Project Area Description: The project site is bounded by S Royal Oak Rd to the east, Nohl Ranch Rd to the south, and residential units to the west and north. Land Use: Low Density Residential Zoning: RH-3: Single-Family Hillside Residential SC: Scenic Corridor Overlay Acreage: 3.1 ac Predominant Soil Type: HSG D Impervious Conditions: Existing Impervious: 60% (40% Pervious) Proposed Impervious: 67% (33% Pervious) City of Anaheim Drainage District No.: Drainage District No. 37 III.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS Precipitation Zone: 0.9 inches Topography: The project site ranges from hilly to flat depending on location. The highest point is 511 ft, while the lowest is 467 ft. However, the areas with the highest variation in elevation are mostly within the perimeter areas. Existing grades range from 1% to 5% throughout pedestrian areas, parking lots, drive aisles, and the church building to 40% to 50% in the landscaping areas. Overall, the existing site drains towards the low point in the northeast bordering Royal Oak Rd. Existing Drainage Patterns/ Connections: See Section II.1 for a complete description of existing and proposed drainage patterns and connections. Proposed Drainage Patterns/ Connections: See Section II.1 for a complete description of existing and proposed drainage patterns and connections. Soil Type, Geology, and Infiltration Properties: According to Figure XVI-2a of the TGD, the site is located in an area of HSG D soils and an area of landslide hazard risk. Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Conditions: The historic groundwater within the project site was reported to be over 30 feet below ground surface. A site-specific geotechnical report will be conducted during the Final WQMP to validate these assumptions from the TGD. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 11 SITE DESCRIPTION Geotechnical Conditions (relevant to infiltration): No infiltration BMPs are proposed within the redevelopment project. The project site is located within an area with multiple infiltration constraints. These include HSG D soils and landslide hazards, as shown in the Technical Guidance Document Figure XVI. Therefore, direct or concentrated infiltration of runoff is not considered feasible for the project. See also Appendices A and F for further details. Off-Site Drainage: The project site does not receive any off-site storm water flows onto the property. Similarly, the project will not produce any run-on in the proposed condition due to the implementation of retaining walls in the western and northern edges of the site. Utility and Infrastructure Information: Dry and wet utilities will be incorporated into the proposed project and will tie into existing facilities associated with the existing development. III.3 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Receiving Waters: Santa Ana River Reach 2, Santa Ana River Reach 1, Huntington Beach State Park 303(d) Listed Impairments: Huntington Beach State Park: PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) Applicable TMDLs: Not Applicable Pollutants of Concern for the Project: Suspended Solids/Sediment, Nutrient, Heavy Metals, Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus), Pesticides, Oil & Grease, Toxic Organic Compounds, Trash & Debris Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOCs): Not Applicable Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological Significant Areas: There are no Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) within the project site or within the project’s vicinity. Existing Water Quality Conditions: GeoTracker results confirmed there were no contaminated sites within 500 ft of the project Site. See screenshot below for a depiction of the buffer area. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 12 SITE DESCRIPTION GeoTracker Screenshot With 500ft Buffer P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 13 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) IV.1 PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 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 PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Hydromodification Control Performance Criteria: (Model WQMP Section 7.II-2.4.2.2) If a hydrologic condition of concern (HCOC) exists, priority projects shall implement onsite or regional hydromodification controls such that: ▪ Post-development runoff volume for the two-year frequency storm does not exceed that of the predevelopment condition by more than five percent, and ▪ Time of concentration of post-development runoff for the two-year storm event is not less than that for the predevelopment condition by more than five percent. Where the Project WQMP documents that excess runoff volume from the two-year runoff event cannot feasibly be retained and where in-stream controls cannot be used to otherwise mitigate HCOCs, the project shall implement on-site or regional hydromodification controls to: ▪ Retain the excess volume from the two-year runoff event to the MEP, and ▪ Implement on-site or regional hydromodification controls such that the post-development runoff two-year peak flow rate is no greater than 110 percent of the predevelopment runoff two-year peak flow rate. LID Performance Criteria: (Model WQMP Section 7.II-2.4.3) Infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter, the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). LID BMPs must be designed to retain, on-site, (infiltrate, harvest and use, or evapotranspire) storm water runoff up to 80 percent average annual capture efficiency. Treatment Control BMP Performance Criteria: (Model WQMP Section 7.II-3.2.2) If it is not feasible to meet LID performance criteria through retention and/or biotreatment provided on-site or at a sub-regional/regional scale, then treatment control BMPs shall be provided on-site or offsite prior to discharge to waters of the US. Sizing of treatment control BMP(s) shall be based on either the unmet volume after claiming applicable water quality credits, if appropriate. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 14 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA LID Design Storm Capture Volume: DCV = C × d × A × 43560 sf/ac × 1/12 in/ft Where: DCV = design storm capture volume, cu-ft C = runoff coefficient = (0.75 × imp + 0.15) Imp = impervious fraction of drainage area (ranges from 0 to 1) d = storm depth (inches) A = tributary area (acres) Imp = 0.67 d = 0.9 inches A = 2.99 acres DCV = (0.75 x 0.67 +0.15) x 0.9 inches x 2.99 ac x 43560 sf/ac x 1/12 in/ft = 6,376.6 ft3 Refer to Section IV.2.2 for specific Drainage Manage Area (DMA) breakdown and Appendix A for detailed calculations (Worksheet B). IV.2 SITE DESIGN AND DRAINAGE PLAN The following section describes the site design BMPs used in this project and the methods used to incorporate them. Careful consideration of site design is a critical first step in storm water pollution prevention from new developments and redevelopments. IV.2.1 Site Design BMPs Minimize Impervious Area Impervious surfaces have been minimized by incorporating landscaped areas throughout the site surrounding the proposed building. Landscaping will be provided throughout the site within the common areas as well as around the perimeter of the building. Maximize Natural Infiltration Capacity Infiltration is not recommended for the project site due to HSG D soils and Landslide Hazard risk. Refer to Section IV.3.2 for details. Preserve Existing Drainage Patterns and Time of Concentration Runoff from the site will continue to flow similar to existing conditions. Low -flows and first-flush runoff will drain to two modular wetland units for water quality treatment via bio-filtration. Disconnect Impervious Areas P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 15 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Landscaping will be provided adjacent to sidewalks and between the proposed buildings. Low-flows and first-flush runoff will drain to two modular wetland units for water quality treatment via bio-filtration. Refer to Section IV.3.4 for further details. Protect Existing Vegetation and Sensitive Areas, and Revegetate Disturbed Areas A majority of the existing vegetated areas will not be preserved on the project site. Most disturbed areas will either be paved or landscaped. Hillside landscaping in some areas around the perimeter will be preserved where feasible, otherwise they will be landscaped accordingly. Xeriscape Landscaping Xeriscape landscaping is not proposed for the project. However, native and/or tolerant landscaping will be incorporated into the site design consistent with City of Anaheim’s guidelines. IV.2.2 Drainage Management Areas In accordance with the MS4 permit and the 2011 Model WQMP, the project site has been divided into Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) to be utilized for defining drainage areas and sizing LID and other treatment control BMPs. DMAs have been delineated based on the proposed site grading patterns, drainage patterns, storm drain and catch basin locations. The design capture volumes (DCV) and treatment flow rates (QDesign) for each DMA are summarized in the table below. These have been derived utilizing the “Simple Method” in accordance with the TGD Section III.1.1. Actual BMP sizing requirements, including 80 percent capture design volumes, flow rates, depths, and other design details for the specific BMPs proposed are provided in Section IV.3.4 below. Locations of DMAs and associated LID and treatment BMPs are identified on the exhibits in Section VI. Additional calculations and TGD Worksheets are provided in Appendix A. DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAS (DMAs) DMA/ Drainage Area ID(1) Tributary Drainage Area (ft2) Tributary Drainage Area (ac) % Imp. Design Storm Depth(2) (in) Estimated Tc (min) Rainfall Intensity(3) (in/hr) Simple Method DCV(4) (ft3) QDesign (5) (cfs) DMA 1 71,125 1.63 74% 0.9 5 0.26 3,766 0.300 DMA 2 48,134 1.11 70% 0.9 5 0.26 2,450 0.195 DMA 3 10,551 0.24 7% 0.9 5 0.26 137.3 0.011 DMA 4 371 0.01 100% 0.9 5 0.26 26.5 0.002 Notes: 1. Refer to exhibits in Section VI for locations of each DMA. 2. Per Figure XVI-1 of the Technical Guidance Document, dated December 20, 2013. See also Appendix A. 3. Per Figure III.4 of the Technical Guidance Document, dated December 20, 2013. See also Appendix A. 4. Per Section III.1.1 of the Technical Guidance Document. 5. Per Section III.3.3 and Worksheet D of the Technical Guidance Document. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 16 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.3 LID BMP SELECTION AND PROJECT CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs are required in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. The 4th Term MS4 Storm Water Permit (Order R8-2009-0030) requires the evaluation and use of LID features using the following hierarchy of treatment: infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvest/reuse, and biotreatment. The following sections summarize the LID BMPs proposed for the project in accordance with the permit hierarchy and performance criteria outlined in Section IV.1. IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) Hydrologic source controls (HSCs) can be considered to be a hybrid between site design practices and LID BMPs. HSCs are distinguished from site design BMPs in that they do not reduce the tributary area or reduce the imperviousness of a drainage area; rather they reduce the runoff volume that would result from a drainage area with a given imperviousness compared to what would result if HSCs were not used. HYDROLOGIC SOURCE CONTROLS ID Name Included? HSC-1 Localized on-lot infiltration HSC-2 Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection) HSC-3 Street trees (canopy interception) HSC-4 Residential rain barrels (not actively managed) HSC-5 Green roofs/Brown roofs HSC-6 Blue roofs HSC-7 Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design) Hydrologic source controls (HSC) criteria will be analyzed in final WQMP for DMAs 1 and 2 when downspout locations are finalized. Site design features are included in the preliminary design and described narratively in Section IV.2.1 of the WQMP. As referenced in the TGD, although HSCs can be a cost-effective part of a meeting LID requirements, they are not required to be used if LID requirements can be met in other ways. Therefore, at this time, HSCs are not proposed in DMAs 1 or 2, but will be explored further during the final WQMP. HSCs will be considered for areas where it is deemed feasible, however, downspout locations will need to be determined before further design analysis is made. Within DMA 3, according to the HSC-2 fact sheet and Worksheet A, the area can be considered to be self-retaining. The design storm depth with the HSC exceeds that for the DCV without the HSC, therefore DMA 3 can be considered to be self-retaining. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 17 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Infiltration BMPs are LID BMPs that capture, store and infiltrate storm water runoff. These BMPs are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge (underdrain or outlet structure) until this volume is exceeded. Examples of infiltration BMPs include infiltration trenches, bioretention without underdrains, drywells, permeable pavement, and underground infiltration galleries. INFILTRATION ID Name Included? INF-3 INF-4 Bioretention Without Underdrains Rain Gardens Porous Landscaping Infiltration Planters Retention Swales INF-2 Infiltration Trenches INF-1 Infiltration Basins INF-5 Drywells INF-7 Subsurface Infiltration Galleries -- French Drains INF-6 Permeable Asphalt Permeable Concrete Permeable Concrete Pavers Other: No infiltration BMPs are proposed within the redevelopment project. As discussed in Section III.2, the project site is located within an area with multiple infiltration constraints. These include HSG D soils and landslide hazards, as shown in the Technical Guidance Document Figure XVI. In addition, the geotechnical engineer does not recommend infiltration of stormwater as shown in Appendix F. Due to the steep slopes at the project site (maximum of 25%), proximity to landslide areas, proposed retaining walls, and proposed basement, infiltration is further constrained and will not be proposed as part of this Preliminary WQMP. Therefore, direct or concentrated infiltration of runoff is not considered feasible for the project at this time. Please see the Infiltration Feasibility Worksheet in Appendix A for further details. Infiltration feasibility will be explored further in the Final WQMP and subsequent correspondence will be provided by the geotechnical engineer to confirm feasibility at that time. Site specific infiltration will be conducted during Final WQMP, if necessary. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 18 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration & Rainwater Harvesting BMPs Evapotranspiration (ET) BMPs are a class of retention BMPs that discharges stored volume predominately to ET, though some infiltration may occur. ET includes both evaporation and transpiration, and ET BMPs may incorporate one or more of these processes. BMPs must be designed to achieve the maximum feasible ET, where required to demonstrate that the maximum amount of water has been retained on-site. Since ET is not the sole process in these BMPs, specific design and sizing criteria have not been developed for ET-based BMPs. EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ID Name Included? -- HSCs, see Section IV.3.1 -- Surface-based infiltration BMPs -- Biotreatment BMPs, see Section VI.3.4 Other: Since biotreatment BMPs will be utilized for treating the 80% capture efficiency on-site, evapotranspiration BMPs were not incorporated into the project’s design. Please see Worksheet J in Appendix A for more details. Harvest and use (aka. Rainwater Harvesting) BMPs are LID BMPs that capture and store storm water runoff for later use. These BMPs are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge until this volume is exceeded. Harvest and use BMPs include both above-ground and below-ground cisterns. Examples of uses for harvested water include irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing, vehicle washing, evaporative cooling, industrial processes and other non-potable uses. HARVEST & REUSE / RAINWATER HARVESTING ID Name Included? HU-1 Above-ground cisterns and basins HU-2 Underground detention -- Other: In order to quantify harvested water demand for the common areas of the project, the Modified Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) method was used, consistent with Appendix X of the Model WQMP’s Technical Guidance Document (TGD), dated December 20, 2013. The Modified EAWU method is modified from the OC Irrigation Code (County Ordinance No. 09-010) to account for the wet season demand and storm events (assuming that no irrigation would be applied for approximately 30% of the days in the wet season). P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 19 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The equation used to calculate the Modified EAWU is: 𝐾𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑑 𝐸𝐴𝑊𝑇=(𝐸𝑇𝑜wet × 𝐾L × 𝐾𝐴 × 0.015) 𝐼𝐸 Where: Modified EAWU = estimated daily average water use during wet season ETowet = average reference ET from November through April (inches per month) per Table X.2 of the TGD KL = landscape coefficient (Table X.4 of the TGD) LA = landscape area irrigated with harvested water (square feet) IE = irrigation efficiency (assumed at 90%) Note: In the equation, the coefficient (0.015) accounts for unit conversions and shut down of irrigation during and for three days following a significant precipitation event. For a system to be considered “feasible”, the system must be designed with a storage volume equal to the DCV from the tributary area and achieve more than 40% capture. The system must also be able to drawdown in 30 days to meet the 40% capture value. In addition, Table X.6 of the Technical Guidance Document sets forth the demand thresholds for minimum partial capture. TABLE X.6: HARVESTED WATER DEMAND THRESHOLDS FOR MINIMUM PARTIAL CAPTURE Design Capture Storm Depth, inches Wet Season Demand Required for Minimum Partial Capture, gpd per impervious acre 0.60 490 0.65 530 0.70 570 0.75 610 0.80 650 0.85 690 0.90 730 0.95 770 1.00 810 The following table summarizes the estimated applied water use for the common area landscaping of the project. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 20 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ESTIMATED APPLIED WATER USE (EAWU) FOR COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING Landscape Type Total Area (ac) % Impervious Impervious Tributary (ac) Irrigated LS Area (ac) EToWet (1) (in/mo) KL (2) Modified EAWU (gpd) Modified EAWU per impervious acre (gpd/ac) Minimum Capture Threshold (3) (gpd/ac) Blend 2.99 67 2.00 0.99 2.93 0.55 1,154 576.2 730 Design Capture Volume (gal) 47,697 Drawdown (days) 41.3 Notes: 1 Per Table X.2 for Santa Ana Region (similar climate type), Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document, dated December 20, 2013. 2 Per Table X.4 of the Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document, dated December 20, 2013. 3 Per Table X.6 of Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document, dated December 20, 2013. As shown above, the project site does not have sufficient water demand during the wet season to support harvest and reuse. For this project a blend of high and low water use landscaping was assumed, and the project, therefore, does not meet the minimum capture threshold of 730 gallons per day/acre with its Modified EAWU or estimated daily average water usage during the wet season. The DCV will not be fully utilized and emptied for the next storm event. Drawdown of the DCV is anticipated to take approximately 41 days by the landscape’s water demand usage, which is greater than the maximum drawdown time of 30 days. IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs Biotreatment BMPs are a broad class of LID BMPs that reduce storm water volume to the maximum extent practicable, treat storm water using a suite of treatment mechanisms characteristic of biologically active systems, and discharge water to the downstream storm drain system or directly to receiving waters. Treatment mechanisms include media filtration (though biologically-active media), vegetative filtration (straining, sedimentation, interception, and stabilization of particles resulting from shallow flow through vegetation), general sorption processes (i.e., absorption, adsorption, ion-exchange, precipitation, surface complexation), biologically-mediated transformations, and other processes to address both suspended and dissolved constituents. Examples of biotreatment BMPs include bioretention with underdrains, vegetated swales, constructed wetlands, and proprietary biotreatment systems. BIOTREATMENT ID Name Included? BIO-1 Bioretention with underdrains Storm Water planter boxes with underdrains Rain gardens with underdrains BIO-5 Constructed wetlands BIO-2 Vegetated swales P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 21 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BIOTREATMENT ID Name Included? BIO-3 Vegetated filter strips BIO-7 Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems BIO-4 Wet extended detention basin BIO-6 Dry extended detention basins -- Other: Since both infiltration and harvest and reuse are considered infeasible, biotreatment BMPs will be utilized on-site for water quality treatment, including two proprietary Modular Wetland System units. BIO-7: Proprietary Biotreatment (MWS Unit) Modular Wetlands by Modular Wetlands Systems, Inc. are proprietary biotreatment systems that utilize multi-stage treatment processes including screening media filtration, settling, and biofiltration. The pre- treatment chamber contains the first three stages of treatment, and includes a catch basin inlet filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine TSS, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber where treatment is achieved through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges back into the storm drain system. This BMP was chosen based on its ability to treat the project’s pollutants of concerns to a medium or high effectiveness, in accordance with the Model WQMP and TGD requirements. The table below summarizes the overall treatment effectiveness for Modular Wetland Systems, derived from Table 4.2 of the Technical Guidance Document and testing data provided by the manufacturer. Additional details on the proposed BMPs are included in Section VI of this WQMP. POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN AND PERFORMANCE RATINGS Pollutant of Concern (1) Treatment Effectiveness Bioretention System (2) Modular Wetlands Proprietary Bioretention Units (3) Suspended Solids/Sediments High High Nutrients Low Medium-High Metals High Medium Pathogens/Bacteria Medium Medium-High Pesticides N/A N/A P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 22 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN AND PERFORMANCE RATINGS Pollutant of Concern (1) Treatment Effectiveness Bioretention System (2) Modular Wetlands Proprietary Bioretention Units (3) Oil & Grease High High Toxic Organic Compounds Medium N/A(4) Trash & Debris High High Notes: 1 See Section II.2 of this WQMP. 2 Per Table 4.2 of the Model WQMP’s companion Technical Guidance Document dated May 19, 2011. 3 Based on Washington State University Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) third-party independent field tests for a high- flow biotreatment system with raised under drain (Modular Wetland System-Linear). Refer to manufacturer documentation (attached) for specific removal efficiencies and source references. 4 Field and Lab Testing demonstrates 75-83% removal rates of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), a measure of the amount of organic pollutants commonly found in surface water. COD removals of this range would fall within the Medium-High effectiveness category. In accordance with the Model WQMP and TGD, the biotreatment BMPs will be sized to treat runoff from the Capture Efficiency Method (80% Capture Volume). Since Modular Wetlands are sized based on flow rate, they were sized utilizing the methodology for flow based BMPs (TGD Section III.1.2 and Worksheet D). Locations and tributary drainage areas are shown on the WQMP Exhibit included in Section VI. BMP details are also included in Section VI. Detailed calculations and associated TGD Worksheets are included in Appendix A. Operation and maintenance details are included in Section V and Appendix D (O&M Plan). In order to mitigate for any concerns from the drainage management areas being larger than 1 acre in size, the frequency of maintenance shall be increased to quarterly. MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM DESIGN SUMMARY DMA ID(1) Area (ac) % Imp. Tc (min) Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) QDesign(3) (cfs) Size / Model(4) Treatment Capacity (5) (cfs) DMA 1 1.63 74% 5.0 0.26 0.299 MWS-L-8-12 0.346 DMA 2 1.11 70% 5.0 0.26 0.194 MWS-L-4-17 0.206 Notes: (1) See also Section IV.2.2. (2) Refer to WQMP Exhibit in Section VI for locations of each drainage area and BMP. (3) Detailed calculations and worksheets are included in Appendix A. (4) Unit details and specifications are included in Section VI. (5) Treatment capacities of each unit are based on wetland media design loading rate (controlled by downstream orifice) and perim eter surface area of wetland media provided. Individual unit sizing calculations provided by the manufacturer are included on each cut sheet/detail included in Section VI. DMA 1 will drain to a MWS-L-8-12 unit in the northwest corner of the parking lot area. Low flows will then be piped to the 15’ wide curb inlet. This MWS unit will be located at 33.845470, -117.802337. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 23 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DMA 2 is comprised of the exterior of the facility, walkways, parking lots, trash storage areas, and landscaping. All of these DMAs will either surface flow or have low flows piped directly into the MWS- L-4-17. This MWS unit will be located at 33.845390, -117.801379. Flows from both DMAs 1 and 2 will then join at the back of the 15’ wide curb inlet and then go to the RCP along Royal Oak Rd. All MWS units will be properly designed to treat low flows and bypass high flows via an internal bypass. This will be finalized in the Final WQMP. The Project will also comply with the Trash Amendments requirements. Full Trash Capture (FCS) The MWS systems will either be equipped with a Connector Pipe Screen (CPS or similar) on the overflow pipe of the MWS unit which will be sized to comply with the Statewide Trash Amendments; or a full- capture system (FCS) will be implemented separately from the LID BMPs. In addition, any improvements to the ROW, and any relocated catch basins (to be finalized in Final WQMP), will also satisfy Trash Amendment and LID BMP requirements. Details and calculations will be provided in Final WQMP once the most practical approach is determined based on final drainage design and scale of the improvement area. IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs Not applicable. Refer to Section II.3 for further information. IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs Not applicable. LID BMPs (Biotreatment) will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. 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. Not applicable. LID BMPs (Biotreatment) will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.3.8 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants N2 Activity Restrictions P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 24 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason N3 Common Area Landscape Management N4 BMP Maintenance N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) No hazardous materials. N6 Local Water Quality Permit Compliance The City of Anaheim does not issue water quality permits. N7 Spill Contingency Plan No fueling or liquid storage facilities. N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No underground tanks. N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance No hazardous materials will be stored on-site. N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation Not applicable. N11 Common Area Litter Control N12 Employee Training N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks No loading docks proposed. N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets No retail gasoline outlets proposed. N1, Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Educational materials will be provided to tenants, including brochures and restrictions to reduce pollutants from reaching the storm drain system. Examples include tips for pet care, household tips, and proper household hazardous waste disposal. Tenants will be provided with these materials by the property management prior to occupancy, and periodically thereafter. Refer to Section VII for a list of materials available and attached to this WQMP. Additional materials are available through the County of Orange Stormwater Program website (http://ocwatersheds.com/PublicEd/) and the California Stormwater Quality Association’s (CASQA) BMP Handbooks (http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/). N2, Activity Restrictions P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 25 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The Owner shall develop ongoing activity restrictions that include those that have the potential to create adverse impacts on water quality. Activities include, but are not limited to: handling and disposal of contaminants, fertilizer and pesticide application restrictions, litter control and pick-up, and vehicle or equipment repair and maintenance in non-designated areas, as well as any other activities that may potentially contribute to water pollution. N3, Common Area Landscape Management Management programs will be designed and implemented by the Owner to maintain all the common areas within the project site. These programs will cover how to reduce the potential pollutant sources of fertilizer and pesticide uses, utilization of water-efficient landscaping practices and proper disposal of landscape wastes by the owner/developer and/or contractors. N4, BMP Maintenance The Owner will be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of each applicable non- structural BMP, as well as scheduling inspections and maintenance of all applicable structural BMP facilities through its staff, landscape contractor, and/or any other necessary maintenance contractors. Details on BMP maintenance are provided in Section V of this WQMP, and the O&M Plan is included in Appendix D. N11, Common Area Litter Control The Owner will be responsible for performing trash pickup and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or whenever necessary. Responsibilities will also include noting improper disposal materials by the public and reporting such violations for investigation. N12, Employee Training All employees of the Owner and any contractors will require training to ensure that employees are aware of maintenance activities that may result in pollutants reaching the storm drain. Training will include, but not be limited to, spill cleanup procedures, proper waste disposal, housekeeping practices, etc. N14, Common Area Catch Basin Inspection All on-site catch basin inlets and drainage facilities shall be inspected and maintained by the Owner at least once a year, prior to the rainy season, no later than October 1st of each year. N15, Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots The Owner shall be responsible for sweeping all on-site drive aisles and uncovered parking lots within the project on a quarterly basis. IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 26 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason S1 SD-13 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage S2 SD-34 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction No outdoor material storage areas proposed. S3 SD-32 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction No outdoor trash enclosures are proposed. S4 SD-12 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation No slopes or channels being modified. S6 SD-31 Properly Design: Dock areas No loading docks are proposed. S7 SD-31 Properly Design: Maintenance bays No maintenance bays are proposed. S8 SD-33 Properly Design: Vehicle wash areas No vehicle wash areas are proposed. S9 SD-36 Properly Design: Outdoor processing areas No outdoor processing areas are proposed. S10 Properly Design: Equipment wash areas No equipment wash areas are proposed. S11 SD-30 Properly Design: Fueling areas No fueling areas are proposed. S12 SD-10 Properly Design: Hillside landscaping S13 Properly Design: Wash water control for food preparation areas S14 Properly Design: Community car wash racks No community car wash racks proposed. S1/SD-13, Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage The phrase “NO DUMPING! DRAINS TO OCEAN”, or an equally effective phrase approved by the City, will be stenciled on all major storm drain inlets within the project site to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. Stencils shall be in place prior to release of P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 27 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES certificate of occupancy. Stencils shall be inspected for legibility on an annual basis and re-stenciled as necessary. S4/SD-12, Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control The Owner will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all common landscape areas utilizing similar planting materials with similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff. The Owner will be responsible for implementing all efficient irrigation systems for common area landscaping including, but not limited to, provisions for water sensors and programmable irrigation cycles. This includes smart timers, rain sensors, and moisture shut-off valves. The irrigation systems shall be in conformance with water efficiency guidelines. Systems shall be tested twice per year, and water used during testing/flushing shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. S12/SD-10, Properly Design: Hillside landscaping All slopes shall be vegetated and stabilized to prevent erosion, in accordance with “Efficient Irrigation and Landscape Design” source control BMP to prevent erosion. S13, Properly Design: Wash water control for food preparation areas All wash water from food prep areas will be controlled and proper staff training conducted by the site operator. Food preparation facilities shall meet all health and safety, building and safety and any other applicable regulations, codes requirements, including installation of a grease interceptor where required. Sinks shall be contained with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes. IV.4 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PLAN IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits Local jurisdictions may develop a water quality credit program that applies to certain types of development projects after they first evaluate the feasibility of meeting LID requirements on-site. If it is not feasible to meet the requirements for on-site LID, project proponents for specific project types can apply credits that would reduce project obligations for selecting and sizing other treatment BMPs or participating in other alternative programs. WATER QUALITY CREDITS Credit Applicable? Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. Brownfield redevelopment, meaning redevelopment, expansion, or reuse of real property which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, and which have the potential to contribute to adverse ground or surface water quality if not redeveloped. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 28 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WATER QUALITY CREDITS Credit Applicable? 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) 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). Transit-oriented developments, such as a mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation; similar to above criterion, but where the development center is within one half mile of a mass transit center (e.g. bus, rail, light rail or commuter train station). Such projects would not be able to take credit for both categories, but may have greater credit assigned Redevelopment projects in an established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant city area including core City Center areas (to be defined through mapping). Developments with dedication of undeveloped portions to parks, preservation areas and other pervious uses. Developments in a city center area. Developments in historic districts or historic preservation areas. Live-work developments, a variety of developments designed to support residential and vocational needs together – similar to criteria to mixed use development; would not be able to take credit for both categories. In-fill projects, the conversion of empty lots and other underused spaces into more beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas. Not applicable. Water quality credits will not be applied for the project. LID BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information Not applicable. LID BMPs (Biotreatment) will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 29 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE SECTION V INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs It has been determined that Alliance Realty Partners, LLC shall assume all BMP inspection and maintenance responsibilities for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community project. Contact Name: Michael Wilborn Title: Vice President Company: Alliance Realty Partners, LLC Address: 2462 Dupont Dr, Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.706.8461 Fax: N/A Email: MWilborn@allresco.com Should the maintenance responsibility be transferred at any time during the operational life of Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community, a formal notice of transfer shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim at the time responsibility of the property subject to this WQMP is transferred. The transfer of responsibility shall be incorporated into this WQMP as an amendment. The Owner shall verify BMP implementation and ongoing maintenance through inspection, self- certification, survey, or other equally effective measure. The certification shall verify that, at a minimum, the inspection and maintenance of all structural BMPs including inspection and performance of any required maintenance in the late summer / early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season. A form that may be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is included in Appendix D. The City of Anaheim may conduct verifications to assure that implementation and appropriate maintenance of structural and non-structural BMPs prescribed within this WQMP is taking place at the project site. The Owner shall retain operations, inspections and maintenance records of these BMPs and they will be made available to the City or County upon request. All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years after the recorded inspection date for the lifetime of the project. Long-term funding for BMP maintenance will be provided by Alliance Realty Partners, LLC. The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan can be found in Appendix D. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 30 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party BIOTREATMENT BMPs BIO-7 Proprietary Biotreatment: Modular Wetland System (MWS Unit) The two on-site Modular Wetland System units shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. The system shall be inspected at a minimum of once every six months, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1) each year, and after major storm events. Typical maintenance includes removing trash & debris from the catch basin screening filter (by hand), removal of sediment and solids in the settlement chamber (vacuum truck), replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM filter cartridge, and replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM drain down filter (if equipped). In addition, plants within the wetland chamber will require trimming as needed in conjunction with routine landscape maintenance activities. No fertilizer shall be used in this chamber. Wetland chamber should be inspected during rain events to verify flow through the system. If little to no flow is observed from the lower valve or orifice plate, the wetland media may require replacement. If prior treatment stages are properly maintained, the life of the wetland media can be up to 20 years. Quarterly Alliance Realty Partners, LLC P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 31 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party PRE-2 On-Site Full Capture Trash System OR Connector Pipe Screen (or similar) During the rainy season (October 1 – April 30), the catch basins with connector pipe screens or other full capture system device should be inspected monthly and cleaned out at least once per year at a minimum. Recommended cleaning of the insert four times per year, but may change depending on specific manufacturer to be determined in Final WQMP. Monthly Inspections Cleanout Annually and before major storm events (min.) Alliance Realty Partners, LLC PRE-2 Off-Site Full Capture Trash System OR Connector Pipe Screen (or similar) During the rainy season (October 1 – April 30), the catch basins with connector pipe screens or other full capture system device should be inspected monthly and cleaned out at least once per year at a minimum. Recommended cleaning of the insert four times per year, but may change depending on specific manufacturer to be determined in Final WQMP. Monthly Inspections Cleanout Annually and before major storm events (min.) Alliance Realty Partners, LLC NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Educational materials will be provided to tenants or employees annually. Materials to be distributed are found in Appendix C of this WQMP. Tenants will be provided these materials by the Property Management prior to occupancy and annually thereafter. Upon first occupancy, Annually thereafter Alliance Realty Partners, LLC N2 Activity Restrictions The Owner will prescribe activity restrictions to protect surface water quality, through lease terms or other equally effective measure, for the property. Restrictions include, but are not limited to, prohibiting vehicle maintenance, vehicle washing, and washing of impervious areas. Ongoing Alliance Realty Partners, LLC P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 32 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party N3 Common Area Landscape Management Maintenance shall be consistent with City requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with City Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (LIP Exhibit A-5.1V) as well as local requirements. Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and debris removal on a weekly basis. Trimming, replanting, and replacement of mulch shall be performed on an as-needed basis to prevent exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings, clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled during maintenance activities shall be placed away from water courses and storm drain inlets. Monthly Alliance Realty Partners, LLC N4 BMP Maintenance Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in this WQMP. Records of inspections and BMP maintenance shall be kept by the Owner and shall be available for review upon request. Ongoing Alliance Realty Partners, LLC N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Not Applicable N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance Not Applicable N7 Spill Contingency Plan Not Applicable N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance Not Applicable N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Not Applicable P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 33 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation Not Applicable N11 Common Area Litter Control Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed on a weekly basis and in conjunction with routine maintenance activities. Weekly Alliance Realty Partners, LLC N12 Employee Training Educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention, particularly good housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Refresher courses shall be conducted at a minimum annually, and more frequently if necessary. Annually Alliance Realty Partners, LLC N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks Not Applicable N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Catch basin inlets and other drainage facilities shall be inspected after each storm event and once per year. Inlets and other facilities shall be cleaned prior to the rainy season, by October 1 each year. Annually Alliance Realty Partners, LLC N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Private streets, drive aisles & any exposed parking areas must be swept at least weekly, including prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Quarterly Alliance Realty Partners, LLC N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets Not Applicable STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs S1 SD-13 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Storm drain stencils shall be inspected for legibility, at minimum, once prior to the storm season, no later than October 1 each year. Those determined to be illegible will be re-stenciled as soon as possible. Annually Alliance Realty Partners, LLC P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 34 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party S2 SD-34 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Not Applicable S3 SD-32 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Not Applicable S4 SD-12 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control Inspect, test and adjust irrigation system to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, ensure timing and cycle lengths are correct. Weekly visual inspection, testing 2x per year Alliance Realty Partners, LLC S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation Not Applicable S6 SD-31 Properly Design: Dock areas Not Applicable S7 SD-31 Properly Design: Maintenance bays Not Applicable S8 SD-33 Properly Design: Vehicle wash areas Not Applicable S9 SD-36 Properly Design: Outdoor processing areas Not Applicable S10 Properly Design: Equipment wash areas Not Applicable S11 SD-30 Properly Design: Fueling areas Not Applicable P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 35 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party S12 SD-10 Properly Design: Hillside landscaping Hillside areas that are disturbed by project development shall maintain landscaping (deep- rooted, drought tolerant plant species selected for erosion control), satisfactory to the local permitting authority. Ongoing Alliance Realty Partners, LLC S13 Properly Design: Wash water control for food preparation areas Adequate signs shall be provided and appropriately placed stating the prohibition of discharging wash water to the storm drain system. Employees shall be trained in discharge and safety requirements outlined in State Health & Safety Code 27520. All cooking utensils shall be cleaned in appropriate wash stations. Ongoing Alliance Realty Partners, LLC S14 Properly Design: Community car wash racks Not Applicable Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off-site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 36 SITE PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN SECTION VI SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN The exhibits provided in this section are to illustrate the post construction BMPs prescribed within this WQMP. Drainage flow information of the proposed project, such as general surface flow lines, concrete or other surface drainage conveyances, and storm drain facilities are also depicted. All structural source control and treatment control BMPs are shown as well. EXHIBITS ▪ Vicinity Map ▪ Site Plan ▪ WQMP Exhibit BMP DETAILS & FACT SHEETS ▪ Typical Cross Sections ▪ BIO-7: Proprietary Biotreatment Fact Sheet P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 37 SITE PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN VICINITY MAP E A S T N O H L R A N C H R O A D C L R O Y A L O A K R O A D C L ( P U B L I C ) ( P U B L I C ) S T O P STOP S c a l e : 1 " = 6 0 ' E x h i b i t D a t e : 1 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 2 0 H O L D E N A N A H E I M H I L L S S E N I O R L I V I N G C O M M U N I T Y W A T E R Q U A L I T Y A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 7 N L E G E N D P R O P E R T Y L I N E E X I S T I N G S T O R M D R A I N P R O P O S E D S T O R M D R A I N P R O P O S E D L A N D S C A P I N G ( N 3 , N 1 1 , S 4 , S 1 2 ) P R O P O S E D B U I L D I N G ( N 1 1 , N 1 2 , S 1 3 ) S T R E E T S W E E P I N G P R I V A T E S T R E E T S & P A R K I N G L O T S D I R E C T I O N O F S U R F A C E F L O W M A N A G E M E N T P L A N www.fuscoe.com tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 Irvine, California 92606 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 NGIENEERING P R O P O S E D C A T C H B A S I N I N L E T S ( N 1 4 , S 1 ) B M P D R A I N A G E A R E A B O U N D A R Y D I R E C T I O N O F P I P E D F L O W P R O P O S E D M O D U L A R W E T L A N D S Y S T E M ( N 4 , N 1 4 , S 1 ) N 1 - A C T I V I T Y R E S T R I C T I O N S N 3 - C O M M O N A R E A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E M E N T N 4 - B M P M A I N T E N A N C E N 1 1 - C O M M O N A R E A L I T T E R C O N T R O L N 1 2 - E M P L O Y E E T R A I N I N G N 1 4 - C O M M O N A R E A C A T C H B A S I N I N S P E C T I O N N 1 5 - S T R E E T S W E E P I N G P A R K I N G L O T S S 1 - S T O R M D R A I N S T E N C I L I N G A N D S I G N A G E S 4 - E F F I C I E N T I R R I G A T I O N S Y S T E M S S T R U C T U R A L A N D N O N S T R U C T U R A L S O U R C E C O N T R O L B M P S S 1 2 - H I L L S I D E L A N D S C A P I N G S 1 3 - W A S H W A T E R C O N T R O L ( N 1 , N 1 1 , N 1 5 ) N O T E S : * F U L L C A P T U R E S Y S T E M D E V I C E M A N U F A C T U R E R A N D T Y P E / M O D E L N U M B E R T O B E D E T E R M I N E D I N F I N A L W Q M P * * D M A 3 I S A S E L F - R E T A I N I N G D M A * * * D M A 4 I S A D R I V E A P R O N A N D W I L L N O T B E T R E A T E D B M P S I N D M A 1 A N D 2 A R E U P S I Z E D A C C O R D I N G L Y APPENDIX A SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y 1. 0 5 0. 7 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.95 0 . 7 0 . 9 0. 9 0.75 P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 1 _ R a i n f a l l Z o n e s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGUREJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP04/22/10 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ORANGE CO.CARAINFALL ZONES SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 06 1 2 3 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND Orange County Precipitation Stations 24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches)24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches) - Extrapolated City Boundaries Rainfall Zones Design Capture Storm Depth (inches)0.65"0.7 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.10"Note: Events defined as 24-hour periods (calendar days) with greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall. For areas outside of available data coverage, professional judgment shall be applied.XVI-1 Pr o j e c t S i t e ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 a _ H y d r o S o i l s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2aJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CANRCS HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUPS SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Source: Soils: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Soil Survey - soil_ca678, Orange County & Western Riverside Date of publication: 2006-02-08 !I 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND City Boundaries Hydrologic Soil Groups A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Pr o j e c t S i t e ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 b _ D - S o i l s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2bJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CAHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE D NRCS SOIL SURVEY SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Source: D Soils: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Soil Survey - soil_ca678, Orange County & Western Riverside Date of publication: 2006-02-08 !I 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND City Boundaries Hydrologic Soil Groups D Soils http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Pr o j e c t S i t e ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 c _ L a n d s l i d e s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2cJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.25 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CAHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE D NRCS SOIL SURVEY SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Source:Seismic Hazard Zone Maps Division of Mines and Geology, California Geology Survey,Publication Date: 2005; Data Downloaded 02-09-2011 !I 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND City Boundaries Seismic Hazards Potential Landslide Area http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/Index.aspx Pr o j e c t S i t e ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTY ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y 1 0 10 3 5 1 0 30 1 0 3 0 10 20 1 0 10 5 50 3 30 3 0 3 0 30 2 0 5 1 0 20 30 50 1 0 3 0 2 0 P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 d _ D e p t h T o G r o u n d w a t e r O v e r v i e w _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2dJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.25 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CANORTH ORANGE COUNTY MAPPED DEPTH TO FIRST GROUNDWATER SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Note: Data are not available for South Orange County at this time.Source:Sprotte, Fuller and Greenwood, 1980.California Division of Mines and Geology;California Geological Survey !I 02 . 5 5 1. 2 5 Mi l e s 04 8 2 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND Depth To First Groundwater Contours City Boundaries OCWD Groundwater Basin Protection Boundary Pr o j e c t S i t e ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 g _ I n f i l t r a t i o n F i n a l _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2gJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP04/22/10 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CAINFILTRATION ANALYSIS OVERLAPPING CONSTRAINT LOCATIONS SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Analysis Layers Included: 1. Hydrologic Soil Group D, 2. Landslide Hazard Zone, 3. Groundwater Protection Areas 4. Approximate Selinium Area, 5. Depth to Groundwater <= 5' Note: Screening datasets are not exhaustive. The applicant should always conduct a review of available site-specific information relative to infiltration constraints as part of assessing the feasibility of stormwater infiltration.Source;Infiltration Constraint Analysis: PACE/Geosyntec 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND OCWD Groundwater Basin Protection Boundary City Boundaries Infiltration Constraints 1 Constraint 2 Overlapping Constraints 3 Overlapping Constraints 4 Overlapping Constraints Pr o j e c t S i t e P: \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ S u c e p t a b i l i t y M a p s _ 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ S a n t a A n a R i v e r S u s c e p t i b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 . m x d ClevelandNational Forest San Bernardino County Riverside County South Orange County Newport Bay Watershed Stabilized by Grade Control Structure San Gabriel-Coyote Creek Watershed Anaheim Bay- Huntington Harbor Watershed PetersCanyonReservoir OliveHills KraemerBasin CarbonCanyon WalnutCanyonReservoir IrvineLake AnaheimLake WarnerBasin MillerRetardingBasin BartlettRetardingBasin FletcherRetardingBasin SOUTHPARKPUMPSTATION VillaPark Dam Yorba LindaReservoir Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012 FIGURE 3 JO B TI T L E SC A L E 1" = 1 2 0 0 0 ' DE S I G N E D DR A W I N G CH E C K E D BM P 04 / 3 0 / 1 0 DA T E JO B N O . 95 2 6 - E THTH OR A N G E C O U N T Y WA T E R S H E D MA S T E R P L A N N I N G OR A N G E C O . CA SU S C E P T I B I L I T Y A N A L Y I S SA N T A A N A R I V E R !I 0 12,000 24,000 Feet Susceptibility Potential Areas of Erosion, Habitat, & Physical Structure Susceptibility Channel Type Earth (Unstable) Earth (Stabilized) Stabilized Tidel Influence <= Mean High Water Line (4.28') Water Body Basin Dam Lake Reservoir Forest Areas Cleveland National Forest Federal Lands Amarus Salt Marsh Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012 SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP UPATE (FEB 2013) Project Site Worksheet A: Hydrologic Source Control Calculation Form Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: Drainage area ID See Below Total drainage area 0.242 acres Total drainage area Impervious Area (IAtotal)0.016 acres HSC ID Effect of individual HSCi per BMP Fact Sheets (XIV.1) (d HSCi )1 Impervious Area Tributary to HSCi (IA i )d i × IA i DMA 3 HSC-2: Impervious Area Dispersion, Ratio =13.8 1.00''0.0164 0.0164 Box 1:∑ d i × IAi = 0.0164 Box 2:IA total = 0.016 [Box 1]/[Box 2]:d HSC total =1.000 80% 1 - For HSCs meeting criteria to be considered self-retaining, enter the DCV for the project. Area Impervious Area (SF)Total Area (SF)Ratio DMA 3 714.4 10,550.6 13.8 Total 714.4 10,550.6 13.89,836.2 HSC Type/ Description/ Reference BMP Fact Sheet Percent Capture Provided by HSCs (Table III.1) Pervious Area (SF) 9,836.2 WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx; A-1 (HSC-2)11/18/2020, 1:57 PM Table III.1: Fraction of Long Term Runoff Reduced (Capture Efficiency) by HSCs Cumulative HSC Adjustment to Design Capture Storm Depth (dHSC) Capture Efficiency Achieved Lowland Regions (<1,000 ft) Capture Efficiency Achieved Mountainous Regions (>1,000 ft) <0.05 0%0% 0.05''8%7% 0.1''20%16% 0.2''37%31% 0.3''48%42% 0.4''57%50% 0.5''64%57% 0.6''70%63% 0.7''75%68% 0.8''80%72% 0.9''80%76% 1.0''80%80% WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx; A-2 (HSC-2)11/18/2020; 2:35 PM Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: 11/18/2020 DMA =Total Site DMA 1 DMA 2 DMA 3 DMA 4 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d=0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 0 0 0 0 inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, d remainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder=0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 inches 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A=2.989 1.633 1.105 0.242 0.009 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp=67.0%74.0%70.0%7.0%100.0%% 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C=0.653 0.705 0.675 0.203 0.900 4 Calculate runoff volume, V design = (C x d remainder x A x 43560 x (1/12))Vdesign=6,376.6 3,761.2 2,436.8 160.5 26.5 cu-ft 1 Enter measured infiltration rate, K measured (in/hr) (Appendix VII)Kmeasured=0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, S final (unitless)Sfinal=0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, K design = K measured / S final Kdesign=0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours)T=hours 5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), D max = K design x T x (1/12) Dmax=feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), A min = V design / d max Amin=sq-ft Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the DCV Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate \\fuscoe.corp\irv\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020- 11-16.xlsx; B-1 11/18/2020 Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: 11/18/2020 DMA 1 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2)Tc=5.0 min 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I 1 I1=0.260 in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y 2 (Worksheet A)Y2=0%% 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency (Y2), I 2 I2=0 in/hr 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, I design = I 1 - I 2 Idesign=0.260 in/hr 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A=1.633 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp=74.0%% 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C = (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C=0.705 4 Calculate design flowrate, Q design = (C x i design x A)Qdesign=0.299 cfs Describe System: Proprietary BioTreatment (BIO-7): Unit Size / Model =MWS-L-8-12 Unit Size / Model Treatment Capacity =0.346 cfs Number of Units Needed =1 Total Bio-treatment Provided =0.346 cfs Provide time of concentration assumptions: min Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate Supporting Calculations \\fuscoe.corp\irv\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx; D-1 (MWS) (DMA1)11/18/2020 Figure III.4. Capture Efficiency Nomograph for Off-line Flow-based Systems in Orange County \\fuscoe.corp\IRV\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-03-11.xlsx; D-2 (DMA2)3/13/2020 Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: 11/18/2020 DMA 2 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2)Tc=5.0 min 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I 1 I1=0.260 in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y 2 (Worksheet A)Y2=0%% 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency (Y2), I 2 I2=0 in/hr 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, I design = I 1 - I 2 Idesign=0.260 in/hr 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A=1.105 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp=70.0%% 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C = (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C=0.675 4 Calculate design flowrate, Q design = (C x i design x A)Qdesign=0.194 cfs Describe System: Proprietary BioTreatment (BIO-7): Unit Size / Model =MWS-L-4-17 Unit Size / Model Treatment Capacity =0.206 cfs Number of Units Needed =1 Total Bio-treatment Provided =0.206 cfs Provide time of concentration assumptions: min Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate Supporting Calculations \\fuscoe.corp\irv\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx; D-1 (MWS) (DMA2)11/18/2020 Figure III.4. Capture Efficiency Nomograph for Off-line Flow-based Systems in Orange County \\fuscoe.corp\IRV\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-03-11.xlsx; D-2 (DMA2)3/13/2020 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 BMP Feasibility Worksheet Infeasibility Criteria Yes No 1 Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Refer to Appendix VII (Worksheet I) for guidance on groundwater-related infiltration feasibility criteria. X Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 2 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 away from slopes steeper than 15 percent 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. X Provide basis: Geotechnical Investigation by Geocon West, Inc. conducted on November 12, 2019 revealed that the soils within the area are primarily composed of artificial fill along with fine- grained/clayey soils and are therefore not conducive to infiltration of flows through LID BMPs. Infiltration was not recommended. Additionally, due to steep slopes at the project site (maximum of 25%), proximity to landslide areas, proposed retaining walls, and proposed basement, infiltration is further constrained. 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 downstream water rights? X Provide basis: 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 BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) Partial Infeasibility Criteria Yes No 4 Is proposed infiltration facility located on HSG D soils or the site geotechnical investigation identifies presence of soil characteristics which support categorization as D soils? X Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 5 Is measured infiltration rate below proposed facility less than 0.3 inches per hour? This calculation shall be based on the methods described in Appendix VII. X Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 6 Would reduction of over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial uses, such as change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? X 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. 7 Would an increase in infiltration over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial uses, such as change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? X 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. Infiltration Screening Results (check box corresponding to result): 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 8 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) Provide narrative discussion and supporting evidence: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 9 If any answer from row 1-3 is yes: infiltration of any volume is not feasible within the DMA or equivalent. Provide basis: Geotechnical Investigation by Geocon West, Inc. conducted on November 12, 2019 revealed that the soils within the area are primarily composed of artificial fill along with fine- grained/clayey soils and are therefore not conducive to infiltration of flows through LID BMPs. Infiltration was not recommended. Additionally, due to steep slopes at the project site (maximum of 25%), proximity to landslide areas, proposed retaining walls, and proposed basement, infiltration is further constrained. Summarize findings of infeasibility screening X 10 If any answer from row 4-7 is yes, infiltration is permissible but is not presumed to be feasible for the entire DCV. Criteria for designing biotreatment BMPs to achieve the maximum feasible infiltration and ET shall apply. Provide basis: Site is entirely comprised of HSG D soils. Summarize findings of infeasibility screening X 11 If all answers to rows 1 through 11 are no, infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, BMPs must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the maximum extent practicable. Harvest & Reuse Irrigation Demand Calculations Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: 11/18/2020 Storm Water Design Caputre Volume (SQDV) Drainage Area / Land Use Type Impervious Area (ac) Irrigated Area (ac)% impervious Runoff Coefficient Design Storm Depth (in) Drainage Area (acres)DCV (ft3) DCV (gal)Eto Total Site 2.00 0.99 67%0.653 0.90 2.989 6,376.6 47,697 Irvine 3.00 Modified Laguna Beach 2.75 EAWU =(Eto x KL x LA x 0.015) Santa Ana 2.93 IE EIATA = (IE x Tributary Imp. Area) Blend of High-Use and Low-Use Landscaping Drainage Area / Land Use Type Total Area (ac) Total Area (sf)% Impervious Impervious (sf) Pervious / LA (sf)Eto KL Modified EAWU EAWU/ Impervious Acre Minimum EAWU/ Impervious Acre (Table X.6)Feasible?EIATA Minimum EIATA (interpo- lated) Drawdown (days) Drawdown (hours) Total Site 2.989 130,201 67%87,235 42,966 2.93 0.55 1,154.00 576.24 730 No 0.30 0.76 41.3 992 TABLE X.8: MINIMUM IRRIGATED AREA FOR POTENTIAL PARTIAL CAPTURE FEASIBILITY Irvine Santa Ana Laguna Irvine Santa Ana Laguna 0.66 0.68 0.72 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.72 0.73 0.78 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.83 0.84 0.9 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.88 0.9 0.96 0.44 0.45 0.48 0.93 0.95 1.02 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.99 1.01 1.08 0.49 0.51 0.54 1.04 1.07 1.14 0.52 0.53 0.57 1.1 1.12 1.2 0.55 0.56 0.6 Source: Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). March 22, 2011. Appendix X. LA x KL 0.90 730 0.90 0.95 770 0.95 0.85 690 0.85 0.65 530 0.65 0.70 570 0.70 1.00 810 1.00 0.75 610 0.75 0.80 650 0.80 Design Capture Storm Depth, inches Wet Season Demand Required for Minimum Partial Capture, gpd per impervious acre Design Capture Storm Depth, inches Minimum Required Irrigated Area per Tributary Impervious Acre for Potential Partial Capture, ac/ac 0.60 490 0.60 TABLE X.6: HARVESTED WATER DEMAND THRESHOLDS FOR MINIMUM PARTIAL CAPTURE General Landscape Type Conservation Design: KL = 0.35 Active Turf Areas: KL = 0.7 Closest ET Station \\fuscoe.corp\irv\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx "Harvest & Reuse-J"11/18/2020 APPENDIX B NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community APN: 361-291-51 Submission of this Notice Of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City of Anaheim that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan (“WQMP”) for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (a nd his/her agent) of the site (or a portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. I. Previous Owner/ Previous Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: II. Information about Site Transferred Name of Project (if applicable): Title of WQMP Applicable to site: Street Address of Site (if applicable): Planning Area (PA) and/ or Tract Number(s) for Site: Lot Numbers (if Site is a portion of a tract): Date WQMP Prepared (and revised if applicable): III. New Owner/ New Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: IV. Ownership Transfer Information General Description of Site Transferred to New Owner: General Description of Portion of Project/ Parcel Subject to WQMP Retained by Owner (if any): Lot/ Tract Numbers of Site Transferred to New Owner: Remaining Lot/ Tract Numbers Subject to WQMP Still Held by Owner (if any): Date of Ownership Transfer: Note: When the Previous Owner is transferring a Site that is a portion of a larger project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP, as opposed to the entire project/parcel addressed by the WQMP, the General Description of the Site transferred and the remainder of the project/ parcel no transferred shall be set forth as maps attached to this notice. These maps shall show those portions of a project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP that are transferred to the New Owner (the Transferred Site), those portions retained by the Previous Owner, and those portions previously transferred by Previous Owner. Those portions retained by Previous Owner shall be labeled as “Previously Transferred”. V. Purpose of Notice of Transfer The purposes of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility are: 1) to track transfer of responsibility for implementation and amendment of the WQMP when property to which the WQMP is transferred from the Previous Owner to the New Owner, and 2) to facilitate notification to a transferee o f property subject to a WQMP that such New Order is now the Responsible Party of record for the WQMP for those portions of the site that it owns. VI. Certifications A. Previous Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am no longer the owner of the Transferred Site as described in Section II above. I have provided the New Owner with a copy of the WQMP applicable to the Transferred Site that the New Owner is acquiring from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of Previous Owner Representative: Title: Signature of Previous Owner Representative: Date: B. New Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the Transferred Site, as described in Section II above, that I have been provided a copy of the WQMP, and that I have informed myself and understand the New Owner’s responsibilities related to the WQMP, its implementation, and Best Management Practices associated with it. I understand that by signing this notice, the New Owner is accepting all ongoing responsibilities for implementation and amendme nt of the WQMP for the Transferred Site, which the New Owner has acquired from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of New Owner Representative: Title: Signature: Date: APPENDIX C EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ▪ The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door ▪ Household Tips ▪ Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste ▪ Recycle Waste Oil in North OC ▪ Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ▪ Responsible Pet Care ▪ Responsible Pest Control ▪ Tips for Pool Maintenance ▪ Tips for Protecting your Watershed ▪ DF-1 Drainage System Maintenance ▪ R-3 Automobile Parking ▪ R-4 Home and Garden Care Activities ▪ R-5 Proper Pet Waste Removal ▪ R-6 Disposal of Green Waste ▪ R-7 Household Hazardous Waste ▪ R-8 Water Conservation ▪ SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning ▪ SD-12 Efficient Irrigation ▪ SD-13 Storm Drain Signage Resident Educational Materials can be found here: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/publiced/resources/resbrochures Residential Activity Educational Materials can be found here: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/documents/bmp/residentialactivities Storm Drain Educational Materials can be found here: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/documents/bmp/newdevsignificantredev APPENDIX D BMP MAINTENANCE SUPPLEMENT / O&M PLAN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN Water Quality Management Plan For Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 5275 E Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, County of Orange, CA 92807 APN: 361-291-51 Date Prepared: 03/12/2020 Date Revised (Plan Check #1): 09/30/2020 Date Revised (Plan Check #2): 11/18/2020 Date Revised (Plan Check #3): 12/24/2020 This page intentionally left blank O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 3 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs Yes N1. Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Educational materials will be provided to tenants or employees annually. Materials to be distributed are found in Appendix C of this WQMP. Tenants will be provided these materials by the Property Management prior to occupancy and annually thereafter. Frequency: Upon first occupancy, Annually thereafter Yes N2. Activity Restrictions The Owner will prescribe activity restrictions to protect surface water quality, through lease terms or other equally effective measure, for the property. Restrictions include, but are not limited to, prohibiting vehicle maintenance, vehicle washing, and washing of impervious areas. Frequency: Ongoing O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 4 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N3. Common Area Landscape Management Maintenance shall be consistent with City requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with City Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (LIP Exhibit A-5.1V) as well as local requirements. Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and debris removal on a weekly basis. Trimming, replanting, and replacement of mulch shall be performed on an as-needed basis to prevent exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings, clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled during maintenance activities shall be placed away from water courses and storm drain inlets. Frequency: Monthly Yes N4. BMP Maintenance Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in this WQMP. Records of inspections and BMP maintenance shall be kept by the Owner and shall be available for review upon request. Frequency: Ongoing No N5. Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Not Applicable No N6. Local Industrial Permit Compliance Not Applicable O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 5 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility No N7. Spill Contingency Plan Not Applicable No N8. Underground Storage Tank Compliance Not Applicable No N9. Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Not Applicable No N10. Uniform Fire Code Implementation Not Applicable Yes N11. Common Area Litter Control Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed on a weekly basis and in conjunction with routine maintenance activities. Frequency: Weekly Yes N12. Employee Training Educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention, particularly good housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Refresher courses shall be conducted at a minimum annually, and more frequently if necessary. Frequency: Annually No N13. Housekeeping of Loading Docks Not Applicable Yes N14. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Catch basin inlets and other drainage facilities shall be inspected after each storm event and once per year. Inlets and other facilities shall be cleaned prior to the rainy season, by October 1 each year. Frequency: Annually O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 6 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Private streets, drive aisles & any exposed parking areas must be swept at least weekly, including prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Frequency: Quarterly No N16. Retail Gasoline Outlets Not Applicable STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs Yes S1. Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Storm drain stencils shall be inspected for legibility, at minimum, once prior to the storm season, no later than October 1 each year. Those determined to be illegible will be re- stenciled as soon as possible. Frequency: Annually No S2. Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Not Applicable No S3. Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Not Applicable Yes S4. Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control Inspect, test and adjust irrigation system to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, ensure timing and cycle lengths are correct. Frequency: Weekly visual inspection, testing 2x per year O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 7 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility No S5. Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation Not Applicable No S6. Dock areas Not Applicable No S7. Maintenance bays Not Applicable No S8. Vehicle wash areas Not Applicable No S9. Outdoor processing areas Not Applicable No S10. Equipment wash areas Not Applicable No S11. Fueling areas Not Applicable S12. Hillside landscaping Hillside areas that are disturbed by project development shall maintain landscaping (deep-rooted, drought tolerant plant species selected for erosion control), satisfactory to the local permitting authority. Frequency: Ongoing Alliance Realty Partners, LLC S13. Wash water control for food preparation areas Adequate signs shall be provided and appropriately placed stating the prohibition of discharging wash water to the storm drain system. Employees shall be trained in discharge and safety requirements outlined in State Health & Safety Code 27520. All cooking utensils shall be cleaned in appropriate wash stations. Frequency: Ongoing Alliance Realty Partners, LLC O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 8 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility No S14. Community car wash racks Not Applicable BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BMPs Biotreatment BMP # 1: BIO-7 (MWS Unit) The two on-site Modular Wetland System units shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. The system shall be inspected at a minimum of once every six months, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1) each year, and after major storm events. Typical maintenance includes removing trash & debris from the catch basin screening filter (by hand), removal of sediment and solids in the settlement chamber (vacuum truck), replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM filter cartridge, and replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM drain down filter (if equipped). In addition, plants within the wetland chamber will require trimming as needed in conjunction with routine landscape maintenance activities. No fertilizer shall be used in this chamber. Wetland chamber should be inspected during rain events to verify flow through the system. If little to no flow is observed from the lower valve or orifice plate, the wetland media may require replacement. If prior treatment stages are properly maintained, the life of the wetland media can be up to 20 years. Frequency: Quarterly Alliance Realty Partners, LLC O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 9 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Pretreatment BMP # 1: PRE-2 (On-Site Full Capture System Device) This will include a Full Capture Trash System OR Connector Pipe Screen (or similar) at the on-site MWS units. During the rainy season (October 1 – April 30), the catch basins with connector pipe screens or other full capture system device should be inspected monthly and cleaned out at least once per year at a minimum. Recommended cleaning of the insert four times per year, but may change depending on specific manufacturer to be determined in Final WQMP. Frequency: Monthly Inspections Cleanout Annually and before major storm events (min.) Alliance Realty Partners, LLC Pretreatment BMP # 2: PRE-2 (Off-Site Full Capture System Device) This will include a Full Capture Trash System OR Connector Pipe Screen (or similar) at off-site catch basins and/or LID structures. During the rainy season (October 1 – April 30), the catch basins with connector pipe screens or other full capture system device should be inspected monthly and cleaned out at least once per year at a minimum. Recommended cleaning of the insert four times per year, but may change depending on specific manufacturer to be determined in Final WQMP. Frequency: Monthly Inspections Cleanout Annually and before major storm events (min.) Alliance Realty Partners, LLC O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 10 of 12 Required Permits Permits are not required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. Forms to Record BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection The form that will be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is attached. Recordkeeping All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years and must be made available for review upon request. Waste Management Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off- site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Guidelines for Modular Wetland System - Linear Maintenance Summary o 5HPRYH7UDVKIURP6FUHHQLQJ'HYLFHದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV PLQXWHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH o 5HPRYH6HGLPHQWIURP6HSDUDWLRQ&KDPEHUದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV PLQXWHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH o 5HSODFH&DUWULGJH)LOWHU0HGLDದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOWRPRQWKV PLQXWHSHUFDUWULGJHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH o 5HSODFH'UDLQ'RZQ)LOWHU0HGLDದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV PLQXWHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH o 7ULP9HJHWDWLRQದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV 6HUYLFHWLPHYDULHV System Diagram $FFHVVWRVFUHHQLQJGHYLFHVHSDUDWLRQ FKDPEHUDQGFDUWULGJHILOWHU $FFHVVWRGUDLQ GRZQILOWHU 3UH7UHDWPHQW &KDPEHU %LRILOWUDWLRQ&KDPEHU 'LVFKDUJH &KDPEHU 2XWIORZ 3LSH ,QIORZ3LSH RSWLRQDO www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedures Screening Device 1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the Pre- Treatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry. 2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device. 3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole cover when completed. Separation Chamber 1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before maintaining the separation chamber. 2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters. 3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Cartridge Filters 1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters. 2. Enter separation chamber. 3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid. 4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place. 5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants. 6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants. 7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. 8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Drain Down Filter 1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber. 2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place. 3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Notes 1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms. 2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time. 3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. 4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations. 5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber. 6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedure Illustration Screening Device The screening device is located directly under the manhole or grate over the Pre-Treatment Chamber. It’s mounted directly underneath for easy access and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by hand or with a vacuum truck. Separation Chamber The separation chamber is located directly beneath the screening device. It can be quickly cleaned using a vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure washer is useful to assist in the cleaning process. www.modularwetlands.com Cartridge Filters The cartridge filters are located in the Pre-Treatment chamber connected to the wall adjacent to the biofiltration chamber. The cartridges have removable tops to access the individual media filters. Once the cartridge is open media can be easily removed and replaced by hand or a vacuum truck. Drain Down Filter The drain down filter is located in the Discharge Chamber. The drain filter unlocks from the wall mount and hinges up. Remove filter block and replace with new block. www.modularwetlands.com Trim Vegetation Vegetation should be maintained in the same manner as surrounding vegetation and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall be used on the plants. Irrigation per the recommendation of the manufacturer and or landscape architect. Different types of vegetation requires different amounts of irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Inspection Form Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E.Info@modularwetlands.com For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Yes Depth: Yes No Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault):Size (22', 14' or etc.): Other Inspection Items: Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No YesType of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Office personnel to complete section to the left. 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 Inspection Report Modular Wetlands System Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section. Chamber: Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Structural Integrity: Working Condition: Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the unit? Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Project Name Project Address Inspection Checklist CommentsNo Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes, specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber. Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below. Sediment / Silt / Clay Trash / Bags / Bottles Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage Waste:Plant Information No Cleaning Needed Recommended Maintenance Additional Notes: Damage to Plants Plant Replacement Plant Trimming Schedule Maintenance as Planned Needs Immediate Maintenance www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Report Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E.Info@modularwetlands.com For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Site Map # Comments: 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 Inlet and Outlet Pipe Condition Drain Down Pipe Condition Discharge Chamber Condition Drain Down Media Condition Plant Condition Media Filter Condition Long: MWS Sedimentation Basin Total Debris Accumulation Condition of Media 25/50/75/100 (will be changed @ 75%) Operational Per Manufactures' Specifications (If not, why?) Lat:MWS Catch Basins GPS Coordinates of Insert Manufacturer / Description / Sizing Trash Accumulation Foliage Accumulation Sediment Accumulation Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to the left. Project Address Project Name Cleaning and Maintenance Report Modular Wetlands System APPENDIX E CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPENDIX F GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA TRACT: 5674, LOT 51 PREPARED FOR ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 NOVEMBER 12, 2019 Project No. W1076-88-01 November 12, 2019 Alliance Realty Partners, LLC 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 550 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Ron Schulman Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA TRACT: 05674; LOT: 51 Dear Mr. Schulman: In accordance with your authorization of our proposal dated September 5, 2019, we have prepared this geotechnical investigation report for the proposed assisted living and memory care facility located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, in the City of Anaheim, California. The accompanying report presents the findings of our study and our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of proposed design and construction. Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are followed and implemented during design and construction. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GEOCON WEST, INC. John Stapleton Staff Engineer Jelisa Thomas Adams GE 3092 Jamie Fink CEG 2636 (EMAIL) Addressee TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 1 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2 3. GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................... 2 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 3 4.1 Artificial Fill .......................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Colluvium .............................................................................................................................. 3 4.3 Fernando Formation (Tfl) ...................................................................................................... 3 5. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................... 3 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................. 4 6.1 Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................................................ 4 6.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 5 6.3 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 6 6.4 Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................................ 8 6.5 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................ 8 6.6 Earthquake-Induced Flooding ................................................................................................ 9 6.7 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding ........................................................................................... 9 6.8 Oil Fields & Methane Potential ............................................................................................. 9 6.9 Subsidence ........................................................................................................................... 10 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 11 7.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 11 7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ..................................................................................... 13 7.3 Minimum Resistivity, pH, and Water-Soluble Sulfate ........................................................ 13 7.4 Grading ................................................................................................................................ 14 7.5 Shrinkage ............................................................................................................................. 17 7.6 Slope Construction ............................................................................................................... 17 7.7 Foundation Setback .............................................................................................................. 18 7.8 Conventional Foundation Design ........................................................................................ 19 7.9 Miscellaneous Foundations .................................................................................................. 20 7.10 Lateral Design ...................................................................................................................... 21 7.11 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................................................................... 21 7.12 Pavement Recommendations ............................................................................................... 23 7.13 Retaining Wall Design ......................................................................................................... 24 7.14 Dynamic (Seismic) Lateral Forces ....................................................................................... 25 7.15 Retaining Wall Drainage ...................................................................................................... 26 7.16 Elevator Pit Design .............................................................................................................. 27 7.17 Elevator Piston ..................................................................................................................... 27 7.18 Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................................... 28 7.19 Surface Drainage and Moisture Protection .......................................................................... 28 7.20 Plan Review ......................................................................................................................... 29 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS LIST OF REFERENCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) MAPS, TABLES, AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Site Plan Figure 3, Regional Fault Map Figure 4, Regional Seismicity Map Figure 5, Benched Excavation Detail Figure 6, Stability / Buttress Fill Detail Figures 7 and 8, Retaining Wall Drainage APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A1 through A5, Boring Logs APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Figures B1 through B3, Direct Shear Test Results Figures B9 through B18, Consolidation Test Results Figures B19 through B23, Modified Compaction Test of Soils Figures B24 and B25, Expansion Index Test Results Figure B26, Corrosivity Test Results Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 1 - November 12, 2019 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed assisted living and memory care facility located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road in the City of Anaheim, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions underlying the site, based on conditions encountered, to provide conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of design and construction. The scope of this investigation included a review of a 1977 Grading Plan provided to us, a site reconnaissance, field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and the preparation of this report. The site was explored on October 10, 2019, by excavating five 8-inch diameter borings using a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling machine to depths of approximately 20½ to 41½feet below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are depicted on the Site Plan (see Figure 2). A detailed discussion of the field investigation, including logs of the borings, is presented in Appendix A. The 1977 Grading Plan from construction of the current development was provided to us for review. The plan depicts the proposed elevations, which we have assumed to also be the current site elevations. The ground surface elevations indicated on the boring logs in Appendix A are based on the information depicted on this plan; Geocon has not verified the accuracy of this information. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to determine pertinent physical and chemical soil properties. Appendix B presents a summary of the laboratory test results. The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the investigation, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. References reviewed to prepare this report are provided in the List of References section. If project details vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 2 - November 12, 2019 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road in the City of Anaheim, California. The site is currently occupied by an existing single-story structure, which will be demolished in order to facilitate construction of the proposed two- and three-story, 118-unit residential facility. The property is currently accessed by a driveway off Nohl Ranch Road and also a driveway that ascends from Royal Oak Road and feeds into a parking lot that bounds the north and west sides of the property. Fill slopes on the property range from approximately 5 to 15-feet high and have approximate slope ratios of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Surface water drainage at the site appears to be by sheet flow along the existing ground contours to the city streets. Based on information provided to us and a review of a conceptual plan by Shelter Architects, we understand that proposed development will consist of a two-story, 118-unit residential facility with an approximate 6,000 square foot basement to be located in the northeast portion of the facility (see Site Plan, Figure 2). The majority of the new construction will be at or near present grades, with the exception of the basement level in the northeast portion of the site. Several relatively low retaining walls are planned along the northern property boundary in order to facilitate the grade changes needed to extend the proposed parking area northward and over the currently existing 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) descending graded slope. Other site improvements will include surface parking. The proposed development is depicted on the Site Plan (see Figure 2). Based on the preliminary nature of the design at this time, wall and column loads were not available. It is anticipated that column loads for the proposed residential structure will be up to 300 kips, and wall loads will be up to 3 kips per linear foot. Once the design phase and foundation loading configuration proceeds to a more finalized plan, the recommendations within this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Any changes in the design, location or elevation of any structure, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report 3. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province and is situated within the local Peralta Hills. The Peralta Hills consist of Tertiary sedimentary bedrock that is part of the southern flank of a westerly plunging syncline. The bedrock underlying the site is classified as Pliocene age Fernando Formation which consists generally of thick-bedded, yellow-brown to green-gray, marine sandstone and siltstone. The unit also includes beds of cobble to boulder size conglomerates. The general geologic structure in the vicinity of the site, and within the southern flank of the syncline, consists of north/northeast strikes with dips ranging from 15 to 48 degrees to the west/northwest. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 3 - November 12, 2019 Based on a review of aerial photographs between 1963 and 1966, see References), prior to development of the site a north/northeast trending drainage bisected the site. Geotechnical documentation of the original site grading was not available in the city online records. 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Based on our field investigation and published geologic maps of the area, the site is underlain by artificial fill placed during original site grading, and Pliocene age bedrock. Detailed stratigraphic profiles of the materials encountered at the site are provided on the boring logs in Appendix A. 4.1 Artificial Fill Artificial fill was generally encountered in our borings to depths ranging from 6.5 to approximately 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs, it appears that the drainage that previously dissected the site was infilled with up to 50 feet of fill. Geotechnical documentation of the fill placement was not available in online city records. The artificial fill generally consists of moist, firm to stiff, brown to dark brown to mottled gray olive brown to olive gray silty clay and clay. The fill is the result of past grading and construction activities at the site. Deeper fill may exist between excavations and in other portions of the site that were not directly explored. 4.2 Colluvium Colluvium was encountered in boring B-5 at the bottom of the drive sample taken at 40-feet below existing grades. Boring B-5 was drilled within the deeper portion of the north/northeast trending drainage that transects the existing building location. While the colluvium was only viewable in the bottom of the 6-inch sample, it was observed to consist generally of moist, firm, mottled gray brown to very dark gray silty clay with scattered organics. 4.3 Fernando Formation (Tfl) Pliocene age bedrock was encountered beneath the artificial fill in all borings but B-5. The bedrock encountered consists primarily of soft, yellow brown to gray to olive to olive brown clayey siltstone. 5. GROUNDWATER Review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange Quadrangle (California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG], Revised 2001) indicates the site is not located within a known groundwater basin. Groundwater information presented in this document is generated from data collected in the early 1900’s to the late 1990s. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 4 - November 12, 2019 Groundwater was not encountered in our borings which were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 41½ feet below existing ground surface. Based on the lack of groundwater in our borings, groundwater is neither expected to be encountered during construction, nor have a detrimental effect on the project. However, it is not uncommon for groundwater levels to vary seasonally or for groundwater seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed, especially in impermeable fine-grained soils which are heavily irrigated or after seasonal rainfall. Proper surface drainage of irrigation and precipitation will be critical for future performance of the project. Recommendations for drainage are provided in the Surface Drainage section of this report (see Section 7.19). 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.1 Surface Fault Rupture The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as CDMG) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program (CGS, 2018). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years), but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive. The site is not located within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards (CGS, 2019a; CGS, 2019b). No active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low. However, the site is located in the seismically active Southern California region, and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many active Southern California faults. The faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 3, Regional Fault Map. The closest surface trace of an active fault to the site is the Whittier Fault located approximately 4.0 miles to the north (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Other nearby active faults include the Elsinore Fault, the Chino Fault, the Central Avenue Fault, and the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone located approximately 8 miles east/northeast, 9 miles northeast, 10½ miles northeast, and 15½ miles southwest of the site, respectively (Ziony and Jones, 1989). The active San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 35 miles northeast of the site. The closest potentially active faults to the site are the Peralta Hills, the El Modeno Fault, and Norwalk faults located approximately less than 0.5 mile to the south, 1.5 miles to the south, and 8 miles to the west, respectively (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 5 - November 12, 2019 Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin and the Orange County Coastal Plain at depth. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are typically identified at depths greater than 3.0 kilometers. The October 1, 1987 Mw 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake and the January 17, 1994 Mw 6.7 Northridge earthquake were a result of movement on the Puente Hills Blind Thrust and the Northridge Thrust, respectively. These thrust faults and others in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas are not exposed at the surface and do not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard at the site; however, these deep thrust faults are considered active features capable of generating future earthquakes that could result in moderate to significant ground shaking at the site. 6.2 Seismicity As with all of Southern California, the site has experienced historic earthquakes from various regional faults. The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was formulated based on research of an electronic database of earthquake data. The epicenters of recorded earthquakes with magnitudes equal to or greater than 5.0 in the site vicinity are depicted on Figure 4, Regional Seismicity Map. A partial list of moderate to major magnitude earthquakes that have occurred in the Southern California area within the last 100 years is included in the following table. LIST OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES Earthquake Date of Earthquake Magnitude Distance to Epicenter (Miles) Direction to Epicenter (Oldest to Youngest) San Jacinto-Hemet area April 21, 1918 6.8 88 SE Near Redlands July 23, 1923 6.3 66 SE Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 85 S Tehachapi July 21, 1952 7.5 70 W San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 45 SW Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 56 SSW Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 42 SSW Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 89 ESE Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 71 SE Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 60 SW Hector Mine October 16, 1999 7.1 89 E The site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. However, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 6 - November 12, 2019 6.3 Seismic Design Criteria The following table summarizes summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2019 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The data was calculated using the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the OSHPD. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2019 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. Due to the variable depth to bedrock on the site (6.5 to approximately 40 feet), we have selected Site Class “D” as the preliminary site class designation. However, the site class should be further evaluated as the project progresses. The values presented below are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference Site Class D Section 1613.2.2 MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 1.614g Figure 1613.2.1(1) MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.571g Figure 1613.2.1(2) Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 Table 1613.2.3(1) Site Coefficient, FV 1.729* Table 1613.2.3(2) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.614g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-36) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 0.987g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-37) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 1.076g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.658g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-39) Note: *Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed for projects for Site Class “E” sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0g and for Site Class “D” and “E” sites with S1 greater than 0.2g. Section 11.4.8 also provides exceptions which indicates that the ground motion hazard analysis may be waived provided the exceptions are followed. Using the code based values presented in the table above, in lieu of a performing a ground motion hazard analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 be followed. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 7 - November 12, 2019 The table below presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16. ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.679g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.1 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.747g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) The Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion (MCE) is the level of ground motion that has a 2 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 2,475 years. According to the 2019 California Building Code and ASCE 7-16, the MCE is to be utilized for the evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and it is our understanding that the intent of the Building code is to maintain “Life Safety” during a MCE event. The Design Earthquake Ground Motion (DE) is the level of ground motion that has a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 475 years. Deaggregation of the MCE peak ground acceleration was performed using the USGS online Unified Hazard Tool, 2014 Conterminous U.S. Dynamic edition. The result of the deaggregation analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the MCE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 6.69 magnitude event occurring at a hypocentral distance of 12.45 kilometers from the site. Deaggregation was also performed for the Design Earthquake (DE) peak ground acceleration, and the result of the analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the DE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 6.62 magnitude occurring at a hypocentral distance of 16.22 kilometers from the site. Conformance to the criteria in the above tables for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 8 - November 12, 2019 6.4 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. The current standard of practice, as outlined in the “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California” and “Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction. The State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Orange Quadrangle (CDMG, 1998) indicates that the site is not located within an area designated as having a potential for liquefaction. As previously indicated, the site is not located within a known groundwater basin, and historic high groundwater level in the area is at a depth of greater than 40 feet below the existing ground surface (CDMG, 1998). In addition, the site is underlain by Tertiary age sedimentary bedrock units that are not considered liquefiable. Based on these considerations, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction to occur beneath the site is considered extremely low. 6.5 Slope Stability The overall topography at the site slopes generally to the north/northeast. Three engineered fill slopes, at slope ratios of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and ranging from 5 to 15 feet high are constructed along the general west, north, and northeast property boundaries. Along the eastern boundary of the site, a sliver of the site is is located within an area identified by the State Geologist as having a potential for earthquake-induced landslides (CGS, 2019). However, based on the current topography and lack of significant slopes, it is our opinion that the designation on the CGS website is based on the former topography surrounding the site and is not applicable to the current site conditions. Review of published geologic maps indicates that the site is not underlain by known landslides and that the possible landslide mapped 250-feet to the north/northeast has been modified by the development in the area and will not impact the site. Therefore, the potential for slope stability hazards to adversely affect the proposed development is considered low. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 9 - November 12, 2019 6.6 Earthquake-Induced Flooding Earthquake-induced flooding is inundation caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining structures due to earthquakes. Based on a review of the City of Anaheim Safety Element (2004), the site in not located within any dam inundation area. Current design, construction practices, and ongoing programs of review, modification, or total reconstruction of existing dams are intended to ensure that all dams are capable of withstanding the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) for the site. Therefore, the potential for inundation at the site as a result of an earthquake-induced dam failure is considered extremely low to nil. 6.7 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding The site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis are not considered a significant hazard at the site. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Therefore, flooding resulting from a seismically induced seiche is considered unlikely. The site is within an area of minimal flooding (Zone X) as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2019). 6.8 Oil Fields & Methane Potential Based on a review of the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Well Finder Website, the site is not located within the limits of an oilfield and oil or gas wells are not located in the immediate site vicinity (DOGGR, 2019). However, due to the voluntary nature of record reporting by the oil well drilling companies, wells may be improperly located or not shown on the location map and undocumented wells could be encountered during construction. Any wells encountered during construction will need to be properly abandoned in accordance with the current requirements of the DOGGR. The nearest oil fields to the site are the Richfield and Kraemer Oil Fields, which are situated approximately 5,500 feet north and 7,260 feet northeast of the site, respectively (DOGGR, 2019). Since the site is not located within the boundaries of a known oil field, the potential for the presence of methane or other volatile gases at the site is considered low. However, should it be determined that a methane study is required for the proposed development it is recommended that a qualified methane consultant be retained to perform the study and provide mitigation measures as necessary. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 10 - November 12, 2019 6.9 Subsidence Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. The site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence. No known large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the site or in the general site vicinity. Therefore, there appears to be little or no potential for ground subsidence due to withdrawal of fluids or gases at the site. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 11 - November 12, 2019 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.1.1 It is our opinion that neither soil nor geologic conditions were encountered during the investigation that would preclude the construction of the proposed project provided the recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during design and construction. 7.1.2 Up to 40 feet of existing artificial fill was encountered during the site investigation and up to 50 feet of fill is believed to be present at the site based on the previous topography of the site. The existing fill encountered is believed to be the result of past grading and construction activities at the site. Deeper fill may exist in other areas of the site that were not directly explored. Future demolition of the existing improvements which occupy the site will likely disturb the upper few feet of soil. 7.1.3 Based on the laboratory testing performed, it is our opinion that the deeper existing fill, at and below a depth of approximately 6 feet, and in its present condition, may remain in place and is suitable for indirect support of the proposed improvements. However, the upper 6feet of existing artificial fill, in its present condition, is not suitable for direct support of proposed foundations or slabs. The existing fill and site soils are suitable for re-use as engineered fill provided the recommendations in the Grading section of this report are followed (see Section 7.4). 7.1.4 Based on these considerations, it is recommended that the upper 6 feet of existing earth materials from existing grade and within the proposed building footprint area be excavated and properly compacted for foundation and slab support. Deeper excavations should be conducted as needed to remove any encountered soft soils as necessary at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Proposed foundations should be underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of newly placed engineered fill. The excavation should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the parking structure footprint area, including building appurtenances, or a distance equal to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. The limits of existing fill and/or soft soil removal will be verified by the Geocon representative during site grading activities. Recommendations for earthwork are provided in the Grading section of this report (see Section 7.4). 7.1.5 All excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Prior to placing any fill, the upper 12 inches of the excavation bottom must be scarified, moistened, and proof-rolled with heavy equipment in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 12 - November 12, 2019 7.1.6 It is anticipated that stable excavations for the recommended grading associated with the proposed structure can be achieved with sloping measures. However, if excavations in close proximity to an adjacent property line and/or structure are required, special excavation measures may be necessary in order to maintain lateral support of offsite improvements. Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (Section 7.18). 7.1.7 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as non-retaining block walls less than 6 feet in height, planter walls or trash enclosures, which will not be tied to the proposed structure, may be supported on conventional foundations deriving support on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, foundations may derive support directly in the previously placed fill found at and below a depth of 3 feet and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft or loose, compaction of the soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. 7.1.8 Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill and soft soils be excavated and properly compacted for paving support. The client should be aware that excavation and compaction of all existing fill and soft soils in the area of new paving is not required; however, paving constructed over existing uncertified fill or unsuitable soil may experience increased settlement and/or cracking, and may therefore have a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil should be scarified and properly compacted for paving support. Paving recommendations are provided in Pavement Recommendations section of this report (see Section 7.12). 7.1.9 Based on the predominately fine-grained and clayey nature of the soils encountered during site exploration, a stormwater infiltration system is not recommended for this project. It is recommended that stormwater be retained, filtered, and discharged in accordance with the requirements of the local governing agency. 7.1.10 Once the design and foundation loading configuration for the proposed structure proceeds to a more finalized plan, the recommendations within this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Based on the final foundation loading configurations, the potential for settlement should be re-evaluated by this office. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 13 - November 12, 2019 7.1.11 Any changes in the design, location or elevation, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. 7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics 7.2.1 The in-situ soils can be excavated with moderate effort using conventional excavation equipment. Some caving should be anticipated in unshored excavations, especially where granular soils are encountered. 7.2.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of existing adjacent improvements. 7.2.3 All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges from existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation or vehicle load. Penetrations below this 1:1 projection will require special excavation measures such as sloping or shoring. Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (see Section 7.18). 7.2.4 The upper 5 feet of the soils encountered during the field investigation are considered to range from “non-expansive” to “expansive” (expansion index [EI] of 0 and 104) as defined by 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Recommendations presented herein assume that the building foundations and slabs will derive support in materials with a “high” expansive index. 7.3 Minimum Resistivity, pH, and Water-Soluble Sulfate 7.3.1 Potential of Hydrogen (pH) and resistivity testing as well as chloride content testing were performed on representative samples of soil to generally evaluate the corrosion potential to surface utilities. The tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 643 and 422 and indicate that the soils are considered “moderately” to “severely” corrosive with respect to corrosion of buried ferrous metals on site. The results are presented in Appendix B (Figure B26) and should be considered for design of underground structures. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 14 - November 12, 2019 7.3.2 Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soil to measure the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate tests are presented in Appendix B (Figure B26) and indicate that the on-site soil possess a “negligible” (S0) and “severe” (S2) sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1. The table below presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS Sulfate Exposure Exposure Class Water-Soluble Sulfate Percent by Weight Cement Type (ASTM C150) Maximum Water to Cement Ratio by Weight Minimum Compressive Strength (psi) Not Applicable S0 SO4<0.10 -- -- 2,500 Moderate S1 0.10<SO4<0.20 II 0.50 4,000 Severe S2 0.20<SO4<2.00 V 0.45 4,500 Very Severe S3 SO4>2.00 V+Pozzolan or Slag 0.45 4,500 7.3.3 Geocon West, Inc. does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering and mitigation. If corrosion sensitive improvements are planned, it is recommended that a corrosion engineer be retained to evaluate corrosion test results and incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of buried metal pipes and concrete structures in direct contact with the soils. 7.4 Grading 7.4.1 Earthwork should be observed, and compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon West, Inc. The existing fill soils encountered during exploration is suitable for re-use as engineered fill, provided any encountered oversize material (greater than 6 inches) and any encountered deleterious debris are removed. 7.4.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, and building official in attendance. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 15 - November 12, 2019 7.4.3 Grading should commence with the removal of all existing vegetation and existing improvements from the area to be graded. Deleterious debris such as wood and root structures should be exported from the site and should not be mixed with the fill soils. Asphalt and concrete should not be mixed with the fill soils unless approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. All existing underground improvements planned for removal should be completely excavated and the resulting depressions properly backfilled in accordance with the procedures described herein. Once a clean excavation bottom has been established it must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). 7.4.4 As a minimum, it is recommended that the upper 6 feet of existing earth materials from existing grade and within the proposed building footprint area be excavated and properly compacted for foundation and slab support. Deeper excavations should be conducted as necessary to remove deeper artificial fill or soft unsuitable soil at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Proposed foundations should be underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of newly placed engineered fill. The excavation should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the building footprint area, including building appurtenances, or a distance equal to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. The limits of existing fill and/or soft fill soils removal will be verified by the Geocon representative during site grading activities. 7.4.5 All excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Prior to placing any fill, the upper 12 inches of the excavation bottom must be scarified, moistened, and proof-rolled with heavy equipment in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). 7.4.6 All fill and backfill soils should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and properly compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557 (latest edition). 7.4.7. Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill be excavated and properly compacted for paving support. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). Paving recommendations are provided in Pavement Recommendations section of this report (see Section 7.12). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 16 - November 12, 2019 7.4.8 It is anticipated that stable excavations for the recommended grading can be achieved with sloping measures. However, if excavations in close proximity to an adjacent property line and/or structure are required, special excavation measures may be necessary in order to maintain lateral support of the existing offsite improvements. Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (Section 7.18). 7.4.9 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as block walls less than 6 feet high, planter walls or trash enclosures, which will not be tied to the proposed building, may be supported on conventional foundations deriving support on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and proper compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, foundations may derive support directly in the previously placed engineered fill found at or below a depth of 3 feet, and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12- inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft or loose, compaction of the soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. 7.4.10 Utility trenches should be properly backfilled in accordance with the requirements of the Green Book (latest edition). The pipe should be bedded with clean sands (Sand Equivalent greater than 30) to a depth of at least 1 foot over the pipe, and the bedding material must be inspected and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). The use of gravel is not acceptable unless used in conjunction with filter fabric to prevent the gravel from having direct contact with soil. The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from onsite soil or approved import soil, compacted as necessary, until the required compaction is obtained. The use of minimum 2-sack slurry is also acceptable. Prior to placing any bedding materials or pipes, the excavation bottom must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). 7.4.11 All imported fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by Geocon West, Inc. prior to bringing soil to the site. Rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter shall not be used in the fill. If necessary, import soils used as structural fill should have an expansion index less than 50 and corrosivity properties that are equally or less detrimental to that of the existing onsite soils (see Figure B26). Import soils must be placed uniformly and at equal thickness or in a manner that is approved by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 17 - November 12, 2019 7.4.12 All trench and foundation excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to placing bedding materials, fill, steel, gravel, or concrete. 7.5 Shrinkage 7.5.1 Shrinkage and bulkage results when a volume of material removed at one density is compacted to a higher or lower density. A shrinkage factor up to 15 percent should be anticipated when excavating and compacting the upper 6 feet of existing earth materials on the site to an average relative compaction of 92 percent. 7.4.2 If import soils will be utilized in the building pad, the soils must be placed uniformly and at equal thickness at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). Soils can be borrowed from non-building pad areas and later replaced with imported soils. 7.6 Slope Construction 7.6.1 Fill slopes comprised of on-site materials should be constructed at a gradient of 2:1 or flatter. Fill slopes should be overbuilt by at least 3 feet measured perpendicular to the slope face and trimmed back to the tight fill core. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 7.6.2 As an alternative, fill slope faces may be compacted by backrolling with a loaded sheepsfoot roller at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet, and should be track-walked at the completion of each slope such that the fill is compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density and near or slightly above optimum moisture content to the of the finished slope. 7.6.3 Preparation for the construction of proposed slopes should include removal of all vegetation and unsuitable soils. Where the slope ratio of the existing ground or temporary backcut is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or as recommended by the onsite representative of Geocon, it is recommended that the ground be cut or benched to create horizontal planes so that fill can be placed and compacted on horizontal surfaces (see Figure 5). If soils exposed along the backcut excavation consist of soft, unsuitable artificial fill, additional excavation will be required to complete remove the unsuitable soils prior to the placement of engineered fill. All backcut excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of engineered fill. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 18 - November 12, 2019 7.6.4 Cut slope excavations, including buttresses and shear keys, must be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon) during grading operations to check that soil and geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those expected. 7.6.5 It is recommended that a keyway be placed at the bottom of fill slopes, and should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 2 feet into competent fill, as measured on the downhill side. The keyway should be sloped at approximately 5 percent towards the heel of the keyway to a perforated 4-inch pipe surrounded with gravel and wrapped with filter fabric. The keyway drainage pipe should outlet away from the slope and to an acceptable drainage structure (See Figure 6). 7.6.6 All slopes should be planted, drained, and property maintained to reduce erosion. It is recommended that finished slopes be planted as soon after completion of grading as possible. Planting on the slope stabilizes the surface and reduces the potential for erosion. It is further suggested that a jute or mesh product be placed on the slope face prior to planting; however, the planting of the slope should be performed at the direction of a qualified landscaping consultant. 7.7 Foundation Setback 7.7.1 The Building Code requires that foundations be sufficiently setback from an ascending or descending slope. The required setback from a descending slope with a gradient steeper than 3:1 and gentler than 1:1 is ⅓ the height of the descending slope with a minimum of 5 feet and a maximum of 40 feet measured horizontally from the exterior face of the foundation to the slope face. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1, the slope setback shall be measured from an imaginary line projected at 45 degrees from the toe of the slope upwards. In lieu of relocating a structure to achieve the setback at the ground surface, foundations may be deepened as necessary to achieve the required setback. 7.7.2 The required setback from an ascending slope steeper than 3:1 and gentler than 1:1 is ½ the height of the ascending slope with a maximum of 15 feet measured horizontally from the structure to the toe of the slope. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1, the slope setback shall be measured from an imaginary line projected at 45 degrees from the top of the slope. 7.7.3 The required building setbacks should be understood and implemented into the orientation and location of the proposed structure by the project architect. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 19 - November 12, 2019 7.8 Conventional Foundation Design 7.8.1 Subsequent to the recommended grading, a conventional shallow spread foundation system may be utilized for support of the proposed structure provided foundations derive support in newly placed engineered fill. Foundations should be underlain by a minimum of three feet of newly placed engineered fill. 7.8.2 Continuous footings may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 1,900 pounds per square foot (psf), and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 30 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade, and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. 7.8.3 Isolated spread foundations may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,300 psf, and should be a minimum of 24 inches in width, 30 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade, and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. 7.8.4 The allowable soil bearing pressure above may be increased by 50 psf and 250 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. 7.8.5 The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.8.6 The maximum expected static settlement for a structure supported on a conventional foundation system deriving support in the newly placed engineered fill with a maximum bearing pressure of 3,000 psf is estimated to be less than 1 inch and occur below the heaviest loaded structural element. Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ⅔ inch over a distance of 20 feet. 7.8.7 If depth increases are utilized for the exterior wall footings, this office should be provided a copy of the final construction plans so that the excavation recommendations presented herein could be properly reviewed and revised if necessary. Additional grading should be conducted as-necessary in order to maintain the required minimum three-foot-thick engineered fill blanket beneath foundations. 7.8.8 Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. Reinforcement for spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 20 - November 12, 2019 7.8.9 The above foundation dimensions and minimum reinforcement recommendations are based on soil conditions and building code requirements only, and are not intended to be used in lieu of those required for structural purposes. 7.8.10 Due to the expansive potential of the subgrade soils, the moisture content in the slab and foundation subgrade should be maintained at 2 percent above optimum moisture content prior to and at the time of concrete placement. 7.8.11 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 7.8.12 Once the design and foundation loading configurations for the proposed structures proceeds to a more finalized plan, the estimated settlements presented in this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. If the final foundation loading configurations are greater than the assumed loading conditions, the potential for settlement should be reevaluated by this office. 7.8.13 This office should be provided a copy of the final construction plans so that the excavation recommendations presented herein could be properly reviewed and revised if necessary. 7.9 Miscellaneous Foundations 7.9.1 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as non-retaining block walls less than 6 feet in height, planter walls or trash enclosures which will not be tied to the proposed structure may be supported on conventional foundations bearing on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, such as adjacent to property lines, foundations may derive support in the previously placed fill, and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. Recommendations for the design and construction of miscellaneous foundations should be reevaluated once formal plans are available. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 21 - November 12, 2019 7.9.2 If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft, compaction of the soft soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. Miscellaneous foundations may be designed for a bearing value of 1,500 psf, and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 30 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.9.3 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. 7.10 Lateral Design 7.10.1 Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations, slabs and by passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be used with the dead load forces in the newly placed engineered fill. 7.10.2 Passive earth pressure for the sides of foundations and slabs poured against properly compacted engineered fill may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 160 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure of 1,600 psf. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third. 7.11 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 7.11.1 Concrete slabs-on-grade near the ground surface that are subject to vehicle loading should be designed in accordance with the recommendations in the Preliminary Pavement Recommendations section of this report (Section 7.12). 7.11.2 Subsequent to the recommended grading, concrete slab-on-grade, not subject to vehicle loading, should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed 16 inches on center in both horizontal directions. Steel reinforcing should be positioned vertically near the slab midpoint. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 22 - November 12, 2019 7.11.3 Slabs-on-grade at the ground surface that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder placed directly beneath the slab. The vapor retarder and acceptable permeance should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in Section 9.3 of the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06) and should be installed in general conformance with ASTM E 1643 (latest edition) and the manufacturer’s recommendations. A minimum thickness of 15 mils extruded polyolefin plastic is recommended; vapor retarders which contain recycled content or woven materials are not recommended. The vapor retarder should have a permeance of less than 0.01 perms demonstrated by testing before and after mandatory conditioning is recommended. The vapor retarder should be installed in direct contact with the concrete slab with proper perimeter seal. If the California Green Building Code requirements apply to this project, the vapor retarder should be underlain by 4 inches of clean aggregate. It is important that the vapor retarder be puncture resistant since it will be in direct contact with angular gravel. As an alternative to the clean aggregate suggested in the Green Building Code, it is our opinion that the concrete slab- on-grade may be underlain by a vapor retarder over 4 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30), since the sand will serve a capillary break and will minimize the potential for punctures and damage to the vapor barrier. 7.11.4 For seismic design purposes, a coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be utilized between concrete slabs and subgrade soils without a moisture barrier, and 0.15 for slabs underlain by a moisture barrier. 7.11.5 Exterior slabs for walkways or flatwork, not subject to traffic loads, should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions, positioned near the slab midpoint. Prior to construction of slabs, the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be moistened to 2 percent above optimum moisture content and properly compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals not greater than 10 feet and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical following concrete placement. Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness. The project structural engineer should design construction joints as necessary. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 23 - November 12, 2019 7.11.6 Due to the expansive potential of the anticipated subgrade soils, the moisture content of the slab subgrade should be maintained and sprinkled as necessary to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any concrete placement. Furthermore, consideration should be given to doweling slabs into adjacent curbs and foundations to minimize movements and offsets which could lead to a potential tripping hazard. As an alternative, the upper 18 inches of soil could be replaced with granular, non-expansive soils which will reduce the potential for movements and offsets. 7.11.7 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to settlement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to minor soil movement and/or concrete shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. 7.12 Pavement Recommendations 7.12.1 Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill and soft or unsuitable materials be excavated and properly recompacted for paving support. The client should be aware that excavation and compaction of all existing artificial fill and soft soils in the area of new paving is not required; however, paving constructed over existing unsuitable material may experience increased settlement and/or cracking, and may therefore have a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of paving subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and properly compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). 7.12.2 The following pavement sections are based on an assumed R-Value of 20. Once site grading activities are complete an R-Value should be obtained by laboratory testing to confirm the properties of the soils serving as paving subgrade, prior to placing pavement. 7.12.3 The Traffic Indices listed below are estimates. Geocon does not practice in the field of traffic engineering. The actual Traffic Index for each area should be determined by the project civil engineer. If pavement sections for Traffic Indices other than those listed below are required, Geocon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. Pavement thicknesses were determined following procedures outlined in the California Highway Design Manual (Caltrans). It is anticipated that the majority of traffic will consist of automobile and large truck traffic. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 24 - November 12, 2019 PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS Location Estimated Traffic Index (TI) Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base (inches) Automobile Parking And Driveways 4.0 4.0 4.0 Trash Truck & Fire Lanes 7.0 4.0 12.0 7.12.4 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform to Section 26-1.02A of the “Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation” (Caltrans). The use of Crushed Miscellaneous Base in lieu of Class 2 aggregate base is acceptable. Crushed Miscellaneous Base should conform to Section 200-2.4 of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (Green Book). 7.12.5 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent cracking, subsidence and pavement distress. If planters are planned adjacent to paving, it is recommended that the perimeter curb be extended at least 12 inches below the bottom of the aggregate base to minimize the introduction of water beneath the paving. 7.13 Retaining Wall Design 7.13.1 The recommendations presented below are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 10 feet. In the event that walls significantly higher than 10 feet are planned, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations. 7.13.2 Retaining wall foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Conventional Foundation Design sections of this report (see Section 7.8). 7.13.3 Retaining walls with a level backfill surface that are not restrained at the top should be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure) of 40 pcf. 7.13.4 Restrained walls are those that are not allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top and have a level backfill surface, walls may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (at-rest pressure) of 100 pcf. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 25 - November 12, 2019 7.13.5 Retaining walls with an ascending sloping backfill of up to 2:1 (H:V) and that are not restrained at the top should be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure) of 55 pcf. 7.13.6 The soil pressures above assume that the backfill material within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall will be comprised of the existing onsite soils. The onsite site soils exhibit a high expansive potential, and it is our opinion that the soils along the height of the wall could be subjected to cyclic wetting and drying subsequent to completion of construction especially where the walls are used in landscape areas. Select non-expansive backfill should be considered if reduced retaining wall pressures are desired. 7.13.7 The wall pressures provided above assume that the retaining wall will be properly drained preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. If retaining wall drainage is not implemented, the equivalent fluid pressure to be used in design of undrained walls is 105 pcf. The value includes hydrostatic pressures plus buoyant lateral earth pressures. 7.13.8 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses. Once the design becomes more finalized, an addendum letter can be prepared revising recommendations and addressing specific surcharge conditions throughout the project, if necessary. 7.13.9 In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper ten feet of the subterranean wall adjacent to the street and parking lot should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least ten feet from the subterranean walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. 7.13.10 Seismic lateral forces should be incorporated into the design as necessary, and recommendations for seismic lateral forces are presented below. 7.14 Dynamic (Seismic) Lateral Forces 7.14.1 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in accordance with Section 1613 of the CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design category of D, E, or F, proposed retaining walls in excess of 6 feet in height should be designed with seismic lateral pressure (Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 26 - November 12, 2019 7.14.2 A seismic load of 10 pcf should be used for design of walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC. The seismic load is applied as an equivalent fluid pressure along the height of the wall and the calculated loads result in a maximum load exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. This seismic load should be applied in addition to the active earth pressure. The earth pressure is based on half of two-thirds of PGAM calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3. 7.15 Retaining Wall Drainage 7.15.1 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system. At the base of the drain system, a subdrain covered with a minimum of 12 inches of gravel should be installed, and a compacted fill blanket or other seal placed at the surface (see Figure 7). The clean bottom and subdrain pipe, behind a retaining wall, should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to placement of gravel or compacting backfill. 7.15.2 As an alternative, a plastic drainage composite such as Miradrain or equivalent may be installed in continuous, 4-foot wide columns along the entire back face of the wall, at 8 feet on center. The top of these drainage composite columns should terminate approximately 18 inches below the ground surface, where either hardscape or a minimum of 18 inches of relatively cohesive material should be placed as a cap (see Figure 8). These vertical columns of drainage material would then be connected at the bottom of the wall to a collection panel or a 1-cubic-foot rock pocket drained by a 4-inch subdrain pipe. 7.15.3 Subdrainage pipes at the base of the retaining wall drainage system should outlet to an acceptable location via controlled drainage structures. Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over descending slopes. 7.15.4 Moisture affecting below grade walls is one of the most common post-construction complaints. Poorly applied or omitted waterproofing can lead to efflorescence or standing water. Particular care should be taken in the design and installation of waterproofing to avoid moisture problems, or actual water seepage into the structure through any normal shrinkage cracks which may develop in the concrete walls, floor slab, foundations and/or construction joints. The design and inspection of the waterproofing is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. A waterproofing consultant should be retained in order to recommend a product or method, which would provide protection to subterranean walls, floor slabs and foundations. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 27 - November 12, 2019 7.16 Elevator Pit Design 7.16.1 The elevator pit slab and retaining wall should be designed by the project structural engineer. As a minimum the slab-on-grade for the elevator pit bottom should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed 16 inches on center in both horizontal directions, positioned near the slab midpoint. The elevator pit foundations and walls may derive support in either newly placed engineered fill or the previously placed fill found at and below a depth of 6 feet. Elevator pit walls may be designed in accordance with the recommendations in the Retaining Wall Design section of this report (see Section 7.13). 7.16.2 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent foundations and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses. 7.16.3 If retaining wall drainage is to be provided, the drainage system should be designed in accordance with the Retaining Wall Drainage section of this report (see Section 7.15). 7.16.4 It is suggested that the exterior walls and slab be waterproofed to prevent excessive moisture inside of the elevator pit. Waterproofing design and installation is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. 7.17 Elevator Piston 7.17.1 If a plunger-type elevator piston is installed for this project, a deep drilled excavation will be required. It is important to verify that the drilled excavation is not situated immediately adjacent to a foundation, or the drilled excavation could compromise the existing foundation support, especially if the drilling is performed subsequent to the foundation construction. 7.17.2 The contractor should be aware that difficult drilling conditions could be encountered in the bedrock, which could require coring and jack-hammering. The contractor should be prepared for these conditions prior to commencement of any drilling activities. 7.17.3 Casing may be required if caving is expected in the drilled excavation and the contractor should be prepared to use casing and should have it readily available at the commencement of drilling activities. Continuous observation of the drilling and installation of the elevator piston by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.) is required. 7.17.4 The annular space between the piston casing and drilled excavation wall should be filled with a minimum of 1½-sack slurry pumped from the bottom up. As an alternative, pea gravel may be utilized. The use of soil to backfill the annular space is not acceptable. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 28 - November 12, 2019 7.18 Temporary Excavations 7.18.1 Excavations up to 10 feet in vertical height are anticipated during construction. The excavations are expected to expose previously placed artificial fill, which may be suitable for vertical excavations up to 5 feet where loose soils or caving sands are not present, and where not surcharged by adjacent foundations or other surcharge loads. 7.18.2 Vertical excavations greater than 5 feet will require sloping or shoring measures in order to provide a stable excavation. It is anticipated that stable excavations for construction of the proposed improvements can be achieved and maintained with sloping measures. Where sufficient space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments could be sloped back at a uniform 1:1 slope gradient or flatter up to a maximum height of 15 feet. A uniform slope does not have a vertical portion. 7.18.3 Where sloped embankments are utilized, the top of the slope should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the slope. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Geocon personnel should inspect the soils exposed in the cut slopes during excavation so that modifications of the slopes can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation. 7.19 Surface Drainage 7.19.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the foundation supporting soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the original designed engineering properties. Proper drainage in building areas should be maintained at all times. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 29 - November 12, 2019 7.19.2 All site drainage should be collected and controlled in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, drainage s hould not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope. Discharge from downspouts, roof drains and scuppers are not recommended onto unprotected soils within five feet of the building perimeter. Planters which are located adjacent to foundations should be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the soils providing foundation support. Landscape irrigation is not recommended within five feet of the building perimeter footings except when enclosed in protected planters. 7.19.3 Positive site drainage should be provided away from structures, pavement, and the tops of slopes to swales or other controlled drainage structures. The pavement areas should be fine graded such that water is not allowed to pond. 7.19.4 Landscaping planters immediately adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Either a subdrain, which collects excess irrigation water and transmits it to drainage structures, or an impervious above-grade planter box should be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be given to providing a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 12 inches below the base material. 7.20 Plan Review 7.20.1 Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to finalization to verify that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations of this report and to provide additional analyses or recommendations. Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon West, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon West, Inc. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. 4. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 LIST OF REFERENCES 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 Zone Maps, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, interim revision. California Department of Water Resources, 2019, Groundwater Level Data by Township, Range, and Section, Web Site Address: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/ hydrographs/index_trs.cfm. California Department of Water Resources, 2019, California Dam Breach Inundation Maps, Web Site Address: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998; State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Orange Quadrangle, Official Map, Released: April 15, 1998. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997 (Revised 2001), Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 011. California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, 2016. Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Well Finder, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov.doggr/index.html#close. Accessed October 29, 2019. California Geological Survey, 2019a, CGS Information Warehouse, Regulatory Map Portal, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. California Geological Survey, 2019b, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. California Geological Survey, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018. City of Anaheim, May 2004, Safety Element of the General Plan. FEMA, 2019, Online Flood Hazard Maps, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor. Jennings, C. W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6. Morton, P. K., Miller, Russell V., 1973, Geologic Map of Orange County California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. Morton, D. M., 1999, compiler, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-172, scale 1:100,000. Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 LIST OF REFERENCES (Continued) Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., and Reichle, M., 2000, Epicenters and Areas Damaged by M> 5 California Earthquakes, 1800 – 1999, California Geological Survey, Map Sheet 49. U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps Web Application, 2016, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php Ziony, J. I., and Jones, L. M., 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978–1984 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1964. FIG. 1 U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES, ORANGE, CA QUADRANGLE PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 VICINITY MAP 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA SITE SECTION A-A'(NO SCALE)SECTION B-B'(NO SCALE)PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 FIG. 2SITE PLAN 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA 0 10 0 ' 20 0 ' NOVEMBER 2019 B1 B2 B4 B3 B5 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-455015520 ROCKFIEL D BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS C H E C K E D B Y : J T A LE G E N D Ap p r o x i m a t e L o c a t i o n o f B o r i n g B5 BA S E M E N T L E V E L EX T E N T O F SI T E PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 0 12 24 Mi l e s Re f e r e n c e : J e n n i n g s , C . W . a n d B r y a n t , W . A . , 2 0 1 0 , F a u l t A c t i v i t y M a p o f C a l i f o r n i a , C a l i f o r n i a G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y G e o l o g i c D a t a M a p N o . 6 . REGIONAL FAULT MAP FIG. 3 PH O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 4 9 1 - 6 5 7 0 - F A X ( 9 4 9 ) 2 9 9 - 4 5 5 0 15 5 2 0 R O C K F I E L D B L V D . - S U I T E J - I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 EN V I R O N M E N T A L G E O T E C H N I C A L M A T E R I A L S DR A F T E D B Y : J S C H E C K E D B Y : G K 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 SI T E PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01REGIONAL SEISMICITY MAP FIG.4 0 20 40 Mi l e s Re f e r e n c e : T o p p o z a d a , T . , B r a n u m , D. , P e t e r s e n , M . , H a l l s t r o m , C . , C r am e r , C . , a n d R e i c h l e , M . , 2 0 0 0 , Ep i c e n t e r s a n d A r e a s D a m a g e d b y M > 5 C a l i f or n i a E a r t h q u a k e s , 1 8 0 0 - 1 9 9 9 , C a l i f o r n i a Ge o l o g i c a l S u r v e y , M a p S h e e t 4 9 . 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 PH O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 4 9 1 - 6 5 7 0 - F A X ( 9 4 9 ) 2 9 9 - 4 5 5 0 15 5 2 0 R O C K F I E L D B L V D . - S U I T E J - I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 EN V I R O N M E N T A L G E O T E C H N I C A L M A T E R I A L S DR A F T E D B Y : J S C H E C K E D B Y : G K BENCHED EXCAVATION DETAIL FIG. 5 STRIP AS SPECIFIED VARIES "B" DETAIL NOTES: (1) permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2)The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into competent material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA SEE NOTE 2 ORIGINAL GROUND FINISH GRADE 2 1 SLOPE TO BE SUCH THAT SLOUGHING OR SLIDING DOES NOT OCCUR REMOVE ALL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL ASRECOMMENDED BY SOIL ENGINEER SEE NOTE 1 COMPETENT MATERIAL STABILITY / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL FIG. 6 10' MIN. 2" MIN. 1.5'MIN. 1.5' MIN. 15' MIN. NOTE 2 1 EXCAVATE BENCHED BACKCUT AT 1:1 INCLINATION 2 BASE OF BUTTRESS TO BE 3 FEET BELOW PAD GRADE, OR A MAXIMUM 3 BUTTRESS FILL TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPERLY COMPACTED ENGINEERED FILL 4 WHERE SEEPAGE IS ENCOUNTERED IN BACKCUT OR SLOPE HEIGHT EXCEEDS 15 FEET, CHIMNEYDRAINS ARE RECOMMENDED, CHIMNEY DRAINS TO BE APPROVED, PREFABRICATED DRAINS ARE OF 15 FEET BELOW PAD GRADE SLOPING A MINIMUM 5% INTO SLOPE CHIMNEY DRAIN PANELS (MIRIDRAIN 5000 OR EQUIVALENT) SPACED APPROXIMATELY 20 FEETCENTER TO CENTER AND 4 FEET WIDE 5 FILTER MATERIAL TO BE 1-INCH, OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC 6 COLLECTOR PIPE TO BE 4-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PERFORATED, THICK-WALLED PVC SCHEDULE 40 OREQUIVALENT, AND SLOPED TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM TO APPROVED OUTLET NOTES 5 FEET PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA FINISHED GRADE 2 1 FINISHED GRADE DETAIL NOTE 5 1 1 NOTE 4 NOTE 6 5% Min. NOTE 1 NOTE 4 SEE DETAIL FINISHED SLOPE STABILITY FILL (N OTE 3) ENGINEERED FILL COMPETENT MATERIAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE 4" DIA. PERFORATED ABS OR ADS PIPE - EXTEND TO RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM WATERPROOF WALL PROPERLY COMPACTED BACKFILL GROUND SURFACE NO SCALE FOUNDATION FIG. 7PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL RETAINING WALL NO SCALE FOUNDATION PROPERLY COMPACTED BACKFILL GROUND SURFACE 18" WATER PROOFING BY ARCHITECT DRAINAGE PANEL (J-DRAIN 1000 OR EQUIVALENT) 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET (1 CU. FT./FT.) FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT FIG. 8PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 APPENDIX A Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The site was explored on October 10, 2019, by excavating five 8-inch diameter borings using a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling machine to depths of approximately 20½ to 41½ feet below the ground surface. Representative and relatively undisturbed samples from the boring drilled with a hollow-stem auger drilling machine were obtained by driving a 3-inch, O. D., California Modified Sampler into the “undisturbed” soil mass with blows from a 140-pound auto-hammer falling 30 inches. The California Modified Sampler was equipped with 1-inch high by 23/8-inch diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate soil removal and testing. Standard penetration tests were also performed and bulk samples collected. The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the borings are presented on Figures A1 through A5. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The logs also include our interpretation of the conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and interpreted data. We determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs using visual observations, penetration rates, excavation characteristics and other factors. The transition between materials may be abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the logs were revised based on subsequent laboratory testing. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. 14.6 23.2 22.9 27.0 BULK 0-5' B1@2.5' B1@5' B1@7.5' B1@10' B1@12.5' B1@15' B1@20' B1@25' ARTIFICIAL FILL Clay, stiff, slightly moist, brown, roots. Silty Clay, firm, moist, olive brown, some oxidation. - dark olive gray - soft - firm FERNANDO FORMATION Siltstone, olive, soft, slightly weathered. 23 23 15 13 20 12 17 43 107.7 100.4 99.1 98.7 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 1 497 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A1, Log of Boring 1, Page 1 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 28.9 26.8 B1@30' B1@35' Total depth of boring: 35.5 feet Fill to 22 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with grout. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 75 50 (6") 97.5 96.3 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 30 32 34 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 1 497 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A1, Log of Boring 1, Page 2 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 22.6 22.5 25.7 26.0 24.7 22.1 BULK 0-5' B2@2.5' B2@5' B2@7.5' B2@10' B2@15' B2@20' AC: 8" BASE: 8" ARTIFICIAL FILL Clay, stiff, moist, olive gray, trace fine-grained sand. Silty Clay, stiff, olive gray with some oxidation, minimal recovery. FERNANDO FORMATION Clayey Siltstone, olive brown, soft, slightly weathered. - gray brown Total depth of boring: 20.5 feet Fill to 6.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 22 28 26 36 42 48 105.7 67.1 100.9 99.8 101.0 104.8 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 2 495 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A2, Log of Boring 2, Page 1 of 1 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 25.2 20.0 21.1 20.6 12.9 18.0 24.4 BULK 0-5' B3@2.5' B3@5' B3@7.5' B3@10' B3@12.5' B3@15' B3@20' AC: 8" BASE: 11" ARTIFICIAL FILL Silty Clay, firm, moist, mottled grayish/olive brown. Clay, firm, moist, mottled, dark brown/black. FERNANDO FORMATION Sandy Siltstone, olive brown, soft, moderately weathered, some oxidation. Siltstone, gray brown, soft, slightly weathered. Total depth of boring: 20.5 feet Fill to 6.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 18 21 50 34 73 81 45 97.7 107.0 95.4 105.2 117.7 114.0 100.6 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 3 490 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A3, Log of Boring 3, Page 1 of 1 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 6.7 13.9 0.5 26.9 25.5 27.1 20.9 25.7 BULK 0-5' B4@2.5' B4@5' B4@7.5' B4@10' B4@12.5' B4@15' B4@20' B4@25' AC: 4" BASE: 9" ARTIFICIAL FILL Sand, medium dense, slightly moist, yellowish brown, coarse-grained. Sand/Clayey Sand, loose, moist, yellowish brown with grayish brown mottles, coarse-grained. Sand, loose, moist to wet, brown, coarse-grained. Silty Clay, soft, moist, dark grayish brown. FERNANDO FORMATION Siltstone, gray brown, soft, slightly weathered. - gray Sandy Siltstone, mottled yellow brown gray. Siltstone, gray. Total depth of boring: 25.5 feet. Fill to 11.5 feet. Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 77 12 18 10 12 35 55 43 110.7 110.4 130.8 93.5 98.0 98.1 104.1 100.3 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 4 491 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A4, Log of Boring 4, Page 1 of 1 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 23.2 21.5 23.1 26.3 24.4 19.7 19.9 27.7 BULK 0-5' B5@2.5' B5@5' B5@7.5' B5@10' B5@12.5' B5@15' B5@20' B5@25' AC: 4" BASE: 9" ARTIFICIAL FILL Clay, stiff, moist, dark gray, some roots. Clay, firm, moist, dark brown with grayish brown mottles, some sand. Silty Clay, firm, moist, grayish brown to dark brown. Clay, firm, moist, very dark brown with gray mottles. - very dark gray, trace calcite stringers Silty Clay, stiff, moist, dark brown, some oxidation, some bedrock fragments. 22 16 12 15 21 23 22 27 104.1 101.5 100.6 101.6 101.0 107.8 107.6 96.5 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 5 484 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A5, Log of Boring 5, Page 1 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 28.5 31.7 23.5 B5@30' B5@35' B5@40' - firm COLLUVIUM Silty Clay, firm, moist, mottled gray brown to very dark gray with scattered organics. Total depth of boring: 40.5 feet Fill to 38 feet. Backfilled with grout. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 15 19 19 94.9 86.2 90.2 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 30 32 34 36 38 40 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 5 484 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A5, Log of Boring 5, Page 2 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 APPENDIX B Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the International ASTM, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for consolidation characteristics, corrosivity, direct shear, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, and the soil expansive index. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Figures B1 through B26. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs, Appendix A. Project No.: W1076-88-01 20.9 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaConsolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 Checked by: JS 23.8 November 2019 Figure B1 Ultimate 187 25.7 Final Moisture Content (%) 26.2 41.7 42.0 Peak 231 25.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 42.4 Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 108.0 108.0 108.0 Brown Clay (CL)Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375 Initial Moisture Content (%) 8.8 8.7 8.7 Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.05 Depth (ft) 0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.66 1.65 2.58 Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 2.58 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5 Sample No. B1@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.70 1.66 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 12.6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaConsolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 Checked by: JS 12.8 November 2019 Figure B2 Ultimate 60 35.5 Final Moisture Content (%) 12.6 47.0 48.7 Peak 381 34.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 46.8 Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 119.0 119.0 119.0 Yellowish Brown Sand with Clay (SC)Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375 Initial Moisture Content (%) 7.2 7.3 7.5 Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.05 Depth (ft) 0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.78 2.19 3.64 Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 3.78 Boring No. B4 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5 Sample No. B4@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.04 2.47 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 2.15 Boring No. B5 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5 Sample No. B5@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.67 1.43 0.05 Depth (ft) 0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.63 1.40 2.15 Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dark Brown Clay (CL) Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375 Initial Moisture Content (%) 9.6 9.7 9.6 Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 109.0 109.0 109.0 48.1 47.3 Peak 308 20.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 47.6 Ultimate 258 20.7 Final Moisture Content (%) 27.4 23.6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaConsolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 Checked by: JS 24.8 November 2019 Figure B3 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B4 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@7.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Olive Brown Clay (CL)99.4 24.2 24.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B5 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@12.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Olive Gray Clay (CL)109.0 19.2 20.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@15 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Olive Gray Clay (CL)95.0 26.6 26.8 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B7 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@20 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Olive Gray Clay (CL)98.1 24.5 24.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B2@5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Olive Gray Silty Clay (CL)94.0 22.5 25.7 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B9 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B4@5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Yellowish Brown Clayey Sand (SC)113.1 13.9 15.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B10 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B4@7.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Brown Sand (SP) 116.2 0.5 14.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B11 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B4@10 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Brown Silty Clay (CL) 94.4 26.9 26.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@7.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Grayish Brown Silty Clay (CL)101.8 23.1 23.8 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B13 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@12.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Very Dark Brown Clay (CL)100.9 24.4 25.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@20 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Very Dark Gray Clay (CL)108.8 19.9 21.2 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@25 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Brown Silty Clay (CL)93.9 27.7 29.4 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B16 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@30 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Brown Silty Clay (CL)92.2 28.5 29.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B17 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@35 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Brown Silty Clay (CL)90.1 31.7 31.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B18 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@40 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Very Dark Gray Silty Clay (CL)99.9 23.5 24.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B1@0-5 Brown Clay (CL) Dry Density 119.9 117.5 120.0 117.1 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)120.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%)8.5 Wet Density 131.1 131.0 128.9 123.5 Moisture Content 9.4 11.5 7.4 5.5 Weight of Container 378.8 377.4 377.7 378.5 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 923.3 950.6 1034.8 848.3 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 974.3 1016.6 1083.4 874.0 Net Weight of Soil 1980 1979 1947 1866 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6276 6275 6243 6162 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B19 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B2@0-5 Olive Gray Clay (CL) Dry Density 114.4 117.4 119.1 116.2 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)119.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%)12.6 Wet Density 132.5 134.3 133.9 127.8 Moisture Content 15.9 14.4 12.4 10.0 Weight of Container 378.0 410.0 378.0 378.0 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 2106.0 2183.0 2177.5 2133.0 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 2380.0 2438.0 2400.0 2308.0 Net Weight of Soil 2002 2028 2022 1930 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6298 6324 6318 6226 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B20 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B21 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6302 6288 6288 6202 TEST NO. 1234 Net Weight of Soil 2006 1992 1992 1906 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 2149.0 2071.0 2142.0 2097.0 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 2416.0 2366.0 2370.0 2282.0 Moisture Content 15.4 17.4 12.9 10.8 Weight of Container 410.0 378.0 378.0 378.0 Wet Density 132.8 131.9 131.9 126.2 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)117.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%)13.5 B3@0-5 Olive Gray Silty Clay (CL) Dry Density 115.1 112.3 116.8 113.9 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B4@0-5 Yellowihs Brown Sand with Clay (SC) Dry Density 130.9 131.8 127.4 126.5 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)132.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%)7.5 Wet Density 138.4 142.1 139.3 130.7 Moisture Content 5.8 7.8 9.3 3.3 Weight of Container 378.3 409.6 378.3 378.7 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 849.6 914.8 873.2 876.7 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 876.7 954.1 919.3 893.0 Net Weight of Soil 2091 2146 2104 1974 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6387 6442 6400 6270 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B22 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B5@0-5 Dark Brown Clay (CL) Dry Density 119.0 113.4 121.3 117.3 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)121.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%)9.5 Wet Density 132.4 128.7 132.5 125.9 Moisture Content 11.3 13.5 9.2 7.3 Weight of Container 97.0 106.5 96.4 95.1 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 571.8 495.2 628.9 649.6 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 625.5 547.6 678.1 690.2 Net Weight of Soil 2000 1944 2001 1901 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6296 6240 6297 6197 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B23 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Project No.: W1076-88-01 56.9 Specimen Diameter Date Time Non-Expansive Expansive Very Low Low Expansion Index, EI50 CBC CLASSIFICATION * UBC CLASSIFICATION ** 130.6 122.0 0.4 0.3 57.1 (%) (pcf) (pcf) (cc) (gm) (gm) B4@0-5' 1.0 0 10 0.276 0.2755 Expansion Index ( Report ) = Expansion Index (EI meas) =-1 0 1490 0.274510/26/2019 11:00 1.0 14301.0 Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time (min) Dial Readings (in.) 486.5 466.8 186.5 7.0 (gm) 121.9 0.4 0.3 MOLDED SPECIMEN BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST 4.0 1.0 800.6 367.7 2.7 (in.) (in.) (gm) (gm) (Assumed) 4.0 Specimen Height Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold Wt. of Mold Specific Gravity Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. Wt. of Container 91-130 >130 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D-4829 * Reference: 2016 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3 ** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18-I-B. Checked by: JS Medium High Very High Expansive Expansive Expansive November 2019 Figure B24 Moisture Content Wet Density Dry Density Void Ratio Total Porosity Pore Volume 51-90 0-20 21-50 Degree of Saturation 813.2 404.6 367.7 10.1 134.2 1.0 813.2 367.7 2.7 0.274510:0010/26/2019 71.850.0(%) [Smeas] Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10:00 10:10 1.0 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. Project No.: W1076-88-01 103.2 Specimen Diameter Date Time Non-Expansive Expansive Very Low Low Expansion Index, EI50 CBC CLASSIFICATION * UBC CLASSIFICATION ** 115.3 102.9 0.6 0.4 80.7 (%) (pcf) (pcf) (cc) (gm) (gm) B5@0-5' 1.0 0 10 0.319 0.3185 Expansion Index ( Report ) = Expansion Index (EI meas) =109 109 1490 0.427510/26/2019 11:00 1.0 14301.0 Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time (min) Dial Readings (in.) 486.6 454.4 186.6 12.0 (gm) 102.8 0.8 0.4 MOLDED SPECIMEN BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST 4.0 1.0 750.4 368.3 2.7 (in.) (in.) (gm) (gm) (Assumed) 4.0 Specimen Height Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold Wt. of Mold Specific Gravity Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. Wt. of Container 91-130 >130 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D-4829 * Reference: 2016 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3 ** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18-I-B. Checked by: JS Medium High Very High Expansive Expansive Expansive November 2019 Figure B25 Moisture Content Wet Density Dry Density Void Ratio Total Porosity Pore Volume 51-90 0-20 21-50 Degree of Saturation 812.4 341.1 368.3 30.2 133.8 1.1 812.4 368.3 2.7 0.427510:0010/26/2019 99.851.2(%) [Smeas] Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10:00 10:10 1.0 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. Project No.: W1076-88-01 Checked by: JS CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California November 2019 Figure B26 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (pH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643 Sample No. B1 @ 0-5 B4 @ 0-5 pH 8.0 8.8 Resistivity (ohm centimeters) 340 (Severely Corrosive) 5600 (Moderately Corrosive) B5@0-5' 0.591 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CHLORIDE CONTENT TEST RESULTS EPA NO. 325.3 B1@0-5' B4@0-5' B5@0-5' B1@0-5' 0.052 S0 B4@0-5' 0.000 S0 S2 7.9 560 (Severely Corrosive) Sample No. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No.Water Soluble Sulfate (% SQ4)Sulfate Exposure* B5 @ 0-5 Chloride Ion Content (%) 0.087 0.011 0.021 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-69 May 19, 2011 BIO-7: Proprietary Biotreatment Proprietary biotreatment devices are devices that are manufactured to mimic natural systems such as bioretention areas by incorporating plants, soil, and microbes engineered to provide treatment at higher flow rates or volumes and with smaller footprints than their natural counterparts. Incoming flows are typically filtered through a planting media (mulch, compost, soil, plants, microbes, etc.) and either infiltrated or collected by an underdrain and delivered to the storm water conveyance system. Tree box filters are an increasingly common type of proprietary biotreatment device that are installed at curb level and filled with a bioretention type soil. For low to moderate flows they operate similarly to bioretention systems and are bypassed during high flows. Tree box filters are highly adaptable solutions that can be used in all types of development and in all types of soils but are especially applicable to dense urban parking lots, street, and roadways. Feasibility Screening Considerations x Proprietary biotreatment devices that are unlined may cause incidental infiltration. Therefore, an evaluation of site conditions should be conducted to evaluate whether the BMP should include an impermeable liner to avoid infiltration into the subsurface. Opportunity Criteria x Drainage areas of 0.25 to 1.0 acres. x Land use may include commercial, residential, mixed use, institutional, and subdivisions. Proprietary biotreatment facilities may also be applied in parking lot islands, traffic circles, road shoulders, and road medians. x Must not adversely affect the level of flood protection provided by the drainage system. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations □ Frequent maintenance and the use of screens and grates to keep trash out may decrease the likelihood of clogging and prevent obstruction and bypass of incoming flows. □ Consult proprietors for specific criteria concerning the design and performance. □ Proprietary biotreatment may include specific media to address pollutants of concern. However, for proprietary device to be considered a biotreatment device the media must be capable of supporting rigorous growth of vegetation. □ Proprietary systems must be acceptable to the reviewing agency. Reviewing agencies shall have the discretion to request performance information. Reviewing agencies shall have the discretion to deny the use of a proprietary BMP on the grounds of performance, maintenance considerations, or other relevant factors. Also known as: ¾ Catch basin planter box ¾ Bioretention vault ¾ Tree box filter Proprietary biotreatment Source: http://www.americastusa.com /index.php/filterra/ TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-70 May 19, 2011 □ In right of way areas, plant selection should not impair traffic lines of site. Local jurisdictions may also limit plant selection in keeping with landscaping themes. Computing Sizing Criteria for Proprietary Biotreatment Device x Proprietary biotreatment devices can be volume based or flow-based BMPs. x Volume-based proprietary devices should be sized using the Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method described in Appendix III.3.1 or the Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs described in Appendix III.3.2. x The required design flowrate for flow-based proprietary devices should be computed using the Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-based BMPs described in Appendix III.3.3). Additional References for Design Guidance x Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Stormwater Technical Manual, Chapter 4: http://www.laschools.org/employee/design/fs-studies-and- reports/download/white_paper_report_material/Storm_Water_Technical_Manual_2009-opt- red.pdf?version_id=76975850 x Los Angeles County Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual, Chapter 9: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/DES/design_manuals/StormwaterBMPDesignandMaintenance.pdf x Santa Barbara BMP Guidance Manual, Chapter 6: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/91D1FA75-C185-491E-A882- 49EE17789DF8/0/Manual_071008_Final.pdf TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-5 May 19, 2011 HSC-2: Impervious Area Dispersion Impervious area dispersion refers to the practice of routing runoff from impervious areas, such as rooftops, walkways, and patios onto the surface of adjacent pervious areas. Runoff is dispersed uniformly via splash block or dispersion trench and soaks into the ground as it move slowly across the surface of pervious areas. Minor ponding may occur, but it is not the intent of this practice to actively promote localized on-lot storage (See HSC-1: Localized On-Lot Infiltration). Feasibility Screening Considerations Impervious area dispersion can be used where infiltration would otherwise be infeasible, however dispersion depth over landscaped areas should be limited by site-specific conditions to prevent standing water or geotechnical issues. Opportunity Criteria Rooftops and other low traffic impervious surface present in drainage area. Soils are adequate for infiltration. If not, soils can be amended to improve capacity to absorb dispersed water (see MISC-2: Amended Soils). Significant pervious area present in drainage area with shallow slope Overflow from pervious area can be safely managed. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations □ Soils should be preserved from their natural condition or restored via soil amendments to meet minimum criteria described in Section . □ A minimum of 1 part pervious area capable of receiving flow should be provided for every 2 parts of impervious area disconnected. □ The pervious area receiving flow should have a slope ≤ 2 percent and path lengths of ≥ 20 feet per 1000 sf of impervious area. □ Dispersion areas should be maintained to remove trash and debris, loose vegetation, and protect any areas of bare soil from erosion. □ Velocity of dispersed flow should not be greater than 0.5 ft per second to avoid scour. Calculating HSC Retention Volume The retention volume provided by downspout dispersion is a function of the ratio of impervious to pervious area and the condition of soils in the pervious area. Determine flow patterns in pervious area and estimate footprint of pervious area receiving dispersed flow. Calculate the ratio of pervious to impervious area. Check soil conditions using the soil condition design criteria below; amend if necessary. Look up the storm retention depth, dHSC from the chart below. Simple Downspout Dispersion Source: toronto.ca/environment/water.htm Also known as: Downspout disconnection Impervious area disconnection Sheet flow dispersion TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-6 May 19, 2011 The max dHSC is equal to the design storm depth for the project site. Soil Condition Design Criteria □ Maximum slope of 2 percent □ Well-established lawn or landscaping □ Minimum soil amendments per criteria in MISC-2: Amended Soils. Configuration for Use in a Treatment Train Impervious area disconnection is an HSC that may be used as the first element in any treatment train The use of impervious area disconnection reduces the sizing requirement for downstream LID and/or treatment control BMPs Additional References for Design Guidance SMC LID Manual (pp 131) http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/guest75/pub/All_Projects/SoCal_LID_Manual/SoCalL ID_Manual_FINAL_040910.pdf City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. 2010. How to manage stormwater – Disconnect Downspouts. http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=43081&a=177702 Seattle Public Utility: http://www.cityofseattle.org/util/stellent/groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/sp u01_006395.pdf Thurston County, Washington State (pp 10): http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/stormwater/manual/docs-faqs/DG-5-Roof-Runoff- Control_Rev11Jan24.pdf 1 Pervious area used in calculation should only include the pervious area receiving flow, not pervious area receiving only direct rainfall or upslope pervious drainage. P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 38 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS The educational materials included in this WQMP are provided to inform people involved in future uses, activities, or ownership of the site about the potential pitfalls associated with careless storm water management. “The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door” provides users with information about storm water that is/will be generated on site, what happens when water enters a storm drain, and its ultimate fate, discharging into the ocean. Also included are activities guidelines to educate anyone who is or will be associated with activities that have a potential to impact storm water runoff quality, and provide a menu of BMPs to effectively reduce the generation of storm water runoff pollutants from a variety of activities. The educational materials that may be used for the proposed project are included in Appendix C of this WQMP and are listed below. EDUCATION MATERIALS Residential Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Attached Business Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Attached The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Tips for the Automotive Industry Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar Tips for the Home Mechanic Tips for the Food Service Industry Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business Household Tips Other Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) (https://www.casqa.org/resources/b mp-handbooks) Check If Attached Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North County) DF-1 Drainage System Operation & Maintenance Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) R-1 Automobile Repair & Maintenance Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (South County) R-2 Automobile Washing Tips for Maintaining Septic Tank Systems R-3 Automobile Parking Responsible Pest Control R-4 Home & Garden Care Activities Sewer Spill R-5 Disposal of Pet Waste Tips for the Home Improvement Projects R-6 Disposal of Green Waste Tips for Horse Care R-7 Household Hazardous Waste Tips for Landscaping and Gardening R-8 Water Conservation Tips for Pet Care SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning Tips for Pool Maintenance SD-11 Roof Runoff Controls Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardscape Drains SD-12 Efficient Irrigation Tips for Projects Using Paint SD-13 Storm Drain Signage Tips for Protecting Your Watershed SD-31 Maintenance Bays & Docs Other: Children’s Brochure SD-32 Trash Storage Areas P RELIMINARY W ATER Q UALITY M ANAGEMENT P LAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY JANUARY 4, 2021 ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 39 APPENDICES APPENDICES Appendix A ............................................................................................... Supporting Calculations Appendix B ................................................................................. Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix C .................................................................................................. Educational Materials Appendix D .................................................................. BMP Maintenance Supplement / O&M Plan Appendix E ................................................................................................. Conditions of Approval Appendix F ............................................................................................ Geotechnical Investigation APPENDIX A SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y 1. 0 5 0. 7 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.95 0 . 7 0 . 9 0. 9 0.75 P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 1 _ R a i n f a l l Z o n e s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGUREJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP04/22/10 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ORANGE CO.CARAINFALL ZONES SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 06 1 2 3 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND Orange County Precipitation Stations 24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches)24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches) - Extrapolated City Boundaries Rainfall Zones Design Capture Storm Depth (inches)0.65"0.7 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.10"Note: Events defined as 24-hour periods (calendar days) with greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall. For areas outside of available data coverage, professional judgment shall be applied.XVI-1 Pr o j e c t S i t e ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 a _ H y d r o S o i l s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2aJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CANRCS HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUPS SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Source: Soils: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Soil Survey - soil_ca678, Orange County & Western Riverside Date of publication: 2006-02-08 !I 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND City Boundaries Hydrologic Soil Groups A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Pr o j e c t S i t e ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 b _ D - S o i l s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2bJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CAHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE D NRCS SOIL SURVEY SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Source: D Soils: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Soil Survey - soil_ca678, Orange County & Western Riverside Date of publication: 2006-02-08 !I 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND City Boundaries Hydrologic Soil Groups D Soils http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Pr o j e c t S i t e ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 c _ L a n d s l i d e s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2cJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.25 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CAHYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE D NRCS SOIL SURVEY SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Source:Seismic Hazard Zone Maps Division of Mines and Geology, California Geology Survey,Publication Date: 2005; Data Downloaded 02-09-2011 !I 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND City Boundaries Seismic Hazards Potential Landslide Area http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/Index.aspx Pr o j e c t S i t e ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTY ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y 1 0 10 3 5 1 0 30 1 0 3 0 10 20 1 0 10 5 50 3 30 3 0 3 0 30 2 0 5 1 0 20 30 50 1 0 3 0 2 0 P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 d _ D e p t h T o G r o u n d w a t e r O v e r v i e w _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2dJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.25 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP02/09/11 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CANORTH ORANGE COUNTY MAPPED DEPTH TO FIRST GROUNDWATER SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Note: Data are not available for South Orange County at this time.Source:Sprotte, Fuller and Greenwood, 1980.California Division of Mines and Geology;California Geological Survey !I 02 . 5 5 1. 2 5 Mi l e s 04 8 2 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND Depth To First Groundwater Contours City Boundaries OCWD Groundwater Basin Protection Boundary Pr o j e c t S i t e ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y RIVE R S I D E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SAN B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y P : \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 2 g _ I n f i l t r a t i o n F i n a l _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE XVI-2gJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED DRAWING CHECKEDBMP04/22/10 DATE JOB NO.9526-E TH THORANGE COUNTY INFILTRATION STUDY ORANGE CO.CAINFILTRATION ANALYSIS OVERLAPPING CONSTRAINT LOCATIONS SU B J E C T T O F U R T H E R R E V I S I O N Analysis Layers Included: 1. Hydrologic Soil Group D, 2. Landslide Hazard Zone, 3. Groundwater Protection Areas 4. Approximate Selinium Area, 5. Depth to Groundwater <= 5' Note: Screening datasets are not exhaustive. The applicant should always conduct a review of available site-specific information relative to infiltration constraints as part of assessing the feasibility of stormwater infiltration.Source;Infiltration Constraint Analysis: PACE/Geosyntec 03 . 6 7 . 2 1. 8 Mi l e s 05 1 0 2. 5 Ki l o m e t e r s LEGEND OCWD Groundwater Basin Protection Boundary City Boundaries Infiltration Constraints 1 Constraint 2 Overlapping Constraints 3 Overlapping Constraints 4 Overlapping Constraints Pr o j e c t S i t e P: \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ S u c e p t a b i l i t y M a p s _ 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ S a n t a A n a R i v e r S u s c e p t i b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 . m x d ClevelandNational Forest San Bernardino County Riverside County South Orange County Newport Bay Watershed Stabilized by Grade Control Structure San Gabriel-Coyote Creek Watershed Anaheim Bay- Huntington Harbor Watershed PetersCanyonReservoir OliveHills KraemerBasin CarbonCanyon WalnutCanyonReservoir IrvineLake AnaheimLake WarnerBasin MillerRetardingBasin BartlettRetardingBasin FletcherRetardingBasin SOUTHPARKPUMPSTATION VillaPark Dam Yorba LindaReservoir Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012 FIGURE 3 JO B TI T L E SC A L E 1" = 1 2 0 0 0 ' DE S I G N E D DR A W I N G CH E C K E D BM P 04 / 3 0 / 1 0 DA T E JO B N O . 95 2 6 - E THTH OR A N G E C O U N T Y WA T E R S H E D MA S T E R P L A N N I N G OR A N G E C O . CA SU S C E P T I B I L I T Y A N A L Y I S SA N T A A N A R I V E R !I 0 12,000 24,000 Feet Susceptibility Potential Areas of Erosion, Habitat, & Physical Structure Susceptibility Channel Type Earth (Unstable) Earth (Stabilized) Stabilized Tidel Influence <= Mean High Water Line (4.28') Water Body Basin Dam Lake Reservoir Forest Areas Cleveland National Forest Federal Lands Amarus Salt Marsh Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012 SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP UPATE (FEB 2013) Project Site Worksheet A: Hydrologic Source Control Calculation Form Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: Drainage area ID See Below Total drainage area 0.242 acres Total drainage area Impervious Area (IAtotal)0.016 acres HSC ID Effect of individual HSCi per BMP Fact Sheets (XIV.1) (d HSCi )1 Impervious Area Tributary to HSCi (IA i )d i × IA i DMA 3 HSC-2: Impervious Area Dispersion, Ratio =13.8 1.00''0.0164 0.0164 Box 1:∑ d i × IAi = 0.0164 Box 2:IA total = 0.016 [Box 1]/[Box 2]:d HSC total =1.000 80% 1 - For HSCs meeting criteria to be considered self-retaining, enter the DCV for the project. Area Impervious Area (SF)Total Area (SF)Ratio DMA 3 714.4 10,550.6 13.8 Total 714.4 10,550.6 13.89,836.2 HSC Type/ Description/ Reference BMP Fact Sheet Percent Capture Provided by HSCs (Table III.1) Pervious Area (SF) 9,836.2 WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx; A-1 (HSC-2)11/18/2020, 1:57 PM Table III.1: Fraction of Long Term Runoff Reduced (Capture Efficiency) by HSCs Cumulative HSC Adjustment to Design Capture Storm Depth (dHSC) Capture Efficiency Achieved Lowland Regions (<1,000 ft) Capture Efficiency Achieved Mountainous Regions (>1,000 ft) <0.05 0%0% 0.05''8%7% 0.1''20%16% 0.2''37%31% 0.3''48%42% 0.4''57%50% 0.5''64%57% 0.6''70%63% 0.7''75%68% 0.8''80%72% 0.9''80%76% 1.0''80%80% WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx; A-2 (HSC-2)11/18/2020; 2:35 PM Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: 11/18/2020 DMA =Total Site DMA 1 DMA 2 DMA 3 DMA 4 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d=0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 0 0 0 0 inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, d remainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder=0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 inches 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A=2.989 1.633 1.105 0.242 0.009 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp=67.0%74.0%70.0%7.0%100.0%% 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C=0.653 0.705 0.675 0.203 0.900 4 Calculate runoff volume, V design = (C x d remainder x A x 43560 x (1/12))Vdesign=6,376.6 3,761.2 2,436.8 160.5 26.5 cu-ft 1 Enter measured infiltration rate, K measured (in/hr) (Appendix VII)Kmeasured=0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, S final (unitless)Sfinal=0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, K design = K measured / S final Kdesign=0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours)T=hours 5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), D max = K design x T x (1/12) Dmax=feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), A min = V design / d max Amin=sq-ft Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the DCV Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate \\fuscoe.corp\irv\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020- 11-16.xlsx; B-1 11/18/2020 Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: 11/18/2020 DMA 1 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2)Tc=5.0 min 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I 1 I1=0.260 in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y 2 (Worksheet A)Y2=0%% 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency (Y2), I 2 I2=0 in/hr 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, I design = I 1 - I 2 Idesign=0.260 in/hr 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A=1.633 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp=74.0%% 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C = (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C=0.705 4 Calculate design flowrate, Q design = (C x i design x A)Qdesign=0.299 cfs Describe System: Proprietary BioTreatment (BIO-7): Unit Size / Model =MWS-L-8-12 Unit Size / Model Treatment Capacity =0.346 cfs Number of Units Needed =1 Total Bio-treatment Provided =0.346 cfs Provide time of concentration assumptions: min Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate Supporting Calculations \\fuscoe.corp\irv\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx; D-1 (MWS) (DMA1)11/18/2020 Figure III.4. Capture Efficiency Nomograph for Off-line Flow-based Systems in Orange County \\fuscoe.corp\IRV\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-03-11.xlsx; D-2 (DMA2)3/13/2020 Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: 11/18/2020 DMA 2 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2)Tc=5.0 min 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I 1 I1=0.260 in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y 2 (Worksheet A)Y2=0%% 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency (Y2), I 2 I2=0 in/hr 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, I design = I 1 - I 2 Idesign=0.260 in/hr 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A=1.105 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp=70.0%% 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C = (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C=0.675 4 Calculate design flowrate, Q design = (C x i design x A)Qdesign=0.194 cfs Describe System: Proprietary BioTreatment (BIO-7): Unit Size / Model =MWS-L-4-17 Unit Size / Model Treatment Capacity =0.206 cfs Number of Units Needed =1 Total Bio-treatment Provided =0.206 cfs Provide time of concentration assumptions: min Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate Supporting Calculations \\fuscoe.corp\irv\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx; D-1 (MWS) (DMA2)11/18/2020 Figure III.4. Capture Efficiency Nomograph for Off-line Flow-based Systems in Orange County \\fuscoe.corp\IRV\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-03-11.xlsx; D-2 (DMA2)3/13/2020 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 BMP Feasibility Worksheet Infeasibility Criteria Yes No 1 Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Refer to Appendix VII (Worksheet I) for guidance on groundwater-related infiltration feasibility criteria. X Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 2 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 away from slopes steeper than 15 percent 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. X Provide basis: Geotechnical Investigation by Geocon West, Inc. conducted on November 12, 2019 revealed that the soils within the area are primarily composed of artificial fill along with fine- grained/clayey soils and are therefore not conducive to infiltration of flows through LID BMPs. Infiltration was not recommended. Additionally, due to steep slopes at the project site (maximum of 25%), proximity to landslide areas, proposed retaining walls, and proposed basement, infiltration is further constrained. 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 downstream water rights? X Provide basis: 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 BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) Partial Infeasibility Criteria Yes No 4 Is proposed infiltration facility located on HSG D soils or the site geotechnical investigation identifies presence of soil characteristics which support categorization as D soils? X Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 5 Is measured infiltration rate below proposed facility less than 0.3 inches per hour? This calculation shall be based on the methods described in Appendix VII. X Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 6 Would reduction of over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial uses, such as change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? X 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. 7 Would an increase in infiltration over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial uses, such as change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? X 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. Infiltration Screening Results (check box corresponding to result): 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 8 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) Provide narrative discussion and supporting evidence: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 9 If any answer from row 1-3 is yes: infiltration of any volume is not feasible within the DMA or equivalent. Provide basis: Geotechnical Investigation by Geocon West, Inc. conducted on November 12, 2019 revealed that the soils within the area are primarily composed of artificial fill along with fine- grained/clayey soils and are therefore not conducive to infiltration of flows through LID BMPs. Infiltration was not recommended. Additionally, due to steep slopes at the project site (maximum of 25%), proximity to landslide areas, proposed retaining walls, and proposed basement, infiltration is further constrained. Summarize findings of infeasibility screening X 10 If any answer from row 4-7 is yes, infiltration is permissible but is not presumed to be feasible for the entire DCV. Criteria for designing biotreatment BMPs to achieve the maximum feasible infiltration and ET shall apply. Provide basis: Site is entirely comprised of HSG D soils. Summarize findings of infeasibility screening X 11 If all answers to rows 1 through 11 are no, infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, BMPs must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the maximum extent practicable. Harvest & Reuse Irrigation Demand Calculations Project: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date: 11/18/2020 Storm Water Design Caputre Volume (SQDV) Drainage Area / Land Use Type Impervious Area (ac) Irrigated Area (ac)% impervious Runoff Coefficient Design Storm Depth (in) Drainage Area (acres)DCV (ft3) DCV (gal)Eto Total Site 2.00 0.99 67%0.653 0.90 2.989 6,376.6 47,697 Irvine 3.00 Modified Laguna Beach 2.75 EAWU =(Eto x KL x LA x 0.015) Santa Ana 2.93 IE EIATA = (IE x Tributary Imp. Area) Blend of High-Use and Low-Use Landscaping Drainage Area / Land Use Type Total Area (ac) Total Area (sf)% Impervious Impervious (sf) Pervious / LA (sf)Eto KL Modified EAWU EAWU/ Impervious Acre Minimum EAWU/ Impervious Acre (Table X.6)Feasible?EIATA Minimum EIATA (interpo- lated) Drawdown (days) Drawdown (hours) Total Site 2.989 130,201 67%87,235 42,966 2.93 0.55 1,154.00 576.24 730 No 0.30 0.76 41.3 992 TABLE X.8: MINIMUM IRRIGATED AREA FOR POTENTIAL PARTIAL CAPTURE FEASIBILITY Irvine Santa Ana Laguna Irvine Santa Ana Laguna 0.66 0.68 0.72 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.72 0.73 0.78 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.83 0.84 0.9 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.88 0.9 0.96 0.44 0.45 0.48 0.93 0.95 1.02 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.99 1.01 1.08 0.49 0.51 0.54 1.04 1.07 1.14 0.52 0.53 0.57 1.1 1.12 1.2 0.55 0.56 0.6 Source: Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). March 22, 2011. Appendix X. LA x KL 0.90 730 0.90 0.95 770 0.95 0.85 690 0.85 0.65 530 0.65 0.70 570 0.70 1.00 810 1.00 0.75 610 0.75 0.80 650 0.80 Design Capture Storm Depth, inches Wet Season Demand Required for Minimum Partial Capture, gpd per impervious acre Design Capture Storm Depth, inches Minimum Required Irrigated Area per Tributary Impervious Acre for Potential Partial Capture, ac/ac 0.60 490 0.60 TABLE X.6: HARVESTED WATER DEMAND THRESHOLDS FOR MINIMUM PARTIAL CAPTURE General Landscape Type Conservation Design: KL = 0.35 Active Turf Areas: KL = 0.7 Closest ET Station \\fuscoe.corp\irv\Panzura\Projects\1391\013\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_2020-11-16.xlsx "Harvest & Reuse-J"11/18/2020 APPENDIX B NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community APN: 361-291-51 Submission of this Notice Of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City of Anaheim that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan (“WQMP”) for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (a nd his/her agent) of the site (or a portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. I. Previous Owner/ Previous Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: II. Information about Site Transferred Name of Project (if applicable): Title of WQMP Applicable to site: Street Address of Site (if applicable): Planning Area (PA) and/ or Tract Number(s) for Site: Lot Numbers (if Site is a portion of a tract): Date WQMP Prepared (and revised if applicable): III. New Owner/ New Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: IV. Ownership Transfer Information General Description of Site Transferred to New Owner: General Description of Portion of Project/ Parcel Subject to WQMP Retained by Owner (if any): Lot/ Tract Numbers of Site Transferred to New Owner: Remaining Lot/ Tract Numbers Subject to WQMP Still Held by Owner (if any): Date of Ownership Transfer: Note: When the Previous Owner is transferring a Site that is a portion of a larger project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP, as opposed to the entire project/parcel addressed by the WQMP, the General Description of the Site transferred and the remainder of the project/ parcel no transferred shall be set forth as maps attached to this notice. These maps shall show those portions of a project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP that are transferred to the New Owner (the Transferred Site), those portions retained by the Previous Owner, and those portions previously transferred by Previous Owner. Those portions retained by Previous Owner shall be labeled as “Previously Transferred”. V. Purpose of Notice of Transfer The purposes of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility are: 1) to track transfer of responsibility for implementation and amendment of the WQMP when property to which the WQMP is transferred from the Previous Owner to the New Owner, and 2) to facilitate notification to a transferee o f property subject to a WQMP that such New Order is now the Responsible Party of record for the WQMP for those portions of the site that it owns. VI. Certifications A. Previous Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am no longer the owner of the Transferred Site as described in Section II above. I have provided the New Owner with a copy of the WQMP applicable to the Transferred Site that the New Owner is acquiring from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of Previous Owner Representative: Title: Signature of Previous Owner Representative: Date: B. New Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the Transferred Site, as described in Section II above, that I have been provided a copy of the WQMP, and that I have informed myself and understand the New Owner’s responsibilities related to the WQMP, its implementation, and Best Management Practices associated with it. I understand that by signing this notice, the New Owner is accepting all ongoing responsibilities for implementation and amendme nt of the WQMP for the Transferred Site, which the New Owner has acquired from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of New Owner Representative: Title: Signature: Date: APPENDIX C EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ▪ The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door ▪ Household Tips ▪ Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste ▪ Recycle Waste Oil in North OC ▪ Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ▪ Responsible Pet Care ▪ Responsible Pest Control ▪ Tips for Pool Maintenance ▪ Tips for Protecting your Watershed ▪ DF-1 Drainage System Maintenance ▪ R-3 Automobile Parking ▪ R-4 Home and Garden Care Activities ▪ R-5 Proper Pet Waste Removal ▪ R-6 Disposal of Green Waste ▪ R-7 Household Hazardous Waste ▪ R-8 Water Conservation ▪ SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning ▪ SD-12 Efficient Irrigation ▪ SD-13 Storm Drain Signage Resident Educational Materials can be found here: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/publiced/resources/resbrochures Residential Activity Educational Materials can be found here: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/documents/bmp/residentialactivities Storm Drain Educational Materials can be found here: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/documents/bmp/newdevsignificantredev APPENDIX D BMP MAINTENANCE SUPPLEMENT / O&M PLAN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN Water Quality Management Plan For Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community 5275 E Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, County of Orange, CA 92807 APN: 361-291-51 Date Prepared: 03/12/2020 Date Revised (Plan Check #1): 09/30/2020 Date Revised (Plan Check #2): 11/18/2020 Date Revised (Plan Check #3): 12/24/2020 This page intentionally left blank O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 3 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs Yes N1. Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Educational materials will be provided to tenants or employees annually. Materials to be distributed are found in Appendix C of this WQMP. Tenants will be provided these materials by the Property Management prior to occupancy and annually thereafter. Frequency: Upon first occupancy, Annually thereafter Yes N2. Activity Restrictions The Owner will prescribe activity restrictions to protect surface water quality, through lease terms or other equally effective measure, for the property. Restrictions include, but are not limited to, prohibiting vehicle maintenance, vehicle washing, and washing of impervious areas. Frequency: Ongoing O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 4 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N3. Common Area Landscape Management Maintenance shall be consistent with City requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with City Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (LIP Exhibit A-5.1V) as well as local requirements. Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and debris removal on a weekly basis. Trimming, replanting, and replacement of mulch shall be performed on an as-needed basis to prevent exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings, clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled during maintenance activities shall be placed away from water courses and storm drain inlets. Frequency: Monthly Yes N4. BMP Maintenance Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in this WQMP. Records of inspections and BMP maintenance shall be kept by the Owner and shall be available for review upon request. Frequency: Ongoing No N5. Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Not Applicable No N6. Local Industrial Permit Compliance Not Applicable O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 5 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility No N7. Spill Contingency Plan Not Applicable No N8. Underground Storage Tank Compliance Not Applicable No N9. Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Not Applicable No N10. Uniform Fire Code Implementation Not Applicable Yes N11. Common Area Litter Control Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed on a weekly basis and in conjunction with routine maintenance activities. Frequency: Weekly Yes N12. Employee Training Educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention, particularly good housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Refresher courses shall be conducted at a minimum annually, and more frequently if necessary. Frequency: Annually No N13. Housekeeping of Loading Docks Not Applicable Yes N14. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Catch basin inlets and other drainage facilities shall be inspected after each storm event and once per year. Inlets and other facilities shall be cleaned prior to the rainy season, by October 1 each year. Frequency: Annually O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 6 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Private streets, drive aisles & any exposed parking areas must be swept at least weekly, including prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Frequency: Quarterly No N16. Retail Gasoline Outlets Not Applicable STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs Yes S1. Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Storm drain stencils shall be inspected for legibility, at minimum, once prior to the storm season, no later than October 1 each year. Those determined to be illegible will be re- stenciled as soon as possible. Frequency: Annually No S2. Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Not Applicable No S3. Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Not Applicable Yes S4. Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control Inspect, test and adjust irrigation system to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, ensure timing and cycle lengths are correct. Frequency: Weekly visual inspection, testing 2x per year O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 7 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility No S5. Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation Not Applicable No S6. Dock areas Not Applicable No S7. Maintenance bays Not Applicable No S8. Vehicle wash areas Not Applicable No S9. Outdoor processing areas Not Applicable No S10. Equipment wash areas Not Applicable No S11. Fueling areas Not Applicable S12. Hillside landscaping Hillside areas that are disturbed by project development shall maintain landscaping (deep-rooted, drought tolerant plant species selected for erosion control), satisfactory to the local permitting authority. Frequency: Ongoing Alliance Realty Partners, LLC S13. Wash water control for food preparation areas Adequate signs shall be provided and appropriately placed stating the prohibition of discharging wash water to the storm drain system. Employees shall be trained in discharge and safety requirements outlined in State Health & Safety Code 27520. All cooking utensils shall be cleaned in appropriate wash stations. Frequency: Ongoing Alliance Realty Partners, LLC O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 8 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility No S14. Community car wash racks Not Applicable BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BMPs Biotreatment BMP # 1: BIO-7 (MWS Unit) The two on-site Modular Wetland System units shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. The system shall be inspected at a minimum of once every six months, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1) each year, and after major storm events. Typical maintenance includes removing trash & debris from the catch basin screening filter (by hand), removal of sediment and solids in the settlement chamber (vacuum truck), replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM filter cartridge, and replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM drain down filter (if equipped). In addition, plants within the wetland chamber will require trimming as needed in conjunction with routine landscape maintenance activities. No fertilizer shall be used in this chamber. Wetland chamber should be inspected during rain events to verify flow through the system. If little to no flow is observed from the lower valve or orifice plate, the wetland media may require replacement. If prior treatment stages are properly maintained, the life of the wetland media can be up to 20 years. Frequency: Quarterly Alliance Realty Partners, LLC O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 9 of 12 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Pretreatment BMP # 1: PRE-2 (On-Site Full Capture System Device) This will include a Full Capture Trash System OR Connector Pipe Screen (or similar) at the on-site MWS units. During the rainy season (October 1 – April 30), the catch basins with connector pipe screens or other full capture system device should be inspected monthly and cleaned out at least once per year at a minimum. Recommended cleaning of the insert four times per year, but may change depending on specific manufacturer to be determined in Final WQMP. Frequency: Monthly Inspections Cleanout Annually and before major storm events (min.) Alliance Realty Partners, LLC Pretreatment BMP # 2: PRE-2 (Off-Site Full Capture System Device) This will include a Full Capture Trash System OR Connector Pipe Screen (or similar) at off-site catch basins and/or LID structures. During the rainy season (October 1 – April 30), the catch basins with connector pipe screens or other full capture system device should be inspected monthly and cleaned out at least once per year at a minimum. Recommended cleaning of the insert four times per year, but may change depending on specific manufacturer to be determined in Final WQMP. Frequency: Monthly Inspections Cleanout Annually and before major storm events (min.) Alliance Realty Partners, LLC O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 10 of 12 Required Permits Permits are not required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. Forms to Record BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection The form that will be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is attached. Recordkeeping All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years and must be made available for review upon request. Waste Management Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off- site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Guidelines for Modular Wetland System - Linear Maintenance Summary o 5HPRYH7UDVKIURP6FUHHQLQJ'HYLFHದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV PLQXWHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH o 5HPRYH6HGLPHQWIURP6HSDUDWLRQ&KDPEHUದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV PLQXWHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH o 5HSODFH&DUWULGJH)LOWHU0HGLDದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOWRPRQWKV PLQXWHSHUFDUWULGJHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH o 5HSODFH'UDLQ'RZQ)LOWHU0HGLDದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV PLQXWHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH o 7ULP9HJHWDWLRQದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV 6HUYLFHWLPHYDULHV System Diagram $FFHVVWRVFUHHQLQJGHYLFHVHSDUDWLRQ FKDPEHUDQGFDUWULGJHILOWHU $FFHVVWRGUDLQ GRZQILOWHU 3UH7UHDWPHQW &KDPEHU %LRILOWUDWLRQ&KDPEHU 'LVFKDUJH &KDPEHU 2XWIORZ 3LSH ,QIORZ3LSH RSWLRQDO www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedures Screening Device 1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the Pre- Treatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry. 2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device. 3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole cover when completed. Separation Chamber 1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before maintaining the separation chamber. 2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters. 3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Cartridge Filters 1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters. 2. Enter separation chamber. 3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid. 4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place. 5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants. 6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants. 7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. 8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Drain Down Filter 1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber. 2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place. 3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Notes 1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms. 2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time. 3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. 4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations. 5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber. 6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedure Illustration Screening Device The screening device is located directly under the manhole or grate over the Pre-Treatment Chamber. It’s mounted directly underneath for easy access and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by hand or with a vacuum truck. Separation Chamber The separation chamber is located directly beneath the screening device. It can be quickly cleaned using a vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure washer is useful to assist in the cleaning process. www.modularwetlands.com Cartridge Filters The cartridge filters are located in the Pre-Treatment chamber connected to the wall adjacent to the biofiltration chamber. The cartridges have removable tops to access the individual media filters. Once the cartridge is open media can be easily removed and replaced by hand or a vacuum truck. Drain Down Filter The drain down filter is located in the Discharge Chamber. The drain filter unlocks from the wall mount and hinges up. Remove filter block and replace with new block. www.modularwetlands.com Trim Vegetation Vegetation should be maintained in the same manner as surrounding vegetation and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall be used on the plants. Irrigation per the recommendation of the manufacturer and or landscape architect. Different types of vegetation requires different amounts of irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Inspection Form Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E.Info@modularwetlands.com For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Yes Depth: Yes No Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault):Size (22', 14' or etc.): Other Inspection Items: Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No YesType of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Office personnel to complete section to the left. 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 Inspection Report Modular Wetlands System Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section. Chamber: Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Structural Integrity: Working Condition: Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the unit? Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Project Name Project Address Inspection Checklist CommentsNo Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes, specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber. Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below. Sediment / Silt / Clay Trash / Bags / Bottles Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage Waste:Plant Information No Cleaning Needed Recommended Maintenance Additional Notes: Damage to Plants Plant Replacement Plant Trimming Schedule Maintenance as Planned Needs Immediate Maintenance www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Report Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E.Info@modularwetlands.com For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Site Map # Comments: 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 Inlet and Outlet Pipe Condition Drain Down Pipe Condition Discharge Chamber Condition Drain Down Media Condition Plant Condition Media Filter Condition Long: MWS Sedimentation Basin Total Debris Accumulation Condition of Media 25/50/75/100 (will be changed @ 75%) Operational Per Manufactures' Specifications (If not, why?) Lat:MWS Catch Basins GPS Coordinates of Insert Manufacturer / Description / Sizing Trash Accumulation Foliage Accumulation Sediment Accumulation Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to the left. Project Address Project Name Cleaning and Maintenance Report Modular Wetlands System APPENDIX E CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPENDIX F GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA TRACT: 5674, LOT 51 PREPARED FOR ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 NOVEMBER 12, 2019 Project No. W1076-88-01 November 12, 2019 Alliance Realty Partners, LLC 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 550 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Ron Schulman Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA TRACT: 05674; LOT: 51 Dear Mr. Schulman: In accordance with your authorization of our proposal dated September 5, 2019, we have prepared this geotechnical investigation report for the proposed assisted living and memory care facility located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, in the City of Anaheim, California. The accompanying report presents the findings of our study and our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of proposed design and construction. Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are followed and implemented during design and construction. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GEOCON WEST, INC. John Stapleton Staff Engineer Jelisa Thomas Adams GE 3092 Jamie Fink CEG 2636 (EMAIL) Addressee TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 1 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2 3. GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................... 2 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 3 4.1 Artificial Fill .......................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Colluvium .............................................................................................................................. 3 4.3 Fernando Formation (Tfl) ...................................................................................................... 3 5. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................... 3 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................. 4 6.1 Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................................................ 4 6.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 5 6.3 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 6 6.4 Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................................ 8 6.5 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................ 8 6.6 Earthquake-Induced Flooding ................................................................................................ 9 6.7 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding ........................................................................................... 9 6.8 Oil Fields & Methane Potential ............................................................................................. 9 6.9 Subsidence ........................................................................................................................... 10 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 11 7.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 11 7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ..................................................................................... 13 7.3 Minimum Resistivity, pH, and Water-Soluble Sulfate ........................................................ 13 7.4 Grading ................................................................................................................................ 14 7.5 Shrinkage ............................................................................................................................. 17 7.6 Slope Construction ............................................................................................................... 17 7.7 Foundation Setback .............................................................................................................. 18 7.8 Conventional Foundation Design ........................................................................................ 19 7.9 Miscellaneous Foundations .................................................................................................. 20 7.10 Lateral Design ...................................................................................................................... 21 7.11 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................................................................... 21 7.12 Pavement Recommendations ............................................................................................... 23 7.13 Retaining Wall Design ......................................................................................................... 24 7.14 Dynamic (Seismic) Lateral Forces ....................................................................................... 25 7.15 Retaining Wall Drainage ...................................................................................................... 26 7.16 Elevator Pit Design .............................................................................................................. 27 7.17 Elevator Piston ..................................................................................................................... 27 7.18 Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................................... 28 7.19 Surface Drainage and Moisture Protection .......................................................................... 28 7.20 Plan Review ......................................................................................................................... 29 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS LIST OF REFERENCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) MAPS, TABLES, AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Site Plan Figure 3, Regional Fault Map Figure 4, Regional Seismicity Map Figure 5, Benched Excavation Detail Figure 6, Stability / Buttress Fill Detail Figures 7 and 8, Retaining Wall Drainage APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A1 through A5, Boring Logs APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Figures B1 through B3, Direct Shear Test Results Figures B9 through B18, Consolidation Test Results Figures B19 through B23, Modified Compaction Test of Soils Figures B24 and B25, Expansion Index Test Results Figure B26, Corrosivity Test Results Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 1 - November 12, 2019 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed assisted living and memory care facility located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road in the City of Anaheim, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions underlying the site, based on conditions encountered, to provide conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of design and construction. The scope of this investigation included a review of a 1977 Grading Plan provided to us, a site reconnaissance, field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and the preparation of this report. The site was explored on October 10, 2019, by excavating five 8-inch diameter borings using a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling machine to depths of approximately 20½ to 41½feet below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are depicted on the Site Plan (see Figure 2). A detailed discussion of the field investigation, including logs of the borings, is presented in Appendix A. The 1977 Grading Plan from construction of the current development was provided to us for review. The plan depicts the proposed elevations, which we have assumed to also be the current site elevations. The ground surface elevations indicated on the boring logs in Appendix A are based on the information depicted on this plan; Geocon has not verified the accuracy of this information. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to determine pertinent physical and chemical soil properties. Appendix B presents a summary of the laboratory test results. The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the investigation, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. References reviewed to prepare this report are provided in the List of References section. If project details vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 2 - November 12, 2019 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road in the City of Anaheim, California. The site is currently occupied by an existing single-story structure, which will be demolished in order to facilitate construction of the proposed two- and three-story, 118-unit residential facility. The property is currently accessed by a driveway off Nohl Ranch Road and also a driveway that ascends from Royal Oak Road and feeds into a parking lot that bounds the north and west sides of the property. Fill slopes on the property range from approximately 5 to 15-feet high and have approximate slope ratios of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Surface water drainage at the site appears to be by sheet flow along the existing ground contours to the city streets. Based on information provided to us and a review of a conceptual plan by Shelter Architects, we understand that proposed development will consist of a two-story, 118-unit residential facility with an approximate 6,000 square foot basement to be located in the northeast portion of the facility (see Site Plan, Figure 2). The majority of the new construction will be at or near present grades, with the exception of the basement level in the northeast portion of the site. Several relatively low retaining walls are planned along the northern property boundary in order to facilitate the grade changes needed to extend the proposed parking area northward and over the currently existing 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) descending graded slope. Other site improvements will include surface parking. The proposed development is depicted on the Site Plan (see Figure 2). Based on the preliminary nature of the design at this time, wall and column loads were not available. It is anticipated that column loads for the proposed residential structure will be up to 300 kips, and wall loads will be up to 3 kips per linear foot. Once the design phase and foundation loading configuration proceeds to a more finalized plan, the recommendations within this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Any changes in the design, location or elevation of any structure, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report 3. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province and is situated within the local Peralta Hills. The Peralta Hills consist of Tertiary sedimentary bedrock that is part of the southern flank of a westerly plunging syncline. The bedrock underlying the site is classified as Pliocene age Fernando Formation which consists generally of thick-bedded, yellow-brown to green-gray, marine sandstone and siltstone. The unit also includes beds of cobble to boulder size conglomerates. The general geologic structure in the vicinity of the site, and within the southern flank of the syncline, consists of north/northeast strikes with dips ranging from 15 to 48 degrees to the west/northwest. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 3 - November 12, 2019 Based on a review of aerial photographs between 1963 and 1966, see References), prior to development of the site a north/northeast trending drainage bisected the site. Geotechnical documentation of the original site grading was not available in the city online records. 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Based on our field investigation and published geologic maps of the area, the site is underlain by artificial fill placed during original site grading, and Pliocene age bedrock. Detailed stratigraphic profiles of the materials encountered at the site are provided on the boring logs in Appendix A. 4.1 Artificial Fill Artificial fill was generally encountered in our borings to depths ranging from 6.5 to approximately 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs, it appears that the drainage that previously dissected the site was infilled with up to 50 feet of fill. Geotechnical documentation of the fill placement was not available in online city records. The artificial fill generally consists of moist, firm to stiff, brown to dark brown to mottled gray olive brown to olive gray silty clay and clay. The fill is the result of past grading and construction activities at the site. Deeper fill may exist between excavations and in other portions of the site that were not directly explored. 4.2 Colluvium Colluvium was encountered in boring B-5 at the bottom of the drive sample taken at 40-feet below existing grades. Boring B-5 was drilled within the deeper portion of the north/northeast trending drainage that transects the existing building location. While the colluvium was only viewable in the bottom of the 6-inch sample, it was observed to consist generally of moist, firm, mottled gray brown to very dark gray silty clay with scattered organics. 4.3 Fernando Formation (Tfl) Pliocene age bedrock was encountered beneath the artificial fill in all borings but B-5. The bedrock encountered consists primarily of soft, yellow brown to gray to olive to olive brown clayey siltstone. 5. GROUNDWATER Review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange Quadrangle (California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG], Revised 2001) indicates the site is not located within a known groundwater basin. Groundwater information presented in this document is generated from data collected in the early 1900’s to the late 1990s. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 4 - November 12, 2019 Groundwater was not encountered in our borings which were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 41½ feet below existing ground surface. Based on the lack of groundwater in our borings, groundwater is neither expected to be encountered during construction, nor have a detrimental effect on the project. However, it is not uncommon for groundwater levels to vary seasonally or for groundwater seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed, especially in impermeable fine-grained soils which are heavily irrigated or after seasonal rainfall. Proper surface drainage of irrigation and precipitation will be critical for future performance of the project. Recommendations for drainage are provided in the Surface Drainage section of this report (see Section 7.19). 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.1 Surface Fault Rupture The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as CDMG) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program (CGS, 2018). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years), but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive. The site is not located within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards (CGS, 2019a; CGS, 2019b). No active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low. However, the site is located in the seismically active Southern California region, and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many active Southern California faults. The faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 3, Regional Fault Map. The closest surface trace of an active fault to the site is the Whittier Fault located approximately 4.0 miles to the north (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Other nearby active faults include the Elsinore Fault, the Chino Fault, the Central Avenue Fault, and the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone located approximately 8 miles east/northeast, 9 miles northeast, 10½ miles northeast, and 15½ miles southwest of the site, respectively (Ziony and Jones, 1989). The active San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 35 miles northeast of the site. The closest potentially active faults to the site are the Peralta Hills, the El Modeno Fault, and Norwalk faults located approximately less than 0.5 mile to the south, 1.5 miles to the south, and 8 miles to the west, respectively (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 5 - November 12, 2019 Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin and the Orange County Coastal Plain at depth. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are typically identified at depths greater than 3.0 kilometers. The October 1, 1987 Mw 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake and the January 17, 1994 Mw 6.7 Northridge earthquake were a result of movement on the Puente Hills Blind Thrust and the Northridge Thrust, respectively. These thrust faults and others in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas are not exposed at the surface and do not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard at the site; however, these deep thrust faults are considered active features capable of generating future earthquakes that could result in moderate to significant ground shaking at the site. 6.2 Seismicity As with all of Southern California, the site has experienced historic earthquakes from various regional faults. The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was formulated based on research of an electronic database of earthquake data. The epicenters of recorded earthquakes with magnitudes equal to or greater than 5.0 in the site vicinity are depicted on Figure 4, Regional Seismicity Map. A partial list of moderate to major magnitude earthquakes that have occurred in the Southern California area within the last 100 years is included in the following table. LIST OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES Earthquake Date of Earthquake Magnitude Distance to Epicenter (Miles) Direction to Epicenter (Oldest to Youngest) San Jacinto-Hemet area April 21, 1918 6.8 88 SE Near Redlands July 23, 1923 6.3 66 SE Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 85 S Tehachapi July 21, 1952 7.5 70 W San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 45 SW Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 56 SSW Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 42 SSW Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 89 ESE Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 71 SE Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 60 SW Hector Mine October 16, 1999 7.1 89 E The site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. However, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 6 - November 12, 2019 6.3 Seismic Design Criteria The following table summarizes summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2019 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The data was calculated using the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the OSHPD. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2019 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. Due to the variable depth to bedrock on the site (6.5 to approximately 40 feet), we have selected Site Class “D” as the preliminary site class designation. However, the site class should be further evaluated as the project progresses. The values presented below are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference Site Class D Section 1613.2.2 MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 1.614g Figure 1613.2.1(1) MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.571g Figure 1613.2.1(2) Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 Table 1613.2.3(1) Site Coefficient, FV 1.729* Table 1613.2.3(2) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.614g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-36) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 0.987g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-37) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 1.076g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.658g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-39) Note: *Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed for projects for Site Class “E” sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0g and for Site Class “D” and “E” sites with S1 greater than 0.2g. Section 11.4.8 also provides exceptions which indicates that the ground motion hazard analysis may be waived provided the exceptions are followed. Using the code based values presented in the table above, in lieu of a performing a ground motion hazard analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 be followed. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 7 - November 12, 2019 The table below presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16. ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.679g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.1 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.747g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) The Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion (MCE) is the level of ground motion that has a 2 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 2,475 years. According to the 2019 California Building Code and ASCE 7-16, the MCE is to be utilized for the evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and it is our understanding that the intent of the Building code is to maintain “Life Safety” during a MCE event. The Design Earthquake Ground Motion (DE) is the level of ground motion that has a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 475 years. Deaggregation of the MCE peak ground acceleration was performed using the USGS online Unified Hazard Tool, 2014 Conterminous U.S. Dynamic edition. The result of the deaggregation analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the MCE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 6.69 magnitude event occurring at a hypocentral distance of 12.45 kilometers from the site. Deaggregation was also performed for the Design Earthquake (DE) peak ground acceleration, and the result of the analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the DE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 6.62 magnitude occurring at a hypocentral distance of 16.22 kilometers from the site. Conformance to the criteria in the above tables for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 8 - November 12, 2019 6.4 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. The current standard of practice, as outlined in the “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California” and “Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction. The State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Orange Quadrangle (CDMG, 1998) indicates that the site is not located within an area designated as having a potential for liquefaction. As previously indicated, the site is not located within a known groundwater basin, and historic high groundwater level in the area is at a depth of greater than 40 feet below the existing ground surface (CDMG, 1998). In addition, the site is underlain by Tertiary age sedimentary bedrock units that are not considered liquefiable. Based on these considerations, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction to occur beneath the site is considered extremely low. 6.5 Slope Stability The overall topography at the site slopes generally to the north/northeast. Three engineered fill slopes, at slope ratios of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and ranging from 5 to 15 feet high are constructed along the general west, north, and northeast property boundaries. Along the eastern boundary of the site, a sliver of the site is is located within an area identified by the State Geologist as having a potential for earthquake-induced landslides (CGS, 2019). However, based on the current topography and lack of significant slopes, it is our opinion that the designation on the CGS website is based on the former topography surrounding the site and is not applicable to the current site conditions. Review of published geologic maps indicates that the site is not underlain by known landslides and that the possible landslide mapped 250-feet to the north/northeast has been modified by the development in the area and will not impact the site. Therefore, the potential for slope stability hazards to adversely affect the proposed development is considered low. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 9 - November 12, 2019 6.6 Earthquake-Induced Flooding Earthquake-induced flooding is inundation caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining structures due to earthquakes. Based on a review of the City of Anaheim Safety Element (2004), the site in not located within any dam inundation area. Current design, construction practices, and ongoing programs of review, modification, or total reconstruction of existing dams are intended to ensure that all dams are capable of withstanding the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) for the site. Therefore, the potential for inundation at the site as a result of an earthquake-induced dam failure is considered extremely low to nil. 6.7 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding The site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis are not considered a significant hazard at the site. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Therefore, flooding resulting from a seismically induced seiche is considered unlikely. The site is within an area of minimal flooding (Zone X) as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2019). 6.8 Oil Fields & Methane Potential Based on a review of the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Well Finder Website, the site is not located within the limits of an oilfield and oil or gas wells are not located in the immediate site vicinity (DOGGR, 2019). However, due to the voluntary nature of record reporting by the oil well drilling companies, wells may be improperly located or not shown on the location map and undocumented wells could be encountered during construction. Any wells encountered during construction will need to be properly abandoned in accordance with the current requirements of the DOGGR. The nearest oil fields to the site are the Richfield and Kraemer Oil Fields, which are situated approximately 5,500 feet north and 7,260 feet northeast of the site, respectively (DOGGR, 2019). Since the site is not located within the boundaries of a known oil field, the potential for the presence of methane or other volatile gases at the site is considered low. However, should it be determined that a methane study is required for the proposed development it is recommended that a qualified methane consultant be retained to perform the study and provide mitigation measures as necessary. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 10 - November 12, 2019 6.9 Subsidence Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. The site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence. No known large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the site or in the general site vicinity. Therefore, there appears to be little or no potential for ground subsidence due to withdrawal of fluids or gases at the site. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 11 - November 12, 2019 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.1.1 It is our opinion that neither soil nor geologic conditions were encountered during the investigation that would preclude the construction of the proposed project provided the recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during design and construction. 7.1.2 Up to 40 feet of existing artificial fill was encountered during the site investigation and up to 50 feet of fill is believed to be present at the site based on the previous topography of the site. The existing fill encountered is believed to be the result of past grading and construction activities at the site. Deeper fill may exist in other areas of the site that were not directly explored. Future demolition of the existing improvements which occupy the site will likely disturb the upper few feet of soil. 7.1.3 Based on the laboratory testing performed, it is our opinion that the deeper existing fill, at and below a depth of approximately 6 feet, and in its present condition, may remain in place and is suitable for indirect support of the proposed improvements. However, the upper 6feet of existing artificial fill, in its present condition, is not suitable for direct support of proposed foundations or slabs. The existing fill and site soils are suitable for re-use as engineered fill provided the recommendations in the Grading section of this report are followed (see Section 7.4). 7.1.4 Based on these considerations, it is recommended that the upper 6 feet of existing earth materials from existing grade and within the proposed building footprint area be excavated and properly compacted for foundation and slab support. Deeper excavations should be conducted as needed to remove any encountered soft soils as necessary at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Proposed foundations should be underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of newly placed engineered fill. The excavation should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the parking structure footprint area, including building appurtenances, or a distance equal to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. The limits of existing fill and/or soft soil removal will be verified by the Geocon representative during site grading activities. Recommendations for earthwork are provided in the Grading section of this report (see Section 7.4). 7.1.5 All excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Prior to placing any fill, the upper 12 inches of the excavation bottom must be scarified, moistened, and proof-rolled with heavy equipment in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 12 - November 12, 2019 7.1.6 It is anticipated that stable excavations for the recommended grading associated with the proposed structure can be achieved with sloping measures. However, if excavations in close proximity to an adjacent property line and/or structure are required, special excavation measures may be necessary in order to maintain lateral support of offsite improvements. Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (Section 7.18). 7.1.7 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as non-retaining block walls less than 6 feet in height, planter walls or trash enclosures, which will not be tied to the proposed structure, may be supported on conventional foundations deriving support on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, foundations may derive support directly in the previously placed fill found at and below a depth of 3 feet and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft or loose, compaction of the soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. 7.1.8 Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill and soft soils be excavated and properly compacted for paving support. The client should be aware that excavation and compaction of all existing fill and soft soils in the area of new paving is not required; however, paving constructed over existing uncertified fill or unsuitable soil may experience increased settlement and/or cracking, and may therefore have a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil should be scarified and properly compacted for paving support. Paving recommendations are provided in Pavement Recommendations section of this report (see Section 7.12). 7.1.9 Based on the predominately fine-grained and clayey nature of the soils encountered during site exploration, a stormwater infiltration system is not recommended for this project. It is recommended that stormwater be retained, filtered, and discharged in accordance with the requirements of the local governing agency. 7.1.10 Once the design and foundation loading configuration for the proposed structure proceeds to a more finalized plan, the recommendations within this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Based on the final foundation loading configurations, the potential for settlement should be re-evaluated by this office. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 13 - November 12, 2019 7.1.11 Any changes in the design, location or elevation, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. 7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics 7.2.1 The in-situ soils can be excavated with moderate effort using conventional excavation equipment. Some caving should be anticipated in unshored excavations, especially where granular soils are encountered. 7.2.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of existing adjacent improvements. 7.2.3 All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges from existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation or vehicle load. Penetrations below this 1:1 projection will require special excavation measures such as sloping or shoring. Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (see Section 7.18). 7.2.4 The upper 5 feet of the soils encountered during the field investigation are considered to range from “non-expansive” to “expansive” (expansion index [EI] of 0 and 104) as defined by 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Recommendations presented herein assume that the building foundations and slabs will derive support in materials with a “high” expansive index. 7.3 Minimum Resistivity, pH, and Water-Soluble Sulfate 7.3.1 Potential of Hydrogen (pH) and resistivity testing as well as chloride content testing were performed on representative samples of soil to generally evaluate the corrosion potential to surface utilities. The tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 643 and 422 and indicate that the soils are considered “moderately” to “severely” corrosive with respect to corrosion of buried ferrous metals on site. The results are presented in Appendix B (Figure B26) and should be considered for design of underground structures. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 14 - November 12, 2019 7.3.2 Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soil to measure the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate tests are presented in Appendix B (Figure B26) and indicate that the on-site soil possess a “negligible” (S0) and “severe” (S2) sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1. The table below presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS Sulfate Exposure Exposure Class Water-Soluble Sulfate Percent by Weight Cement Type (ASTM C150) Maximum Water to Cement Ratio by Weight Minimum Compressive Strength (psi) Not Applicable S0 SO4<0.10 -- -- 2,500 Moderate S1 0.10<SO4<0.20 II 0.50 4,000 Severe S2 0.20<SO4<2.00 V 0.45 4,500 Very Severe S3 SO4>2.00 V+Pozzolan or Slag 0.45 4,500 7.3.3 Geocon West, Inc. does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering and mitigation. If corrosion sensitive improvements are planned, it is recommended that a corrosion engineer be retained to evaluate corrosion test results and incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of buried metal pipes and concrete structures in direct contact with the soils. 7.4 Grading 7.4.1 Earthwork should be observed, and compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon West, Inc. The existing fill soils encountered during exploration is suitable for re-use as engineered fill, provided any encountered oversize material (greater than 6 inches) and any encountered deleterious debris are removed. 7.4.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, and building official in attendance. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 15 - November 12, 2019 7.4.3 Grading should commence with the removal of all existing vegetation and existing improvements from the area to be graded. Deleterious debris such as wood and root structures should be exported from the site and should not be mixed with the fill soils. Asphalt and concrete should not be mixed with the fill soils unless approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. All existing underground improvements planned for removal should be completely excavated and the resulting depressions properly backfilled in accordance with the procedures described herein. Once a clean excavation bottom has been established it must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). 7.4.4 As a minimum, it is recommended that the upper 6 feet of existing earth materials from existing grade and within the proposed building footprint area be excavated and properly compacted for foundation and slab support. Deeper excavations should be conducted as necessary to remove deeper artificial fill or soft unsuitable soil at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Proposed foundations should be underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of newly placed engineered fill. The excavation should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the building footprint area, including building appurtenances, or a distance equal to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. The limits of existing fill and/or soft fill soils removal will be verified by the Geocon representative during site grading activities. 7.4.5 All excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Prior to placing any fill, the upper 12 inches of the excavation bottom must be scarified, moistened, and proof-rolled with heavy equipment in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). 7.4.6 All fill and backfill soils should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and properly compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557 (latest edition). 7.4.7. Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill be excavated and properly compacted for paving support. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). Paving recommendations are provided in Pavement Recommendations section of this report (see Section 7.12). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 16 - November 12, 2019 7.4.8 It is anticipated that stable excavations for the recommended grading can be achieved with sloping measures. However, if excavations in close proximity to an adjacent property line and/or structure are required, special excavation measures may be necessary in order to maintain lateral support of the existing offsite improvements. Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (Section 7.18). 7.4.9 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as block walls less than 6 feet high, planter walls or trash enclosures, which will not be tied to the proposed building, may be supported on conventional foundations deriving support on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and proper compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, foundations may derive support directly in the previously placed engineered fill found at or below a depth of 3 feet, and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12- inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft or loose, compaction of the soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. 7.4.10 Utility trenches should be properly backfilled in accordance with the requirements of the Green Book (latest edition). The pipe should be bedded with clean sands (Sand Equivalent greater than 30) to a depth of at least 1 foot over the pipe, and the bedding material must be inspected and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). The use of gravel is not acceptable unless used in conjunction with filter fabric to prevent the gravel from having direct contact with soil. The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from onsite soil or approved import soil, compacted as necessary, until the required compaction is obtained. The use of minimum 2-sack slurry is also acceptable. Prior to placing any bedding materials or pipes, the excavation bottom must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). 7.4.11 All imported fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by Geocon West, Inc. prior to bringing soil to the site. Rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter shall not be used in the fill. If necessary, import soils used as structural fill should have an expansion index less than 50 and corrosivity properties that are equally or less detrimental to that of the existing onsite soils (see Figure B26). Import soils must be placed uniformly and at equal thickness or in a manner that is approved by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 17 - November 12, 2019 7.4.12 All trench and foundation excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to placing bedding materials, fill, steel, gravel, or concrete. 7.5 Shrinkage 7.5.1 Shrinkage and bulkage results when a volume of material removed at one density is compacted to a higher or lower density. A shrinkage factor up to 15 percent should be anticipated when excavating and compacting the upper 6 feet of existing earth materials on the site to an average relative compaction of 92 percent. 7.4.2 If import soils will be utilized in the building pad, the soils must be placed uniformly and at equal thickness at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). Soils can be borrowed from non-building pad areas and later replaced with imported soils. 7.6 Slope Construction 7.6.1 Fill slopes comprised of on-site materials should be constructed at a gradient of 2:1 or flatter. Fill slopes should be overbuilt by at least 3 feet measured perpendicular to the slope face and trimmed back to the tight fill core. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 7.6.2 As an alternative, fill slope faces may be compacted by backrolling with a loaded sheepsfoot roller at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet, and should be track-walked at the completion of each slope such that the fill is compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density and near or slightly above optimum moisture content to the of the finished slope. 7.6.3 Preparation for the construction of proposed slopes should include removal of all vegetation and unsuitable soils. Where the slope ratio of the existing ground or temporary backcut is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or as recommended by the onsite representative of Geocon, it is recommended that the ground be cut or benched to create horizontal planes so that fill can be placed and compacted on horizontal surfaces (see Figure 5). If soils exposed along the backcut excavation consist of soft, unsuitable artificial fill, additional excavation will be required to complete remove the unsuitable soils prior to the placement of engineered fill. All backcut excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of engineered fill. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 18 - November 12, 2019 7.6.4 Cut slope excavations, including buttresses and shear keys, must be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon) during grading operations to check that soil and geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those expected. 7.6.5 It is recommended that a keyway be placed at the bottom of fill slopes, and should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 2 feet into competent fill, as measured on the downhill side. The keyway should be sloped at approximately 5 percent towards the heel of the keyway to a perforated 4-inch pipe surrounded with gravel and wrapped with filter fabric. The keyway drainage pipe should outlet away from the slope and to an acceptable drainage structure (See Figure 6). 7.6.6 All slopes should be planted, drained, and property maintained to reduce erosion. It is recommended that finished slopes be planted as soon after completion of grading as possible. Planting on the slope stabilizes the surface and reduces the potential for erosion. It is further suggested that a jute or mesh product be placed on the slope face prior to planting; however, the planting of the slope should be performed at the direction of a qualified landscaping consultant. 7.7 Foundation Setback 7.7.1 The Building Code requires that foundations be sufficiently setback from an ascending or descending slope. The required setback from a descending slope with a gradient steeper than 3:1 and gentler than 1:1 is ⅓ the height of the descending slope with a minimum of 5 feet and a maximum of 40 feet measured horizontally from the exterior face of the foundation to the slope face. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1, the slope setback shall be measured from an imaginary line projected at 45 degrees from the toe of the slope upwards. In lieu of relocating a structure to achieve the setback at the ground surface, foundations may be deepened as necessary to achieve the required setback. 7.7.2 The required setback from an ascending slope steeper than 3:1 and gentler than 1:1 is ½ the height of the ascending slope with a maximum of 15 feet measured horizontally from the structure to the toe of the slope. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1, the slope setback shall be measured from an imaginary line projected at 45 degrees from the top of the slope. 7.7.3 The required building setbacks should be understood and implemented into the orientation and location of the proposed structure by the project architect. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 19 - November 12, 2019 7.8 Conventional Foundation Design 7.8.1 Subsequent to the recommended grading, a conventional shallow spread foundation system may be utilized for support of the proposed structure provided foundations derive support in newly placed engineered fill. Foundations should be underlain by a minimum of three feet of newly placed engineered fill. 7.8.2 Continuous footings may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 1,900 pounds per square foot (psf), and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 30 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade, and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. 7.8.3 Isolated spread foundations may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,300 psf, and should be a minimum of 24 inches in width, 30 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade, and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. 7.8.4 The allowable soil bearing pressure above may be increased by 50 psf and 250 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. 7.8.5 The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.8.6 The maximum expected static settlement for a structure supported on a conventional foundation system deriving support in the newly placed engineered fill with a maximum bearing pressure of 3,000 psf is estimated to be less than 1 inch and occur below the heaviest loaded structural element. Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ⅔ inch over a distance of 20 feet. 7.8.7 If depth increases are utilized for the exterior wall footings, this office should be provided a copy of the final construction plans so that the excavation recommendations presented herein could be properly reviewed and revised if necessary. Additional grading should be conducted as-necessary in order to maintain the required minimum three-foot-thick engineered fill blanket beneath foundations. 7.8.8 Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. Reinforcement for spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 20 - November 12, 2019 7.8.9 The above foundation dimensions and minimum reinforcement recommendations are based on soil conditions and building code requirements only, and are not intended to be used in lieu of those required for structural purposes. 7.8.10 Due to the expansive potential of the subgrade soils, the moisture content in the slab and foundation subgrade should be maintained at 2 percent above optimum moisture content prior to and at the time of concrete placement. 7.8.11 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 7.8.12 Once the design and foundation loading configurations for the proposed structures proceeds to a more finalized plan, the estimated settlements presented in this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. If the final foundation loading configurations are greater than the assumed loading conditions, the potential for settlement should be reevaluated by this office. 7.8.13 This office should be provided a copy of the final construction plans so that the excavation recommendations presented herein could be properly reviewed and revised if necessary. 7.9 Miscellaneous Foundations 7.9.1 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as non-retaining block walls less than 6 feet in height, planter walls or trash enclosures which will not be tied to the proposed structure may be supported on conventional foundations bearing on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, such as adjacent to property lines, foundations may derive support in the previously placed fill, and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. Recommendations for the design and construction of miscellaneous foundations should be reevaluated once formal plans are available. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 21 - November 12, 2019 7.9.2 If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft, compaction of the soft soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. Miscellaneous foundations may be designed for a bearing value of 1,500 psf, and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 30 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.9.3 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. 7.10 Lateral Design 7.10.1 Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations, slabs and by passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be used with the dead load forces in the newly placed engineered fill. 7.10.2 Passive earth pressure for the sides of foundations and slabs poured against properly compacted engineered fill may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 160 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure of 1,600 psf. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third. 7.11 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 7.11.1 Concrete slabs-on-grade near the ground surface that are subject to vehicle loading should be designed in accordance with the recommendations in the Preliminary Pavement Recommendations section of this report (Section 7.12). 7.11.2 Subsequent to the recommended grading, concrete slab-on-grade, not subject to vehicle loading, should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed 16 inches on center in both horizontal directions. Steel reinforcing should be positioned vertically near the slab midpoint. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 22 - November 12, 2019 7.11.3 Slabs-on-grade at the ground surface that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder placed directly beneath the slab. The vapor retarder and acceptable permeance should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in Section 9.3 of the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06) and should be installed in general conformance with ASTM E 1643 (latest edition) and the manufacturer’s recommendations. A minimum thickness of 15 mils extruded polyolefin plastic is recommended; vapor retarders which contain recycled content or woven materials are not recommended. The vapor retarder should have a permeance of less than 0.01 perms demonstrated by testing before and after mandatory conditioning is recommended. The vapor retarder should be installed in direct contact with the concrete slab with proper perimeter seal. If the California Green Building Code requirements apply to this project, the vapor retarder should be underlain by 4 inches of clean aggregate. It is important that the vapor retarder be puncture resistant since it will be in direct contact with angular gravel. As an alternative to the clean aggregate suggested in the Green Building Code, it is our opinion that the concrete slab- on-grade may be underlain by a vapor retarder over 4 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30), since the sand will serve a capillary break and will minimize the potential for punctures and damage to the vapor barrier. 7.11.4 For seismic design purposes, a coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be utilized between concrete slabs and subgrade soils without a moisture barrier, and 0.15 for slabs underlain by a moisture barrier. 7.11.5 Exterior slabs for walkways or flatwork, not subject to traffic loads, should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions, positioned near the slab midpoint. Prior to construction of slabs, the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be moistened to 2 percent above optimum moisture content and properly compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals not greater than 10 feet and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical following concrete placement. Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness. The project structural engineer should design construction joints as necessary. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 23 - November 12, 2019 7.11.6 Due to the expansive potential of the anticipated subgrade soils, the moisture content of the slab subgrade should be maintained and sprinkled as necessary to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any concrete placement. Furthermore, consideration should be given to doweling slabs into adjacent curbs and foundations to minimize movements and offsets which could lead to a potential tripping hazard. As an alternative, the upper 18 inches of soil could be replaced with granular, non-expansive soils which will reduce the potential for movements and offsets. 7.11.7 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to settlement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to minor soil movement and/or concrete shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. 7.12 Pavement Recommendations 7.12.1 Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill and soft or unsuitable materials be excavated and properly recompacted for paving support. The client should be aware that excavation and compaction of all existing artificial fill and soft soils in the area of new paving is not required; however, paving constructed over existing unsuitable material may experience increased settlement and/or cracking, and may therefore have a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of paving subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and properly compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). 7.12.2 The following pavement sections are based on an assumed R-Value of 20. Once site grading activities are complete an R-Value should be obtained by laboratory testing to confirm the properties of the soils serving as paving subgrade, prior to placing pavement. 7.12.3 The Traffic Indices listed below are estimates. Geocon does not practice in the field of traffic engineering. The actual Traffic Index for each area should be determined by the project civil engineer. If pavement sections for Traffic Indices other than those listed below are required, Geocon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. Pavement thicknesses were determined following procedures outlined in the California Highway Design Manual (Caltrans). It is anticipated that the majority of traffic will consist of automobile and large truck traffic. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 24 - November 12, 2019 PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS Location Estimated Traffic Index (TI) Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base (inches) Automobile Parking And Driveways 4.0 4.0 4.0 Trash Truck & Fire Lanes 7.0 4.0 12.0 7.12.4 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform to Section 26-1.02A of the “Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation” (Caltrans). The use of Crushed Miscellaneous Base in lieu of Class 2 aggregate base is acceptable. Crushed Miscellaneous Base should conform to Section 200-2.4 of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (Green Book). 7.12.5 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent cracking, subsidence and pavement distress. If planters are planned adjacent to paving, it is recommended that the perimeter curb be extended at least 12 inches below the bottom of the aggregate base to minimize the introduction of water beneath the paving. 7.13 Retaining Wall Design 7.13.1 The recommendations presented below are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 10 feet. In the event that walls significantly higher than 10 feet are planned, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations. 7.13.2 Retaining wall foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Conventional Foundation Design sections of this report (see Section 7.8). 7.13.3 Retaining walls with a level backfill surface that are not restrained at the top should be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure) of 40 pcf. 7.13.4 Restrained walls are those that are not allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top and have a level backfill surface, walls may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (at-rest pressure) of 100 pcf. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 25 - November 12, 2019 7.13.5 Retaining walls with an ascending sloping backfill of up to 2:1 (H:V) and that are not restrained at the top should be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure) of 55 pcf. 7.13.6 The soil pressures above assume that the backfill material within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall will be comprised of the existing onsite soils. The onsite site soils exhibit a high expansive potential, and it is our opinion that the soils along the height of the wall could be subjected to cyclic wetting and drying subsequent to completion of construction especially where the walls are used in landscape areas. Select non-expansive backfill should be considered if reduced retaining wall pressures are desired. 7.13.7 The wall pressures provided above assume that the retaining wall will be properly drained preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. If retaining wall drainage is not implemented, the equivalent fluid pressure to be used in design of undrained walls is 105 pcf. The value includes hydrostatic pressures plus buoyant lateral earth pressures. 7.13.8 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses. Once the design becomes more finalized, an addendum letter can be prepared revising recommendations and addressing specific surcharge conditions throughout the project, if necessary. 7.13.9 In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper ten feet of the subterranean wall adjacent to the street and parking lot should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least ten feet from the subterranean walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. 7.13.10 Seismic lateral forces should be incorporated into the design as necessary, and recommendations for seismic lateral forces are presented below. 7.14 Dynamic (Seismic) Lateral Forces 7.14.1 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in accordance with Section 1613 of the CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design category of D, E, or F, proposed retaining walls in excess of 6 feet in height should be designed with seismic lateral pressure (Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 26 - November 12, 2019 7.14.2 A seismic load of 10 pcf should be used for design of walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC. The seismic load is applied as an equivalent fluid pressure along the height of the wall and the calculated loads result in a maximum load exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. This seismic load should be applied in addition to the active earth pressure. The earth pressure is based on half of two-thirds of PGAM calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3. 7.15 Retaining Wall Drainage 7.15.1 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system. At the base of the drain system, a subdrain covered with a minimum of 12 inches of gravel should be installed, and a compacted fill blanket or other seal placed at the surface (see Figure 7). The clean bottom and subdrain pipe, behind a retaining wall, should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to placement of gravel or compacting backfill. 7.15.2 As an alternative, a plastic drainage composite such as Miradrain or equivalent may be installed in continuous, 4-foot wide columns along the entire back face of the wall, at 8 feet on center. The top of these drainage composite columns should terminate approximately 18 inches below the ground surface, where either hardscape or a minimum of 18 inches of relatively cohesive material should be placed as a cap (see Figure 8). These vertical columns of drainage material would then be connected at the bottom of the wall to a collection panel or a 1-cubic-foot rock pocket drained by a 4-inch subdrain pipe. 7.15.3 Subdrainage pipes at the base of the retaining wall drainage system should outlet to an acceptable location via controlled drainage structures. Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over descending slopes. 7.15.4 Moisture affecting below grade walls is one of the most common post-construction complaints. Poorly applied or omitted waterproofing can lead to efflorescence or standing water. Particular care should be taken in the design and installation of waterproofing to avoid moisture problems, or actual water seepage into the structure through any normal shrinkage cracks which may develop in the concrete walls, floor slab, foundations and/or construction joints. The design and inspection of the waterproofing is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. A waterproofing consultant should be retained in order to recommend a product or method, which would provide protection to subterranean walls, floor slabs and foundations. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 27 - November 12, 2019 7.16 Elevator Pit Design 7.16.1 The elevator pit slab and retaining wall should be designed by the project structural engineer. As a minimum the slab-on-grade for the elevator pit bottom should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed 16 inches on center in both horizontal directions, positioned near the slab midpoint. The elevator pit foundations and walls may derive support in either newly placed engineered fill or the previously placed fill found at and below a depth of 6 feet. Elevator pit walls may be designed in accordance with the recommendations in the Retaining Wall Design section of this report (see Section 7.13). 7.16.2 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent foundations and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses. 7.16.3 If retaining wall drainage is to be provided, the drainage system should be designed in accordance with the Retaining Wall Drainage section of this report (see Section 7.15). 7.16.4 It is suggested that the exterior walls and slab be waterproofed to prevent excessive moisture inside of the elevator pit. Waterproofing design and installation is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. 7.17 Elevator Piston 7.17.1 If a plunger-type elevator piston is installed for this project, a deep drilled excavation will be required. It is important to verify that the drilled excavation is not situated immediately adjacent to a foundation, or the drilled excavation could compromise the existing foundation support, especially if the drilling is performed subsequent to the foundation construction. 7.17.2 The contractor should be aware that difficult drilling conditions could be encountered in the bedrock, which could require coring and jack-hammering. The contractor should be prepared for these conditions prior to commencement of any drilling activities. 7.17.3 Casing may be required if caving is expected in the drilled excavation and the contractor should be prepared to use casing and should have it readily available at the commencement of drilling activities. Continuous observation of the drilling and installation of the elevator piston by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.) is required. 7.17.4 The annular space between the piston casing and drilled excavation wall should be filled with a minimum of 1½-sack slurry pumped from the bottom up. As an alternative, pea gravel may be utilized. The use of soil to backfill the annular space is not acceptable. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 28 - November 12, 2019 7.18 Temporary Excavations 7.18.1 Excavations up to 10 feet in vertical height are anticipated during construction. The excavations are expected to expose previously placed artificial fill, which may be suitable for vertical excavations up to 5 feet where loose soils or caving sands are not present, and where not surcharged by adjacent foundations or other surcharge loads. 7.18.2 Vertical excavations greater than 5 feet will require sloping or shoring measures in order to provide a stable excavation. It is anticipated that stable excavations for construction of the proposed improvements can be achieved and maintained with sloping measures. Where sufficient space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments could be sloped back at a uniform 1:1 slope gradient or flatter up to a maximum height of 15 feet. A uniform slope does not have a vertical portion. 7.18.3 Where sloped embankments are utilized, the top of the slope should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the slope. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Geocon personnel should inspect the soils exposed in the cut slopes during excavation so that modifications of the slopes can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation. 7.19 Surface Drainage 7.19.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the foundation supporting soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the original designed engineering properties. Proper drainage in building areas should be maintained at all times. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 29 - November 12, 2019 7.19.2 All site drainage should be collected and controlled in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, drainage s hould not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope. Discharge from downspouts, roof drains and scuppers are not recommended onto unprotected soils within five feet of the building perimeter. Planters which are located adjacent to foundations should be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the soils providing foundation support. Landscape irrigation is not recommended within five feet of the building perimeter footings except when enclosed in protected planters. 7.19.3 Positive site drainage should be provided away from structures, pavement, and the tops of slopes to swales or other controlled drainage structures. The pavement areas should be fine graded such that water is not allowed to pond. 7.19.4 Landscaping planters immediately adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Either a subdrain, which collects excess irrigation water and transmits it to drainage structures, or an impervious above-grade planter box should be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be given to providing a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 12 inches below the base material. 7.20 Plan Review 7.20.1 Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to finalization to verify that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations of this report and to provide additional analyses or recommendations. Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon West, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon West, Inc. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. 4. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 LIST OF REFERENCES 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 Zone Maps, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, interim revision. California Department of Water Resources, 2019, Groundwater Level Data by Township, Range, and Section, Web Site Address: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/ hydrographs/index_trs.cfm. California Department of Water Resources, 2019, California Dam Breach Inundation Maps, Web Site Address: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998; State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Orange Quadrangle, Official Map, Released: April 15, 1998. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997 (Revised 2001), Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 011. California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, 2016. Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Well Finder, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov.doggr/index.html#close. Accessed October 29, 2019. California Geological Survey, 2019a, CGS Information Warehouse, Regulatory Map Portal, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. California Geological Survey, 2019b, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. California Geological Survey, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018. City of Anaheim, May 2004, Safety Element of the General Plan. FEMA, 2019, Online Flood Hazard Maps, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor. Jennings, C. W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6. Morton, P. K., Miller, Russell V., 1973, Geologic Map of Orange County California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. Morton, D. M., 1999, compiler, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-172, scale 1:100,000. Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 LIST OF REFERENCES (Continued) Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., and Reichle, M., 2000, Epicenters and Areas Damaged by M> 5 California Earthquakes, 1800 – 1999, California Geological Survey, Map Sheet 49. U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps Web Application, 2016, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php Ziony, J. I., and Jones, L. M., 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978–1984 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1964. FIG. 1 U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES, ORANGE, CA QUADRANGLE PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 VICINITY MAP 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA SITE SECTION A-A'(NO SCALE)SECTION B-B'(NO SCALE)PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 FIG. 2SITE PLAN 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA 0 10 0 ' 20 0 ' NOVEMBER 2019 B1 B2 B4 B3 B5 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-455015520 ROCKFIEL D BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS C H E C K E D B Y : J T A LE G E N D Ap p r o x i m a t e L o c a t i o n o f B o r i n g B5 BA S E M E N T L E V E L EX T E N T O F SI T E PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 0 12 24 Mi l e s Re f e r e n c e : J e n n i n g s , C . W . a n d B r y a n t , W . A . , 2 0 1 0 , F a u l t A c t i v i t y M a p o f C a l i f o r n i a , C a l i f o r n i a G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y G e o l o g i c D a t a M a p N o . 6 . REGIONAL FAULT MAP FIG. 3 PH O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 4 9 1 - 6 5 7 0 - F A X ( 9 4 9 ) 2 9 9 - 4 5 5 0 15 5 2 0 R O C K F I E L D B L V D . - S U I T E J - I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 EN V I R O N M E N T A L G E O T E C H N I C A L M A T E R I A L S DR A F T E D B Y : J S C H E C K E D B Y : G K 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 SI T E PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01REGIONAL SEISMICITY MAP FIG.4 0 20 40 Mi l e s Re f e r e n c e : T o p p o z a d a , T . , B r a n u m , D. , P e t e r s e n , M . , H a l l s t r o m , C . , C r am e r , C . , a n d R e i c h l e , M . , 2 0 0 0 , Ep i c e n t e r s a n d A r e a s D a m a g e d b y M > 5 C a l i f or n i a E a r t h q u a k e s , 1 8 0 0 - 1 9 9 9 , C a l i f o r n i a Ge o l o g i c a l S u r v e y , M a p S h e e t 4 9 . 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 PH O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 4 9 1 - 6 5 7 0 - F A X ( 9 4 9 ) 2 9 9 - 4 5 5 0 15 5 2 0 R O C K F I E L D B L V D . - S U I T E J - I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 EN V I R O N M E N T A L G E O T E C H N I C A L M A T E R I A L S DR A F T E D B Y : J S C H E C K E D B Y : G K BENCHED EXCAVATION DETAIL FIG. 5 STRIP AS SPECIFIED VARIES "B" DETAIL NOTES: (1) permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2)The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into competent material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA SEE NOTE 2 ORIGINAL GROUND FINISH GRADE 2 1 SLOPE TO BE SUCH THAT SLOUGHING OR SLIDING DOES NOT OCCUR REMOVE ALL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL ASRECOMMENDED BY SOIL ENGINEER SEE NOTE 1 COMPETENT MATERIAL STABILITY / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL FIG. 6 10' MIN. 2" MIN. 1.5'MIN. 1.5' MIN. 15' MIN. NOTE 2 1 EXCAVATE BENCHED BACKCUT AT 1:1 INCLINATION 2 BASE OF BUTTRESS TO BE 3 FEET BELOW PAD GRADE, OR A MAXIMUM 3 BUTTRESS FILL TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPERLY COMPACTED ENGINEERED FILL 4 WHERE SEEPAGE IS ENCOUNTERED IN BACKCUT OR SLOPE HEIGHT EXCEEDS 15 FEET, CHIMNEYDRAINS ARE RECOMMENDED, CHIMNEY DRAINS TO BE APPROVED, PREFABRICATED DRAINS ARE OF 15 FEET BELOW PAD GRADE SLOPING A MINIMUM 5% INTO SLOPE CHIMNEY DRAIN PANELS (MIRIDRAIN 5000 OR EQUIVALENT) SPACED APPROXIMATELY 20 FEETCENTER TO CENTER AND 4 FEET WIDE 5 FILTER MATERIAL TO BE 1-INCH, OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC 6 COLLECTOR PIPE TO BE 4-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PERFORATED, THICK-WALLED PVC SCHEDULE 40 OREQUIVALENT, AND SLOPED TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM TO APPROVED OUTLET NOTES 5 FEET PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA FINISHED GRADE 2 1 FINISHED GRADE DETAIL NOTE 5 1 1 NOTE 4 NOTE 6 5% Min. NOTE 1 NOTE 4 SEE DETAIL FINISHED SLOPE STABILITY FILL (N OTE 3) ENGINEERED FILL COMPETENT MATERIAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE 4" DIA. PERFORATED ABS OR ADS PIPE - EXTEND TO RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM WATERPROOF WALL PROPERLY COMPACTED BACKFILL GROUND SURFACE NO SCALE FOUNDATION FIG. 7PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL RETAINING WALL NO SCALE FOUNDATION PROPERLY COMPACTED BACKFILL GROUND SURFACE 18" WATER PROOFING BY ARCHITECT DRAINAGE PANEL (J-DRAIN 1000 OR EQUIVALENT) 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET (1 CU. FT./FT.) FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT FIG. 8PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2019 APPENDIX A Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The site was explored on October 10, 2019, by excavating five 8-inch diameter borings using a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling machine to depths of approximately 20½ to 41½ feet below the ground surface. Representative and relatively undisturbed samples from the boring drilled with a hollow-stem auger drilling machine were obtained by driving a 3-inch, O. D., California Modified Sampler into the “undisturbed” soil mass with blows from a 140-pound auto-hammer falling 30 inches. The California Modified Sampler was equipped with 1-inch high by 23/8-inch diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate soil removal and testing. Standard penetration tests were also performed and bulk samples collected. The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the borings are presented on Figures A1 through A5. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The logs also include our interpretation of the conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and interpreted data. We determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs using visual observations, penetration rates, excavation characteristics and other factors. The transition between materials may be abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the logs were revised based on subsequent laboratory testing. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. 14.6 23.2 22.9 27.0 BULK 0-5' B1@2.5' B1@5' B1@7.5' B1@10' B1@12.5' B1@15' B1@20' B1@25' ARTIFICIAL FILL Clay, stiff, slightly moist, brown, roots. Silty Clay, firm, moist, olive brown, some oxidation. - dark olive gray - soft - firm FERNANDO FORMATION Siltstone, olive, soft, slightly weathered. 23 23 15 13 20 12 17 43 107.7 100.4 99.1 98.7 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 1 497 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A1, Log of Boring 1, Page 1 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 28.9 26.8 B1@30' B1@35' Total depth of boring: 35.5 feet Fill to 22 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with grout. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 75 50 (6") 97.5 96.3 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 30 32 34 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 1 497 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A1, Log of Boring 1, Page 2 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 22.6 22.5 25.7 26.0 24.7 22.1 BULK 0-5' B2@2.5' B2@5' B2@7.5' B2@10' B2@15' B2@20' AC: 8" BASE: 8" ARTIFICIAL FILL Clay, stiff, moist, olive gray, trace fine-grained sand. Silty Clay, stiff, olive gray with some oxidation, minimal recovery. FERNANDO FORMATION Clayey Siltstone, olive brown, soft, slightly weathered. - gray brown Total depth of boring: 20.5 feet Fill to 6.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 22 28 26 36 42 48 105.7 67.1 100.9 99.8 101.0 104.8 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 2 495 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A2, Log of Boring 2, Page 1 of 1 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 25.2 20.0 21.1 20.6 12.9 18.0 24.4 BULK 0-5' B3@2.5' B3@5' B3@7.5' B3@10' B3@12.5' B3@15' B3@20' AC: 8" BASE: 11" ARTIFICIAL FILL Silty Clay, firm, moist, mottled grayish/olive brown. Clay, firm, moist, mottled, dark brown/black. FERNANDO FORMATION Sandy Siltstone, olive brown, soft, moderately weathered, some oxidation. Siltstone, gray brown, soft, slightly weathered. Total depth of boring: 20.5 feet Fill to 6.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 18 21 50 34 73 81 45 97.7 107.0 95.4 105.2 117.7 114.0 100.6 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 3 490 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A3, Log of Boring 3, Page 1 of 1 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 6.7 13.9 0.5 26.9 25.5 27.1 20.9 25.7 BULK 0-5' B4@2.5' B4@5' B4@7.5' B4@10' B4@12.5' B4@15' B4@20' B4@25' AC: 4" BASE: 9" ARTIFICIAL FILL Sand, medium dense, slightly moist, yellowish brown, coarse-grained. Sand/Clayey Sand, loose, moist, yellowish brown with grayish brown mottles, coarse-grained. Sand, loose, moist to wet, brown, coarse-grained. Silty Clay, soft, moist, dark grayish brown. FERNANDO FORMATION Siltstone, gray brown, soft, slightly weathered. - gray Sandy Siltstone, mottled yellow brown gray. Siltstone, gray. Total depth of boring: 25.5 feet. Fill to 11.5 feet. Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 77 12 18 10 12 35 55 43 110.7 110.4 130.8 93.5 98.0 98.1 104.1 100.3 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 4 491 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A4, Log of Boring 4, Page 1 of 1 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 23.2 21.5 23.1 26.3 24.4 19.7 19.9 27.7 BULK 0-5' B5@2.5' B5@5' B5@7.5' B5@10' B5@12.5' B5@15' B5@20' B5@25' AC: 4" BASE: 9" ARTIFICIAL FILL Clay, stiff, moist, dark gray, some roots. Clay, firm, moist, dark brown with grayish brown mottles, some sand. Silty Clay, firm, moist, grayish brown to dark brown. Clay, firm, moist, very dark brown with gray mottles. - very dark gray, trace calcite stringers Silty Clay, stiff, moist, dark brown, some oxidation, some bedrock fragments. 22 16 12 15 21 23 22 27 104.1 101.5 100.6 101.6 101.0 107.8 107.6 96.5 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 5 484 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A5, Log of Boring 5, Page 1 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 28.5 31.7 23.5 B5@30' B5@35' B5@40' - firm COLLUVIUM Silty Clay, firm, moist, mottled gray brown to very dark gray with scattered organics. Total depth of boring: 40.5 feet Fill to 38 feet. Backfilled with grout. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 15 19 19 94.9 86.2 90.2 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 30 32 34 36 38 40 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 5 484 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A5, Log of Boring 5, Page 2 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 APPENDIX B Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 November 12, 2019 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the International ASTM, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for consolidation characteristics, corrosivity, direct shear, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, and the soil expansive index. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Figures B1 through B26. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs, Appendix A. Project No.: W1076-88-01 20.9 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaConsolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 Checked by: JS 23.8 November 2019 Figure B1 Ultimate 187 25.7 Final Moisture Content (%) 26.2 41.7 42.0 Peak 231 25.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 42.4 Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 108.0 108.0 108.0 Brown Clay (CL)Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375 Initial Moisture Content (%) 8.8 8.7 8.7 Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.05 Depth (ft) 0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.66 1.65 2.58 Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 2.58 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5 Sample No. B1@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.70 1.66 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 12.6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaConsolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 Checked by: JS 12.8 November 2019 Figure B2 Ultimate 60 35.5 Final Moisture Content (%) 12.6 47.0 48.7 Peak 381 34.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 46.8 Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 119.0 119.0 119.0 Yellowish Brown Sand with Clay (SC)Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375 Initial Moisture Content (%) 7.2 7.3 7.5 Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.05 Depth (ft) 0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.78 2.19 3.64 Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 3.78 Boring No. B4 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5 Sample No. B4@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.04 2.47 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 2.15 Boring No. B5 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5 Sample No. B5@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.67 1.43 0.05 Depth (ft) 0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.63 1.40 2.15 Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dark Brown Clay (CL) Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375 Initial Moisture Content (%) 9.6 9.7 9.6 Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 109.0 109.0 109.0 48.1 47.3 Peak 308 20.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 47.6 Ultimate 258 20.7 Final Moisture Content (%) 27.4 23.6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaConsolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 Checked by: JS 24.8 November 2019 Figure B3 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B4 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@7.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Olive Brown Clay (CL)99.4 24.2 24.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B5 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@12.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Olive Gray Clay (CL)109.0 19.2 20.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@15 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Olive Gray Clay (CL)95.0 26.6 26.8 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B7 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@20 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Olive Gray Clay (CL)98.1 24.5 24.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B2@5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Olive Gray Silty Clay (CL)94.0 22.5 25.7 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B9 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B4@5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Yellowish Brown Clayey Sand (SC)113.1 13.9 15.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B10 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B4@7.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Brown Sand (SP) 116.2 0.5 14.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B11 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B4@10 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Brown Silty Clay (CL) 94.4 26.9 26.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@7.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Grayish Brown Silty Clay (CL)101.8 23.1 23.8 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B13 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@12.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Very Dark Brown Clay (CL)100.9 24.4 25.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@20 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Very Dark Gray Clay (CL)108.8 19.9 21.2 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@25 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Brown Silty Clay (CL)93.9 27.7 29.4 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B16 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@30 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Brown Silty Clay (CL)92.2 28.5 29.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B17 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@35 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Brown Silty Clay (CL)90.1 31.7 31.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 November 2019 Figure B18 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@40 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Very Dark Gray Silty Clay (CL)99.9 23.5 24.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B1@0-5 Brown Clay (CL) Dry Density 119.9 117.5 120.0 117.1 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)120.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%)8.5 Wet Density 131.1 131.0 128.9 123.5 Moisture Content 9.4 11.5 7.4 5.5 Weight of Container 378.8 377.4 377.7 378.5 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 923.3 950.6 1034.8 848.3 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 974.3 1016.6 1083.4 874.0 Net Weight of Soil 1980 1979 1947 1866 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6276 6275 6243 6162 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B19 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B2@0-5 Olive Gray Clay (CL) Dry Density 114.4 117.4 119.1 116.2 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)119.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%)12.6 Wet Density 132.5 134.3 133.9 127.8 Moisture Content 15.9 14.4 12.4 10.0 Weight of Container 378.0 410.0 378.0 378.0 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 2106.0 2183.0 2177.5 2133.0 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 2380.0 2438.0 2400.0 2308.0 Net Weight of Soil 2002 2028 2022 1930 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6298 6324 6318 6226 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B20 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B21 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6302 6288 6288 6202 TEST NO. 1234 Net Weight of Soil 2006 1992 1992 1906 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 2149.0 2071.0 2142.0 2097.0 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 2416.0 2366.0 2370.0 2282.0 Moisture Content 15.4 17.4 12.9 10.8 Weight of Container 410.0 378.0 378.0 378.0 Wet Density 132.8 131.9 131.9 126.2 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)117.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%)13.5 B3@0-5 Olive Gray Silty Clay (CL) Dry Density 115.1 112.3 116.8 113.9 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B4@0-5 Yellowihs Brown Sand with Clay (SC) Dry Density 130.9 131.8 127.4 126.5 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)132.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%)7.5 Wet Density 138.4 142.1 139.3 130.7 Moisture Content 5.8 7.8 9.3 3.3 Weight of Container 378.3 409.6 378.3 378.7 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 849.6 914.8 873.2 876.7 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 876.7 954.1 919.3 893.0 Net Weight of Soil 2091 2146 2104 1974 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6387 6442 6400 6270 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B22 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B5@0-5 Dark Brown Clay (CL) Dry Density 119.0 113.4 121.3 117.3 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)121.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%)9.5 Wet Density 132.4 128.7 132.5 125.9 Moisture Content 11.3 13.5 9.2 7.3 Weight of Container 97.0 106.5 96.4 95.1 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 571.8 495.2 628.9 649.6 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 625.5 547.6 678.1 690.2 Net Weight of Soil 2000 1944 2001 1901 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6296 6240 6297 6197 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 November 2019 Figure B23 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Project No.: W1076-88-01 56.9 Specimen Diameter Date Time Non-Expansive Expansive Very Low Low Expansion Index, EI50 CBC CLASSIFICATION * UBC CLASSIFICATION ** 130.6 122.0 0.4 0.3 57.1 (%) (pcf) (pcf) (cc) (gm) (gm) B4@0-5' 1.0 0 10 0.276 0.2755 Expansion Index ( Report ) = Expansion Index (EI meas) =-1 0 1490 0.274510/26/2019 11:00 1.0 14301.0 Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time (min) Dial Readings (in.) 486.5 466.8 186.5 7.0 (gm) 121.9 0.4 0.3 MOLDED SPECIMEN BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST 4.0 1.0 800.6 367.7 2.7 (in.) (in.) (gm) (gm) (Assumed) 4.0 Specimen Height Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold Wt. of Mold Specific Gravity Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. Wt. of Container 91-130 >130 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D-4829 * Reference: 2016 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3 ** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18-I-B. Checked by: JS Medium High Very High Expansive Expansive Expansive November 2019 Figure B24 Moisture Content Wet Density Dry Density Void Ratio Total Porosity Pore Volume 51-90 0-20 21-50 Degree of Saturation 813.2 404.6 367.7 10.1 134.2 1.0 813.2 367.7 2.7 0.274510:0010/26/2019 71.850.0(%) [Smeas] Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10:00 10:10 1.0 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. Project No.: W1076-88-01 103.2 Specimen Diameter Date Time Non-Expansive Expansive Very Low Low Expansion Index, EI50 CBC CLASSIFICATION * UBC CLASSIFICATION ** 115.3 102.9 0.6 0.4 80.7 (%) (pcf) (pcf) (cc) (gm) (gm) B5@0-5' 1.0 0 10 0.319 0.3185 Expansion Index ( Report ) = Expansion Index (EI meas) =109 109 1490 0.427510/26/2019 11:00 1.0 14301.0 Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time (min) Dial Readings (in.) 486.6 454.4 186.6 12.0 (gm) 102.8 0.8 0.4 MOLDED SPECIMEN BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST 4.0 1.0 750.4 368.3 2.7 (in.) (in.) (gm) (gm) (Assumed) 4.0 Specimen Height Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold Wt. of Mold Specific Gravity Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. Wt. of Container 91-130 >130 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D-4829 * Reference: 2016 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3 ** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18-I-B. Checked by: JS Medium High Very High Expansive Expansive Expansive November 2019 Figure B25 Moisture Content Wet Density Dry Density Void Ratio Total Porosity Pore Volume 51-90 0-20 21-50 Degree of Saturation 812.4 341.1 368.3 30.2 133.8 1.1 812.4 368.3 2.7 0.427510:0010/26/2019 99.851.2(%) [Smeas] Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10:00 10:10 1.0 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. Project No.: W1076-88-01 Checked by: JS CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California November 2019 Figure B26 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (pH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643 Sample No. B1 @ 0-5 B4 @ 0-5 pH 8.0 8.8 Resistivity (ohm centimeters) 340 (Severely Corrosive) 5600 (Moderately Corrosive) B5@0-5' 0.591 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CHLORIDE CONTENT TEST RESULTS EPA NO. 325.3 B1@0-5' B4@0-5' B5@0-5' B1@0-5' 0.052 S0 B4@0-5' 0.000 S0 S2 7.9 560 (Severely Corrosive) Sample No. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No.Water Soluble Sulfate (% SQ4)Sulfate Exposure* B5 @ 0-5 Chloride Ion Content (%) 0.087 0.011 0.021 APPENDIX J: CIVIL PLANNING SUBMISSION PLANS APPENDIX K: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA TRACT: 5674, LOT 51 PREPARED FOR ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 REVISED OCTOBER 23, 2020 11/18/2020 02:54:56 PM #[OTH2020-01296] 0002 Project No. W1076-88-01 Revised October 23, 2020 Alliance Realty Partners, LLC 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 550 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Ron Schulman Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA TRACT: 05674; LOT: 51 Dear Mr. Schulman: In accordance with your authorization of our proposal dated September 5, 2019, we have prepared this geotechnical investigation report for the proposed assisted living and memory care facility located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, in the City of Anaheim, California. The accompanying report presents the findings of our study and our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of proposed design and construction. Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are followed and implemented during design and construction. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GEOCON WEST, INC. John Stapleton Staff Engineer Jelisa Thomas Adams GE 3092 Jamie Fink CEG 2636 (EMAIL) Addressee TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 1 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2 3. GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................... 3 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 3 4.1 Artificial Fill .......................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Colluvium .............................................................................................................................. 4 4.3 Fernando Formation (Tfl) ...................................................................................................... 4 5. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................... 4 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................. 4 6.1 Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................................................ 4 6.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 5 6.3 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 7 6.4 Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................................ 9 6.5 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................ 9 6.6 Earthquake-Induced Flooding .............................................................................................. 10 6.7 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding ......................................................................................... 10 6.8 Oil Fields & Methane Potential ........................................................................................... 10 6.9 Subsidence ........................................................................................................................... 11 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 12 7.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 12 7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ..................................................................................... 14 7.3 Minimum Resistivity, pH, and Water-Soluble Sulfate ........................................................ 14 7.4 Grading ................................................................................................................................ 15 7.5 Shrinkage ............................................................................................................................. 18 7.6 Foundation Setback .............................................................................................................. 18 7.7 Conventional Foundation Design ........................................................................................ 19 7.8 Miscellaneous Foundations .................................................................................................. 20 7.9 Lateral Design ...................................................................................................................... 21 7.10 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................................................................... 21 7.11 Pavement Recommendations ............................................................................................... 23 7.12 Retaining Wall Design ......................................................................................................... 24 7.13 Dynamic (Seismic) Lateral Forces ....................................................................................... 26 7.14 Retaining Wall Drainage ...................................................................................................... 26 7.15 Elevator Pit Design .............................................................................................................. 27 7.16 Elevator Piston ..................................................................................................................... 27 7.17 Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................................... 28 7.18 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................................. 29 7.19 Plan Review ......................................................................................................................... 29 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS LIST OF REFERENCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) MAPS, TABLES, AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Site Plan Figures 2A and 2B, Cross Sections Figure 3, Regional Fault Map Figure 4, Regional Seismicity Map Figures 5 and 6, Retaining Wall Drainage APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A1 through A5, Boring Logs APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Figures B1 through B3, Direct Shear Test Results Figures B9 through B18, Consolidation Test Results Figures B19 through B23, Modified Compaction Test of Soils Figures B24 and B25, Expansion Index Test Results Figure B26, Corrosivity Test Results APPENDIX C RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW LETTER Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 1 - Revised October 23, 2020 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed assisted living and memory care facility located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road in the City of Anaheim, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions underlying the site, based on conditions encountered, to provide conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of design and construction. The scope of this investigation included a review of a 1977 Grading Plan provided to us, a site reconnaissance, field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and the preparation of this report. The site was explored on October 10, 2019, by excavating five 8-inch diameter borings using a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling machine to depths of approximately 20½ to 41½feet below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are depicted on the Site Plan (see Figure 2). A detailed discussion of the field investigation, including logs of the borings, is presented in Appendix A. The 1977 Grading Plan from construction of the current development was provided to us for review. The plan depicts the proposed elevations, which we have assumed to also be the current site elevations. The ground surface elevations indicated on the boring logs in Appendix A are based on the information depicted on this plan; Geocon has not verified the accuracy of this information. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to determine pertinent physical and chemical soil properties. Appendix B presents a summary of the laboratory test results. This report has been revised based on review comments from the City of Anaheim. A separate letter was prepared as a response to those review comments, and a copy is included herein as Appendix C. The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the investigation, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. References reviewed to prepare this report are provided in the List of References section. If project details vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 2 - Revised October 23, 2020 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road in the City of Anaheim, California. The site is currently occupied by an existing single-story structure, which will be demolished in order to facilitate construction of the proposed two- and three-story, 118-unit residential facility. The property is currently accessed by a driveway off Nohl Ranch Road and also a driveway that ascends from Royal Oak Road and feeds into a parking lot that bounds the north and west sides of the property. Fill slopes on the property range from approximately 5 to 15-feet high and have approximate slope ratios of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Additional description of the existing slopes is proved in Section 6.5 herein. Surface water drainage at the site appears to be by sheet flow along the existing ground contours to the city streets. Based on information provided to us and a review of a conceptual plan by Shelter Architects, we understand that proposed development will consist of a two-story, 118-unit residential facility with an approximate 6,000 square foot basement to be located in the northeast portion of the facility (see Site Plan, Figure 2). The majority of the new construction will be at or near present grades, with the exception of the basement level in the northeast portion of the site. Several relatively low retaining walls are planned along the northern property boundary in order to facilitate the grade changes needed to extend the proposed parking area northward and over the currently existing 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) descending graded slope. Other site improvements will include surface parking. The proposed development is depicted on the Site Plan (see Figure 2) and Cross Sections (see Figures 2A and 2B) Along the north property line, a proposed retaining wall up to 9½ feet in height and approximately 230 feet in length will be constructed along the property line from the northeast property corner and continuing west into the property. The wall will be backfill with a slope inclined at a 2:1 gradient (see Section B-B’). At the western terminus of the wall, the existing grade will be lowered to a slope inclined with a gradient of approximately 3:1 and a length of approximately 95 feet (see Section A-A’). Along the east property line, several retaining walls (up to 12½ feet in height) are proposed but will be setback from the property line and no significant slopes are planned (see Sections C-C’ and D-D’). Along the south property line, the proposed grade will approximately follow the existing grade of East Nohl Ranch Road with no significant slopes or retaining walls planned. Along the west property line, the existing retaining wall and slope will be protected in place. The design of the foundation supporting the proposed property line retaining wall along the northern property line wall will require coordination with the engineer in responsible charge of the wall design. Given that the project is currently going through entitlements, as a condition of project approval we will prepare and submit additional geotechnical recommendations regarding the property line retaining wall foundation design prior to any issuance of a building permit. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 3 - Revised October 23, 2020 Based on preliminary input from the project Structural Engineer, it is anticipated that column loads for the proposed on-grade two-story structure will be up to 60 kips and wall loads will be up to 3.5 kips per linear foot (dead plus live loads). For the portion of the structure with the proposed subterranean level, column loads are anticipated to be up to 80 kips and wall loads are anticipated to be up to 4.5 kips per linear foot (dead plus live loads). Once the design phase and foundation loading configuration proceeds to a more finalized plan, the recommendations within this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Any changes in the design, location or elevation of any structure, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report 3. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province and is situated within the local Peralta Hills. The Peralta Hills consist of Tertiary sedimentary bedrock that is part of the southern flank of a westerly plunging syncline. The bedrock underlying the site is classified as Pliocene age Fernando Formation which consists generally of thick-bedded, yellow-brown to green-gray, marine sandstone and siltstone. The unit also includes beds of cobble to boulder size conglomerates. The general geologic structure in the vicinity of the site, and within the southern flank of the syncline, consists of north/northeast strikes with dips ranging from 15 to 48 degrees to the west/northwest. Based on a review of aerial photographs between 1963 and 1966, see References), prior to development of the site a north/northeast trending drainage bisected the site. Geotechnical documentation of the original site grading was not available in the city online records. 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Based on our field investigation and published geologic maps of the area, the site is underlain by artificial fill placed during original site grading, and Pliocene age bedrock. Detailed stratigraphic profiles of the materials encountered at the site are provided on the boring logs in Appendix A. 4.1 Artificial Fill Artificial fill was generally encountered in our borings to depths ranging from 6.5 to approximately 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs, it appears that the drainage that previously dissected the site was infilled with up to 50 feet of fill. Geotechnical documentation of the fill placement was not available in online city records. The artificial fill generally consists of moist, firm to stiff, brown to dark brown to mottled gray olive brown to olive gray silty clay and clay. The fill is the result of past grading and construction activities at the site. Deeper fill may exist between excavations and in other portions of the site that were not directly explored. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 4 - Revised October 23, 2020 4.2 Colluvium Colluvium was encountered in boring B-5 at the bottom of the drive sample taken at 40-feet below existing grades. Boring B-5 was drilled within the deeper portion of the north/northeast trending drainage that transects the existing building location. While the colluvium was only viewable in the bottom of the 6-inch sample, it was observed to consist generally of moist, firm, mottled gray brown to very dark gray silty clay with scattered organics. 4.3 Fernando Formation (Tfl) Pliocene age bedrock was encountered beneath the artificial fill in all borings but B-5. The bedrock encountered consists primarily of soft, yellow brown to gray to olive to olive brown clayey siltstone. 5. GROUNDWATER Review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange Quadrangle (California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG], Revised 2001) indicates the site is not located within a known groundwater basin. Groundwater information presented in this document is generated from data collected in the early 1900’s to the late 1990s. Groundwater was not encountered in our borings which were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 41½ feet below existing ground surface. Based on the lack of groundwater in our borings, groundwater is neither expected to be encountered during construction, nor have a detrimental effect on the project. However, it is not uncommon for groundwater levels to vary seasonally or for groundwater seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed, especially in impermeable fine-grained soils which are heavily irrigated or after seasonal rainfall. Proper surface drainage of irrigation and precipitation will be critical for future performance of the project. Recommendations for drainage are provided in the Surface Drainage section of this report (see Section 7.18). 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.1 Surface Fault Rupture The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as CDMG) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program (CGS, 2018). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years), but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 5 - Revised October 23, 2020 The site is not located within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards (CGS, 2019a; CGS, 2019b). No active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low. However, the site is located in the seismically active Southern California region, and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many active Southern California faults. The faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 3, Regional Fault Map. The closest surface trace of an active fault to the site is the Whittier Fault located approximately 4.0 miles to the north (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Other nearby active faults include the Elsinore Fault, the Chino Fault, the Central Avenue Fault, and the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone located approximately 8 miles east/northeast, 9 miles northeast, 10½ miles northeast, and 15½ miles southwest of the site, respectively (Ziony and Jones, 1989). The active San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 35 miles northeast of the site. The closest potentially active faults to the site are the Peralta Hills, the El Modeno Fault, and Norwalk faults located approximately less than 0.5 mile to the south, 1.5 miles to the south, and 8 miles to the west, respectively (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los Angeles Basin and the Orange County Coastal Plain at depth. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are typically identified at depths greater than 3.0 kilometers. The October 1, 1987 Mw 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake and the January 17, 1994 Mw 6.7 Northridge earthquake were a result of movement on the Puente Hills Blind Thrust and the Northridge Thrust, respectively. These thrust faults and others in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas are not exposed at the surface and do not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard at the site; however, these deep thrust faults are considered active features capable of generating future earthquakes that could result in moderate to significant ground shaking at the site. 6.2 Seismicity As with all of Southern California, the site has experienced historic earthquakes from various regional faults. The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was formulated based on research of an electronic database of earthquake data. The epicenters of recorded earthquakes with magnitudes equal to or greater than 5.0 in the site vicinity are depicted on Figure 4, Regional Seismicity Map. A partial list of moderate to major magnitude earthquakes that have occurred in the Southern California area within the last 100 years is included in the following table. LIST OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 6 - Revised October 23, 2020 Earthquake Date of Earthquake Magnitude Distance to Epicenter (Miles) Direction to Epicenter (Oldest to Youngest) San Jacinto-Hemet area April 21, 1918 6.8 88 SE Near Redlands July 23, 1923 6.3 66 SE Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 85 S Tehachapi July 21, 1952 7.5 70 W San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 45 SW Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 56 SSW Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 42 SSW Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 89 ESE Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 71 SE Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 60 SW Hector Mine October 16, 1999 7.1 89 E The site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. However, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 7 - Revised October 23, 2020 6.3 Seismic Design Criteria The following table summarizes summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2019 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The data was calculated using the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the OSHPD. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2019 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. Due to the variable depth to bedrock on the site (6.5 to approximately 40 feet), we have selected Site Class “D” as the preliminary site class designation. However, the site class should be further evaluated as the project progresses. The values presented below are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference Site Class D Section 1613.2.2 MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 1.614g Figure 1613.2.1(1) MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.571g Figure 1613.2.1(2) Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 Table 1613.2.3(1) Site Coefficient, FV 1.729* Table 1613.2.3(2) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.614g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-36) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 0.987g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-37) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 1.076g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.658g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-39) Note: *Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed for projects for Site Class “E” sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0g and for Site Class “D” and “E” sites with S1 greater than 0.2g. Section 11.4.8 also provides exceptions which indicates that the ground motion hazard analysis may be waived provided the exceptions are followed. Using the code based values presented in the table above, in lieu of a performing a ground motion hazard analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 be followed. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 8 - Revised October 23, 2020 The table below presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16. ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.679g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.1 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.747g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) The Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion (MCE) is the level of ground motion that has a 2 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 2,475 years. According to the 2019 California Building Code and ASCE 7-16, the MCE is to be utilized for the evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and it is our understanding that the intent of the Building code is to maintain “Life Safety” during a MCE event. The Design Earthquake Ground Motion (DE) is the level of ground motion that has a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 475 years. Deaggregation of the MCE peak ground acceleration was performed using the USGS online Unified Hazard Tool, 2014 Conterminous U.S. Dynamic edition. The result of the deaggregation analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the MCE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 6.69 magnitude event occurring at a hypocentral distance of 12.45 kilometers from the site. Deaggregation was also performed for the Design Earthquake (DE) peak ground acceleration, and the result of the analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the DE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 6.62 magnitude occurring at a hypocentral distance of 16.22 kilometers from the site. Conformance to the criteria in the above tables for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 9 - Revised October 23, 2020 6.4 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. The current standard of practice, as outlined in the “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California” and “Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction. The State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Orange Quadrangle (CDMG, 1998) indicates that the site is not located within an area designated as having a potential for liquefaction. As previously indicated, the site is not located within a known groundwater basin, and historic high groundwater level in the area is at a depth of greater than 40 feet below the existing ground surface (CDMG, 1998). In addition, the site is underlain by Tertiary age sedimentary bedrock units that are not considered liquefiable. Based on these considerations, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction to occur beneath the site is considered extremely low. 6.5 Slope Stability The overall topography at the site slopes generally to the north/northeast. Three engineered fill slopes, at slope ratios of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and ranging from 5 to 15 feet high are constructed along the general west, north, and northeast property boundaries. As a part of our preparation of this report, we reviewed historic aerial images of the site vicinity. The aerials between 1963 and 1980 show the pre-development condition of the site, mass grading of the tract, and the completion of the existing site improvements. Based on review of the aerials, we have inferred that the existing slopes bounding the north and east property lines are fill slopes. We have also located Grading Plans for the site from 1973 and 1974 through the City of Anaheim records portal. Review of these plans indicate that the original site topography was lower than the current elevations and that the slopes bounding the site are fill slopes. Copies of these plans are included within Appendix C. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 10 - Revised October 23, 2020 Along the eastern boundary of the site, a sliver of the site is is located within an area identified by the State Geologist as having a potential for earthquake-induced landslides (CGS, 2019). However, based on the current topography and lack of significant slopes, it is our opinion that the designation on the CGS website is based on the former topography surrounding the site and is not applicable to the current site conditions. Review of published geologic maps indicates that the site is not underlain by known landslides and that the possible landslide mapped 250-feet to the north/northeast has been modified by the development in the area and will not impact the site. Therefore, the potential for slope stability hazards to adversely affect the proposed development is considered low. 6.6 Earthquake-Induced Flooding Earthquake-induced flooding is inundation caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining structures due to earthquakes. Based on a review of the City of Anaheim Safety Element (2004), the site in not located within any dam inundation area. Current design, construction practices, and ongoing programs of review, modification, or total reconstruction of existing dams are intended to ensure that all dams are capable of withstanding the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) for the site. Therefore, the potential for inundation at the site as a result of an earthquake-induced dam failure is considered extremely low to nil. 6.7 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding The site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis are not considered a significant hazard at the site. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Therefore, flooding resulting from a seismically induced seiche is considered unlikely. The site is within an area of minimal flooding (Zone X) as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2019). 6.8 Oil Fields & Methane Potential Based on a review of the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Well Finder Website, the site is not located within the limits of an oilfield and oil or gas wells are not located in the immediate site vicinity (DOGGR, 2019). However, due to the voluntary nature of record reporting by the oil well drilling companies, wells may be improperly located or not shown on the location map and undocumented wells could be encountered during construction. Any wells encountered during construction will need to be properly abandoned in accordance with the current requirements of the DOGGR. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 11 - Revised October 23, 2020 The nearest oil fields to the site are the Richfield and Kraemer Oil Fields, which are situated approximately 5,500 feet north and 7,260 feet northeast of the site, respectively (DOGGR, 2019). Since the site is not located within the boundaries of a known oil field, the potential for the presence of methane or other volatile gases at the site is considered low. However, should it be determined that a methane study is required for the proposed development it is recommended that a qualified methane consultant be retained to perform the study and provide mitigation measures as necessary. 6.9 Subsidence Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. The site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence. No known large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the site or in the general site vicinity. Therefore, there appears to be little or no potential for ground subsidence due to withdrawal of fluids or gases at the site. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 12 - Revised October 23, 2020 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.1.1 It is our opinion that neither soil nor geologic conditions were encountered during the investigation that would preclude the construction of the proposed project provided the recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during design and construction. 7.1.2 Up to 40 feet of existing artificial fill was encountered during the site investigation and up to 50 feet of fill is believed to be present at the site based on the previous topography of the site. The existing fill encountered is believed to be the result of past grading and construction activities at the site. Deeper fill may exist in other areas of the site that were not directly explored. Future demolition of the existing improvements which occupy the site will likely disturb the upper few feet of soil. 7.1.3 Based on the laboratory testing performed, it is our opinion that the deeper existing fill, at and below a depth of approximately 6 feet, and in its present condition, may remain in place and is suitable for indirect support of the proposed improvements. However, the upper 6feet of existing artificial fill, in its present condition, is not suitable for direct support of proposed foundations or slabs. The existing fill and site soils are suitable for re-use as engineered fill provided the recommendations in the Grading section of this report are followed (see Section 7.4). 7.1.4 Based on these considerations, it is recommended that the upper 6 feet of existing earth materials from existing grade and within the proposed building footprint area be excavated and properly compacted for foundation and slab support. Deeper excavations should be conducted as needed to remove any encountered soft soils as necessary at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Proposed foundations should be underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of newly placed engineered fill. The excavation should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the parking structure footprint area, including building appurtenances, or a distance equal to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. The limits of existing fill and/or soft soil removal will be verified by the Geocon representative during site grading activities. Recommendations for earthwork are provided in the Grading section of this report (see Section 7.4). 7.1.5 All excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Prior to placing any fill, the upper 12 inches of the excavation bottom must be scarified, moistened, and proof-rolled with heavy equipment in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 13 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.1.6 It is anticipated that stable excavations for the recommended grading associated with the proposed structure can be achieved with sloping measures. However, if excavations in close proximity to an adjacent property line and/or structure are required, special excavation measures may be necessary in order to maintain lateral support of offsite improvements. Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (Section 7.17). 7.1.7 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as non-retaining block walls less than 6 feet in height, planter walls or trash enclosures, which will not be tied to the proposed structure, may be supported on conventional foundations deriving support on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, foundations may derive support directly in the previously placed fill found at and below a depth of 3 feet and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft or loose, compaction of the soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. 7.1.8 Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill and excessively soft soils be excavated and properly compacted for paving support. The client should be aware that excavation and compaction of all existing fill and soft soils in the area of new paving is not required; however, paving constructed over existing uncertified fill or unsuitable soil may experience increased settlement and/or cracking, and may therefore have a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil should be scarified and properly compacted for paving support. Paving recommendations are provided in Pavement Recommendations section of this report (see Section 7.11). 7.1.9 Based on the predominately fine-grained and clayey nature of the soils encountered during site exploration, a stormwater infiltration system is not recommended for this project. It is recommended that stormwater be retained, filtered, and discharged in accordance with the requirements of the local governing agency. 7.1.10 Once the design and foundation loading configuration for the proposed structure proceeds to a more finalized plan, the recommendations within this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Based on the final foundation loading configurations, the potential for settlement should be re-evaluated by this office. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 14 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.1.11 Any changes in the design, location or elevation, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. 7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics 7.2.1 The in-situ soils can be excavated with moderate effort using conventional excavation equipment. Some caving should be anticipated in unshored excavations, especially where granular soils are encountered. 7.2.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of existing adjacent improvements. 7.2.3 All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges from existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation or vehicle load. Penetrations below this 1:1 projection will require special excavation measures such as sloping or shoring. Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (see Section 7.17). 7.2.4 The upper 5 feet of the soils encountered during the field investigation are considered to range from “non-expansive” to “expansive” (expansion index [EI] of 0 and 104) as defined by 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Recommendations presented herein assume that the building foundations and slabs will derive support in materials with a “high” expansive index. 7.3 Minimum Resistivity, pH, and Water-Soluble Sulfate 7.3.1 Potential of Hydrogen (pH) and resistivity testing as well as chloride content testing were performed on representative samples of soil to generally evaluate the corrosion potential to surface utilities. The tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 643 and 422 and indicate that the soils are considered “moderately” to “severely” corrosive with respect to corrosion of buried ferrous metals on site. The results are presented in Appendix B (Figure B26) and should be considered for design of underground structures. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 15 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.3.2 Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soil to measure the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate tests are presented in Appendix B (Figure B26) and indicate that the on-site soil possess a “negligible” (S0) and “severe” (S2) sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1. The table below presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS Sulfate Exposure Exposu re Class Water-Soluble Sulfate Percent by Weight Cement Type (ASTM C150) Maximum Water to Cement Ratio by Weight Minimum Compressive Strength (psi) Not Applicable S0 SO4<0.10 -- -- 2,500 Moderate S1 0.10<SO4<0.20 II 0.50 4,000 Severe S2 0.20<SO4<2.00 V 0.45 4,500 Very Severe S3 SO4>2.00 V+Pozzola n or Slag 0.45 4,500 7.3.3 Geocon West, Inc. does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering and mitigation. If corrosion sensitive improvements are planned, it is recommended that a corrosion engineer be retained to evaluate corrosion test results and incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of buried metal pipes and concrete structures in direct contact with the soils. 7.4 Grading 7.4.1 Earthwork should be observed, and compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon West, Inc. The existing fill soils encountered during exploration is suitable for re-use as engineered fill, provided any encountered oversize material (greater than 6 inches) and any encountered deleterious debris are removed. 7.4.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, and building official in attendance. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 16 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.4.3 Grading should commence with the removal of all existing vegetation and existing improvements from the area to be graded. Deleterious debris such as wood and root structures should be exported from the site and should not be mixed with the fill soils. Asphalt and concrete should not be mixed with the fill soils unless approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. All existing underground improvements planned for removal should be completely excavated and the resulting depressions properly backfilled in accordance with the procedures described herein. Once a clean excavation bottom has been established it must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). 7.4.4 As a minimum, it is recommended that the upper 6 feet of existing earth materials from existing grade and within the proposed building footprint area be excavated and properly compacted for foundation and slab support. Deeper excavations should be conducted as necessary to remove deeper artificial fill or soft unsuitable soil at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Proposed foundations should be underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of newly placed engineered fill. The excavation should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the building footprint area, including building appurtenances, or a distance equal to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. The limits of existing fill and/or soft fill soils removal will be verified by the Geocon representative during site grading activities. 7.4.5 All excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Prior to placing any fill, the upper 12 inches of the excavation bottom must be scarified, moistened, and proof-rolled with heavy equipment in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). 7.4.6 All fill and backfill soils should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and properly compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557 (latest edition). 7.4.7. Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill and soft or unsuitable materials be excavated and properly compacted for paving support. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). The preparation of the paving subgrade should be performed under observation and testing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon); if excessively soft or unsuitable materials are encountered at the paving subgrade elevation, additional recommendations will be provided based on the observed conditions. Paving recommendations are provided in Pavement Recommendations section of this report (see Section 7.11). Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 17 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.4.8 It is anticipated that stable excavations for the recommended grading can be achieved with sloping measures. However, if excavations in close proximity to an adjacent property line and/or structure are required, special excavation measures may be necessary in order to maintain lateral support of the existing offsite improvements. Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (Section 7.17). 7.4.9 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as block walls less than 6 feet high, planter walls or trash enclosures, which will not be tied to the proposed building, may be supported on conventional foundations deriving support on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and proper compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, foundations may derive support directly in the previously placed engineered fill found at or below a depth of 3 feet, and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft or loose, compaction of the soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. 7.4.10 Utility trenches should be properly backfilled in accordance with the requirements of the Green Book (latest edition). The pipe should be bedded with clean sands (Sand Equivalent greater than 30) to a depth of at least 1 foot over the pipe, and the bedding material must be inspected and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). The use of gravel is not acceptable unless used in conjunction with filter fabric to prevent the gravel from having direct contact with soil. The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from onsite soil or approved import soil, compacted as necessary, until the required compaction is obtained. The use of minimum 2-sack slurry is also acceptable. Prior to placing any bedding materials or pipes, the excavation bottom must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). 7.4.11 All imported fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by Geocon West, Inc. prior to bringing soil to the site. Rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter shall not be used in the fill. If necessary, import soils used as structural fill should have an expansion index less than 50 and corrosivity properties that are equally or less detrimental to that of the existing onsite soils (see Figure B26). Import soils must be placed uniformly and at equal thickness or in a manner that is approved by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). 7.4.12 All trench and foundation excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to placing bedding materials, fill, steel, gravel, or concrete. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 18 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.5 Shrinkage 7.5.1 Shrinkage and bulkage results when a volume of material removed at one density is compacted to a higher or lower density. A shrinkage factor up to 15 percent should be anticipated when excavating and compacting the upper 6 feet of existing earth materials on the site to an average relative compaction of 92 percent. 7.4.2 If import soils will be utilized in the building pad, the soils must be placed uniformly and at equal thickness at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.). Soils can be borrowed from non-building pad areas and later replaced with imported soils. 7.6 Foundation Setback 7.6.1 The Building Code requires that foundations be sufficiently setback from an ascending or descending slope. The required setback from a descending slope with a gradient steeper than 3:1 and gentler than 1:1 is ⅓ the height of the descending slope with a minimum of 5 feet and a maximum of 40 feet measured horizontally from the exterior face of the foundation to the slope face. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1, the slope setback shall be measured from an imaginary line projected at 45 degrees from the toe of the slope upwards. In lieu of relocating a structure to achieve the setback at the ground surface, foundations may be deepened as necessary to achieve the required setback. 7.6.2 The required setback from an ascending slope steeper than 3:1 and gentler than 1:1 is ½ the height of the ascending slope with a maximum of 15 feet measured horizontally from the structure to the toe of the slope. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1, the slope setback shall be measured from an imaginary line projected at 45 degrees from the top of the slope. 7.6.3 The required building setbacks should be understood and implemented into the orientation and location of the proposed structure by the project architect. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 19 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.7 Conventional Foundation Design 7.7.1 Subsequent to the recommended grading, a conventional shallow spread foundation system may be utilized for support of the proposed structure provided foundations derive support in newly placed engineered fill. Foundations should be underlain by a minimum of three feet of newly placed engineered fill. 7.7.2 Continuous footings may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 1,900 pounds per square foot (psf), and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 30 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade, and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. 7.7.3 Isolated spread foundations may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,300 psf, and should be a minimum of 24 inches in width, 30 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade, and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. 7.7.4 The allowable soil bearing pressure above may be increased by 50 psf and 250 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. 7.7.5 The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.7.6 The maximum expected static settlement for a structure supported on a conventional foundation system deriving support in the newly placed engineered fill with a maximum bearing pressure of 3,000 psf is estimated to be less than 1 inch and occur below the heaviest loaded structural element. Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ⅔ inch over a distance of 20 feet. 7.7.7 If depth increases are utilized for the exterior wall footings, this office should be provided a copy of the final construction plans so that the excavation recommendations presented herein could be properly reviewed and revised if necessary. Additional grading should be conducted as-necessary in order to maintain the required minimum three-foot-thick engineered fill blanket beneath foundations. 7.7.8 Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. Reinforcement for spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 20 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.7.9 The above foundation dimensions and minimum reinforcement recommendations are based on soil conditions and building code requirements only, and are not intended to be used in lieu of those required for structural purposes. 7.7.10 Due to the expansive potential of the subgrade soils, the moisture content in the slab and foundation subgrade should be maintained at 2 percent above optimum moisture content prior to and at the time of concrete placement. 7.7.11 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 7.7.12 Once the design and foundation loading configurations for the proposed structures proceeds to a more finalized plan, the estimated settlements presented in this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. If the final foundation loading configurations are greater than the assumed loading conditions, the potential for settlement should be reevaluated by this office. 7.7.13 This office should be provided a copy of the final construction plans so that the excavation recommendations presented herein could be properly reviewed and revised if necessary. 7.8 Miscellaneous Foundations 7.8.1 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as non-retaining block walls less than 6 feet in height, planter walls or trash enclosures which will not be tied to the proposed structure may be supported on conventional foundations bearing on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, such as adjacent to property lines, foundations may derive support in the previously placed fill, and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. Recommendations for the design and construction of miscellaneous foundations should be reevaluated once formal plans are available. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 21 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.8.2 If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft, compaction of the soft soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative. Miscellaneous foundations may be designed for a bearing value of 1,500 psf, and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 30 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.8.3 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. 7.9 Lateral Design 7.9.1 Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations, slabs and by passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be used with the dead load forces in the newly placed engineered fill. 7.9.2 Passive earth pressure for the sides of foundations and slabs poured against properly compacted engineered fill may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 160 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure of 1,600 psf. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third. 7.10 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 7.10.1 Concrete slabs-on-grade near the ground surface that are subject to vehicle loading should be designed in accordance with the recommendations in the Preliminary Pavement Recommendations section of this report (Section 7.11). 7.10.2 Subsequent to the recommended grading, concrete slab-on-grade, not subject to vehicle loading, should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed 16 inches on center in both horizontal directions. Steel reinforcing should be positioned vertically near the slab midpoint. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 22 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.10.3 Slabs-on-grade at the ground surface that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder placed directly beneath the slab. The vapor retarder and acceptable permeance should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in Section 9.3 of the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06) and should be installed in general conformance with ASTM E 1643 (latest edition) and the manufacturer’s recommendations. A minimum thickness of 15 mils extruded polyolefin plastic is recommended; vapor retarders which contain recycled content or woven materials are not recommended. The vapor retarder should have a permeance of less than 0.01 perms demonstrated by testing before and after mandatory conditioning is recommended. The vapor retarder should be installed in direct contact with the concrete slab with proper perimeter seal. If the California Green Building Code requirements apply to this project, the vapor retarder should be underlain by 4 inches of clean aggregate. It is important that the vapor retarder be puncture resistant since it will be in direct contact with angular gravel. As an alternative to the clean aggregate suggested in the Green Building Code, it is our opinion that the concrete slab-on-grade may be underlain by a vapor retarder over 4 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30), since the sand will serve a capillary break and will minimize the potential for punctures and damage to the vapor barrier. 7.10.4 For seismic design purposes, a coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be utilized between concrete slabs and subgrade soils without a moisture barrier, and 0.15 for slabs underlain by a moisture barrier. 7.10.5 Exterior slabs for walkways or flatwork, not subject to traffic loads, should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions, positioned near the slab midpoint. Prior to construction of slabs, the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be moistened to 2 percent above optimum moisture content and properly compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals not greater than 10 feet and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical following concrete placement. Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness. The project structural engineer should design construction joints as necessary. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 23 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.10.6 Due to the expansive potential of the anticipated subgrade soils, the moisture content of the slab subgrade should be maintained and sprinkled as necessary to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any concrete placement. Furthermore, consideration should be given to doweling slabs into adjacent curbs and foundations to minimize movements and offsets which could lead to a potential tripping hazard. As an alternative, the upper 18 inches of soil could be replaced with granular, non-expansive soils which will reduce the potential for movements and offsets. 7.10.7 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to settlement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to minor soil movement and/or concrete shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. 7.11 Pavement Recommendations 7.11.1 Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill and soft or unsuitable materials be excavated and properly recompacted for paving support. The client should be aware that excavation and compaction of all existing artificial fill and soft soils in the area of new paving is not required; however, paving constructed over existing unsuitable material may experience increased settlement and/or cracking, and may therefore have a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of paving subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and properly compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). 7.11.2 The following pavement sections are based on an assumed R-Value of 20. Once site grading activities are complete an R-Value should be obtained by laboratory testing to confirm the properties of the soils serving as paving subgrade, prior to placing pavement. 7.11.3 The Traffic Indices listed below are estimates. Geocon does not practice in the field of traffic engineering. The actual Traffic Index for each area should be determined by the project civil engineer. If pavement sections for Traffic Indices other than those listed below are required, Geocon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. Pavement thicknesses were determined following procedures outlined in the California Highway Design Manual (Caltrans). It is anticipated that the majority of traffic will consist of automobile and large truck traffic. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 24 - Revised October 23, 2020 PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS Location Estimated Traffic Index (TI) Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base (inches) Automobile Parking And Driveways 4.0 4.0 4.0 Trash Truck & Fire Lanes 7.0 4.0 12.0 7.11.4 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform to Section 26-1.02A of the “Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation” (Caltrans). The use of Crushed Miscellaneous Base in lieu of Class 2 aggregate base is acceptable. Crushed Miscellaneous Base should conform to Section 200-2.4 of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (Green Book). 7.11.5 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent cracking, subsidence and pavement distress. If planters are planned adjacent to paving, it is recommended that the perimeter curb be extended at least 12 inches below the bottom of the aggregate base to minimize the introduction of water beneath the paving. 7.12 Retaining Wall Design 7.12.1 The recommendations presented below are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 13 feet. In the event that walls significantly higher than 13 feet are planned, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations. 7.12.2 Retaining wall foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Conventional Foundation Design sections of this report (see Section 7.7). If alternate foundation recommendations are needed, Geocon should be contacted to provide supplemental foundation options under separate cover. 7.12.3 Retaining walls with a level backfill surface that are not restrained at the top should be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure) of 40 pcf. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 25 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.12.4 Restrained walls are those that are not allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top and have a level backfill surface, walls may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (at-rest pressure) of 80 pcf. 7.12.5 Retaining walls with an ascending sloping backfill of up to 2:1 (H:V) and that are not restrained at the top should be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure) of 58 pcf. 7.12.6 The soil pressures above assume that the backfill material within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall will be comprised of the existing onsite soils. The onsite site soils exhibit a high expansive potential, and it is our opinion that the soils along the height of the wall could be subjected to cyclic wetting and drying subsequent to completion of construction especially where the walls are used in landscape areas. Select non-expansive backfill should be considered if reduced retaining wall pressures are desired. 7.12.7 The wall pressures provided above assume that the retaining wall will be properly drained preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. If retaining wall drainage is not implemented, the equivalent fluid pressure to be used in design of undrained walls is 105 pcf. The value includes hydrostatic pressures plus buoyant lateral earth pressures. 7.12.8 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses. Once the design becomes more finalized, an addendum letter can be prepared revising recommendations and addressing specific surcharge conditions throughout the project, if necessary. 7.12.9 In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper ten feet of the subterranean wall adjacent to the street and parking lot should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least ten feet from the subterranean walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. 7.12.10 Seismic lateral forces should be incorporated into the design as necessary, and recommendations for seismic lateral forces are presented below. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 26 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.13 Dynamic (Seismic) Lateral Forces 7.13.1 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in accordance with Section 1613 of the CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design category of D, E, or F, proposed retaining walls in excess of 6 feet in height should be designed with seismic lateral pressure (Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC). 7.13.2 A seismic load of 10 pcf should be used for design of walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC. The seismic load is applied as an equivalent fluid pressure along the height of the wall and the calculated loads result in a maximum load exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. This seismic load should be applied in addition to the active earth pressure. The earth pressure is based on half of two-thirds of PGAM calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3. 7.14 Retaining Wall Drainage 7.14.1 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system. At the base of the drain system, a subdrain covered with a minimum of 12 inches of gravel should be installed, and a compacted fill blanket or other seal placed at the surface (see Figure 5). The clean bottom and subdrain pipe, behind a retaining wall, should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to placement of gravel or compacting backfill. 7.14.2 As an alternative, a plastic drainage composite such as Miradrain or equivalent may be installed in continuous, 4-foot wide columns along the entire back face of the wall, at 8 feet on center. The top of these drainage composite columns should terminate approximately 18 inches below the ground surface, where either hardscape or a minimum of 18 inches of relatively cohesive material should be placed as a cap (see Figure 6). These vertical columns of drainage material would then be connected at the bottom of the wall to a collection panel or a 1-cubic-foot rock pocket drained by a 4-inch subdrain pipe. 7.14.3 Subdrainage pipes at the base of the retaining wall drainage system should outlet to an acceptable location via controlled drainage structures. Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over descending slopes. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 27 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.14.4 Moisture affecting below grade walls is one of the most common post-construction complaints. Poorly applied or omitted waterproofing can lead to efflorescence or standing water. Particular care should be taken in the design and installation of waterproofing to avoid moisture problems, or actual water seepage into the structure through any normal shrinkage cracks which may develop in the concrete walls, floor slab, foundations and/or construction joints. The design and inspection of the waterproofing is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. A waterproofing consultant should be retained in order to recommend a product or method, which would provide protection to subterranean walls, floor slabs and foundations. 7.15 Elevator Pit Design 7.15.1 The elevator pit slab and retaining wall should be designed by the project structural engineer. As a minimum the slab-on-grade for the elevator pit bottom should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed 16 inches on center in both horizontal directions, positioned near the slab midpoint. The elevator pit foundations and walls may derive support in either newly placed engineered fill or the previously placed fill found at and below a depth of 6 feet. Elevator pit walls may be designed in accordance with the recommendations in the Retaining Wall Design section of this report (see Section 7.12). 7.15.2 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent foundations and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses. 7.15.3 If retaining wall drainage is to be provided, the drainage system should be designed in accordance with the Retaining Wall Drainage section of this report (see Section 7.14). 7.15.4 It is suggested that the exterior walls and slab be waterproofed to prevent excessive moisture inside of the elevator pit. Waterproofing design and installation is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. 7.16 Elevator Piston 7.16.1 If a plunger-type elevator piston is installed for this project, a deep drilled excavation will be required. It is important to verify that the drilled excavation is not situated immediately adjacent to a foundation, or the drilled excavation could compromise the existing foundation support, especially if the drilling is performed subsequent to the foundation construction. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 28 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.16.2 The contractor should be aware that difficult drilling conditions could be encountered in the bedrock, which could require coring and jack-hammering. The contractor should be prepared for these conditions prior to commencement of any drilling activities. 7.16.3 Casing may be required if caving is expected in the drilled excavation and the contractor should be prepared to use casing and should have it readily available at the commencement of drilling activities. Continuous observation of the drilling and installation of the elevator piston by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.) is required. 7.16.4 The annular space between the piston casing and drilled excavation wall should be filled with a minimum of 1½-sack slurry pumped from the bottom up. As an alternative, pea gravel may be utilized. The use of soil to backfill the annular space is not acceptable. 7.17 Temporary Excavations 7.17.1 Excavations up to 10 feet in vertical height are anticipated during construction. The excavations are expected to expose previously placed artificial fill, which may be suitable for vertical excavations up to 5 feet where loose soils or caving sands are not present, and where not surcharged by adjacent foundations or other surcharge loads. 7.17.2 Vertical excavations greater than 5 feet will require sloping or shoring measures in order to provide a stable excavation. It is anticipated that stable excavations for construction of the proposed improvements can be achieved and maintained with sloping measures. Where sufficient space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments could be sloped back at a uniform 1:1 slope gradient or flatter up to a maximum height of 15 feet. A uniform slope does not have a vertical portion. 7.17.3 Where sloped embankments are utilized, the top of the slope should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the slope. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Geocon personnel should inspect the soils exposed in the cut slopes during excavation so that modifications of the slopes can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation. Geocon Project No. W1076-88-01 - 29 - Revised October 23, 2020 7.18 Surface Drainage 7.18.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the foundation supporting soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the original designed engineering properties. Proper drainage in building areas should be maintained at all times. 7.18.2 All site drainage should be collected and controlled in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope. Discharge from downspouts, roof drains and scuppers are not recommended onto unprotected soils within five feet of the building perimeter. Planters which are located adjacent to foundations should be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the soils providing foundation support. Landscape irrigation is not recommended within five feet of the building perimeter footings except when enclosed in protected planters. 7.18.3 Positive site drainage should be provided away from structures, pavement, and the tops of slopes to swales or other controlled drainage structures. The pavement areas should be fine graded such that water is not allowed to pond. 7.18.4 Landscaping planters immediately adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Either a subdrain, which collects excess irrigation water and transmits it to drainage structures, or an impervious above-grade planter box should be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be given to providing a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 12 inches below the base material. 7.19 Plan Review 7.19.1 Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to finalization to verify that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations of this report and to provide additional analyses or recommendations. Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 Revised October 23, 2020 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon West, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon West, Inc. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. 4. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 Revised October 23, 2020 LIST OF REFERENCES 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 Zone Maps, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, interim revision. California Department of Water Resources, 2019, Groundwater Level Data by Township, Range, and Section, Web Site Address: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/ hydrographs/index_trs.cfm. California Department of Water Resources, 2019, California Dam Breach Inundation Maps, Web Site Address: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998; State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Orange Quadrangle, Official Map, Released: April 15, 1998. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997 (Revised 2001), Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 011. California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, 2016. Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Well Finder, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov.doggr/index.html#close. Accessed October 29, 2019. California Geological Survey, 2019a, CGS Information Warehouse, Regulatory Map Portal, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. California Geological Survey, 2019b, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. California Geological Survey, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018. City of Anaheim, May 2004, Safety Element of the General Plan. FEMA, 2019, Online Flood Hazard Maps, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor. Grading Plan, Tract No. 5674, Sheet 1 of 4, prepared by Hopen, Hedlund & Darby, Inc., dated January 1, 1973. Grading Plan, Lot No 51, Tract No. 5674, Sheet 1 of 1, prepared by Hopen, Hedlund & Darby, Inc., dated May 30, 1974. Jennings, C. W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6. Morton, P. K., Miller, Russell V., 1973, Geologic Map of Orange County California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 Revised October 23, 2020 LIST OF REFERENCES (Continued) Morton, D. M., 1999, compiler, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-172, scale 1:100,000. Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., and Reichle, M., 2000, Epicenters and Areas Damaged by M> 5 California Earthquakes, 1800 – 1999, California Geological Survey, Map Sheet 49. U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps Web Application, 2016, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php Ziony, J. I., and Jones, L. M., 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978–1984 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1964. FIG. 1 U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES, ORANGE, CA QUADRANGLE PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 VICINITY MAP 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2020 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA SITE DRAFTED BY: JA PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01SITE PLAN OCT 2020 FIG. 2060'120'ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD AA' BB' C C' CHECKED BY: JTA B1 B2 B4 B3 B5 DD 'LEGEND Approximate Location of Boring B5 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-455015520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618ENVIRONMENTAL GEOT ECHNICAL MATERIALSNORTH CHECKED BY: GK DRAFTED BY: JA PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01CROSS SECTIONS OCT 2020 F I G . 2 A 0 20'40'ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ? ? ? ? Ar t i f i c i a l F i l l TD = 2 0 ' Fe r n a n d o F o r m a t i o n Ex i s i t i n g To p o g r a p h y P L B- 3 (P r o j e c t e d ) Gr a d eAA' E l e v a t i o n i n F e e t Elevation in Feet 46 0 48 0 50 0 T op o g r a p hy * 1 9 73 N1 E 460480500 ? Ar t i f i c i a l F i l l Fe r n a n d o F o r m a t i o n Ex i s i t i n g To p o g r a p h y N T op o g r a p h y * 1 9 73 P L B' Elevation in Feet 460480500 B ? ? ? P r o p o s e d G r a d e P r o p o s e d R e t a i n i n g W a l l 440 P r o p o s e d R e t a i n i n g W a l l P r o p o s e d B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n i n F e e t 46 0 48 0 50 0 44 0 No t e : T h e s e c r o s s s e c t i o n s a r e f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n o n l y . N o t f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . * 1 9 7 3 T o p o g r a p h a s s u m e d f r o m G r a d i n g P l a n s b y H op e n , H e d l u n d & D a r b y , I n c . , d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 7 3 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-455015520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618ENVIRONMENTAL GEOT ECHNICAL MATERIALS Pr o p o s e d CHECKED BY: GK DRAFTED BY: JA PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01CROSS SECTION OCT 2020 F I G . 2 B 0 20'40'ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ? C' T op o g r a p hy * 1 9 73 E l e v a t i o n i n F e e t 46 0 48 0 50 0 Elevation in Feet 44 0 460480500 440 P L Pr o p o s e d G r a d e Ex i s i t i n g To p o g r a p h y Ar t i f i c i a l F i l l B- 5 N9 0 W C Co l l u v i u m / F e r n a n d o F o r m a t i o n R o y a l O a k R o a d N8 9 W E l e v a t i o n i n F e e t 46 0 48 0 50 0 Elevation in Feet 44 0 460480500 440 T o p o g r a p hy * 1 9 7 3 Ar t i f i c i a l F i l l ? ? ? ? Fe r n a n d o F o r m a t i o n R o y a l O a k R o a d P L D' D Pr o p o s e d B u i l d i n g Pr o p o s e d F F = 4 8 6 ' Ex i s i t i n g To p o g r a p h y P r o p o s e d R e t a i n i n g W a l l No t e : T h e s e c r o s s s e c t i o n s a r e f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n o n l y . N o t f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . * 1 9 7 3 T o p o g r a p h a s s u m e d f r o m G r a d i n g P l a n s b y H op e n , H e d l u n d & D a r b y , I n c . , d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 7 3 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-455015520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618ENVIRONMENTAL GEOT ECHNICAL MATERIALS Ba s e m e n t SI T E PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 0 12 24 Mi l e s Re f e r e n c e : J e n n i n g s , C . W . a n d B r y a n t , W . A . , 2 0 1 0 , F a u l t A c t i v i t y M a p o f C a l i f o r n i a , C a l i f o r n i a G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y G e o l o g i c D a t a M a p N o . 6 . REGIONAL FAULT MAP FIG. 3 PH O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 4 9 1 - 6 5 7 0 - F A X ( 9 4 9 ) 2 9 9 - 4 5 5 0 15 5 2 0 R O C K F I E L D B L V D . - S U I T E J - I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 EN V I R O N M E N T A L G E O T E C H N I C A L M A T E R I A L S DR A F T E D B Y : J S CHECKED BY: GK5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2020 SI T E PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01REGIONAL SEISMICITY MAP FIG.4 0 20 40 Mi l e s Re f e r e n c e : T o p p o z a d a , T . , B r a n u m , D. , P e t e r s e n , M . , H a l l s t r o m , C . , C r am e r , C . , a n d R e i c h l e , M . , 2 0 0 0 , Ep i c e n t e r s a n d A r e a s D a m a g e d b y M > 5 C a l i f or n i a E a r t h q u a k e s , 1 8 0 0 - 1 9 9 9 , C a l i f o r n i a Ge o l o g i c a l S u r v e y , M a p S h e e t 4 9 . 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2020 PH O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 4 9 1 - 6 5 7 0 - F A X ( 9 4 9 ) 2 9 9 - 4 5 5 0 15 5 2 0 R O C K F I E L D B L V D . - S U I T E J - I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 8 EN V I R O N M E N T A L G E O T E C H N I C A L M A T E R I A L S DR A F T E D B Y : J S CHECKED BY: GK RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE 4" DIA. PERFORATED ABS OR ADS PIPE - EXTEND TO RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM WATERPROOF WALL PROPERLY COMPACTED BACKFILL GROUND SURFACE NO SCALE FOUNDATION FIG. 5PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2020 RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL RETAINING WALL NO SCALE FOUNDATION PROPERLY COMPACTED BACKFILL GROUND SURFACE 18" WATER PROOFING BY ARCHITECT DRAINAGE PANEL (J-DRAIN 1000 OR EQUIVALENT) 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET (1 CU. FT./FT.) FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT FIG. 6PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-4550 15520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS DRAFTED BY: JS CHECKED BY: JTA 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2020 APPENDIX A Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 Revised October 23, 2020 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The site was explored on October 10, 2019, by excavating five 8-inch diameter borings using a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling machine to depths of approximately 20½ to 41½ feet below the ground surface. Representative and relatively undisturbed samples from the boring drilled with a hollow-stem auger drilling machine were obtained by driving a 3-inch, O. D., California Modified Sampler into the “undisturbed” soil mass with blows from a 140-pound auto-hammer falling 30 inches. The California Modified Sampler was equipped with 1-inch high by 23/8-inch diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate soil removal and testing. Standard penetration tests were also performed and bulk samples collected. The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the borings are presented on Figures A1 through A5. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The logs also include our interpretation of the conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and interpreted data. We determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs using visual observations, penetration rates, excavation characteristics and other factors. The transition between materials may be abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the logs were revised based on subsequent laboratory testing. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. 14.6 23.2 22.9 27.0 BULK 0-5' B1@2.5' B1@5' B1@7.5' B1@10' B1@12.5' B1@15' B1@20' B1@25' ARTIFICIAL FILL Clay, stiff, slightly moist, brown, roots. Silty Clay, firm, moist, olive brown, some oxidation. - dark olive gray - soft - firm FERNANDO FORMATION Siltstone, olive, soft, slightly weathered. 23 23 15 13 20 12 17 43 107.7 100.4 99.1 98.7 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 1 497 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A1, Log of Boring 1, Page 1 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 28.9 26.8 B1@30' B1@35' Total depth of boring: 35.5 feet Fill to 22 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with grout. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 75 50 (6") 97.5 96.3 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 30 32 34 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 1 497 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A1, Log of Boring 1, Page 2 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 22.6 22.5 25.7 26.0 24.7 22.1 BULK 0-5' B2@2.5' B2@5' B2@7.5' B2@10' B2@15' B2@20' AC: 8" BASE: 8" ARTIFICIAL FILL Clay, stiff, moist, olive gray, trace fine-grained sand. Silty Clay, stiff, olive gray with some oxidation, minimal recovery. FERNANDO FORMATION Clayey Siltstone, olive brown, soft, slightly weathered. - gray brown Total depth of boring: 20.5 feet Fill to 6.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 22 28 26 36 42 48 105.7 67.1 100.9 99.8 101.0 104.8 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 2 495 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A2, Log of Boring 2, Page 1 of 1 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 25.2 20.0 21.1 20.6 12.9 18.0 24.4 BULK 0-5' B3@2.5' B3@5' B3@7.5' B3@10' B3@12.5' B3@15' B3@20' AC: 8" BASE: 11" ARTIFICIAL FILL Silty Clay, firm, moist, mottled grayish/olive brown. Clay, firm, moist, mottled, dark brown/black. FERNANDO FORMATION Sandy Siltstone, olive brown, soft, moderately weathered, some oxidation. Siltstone, gray brown, soft, slightly weathered. Total depth of boring: 20.5 feet Fill to 6.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 18 21 50 34 73 81 45 97.7 107.0 95.4 105.2 117.7 114.0 100.6 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 3 490 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A3, Log of Boring 3, Page 1 of 1 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 6.7 13.9 0.5 26.9 25.5 27.1 20.9 25.7 BULK 0-5' B4@2.5' B4@5' B4@7.5' B4@10' B4@12.5' B4@15' B4@20' B4@25' AC: 4" BASE: 9" ARTIFICIAL FILL Sand, medium dense, slightly moist, yellowish brown, coarse-grained. Sand/Clayey Sand, loose, moist, yellowish brown with grayish brown mottles, coarse-grained. Sand, loose, moist to wet, brown, coarse-grained. Silty Clay, soft, moist, dark grayish brown. FERNANDO FORMATION Siltstone, gray brown, soft, slightly weathered. - gray Sandy Siltstone, mottled yellow brown gray. Siltstone, gray. Total depth of boring: 25.5 feet. Fill to 11.5 feet. Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 77 12 18 10 12 35 55 43 110.7 110.4 130.8 93.5 98.0 98.1 104.1 100.3 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 4 491 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A4, Log of Boring 4, Page 1 of 1 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 23.2 21.5 23.1 26.3 24.4 19.7 19.9 27.7 BULK 0-5' B5@2.5' B5@5' B5@7.5' B5@10' B5@12.5' B5@15' B5@20' B5@25' AC: 4" BASE: 9" ARTIFICIAL FILL Clay, stiff, moist, dark gray, some roots. Clay, firm, moist, dark brown with grayish brown mottles, some sand. Silty Clay, firm, moist, grayish brown to dark brown. Clay, firm, moist, very dark brown with gray mottles. - very dark gray, trace calcite stringers Silty Clay, stiff, moist, dark brown, some oxidation, some bedrock fragments. 22 16 12 15 21 23 22 27 104.1 101.5 100.6 101.6 101.0 107.8 107.6 96.5 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 5 484 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A5, Log of Boring 5, Page 1 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 28.5 31.7 23.5 B5@30' B5@35' B5@40' - firm COLLUVIUM Silty Clay, firm, moist, mottled gray brown to very dark gray with scattered organics. Total depth of boring: 40.5 feet Fill to 38 feet. Backfilled with grout. Surface restored. *Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by auto-hammer. ** Elevations are based on the 1977 Grading Plan. 15 19 19 94.9 86.2 90.2 (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R 10/10/19 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 30 32 34 36 38 40 W1076-88-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING 5 484 ** HOLLOW STEM AUGER ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) GEOCON Figure A5, Log of Boring 5, Page 2 of 2 MO I S T U R E BY:JS PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T ) * CO N T E N T ( % ) ... CHUNK SAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE NO. NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. W1076-88-01 APPENDIX B Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 Revised October 23, 2020 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the International ASTM, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for consolidation characteristics, corrosivity, direct shear, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, and the soil expansive index. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Figures B1 through B26. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs, Appendix A. Project No.: W1076-88-01 20.9 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaConsolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 Checked by: JS 23.8 October 2020 Figure B1 Ultimate 187 25.7 Final Moisture Content (%)26.2 41.7 42.0 Peak 231 25.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 42.4 Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf)108.0 108.0 108.0 Brown Clay (CL) Ring Inside Diameter (in.)2.375 2.375 2.375 Initial Moisture Content (%)8.8 8.7 8.7 Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.)1.0 1.0 1.0 0.05 Depth (ft)0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.66 1.65 2.58 Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)0.05 0.05 2.58 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2)1 3 5 Sample No. B1@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)0.70 1.66 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 12.6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaConsolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 Checked by: JS 12.8 October 2020 Figure B2 Ultimate 60 35.5 Final Moisture Content (%)12.6 47.0 48.7 Peak 381 34.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 46.8 Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf)119.0 119.0 119.0 Yellowish Brown Sand with Clay (SC) Ring Inside Diameter (in.)2.375 2.375 2.375 Initial Moisture Content (%)7.2 7.3 7.5 Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.)1.0 1.0 1.0 0.05 Depth (ft)0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.78 2.19 3.64 Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)0.05 0.05 3.78 Boring No. B4 Normal Strest (kip/ft2)1 3 5 Sample No. B4@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)1.04 2.47 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 2.15 Boring No. B5 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5 Sample No. B5@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.67 1.43 0.05 Depth (ft) 0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.63 1.40 2.15 Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)0.05 0.05 Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.)1.0 1.0 1.0 Dark Brown Clay (CL)Ring Inside Diameter (in.)2.375 2.375 2.375 Initial Moisture Content (%)9.6 9.7 9.6 Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf)109.0 109.0 109.0 48.1 47.3 Peak 308 20.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 47.6 Ultimate 258 20.7 Final Moisture Content (%)27.4 23.6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaConsolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 Checked by: JS 24.8 October 2020 Figure B3 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B4 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@7.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Olive Brown Clay (CL)99.4 24.2 24.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B5 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@12.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Olive Gray Clay (CL)109.0 19.2 20.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@15 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Olive Gray Clay (CL)95.0 26.6 26.8 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B7 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B1@20 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Olive Gray Clay (CL)98.1 24.5 24.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B2@5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Olive Gray Silty Clay (CL)94.0 22.5 25.7 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B9 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B4@5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Yellowish Brown Clayey Sand (SC)113.1 13.9 15.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B10 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B4@7.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Brown Sand (SP) 116.2 0.5 14.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B11 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B4@10 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Brown Silty Clay (CL) 94.4 26.9 26.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@7.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Grayish Brown Silty Clay (CL)101.8 23.1 23.8 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B13 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@12.5 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Very Dark Brown Clay (CL)100.9 24.4 25.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@20 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Very Dark Gray Clay (CL)108.8 19.9 21.2 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@25 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Brown Silty Clay (CL)93.9 27.7 29.4 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B16 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@30 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Brown Silty Clay (CL)92.2 28.5 29.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B17 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@35 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Dark Brown Silty Clay (CL)90.1 31.7 31.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Project No.: W1076-88-01 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California Checked by: JS ASTM D-2435 October 2020 Figure B18 WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF SAMPLE ID. B5@40 SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY (PCF) INITIAL MOISTURE (%) FINAL MOISTURE (%) Very Dark Gray Silty Clay (CL)99.9 23.5 24.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Pe r c e n t C o n s o l i d a t i o n Consolidation Pressure (ksf) Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B1@0-5 Brown Clay (CL) Dry Density 119.9 117.5 120.0 117.1 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)120.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%)8.5 Wet Density 131.1 131.0 128.9 123.5 Moisture Content 9.4 11.5 7.4 5.5 Weight of Container 378.8 377.4 377.7 378.5 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont.923.3 950.6 1034.8 848.3 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont.974.3 1016.6 1083.4 874.0 Net Weight of Soil 1980 1979 1947 1866 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6276 6275 6243 6162 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 October 2020 Figure B19 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B2@0-5 Olive Gray Clay (CL) Dry Density 114.4 117.4 119.1 116.2 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)119.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%)12.6 Wet Density 132.5 134.3 133.9 127.8 Moisture Content 15.9 14.4 12.4 10.0 Weight of Container 378.0 410.0 378.0 378.0 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont.2106.0 2183.0 2177.5 2133.0 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont.2380.0 2438.0 2400.0 2308.0 Net Weight of Soil 2002 2028 2022 1930 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6298 6324 6318 6226 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 October 2020 Figure B20 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 October 2020 Figure B21 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6302 6288 6288 6202 TEST NO. 1234 Net Weight of Soil 2006 1992 1992 1906 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont.2149.0 2071.0 2142.0 2097.0 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont.2416.0 2366.0 2370.0 2282.0 Moisture Content 15.4 17.4 12.9 10.8 Weight of Container 410.0 378.0 378.0 378.0 Wet Density 132.8 131.9 131.9 126.2 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)117.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%)13.5 B3@0-5 Olive Gray Silty Clay (CL) Dry Density 115.1 112.3 116.8 113.9 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B4@0-5 Yellowihs Brown Sand with Clay (SC) Dry Density 130.9 131.8 127.4 126.5 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)132.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%)7.5 Wet Density 138.4 142.1 139.3 130.7 Moisture Content 5.8 7.8 9.3 3.3 Weight of Container 378.3 409.6 378.3 378.7 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont.849.6 914.8 873.2 876.7 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont.876.7 954.1 919.3 893.0 Net Weight of Soil 2091 2146 2104 1974 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6387 6442 6400 6270 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 October 2020 Figure B22 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Sample No: (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (pcf) (pcf) Preparation Method: Project No.: W1076-88-01 B5@0-5 Dark Brown Clay (CL) Dry Density 119.0 113.4 121.3 117.3 A Maximum Dry Density (pcf)121.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%)9.5 Wet Density 132.4 128.7 132.5 125.9 Moisture Content 11.3 13.5 9.2 7.3 Weight of Container 97.0 106.5 96.4 95.1 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont.571.8 495.2 628.9 649.6 Wet Weight of Soil + Cont.625.5 547.6 678.1 690.2 Net Weight of Soil 2000 1944 2001 1901 Weight of Mold 4296 4296 4296 4296 56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6296 6240 6297 6197 TEST NO. 1234 Checked by: JS MODIFIED COMPACTION TEST OF SOILS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, CaliforniaASTM D-1557 October 2020 Figure B23 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75 Project No.: W1076-88-01 56.9 Specimen Diameter Date Time Non-Expansive Expansive Very Low Low Expansion Index, EI50 CBC CLASSIFICATION * UBC CLASSIFICATION ** 130.6 122.0 0.4 0.3 57.1 (%) (pcf) (pcf) (cc) (gm) (gm) B4@0-5' 1.0 0 10 0.276 0.2755 Expansion Index ( Report ) = Expansion Index (EI meas) =-1 0 1490 0.274510/26/2019 11:00 1.0 14301.0 Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time (min) Dial Readings (in.) 486.5 466.8 186.5 7.0 (gm) 121.9 0.4 0.3 MOLDED SPECIMEN BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST 4.0 1.0 800.6 367.7 2.7 (in.) (in.) (gm) (gm) (Assumed) 4.0 Specimen Height Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold Wt. of Mold Specific Gravity Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. Wt. of Container 91-130 >130 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D-4829 * Reference: 2016 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3 ** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18-I-B. Checked by: JS Medium High Very High Expansive Expansive Expansive October 2020 Figure B24 Moisture Content Wet Density Dry Density Void Ratio Total Porosity Pore Volume 51-90 0-20 21-50 Degree of Saturation 813.2 404.6 367.7 10.1 134.2 1.0 813.2 367.7 2.7 0.274510:0010/26/2019 71.850.0(%) [Smeas] Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10:00 10:10 1.0 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. Project No.: W1076-88-01 103.2 Specimen Diameter Date Time Non-Expansive Expansive Very Low Low Expansion Index, EI50 CBC CLASSIFICATION * UBC CLASSIFICATION ** 115.3 102.9 0.6 0.4 80.7 (%) (pcf) (pcf) (cc) (gm) (gm) B5@0-5' 1.0 0 10 0.319 0.3185 Expansion Index ( Report ) = Expansion Index (EI meas) =109 109 1490 0.427510/26/2019 11:00 1.0 14301.0 Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time (min) Dial Readings (in.) 486.6 454.4 186.6 12.0 (gm) 102.8 0.8 0.4 MOLDED SPECIMEN BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST 4.0 1.0 750.4 368.3 2.7 (in.) (in.) (gm) (gm) (Assumed) 4.0 Specimen Height Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold Wt. of Mold Specific Gravity Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. Wt. of Container 91-130 >130 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D-4829 * Reference: 2016 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3 ** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18-I-B. Checked by: JS Medium High Very High Expansive Expansive Expansive October 2020 Figure B25 Moisture Content Wet Density Dry Density Void Ratio Total Porosity Pore Volume 51-90 0-20 21-50 Degree of Saturation 812.4 341.1 368.3 30.2 133.8 1.1 812.4 368.3 2.7 0.427510:0010/26/2019 99.851.2(%) [Smeas] Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10:00 10:10 1.0 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. Project No.: W1076-88-01 Checked by: JS CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS 5275 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills, California October 2020 Figure B26 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (pH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643 Sample No. B1 @ 0-5 B4 @ 0-5 pH 8.0 8.8 Resistivity (ohm centimeters) 340 (Severely Corrosive) 5600 (Moderately Corrosive) B5@0-5'0.591 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CHLORIDE CONTENT TEST RESULTS EPA NO. 325.3 B1@0-5' B4@0-5' B5@0-5' B1@0-5'0.052 S0 B4@0-5'0.000 S0 S2 7.9 560 (Severely Corrosive) Sample No. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No.Water Soluble Sulfate (% SQ4)Sulfate Exposure* B5 @ 0-5 Chloride Ion Content (%) 0.087 0.011 0.021 APPENDIX C Geocon Project No. W1076-08-01 Revised October 23, 2020 APPENDIX C RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW LETTER Project No. W1076-88-01 September 10, 2020 Alliance Realty Partners, LLC 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 550 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Ron Schulman Subject: RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW LETTER PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY 5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA TRACT: 05674; LOT: 51 References: Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Geocon West, Inc., dated November 12, 2019; City of Anaheim Public Works Dept. Review Letter, GMU Project 20-268-00, dated August 17, 2020. Dear Mr. Schulman: This letter has been prepared in response to the referenced Third Party Geotechnical Review letter prepared by the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works, consisting of eight comments, dated August 17, 2020. A copy of the review letter is appended herein. Comment 1: The consultant describes the slopes around the perimeter of the site as fill slopes; however, no subsurface exploration of these existing slopes was performed. How was it determined that these are fill slopes and not natural slopes? Please describe them in greater detail. If these slopes are natural slopes, please comment on whether the natural materials are competent or whether there is any adverse geologic structure. Response 1: As a part of our preparation of the referenced Geotechnical Report dated November 12, 2019, we reviewed historic aerial images of the site vicinity. The aerials between 1963 and 1980 show the pre-development condition of the site, mass grading of the tract, and the completion of the existing site improvements. Based on our review of the aerials, we had inferred that the existing slopes bounding the north and east property lines are fill slopes. As a part of the preparation of this letter, we have also located Grading Plans for the site from 1973 and 1974 through the City of Anaheim records portal. Review of these plans indicate that the original site topography was lower than the current elevations and that the slopes bounding the site are fill slopes. Copies of these plans are attached to this letter. 15520 Rockfield Boulevard, Suite J ■ Irvine, CA 92618 ■ Telephone (949) 491-6570 ■ oc@geoconinc.com Geocon Project No. W1076-06-01 - 2 - September 10, 2020 Comment 2: The consultant provides recommendations for slope construction including the construction of keyways; however, the report does not describe where new slopes will be constructed within the site. In addition, the site plan that accompanies the report does not show where new slopes will be constructed. Please describe the proposed grading around the perimeter of the site in detail and clarify where new slopes will be constructed and where keyways will be required. The recommended keyway locations should be shown on the geotechnical map. Response 2: Acknowledged; since the preparation of the referenced Geotechnical Report, the project plans have progressed. We have reviewed the Conceptual Grading Plan provided to us (dated September 9, 2020 Revision 1) and we have prepared cross- sections. The Conceptual Grading Plan has been used as the base image for Figure 1 and Cross Sections A-A’ through D-D’ are presented as Figures 2A and 2B. Based on the Conceptual Grading Plan, fill slopes are not currently proposed. Along the north property line, a proposed retaining wall up to 9½ feet in height and approximately 230 feet in length will be constructed along the property line from the northeast property corner and continuing west into the property. The wall will be backfill with a slope inclined at a 2:1 gradient (see Section B-B’). At the western terminus of the wall, the existing grade will be lowered to a slope inclined with a gradient of approximately 3:1 and a length of approximately 95 feet (see Section A-A’). Along the east property line, several retaining walls (up to 12½ feet in height) are proposed but will be setback from the property line and no significant slopes are planned (see Sections C-C’ and D-D’). Along the south property line, the proposed grade will approximately follow the existing grade of East Nohl Ranch Road with no significant slopes or retaining walls planned. Along the west property line, the existing retaining wall and slope will be protected in place. The design of the foundation supporting the proposed property line retaining wall along the northern property line wall will require coordination with the engineer in responsible charge of the wall design. Given that the project is currently going through entitlements, as a condition of project approval we will prepare and submit for your review additional geotechnical recommendations regarding the property line retaining wall foundation design prior to any issuance of a building permit. Adjacent to the proposed basement, a retaining wall up to 12½ feet in height is proposed. Updated recommendations for Retaining Wall Design are provided at the end of this letter, and also provide a corrected at-rest earth pressure for walls retaining level backfill. Geocon Project No. W1076-06-01 - 3 - September 10, 2020 The project is currently going through entitlements and the grading plans may be subject to future revision. As the project plans progress, they should be provided to our office for review and updated geotechnical recommendations provided, as needed. Comment 3: The geotechnical consultant shall review the precise grading plans for the subject site and provide additional recommendations as necessary. Response 3: Acknowledged. Precise grading plans are not yet available for this project; the project is currently going through entitlements. Once the precise grading plans have been prepared, they should be provided to Geocon for review and comment prior to the issuance of any permits. Comment 4: The consultant recommends a 6-foot over-excavation and re-compaction for the building area, but only 12 inches of new fill below the site walls and outlying structures. Please confirm that the remedial recommendations for site walls and outlying structures will provide adequate support for the planned improvements. Response 4: Confirmed; it is the intent of the geotechnical recommendations to remove the upper 6 feet of earth materials from the existing grade within the building footprint area and any building appearances and to provide a minimum 3-foot-thick blanket of engineered fill below proposed foundations. It is also our intent to provide a minimum of 12 inches of engineered fill below miscellaneous outlying structures. Prior to placing any fill, the excavation bottom must be observed and approved in writing by a Geocon representative. Deeper excavations should be conducted as necessary to remove deeper artificial fill or soft unsuitable soil at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). Comment 5: The recommendations for paving areas are unclear. It appears the report allows as an option [of] only 12-inch scarification and re-compaction for the paving areas. Since the recommendations for pavement may result in future settlement and cracking of these improvements, the owner should provide a letter acknowledging that this is acceptable. Otherwise, the remedial grading recommendations for these improvements should be revised to mitigate future movement and distress. Geocon Project No. W1076-06-01 - 4 - September 10, 2020 Response 5: It is the opinion of the undersigned engineer that remedial grading to eliminate all future pavement movement and distress would be economically prohibitive, not just on this project but on any project. The potential for future paving settlement or distress is not elevated for this project site and the geotechnical recommendation to scarify and recompact the upper 12-inches of paving subgrade support is within the standard of care for Southern California. The preparation of the paving subgrade should be performed under observation and testing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon); during our observations, if excessively soft or unsuitable materials are encountered at the paving subgrade elevation, we will recommend additional grading to improve those soils. Comment 6: Please review and revise the settlement estimates based on the actual foundation loading configurations. Response 6: Acknowledged; based on preliminary input from the project Structural Engineer, it is anticipated that column loads for the proposed on-grade two-story structure will be up to 60 kips and wall loads will be up to 3.5 kips per linear foot (dead plus live loads). For the portion of the structure with the proposed subterranean level, column loads are anticipated to be up to 80 kips and wall loads are anticipated to be up to 4.5 kips per linear foot (dead plus live loads). Based on these anticipated loads (which are lower than the loads assumed in the referenced Geotechnical Investigation report), the maximum expected static settlement for a structure supported on a conventional foundation system deriving support in the newly placed engineered fill with a maximum bearing pressure of 3,000 psf is estimated to be less than 1 inch and occur below the heaviest loaded structural element. Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ⅔ inch over a distance of 20 feet. Our office should be notified of any changes to the design and foundation loading configurations and the estimated settlements presented in this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Comment 7: Since the site is underlain by expansive soils, Section 1808.6.2 of the CBC indicates that non-prestressed slab-on-ground, mat or raft foundations should be designed in accordance with the WRI/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations publication while post-tensioned slab-on-ground, mat or raft foundations should be designed in accordance with the PTI DC 10.5 publication. Therefore, if the building will be designed with non-prestressed foundations, provide the expansion index and effective plasticity index of the soils so that the structural engineer can determine rib spacing and sizing below the slabs. If it will be designed with a post-tensioned slab, please provide the necessary PT parameters. Geocon Project No. W1076-06-01 - 5 - September 10, 2020 Response 7: Acknowledged, our report provides the soil expansion index. Section 1808.6.2 of the 2019 CBC indicates that alternative design proceeds shall be permitted to analyze and design slab-on-ground foundations on expansive soils provided the methods account for soil-structure interaction, the deformed shape of the soil support, the plate or stiffened plate action of the slab as well as both center lift and edge lift conditions. The CBC also indicates that such alternative methods shall be rational and the basis for all aspects and parameters of the method shall be available for peer review. The CBC does not specify that the design must be based on soil plasticity index. The recommended design parameters presented in the referenced report are based on our experience and the soil conditions encountered during site exploration. As the project is currently going through entitlements, the project Structural Engineer does not anticipate working on the foundation design for some time. As a condition of project approval, we will prepare and submit for your review additional geotechnical recommendations regarding the foundation design prior to any issuance of a building permit. Comment 8: Please confirm that the pavement recommendations provided in the report comply with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Street Design Manual. Response 8: Acknowledged. Based on our review of the City of Anaheim Street Design Manual and the City Standard Detail No 162, the minimum required pavement section for private streets is 4 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of aggregate base (AB) which corresponds to the recommended paving sections provided in our report. We acknowledge that the Street Design Manual indicates that a minimum AC and AB thickness of 0.35 feet (or 4.2 inches) should be used; however, we assume that the City Standard Detail is correct and governs. If flexible pavement will be constructed as a part of this project within streets with classifications other than Private Street, Geocon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations under separate cover. Other proposed pavement improvements within the City right-of-way, such as sidewalk and drive approaches, should follow the City of Anaheim Street Design Manual requirements and applicable standard plans. Retaining Wall Design The recommendations presented below are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 13 feet. In the event that walls significantly higher than 13 feet are planned, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations. Geocon Project No. W1076-06-01 - 6 - September 10, 2020 Retaining wall foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Conventional Foundation Design sections of this report (see Section 7.8). If alternate foundation recommendations are needed, Geocon should be contacted to provide supplemental foundation options under separate cover. Retaining walls with a level backfill surface that are not restrained at the top should be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure) of 40 pcf. Restrained walls are those that are not allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top and have a level backfill surface, walls may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (at-rest pressure) of 80 pcf. Retaining walls with an ascending sloping backfill of up to 2:1 (H:V) and that are not restrained at the top should be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure) of 58 pcf. The soil pressures above assume that the backfill material within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall will be comprised of the existing onsite soils. The onsite site soils exhibit a high expansive potential, and it is our opinion that the soils along the height of the wall could be subjected to cyclic wetting and drying subsequent to completion of construction especially where the walls are used in landscape areas. Select non-expansive backfill should be considered if reduced retaining wall pressures are desired. The wall pressures provided above assume that the retaining wall will be properly drained preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Recommendations for retaining wall drainage are provided in the referenced Geotechnical Report dated November 12, 2019. If retaining wall drainage is not implemented, the equivalent fluid pressure to be used in design of undrained walls is 105 pcf. The value includes hydrostatic pressures plus buoyant lateral earth pressures. Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses. Once the design becomes more finalized, an addendum letter can be prepared revising recommendations and addressing specific surcharge conditions throughout the project, if necessary. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper ten feet of the subterranean wall adjacent to the street and parking lot should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least ten feet from the subterranean walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. Geocon Project No. W1076-06-01 - 7 - September 10, 2020 Seismic lateral forces should be incorporated into the design as necessary, and recommendations for seismic lateral forces are provided in the referenced Geotechnical Report dated November 12, 2019. If you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GEOCON WEST, INC. Jelisa Thomas Adams GE 3092 Enclosures: Figure 1, Site Plan Figures 2A and 2B, Cross-Section Grading Plan, 1973 (see reference below) Grading Plan, 1974 (see reference below) City of Anaheim Public Works Dept. Review Letter References: Grading Plan, Tract No. 5674, Sheet 1 of 4, prepared by Hopen, Hedlund & Darby, Inc., dated January 1, 1973. Grading Plan, Lot No 51, Tract No. 5674, Sheet 1 of 1, prepared by Hopen, Hedlund & Darby, Inc., dated May 30, 1974. DRAFTED BY: JA PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01SITE PLAN SEP. 2020 F I G . 1 0 60'120'ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD AA' BB' C C' CHECKED BY: JTA B1 B2 B4 B3 B5 DD ' LEGEND Approximate Location of Boring B5 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-455015520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618ENVIRONMENTAL GEOT ECHNICAL MATERIALSNORTH CHECKED BY: GK DRAFTED BY: JA PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01CROSS SECTIONS SEP. 2020 F I G . 2 A 0 20'40'ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ? ? ? ? Ar t i f i c i a l F i l l TD = 2 0 ' Fe r n a n d o F o r m a t i o n Ex i s i t i n g To p o g r a p h y P L B- 3 (P r o j e c t e d ) Gr a d eAA' E l e v a t i o n i n F e e t Elevation in Feet 46 0 48 0 50 0 T op o g r a p hy * 1 9 73 N1 E 460480500 ? Ar t i f i c i a l F i l l Fe r n a n d o F o r m a t i o n Ex i s i t i n g To p o g r a p h y N T op o g r a p hy * 1 9 73 P L B' Elevation in Feet 460480500 B ? ? ? P r o p o s e d G r a d e P r o p o s e d R e t a i n i n g W a l l 440 P r o p o s e d R e t a i n i n g W a l l P r o p o s e d B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n i n F e e t 46 0 48 0 50 0 44 0 No t e : T h e s e c r o s s s e c t i o n s a r e f o r il l u s t r a t i o n o n l y . N o t f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . * 1 9 7 3 T o p o g r a p h a s s u m e d f r o m G r a d i n g P l a n s b y H o p e n , H e d l u n d & D a r b y , I n c . , d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 7 3 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-455015520 ROCK FIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618ENVIRONMENTAL GEOT ECHNICAL MATERIALS Pr o p o s e d CHECKED BY: GK DRAFTED BY: JA PROJECT NO. W1076-88-01CROSS SECTION SEP. 2020 F I G . 2 B 0 20'40'ANAHEIM HILLS, CALIFORNIA5275 NOHL RANCH ROAD ? C' T op o g r a p hy * 1 9 73 E l e v a t i o n i n F e e t 46 0 48 0 50 0 Elevation in Feet 44 0 460480500 440 P L Pr o p o s e d G r a d e Ex i s i t i n g To p o g r a p h y Ar t i f i c i a l F i l l B- 5 N9 0 W C Co l l u v i u m / F e r n a n d o F o r m a t i o n R o y a l O a k R o a d N8 9 W E l e v a t i o n i n F e e t 46 0 48 0 50 0 Elevation in Feet 44 0 460480500 440 T o p o g r a p hy * 1 9 7 3 Ar t i f i c i a l F i l l ? ? ? ? Fe r n a n d o F o r m a t i o n R o y a l O a k R o a d P L D' D Pr o p o s e d B u i l d i n g Pr o p o s e d F F = 4 8 6 ' Ex i s i t i n g To p o g r a p h y P r o p o s e d R e t a i n i n g W a l l No t e : T h e s e c r o s s s e c t i o n s a r e f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n o n l y . N o t f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . * 1 9 7 3 T o p o g r a p h a s s u m e d f r o m G r a d i n g P l a n s b y H op e n , H e d l u n d & D a r b y , I n c . , d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 7 3 PHONE (949) 491-6570 - FAX (949) 299-455015520 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE J - IRVINE, CA 92618ENVIRONMENTAL GEOT ECHNICAL MATERIALS Ba s e m e n t August 17, 2020 Mr. Cesar Morales, PE CITY OF ANAHEIM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, CA 92805 GMU Project 20-268-00 Subject: Third Party Geotechnical Review, Proposed New Senior Living Facility, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, City of Anaheim Documents Reviewed: 1. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Assisted Living and Memory Care Residential Facility, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim Hills, California, prepared by Geocon West, Inc., dated November 12, 2019. 2. Conceptual Grading Plan, 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, California, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, dated March 13, 2020. Dear Mr. Morales: We have completed our review of the above geotechnical documents. The status of our review is not approved. The comments below shall be addressed as part of the entitlement process: 1. The consultant describes the slopes around the perimeter of the site as fill slopes; however, no subsurface exploration of these existing slopes was performed. How was it determined that these are fill slopes and not natural slopes? Please describe them in greater detail. If these slopes are natural slopes, please comment on whether the natural materials are competent or whether there is any adverse geologic structure. 2. The consultant provides recommendations for slope construction including the construction of keyways; however, the report does not describe where new slopes will be constructed within the site. In addition, the site plan that accompanies the report does not show where new slopes will be constructed. Please describe the proposed grading around the perimeter of the site in detail and clarify where new slopes will be constructed and where keyways will be required. The recommended keyway locations should be shown on the geotechnical map. Mr. Cesar Morales, PE, CITY OF ANAHEIM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Third Party Geotechnical Review, Proposed New Senior Living Facility, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. August 17, 2020 2 GMU Project 20-268-00 The following comments shall be addressed prior to approval of the grading permit. As such, these items may be Conditions of Approval for the entitlement process. 3. The geotechnical consultant shall review the precise grading plans for the subject site and provide additional recommendations as necessary. 4. The consultant recommends a 6-foot over-excavation and re-compaction for the building area, but only 12 inches of new fill below the site walls and outlying structures. Please confirm that the remedial recommendations for site walls and outlying structures will provide adequate support for the planned improvements. 5. The recommendations for paving areas are unclear. It appears the report allows as an option only 12-inch scarification and re-compaction for the paving areas. Since the recommendations for pavement may result in future settlement and cracking of these improvements, the owner should provide a letter acknowledging that this is acceptable. Otherwise, the remedial grading recommendations for these improvements should be revised to mitigate future movement and distress. 6. Please review and revise the settlement estimates based on the actual foundation loading configurations. 7. Since the site is underlain by expansive soils, Section 1808.6.2 of the CBC indicates that non-prestressed slab-on-ground, mat or raft foundations should be designed in accordance with the WRI/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations publication while post- tensioned slab-on-ground, mat or raft foundations should be designed in accordance with the PTI DC 10.5 publication. Therefore, if the building will be designed with non- prestressed foundations, provide the expansion index and effective plasticity index of the soils so that the structural engineer can determine rib spacing and sizing below the slabs. If it will be designed with a post-tensioned slab, please provide the necessary PT parameters. 8. Please confirm that the pavement recommendations provided in the report comply with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Street Design Manual. Mr. Cesar Morales, PE, CITY OF ANAHEIM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Third Party Geotechnical Review, Proposed New Senior Living Facility, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. August 17, 2020 3 GMU Project 20-268-00 Should there be any questions regarding the content of this letter, please feel free to contact us. Respectfully submitted, Lisa L. Bates, PG, CEG 2293 Associate Engineering Geologist David Hansen, M.Sc., PE, GE 3056 Associate Geotechnical Engineer Electronic copy submitted November 13, 2020 Mr. Cesar Morales, PE CITY OF ANAHEIM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 276 Anaheim, CA 92805 GMU Project 20-268-00 Subject: Third Party Geotechnical Review, Proposed New Senior Living Facility, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, City of Anaheim Document Reviewed: 1. Response to Geotechnical Review Letter, Proposed Assisted Living and Memory Care Residential Facility, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim Hills, California, Tract 05674, Lot 31; prepared by Geocon West, Inc., dated September 10, 2020. Dear Mr. Morales: We have completed our review of the above geotechnical document. The project is conditionally approved from a geotechnical point of view. Our comments are below. 1. The geotechnical consultant shall review the finalized precise grading plan and foundation plans for conformance with their geotechnical recommendations. Any revised or additional geotechnical recommendations should be provided in a supplemental letter, as necessary. Mr. Cesar Morales, PE, CITY OF ANAHEIM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Third Party Geotechnical Review, Proposed New Senior Living Facility, 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. November 13, 2020 2 GMU Project 20-268-00 Should there be any questions regarding the content of this letter, please feel free to contact us. Respectfully submitted, Lisa L. Bates, PG, CEG 2293 Associate Engineering Geologist David Hansen, M.Sc., PE, GE 3056 Associate Geotechnical Engineer Electronic copy submitted APPENDIX L: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, California Prepared For: ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 450 Newport Center Drive Suite #550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared By: TETRA TECH BAS 21700 Copley Dr, Suite 200 Diamond Bar, California 91765 (909) 860-7777 HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS February 28, 2020 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\AAI cert ss.docx ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRIES (40 CFR 312) CERTIFICATION I, Marina Grigorova, declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR § 312.10. 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. I have developed and performed all the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. ___________________________ exp. 6/30/21 HOLDEN AHANHEIM HILLS, ANAHEIM, CA PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Holden Anaheim Hills – Phase I ESA i J:\Alliance\Anaheim\TOC.docx AAI CERTIFICATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Purpose 1-1 1.2 Scope of Work 1-1 1.2.1 Review of Environmental Setting Information 1-2 1.2.2 Site Reconnaissance, Site Vicinity Reconnaissance, and Interviews with Personnel Familiar with the Site 1-2 1.2.3 Review of Data on Historical Uses of the Site and the Site Vicinity 1-2 1.2.4 Review of Environmental Database Information 1-3 1.2.5 Data Evaluation, Report Compilation, and Management 1-3 1.3 Limitations and Exceptions 1-3 1.4 User Reliance 1-4 2.0 GENERAL SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SETTING 2-1 2.1 Site Location, Description and Boundaries 2-1 2.2 Environmental Setting 2-1 2.2.1 Physiographic, Geologic, Groundwater and Soil Conditions 2-1 2.2.2 Radon 2-2 2.2.3 Oil and Gas 2-3 2.3 Utilities 2-3 3.0 PHASE I ASSESSMENT RESULTS 3-1 3.1 Site Inspection Observations 3-1 3.2 Adjacent Sites and Vicinity Observations 3-3 3.3 Interview with Current Site Owners 3-3 3.4 Review of User Questionnaire 3-4 3.5 Site History and Land Use 3-4 3.5.1 Historical Aerial Photographs 3-4 3.5.2 Historical USGS Topographic Maps 3-5 3.5.3 City Directories 3-6 3.5.4 City of Anaheim Building Permits 3-6 3.5.5 Title Insurance Commitment Report 3-6 3.6 Results of Regulatory Agency List Review 3-7 3.7 Results of Regulatory Agencies Inquiries 3-8 4.0 FINDINGS 4-1 5.0 OPINION 5-1 HOLDEN AHANHEIM HILLS, ANAHEIM, CA PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Holden Anaheim Hills – Phase I ESA ii J:\Alliance\Anaheim\TOC.docx 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1 6.1 Conclusions 6-1 6.2 Recommendations 6-1 7.0 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 7-1 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location and Vicinity Map APPENDICES Appendix A Environmental Setting Information Appendix B Site Photographs Appendix C User Questionnaire Appendix D Historical Aerial Photographs Appendix E Historical Topographic Maps Appendix F City Directory Listings Appendix G Pertinent City of Anaheim Building Permits Appendix H Title Insurance Commitment Report Appendix I Database Report Appendix J Regulatory Agencies Public Records Requests and Responses Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 1 - 1 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-1.0.docx 1.0 INTRODUCTION Tetra Tech BAS (Tetra Tech) was retained by Alliance Realty Partners, LLC (Alliance) to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of a property located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road, in the Anaheim Hills area of the City of Anaheim, California (Figure 1). The property is situated on the northwest corner of intersection of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak Roads. Aside from these public roadways, the property is surrounded by single-family residential developments. Alliance is considering the purchase of the site for a proposed senior housing development, preliminary referred to as Holden Anaheim Hills. The proposed development is anticipated to consist of approximately 118 senior living units (assisted living/memory care), housed in a three-story slab-on-grade building and supported by surface parking. The subject site is roughly diamond-shaped and approximately 3.1 acres in size. It is identified by the Orange County Tax Assessor by APN 361-291-51. Currently, the property is improved with an approximately 17,200-sf single-story building, most recently used as a religious facility, and at-grade parking lots. The current improvements, built in 1978, will be demolished. 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to evaluate whether Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs), and/or Historical RECs (HRECs), as defined in the ASTM Standard E1527-13 and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Rule, are present at the site, or, conversely, to reasonably illustrate the lack of any RECs or de minimis conditions. 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK This ESA was performed in accordance with Tetra Tech proposal of September 4, 2019, as well as various communications with Alliance. The work described herein was performed in accordance with guidelines for Phase I ESAs provided by ASTM Standard E1527-13 and the EPA AAI rule. In completing this ESA, the following tasks were performed: 1.0 INTRODUCTION Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 1 - 2 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-1.0.docx 1.2.1 Review of Environmental Setting Information Regional geology and hydrogeology review included evaluation of depth to groundwater, localized and regional groundwater flow, and potential groundwater conditions. Review of topographic maps provided information regarding general site setting, including elevation, topographic relief and major physiographic features in the site vicinity. Review of oil and gas maps was conducted to determine if such exploration activities took place at or around the site. Radon and site utilities information was also reviewed. 1.2.2 Site Reconnaissance, Site Vicinity Reconnaissance, and Interviews with Personnel Familiar with the Site Tetra Tech searched for evidence of present or past operations that use or may have used potentially hazardous materials. Tetra Tech personnel visually inspected and assessed the site for evidence of storage, use, disposal, and/or spills of potentially hazardous materials. Any evidence of visible or suspected hazardous materials was documented with color photographs. Tetra Tech visually inspected the site for abnormal or unusual topographic features (such as mounds, depressions, sink holes, etc.) as potential storage and/or disposal areas of hazardous materials. A site vicinity reconnaissance (area within one mile radius of the site) was performed to compile a list of companies/businesses in the site vicinity that are reported or appear to use or produce hazardous substances that, in Tetra Tech’s judgment, may impact the site. Tetra Tech conducted interviews/discussions with personnel familiar with the property and reviewed User Questionnaire. 1.2.3 Review of Data on Historical Uses of the Site and the Site Vicinity Review of readily available historical aerial photographs and maps – the review provided information on historical land use at the site and in the site vicinity as it relates to potential sources of hazardous waste (e.g., landfills, sumps, or gas stations that are no longer present, or changes to facility features). Review of Preliminary Title Report, in lieu of Environmental Lien Search. Review of files available from the City of Anaheim Building and Safety. Review of files available from the Orange County Health Care Agency. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 1 - 3 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-1.0.docx 1.2.4 Review of Environmental Database Information Review of readily available information from pertinent federal, state, county, and city governmental/agencies and selected private individuals or offices. 1.2.5 Data Evaluation, Report Compilation, and Management Tetra Tech evaluated the available data to assess whether the objectives of the investigation had been met. As part of the data evaluation, BAS is providing the uncertainties associated with the collected data and the stated conclusions and recommendations. Tetra Tech prepared this report that includes descriptions of the site under investigation, the purpose and the objectives of the study, approach, detailed scope of work with rationales/justifications, the procedure that was used, pertinent findings, conclusions, recommendations for further work, limitations, exceptions and references for cited and/or reviewed documents. 1.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based upon the agreed scope of work outlined in Section 1.2 and detailed in Tetra Tech proposal of September 4, 2019, and subsequent communications between Tetra Tech and Alliance. Tetra Tech makes no warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of information obtained from information provided or compiled by others, such as from Federal and State data base lists, interviewees, and site investigation or other reports. It is possible that relevant site environmental information exists beyond the scope of this investigation. Also, changes in site use may have occurred in the past that are not documented in records made available to Tetra Tech. Additional information, which was not found or obtainable at the time of the writing of this report, may result in modification of our conclusions and recommendations. The services performed by Tetra Tech have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions, under current regulatory policy and guidelines with respect to environmental concerns. No other warranty is expressed or implied. This report is not a legal opinion. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 1 - 4 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-1.0.docx 1.4 USER RELIANCE This report is certified to, can be relied upon by, and has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alliance, and its members, affiliates, related entities, subsidiaries, equity partners, lenders, title insurers, or regulatory/city agencies or current property owner(s) and their agents, but reliance by any other party requires prior written approval from Tetra Tech. Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 2 - 1 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-2.0.docx 2.0 GENERAL SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SETTING The following sections describe the site location and boundaries, general site vicinity characteristics, and regional environmental setting, with emphasis on general geological and physiographical features. 2.1 SITE LOCATION, DESCRIPTION AND BOUNDARIES The Holden Anaheim Hills site consists of one parcel located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, in the City of Anaheim, California (Figure 1, Site Location Map). The subject site is bounded on the south by Nohl Ranch Road and on the east by Royal Oak Road. Aside from public rights-of-way, at the time of this assessment, the site was surrounded by single-family residential properties. The subject site encompasses a roughly diamond-shaped site, approximately 3.1 acres in size. Currently, the site is improved with a 17,200-sf single-story building, used as a religious facility. The property is identified by the Orange County Tax Assessor by APN 361-291-51. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.2.1 Physiographic, Geologic, Groundwater and Soil Conditions Major physiographic features in the vicinity of the subject property include the Imperial Highway (Route 90) approximately ¾-miles to the east of the site; the Riverside Freeway (Route 91) approximately ¾-miles to the north; the Santa Ana River, immediately north of the 91 Freeway; and the Costa Mesa Freeway (Route 55) approximately two miles to the southwest of the site. According to the USGS Orange California Quadrangle 2012 topographic map, the site is located at an elevation of approximately 500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The property is graded to gently slope towards the intersection of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak Roads. The City of Anaheim extends along the Santa Ana River towards the northern portions of the Santa Ana Mountains. The general cross section of the Santa Ana Mountains consists of an anticlinal fold across the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone (Schoellhamer, et al., 1981). The crest of the fold parallels the mountain ridgeline 2.0 GENERAL SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SETTING Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 2 - 2 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-2.0.docx with a gently dipping southwestern flank and a steep, down-faulted northeastern limb. Additional intermediate folding has been superimposed on the major anticlinal feature. The Santa Ana River generally follows the axis of a syncline that plunges westerly. The southern flanks of the syncline form the Peralta Hills, which merge with the Santa Ana Mountains to the east. In the general area of the site, Pleistocene age terrace deposits are present on elevated terraces along the upper edges of the alluvial plains and the lower benches of hillside areas. The Santa Ana River channel area and its tributaries are also underlain by Holocene alluvial deposits. The Peralta Hills and Santa Ana Mountains expose a sequence of older sedimentary rock units, which include Tertiary to Cretaceous age marine and non-marine deposits. Landslide deposits are also relatively common in the steeper hillside areas. According to information available for neighboring sites from the GeoTracker database, maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board (geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov), subsurface sediments beneath the site consist of predominantly Quaternary alluvial deposits, underlain by Miocene sedimentary rocks. In the upper 50 feet of the subsurface, soils are expected to be generally fine- grained, consisting of silty sand, sandy silt, and clayey silt, underlain by weathered sandstone and siltstone. Based on the 1968 geotechnical report, prepared prior to construction of the church, the site is underlain by up to 23 feet of compacted engineered fill, which consisted mostly of clayey silts and silts. Groundwater beneath the site is expected to be first encountered at depths greater than 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). Shallow groundwater, if encountered, is likely to follow the overall surface topography and flow towards the Santa Ana River in a northwesterly direction. Regional groundwater is likely to occur at depths greater than 200 feet and have a southwest gradient towards the Pacific Ocean. Additional environmental setting information is provided in GeoPlus reports provided by GeoSearch and included in Appendix A. 2.2.2 Radon According to the US EPA, the site, being located in Orange County, is situated within Radon Zone 3, with a predicted average indoor radon screening level of less than 2 picoCuries per Liter (pCi/L, low potential). A zip-code based compilation of 2.0 GENERAL SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SETTING Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 2 - 3 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-2.0.docx California Indoor Radon Levels, published by the California Department of Health Services (DHS) and last updated in February 2016, indicates that out of 59 tests, conducted at properties within the same zip code as the subject site (92807), only five (5) resulted in radon concentrations in excess of 4 pCi/L. 2.2.3 Oil and Gas According to a GeoPlus Oil & Gas Report, provided by GeoSearch and included in Appendix A, there are no oil wells at the site or in its immediate proximity (within ½- mile radius). The site is not located within the boundaries of any designated oil field. According to the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) on-line mapping system, there are no gas or oil pipelines on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest pipeline to the site is an active natural gas transmission pipeline, owned by Southern California Gas Company, and is approximately 1.5-miles north of the site (refer to a map included in Appendix A). 2.3 UTILITIES Site utilities are provided as follows: Gas – Southern California Gas Company Electric – Anaheim Public Utilities Water & sewer – Orange County Water District Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 3 - 1 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-3.0.docx 3.0 PHASE I ASSESSMENT RESULTS To assess existing and historical information regarding the site, Tetra Tech performed the following tasks, described in this section: Direct Site Inspection Adjacent Sites and Vicinity Observations Interview with the Current Site Owner Review of User Questionnaire Site History/Land Use Research (Aerial Photographs, Topographic Maps, City Directory Listings, Building Permits and Title Insurance Commitment Report) Results of the Regulatory Database Review Results of Regulatory Agencies Inquiries 3.1 SITE INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS Tetra Tech inspectors, Ms. Caroline Coto and Mr. Jonathan Arriaza, performed direct inspection of the site on October 21, 2019. Site inspection included all interior and exterior areas of the subject site. During the site visit, the property was visually inspected for evidence of possible past and/or current environmental concerns. Photographs included in Appendix B show the general characteristics of the site. The subject site is improved with one single-story building located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. The remainder of the site consists of a paved parking lot and landscaped areas. The landscaped areas appeared to be relatively well maintained, with no evidence of dead, distressed, discolored or stained vegetation that may be indicative of a REC. The parking lot associated with the building slopes downward to the northern extent of the property, with several concrete surface swales in the western portion of the site. At the time of the inspection, the swales were dry. No staining or discoloration was noted in the swales. One pad-mounted transformer was observed within a secured concrete and rebar enclosure along the northernmost rear exit of the building. No evidence of staining or leakage was observed. 3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 3 - 2 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-3.0.docx A small storage shed is located in the center of the parking lot, within a landscaped area. The shed was locked and its interior was not inspected, but it is understood to be used for storage and landscaping needs. Five 55-gallon drums were observed on the northwestern corner of the site parking lot. Labels on the drums identify the contents as soil cuttings generated by Geocon West during a recent geotechnical investigation. In addition to the drums, five patched borings less than a foot wide were observed in various locations of the paved parking lot and grass areas. No landfills, dumps or evidence of burial activities were observed at the site. Solid waste is disposed of into a dumpster, located within a concrete containment area and secured by a gate, at the northwest corner of the building, for off-site disposal. No evidence of spills or staining was observed around the site dumpster. Five air conditioning units were observed in a brick-fenced enclosure located on the northeastern side of the structure, outside the daycare playground. No staining was observed. The interior of the building is comprised of various rooms typical for religious facility uses. The following were observed: multiple restroom facilities, multiple closets used for storage, a dressing room, custodial closets, mechanical closets, primary/education rooms, parish offices, a daycare room attached to a fenced exterior playground, and a break room (kitchen). The interior of the facility is interconnected by four hallways which run along the perimeter in a square-shaped design, a cultural hall (gymnasium/stage) and chapel are in the center of the facility. Small containers (5-gallons or less) of chemicals, such as cleaners and disinfectants were observed in some of the custodial closets and kitchen spaces. Multiple electrical breakers and air conditioning ducts were observed inside mechanical closets. A 55-gallon drum was observed in one of the mechanical closets, and appeared to be empty, the label identified its former contents as diet pepsi. The presence of these containers are considered a de minimis condition to the site. Overall, no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified through site inspection observations. 3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 3 - 3 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-3.0.docx 3.2 ADJACENT SITES AND VICINITY OBSERVATIONS The general vicinity is predominately single-family residential. The south side of the subject site is bounded by Nohl Ranch Road and single-family residential beyond. The site is bounded to the east by Royal Oak Road, with single-family residential properties beyond. Single-family residential properties also border the site on the north and west. No environmental concerns were noted for the site vicinity based on windshield observations. 3.3 INTERVIEWS WITH CURRENT SITE OWNER REPRESENTATIVE The subject site is currently owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Interview with Mr. Stephen Korn, a facilities manager for the LDS Church, was conducted over the phone on October 29, 2019. The following summarizes the interview with Mr. Korn. During the interview, Mr. Korn indicated that he has been involved with the property since approximately February 2014. In addition, Mr. Korn was aware of the history of the property based on various historical documents, some of which were of relevance and were provided to Alliance and Tetra Tech. The relevant historical documents included a 1968 geotechnical report for the site, commissioned by the Church prior to building construction, and a 1991 report of sampling for potential asbestos containing materials (multiple interior and roof materials were sampled, and no asbestos was detected above regulatory limits). According to Mr. Korn, the property has been constructed in the 1970s and exclusively used by the LDS Church since original development. Prior to construction, the property was vacant land. Mr. Korn was unaware of any potential events at the property, such as fire or flood, which may be of environmental concern. According to Mr. Korn, there are no current or previous wells, sumps, clarifiers, above- or underground improvements, or any other features at the site, which would be of environmental relevance or significance. 3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 3 - 4 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-3.0.docx 3.4 REVIEW OF USER QUESTIONNAIRE In accordance with ASTM E1527-13, Mr. Ron Schulman of Alliance completed the User Questionnaire for the subject site. A copy of the completed questionnaire is included as Appendix C to this report.As indicated on the Questionnaire,Mr. Schulman was unaware of any environmental concerns for the subject site. 3.5 SITE HISTORY AND LAND USE Based on a review of historical aerial photos, topographic maps, city directories, and information available from the City of Anaheim, the site was undeveloped until 1978. The surrounding properties were undeveloped until at least 1972. By 1978, the subject site was developed with the present-day building. The surrounding vicinity became increasingly developed for residential land uses from at least 1972 until 2002, when all present-day properties surrounding the site were constructed. A review of various sources of historical information follows. 3.5.1 Historical Aerial Photographs Historical aerial photographs of the subject site were acquired from GeoSearch. Aerial photographs available for review were taken in 1938, 1946, 1952, 1960, 1966, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1994, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016. In addition, the most recent available aerial image of the site vicinity, taken in 2018, is provided as the basis of Figure 1. Copies of historical aerial photographs are included in Appendix D. The 1938 through 1966 aerial photographs depict the subject site as undeveloped land. The surrounding area is of a similar nature, large plots of land used for agricultural purposes or left as open space. It appears there are four residential properties to the northeast, north, and northwest of the subject site; as well as additional warehouse-like structures north of Santa Ana Canyon Road. The 1972 aerial image shows the subject site has undergone grading construction. The present-day major street network is also apparent. The surrounding properties show tracts intended for residential housing; further north and southeast of the property residential housing has already been constructed. The 1980 aerial image shows the subject site improved with the present-day structure. The surrounding vicinity shows significant residential development; with a few plots of undeveloped land to the west and south. The 1988 and 1994 aerial photographs show the site as it appears today, only a few undeveloped parcels remain in the vicinity of the site. 3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 3 - 5 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-3.0.docx The 2002 through 2016 aerial images show the subject site and surrounding property as it appears today. The last remaining undeveloped parcels to the west and south are improved with residential structures. No indications of on-site or off-site environmental concerns were identified through the review of the historical aerial photographs. 3.5.2 Historical USGS Topographic Maps Historical topographic maps of the subject site were prepared by Geosearch. Maps available for review included USGS Anaheim Quadrangle topographic maps prepared in 1896, 1898, 1901, and 1942; USGS Orange Quadrangle maps prepared in 1932, 1935, 1949, 1950, 1964, 1972 (photorevised from 1964), 1981 (photorevised from 1964) and 2012; and USGS Corona Quadrangle topographic map prepared in 1902. Copies of these topographical maps are included in Appendix E. As presented on the topographic maps, the site and surrounding properties are depicted as undeveloped land to at least 1964. By the 1972, some uses of the surrounding vicinity are depicted on the maps: the 1972 map shows the updated construction of the 91 Freeway and the Kraemer Oil Field to the north. [Kraemer Oil Field is over one mile north from the subject site and has since been abandoned]. The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, as well as the Pacific and Tustin Railroads are first pictured west and south of the site, respectively, in 1896. By 1964 a majority of surrounding rail lines are no longer pictured, and have been replaced by the initial construction of the two-lane 91 freeway. Starting in 1972, the adjacent parcel and surrounding vicinity to the southwest are shown with new residential structures. No site-specific details are discernible on the maps. The topographic maps indicate the site elevation to be approximately 500 feet above mean sea level. No areas of potential environmental concern in the immediate vicinity of the site were identified through a review of the USGS Topographic maps. 3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 3 - 6 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-3.0.docx 3.5.3 City Directories Geosearch provided Tetra Tech with a City Directory Report for the subject site and surrounding properties. Information pertaining to the subject site indicated a listing for the Latter-Day Saints Church starting in 1981 until 2014. City directories for neighboring sites do not reveal any listings of environmental significance. A copy of the City Directory Report is provided in Appendix F. 3.5.4 City of Anaheim Building Permits The City Clerk’s Department - Office of Records maintains all official records for the City of Anaheim, including historical City of Anaheim Building and Safety records. Permit records are available online (http://records.anaheim.net) and were reviewed by Tetra Tech on October 15, 2019. Original construction permits for 5275 Nohl Ranch Road date the structure to May 1978. Permits were issued for additions/alterations of the existing building and/or repairs. All permits were issued for commercial-type construction; such as plumbing, electrical, air conditioning and additional storage structures. No permits indicating an environmental concern were found. Copies of relevant building permits are included in Appendix G. 3.5.5 Title Insurance Commitment Report Alliance provided Tetra Tech with the Title Insurance Commitment Report, prepared by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and dated September 27, 2019. A copy of the report is included in Appendix H. The report indicates that the site is owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a Utah Corporation (LDS Church). Review of the report and associated exceptions did not identify any environmentally- specific deed restrictions, activity-use limitation (AULs) or environmental liens against the subject site. 3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 3 - 7 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-3.0.docx 3.6 RESULTS OF REGULATORY AGENCY LIST REVIEW A records search of multiple Federal, State, and local environmental databases was provided by GeoSearch. The GeoSearch Database Report is included in Appendix I. Federal, State and local (Orange County) databases were searched using radii specified in ASTM E1527-13. According to GeoSearch, four (4) listings were identified, which corresponded to approximately three (3) sites located within one-mile radius of the site. The database report did not include any findings for the 5275 Nohl Ranch Road subject property. Also, no findings were reported for any properties adjacent to the site. The following listings were found for three (3) nearby properties: 555 S Silverado Way (Westridge Pump Station) is listed under the SWEEPS and Historical Underground Storage Tank (HISTUST) database. This property is approximately 1/4-mile south of the subject site. SWEEPS (Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System) is a historical database (last updated in 1994), succeeded by Geotracker. The Geotracker does not include any listings for Westridge Pump Station, although the station is still located at this property. Based on information provided, an active 500-gallon capacity UST containing diesel is located at this site. Because there are no listings indicating a release, this property is not considered to pose a threat to the subject site. 111 North Pinney Street (Pinney Street Sweeper Transfer Station) is listed under the Solid Waste Information System Sites (SWIS) database. This property is approximately 1/2-mile north of the subject site. Based on the information provided in the GeoSearch report, Pinney Street Transfer Station accepts limited volume of non-hazardous municipal waste. This site is located cross- or downgradient from the subject property. Based on its location and absence of any listings indicating a release, this property does not pose a threat to the subject site. 5566 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (Canyon Cleaners) is listed under Envirostor Cleanup Sites. This property is located more than 1/2-mile from the subject site, and is likely to be downgradient from the site with respect to groundwater flow. A review of the DTSC Envirostor records indicates that the site had a release of halogenated solvents (PCE) from dry-cleaning operations, which impacted soil at the site. A review of Geotracker indicated that the site was granted “No Further Action” in late 1999, and the case was closed in January of 2000. Based on the closed regulatory status, this property does not pose a threat to the subject site. The property is still currently used as a dry cleaners. Review of database listing did not identify any off-site concerns for the subject property. 3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Holden Anaheim Hills – ESA 3 - 8 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-3.0.docx 3.7 RESULTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES INQUIRIES As documented by correspondence records included in Appendix J, Tetra Tech submitted requests for review of records maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and the City of Anaheim Fire and Rescue. Other sources of potential environmentally relevant information that were searched online, using publicly available databases, included the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) ENVIROStor database, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database, and the SCAQMD Facility INformation Detail (F.I.N.D.) database. A review of OCHCA records was requested by Tetra Tech on October 15, 2019. OCHCA records searched included 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. OCHCA responded in an online notification dated October 22, 2019 indicating that they do not have any records for the property. A review of records from Anaheim Fire and Rescue were requested by Tetra Tech on October 17, 2019. Anaheim Fire and Rescue records searched included 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. AFR responded in an email letter dated October 28, 2019 indicating that they do not have any records for the property. Neither Geotracker, EnviroStor nor SCAQMD F.I.N.D. databases included any records for the site. Holden Anaheim – Phase I ESA 4 - 1 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-4.0.docx 4.0 FINDINGS Based on the results of this Phase I ESA, the following findings are presented: Currently the site is used as a religious facility (LDS Church). Current site conditions do not appear to present any environmental concerns. The current improvements were constructed in 1978 by the LDS Church, which has used the site exclusively for religious purposes since then. Prior to 1978, the site was undeveloped vacant land. The subject site is not identified as being currently evaluated by the State of California, local or federal government for remedial action under CERCLA or any other environmental regulations. Visual observations of adjacent properties did not reveal any concerns. No vapor encroachment issues have been identified. Review of available public information did not identify any specific concerns with regard to off-site properties. Holden Anaheim - Phase I ESA 5 - 1 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-5.0.docx 5.0 OPINION In the professional opinion of Tetra Tech, an appropriate level of inquiry has been made into the previous uses of the site consistent with good commercial and customary practice with the intent to minimize environmental liability. No significant data gaps were encountered. Based on the results of this ESA, no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) have been identified for the subject site. Holden Anaheim - Phase I ESA 6 - 1 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-6.0.docx 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As detailed in the previous sections, based on the direct site and vicinity inspections, interviews with persons familiar with the site, review of historical aerial photographs, topographic maps, review of regulatory agency database report, and information available from the regulatory agencies, the following conclusions and recommendations are presented regarding the subject site. 6.1 CONCLUSIONS This Phase I ESA was performed by Tetra Tech in general accordance with ASTM Practice 1527-13 and EPA’s AAI guidelines, as well as the scope of work described in Section 1.0, for the subject site located at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road (APN 361-291- 51), in Anaheim, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.3 of this report. This Phase I ESA has revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject site. 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this Phase I ESA, no further inquiry and/or investigation of the subject property are considered warranted at this time, and thus none are recommended. Holden Anaheim - Phase I ESA 7 - 1 J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Sec-7.0.docx 7.0 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS The principal investigator for this ESA was Ms. Marina Grigorova. Ms. Grigorova is a Senior Environmental Engineer and Project Manager at Tetra Tech BAS. Ms. Grigorova is a California Registered Engineer (C67877) with more than twenty years of environmental engineering and environmental research experience. She is responsible for conducting Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, Remedial Investigations, Implementation of Remedial and Corrective Actions, preparation of Remedial Action Plans, Feasibility Studies, Sampling Plans and Health and Safety Plans. She also has extensive knowledge of federal and state environmental statutes and regulations. Research and field assistance for this project were provided by Ms. Caroline Coto and Mr. Jonathan Arriaza. Ms. Coto is an environmental specialist with one year of field and research experience. Mr. Arriaza is an environmental geologist with seven years of field and research experience. Both Ms. Coto and Mr. Arriaza possess the required skills and experience to provide technical and field support for environmental site investigation and remediation programs. This has included preparation of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, groundwater monitoring, soil and soil gas sampling, analysis of site monitoring data, and report preparation. 21700 COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200 DIAMOND BAR, CA 909-860-7777 HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS, ANAHEIM, CA SITE LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP DATE: Oct 2019 DRAWN BY: MG FILE: J:\Alliance\Anaheim\Fig 1-Site Vicinity Map FIGURE 1 Subject site GeoPlus Physical Setting Maps Satellite view Target Property: Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, Orange County, California 92807 Prepared For: Tetra Tech Inc-Diamond Bar Order #: 134181 Job #: 319108 Date: 10/15/2019 0 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 Target Property Summary 1 FEMA Map 2 FEMA Report 3 NWI Map 4 NWI Report 5 SOIL Map 6 SOIL Report 7 GEOLOGY Map 8 GEOLOGY Report 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 Table of Contents The information provided in this report was obtained from a variety of public sources. GeoSearch cannot ensure and makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, reliability, quality, errors occurring from data conversion or the customer's interpretation of this report. This report was made by GeoSearch for exclusive use by its clients only. Therefore, this report may not contain sufficient information for other purposes or parties. GeoSearch and its partners, employees, officers And independent contractors cannot be held liable For actual, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages suffered by a customer resulting directly or indirectly from any information provided by GeoSearch. www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 Disclaimer Target Property Information Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, California 92807 Coordinates Point (-117.80155, 33.844850) 508 feet above sea level USGS Quadrangle Orange, CA Geographic Coverage Information County/Parish: Orange (CA) ZipCode(s): Anaheim CA: 92807 Orange CA: 92867 1 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 Target Property Summary .2 Click here to access Satellite view 2 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 Target Property SummaryFEMA Map FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) data used in this report is derived from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The NFHL dataset is a compilation of effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) databases (a collection of the digital data that are used in GIS systems for creating new Flood Insurance Rate Maps) and Letters of Map Change (Letters of Map Amendment and Letters of Map Revision only) that create a seamless GIS data layer for United States and its territories. The NFHL is updated as new study or LOMC data becomes effective. Note: Currently, not all areas have modernized FIRM database data available. As a result, users may need to refer to the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map for effective flood hazard information. FEMA Flood Zone Definitions within Search Radius X Zone X An area that is determined to be outside the 100 and 500 year floodplains. 3 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 FEMA Report .4 Click here to access Satellite view 4 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 FEMA ReportNWI Map NWI - National Wetlands Inventory The US NWI digital data bundle is a set of records of wetlands location and classification as defined by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This dataset is one of a series available in 7.5 minute by 7.5 minute blocks containing ground planimetric coordinates of wetlands point, line, and area features and wetlands attributes. When completed, the series will provide coverage for all of the contiguous United States, Hawaii, Alaska, and U.S. protectorates in the Pacific and Caribbean. The digital data as well as the hardcopy maps that were used as the source for the digital data are produced and distributed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory project. Currently, this data is only available in select counties throughout the United States. NWI Definitions within Search Radius R4SBJ SYSTEM: RIVERINE SUBSYSTEM: INTERMITTENT CLASS: STREAMBED WATER REGIME: INTERMITTENLY FLOODED 5 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 NWI Report .6 Click here to access Satellite view 6 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 NWI ReportSoil Map Soil Surveys The soil data used in this report is obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS is the primary federal agency that works with private landowners to help them conserve, maintain and improve their natural resources. The soil survey contains information that can be applied in managing farms and ranches; in selecting sites for roads, ponds, buildings and other structures; and in determining the suitability of tracts of land for farming, industry and recreation. This data is available in select counties throughout the United States. SOIL Code Definitions within Search Radius 167 MOCHO LOAM, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES, WARM MAAT, MLRA 19 100 ALO CLAY, 9 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 101 ALO CLAY, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES 102 ALO CLAY, 30 TO 50 PERCENT SLOPES, WARM MAAT, MLRA 20 112 BALCOM CLAY LOAM, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES 134 CALLEGUAS CLAY LOAM, 50 TO 75 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED 173 MYFORD SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES 221 YORBA GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES 222 YORBA GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 9 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 223 YORBA GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES 7 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 SOIL Report .8 Click here to access Satellite view 8 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 SOIL ReportGeology Map US GEOLOGY THE GEOLOGY DATA USED IN THIS REPORT ORIGINATES FROM THE USGS. THE FIRST STAGE IN DEVELOPING STATE DATABASES FOR THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES WAS TO ACQUIRE DIGITAL VERSIONS OF ALL EXISTING STATE GEOLOGIC MAPS. ALTHOUGH A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF DIGITAL STATE MAPS ALREADY EXISTED, A NUMBER OF STATES LACKED THEM. FOR THESE STATES NEW DIGITAL COMPILATIONS WERE PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH STATE GEOLOGIC SURVEYS OR BY THE NSA (NATIONAL SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS) PROJECT. THESE NEW DIGITAL STATE GEOLOGIC MAPS AND DATABASES WERE CREATED BY DIGITIZING ALREADY EXISTING PRINTED MAPS, OR, IN A FEW CASES, BY MERGING EXISTING LARGER SCALE DIGITAL MAPS. GEOLOGY Definitions within Search Radius GEOLOGY SYMBOL: M UNIT NAME: Miocene marine rocks UNIT AGE: Oligocene to Pliocene UNIT DESCRIPTION: Sandstone, shale, siltstone, conglomerate and breccia; in part Pliocene and Oligocene. ADDITIONAL UNIT INFORMATION: ROCKTYPE/S: sandstone; mudstone; siltstone; evaporite; conglomerate GEOLOGY SYMBOL: P UNIT NAME: Pliocene marine rocks UNIT AGE: Miocene to Pleistocene UNIT DESCRIPTION: Sandstone, siltstone, shale, and conglomerate; in part Pleistocene and Miocene. ADDITIONAL UNIT INFORMATION: ROCKTYPE/S: sandstone; mudstone; siltstone; claystone; conglomerate GEOLOGY SYMBOL: Q UNIT NAME: Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits UNIT AGE: Pliocene to Holocene UNIT DESCRIPTION: Alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits; unconsolidated and semi-consolidated. Mostly nonmarine, but includes marine deposits near the coast. ADDITIONAL UNIT INFORMATION: ROCKTYPE/S: alluvium; terrace; lake or marine deposit (non-glacial) 9 of 9 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319108 GEOLOGY Report GeoPlus Water Well Report GeoLens by GeoSearch Target Property: Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, Orange County, California 92807 Prepared For: Tetra Tech Inc-Diamond Bar Order #: 134181 Job #: 319106 Date: 10/15/2019 0 of 7 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Target Property Summary 1 Database Radius Summary 2 Water Well Map 4 Environmental Records Definitions 6 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Table of Contents The information provided in this report was obtained from a variety of public sources. GeoSearch cannot ensure and makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, reliability, quality, errors occurring from data conversion or the customer's interpretation of this report. This report was made by GeoSearch for exclusive use by its clients only. Therefore, this report may not contain sufficient information for other purposes or parties. GeoSearch and its partners, employees, officers And independent contractors cannot be held liable For actual, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages suffered by a customer resulting directly or indirectly from any information provided by GeoSearch. www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Disclaimer Target Property Information Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, California 92807 Coordinates Point (-117.80155, 33.844850) USGS Quadrangle Orange, CA Geographic Coverage Information County/Parish: Orange (CA) ZipCode(s): Anaheim CA: 92807 Orange CA: 92867 1 of 7 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Target Property Summary FEDERAL LISTING Acronym Search Radius (miles) TP/AP (0 - 0.02) 1/8 Mile (> TP/AP) 1/4 Mile (> 1/8) 1/2 Mile (> 1/4) 1 Mile (> 1/2)> 1 Mile Total NWIS 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 of 7 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Database Radius Summary STATE (CA) LISTING Acronym Search Radius (miles) TP/AP (0 - 0.02) 1/8 Mile (> TP/AP) 1/4 Mile (> 1/8) 1/2 Mile (> 1/4) 1 Mile (> 1/2)> 1 Mile Total DWRWELLS 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: NS = NOT SEARCHED TP/AP = TARGET PROPERTY/ADJACENT PROPERTY 3 of 7 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Database Radius Summary .2 Click here to access Satellite view 4 of 7 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Database Radius SummaryWaterwell Map No Records Found. 5 of 7 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Located Sites Summary NWIS United States Geological Survey National Water Information System VERSION DATE: 12/21/18 The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) includes water inventory data originating from all 50 states, plus border and territorial sites, including data from as early as 1899. This database includes selected site types limited to Groundwater Sites and Spring Sites from the 1.5 million plus sites within NWIS. Surface-Water, Atmospheric, and Other Site types are excluded. Disclaimer: Water Data for the Nation is the USGS public web interface to much of the data stored and managed within NWIS. It is not, however, configured to present all NWIS data and users may need to contact local Water Science Centers to obtain some information. NWIS data is updated on a regularly scheduled basis, and current condition data is generally updated upon receipt at local Water Science Centers. 6 of 7 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL DWRWELLS California Department of Water Resources Water Wells VERSION DATE: 06/07/19 The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) maintains this database of water wells, including California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program wells and Voluntary wells. In Late 2009 the State Legislature amended the Water Code with SBx7-6, which mandates a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California's groundwater basins. To achieve that goal, the amendment requires collaboration between local monitoring entities and DWR to collect groundwater elevation data. In accordance with this amendment to the Water Code, DWR developed the CASGEM program. 7 of 7 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319106 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) GeoPlus Oil & Gas Report GeoLens by GeoSearch Target Property: Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, Orange County, California 92807 Prepared For: Tetra Tech Inc-Diamond Bar Order #: 134181 Job #: 319107 Date: 10/15/2019 0 of 5 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319107 Target Property Summary 1 Database Radius Summary 2 Oil & Gas Map 3 Environmental Records Definitions 5 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319107 Table of Contents The information provided in this report was obtained from a variety of public sources. GeoSearch cannot ensure and makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, reliability, quality, errors occurring from data conversion or the customer's interpretation of this report. This report was made by GeoSearch for exclusive use by its clients only. Therefore, this report may not contain sufficient information for other purposes or parties. GeoSearch and its partners, employees, officers And independent contractors cannot be held liable For actual, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages suffered by a customer resulting directly or indirectly from any information provided by GeoSearch. www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319107 Disclaimer Target Property Information Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, California 92807 Coordinates Point (-117.80155, 33.844850) USGS Quadrangle Orange, CA Geographic Coverage Information County/Parish: Orange (CA) ZipCode(s): Anaheim CA: 92807 Orange CA: 92867 1 of 5 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319107 Target Property Summary STATE (CA) LISTING Acronym Search Radius (miles) TP/AP (0 - 0.02) 1/8 Mile (> TP/AP) 1/4 Mile (> 1/8) 1/2 Mile (> 1/4) 1 Mile (> 1/2)> 1 Mile Total OG 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: NS = NOT SEARCHED TP/AP = TARGET PROPERTY/ADJACENT PROPERTY 2 of 5 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319107 Database Radius Summary .2 Click here to access Satellite view 3 of 5 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319107 Database Radius SummaryOIL & GAS WELL MAP No Records Found. 4 of 5 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319107 Located Sites Summary OG Oil and Gas VERSION DATE: 07/15/19 This oil, gas, and geothermal well information database is maintained by the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. The database information may change without notice. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties, whether expressed or implied, as to the suitability of the product for any particular purpose. Any use of this information is at the user's own risk. 5 of 5 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319107 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) Legend LNG Plants Breakout Tanks Gas Transmission Pipelines Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Pipelines depicted on this map represent gas transmission and hazardous liquid lines only. Gas gathering and gas distribution systems are not represented.This map should never be used as a substitute for contacting a one-call center prior to excavation activities. Please call 811 before any digging occurs.Questions regarding this map or its contents can be directed to npms@dot.gov.Projection: Geographic Datum: NAD83 Map produced by the Public Viewer application at www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov Date Printed: Nov 01, 2019 Legend LNG Plants Breakout Tanks Gas Transmission Pipelines Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Pipelines depicted on this map represent gas transmission and hazardous liquid lines only. Gas gathering and gas distribution systems are not represented.This map should never be used as a substitute for contacting a one-call center prior to excavation activities. Please call 811 before any digging occurs.Questions regarding this map or its contents can be directed to npms@dot.gov.Projection: Geographic Datum: NAD83 Map produced by the Public Viewer application at www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov Date Printed: Nov 01, 2019 Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 1 3 Photograph No. 1: View of southeast side of 5275 Nohl Ranch Road building, looking northwest. Photograph No. 2: View of eastern side of 5275 Nohl Ranch Road, looking north along S Royal Oak Road. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 2 Photograph No. 3: View of typical parking lot surrounding the facility at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. Photograph No. 4: View of additional structure used as facility storage. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 3 Photograph No. 5: View of pad mounted transformer and concrete/rebar enclosure. Photograph No. 6: View of solid waste dumpster area enclosure. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 4 Photograph No. 7: View of 55-gal drums observed on the northwest corner of the facility parking lot. Photograph No. 8: View of typical label observed on 55-gal drums. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 5 Photograph No. 9: View of typical patched soil boring and paint markings observed around the facility parking lot. Photograph No. 10: View of typical air condition unit observed in a fenced brick enclosure located on the northeast corner of the facility. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 6 Photograph No. 11: View of typical hallway in the facility. Photograph No. 12: View of typical bathroom at the site. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 7 Photograph No. 13: View of stage located within the cultural hall. Photograph No. 14: View of gymnasium located within the cultural hall. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 8 Photograph No. 15: View of typical education room at the site. Photograph No. 16: View of typical parish offices at the site. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 9 Photograph No. 17: View of typical custodial closet at the site. Photograph No. 18: View of typical storage closet at the site. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 10 Photograph No. 19: View of chapel present at the site. Photograph No. 20: View of kitchen present at the site. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 11 Photograph No. 21: View of typical household cleaning agents present at the site. Photograph No. 22: View of typical electrical breakers and piping observed in mechanical closets at the site. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 12 Photograph No. 23: View of additional mechanical closet present at the site. This was the only drain observed inside the site buildings. Photograph No. 24: View of HVAC system observed in the mechanical closet. Phase I ESA Alliance Anaheim Hills Photograph Log Page 13 Photograph No. 25: View of plastic 55-gal drum observed in the mechanical closet. Photograph No. 26: View of drum label observed on the plastic 55-gal drum. Historical Aerial Photographs NEW: GeoLens by Geosearch Target Property: Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, Orange, California 92807 Prepared For: Tetra Tech Inc-Diamond Bar Order #: 134181 Job #: 319105 Project #: Date: 10/17/2019 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319105 Target Property Summary Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, Orange, California 92807 USGS Quadrangle: Orange Target Property Geometry: Point Target Property Longitude(s)/Latitude(s): (-117.801558900, 33.844850900) www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319105 Aerial Research Summary Date Source Scale Frame 2016 USDA 1" = 500'N/A 2014 USDA 1" = 500'N/A 2012 USDA 1" = 500'N/A 2010 USDA 1" = 500'N/A 2009 USDA 1" = 500'N/A 2005 USDA 1" = 500'N/A 2004 USDA 1" = 500'N/A 06/05/2002 USGS 1" = 500'N/A 06/01/1994 USGS 1" = 500'N/A 09/13/1988 USGS 1" = 500'465-49 11/01/1980 USGS 1" = 500'1-93 10/30/1972 USGS 1" = 500'3-87 04/16/1966 USGS 1" = 500'2-73 06/29/1960 FAIRCHILD 1" = 500'2174 12/12/1952 ASCS 1" = 500'2-81 12/29/1946 USGS 1" = 500'8-36 05/23/1938 ASCS 1" = 500'28-20 Disclaimer - The information provided in this report was obtained from a variety of public sources. GeoSearch cannot ensure and makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, reliability, quality, errors occurring from data conversion or the customer’s interpretation of this report. This report was made by GeoSearch for exclusive use by its clients only. Therefore, this report may not contain sufficient information for other purposes or parties. GeoSearch and its partners, employees, officers and independent contractors cannot be held liable for actual, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages suffered by a customer resulting directly or indirectly from any information provided by GeoSearch. www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319105 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USDA 2016 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USDA 2014 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USDA 2012 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USDA 2010 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USDA 2009 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USDA 2005 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USDA 2004 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USGS 06/05/2002 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USGS 06/01/1994 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USGS 09/13/1988 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USGS 11/01/1980 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USGS 10/30/1972 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USGS 04/16/1966 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living FAIRCHILD 06/29/1960 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ASCS 12/12/1952 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living USGS 12/29/1946 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ASCS 05/23/1938 JOB #: 319105 - 10/17/2019 Historical Topographic Maps NEW: GeoLens by Geosearch Target Property: Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, Orange, California 92807 Prepared For: Tetra Tech Inc-Diamond Bar Order #: 134181 Job #: 319104 Project #: Date: 10/15/2019 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319104 Target Property Summary Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, Orange, California 92807 USGS Quadrangle: Orange Target Property Geometry: Point Target Property Longitude(s)/Latitude(s): (-117.801558900, 33.844850900) www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319104 Topographic Map Summary Date Quadrangle Scale 2012 ORANGE, CA 1" = 2000' 1964 PHOTOREVISED 1981 ORANGE, CA 1" = 2000' 1964 PHOTOREVISED 1972 ORANGE, CA 1" = 2000' 1964 ORANGE, CA 1" = 2000' 1950 ORANGE, CA 1" = 2000' 1949 ORANGE, CA 1" = 2000' 1942 ANAHEIM, CA 1" = 5208' 1935 ORANGE, CA 1" = 2640' 1932 ORANGE, CA 1" = 2640' 1902 CORONA, CA 1" = 10420' 1901 ANAHEIM, CA 1" = 5208' 1898 ANAHEIM, CA 1" = 5208' 1896 ANAHEIM, CA 1" = 5208' Disclaimer - The information provided in this report was obtained from a variety of public sources. GeoSearch cannot ensure and makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, reliability, quality, errors occurring from data conversion or the customer’s interpretation of this report. This report was made by GeoSearch for exclusive use by its clients only. Therefore, this report may not contain sufficient information for other purposes or parties. GeoSearch and its partners, employees, officers and independent contractors cannot be held liable for actual, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages suffered by a customer resulting directly or indirectly from any information provided by GeoSearch. www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319104 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ORANGE, CA (2012) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ORANGE, CA (1981) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ORANGE, CA (1972) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ORANGE, CA (1964) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ORANGE, CA (1950) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ORANGE, CA (1949) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ANAHEIM, CA (1942) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ORANGE, CA (1935) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ORANGE, CA (1932) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living CORONA, CA (1902) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ANAHEIM, CA (1901) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ANAHEIM, CA (1898) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Anaheim Hills Sr Living ANAHEIM, CA (1896) JOB #: 319104 - 10/15/2019 Historical By Street Number Target Property: 5275 E Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, CA 92807 Prepared For: Tetra Tech Inc-Diamond Bar Order #: 134181 Date: 10/17/2019 Project #: 888-396-0042 www.geo-search.com Page 1 of 2 10/17/2019 10:25:30 AM City Directory Historical by Street Number 1 E Nohl Ranch Rd No Listing (1958-1964); Street Begins (1970-2008); Street Begins (2014-2019) 4100 E Nohl Ranch Rd No Listing (1958-1970); Nohl Canyon Elem Sc (1974-2008); Orange Unfd Chld Cr (1986-1995); Orange Sc District Child Care (2008); Nohl Canyon Elementary School (2014-2019); Orange Unified (2019) 4101 E Nohl Ranch Rd No Listing (1958-1964); Trinity Lutheran Church Alc (1970-2001); X [Nohl Ranch Rd 92806 Contd] (1974); Luthrn Sc Trinity (1995-2008); Orange Sc Dst Nohl Cnyn Elm Sc (2008); Trinity Lutheran Christian (2014-2019); Conservative Lutheran Assn (2019); Lutheran Schools-Trinity Luth (2019) 5275 E Nohl Ranch Rd No Listing (1958-1974); Chrch Jclds Anh 6 (1981); Church Jesus Christ (1981-2008); Church Lt Day Cl Hl (1986); Church Of Jesus Christ Of Lds (2014); No Listing (2019) 6352 E Nohl Ranch Rd No Listing (1958-1974); Anaheim Hl Sdle Clb (1981-2008); Edwards Andrew W (1990-2008); Kawucha S (1995); Alamia D (2001); Bio Flite (2001); Duree Tina Training Stable (2001); Kennedy Farms (2001); Firearms Training Associates (2008); Anaheim Hills Saddle Club (2014-2019); Edwards Andrew (2014-2019); Firearms Training Assoc (2014) No # E Nohl Ranch Rd No Listing (1958-1970); Gallery The Info (1974); Knoll Ranch Sales (1974); Lusk Homes (1974); Westrige Homes (1974); No Listing (1981-2019) Comments: 888-396-0042 www.geo-search.com Page 2 of 2 10/17/2019 10:25:30 AM Historical By Street Number Target Property: S Royal Oak Rd, Anaheim, CA 92807 Prepared For: Tetra Tech Inc-Diamond Bar Order #: 134181 Date: 10/17/2019 Project #: 888-396-0042 www.geo-search.com Page 1 of 2 10/17/2019 10:25:22 AM City Directory Historical by Street Number 1 S Royal Oak Rd No Listing (1970-1974); Street Begins (1981-1986); No Listing (1990); Street Begins (1995-2008); Street Begins (2014-2019) 111 S Royal Oak Rd No Listing (1970-1990); Vu Liem C (1995); No Listing (2001); No Current Listing (2008); Vu Liem (2014-2019) 121 S Royal Oak Rd No Listing (1970-1974); Hill Crest Trees (1981); Spruce Grove Inc (1986); No Listing (1990-2001); Carter James (2008); Carter James (2014-2019); Chesley Dawn (2014-2019) 131 S Royal Oak Rd No Listing (1970-1974); Robillard C L (1981); No Listing (1986-1990); Houman Bruce (1995-2008); Houman Bruce (2014-2019); X [End Of Listings] (2014-2019); Justin Houman (2019) Comments: 888-396-0042 www.geo-search.com Page 2 of 2 10/17/2019 10:25:22 AM Lawyers T it le - Inland Empire 3480 Vine St reet , Suit e 300 Riverside, CA 92507 Phone: 951.774.0825 Ti tl e Re port T it le Offic er: Email: Phone No.: File No.: 619672482 Propert y Address: 5275 East Nohl Ranc h Road (aka 421 Royal Oak Road) Anaheim, CA 92807 Effortless, Efficient, Compliant, and Accessible File No.: 619672482 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, a Florida Corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 30 Days after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. Transaction Identification Data for reference only: Issuing Agent: Lawyers Title Company Countersigned By: Approved Officer or Agent File No.: 619672482 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Issuing Office: 3480 Vine Street Suite 300, Riverside ,CA 92507 Issuing Office’s ALTA® Registry ID: Loan ID Number: Commitment Number: Issuing Office File Number: 619672482 Property Address: 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road (aka 421 Royal Oak Road) Anaheim, CA 92807 Revision Number: SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: September 27, 2019 2. Policy to be issued: (a) ALTA Owners 2006 Proposed Insured: Purchaser with contractual rights under a purchase agreement with the vested owner identified at Schedule A, Item 4 hereinbelow. Proposed Policy Amount: $6,700,000.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is A Fee 4. The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a Utah Corporation 5. The land is described as follows: As Fully Set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. File No.: 619672482 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. EXHIBIT "A All that certain real property situated in the County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: Lot 51 of Tract No. 5674, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map thereof, recorded in Book 307, Pages 22 to 24 inclusive miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County. Excepting therefrom all oil, gas, minerals and hydrocarbons substances in and under said land, but without the right of surface entry, as reserved in various deeds of record. APN: 361-291-51 File No.: 619672482 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. SCHEDULE B, PART I Requirements All of the following Requirements must be met: Req. No. 1: The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. Req. No. 2: Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Req. No. 3: The Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. Req. No. 4: Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. Req. No. 5: Due to the special requirements of SB 50 (California Public Resources Code Section 8560 et seq.), any transaction that includes the conveyance of title by an agency of the United States must be approved in advance by the Company’s State Counsel, Regional Counsel, or one of their designees. Req. No. 6: Requirement of an ALTA Survey, if ALTA Owners Extended Coverage is required. Req. No. 7: In order to complete this report, the Company requires a Statement of Information to be completed by the following party(s), Party(s): All parties The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested Statement of Information. NOTE: The Statement of Information is necessary to complete the search and examination of title under this order. Any title search includes matters that are indexed by name only, and having a completed Statement of Information assists the Company in the elimination of certain matters which appear to involve the parties but in fact affect another party with the same or similar name. Be assured that the Statement of Information is essential and will be kept strictly confidential to this file. File No.: 619672482 SCHEDULE B, PART I Requirements Continued This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Req. No. 8: The Company will require the following documents for review prior to the issuance of any title insurance predicated upon a conveyance or encumbrance by the corporation named below: Name of Corporation: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a Utah Corporation a) A Copy of the corporation By-laws and Articles of Incorporation b) An original or certified copy of a resolution authorizing the transaction contemplated herein c) If the Articles and/or By-laws require approval by a ‘parent’ organization, a copy of the Articles and By-laws of the parent d) A current dated certificate of good standing from the proper governmental authority of the state in which the entity was created The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested documentation. File No.: 619672482 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. SCHEDULE B, PART II EXCEPTIONS THIS COMMITMENT DOES NOT REPUBLISH ANY COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ANY DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION VIOLATES STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. The Policy will not insure against loss or damage resulting from the terms and provisions of any lease or easement identified in Schedule A, and will include the following Exceptions unless cleared to the satisfaction of the Company: A. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows: Tax Identification No.: 361-291-51 Fiscal Year: 2019-2020 1st Installment: $1,213.41, Open (Delinquent after December 10) Penalty: $121.34 2nd Installment: $1,213.41, Open (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $144.34 Homeowners Exemption: $-0- Code Area: 01-058 B. Any liens or other assessments, bonds, or special district liens including without limitation, Community Facility Districts, that arise by reason of any local, City, Municipal or County Project or Special District. C. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A; or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to date of policy. 1. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records. 2. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, citizenship, immigration status, primary language, ancestry, source of income, gender, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition or genetic information, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document Recording Date: April 5, 1968 Recording No: 3811, Book 8563, Page 436 of Official Records File No.: 619672482 SCHEDULE B, PART II EXCEPTIONS Continued This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 3. Covenants, conditions and restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, citizenship, immigration status, primary language, ancestry, source of income, gender, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition or genetic information, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document Recording Date: November 2, 1972 Recording No: 2976, Book 10408, Page 457 of Official Records Said covenants, conditions and restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. 4. Intentionally Deleted 5. The search did not disclose any open mortgages or deeds of trust of record, therefore the Company reserves the right to require further evidence to confirm that the property is unencumbered, and further reserves the right to make additional requirements or add additional items or exceptions upon receipt of the requested evidence. 6. Matters which may be disclosed by an inspection and/or by a correct ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey of said Land that is satisfactory to the Company, and/or by inquiry of the parties in possession thereof. 7. Any rights of the parties in possession of a portion of, or all of, said Land, which rights are not disclosed by the public records. The Company will require, for review, a full and complete copy of any unrecorded agreement, contract, license and/or lease, together with all supplements, assignments and amendments thereto, before issuing any policy of title insurance without excepting this item from coverage. The Company reserves the right to except additional items and/or make additional requirements after reviewing said documents. 8. Any easements not disclosed by the public records as to matters affecting title to real property, whether or not said easements are visible and apparent. 9. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other matters which a correct survey would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 10. The Company will require an ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY. If the owner of the Land the subject of this transaction is in possession of a current ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY, the Company will require that said survey be submitted for review and approval; otherwise, a new survey, satisfactory to the Company, must be prepared by a licensed land surveyor and supplied to the Company prior to the close of escrow. The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested documentation. File No.: 619672482 SCHEDULE B, PART II EXCEPTIONS Continued This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. 11. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter that appears for the first time in the Public Records or is created, attaches, or is disclosed between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements are met. END OF SCHEDULE B – SECTION II RR File No.: 619672482 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a) “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records. (b) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (c) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law. (d) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (e) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (g) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (h) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A. 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: (a) the Notice; (b) the Commitment to Issue Policy; (c) the Commitment Conditions; (d) Schedule A; (e) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and (f) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and (g) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY (a) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (i) comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; (ii) eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II— Exceptions; or (iii) acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. File No.: 619672482 This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. 81C276B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance 8-1-16 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. (b) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (c) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (d) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (e) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any. (f) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (g) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy. 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT (a) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment. (b) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. (c) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (d) The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (e) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company. (f) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy. 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at <http://www.alta.org/arbitration>. Attachment One (Revised 05-06-16) CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY – 1990 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. 6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records. CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13) ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning: a. building; b. zoning; c. land use; d. improvements on the Land; e. land division; and f. environmental protection. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17. 4. Risks: a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21. 7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws. 8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence. 9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances. LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner’s Coverage Statement as follows: • For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19, and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows: Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability Covered Risk 16: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 $ 10,000.00 (whichever is less) Covered Risk 18: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 $ 25,000.00 (whichever is less) Covered Risk 19: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 $ 25,000.00 (whichever is less) Covered Risk 21: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 $ 5,000.00 (whichever is less) 2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13 or 14); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. 6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b). The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE [Except as provided in Schedule B - Part II,[ t[or T]his policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses, that arise by reason of: [PART I [The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: 1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records. ] PART II In addition to the matters set forth in Part I of this Schedule, the Title is subject to the following matters, and the Company insures against loss or damage sustained in the event that they are not subordinate to the lien of the Insured Mortgage:] 2006 ALTA OWNER’S POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title. 4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy. 5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses, that arise by reason of: [The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: 1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown in the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and that are not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records. ] 7. [Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc. shown here.] ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY – ASSESSMENTS PRIORITY (04-02-15) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 or 28); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury, or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 26. 6. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of Policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b) or 25. 8. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion of it, to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6. 9. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 27(b) of this policy. 10. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence. 11. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances. Lawyers Title Company 3480 Vine Street Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92507 Phone: (951) 774-0825 Fax: ( ) Order No: 619672482 “Notice to Customers” (Involves Residential Real Property in California ONLY) You may be entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrow services if you purchased, sold or refinanced residential property in California between May 19, 1995 and November 1, 2002. If you had more than one qualifying transaction, you may be entitled to multiple discounts, however, the maximum discount that can be given in this transaction shall be equal to $100 (5 x $20). If your previous transaction involved the same property that is the subject of your current transaction, you do not have to do anything; the Company will provide the discount, provided you are paying for escrow or title services in this transaction. If your previous transaction involved property different from the property that is subject of your current transaction, you must – prior to the close of the current transaction – inform the Company of the earlier transaction, provide the address of the property involved in the previous transaction, and the date or approximate date that the escrow closed to be eligible for the discount. Unless you inform the Company if the prior transaction on property that is not the subject of this transaction, the Company has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if you qualify for a discount. If you provide the Company information concerning a prior transaction, the Company is required to determine if you quality for a discount which is subject to other terms and conditions. Name: ______________________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________________ Telephone No: ________________________________________________ Wire Fraud Alert This Notice is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. If you have any questions, please consult with a lawyer. All parties to a real estate transaction are targets for wire fraud and many have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because they simply relied on the wire instructions received via email, without further verification. If funds are to be wired in conjunction with this real estate transaction, we strongly recommend verbal verification of wire instructions through a known, trusted phone number prior to sending funds. In addition, the following non‐exclusive self‐protection strategies are recommended to minimize exposure to possible wire fraud. • NEVER RELY on emails purporting to change wire instructions. Parties to a transaction rarely change wire instructions in the course of a transaction. • ALWAYS VERIFY wire instructions, specifically the ABA routing number and account number, by calling the party who sent the instructions to you. DO NOT use the phone number provided in the email containing the instructions, use phone numbers you have called before or can otherwise verify. Obtain the phone number of relevant parties to the transaction as soon as an escrow account is opened. DO NOT send an email to verify as the email address may be incorrect or the email may be intercepted by the fraudster. • USE COMPLEX EMAIL PASSWORDS that employ a combination of mixed case, numbers, and symbols. Make your passwords greater than eight (8) characters. Also, change your password often and do NOT reuse the same password for other online accounts. • USE MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION for email accounts. Your email provider or IT staff may have specific instructions on how to implement this feature. For more information on wire‐fraud scams or to report an incident, please refer to the following links: Federal Bureau of Investigation: Internet Crime Complaint Center: http://www.fbi.gov http://www.ic3.gov FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL PRIVACY NOTICE Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its majority-owned subsidiary companies (collectively, “FNF,” “our,” or “we”) respect and are committed to protecting your privacy. This Privacy Notice explains how we collect, use, and protect personal information, when and to whom we disclose such information, and the choices you have about the use and disclosure of that information. Types of Information Collected We may collect two types of information from you: Personal Information and Browsing Information. Personal Information. FNF may collect the following categories of Personal Information: • contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email address); • demographic information (e.g., date of birth, gender, marital status); • identity information (e.g. Social Security Number, driver’s license, passport, or other government ID number); • financial account information (e.g. loan or bank account information); and • other personal information necessary to provide products or services to you. Browsing Information. FNF may automatically collect the following types of Browsing Information when you access an FNF website, online service, or application (each an “FNF Website”) from your Internet browser, computer, and/or mobile device: • Internet Protocol (IP) address and operating system; • browser version, language, and type; • domain name system requests; and • browsing history on the FNF Website, such as date and time of your visit to the FNF Website and visits to the pages within the FNF Website. How Personal Information is Collected We may collect Personal Information about you from: • information we receive from you on applications or other forms; • information about your transactions with FNF, our affiliates, or others; and • information we receive from consumer reporting agencies and/or governmental entities, either directly from these entities or through others. How Browsing Information is Collected If you visit or use an FNF Website, Browsing Information may be collected during your visit. Like most websites, our servers automatically log each visitor to the FNF Website and may collect the Browsing Information described above. We use Browsing Information for system administration, troubleshooting, fraud investigation, and to improve our websites. Browsing Information generally does not reveal anything personal about you, though if you have created a user account for an FNF Website and are logged into that account, the FNF Website may be able to link certain browsing activity to your user account. Other Online Specifics Cookies. When you visit an FNF Website, a “cookie” may be sent to your computer. A cookie is a small piece of data that is sent to your Internet browser from a web server and stored on your computer’s hard drive. Information gathered using cookies helps us improve your user experience. For example, a cookie can help the website load properly or can customize the display page based on your browser type and user preferences. You can choose whether or not to accept cookies by changing your Internet browser settings. Be aware that doing so may impair or limit some functionality of the FNF Website. Web Beacons. We use web beacons to determine when and how many times a page has been viewed. This information is used to improve our websites. Do Not Track. Currently our FNF Websites do not respond to “Do Not Track” features enabled through your browser. Revised May 1, 2018 Copyright © 2018. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved Links to Other Sites. FNF Websites may contain links to other websites. FNF is not responsible for the privacy practices or the content of any of those other websites. We advise you to read the privacy policy of every website you visit. Use of Personal Information FNF uses Personal Information for three main purposes: • To provide products and services to you or in connection with a transaction involving you. • To improve our products and services. • To communicate with you about our, our affiliates’, and third parties’ products and services, jointly or independently. When Information Is Disclosed We may make disclosures of your Personal Information and Browsing Information in the following circumstances: • to enable us to detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure; • to nonaffiliated service providers who provide or perform services or functions on our behalf and who agree to use the information only to provide such services or functions; • to nonaffiliated third party service providers with whom we perform joint marketing, pursuant to an agreement with them to jointly market financial products or services to you; • to law enforcement or authorities in connection with an investigation, or in response to a subpoena or court order; or • in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to comply with legal process or applicable laws, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of FNF, its customers, or the public. The law does not require your prior authorization and does not allow you to restrict the disclosures described above. Additionally, we may disclose your information to third parties for whom you have given us authorization or consent to make such disclosure. We do not otherwise share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as required or permitted by law. We reserve the right to transfer your Personal Information, Browsing Information, and any other information, in connection with the sale or other disposition of all or part of the FNF business and/or assets, or in the event of bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, receivership, or an assignment for the benefit of creditors. By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you expressly agree and consent to the use and/or transfer of the foregoing information in connection with any of the above described proceedings. Please see “Choices With Your Information” to learn the disclosures you can restrict. Security of Your Information We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to guard your Personal Information. We limit access to nonpublic personal information about you to employees who need to know that information to do their job. When we provide Personal Information to others as discussed in this Privacy Notice, we expect that they process such information in compliance with our Privacy Notice and in compliance with applicable privacy laws. Choices With Your Information If you do not want FNF to share your information with our affiliates to directly market to you, you may send an “opt out” request by email, phone, or physical mail as directed at the end of this Privacy Notice. We do not share your Personal Information with nonaffiliates for their use to direct market to you. Whether you submit Personal Information or Browsing Information to FNF is entirely up to you. If you decide not to submit Personal Information or Browsing Information, FNF may not be able to provide certain services or products to you. For California Residents: We will not share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as permitted by California law. Revised May 1, 2018 Copyright © 2018. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved For Nevada Residents: You may be placed on our internal Do Not Call List by calling (888) 934-3354 or by contacting us via the information set forth at the end of this Privacy Notice. Nevada law requires that we also provide you with the following contact information: Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, 555 E. Washington St., Suite 3900, Las Vegas, NV 89101; Phone number: (702) 486-3132; email: BCPINFO@ag.state.nv.us. For Oregon Residents: We will not share your Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties for marketing purposes, except after you have been informed by us of such sharing and had an opportunity to indicate that you do not want a disclosure made for marketing purposes. For Vermont Residents: We will not disclose information about your creditworthiness to our affiliates and will not disclose your personal information, financial information, credit report, or health information to nonaffiliated third parties to market to you, other than as permitted by Vermont law, unless you authorize us to make those disclosures. Information From Children The FNF Websites are meant for adults and are not intended or designed to attract persons under the age of eighteen (18).We do not collect Personal Information from any person that we know to be under the age of thirteen (13) without permission from a parent or guardian. International Users FNF’s headquarters is located within the United States. If you reside outside the United States and choose to provide Personal Information or Browsing Information to us, please note that we may transfer that information outside of your country of residence for any of the purposes described in this Privacy Notice. By providing FNF with your Personal Information and/or Browsing Information, you consent to our collection, transfer, and use of such information in accordance with this Privacy Notice. FNF Website Services for Mortgage Loans Certain FNF companies provide services to mortgage loan servicers, including hosting websites that collect customer information on behalf of mortgage loan servicers (the “Service Websites”). The Service Websites may contain links to both this Privacy Notice and the mortgage loan servicer or lender’s privacy notice. The sections of this Privacy Notice titled When Information is Disclosed, Choices with Your Information, and Accessing and Correcting Information do not apply to the Service Websites. The mortgage loan servicer or lender’s privacy notice governs use, disclosure, and access to your Personal Information. FNF does not share Personal Information collected through the Service Websites, except (1) as required or authorized by contract with the mortgage loan servicer or lender, or (2) as required by law or in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal process or applicable law, to enforce this Privacy Notice, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of FNF or the public. Your Consent To This Privacy Notice; Notice Changes By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you consent to the collection and use of the information in accordance with this Privacy Notice. We may change this Privacy Notice at any time. The revised Privacy Notice, showing the new revision date, will be posted on the FNF Website. Each time you provide information to us following any amendment of this Privacy Notice, your provision of information to us will signify your assent to and acceptance of the terms of the revised Privacy Notice for all previously collected information and information collected from you in the future. We may use comments, information or feedback that you submit to us in any manner that we may choose without notice or compensation to you. Accessing and Correcting Information; Contact Us If you have questions, would like to access or correct your Personal Information, or want to opt-out of information sharing for affiliate marketing, send your requests via email to privacy@fnf.com, by phone to (888) 934-3354, or by mail to: Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 601 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Attn: Chief Privacy Officer Revised May 1, 2018 Copyright © 2018. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved Radius Report GeoLens by GeoSearch Target Property: Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, Orange County, California 92807 Prepared For: Tetra Tech Inc-Diamond Bar Order #: 134181 Job #: 319102 Date: 10/15/2019 0 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Target Property Summary 1 Database Summary 2 Database Radius Summary 8 Radius Map 14 Ortho Map 16 Topographic Map 17 Located Sites Summary 17 Elevation Summary 20 Unlocated Sites Summary 23 Environmental Records Definitions 25 Unlocatable Report See Attachment Zip Report See Attachment www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Table of Contents This report was designed by GeoSearch to meet or exceed the records search requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule (40 CFR §312.26) and the current version of the ASTM International E1527, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process or, if applicable, the custom requirements requested by the entity that ordered this report. The records and databases of records used to compile this report were collected from various federal,state and local governmental entities. It is the goal of GeoSearch to meet or exceed the 40 CFR§312.26 and E1527 requirements for updating records by using the best available technology. GeoSearch contacts the appropriate governmental entities on a recurring basis. Depending on the frequency with which a record source or database of records is updated by the governmental entity, the data used to prepare this report may be updated monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually. The information provided in this report was obtained from a variety of public sources. GeoSearch cannot ensure and makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, reliability, quality, errors occurring from data conversion or the customer's interpretation of this report. This report was made by GeoSearch for exclusive use by its clients only. Therefore, this report may not contain sufficient information for other purposes or parties. GeoSearch and its partners, employees, officers And independent contractors cannot be held liable For actual, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages suffered by a customer resulting directly or indirectly from any information provided by GeoSearch. www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Disclaimer Target Property Information Anaheim Hills Sr Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim, California 92807 Coordinates Point (-117.80155, 33.844850) 508 feet above sea level USGS Quadrangle Orange, CA Geographic Coverage Information County/Parish: Orange (CA) ZipCode(s): Anaheim CA: 92807 Villa Park CA: 92861 Orange CA: 92867 1 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Target Property Summary FEDERAL LISTING Standard Environmental Records Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) EMERGENCY RESPONSE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM ERNSCA 0 0 TP/AP FEDERAL ENGINEERING INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL SITES EC 0 0 TP/AP LAND USE CONTROL INFORMATION SYSTEM LUCIS 0 0 TP/AP RCRA SITES WITH CONTROLS RCRASC 0 0 TP/AP RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT - GENERATOR RCRAGR09 0 0 0.1250 RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT - NON- GENERATOR RCRANGR09 0 0 0.1250 BROWNFIELDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BF 0 0 0.5000 DELISTED NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST DNPL 0 0 0.5000 NO LONGER REGULATED RCRA NON-CORRACTS TSD FACILITIES NLRRCRAT 0 0 0.5000 RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT - NON-CORRACTS TREATMENT, STORAGE & DISPOSAL FACILITIES RCRAT 0 0 0.5000 SUPERFUND ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SEMS 0 0 0.5000 SUPERFUND ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ARCHIVED SITE INVENTORY SEMSARCH 0 0 0.5000 NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NPL 0 0 1.0000 NO LONGER REGULATED RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION FACILITIES NLRRCRAC 0 0 1.0000 PROPOSED NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PNPL 0 0 1.0000 RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT - CORRECTIVE ACTION FACILITIES RCRAC 0 0 1.0000 RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT - SUBJECT TO CORRECTIVE ACTION FACILITIES RCRASUBC 0 0 1.0000 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 Additional Environmental Records Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) AEROMETRIC INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM / AIR FACILITY SUBSYSTEM AIRSAFS 0 0 TP/AP BIENNIAL REPORTING SYSTEM BRS 0 0 TP/AP CERCLIS LIENS SFLIENS 0 0 TP/AP CLANDESTINE DRUG LABORATORY LOCATIONS CDL 0 0 TP/AP EPA DOCKET DATA DOCKETS 0 0 TP/AP ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE HISTORY INFORMATION ECHOR09 0 0 TP/AP FACILITY REGISTRY SYSTEM FRSCA 0 0 TP/AP 2 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Summary Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM HMIRSR09 0 0 TP/AP INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE INFORMATION SYSTEM (FORMERLY DOCKETS) ICIS 0 0 TP/AP INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE INFORMATION SYSTEM NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ICISNPDES 0 0 TP/AP MATERIAL LICENSING TRACKING SYSTEM MLTS 0 0 TP/AP NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM NPDESR09 0 0 TP/AP PCB ACTIVITY DATABASE SYSTEM PADS 0 0 TP/AP PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM PCSR09 0 0 TP/AP SEMS LIEN ON PROPERTY SEMSLIENS 0 0 TP/AP SECTION SEVEN TRACKING SYSTEM SSTS 0 0 TP/AP TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT INVENTORY TSCA 0 0 TP/AP TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY TRI 0 0 TP/AP ALTERNATIVE FUELING STATIONS ALTFUELS 0 0 0.2500 FEMA OWNED STORAGE TANKS FEMAUST 0 0 0.2500 HISTORICAL GAS STATIONS HISTPST 0 0 0.2500 INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE INFORMATION SYSTEM DRYCLEANERS ICISCLEANERS 0 0 0.2500 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION MASTER INDEX FILE MSHA 0 0 0.2500 MINERAL RESOURCE DATA SYSTEM MRDS 0 0 0.2500 OPEN DUMP INVENTORY ODI 0 0 0.5000 SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT SITES SMCRA 0 0 0.5000 URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT SITES USUMTRCA 0 0 0.5000 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SITES DOD 0 0 1.0000 FORMER MILITARY NIKE MISSILE SITES NMS 0 0 1.0000 FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES FUDS 0 0 1.0000 FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM FUSRAP 0 0 1.0000 RECORD OF DECISION SYSTEM RODS 0 0 1.0000 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 3 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Summary STATE (CA) LISTING Standard Environmental Records Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) DTSC DEED RESTRICTIONS DTSCDR 0 0 TP/AP ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANKS ABST 0 0 0.2500 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS PRIOR TO JANUARY 2008 AST2007 0 0 0.2500 HISTORICAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS HISTUST 1 0 0.2500 STATEWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND PLANNING SYSTEM SWEEPS 1 0 0.2500 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS USTCUPA 0 0 0.2500 BROWNFIELD SITES BF 0 0 0.5000 CALSITES DATABASE CALSITES 0 0 0.5000 GEOTRACKER CLEANUP SITES CLEANUPSITES 0 0 0.5000 LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS LUST 0 0 0.5000 SOLID WASTE INFORMATION SYSTEM SITES SWIS 1 0 0.5000 VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM VCP 0 0 0.5000 ENVIROSTOR CLEANUP SITES ENVIROSTOR 1 0 1.0000 ENVIROSTOR PERMITTED AND CORRECTIVE ACTION SITES ENVIROSTORPCA 0 0 1.0000 SUB-TOTAL 4 0 Additional Environmental Records Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) CALIFORNIA HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT REPORT SYSTEM CHMIRS 0 0 TP/AP CLANDESTINE DRUG LABS CDL 0 0 TP/AP EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA EMI 0 0 TP/AP HAZARDOUS WASTE TANNER SUMMARY HWTS 0 0 TP/AP LAND DISPOSAL SITES LDS 0 0 TP/AP MILITARY CLEANUP SITES MCS 0 0 TP/AP NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM FACILITIES NPDES 0 0 TP/AP RECORDED ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP LIENS LIENS 0 0 TP/AP CALIFORNIA MEDICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FACILITY LIST MWMP 0 0 0.2500 DTSC REGISTERED HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTERS DTSCHWT 0 0 0.2500 DRY CLEANER FACILITIES CLEANER 0 0 0.2500 MINES LISTING MINES 0 0 0.2500 4 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Summary Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) SPILLS, LEAKS, INVESTIGATION & CLEANUP RECOVERY LISTING SLIC 0 0 0.2500 CORTESE LIST CORTESE 0 0 0.5000 EXPEDITED REMOVAL ACTION PROGRAM SITES ERAP 0 0 0.5000 HISTORICAL CORTESE LIST HISTCORTESE 0 0 0.5000 LISTING OF CERTIFIED DROPOFF, COLLECTION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS DROP 0 0 0.5000 LISTING OF CERTIFIED PROCESSORS PROC 0 0 0.5000 NO FURTHER ACTION DETERMINATION NFA 0 0 0.5000 RECYCLING CENTERS SWRCY 0 0 0.5000 REFERRED TO ANOTHER LOCAL OR STATE AGENCY REF 0 0 0.5000 SITES NEEDING FURTHER EVALUATION NFE 0 0 0.5000 WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT DATABASE WMUDS 0 0 0.5000 TOXIC PITS CLEANUP ACT SITES TOXPITS 0 0 1.0000 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 5 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Summary LOCAL LISTING Standard Environmental Records Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) ORANGE COUNTY UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS OCUST 0 0 0.2500 ORANGE COUNTY LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS OCLUST 0 0 0.5000 ORANGE COUNTY NON-PETROLEUM UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CASES OCNPUST 0 0 0.5000 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 Additional Environmental Records Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES OCHWFAC 0 0 TP/AP ORANGE COUNTY ABOVEGROUND PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS OCAPST 0 0 0.2500 ORANGE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL SITE CLEANUPS OCISC 0 0 0.5000 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 6 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Summary TRIBAL LISTING Standard Environmental Records Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS ON TRIBAL LANDS USTR09 0 0 0.2500 ILLEGAL DUMP SITES ON THE TORRES MARTINEZ RESERVATION TORRESDUMPSIT ES 0 0 0.5000 LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS ON TRIBAL LANDS LUSTR09 0 0 0.5000 OPEN DUMP INVENTORY ON TRIBAL LANDS ODINDIAN 0 0 0.5000 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 Additional Environmental Records Database Acronym Locatable Unlocatable Search Radius (miles) INDIAN RESERVATIONS INDIANRES 0 0 1.0000 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 TOTAL 4 0 7 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Summary FEDERAL LISTING Standard environmental records are displayed in bold. Acronym Search Radius (miles) TP/AP (0 - 0.02) 1/8 Mile (> TP/AP) 1/4 Mile (> 1/8) 1/2 Mile (> 1/4) 1 Mile (> 1/2)> 1 Mile Total AIRSAFS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 BRS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 CDL 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 DOCKETS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 EC 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 ECHOR09 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 ERNSCA 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 FRSCA 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 HMIRSR09 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 ICIS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 ICISNPDES 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 LUCIS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 MLTS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 NPDESR09 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 PADS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 PCSR09 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 RCRASC 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 SEMSLIENS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 SFLIENS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 SSTS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 TRI 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 TSCA 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 RCRAGR09 0.1250 0 0 NS NS NS NS 0 RCRANGR09 0.1250 0 0 NS NS NS NS 0 ALTFUELS 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 FEMAUST 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 HISTPST 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 ICISCLEANERS 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 MRDS 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 MSHA 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 BF 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 DNPL 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 NLRRCRAT 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 ODI 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 RCRAT 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 8 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Radius Summary Acronym Search Radius (miles) TP/AP (0 - 0.02) 1/8 Mile (> TP/AP) 1/4 Mile (> 1/8) 1/2 Mile (> 1/4) 1 Mile (> 1/2)> 1 Mile Total SEMS 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 SEMSARCH 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 SMCRA 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 USUMTRCA 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 DOD 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 FUDS 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 FUSRAP 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 NLRRCRAC 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 NMS 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 NPL 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 PNPL 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 RCRAC 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 RCRASUBC 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 RODS 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Radius Summary STATE (CA) LISTING Standard environmental records are displayed in bold. Acronym Search Radius (miles) TP/AP (0 - 0.02) 1/8 Mile (> TP/AP) 1/4 Mile (> 1/8) 1/2 Mile (> 1/4) 1 Mile (> 1/2)> 1 Mile Total CDL 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 CHMIRS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 DTSCDR 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 EMI 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 HWTS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 LDS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 LIENS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 MCS 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 NPDES 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 ABST 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 AST2007 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 CLEANER 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 DTSCHWT 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 HISTUST 0.2500 0 0 1 NS NS NS 1 MINES 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 MWMP 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 SLIC 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 SWEEPS 0.2500 0 0 1 NS NS NS 1 USTCUPA 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 BF 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 CALSITES 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 CLEANUPSITES 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 CORTESE 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 DROP 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 ERAP 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 HISTCORTESE 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 LUST 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 NFA 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 NFE 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 PROC 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 REF 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 SWIS 0.5000 0 0 0 1 NS NS 1 SWRCY 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 VCP 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 WMUDS 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 10 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Radius Summary Acronym Search Radius (miles) TP/AP (0 - 0.02) 1/8 Mile (> TP/AP) 1/4 Mile (> 1/8) 1/2 Mile (> 1/4) 1 Mile (> 1/2)> 1 Mile Total ENVIROSTOR 1.0000 0 0 0 0 1 NS 1 ENVIROSTORPCA 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 TOXPITS 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 11 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Radius Summary LOCAL LISTING Standard environmental records are displayed in bold. Acronym Search Radius (miles) TP/AP (0 - 0.02) 1/8 Mile (> TP/AP) 1/4 Mile (> 1/8) 1/2 Mile (> 1/4) 1 Mile (> 1/2)> 1 Mile Total OCHWFAC 0.0200 0 NS NS NS NS NS 0 OCAPST 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 OCUST 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 OCISC 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 OCLUST 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 OCNPUST 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Radius Summary TRIBAL LISTING Standard environmental records are displayed in bold. Acronym Search Radius (miles) TP/AP (0 - 0.02) 1/8 Mile (> TP/AP) 1/4 Mile (> 1/8) 1/2 Mile (> 1/4) 1 Mile (> 1/2)> 1 Mile Total USTR09 0.2500 0 0 0 NS NS NS 0 LUSTR09 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 ODINDIAN 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 TORRESDUMPSITES 0.5000 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0 INDIANRES 1.0000 0 0 0 0 0 NS 0 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 NOTES: NS = NOT SEARCHED TP/AP = TARGET PROPERTY/ADJACENT PROPERTY 13 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Radius Summary .2 Click here to access Satellite view 14 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Database Radius SummaryRadius Map 1 .3 Click here to access Satellite view 15 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Radius Map 1Radius Map 2 .4 Click here to access Satellite view 16 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Radius Map 2Ortho Map .5 Click here to access Satellite view 17 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Ortho MapTopographic Map 1 HISTUST 0002E760 Higher (611 ft.) 0.234 mi. SSE (1236 ft.) WESTRIDGE PUMP STATION 555 SOUTH SILVERADO WAY, ANAHEIM, CA 92805 20 1 SWEEPS A30-011-6283 Higher (611 ft.) 0.234 mi. SSE (1236 ft.) WESTRIDGE PUMP STATION 555 S SILVERADO WAY, ANAHEIM, CA 92807 21 2 SWIS 30-AB- 0434SWIS Lower (316 ft.) 0.477 mi. N (2519 ft.) PINNEY STREET SWEEPER TRANSFER STATION 111 NORTH PINNEY STREET, ANAHEIM, CA 92807 22 3 ENVIROSTOR 30890001 Lower (333 ft.) 0.662 mi. NE (3495 ft.) CANYON CLEANERS 5566 EAST SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, ANAHEIM HILLS, CA 92807 23 18 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Located Sites Summary NOTE: Standard environmental records are displayed in bold. Map ID# Database Name Site ID#Relative Elevation Distance From Site Site Name Address PAGE # Elevations are collected from the USGS 3D Elevation Program 1/3 arc-second (approximately 10 meters) layer hosted at the NGTOC. . Target Property Elevation: 508 ft. NOTE: Standard environmental records are displayed in bold. EQUAL/HIGHER ELEVATION Map ID# Database Name Elevation Site Name Address Page # 1 HISTUST 611 ft.WESTRIDGE PUMP STATION 555 SOUTH SILVERADO WAY, ANAHEIM, CA 92805 20 1 SWEEPS 611 ft.WESTRIDGE PUMP STATION 555 S SILVERADO WAY, ANAHEIM, CA 92807 21 LOWER ELEVATION Map ID# Database Name Elevation Site Name Address Page # 2 SWIS 316 ft.PINNEY STREET SWEEPER TRANSFER STATION 111 NORTH PINNEY STREET, ANAHEIM, CA 92807 22 3 ENVIROSTOR 333 ft.CANYON CLEANERS 5566 EAST SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, ANAHEIM HILLS, CA 92807 23 19 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Elevation Summary MAP ID# 1 Distance from Property: 0.234 mi. (1,236 ft.) SSE Elevation: 611 ft. (Higher than TP) WESTRIDGE PUMP STATION, 555 SOUTH SILVERADO WAY, ANAHEIM, CA 92805 UNIQUE ID: 0002E760 Page 1 out of 1 Back to Report Summary 20 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Historical Underground Storage Tanks (HISTUST) MAP ID# 1 Distance from Property: 0.234 mi. (1,236 ft.) SSE Elevation: 611 ft. (Higher than TP) FACILITY INFORMATION FACILITY #: 6283 STATUS: ACTIVE BOE: NOT REPORTED JURISDICTION: CITY OF ANAHEIM NAME: WESTRIDGE PUMP STATION AGENCY: ANAHEIM - U.S.T. ADDRESS: 555 S SILVERADO WAY ANAHEIM, CA 92807 TANK INFORMATION TANK #: 000001 CAPACITY: 1000 INSTALLED: NOT REPORTED REMOVED: NOT REPORTED TANK USE: M.V. FUEL STORAGE TYPE: WASTE CONTENT: GASHOL CONTAINMENT: NOT REPORTED Back to Report Summary 21 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) MAP ID# 2 Distance from Property: 0.477 mi. (2,519 ft.) N Elevation: 316 ft. (Lower than TP) FACILITY INFORMATION GEOSEARCH ID: 30-AB-0434SWIS ID NUMBER: 30-AB-0434 NAME: PINNEY STREET SWEEPER TRANSFER STATION LOCATION: 111 NORTH PINNEY STREET ANAHEIM, CA 92807 COUNTY: ORANGE LATITUDE: 33.851640000 LONGITUDE: -117.802400000 OWNER INFORMATION NAME: CITY OF ANAHEIM, FINANCE DEPARTMENT ADDRESS: 200 SOUTH ANAHEIM BLVD. ANAHEIM, CA 92805 OPERATOR INFORMATION NAME: CITY OF ANAHEIM, PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS ADDRESS: 400 EAST VERMONT AVENUE ANAHEIM CA 92805 FACILITY DETAILS SITE ID: 10888 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL,PARK,COMMERCIAL PERMIT DATE: 6/20/2008 PERMIT STATUS: NOTIFICATION ENFORCEMENT AGENCY: COUNTY OF ORANGE UNIT CATEGORY: TRANSFER/PROCESSING UNIT #: 01 REGULATORY STATUS: NOTIFICATION OPERATIONAL STATUS: ACTIVE ACTIVITY: LIMITED VOLUME TRANSFER OPERATION INSPECTION: ANNUAL ACCEPTED WASTE: INERT,MIXED MUNICIPAL CAPACITY: 460 REMAINING CAPACITY: NOT REPORTED THROUGHPUT: 2 DISPOSAL ACREAGE: NOT REPORTED CLOSURE DATE: NOT REPORTED Back to Report Summary 22 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Solid Waste Information System Sites (SWIS) MAP ID# 3 Distance from Property: 0.662 mi. (3,495 ft.) NE Elevation: 333 ft. (Lower than TP) SITE INFORMATION ID #: 30890001 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #: NONE SPECIFIED FACILITY LINK: CLICK HERE NAME: CANYON CLEANERS ADDRESS: 5566 EAST SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ANAHEIM HILLS, CA 92807 COUNTY: ORANGE SITE SIZE (ACRES): NOT REPORTED LEAD AGENCY: US EPA DTSC PROJECT MANAGER: NOT REPORTED DTSC SUPERVISOR: * HARLAN JECHE DTSC DIVISION BRANCH: CLEANUP CYPRESS NPL LISTED: NO RESTRICTED LAND USE: NO SITE TYPE: HISTORICAL SITE TYPE DESCRIPTION HISTORICAL: IDENTIFIES SITES FROM AN OLDER DATABASE WHERE NO SITE TYPE WAS IDENTIFIED. MOST OF THESE SITES HAVE A STATUS OF REFERRED OR NO FURTHER ACTION. DTSC IS WORKING TO CLEAN UP THIS DATA BY IDENTIFYING AN APPROPRIATE SITE TYPE FOR EACH “HISTORIC” SITE. DTSC's CURRENT INVOLVEMENT AT SITE (as of 10/06/1998) REFER: RWQCB - PAST USE/S THAT CAUSED THE CONTAMINATION NONE SPECIFIED CONFIRMED CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN NONESPECIFIED - NONE SPECIFIED Back to Report Summary 23 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 EnviroStor Cleanup Sites (ENVIROSTOR) This list contains sites that could not be mapped due to limited or incomplete address information. No Records Found 24 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Unlocated Sites Summary AIRSAFS Aerometric Information Retrieval System / Air Facility Subsystem VERSION DATE: 10/20/14 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modified the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) to a database that exclusively tracks the compliance of stationary sources of air pollution with EPA regulations: the Air Facility Subsystem (AFS). Since this change in 2001, the management of the AIRS/AFS database was assigned to EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. BRS Biennial Reporting System VERSION DATE: 12/31/15 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation with the States, biennially collects information regarding the generation, management, and final disposition of hazardous wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended. The Biennial Report captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quantity generators and data on waste management practices from treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Currently, the EPA states that data collected between 1991 and 1997 was originally a part of the defunct Biennial Reporting System and is now incorporated into the RCRAInfo data system. CDL Clandestine Drug Laboratory Locations VERSION DATE: 05/06/19 The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this information as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example, contacting local law enforcement and local health departments. The Department does not establish, implement, enforce, or certify compliance with clean-up or remediation standards for contaminated sites; the public should contact a state or local health department or environmental protection agency for that information. DOCKETS EPA Docket Data VERSION DATE: 12/22/05 The United States Environmental Protection Agency Docket data lists Civil Case Defendants, filing dates as far back as 1971, laws broken including section, violations that occurred, pollutants involved, penalties assessed and superfund awards by facility and location. Please refer to ICIS database as source of current data. EC Federal Engineering Institutional Control Sites VERSION DATE: 06/11/19 This database includes site locations where Engineering and/or Institutional Controls have been identified as part 25 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL of a selected remedy for the site as defined by United States Environmental Protection Agency official remedy decision documents. The data displays remedy component information for Superfund decision documents issued in fiscal years 1982-2017, and it includes final and deleted NPL sites as well as sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) agreement in place. A site listing does not indicate that the institutional and engineering controls are currently in place nor will be in place once the remedy is complete; it only indicates that the decision to include either of them in the remedy is documented as of the completed date of the document. Institutional controls are actions, such as legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination by ensuring appropriate land or resource use. Engineering controls include caps, barriers, or other device engineering to prevent access, exposure, or continued migration of contamination. ECHOR09 Enforcement and Compliance History Information VERSION DATE: 03/09/19 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, provides compliance and enforcement information for facilities nationwide. This database includes facilities regulated as Clean Air Act stationary sources, Clean Water Act direct dischargers, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste handlers, Safe Drinking Water Act public water systems along with other data, such as Toxics Release Inventory releases. ERNSCA Emergency Response Notification System VERSION DATE: 04/07/19 This National Response Center database contains data on reported releases of oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and/or etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories. The data comes from spill reports made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, the National Response Center and/or the U.S. Department of Transportation. FRSCA Facility Registry System VERSION DATE: 04/05/19 The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) developed the Facility Registry System (FRS) as the centrally managed database that identifies facilities, sites or places subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest. The Facility Registry System replaced the Facility Index System or FINDS database. HMIRSR09 Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System VERSION DATE: 04/14/19 The HMIRS database contains unintentional hazardous materials release information reported to the U.S. Department of Transportation located in EPA Region 9. This region includes the following states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa. 26 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System (formerly DOCKETS) VERSION DATE: 03/09/19 ICIS is a case activity tracking and management system for civil, judicial, and administrative federal Environmental Protection Agency enforcement cases. ICIS contains information on federal administrative and federal judicial cases under the following environmental statutes: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act - Section 313, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. ICISNPDES Integrated Compliance Information System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System VERSION DATE: 07/09/17 Authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. This database is provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. LUCIS Land Use Control Information System VERSION DATE: 09/01/06 The LUCIS database is maintained by the U.S. Department of the Navy and contains information for former Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) properties across the United States. MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System VERSION DATE: 06/29/17 MLTS is a list of approximately 8,100 sites which have or use radioactive materials subject to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements. Disclaimer: Due to agency regulations and policies, this database contains applicant/licensee location information which may or may not be related to the physical location per MLTS site. NPDESR09 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System VERSION DATE: 04/01/07 Authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The NPDES database was collected from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from December 2002 through April 2007. Refer to the PCS and/or ICIS-NPDES database as source of current data. This database includes permitted facilities located in EPA Region 9. This region includes the following states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa. 27 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL PADS PCB Activity Database System VERSION DATE: 09/14/18 PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) who are required to notify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of such activities. PCSR09 Permit Compliance System VERSION DATE: 08/01/12 The Permit Compliance System is used in tracking enforcement status and permit compliance of facilities controlled by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under the Clean Water Act and is maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Compliance. PCS is designed to support the NPDES program at the state, regional, and national levels. This database includes permitted facilities located in EPA Region 9. This region includes the following states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa. PCS has been modernized, and no longer exists. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) data can now be found in Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). RCRASC RCRA Sites with Controls VERSION DATE: 09/12/19 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. This listing refers to facilities with institutional controls in place. SEMSLIENS SEMS Lien on Property VERSION DATE: 08/13/18 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), has implemented The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), formerly known as CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System) to track and report on clean-up and enforcement activities taking place at Superfund sites. SEMS represents a joint development and ongoing collaboration between Superfund's Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities, Enforcement and Emergency Response programs. This is a listing of SEMS sites with a lien on the property. SFLIENS CERCLIS Liens VERSION DATE: 06/08/12 28 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL A Federal CERCLA ("Superfund") lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which United States Environmental Protection Agency has spent Superfund monies. These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination. CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties. This database contains those CERCLIS sites where the Lien on Property action is complete. Please refer to the SEMSLIENS database as source of current data. SSTS Section Seven Tracking System VERSION DATE: 02/01/17 The United States Environmental Protection Agency tracks information on pesticide establishments through the Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS). SSTS records the registration of new establishments and records pesticide production at each establishment. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that production of pesticides or devices be conducted in a registered pesticide-producing or device- producing establishment. ("Production" includes formulation, packaging, repackaging, and relabeling.) TRI Toxics Release Inventory VERSION DATE: 12/31/17 The Toxics Release Inventory, provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, includes data on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities from certain industries as well as federal and tribal facilities. This inventory contains information about the types and amounts of toxic chemicals that are released each year to the air, water, and land as well as information on the quantities of toxic chemicals sent to other facilities for further waste management. TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act Inventory VERSION DATE: 12/31/12 The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976 to ensure that chemicals manufactured, imported, processed, or distributed in commerce, or used or disposed of in the United States do not pose any unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. TSCA section 8(b) provides the United States Environmental Protection Agency authority to "compile, keep current, and publish a list of each chemical substance that is manufactured or processed in the United States." This TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory contains non-confidential information on the production amount of toxic chemicals from each manufacturer and importer site. RCRAGR09 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act - Generator VERSION DATE: 08/19/19 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. This listing refers 29 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL to facilities currently generating hazardous waste. EPA Region 9 includes the following states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa. RCRANGR09 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act - Non-Generator VERSION DATE: 08/19/19 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. This listing refers to facilities classified as non-generators. Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. EPA Region 9 includes the following states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa. ALTFUELS Alternative Fueling Stations VERSION DATE: 03/01/19 Nationwide list of alternative fueling stations made available by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Includes Bio-diesel stations, Ethanol (E85) stations, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Propane) stations, Ethanol (E85) stations, Natural Gas stations, Hydrogen stations, and Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). FEMAUST FEMA Owned Storage Tanks VERSION DATE: 12/01/16 This is a listing of FEMA owned underground and aboveground storage tank sites. For security reasons, address information is not released to the public according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. HISTPST Historical Gas Stations VERSION DATE: NR This historic directory of service stations is provided by the Cities Service Company. The directory includes Cities Service filling stations that were located throughout the United States in 1930. ICISCLEANERS Integrated Compliance Information System Drycleaners VERSION DATE: 03/09/19 This is a listing of drycleaner facilities from the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tracks facilities that possess NAIC and SIC codes that classify businesses as drycleaner establishments. The following Primary SIC Codes are included in this data: 7211, 7212, 7213, 7215, 7216, 7217, 7218, and/or 7219; the following Primary NAICS Codes are included in this data: 30 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL 812320, 812331, and/or 812332. MRDS Mineral Resource Data System VERSION DATE: 03/15/16 MRDS (Mineral Resource Data System) is a collection of reports describing metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources throughout the world. Included are deposit name, location, commodity, deposit description, geologic characteristics, production, reserves, resources, and references. This database contains the records previously provided in the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS) originated in the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which is now part of USGS. MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration Master Index File VERSION DATE: 03/15/19 The Mine dataset lists all Coal and Metal/Non-Metal mines under MSHA's jurisdiction since 1/1/1970. It includes such information as the current status of each mine (Active, Abandoned, NonProducing, etc.), the current owner and operating company, commodity codes and physical attributes of the mine. Mine ID is the unique key for this data. This information is provided by the United States Department of Labor - Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). BF Brownfields Management System VERSION DATE: 07/10/19 Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment. The United States Environmental Protection Agency maintains this database to track activities in the various brown field grant programs including grantee assessment, site cleanup and site redevelopment. This database included tribal brownfield sites. DNPL Delisted National Priorities List VERSION DATE: 08/13/19 This database includes sites from the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Final National Priorities List (NPL) where remedies have proven to be satisfactory or sites where the original analyses were inaccurate, and the site is no longer appropriate for inclusion on the NPL, and final publication in the Federal Register has occurred. NLRRCRAT No Longer Regulated RCRA Non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities VERSION DATE: 08/19/19 This database includes RCRA Non-Corrective Action TSD facilities that are no longer regulated by the United 31 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL States Environmental Protection Agency or do not meet other RCRA reporting requirements. This listing includes facilities that formerly treated, stored or disposed of hazardous waste. ODI Open Dump Inventory VERSION DATE: 06/01/85 The open dump inventory was published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. An “open dump” is defined as a facility or site where solid waste is disposed of which is not a sanitary landfill which meets the criteria promulgated under section 4004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6944) and which is not a facility for disposal of hazardous waste. This inventory has not been updated since June 1985. RCRAT Resource Conservation & Recovery Act - Non-CORRACTS Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facilities VERSION DATE: 08/19/19 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. This listing refers to facilities recognized as hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal sites (TSD). SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System VERSION DATE: 08/15/19 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), has implemented The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), formerly known as CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System) to track and report on clean-up and enforcement activities taking place at Superfund sites. SEMS represents a joint development and ongoing collaboration between Superfund's Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities, Enforcement and Emergency Response programs. SEMSARCH Superfund Enterprise Management System Archived Site Inventory VERSION DATE: 08/15/19 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System Archived Site Inventory (List 8R Archived) replaced the CERCLIS NFRAP reporting system in 2015. This listing reflects sites at which the EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program. SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Sites VERSION DATE: 03/19/19 32 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL An inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily coal mining) is maintained by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to provide information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The inventory contains information on the location, type, and extent of AML impacts, as well as, information on the cost associated with the reclamation of those problems. The inventory is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that it is modified as new problems are identified and existing problems are reclaimed. USUMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Sites VERSION DATE: 03/04/17 The Legacy Management Office of the Department of Energy (DOE) manages radioactive and chemical waste, environmental contamination, and hazardous material at over 100 sites across the U.S. The L.M. Office manages this database of sites registered under the Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act (UMTRCA). DOD Department of Defense Sites VERSION DATE: 12/01/14 This information originates from the National Atlas of the United States Federal Lands data, which includes lands owned or administered by the Federal government. Army DOD, Army Corps of Engineers DOD, Air Force DOD, Navy DOD and Marine DOD areas of 640 acres or more are included. FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites VERSION DATE: 06/01/15 The Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) inventory includes properties previously owned by or leased to the United States and under Secretary of Defense Jurisdiction, as well as Munitions Response Areas (MRAs). The remediation of these properties is the responsibility of the Department of Defense. This data is provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the boundaries/polygon data are based on preliminary findings and not all properties currently have polygon data available. DISCLAIMER: This data represents the results of data collection/processing for a specific USACE activity and is in no way to be considered comprehensive or to be used in any legal or official capacity as presented on this site. While the USACE has made a reasonable effort to insure the accuracy of the maps and associated data, it should be explicitly noted that USACE makes no warranty, representation or guaranty, either expressed or implied, as to the content, sequence, accuracy, timeliness or completeness of any of the data provided herein. For additional information on Formerly Used Defense Sites please contact the USACE Public Affairs Office at (202) 528-4285. FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program VERSION DATE: 03/04/17 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 to remediate sites where radioactive contamination remained from the Manhattan Project and early U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations. The DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) established long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS&M) requirements for remediated FUSRAP sites. DOE 33 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL evaluates the final site conditions of a remediated site on the basis of risk for different future uses. DOE then confirms that LTS&M requirements will maintain protectiveness. NLRRCRAC No Longer Regulated RCRA Corrective Action Facilities VERSION DATE: 08/19/19 This database includes RCRA Corrective Action facilities that are no longer regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or do not meet other RCRA reporting requirements. NMS Former Military Nike Missile Sites VERSION DATE: 12/01/84 This information was taken from report DRXTH-AS-IA-83A016 (Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System, 12/1984) which was performed by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Assessment Division. The Nike system was deployed between 1954 and the mid- 1970’s. Among the substances used or stored on Nike sites were liquid missile fuel (JP-4); starter fluids (UDKH, aniline, and furfuryl alcohol); oxidizer (IRFNA); hydrocarbons (motor oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, gasoline, heating oil); solvents (carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, stoddard solvent); and battery electrolyte. The quantities of material a disposed of and procedures for disposal are not documented in published reports. Virtually all information concerning the potential for contamination at Nike sites is confined to personnel who were assigned to Nike sites. During deactivation most hardware was shipped to depot-level supply points. There were reportedly instances where excess materials were disposed of on or near the site itself at closure. There was reportedly no routine site decontamination. NPL National Priorities List VERSION DATE: 08/13/19 This database includes United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Priorities List sites that fall under the EPA's Superfund program, established to fund the cleanup of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action. PNPL Proposed National Priorities List VERSION DATE: 08/13/19 This database contains sites proposed to be included on the National Priorities List (NPL) in the Federal Register. The United States Environmental Protection Agency investigates these sites to determine if they may present long-term threats to public health or the environment. RCRAC Resource Conservation & Recovery Act - Corrective Action Facilities VERSION DATE: 08/19/19 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 34 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. This listing refers to facilities with corrective action activity. RCRASUBC Resource Conservation & Recovery Act - Subject to Corrective Action Facilities VERSION DATE: 08/19/19 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. This listing refers to facilities subject to corrective actions. RODS Record of Decision System VERSION DATE: 08/13/19 These decision documents maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency describe the chosen remedy for NPL (Superfund) site remediation. They also include site history, site description, site characteristics, community participation, enforcement activities, past and present activities, contaminated media, the contaminants present, and scope and role of response action. 35 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - FEDERAL CDL Clandestine Drug Labs VERSION DATE: 06/30/18 The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) maintains this listing of illegal drug laboratories. DTSC maintains a limited cost-tracking database to manage and pay appropriate contractor invoices for removal costs. The data source is an expenditure report with the contractors’ invoice information and the reported removal action locations. The reported location information may or may not include the actual location of the illegal drug lab for several reasons. First, DTSC receives the location information verbally from law enforcement or local environmental health officials in the initial request for emergency support. Second, DTSC does not verify the information received and does not perform “data cleaning” or other measures to ensure data quality. Third, the location information may not be the actual location of an illegal drug lab or any hazardous substance release to the environment. The initial report may have provided the location of the nearest identifiable address to an illegal drug lab or mobile lab or abandonment of illegal drug lab wastes, or a nearby meeting location for the contractor. Please note the DTSC does not guarantee the accuracy of the address or location information or the condition of the location listed. The listing of an address or location in this database does not indicate that any illegal drug lab materials were or were not present there, and does not constitute a determination that the address or location either requires or does not require additional cleanup work or mitigation action. CHMIRS California Hazardous Material Incident Report System VERSION DATE: 05/15/19 The California Hazardous Material Incident Report System list is maintained by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES). This list contains all spills called in to the California OES Warning Center for a specific year since 1993. DTSCDR DTSC Deed Restrictions VERSION DATE: 09/25/19 The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains this listi of sites with deed restrictions. According to the DTSC, restricted land use indicates whether the site or area within the site has an environmental restriction recorded and/or other institutional control preventing certain types of land use or activities. The land use restrictions listed under the site management requirements are only an abbreviated summary of the land use restrictions, and may not encompass all restrictions and notification requirements placed on a property. For complete land use restriction information please contact the DTSC to review associated Land Use Restriction documents. EMI Emissions Inventory Data VERSION DATE: 12/31/17 This list of Emissions Inventory Data is maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency California Environmental Agency Air Resources Board. This list includes criteria pollutant data and toxic data. Please note gas stations, print shops, autobody shops, and dry cleaners are not included in this list. 36 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) HWTS Hazardous Waste Tanner Summary VERSION DATE: 12/31/17 The Hazardous Waste Tanner Summary is maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). This list includes data extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DTSC. LDS Land Disposal Sites VERSION DATE: 10/02/19 This list of Land Disposal sites (Landfills) is a subset of the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites database, maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Sites are queried from GeoTracker by case type = Land Disposal Site. LIENS Recorded Environmental Cleanup Liens VERSION DATE: 05/17/19 The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) maintains this list of liens placed upon real properties. A lien is utilized by the DTSC to obtain reimbursement from responsible parties for costs associated with the remediation of contaminated properties. MCS Military Cleanup Sites VERSION DATE: 10/02/19 This list of Military sites is a subset of the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites database maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Sites are queried from GeoTracker by case type = Military Cleanup Sites. This list includes : Military UST sites; Military Privatized sites; and Military Cleanup sites (formerly known as DoD non UST). NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Facilities VERSION DATE: 08/28/19 This list of active, historical, and terminated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Facilities permits is maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency State Water Resources Control Board. This data includes storm water general permit enrollees that are active or have been active within the past three years. Please note there can be multiple listings for a single permit due to multiple dischargers, multiple facilities, and/or multiple address listings. Please use the Regulatory Measure ID to identify duplicates, as this is a unique identifier for each permit. ABST Above Ground Storage Tanks VERSION DATE: 09/05/19 37 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) This database, provided by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) Regulated Site Portal, contains aboveground petroleum storage tank facilities originating from the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS). These facilities store petroleum in aboveground storage tanks with oversight by local agencies. As of January 1, 2008, Assembly Bill No. 1130 of the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) authorized the Certified Unified Program Agencies to implement and administer the requirements of the APSA. CalEPA Data Disclaimer: Information displayed in the portal is collected from separate agency databases and displayed unaltered. Information that is considered confidential, trade secret, or is otherwise protected by the agency that manages the database is not loaded into the portal. For more detail about information displayed in the portal, please visit the data source sites. Please refer to AST2007 database for aboveground storage tank information obtained from the California State Water Resources Control Board prior to 2008 APSA requirements. AST2007 Aboveground Storage Tanks Prior to January 2008 VERSION DATE: 12/01/07 This database contains aboveground storage tank facilities registered with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) between 2007 and 2003. Since 2006, tanks were required to contain a minimum (even as cumulative) of 1320 gallons to be in the program. As of January 1, 2008, the SWRCB no longer maintains a list of registered aboveground storage tanks, due to effective Assembly Bill No. 1130 (Laird) of the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA). This Bill authorized the Certified Unified Program Agencies to implement and administer the requirements of the APSA. Please refer to ABST database as a current source for aboveground petroleum storage tank data. CLEANER Dry Cleaner Facilities VERSION DATE: 06/13/19 This list of dry cleaners is maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Data is extracted from the DTSC Hazardous Waste Tracking System. This list includes dry cleaner facilities that have registered EPA identification numbers. These facilities are categorized by SIC codes (7211, 7212, 7213, 7215, 7216, 7217, 7218, 7219). This database may also include facilities other than dry cleaners who also register with these same NAICS Codes. Not all companies report their NAICS/SIC Codes to the DTSC, therefore this database may exclude registered dry cleaner facilities with incomplete classification information. DTSCHWT DTSC Registered Hazardous Waste Transporters VERSION DATE: 07/29/19 The California Department of Toxic Substances Control maintains this list of Registered Hazardous Waste Transporters. HISTUST Historical Underground Storage Tanks VERSION DATE: 12/31/87 The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database is a historical list of Underground Storage Tank sites, 38 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) compiled from tank survey and registration information collected at one time between 1984 and 1987 by the State Water Resources Control Board. The hazardous substances stored within these tanks includes, but not restricted to, petroleum products, industrial solvents, and other materials. MINES Mines Listing VERSION DATE: 07/23/19 This list includes mine site locations extracted from the Mines Online database, maintained by the California Department of Conservation. Mines Online (MOL) is an interactive web map designed with GIS features that provide information such as the mine name, mine status, commodity sold, location, and other mine specific data. MWMP California Medical Waste Management Program Facility List VERSION DATE: 05/02/19 This list of Medical Waste Management Program Facilities is maintained by the California Department of Public Health. The Medical Waste Management Program (MWMP) regulates the generation, handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of medical waste by providing oversight for the implementation of the Medical Waste Management Act (MWMA). The MWMP permits and inspects all medical waste off-site treatment facilities, medical waste transporters, and medical waste transfer stations. This list contains transporters, treatment, and transfer facilities. SLIC Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Recovery Listing VERSION DATE: 08/13/19 This list of Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Recovery sites is maintained by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This list all "non-federally owned" sites that are regulated under the State Water Resources Control Board's Site Cleanup Program and/or similar programs conducted by each of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Cleanup Program Sites are also commonly referred to as "Site Cleanup Program sites". Cleanup Program Sites are varied and include but are not limited to pesticide and fertilizer facilities, rail yards, ports, equipment supply facilities, metals facilities, industrial manufacturing and maintenance sites, dry cleaners, bulk transfer facilities, refineries, mine sites, landfills, RCRA/CERCLA cleanups, and some brownfields. Unauthorized releases detected at Cleanup Program Sites are highly variable and include but are not limited to hydrocarbon solvents, pesticides, perchlorate, nitrate, heavy metals, and petroleum constituents, to name a few. SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System VERSION DATE: 10/01/94 The Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resources Control Board. The hazardous substances stored within these tanks includes, but not restricted to, petroleum products, industrial solvents, and other materials. Refer to CUPA listing for source of current data. 39 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) USTCUPA Underground Storage Tanks VERSION DATE: 07/16/19 The California State Water Resources Control Board maintains this list of permitted underground storage tanks. Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities includes facilities at which the owner or operator has been issued a permit to operate one or more USTs by the local permitting agency. Permitted UST Facilities are imported weekly from the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS). BF Brownfield Sites VERSION DATE: 08/25/19 This database of Brownfield Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) sites is maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) agreed to a Brownfield Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA limits the oversight of a brownfields site to one agency, establishes procedures and guidelines for identifying the lead agency, calls for a single uniform site assessment procedure, requires all cleanups to address the requirements of the agencies, defines roles and responsibilities, provides for ample opportunity for public involvement, commits agencies to review time frames, and commits agencies to coordinate and communicate on brownfields issues. The Brownfield MOA site list is obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker online database. This list contains both open and completed sites. CALSITES CALSITES Database VERSION DATE: 05/01/04 This historical database was maintained by the Department of Toxic Substance Control for more than a decade. CALSITES contains information on Brownfield properties with confirmed or potential hazardous contamination. In 2006, DTSC introduced EnviroStor as the latest Brownfields site database. CLEANUPSITES GeoTracker Cleanup Sites VERSION DATE: 10/02/19 This list of GeoTracker Cleanup Sites is maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board. The database contains contaminated sites that impact groundwater or have the potential to impact ground water, including sites that require cleanup, such as Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites, Department of Defense Sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. GeoTracker also contains records for various unregulated projects as well as permitted facilities including: Irrigated Lands, Oil and Gas production, operating Permitted USTs, and Land Disposal Sites. GeoTracker portals retrieve records and view integrated data sets from multiple State Water Board programs and other agencies. 40 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) CORTESE Cortese List VERSION DATE: 07/15/19 This list of hazardous waste and substances sites (Cortese List) is maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC’s Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program (Cleanup Program) EnviroStor database provides DTSC’s component of Cortese List data by identifying Annual Workplan (now referred to State Response and/or Federal Superfund), and Backlog sites listed under Health and Safety Code section 25356. In addition, DTSC’s Cortese List includes Certified with Operation and Maintenance sites. The list, or a site’s presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because this statute was enacted over twenty years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented and, in some cases, the information to be included in the Cortese List does not exist. DROP Listing of Certified Dropoff, Collection, and Community Service Programs VERSION DATE: 09/30/19 This list of Certified Dropoff, Collection, and Community Service Programs (non-buyback) operating under the state of California's Beverage Container Recycling Program is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. ERAP Expedited Removal Action Program Sites VERSION DATE: 07/12/19 This list of Expedited Removal Action Program Sites is a subset of the EnviroStor database, maintained by the California Department of the Toxic Substance Control. Sites are queried from Envirostor by site type = State Response ERAP. HISTCORTESE Historical Cortese List VERSION DATE: 11/02/02 This historical listing includes hazardous waste and substances sites designated by the State Water Resources Control Board, the Integrated Waste Board, and the Department of Toxic Substance Control. The Cortese List was utilized by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. See CACORTESE for an updated version of this database. LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks VERSION DATE: 10/02/19 This list of leaking underground storage tanks is a subset of the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites database maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Sites are queried from GeoTracker by case type = LUST Cleanup Site. 41 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) NFA No Further Action Determination VERSION DATE: 09/09/19 This list of No Further Action (NFA) sites is maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. NFA identifies sites where a Phase I Environmental Assessment was completed and resulted in a no action required determination. Please refer to ENVIROSTOR for current No Further Action sites. NFE Sites Needing Further Evaluation VERSION DATE: 09/09/19 This list of Inactive - Needs Evaluation sites is maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. These are unconfirmed contaminated properties that need further assessment. This data is queried from the Department of Toxic Substances Control Evirostor online database. PROC Listing of Certified Processors VERSION DATE: 08/05/19 This list of Certified Processors that are operating under the state of California's Beverage Container Recycling Program is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. REF Referred to Another Local or State Agency VERSION DATE: 09/10/19 This Referred to Another Local or State Agency list, maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), contains properties where contamination has not been confirmed and which were determined as not requiring direct Department of Toxic Substance Control Site Mitigation Program action or oversight. Accordingly, these sites have been referred to another state or local regulatory agency. This data is extracted from the DTSC Envirostor online database and is queried by Status = "Refer state and local agencies". SWIS Solid Waste Information System Sites VERSION DATE: 09/30/19 This list of Solid Waste Information System Sites is extracted from the Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database, maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The SWIS database includes information on solid waste facilities, operations, and disposal sites located in California. The types of facilities found in this database include landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities, composting sites, transformation facilities, waste tire sites, and closed disposal sites. SWRCY Recycling Centers VERSION DATE: 08/07/19 42 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) This list of Certified Recycling Centers that are operating under the state of California's Beverage Container Recycling Program is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program VERSION DATE: 07/12/19 This list of Voluntary Cleanup Sites is a subset of the Envirostor database maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Sites are queried from Envirostor by site type = Voluntary Cleanup. WMUDS Waste Management Unit Database VERSION DATE: 01/01/00 The Waste Management Unit Database System tracks and inventories waste management units. CCR Title 27 contains criteria stating that Waste Management Units are classified according to their ability to contain wastes. Containment shall be determined by geology, hydrology, topography, climatology, and other factors relating to the ability of the Unit to protect water quality. Water Code Section 13273.1 requires that operators submit a water quality solid waste assessment test (SWAT) report to address leak status. The WMUDS was last updated by the State Water Resources control board in 2000. ENVIROSTOR EnviroStor Cleanup Sites VERSION DATE: 07/12/19 This list of Envirostor Cleanup Sites is maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC has developed the EnviroStor database system to evaluate and track sites with confirmed or potential contamination and sites where further investigation may be necessary. This EnviroStor database of cleanup sites contains the following: Federal Superfund sites (National Priorities List (NPL)); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. ENVIROSTORPCA EnviroStor Permitted and Corrective Action Sites VERSION DATE: 07/16/19 The California Department of Toxic Substance Control maintains this list of Hazardous Waste sites in their Envirostor online database. This list contains: 1) data pertaining to the Hazardous Waste Sites tracked in Envirostor; 2) the completed activities for Hazardous Waste Units; 3) the completed activities for Hazardous Waste Units undergoing closure; 4) completed maintenance activities; 5) the various "aliases" for a project (Some examples are: alt project name, alt address, EPA ID, etc.). TOXPITS Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites VERSION DATE: 07/01/95 Toxic Pits are sites with possible contamination of hazardous substances where cleanup is necessary. This listing is no longer updated by the State Water Resources Control Board. 43 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) 44 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - STATE (CA) OCHWFAC Orange County Hazardous Waste Facilities VERSION DATE: 07/10/19 This list of hazardous waste facilities is maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency. The listing contains any businesses or persons that generate hazardous waste in any capacity. OCAPST Orange County Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks VERSION DATE: 07/10/19 This list of aboveground petroleum storage tanks is maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency. OCUST Orange County Underground Storage Tanks VERSION DATE: 09/03/19 This list of underground storage tanks is maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency. OCISC Orange County Industrial Site Cleanups VERSION DATE: 07/10/19 This list of industrial site cleanups is maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency. OCLUST Orange County Leaking Underground Storage Tanks VERSION DATE: 07/10/19 This list of leaking underground storage tanks is maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency. OCNPUST Orange County Non-Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Cases VERSION DATE: 07/10/19 This list of open and closed non-petroleum underground storage tank cases is maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency. 45 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - LOCAL USTR09 Underground Storage Tanks On Tribal Lands VERSION DATE: 04/08/19 This database, provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), contains underground storage tanks on Tribal lands located in EPA Region 9. This region includes the following states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa. LUSTR09 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks On Tribal Lands VERSION DATE: 04/08/19 This database, provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), contains leaking underground storage tanks on Tribal lands located in EPA Region 9. This region includes the following states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa. ODINDIAN Open Dump Inventory on Tribal Lands VERSION DATE: 11/08/06 This Indian Health Service database contains information about facilities and sites on tribal lands where solid waste is disposed of, which are not sanitary landfills or hazardous waste disposal facilities, and which meet the criteria promulgated under section 4004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6944). TORRESDUMPSITES Illegal Dump Sites on the Torres Martinez Reservation VERSION DATE: 10/29/07 This listing of illegal dump site locations on the Torres Martinez Reservation is maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX. These dump sites contain unlawfully discarded household waste such as landscaping and wood wastes with no known soil or groundwater contamination. A majority of the sites have already been cleaned up through the collaborative efforts of the EPA, The California Integrated Waste Management Board and the Torres Martinez Tribe. INDIANRES Indian Reservations VERSION DATE: 01/01/00 The Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs maintains this database that includes American Indian Reservations, off-reservation trust lands, public domain allotments, Alaska Native Regional Corporations and Recognized State Reservations. 46 of 46 www.geo-search.com 888-396-0042 Order# 134181 Job# 319102 Environmental Records Definitions - TRIBAL Request Visibility: APPENDIX M: TREE EVALUATION REPORT Consulting Arborist's Report February 1, 2021 Tree Evaluation Report For: Holden Senior Living 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd., Anaheim Hills Prepared for: Mr. Michael Wilborn Managing Director Alliance Residential Company Orange County/San Diego 2462 Dupont Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Prepared by: Greg Applegate, RCA #365 Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 1131 Lucinda Way Tustin, CA 92780 714/ 731-6240 © Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2021 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Table of Contents• 1 Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Project Description and Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Assignment ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Aerial View & Tree Map ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Findings.................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 General Conditions Affecting the Trees’ Health .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Matrix of Tree Observations .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Key to Abbreviations and Codes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Measurements......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Site Tree Health and Condition by Species ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Suitability for the Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Botanic name / Common name Cross-Reference ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Construction Accommodations ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Soil Conditions and Replacement Trees ............................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Specimen Tree Removal ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Recommendations ...............................................................................................................................................................................................14 Specific Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Photographic Documentation ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Disclaimer ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................36 Appendix .............................................................................................................................................................................................................37 A. Resume ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 B. Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 C. Verification of Current Registration and Certifications .................................................................................................................................................. 43 Certification ........................................................................................................................................................................................................46 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Introduction• 2 2 Introduction Project Description and Background Alliance Residential Company is planning a proposed 118 units senior housing project in the City of Anaheim, at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. The property is now occupied by a vacant church building and parking lot. There are no street trees adjoining this property but several trees on the site are close to the street. The existing structures will be removed and all of the forty- three trees, due to demolition and grading activities and underground work on site. The whole property and trees were examined on December 18, 2020, and all living trees over 6-inch trunk diameter are included in this report. Representative photographs of the trees and present conditions are enclosed. Assignment Arborgate Consulting, Inc. was retained by Alliance Residential Company to review and provide an arboricultural evaluation of 43 trees' health and condition, professional opinions on possible transplanting options. This report is provided for submission to the City of Anaheim consideration. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Introduction• 3 3 Aerial View & Tree Map North Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 4 4 Findings General Conditions Affecting the Trees’ Health This site is on the southwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. The church appears to still have lights on, but is no longer in use. The parking lot was totally unused during my site inspection. The surrounding area is all residential. The property is open and unfenced. The landscape is still being irrigated and the lawn is green and being mowed. The property is clean and free of litter. The trees appear to be unmaintained lately. One of the sweet gums had recently dropped a dead limb into the parking lot, but it had not been removed or cleaned up. No demolition, grading and other site work had yet begun anywhere on site at the time of my inspection. Over all parts of the site there are 43 trees of reportable size (>6” caliper), none were noted on the adjoining properties as being a concern for development of this site. There is one Eucalyptus sp., one Cupaniopsis anacardioides, two Ficus benjamina, sixteen Liquidambar styraciflua, six Pinus halepensis, three Magnolia grandiflora, two Platanus racemosa, seven Pyrus kawakamii, and five Washingtonia robusta. There no Quercus species or Schinus species. The sweet gums and magnolias appear to have suffered drought stress, as noted by having dead top portions. The sweet gums may either or also have a Xylella infection. Ficus, Mexican fan palms, eucalyptus, and pines were mostly in good health and suffered no ill effects related to drought. Possibly related to lack of irrigation, more of the more riparian trees were in decline. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 5 5 Matrix of Tree Observations Following this table is an explanation of the codes used in the comments column. Health and structure grades are like school grades: A= excellent; B= good; C = okay; D = poor or declining; and F = dead or close to it. An “m” preceding an abbreviation means a minor condition. Tree # Species Dia @ 4' Circf Ht. Wd. Health Structure Comments 1 Magnolia grandiflora 11 34.6 30 22 A B Cod 2 Washingtonia robusta N/A 70 11 A A mSkirt 3 Washingtonia robusta N/A 60 11 A A mSkirt mGaff 4 Cupaniopsis anacardioides 12 37.7 25 20 C C- Cod inc MB DL Hd 5 Pyrus kawakamii 7.7 24.2 16 22 C C Cod DL 6 Pyrus kawakamii 8.2 25.8 22 22 B C- FB LB CrS cod DL 7 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 31.4 33 22 C B Epis 8 Ficus benjamina 12+13 75.0 35 40 B C Cod inc-T OL Sh 9 Liquidambar styraciflua 17 53.4 40 24 D D Part gird, T-split failed, 2long Db 10 Liquidambar styraciflua 13 40.8 40 25 B C 1sRF cod top 11 Liquidambar styraciflua 13 40.8 40 27 C C Circ 2long 12 Ficus benjamina 12 37.7 30 28 C C- Cod inc CrS Sh Ol mDb 13 Magnolia grandiflora 6 18.9 18 15 B B 2long 14 Magnolia grandiflora 9 28.3 30 22 C C Dead top DLT 1sRF 15 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 31.4 32 24 C- C Cr FC TO 2long 16 Pyrus kawakamii 13 40.8 30 38 C C- FB CrS Hd topd DL 2long 17 Pyrus kawakamii 10 31.4 18 18 D D FB CrS Hd topd leans Sh 18 Pyrus kawakamii 9 28.3 25 22 B C NoRF 2long 1s DL 19 Washingtonia robusta N/A 60 11 A A mSkirt no Gaff 20 Washingtonia robusta N/A 70 11 A A mSkirt no Gaff Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 6 6 Tree # Species Dia @ 4' Circf Ht. Wd. Health Structure Comments 21 Washingtonia robusta N/A 70 11 A A mSkirt no Gaff 22 Pyrus kawakamii 11 34.6 28 28 B C Cod mDkS Xing epi mTO 23 Pyrus kawakamii 12 37.7 30 30 C C Cod inc FC Sup under #27 24 Pinus halepensis 28 88.0 80 36 B C 1sRF leans out over St. Cod 25 Liquidambar styraciflua 7 22.0 32 18 C C Sp topd 26 Pinus halepensis 25 78.5 70 28 B C- Cod Tinj 1s Cr#25 & 27 27 Eucalyptus polyanthemos 29 91.1 75 40 B C mLean 1s cod 1sRF 28 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 31.4 35 25 B C T-bow DL epi 29 Liquidambar styraciflua 14 44.0 40 25 C C Cod Sh epi Hd SW-lift 30 Liquidambar styraciflua 12 37.7 40 20 C- C Sup seedy cod top, epi Db 31 Pinus halepensis 24 75.4 90 45 B C Cr#30 & 32, mbleeding Sh Dk? 32 Pinus halepensis 18,18,24,12 226.2 80 50 A D Cod inc-T 1s leans @ bldg 33 Platanus racemosa 18 56.6 80 40 C C OL Cr#32 mbleeding Sh Dk? 34 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 31.4 40 30 C C Cod epi 35 Liquidambar styraciflua 7.8 24.5 35 18 D D Dead top Sup 36 Pinus halepensis 12+17 91.1 55 40 C- D Cod inc-T 1s leans Sp Sh Cr 37 Pinus halepensis 18+20 119.4 80 45 C- D Cod inc-T OL Sp 38 Liquidambar styraciflua 11 34.6 45 22 D D Cod inc dead top, topd 39 Platanus racemosa 23 72.3 75 60 B C Cod 2long DL 40 Liquidambar styraciflua 11 34.6 50 30 B B Epi Sh mDb 41 Liquidambar styraciflua 12 37.7 40 25 C- C- MB Db Sh 42 Liquidambar styraciflua 14 44.0 35 22 D D MB Db Sh 1sRF - HANGER 43 Liquidambar styraciflua 13 40.8 35 20 D D MB Db 1sRF - HANGER by SW Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 7 7 Key to Abbreviations and Codes 1s = one-sided 1sRF = one-sided root flare 2long= too long Brks = breaks Circf = circumference Cod = codominant Cr = crowded, Cr#x = crowds tree number Crk = cracked CrS = crowded scaffolds Db = dieback Dk = decay DL = dogleg branching DLS = dogleg scaffold limb Epis = epicormic shoots FC = flush cut FB = fire blight Hd = headed Inc = included bark Lt = lion-tailed OL = over-lifted (high headed) Sh = shallow roots Sp = sparse TDk= trunk decay TO = torn out limb Tinj = trunk injury T-bow = bowed trunk Top’d = topped Xing = crossing limbs B = base, e.g. DkB = decayed base R = root, e.g. R-epis=root shoots S = scaffold limb T = trunk, e.g. Xing = crossing limbs Measurements According to City of Anaheim requirements, the trunk diameters were measured at four feet above grade versus ANSI Z60 and standard arboricultural practice of measuring at 4.5 feet. According to ANSI Z60, standards for container size and for appraisal related to diameter. Diameter measurements were taken using calipers for trees up to eight inches in diameter, and a Biltmore stick for larger calipers. For circumference comparisons, diameters were multiplied by 3.1417 and listed as well. Trunk diameter was not used for palm sizing. According to ANSI Z60 palms are measured and sold by trunk feet or overall height. In this report height is trunk height. The City’s standard for palm size was not found. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 8 8 Site Tree Health and Condition by Species The one carrotwood, Cupaniopsis anacardioides, was healthy, but not structurally sound. The trunk is codominant with severely included bark between the primary limbs. As is typical of the species, it was shallow rooted, exacerbated by being in turf. The one Silver Mountain gum, Eucalyptus polyanthemos, is near and hangs over the parking lot. It is healthy, but in poor structural condition, being codominant, shallow rooted and one sided. This is a large tree and would be a risk to those who might park in that part of the lot. The lerp psyllids and tortoise beetles have not bothered this species. There are two Benjamin figs, Ficus benjamina. Both are next to the outbuilding in the parking lot. Their health is fairly good, but it looks like they were pruned for other reasons than sound structure. There are codominant stems with included bark, and the canopies have been over-lifted. As would be expected for almost any ficus, the roots are shallow and lifting paving nearby. Most of the sweetgums, Liquidambar styraciflua, are unhealthy, and have dead upper portions. Most would have benefitted from more professional training. This is a shallow rooted, more riparian species. Periods of drought or competition for water could explain the dead tops, however there is a bacterial disease that has been infecting this and several other species of trees and shrubs. Originally it was called Pierce’s disease, and more recently called oleander scorch, i.e. Xylella fastidiosa. There is no true cure. Trunk injections can keep otherwise healthy trees alive longer. The three southern magnolias, Magnolia grandiflora, are in fair to good health. This is a thirstier species, and lately has been infested and many killed by tulip scale. None had symptoms of that on this site. Structurally, they all had small problems. This species is difficult to transplant. The two sycamores, Platanus racemosa, are in fair to good health. One has few lower limbs. The other is very wide. There were minor symptoms of flat-head borers in the outer bark on one tree, but there were no symptoms of the more deadly invasive shot-hole borer. Although sycamores transplant easily in winter, neither is a good candidate for transplanting here. There are six Aleppo pines, Pinus halepensis. found along the northeast corner of the site. Three have multiple trunks and run the risk of splitting due to included bark between the trunks. The Aleppo pines always have a wider range of structural problems, pest problems and root problems. Three Aleppo pines are leaning, codominant, and two severely bowed out over the street. Transplanting is not an option for any of these. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 9 9 Two of the evergreen pears, Pyrus kawakamii, are infected with fire blight, a common, but not usually fatal disease. Two have poor structure. Tree are in good health, but none have good structure. The transplanting season is very short, but none of these justify the expense and risk of transplanting. Suitability for the Proposed Project The provided plans show that the current parking lot will remain about where it is and how it is now. The small outbuilding and church will be removed. Grading along the east and south edges and pad preparation for the new buildings will require removal of all the trees. Oaks, pepper trees, and sycamores are protected species in Anaheim. There are no oaks or peppers on this site. There are two sycamores on site. They are attractive and tolerate turf conditions, but are in ivy. They are also in the footprint or the grading for the new buildings. However, this species is now the favorite for the invasive shot-hole borer (ISHB), but ISHB does seem to prefer individual sycamores in wetter conditions. It is also a known host for the three fungus strains vectored by the borer. They are not recommended for preservation here, mostly due to the demolition, grading and construction that will occur in their space. There are two Mexican fan palms that might be outside grading and construction. Mexican fan palm is effectively a “weed species”. This species grows well in turf conditions, non-turf conditions and many places where it is not wanted. It is the least expensive palm species, so much so that it is usually cheaper to buy new ones than to try to save ones on site. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Findings• 10 0 Botanic name / Common name Cross-Reference Botanical name Common name Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silver Mt. gum Ficus benjamina Benjamin fig Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet gum Pinus halepensis Aleppo pine Platanus racemosa California sycamore Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen pear Washingtonia robusta Mexican can palm Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Discussion• 11 1 Discussion Construction Accommodations Considering the planned development, the trees at the site now are not situated in patterns that are useful in a typically arranged housing complex. The trees around the northeast corner are on slopes and too close together, thus cannot be transplanted. There will be many opportunities across the new grounds and around the perimeter to plant replacement trees, and they will be more attractive and complementary to the grounds and structures of the new site. The new development pattern will include areas for a substantial tree canopy, both for aesthetics as well as comfort in the Orange County climate. No trees will be transplanted. Few have sufficient quality and health to justify the risk and expense. There is no known place to store trees on site during grading and no room to work around them unless the work is done in phases. Preserving these trees by transplanting them is not practical or cost effective, unless it saves a useful tree for a good place on site, which is very unlikely to apply to any of these trees. Transplanted trees lose about 90 percent of their roots and take years to recover, if they ever do. In my experience planting new, young, better suited trees of appropriate species, would provide the better solution. In just a few years newly established trees, appropriately trained and cared for, will be full and useful to the site and to the community. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Discussion• 12 2 Soil Conditions and Replacement Trees Within the scope of this report there is no soil testing included. Top soil is a great asset for any new landscape. However, typical demolition and grading does not preserve it, except possibly where trees are scheduled to remain. Top soil should remain on site and ultimately on top. It takes decades for subsoils to weather sufficiently to function even nearly as well as the topsoil that is here now. To aid in selection of the new landscape trees the soil should be tested after grading by an agronomic laboratory. If topsoil will be protected and stockpiled, it can be tested now. If not, it should be tested after grading and the tree list amended as needed based on the soil test results. There may be a large number of trees removed, but hopefully not taken to the land fill. Organic matter in the soil helps buffer salts, returns most elements to the ground for use by the new trees, and is a basis of a healthy soil biological web that helps protect and feed the new trees. If the existing trees and tree debris can be fed through a large tub-grinder, this resource can be composted, save dump fees, and help the new landscape trees and shrubs as a surface mulch. Despite common warnings about eucalyptus-based mulch being allelopathic, this has been proven false by recent research. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Discussion• 13 3 Specimen Tree Removal In Section 18.18.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code it says: TREE PRESERVATION. Discretionary Specimen Tree Removal Permit. Applications for authority to destroy Specimen Trees shall be filed with the Planning and Building Department on forms provided for such purpose, together with a filing fee as established by resolution of the City Council. A City Arborist shall review and provide a recommendation for all Discretionary Specimen Tree Removal Permits. Applications that do not meet the requirements of subsection .030 above shall be referred directly to the Planning Commission for determination. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.60 (Procedures). Permits are valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of issuance. A new application shall be filed for requests that have not been exercised within the established time frames. Prior to the City granting any permit to destroy a “Specimen Tree”, the above section requires that the Planning Commission or City Council find that the project meet one or more of the five listed findings. The appropriate finding is .0502 “That a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the tree is located requires destruction of the tree or trees” The site needs extensive grading and demolition to build the Holden Senior Living facility. This project cannot be developed without removal of nearly all the trees including “Specimen Trees”. In addition, as stated above .0504 “That the topography of the building site renders destruction reasonably necessary.” There are two trees that are protected specimen trees on this site, from the Platanus genus (Tree #33 and 39). As such, an administrative specimen tree removal permit is required to remove these two specimen trees. The removal of these two specimen trees is warranted as the proposed project meets two of the required findings. Specifically, the project meets two findings listed in Section 18.18.040.050.0502 and 18.18.040.050.0504. In addition, per Table 18-A in Chapter 18.18 of the Zoning Code, five replacement trees are required., which need to be one of the tree types listed in Table 18-B in Chapter 18.18 of the Zoning Code. This is a function of the landscape architect in planning where best to plant them and the proper species. Refer to the project landscape plan for location(s) and type(s) of the required five replacement trees. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 14 4 Recommendations Specific Recommendations 1. Rip and remove the roots from the formerly treed areas. If there are signs of disease, take them to the dump. 2. Tub-grind existing trees and tree debris. Stockpile and turn the piles to compost the mulch to kill off possible disease and weeds. Apply mulch 2-3” deep to the soil surface below new trees. Where possible mulch should cover the entire planted area, except in planted ground cover spaces. 3. Stockpile top soil where possible, if the grade will be changed. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 15 5 Photographic Documentation Southern magnolia #1 Mexican fan palms #2 & 3, right to left Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 16 6 Carrotwood #4 Evergreen pear #5 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 17 7 Evergreen pear #6 Sweetgum #7 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 18 8 Benjamin fig #8 Sweetgum #9 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 19 9 Sweetgum #10 Sweetgum #11 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 20 20 Benjamin fig #12 Southern magnolia #13 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 21 21 Southern magnolia #14 Sweetgum #15 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 22 22 Evergreen pear #16 – note fire blight. Evergreen pear #17 – note fire blight. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 23 23 Evergreen pear #18 Mexican fan palms #19, 20, and 21, right to left Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 24 24 Evergreen pear #22 Evergreen pear #23 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 25 25 Aleppo pine #24 and #26, right to left Sweetgum #25 between #24 and #26 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 26 26 Silver Mt. gum #27 Silver Mt. gum #27 – one-sided and hangs over parking lot Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 27 27 Sweetgum #28 Sweetgum #29 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 28 28 Sweetgum #29 – tear-out and decay Sweetgum #30 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 29 29 Aleppo pines #31 & 32, sycamore #33 and sweetgum #34, right to left. Aleppo pine #32, sycamore #33, sweetgums #34 & 35 right to left. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 30 30 Sweetgum #35 is suppressed under Aleppo pine #36 Aleppo pines #36 and 37, with sweetgum #38 at left. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 31 31 Sweetgum #38 Sycamore #33 at right Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 32 32 Aleppo pine #36 Aleppo pine #37 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 33 33 Sycamore #39 Sweetgum #40 at right Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 34 34 Sweetgum #40 Sweetgum #41 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Recommendations• 35 35 Sweetgum #42 – note past topping Sweetgum #42 & 43 – note hanger Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Disclaimer• 36 36 Disclaimer Since Arborgate Consulting may not have direct review or supervision of demolition or construction as it takes place, we must remind you that there are certain risks involved. Trees are living, dynamic organisms that respond to changes in their environment, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly. Working around trees in this condition will be risky. Good, current information on tree preservation has been applied. A complete risk assessment was not requested or performed. Weather, winds and the magnitude and direction of storms are not predictable and a failure may still occur despite the best application of high professional standards. Future maintenance will also affect the trees’ health and stability and is not under the supervision or scrutiny of this consultant. This consultant does not assume liability for any tree failures involved with this property. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 37 37 Appendix A. Resume B. Glossary C. Verification of Current Registration and Certifications Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 38 38 A. Resume GREGORY W. APPLEGATE, ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #365 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: American Society of Consulting Arborists Registered Consulting Arborist #365 International Society of Arboriculture, Certified Arborist Number WE-0180a American Society of Consulting Arborists – Tree & Plant Appraisal Qualified International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified EXPERIENCE: Mr. Applegate is an independent consulting arborist. He has been in the horticulture field since 1963, providing professional arboricultural consulting since 1984 within both private and public sectors. His expertise includes appraisal, tree preservation, diagnosis of tree growth problems, construction impact mitigation, environmental assessment, expert witness testimony, hazard evaluation, pruning programs, species selection and tree health monitoring. Mr. Applegate has consulted for insurance companies, major developers, theme parks, homeowners, homeowners' associations, landscape architects, landscape contractors, property managers, attorneys and governmental bodies. Notable projects on which he has consulted are: Disneyland, Disneyland Hotel, DisneySeas-Tokyo, Disney’s Wild Animal Kingdom, the New Tomorrowland, Disney’s California Adventure, Disney Hong Kong project, Knott’s Berry Farm, J. Paul Getty Museums, Tustin Ranch, Newport Coast, Crystal Court, Newport Fashion Island Palms, Bixby Ranch Country Club, Playa Vista, Laguna Canyon Road and Myford Road for The Irvine Company, MTA Expo and Purple Lines, MWD- California Lakes, Paseo Westpark Palms, Loyola-Marymount campus, Cal Tech, Cal State Long Beach, Pierce College, The Irvine Concourse, UCI, USC, UCLA, LA City College, LA Trade Tech, Riverside City College, Crafton Hills College, MTA projects, and the State of California review of the Landscape Architecture License exam (re: plant materials) EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 1973 ASCA Arboricultural Consulting Academy, Arbor-Day Farm, Kansas City 1995, #3 graduate Continuing Education Courses in Arboriculture required to maintain Certified Arborist status and for ASCA membership PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), Registered Member American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), Full Member International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Regular Member California Tree Failure Report Program, UC Davis, Participant Street Tree Seminar (STS), Associate Member COMMUNITY AFFILIATIONS: SoCalif ASLA visibility committee 1980-82 Landscape Arch. License Exam prep, Instructor, Cal Poly Pomona (1986-90) American Institute of Landscape Architects, LA Chapter Board of Directors (1980-82) California Landscape Architect Student Scholarship Fund-Chairman (1985) International Society of Arboriculture-Examiner-tree worker certification (1990) ASCA, Industry definitions committee and A3G committee 2009-2010 ASCA web site, west coast tree question responder (2007 and continuing) Guest lecturer at UCLA, Cal Poly, Saddleback College, & Palomar Junior College Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 39 39 B. Glossary Allelopathy a biological phenomenon by which an organism produces one or more biochemicals that influence the germination, growth, survival, and reproduction of other organisms. ANSI-A300 American National Standards Institute performance standards for the care and maintenance of trees, shrubs and other woody plants. Copies are available from International Society of Arboriculture bookstore 888-ISA-TREE ANSI-Z60-1 American National Standards Institute standards sizing and describing trees, shrubs and other nursery stock. Appraisal Plant appraisal - The act or process of developing an opinion of a defined value or defined cost. This may apply to plants, landscape elements, or services. (per Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers) Arboricultural Pertaining to the awareness, care, evaluation, identification, growing, maintenance, management, planting, selection, treatment, understanding, valuation and so forth of trees and other woody plants and their growing environments, particularly in shade and ornamental (non-crop/commodity) settings. Arboriculture The selection, cultivation, and care of trees, vines, and shrubs. Arborist A person possessing the technical competence through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the management of trees or other woody plants in a landscape setting. ASCA The American Society of Consulting Arborists, Inc. a professional society, as described in its by-laws. Bark Tissue on the outside of the vascular cambium. Bark is usually divided into inner bark - active phloem and aging and dead crushed phloem - and outer bark. Basal flare Most trees have a rapid increase in diameter as the trunk meets the soil line or root crown. This area is associated with both trunk and root tissue. Caliper Diameter of a tree trunk. Larger trees are usually measured at 4½ feet (see DBH) Trees with calipers 4 inches and below are measured at 6 inches above grade(ANSI Z60-1-1990) Trees above 4 inches, but still transplantable are measured at 12 inches above grade. Canopy The live, foliage-bearing part of a tree. Codominant Leaders equal in size and relative importance, developed from 2 apical buds at the top of a stem. Each codominant stem is an extension of the stem below it. There are no branch collars or trunk collars at the bases of codominant stems. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 40 40 Compaction (Soil Compaction) The compression of soil, causing a reduction of pore space and an increase in the bulk density of the soil. Tree roots cannot grow in compacted soil. Crotch The union of two or more branches; the axillary zone between branches. Crown The upper portions of a tree or shrub, including the main limbs, branches, and twigs. Crown reduction Reducing the size of the canopy using thinning versus heading cuts. Should not exceed 20 to 25 percent branch removal. Crown restoration Restoration of natural and/or structurally sound form to a tree which has been previously topped, headed or damaged. (synonym – crown restructure pruning) Cultivar A unique form or type propagated through selective breeding and maintained for specific purposes and retains those attributes in further propagation. An acronym for "cultivated variety"; cultivars can be naturally occurring plants, but usually have been cultivated with specific desirable characteristics in appearance and/or resilience. Maybe a field selection or a horticultural variety that has originated and persisted under cultivation. Usually enclosed in single quotes after the genus and species names. DBH Diameter of the trunk, measured at breast height or 54 inches above the average grade. See caliper. Decay Progressive deterioration of organic tissues, usually caused by fungal or bacterial organisms, resulting in loss of cell structure, strength, and function. In wood, the loss of structural strength. Decline Progressive reduction of health or vigor of a plant. Deep ripping Sub-soiling. - Cultivating below normal plow or roto-tiller depth. Dog-leg crooked or bent like a dog's hind leg. Epicormic Epi - upon; cormic – stem. Branches that are upon the stem, i.e. sprouting from either dormant buds in the cambial zone, or from buds sprung anew from ray traces. Epicormic shoots are a sign that energy reserves have been lowered. Excurrent Referring to crowns having a strong central leader. Foliage The live leaves or needles of the tree; the plant part primarily responsible for photosynthesis. Flush cut Pruning technique in which both branch and stem tissue are removed, generally considered poor practice Full skirt Dead fronds retained on palms trunks to near the ground. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 41 41 Girdling root A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthate and/or water and nutrients up. Ground cover Plants, usually herbaceous, used to spread, stay low and cover ground. They are usually not suited for foot traffic and do not usually need to be mowed and as such are distinguished from lawns. Any relatively low- growing plant. Can be Herbaceous or Woody. Hanger a broken or partly broken limb still hung up in the canopy, considered a hazardous condition! Heading Pruning techniques where the cut is made to a bud, weak lateral branch or stub. Included bark The pattern of development at branch junctions where bark is turned inward rather than pushed out forming a branch bark ridge. Bark embedded within the crotch between a branch and the trunk or between two or more stems that prevents the formation of a normal branch bark ridge. This often occurs in branches with narrow- angled attachments or branches resulting from the loss of the leader. Such attachments are weak and subject to splitting out. Lion-tailing The removal of all, or a great deal of, the inner branches and/or watersprouts from the crown of a tree. Lion’s Tailing is not an acceptable pruning practice, see ANSI A-300.10.1.7. Live crown ratio The relative proportion of green crown to overall tree height. Mature Plant will respond to flower-inducing conditions, in contrast with juvenile. Mulch Substances spread on top of the ground to conserve water, protect against erosion, retain moisture, and protect the roots of trees from heat, cold or drought. The substances are typically organic, such as compost, manure or bark chips. Narrow crotch for eucalyptus a branch angle of less than 15 degrees – for other trees a branch angle less than 30 degrees. Native A plant that grows naturally in a particular country, state, or region, and is neither introduced through planting, nor naturalized. Over pruned removal of more than 10 to 30 percent, depending on health, species and time of year – often evidenced by formation of epicormic shoots. Over-lifted removing more than the lower one third of scaffold limbs. Palm A tropical or subtropical monocotyledonous tree or shrub, usually having a woody, unbranched trunk and large, evergreen, fan or feather-shaped leaves at the top. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 42 42 Pencil In palms, declining health resulting in diminishing trunk diameter. Percolation The downward movement of water through soil. Root crown Area at the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge (synonym - root flare) Root system The portion of the tree containing the root organs, including buttress roots, transport roots, and fine absorbing roots; all underground parts of the tree. Root zone The area and volume of soil around the tree in which roots are normally found. May extend to three or more times the branch spread of the tree, or several times the height of the tree. Root sprung the roots are compromised by being pulled out of the ground on the side opposite a lean. (USDA Danger Tree pub) Scaffold limb Primary structural branch of the crown. Species Taxonomic classification below genus.. 1. A group of plants with common characteristics or consistent differences in morphology, ecology or reproductive behavior, distinct from others of the same genus. 2. The basic unit in plant taxonomy; the Latin binomial consisting of the genus and specific epithet; it is both singular and plural. Stress "Stress is a potentially injurious, reversible condition, caused by energy drain, disruption, or blockage, or by life processes operating near the limits for which they were genetically programmed." Alex Shigo Suppressed Trees which have been overtopped and whose crown development is restricted from above. They usually occupy the understory and grow slowly. Topping Pruning technique to reduce height - heading of large branches. Value The relative worth, merit, or importance of a thing, expressed as a single point, a range, or a relationship to a benchmark. Wound Any injury, which induces a compartmentalization response. Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 43 43 Verification of Current Registration and Certifications Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 44 44 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Appendix• 45 45 Tree Evaluation Report Arborgate Consulting, Inc. 2/1/2021 Certification • 46 Certification I, Gregory W. Applegate, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief: That the statements of fact contained in this report, are true and correct. That the report analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal unbiased professional analysis, opinions and conclusions. That I have no present or prospective interest in the vegetation that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting or a predetermined outcome that favors the cause of the client, or the attainment of stipulated result. That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the standards of ASCA and customary arboricultural practice. That I have made a personal inspection of the plants that are the subject of this report. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. Arborgate Consulting, Inc. Gregory W. Applegate, ASCA_____________________________________ Date: 2/1/2021 Registered Consulting Arborist #365 Certified Arborist #WE-0180a APPENDIX N: CULTURAL RESOURCE RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS 20213270.001A Page 1 of 3 February 3, 2021 © 2020 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 3990 Old Town Ave., Suite A-105, San Diego, CA 92110 p | 619.295.2110 February 3, 2021 Project No.: 20213270.001A Mr. Curtis Zacuto EcoTierra Consulting 5776-D Lindero Canyon Road #414 Westlake Village, California 91362 SUBJECT: Cultural Resource Record Search Results for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California. Dear Mr. Zacuto: Kleinfelder/Garcia and Associates (GANDA) supported EcoTierra Consulting with cultural resources services for the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility located within the City of Anaheim, Orange County, California. The following cultural resources record search was completed in accordance with City’s request for the project’s Categorical Exemption. The following letter provides the project overview, results of the record search, and summary of findings. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project is located within a developed neighborhood within the City of Anaheim, approximately 0.60 miles south of CA-91 and 1.35 miles northeast of the Olive Hills Reservoir, at 5275 E Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, Orange County, California (Figure 1). The project site is located in the Orange 7.5” U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle in section 3 of township 4 south, range 9 west of the San Bernardino meridian (Figure 2). The project, as proposed, is to replace the existing church, which is approximately 17,217 square feet, and associated surface parking lot with a new two- story, 118-unit senior living facility with 55 on-site surface parking spaces and courtyards. Courtyards are proposed to include walking paths and tables for outdoor activities. The proposed facility is approximately 98,412 square-feet, with a height of 25 feet. In order to permit development of the Project, the City would require approval of the following discretionary actions: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the development of a Senior Living Facility in a RH-3 zone; (2) Variance to allow reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 101 to 55 spaces; and (3) Other discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals that may be deemed necessary, including, but not limited to, temporary street closure permits, demolition permits, grading permits, excavation/shoring permits, building permits, and sign permits in order to execute and implement the Project. 20213270.001A Page 2 of 3 February 3, 2021 © 2020 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 3990 Old Town Ave., Suite A-105, San Diego, CA 92110 p | 619.295.2110 RECORD SEARCH REVIEW AND RESULTS Kleinfelder/GANDA completed a record search with the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS), housed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton. The search was conducted by the SCCIC staff on January 28, 2021 (SCCIC File Number [No.]: 21998.8139). The records search encompassed the project area and a 0.25-mile buffer radius. The purpose of the record search was to identify if any prehistoric and/or historic-period cultural resources and/or studies have been previously documented in the search area. The California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California Inventory of Historic Resources listings were also reviewed to determine if there were any resources listed or determined to be eligible for CRHR, NRHP, or local listing within the project area. The results found that the project area has never been surveyed before and therefore no previous resources have been located within the project area. In the surrounding 0.25- mile area two previous studies (see Table 1) have occurred. Both of which resulted in negative findings for previous cultural resources. Table 1. Previous Studies Conducted Within 0.25 Miles of the Project Area. Report Number Date Author Report Title OR- 00037 1977 Bove, Frederick J. An Archaeological Resource Survey and Impact Assessment of a Proposed Development on Tentative Tract No. 8116, 8117, 9602, 9864 in the City of Anaheim, Ca. OR-2589 2002 McKenna, Jeanette A. Highway Project Located in the City of Anaheim, Orange County, on Nohl Ranch Rd. Between Imperial Hwy and Rolling Hill Pl. SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Based up the literature review although the project area has not been previously surveyed the surrounding area indicates negative findings within 0.25-mile radius. Additionally, based on the proposed activity, which would be the demolition of existing Church upon previously disturbed soils it is assumed that the area has a low-likelihood for buried cultural resources. In the unlikely case that human remains are discovered during ground disturbing activities, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Orange County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further pursuant to California Public Health & Safety Code, Section 5097-98(b) remains shall be left in place and free of disturbance unit a final decision as the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Orange County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendants(s)" for purposes of receiving notification of discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. 20213270.001A Page 3 of 3 February 3, 2021 © 2020 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 3990 Old Town Ave., Suite A-105, San Diego, CA 92110 p | 619.295.2110 Additionally, in the unlikely event of identified of buried archaeological resources, all disturbing work should halt within the vicinity of the find (100 feet) until a qualified archaeologist can assess the resources and provide further recommendations. The following record search review has been completed in accordance with CEQA standards. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding these results. Sincerely, KLEINFELDER / GANDA Rachael Nixon Cultural Resources Program Manager Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Figure 2: Project Location Figure 3: Project Area SANBERNARDINOCOUNTY LOS ANGELESCOUNTY RIVERSIDECOUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Æÿ74 Æÿ241 Æÿ60Æÿ2 Æÿ91 Æÿ39 Æÿ210 Æÿ1 Æÿ57 Æÿ60 Æÿ74 £¤101 §¨¦5 §¨¦10 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 ^_ Project Location Project Location ^_ ± 0 2.5 5 Kilometers Regional Vicinity Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Orange County, California01.5 3 Miles Cr e a t e d B y : a f r y j o f f h u n g D o c u m e n t P a t h : C : \ U s e r s \ A F r y j o f f H u n g \ O n e D r i v e - K l e i n f e l d e r \ D e s k t o p \ L o c a l P r o j e c t s \ _ P O S T _ M I G R A T I O N \ 2 0 2 1 3 2 7 0 . 0 0 1 A _ H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s _ S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y \ H o l d e n _ A n a h e i m _ R e g i o n a l _ V i c i n i t y . m x d Scale 1:190,080 Source: Bing Maps 1 in = 3 miles Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 NationalGeographic Society, i-cubed Project Location ^_ ± 0 300 600 Meters Project Location Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Orange County, California USGS 7.5' Quad: ORANGE (1981) Legal Description: T04S, R09W, SEC 10 Project Area 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 1 Inch = 2,000 Feet Scale 1:24,000 Cr e a t e d B y : a f r y j o f f h u n g D o c u m e n t P a t h : C : \ U s e r s \ A F r y j o f f H u n g \ O n e D r i v e - K l e i n f e l d e r \ D e s k t o p \ L o c a l P r o j e c t s \ _ P O S T _ M I G R A T I O N \ 2 0 2 1 3 2 7 0 . 0 0 1 A _ H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s _ S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y \ H o l d e n _ A n a h e i m _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d Service Layer Credits: © 2021 MicrosoftCorporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Project Location ^_ ±0 75 150 Meters Project Area Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility Orange County, California Project Area Project Area 500-foot Buffer 0 200 400 Feet Scale 1:5,000 Cr e a t e d B y : a f r y j o f f h u n g D o c u m e n t P a t h : C : \ U s e r s \ A F r y j o f f H u n g \ O n e D r i v e - K l e i n f e l d e r \ D e s k t o p \ L o c a l P r o j e c t s \ _ P O S T _ M I G R A T I O N \ 2 0 2 1 3 2 7 0 . 0 0 1 A _ H o l d e n A n a h e i m H i l l s _ S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y \ H o l d e n _ A n a h e i m _ P r o j e c t _ A e r i a l . m x d Source: Bing Maps APPENDIX O: TRAFFIC DARTA CHANGE MEMO May 17, 2021 Andy Uk, Associate Planner City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Noise Analysis Memorandum Regarding Change in VMT data for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility. Dear Mr. Uk, Per your email request dated May 13, 2021 EcoTierra Consulting prepared a memorandum that to be attached to the Class 32 Exemption document stating why the Noise/AQ/GHG analyses won’t be changing based on new/updated information from the TIA/VMT memo. Project Description The Project includes the demolition of an existing 17,217 square-foot church and associated surface parking lot, and the construction of a new 118-unit, two-story senior living facility with a basement. The Project is located in the “RH-3” Zone and the use is subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed building would be approximately 98,504 square feet in size, inclusive of a basement. The Project would result in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.76. The building would have a height of approximately 25 feet, plus rooftop appurtenances. The facility consists of 118 units, which would accommodate 96 beds within 94 Assisted Living units and 31 beds within 24 Memory Care units, resulting in 127 beds. The units will range in size from 381 square feet to 917 square feet. Several of the Assisted Living units will include small kitchen areas. The remainder of the building is comprised of administrative offices, lobby area, a bistro, family room, discovery room, fitness center, beauty salon, theater, lounge areas, kitchens, ancillary storage and mechanical rooms. In addition, the building includes separate dining areas and living/activity centers for Assisted Living and Memory Care residents. Outdoor amenities on the ground floor include an Assisted Living courtyard with a dining terrace, walking paths and lounge areas and a separate Memory Care courtyard with walking paths and seating areas, secured for the safety of residents. Vehicles will access the property from two driveways, one located on Nohl Ranch Road and the other located on Royal Oak Road. All service vehicles for the community, such as trash and deliveries, will access the site through Mr. Andy Uk City of Anaheim Planning Department May 17, 2021 Page 2 the Royal Oak Road driveway. The proposed project will include 55 vehicle parking spaces in a surface parking lot. The community would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Traffic Data The traffic analysis dated November 18, 2020 stated that the Project is forecast to generate 328 daily trips, with 24 trips (15 inbound, 9 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 33 trips (13 inbound, 20 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. The net trip generation potential of the proposed Project compared to the trip generation of the existing/entitled church is 208 net greater daily trips, with 18 net greater trips (11 inbound, 7 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 25 net greater trips (9 inbound, 16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As a result, based on the nominal net AM peak hour trip generation and relatively nominal net PM peak hour trip generation increase with the proposed Project (i.e., < 50 peak hour trips), the proposed Project will not significantly impact the surrounding transportation system. The revised traffic analysis, dated May 12, 2021 stated that the proposed Project is forecast to generate 330 daily trips, with 24 trips (15 inbound, 9 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 33 trips (13 inbound, 20 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. The net trip generation potential of the proposed Project compared to the trip generation of the existing/entitled church is 210 net greater daily trips, with 18 net greater trips (11 inbound, 7 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 25 net greater trips (9 inbound, 16 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday. As a result, based on the nominal net AM peak hour trip generation and relatively nominal net PM peak hour trip generation increase with the proposed Project (i.e., < 50 peak hour trips), the proposed Project will not significantly impact the surrounding transportation system. The increase in trips over what was analyzed previously is due to an increase of one employee and one bed (126 beds to 127 beds). Effect on the Noise Analysis As shown above, even though the Project-related traffic increased by 2 trips per day, the peak hour volumes did not change; therefore, the average daily trips (ADT) on road segments within the Project area did not increase over that previously analyzed in the traffic noise analysis portion of the noise section within the Categorical Exemption. Impacts from Project-related Mr. Andy Uk City of Anaheim Planning Department May 17, 2021 Page 3 traffic noise still remain less than significant and no revisions to the original analysis are warranted or required. Effect on the AQ-GHG Analysis The change in traffic daily traffic trips over what was originally analyzed in the AQ and GHG sections of the Categorical Exemption would be negligible as the revised traffic volume represents an increase of less than one percent. As shown in Table 1 below, the Project-related emissions are already well under SCAQMD operational thresholds for criteria pollutants. Table 1 Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area Sourcesa 2.46 0.11 9.74 0.00 0.05 0.05 Energy Usageb 0.04 0.34 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 Mobile Sourcesc 0.43 1.56 5.87 0.02 2.39 0.65 Subtotal Emissions 2.93 2.01 15.75 0.03 2.47 0.73 - Existing Church Use Being Removed -0.54 -0.66 -1.74 -0.01 -0.55 -0.16 Total Emissions 2.39 1.35 14.01 0.02 1.92 0.58 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No a Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. b Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on-site natural gas usage. c Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. Source: Table II-10 Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions. Page 59 of the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility. Development Project No. 2019-00172, 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST. May 2021. Therefore, even if the mobile source emissions portion of the analysis were to increase by one percent, the emissions would result in the same emissions reported in the Table above and in the Categorical Exemption. For the Project-related mobile source emissions, an increase of one percent would result mobile source emissions of 399.1 MTCO2e/year instead of 395.15 MTCO2e/year, as reported in Table II- 11 Project-Related GHG Emissions on page 69 of the Categorical Exemption. The one percent increase would result in a 3.95 MTCO2e/year increase, which would result in a Total Net GHG emissions of 722 MTCO2e/year, which is a negligible increase (less than one percent) over the original total GHG emissions reported; which were already well under the Tier 3 SCAQMD draft GHG emissions threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year for all land uses. Mr. Andy Uk City of Anaheim Planning Department May 17, 2021 Page 4 Therefore, there is no change in significance of either air quality emissions or GHG emissions due to the marginal increase in Project-related traffic and no revisions to the original analysis are warranted or required. It has been a pleasure to serve you for this memorandum analysis. If you have any questions, please call me at (213) 235-4772 or (951) 212-3277 cell. You may also reach me by email at katie@ecotierraconsulting.com. Sincerely, EcoTierra Consulting, Inc. Katie Wilson, Senior Air Quality/Noise Analyst 633 W. 5th Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 From:Andrea Phelps To:Planning Commission Subject:Holden project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 11:12:32 AM Planning commission, Please deny the parking variance for the Holden project. The drastic difference between the amount of parking required under the current zoning and what is being requested is excessive. Having ample parking for staff, medical professionals, vendors and visitors is of the utmost importance for a project like this one where the surrounding streets do not have street parking. The massive footprint of the proposed project is not a good fit for the location, as it sits on top of a hill and would tower over the single family homes surrounding it. Thank you for your consideration of the opinions of the residents, Andrea Phelps NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Anjali Mody To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:20:06 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Anjali Mody. I am an Anaheim Hills resident reaching out to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. This senior living community is crucial for our local residents. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:ARSHAD ROKERYA To:Planning Commission Subject:CUP2019-06048 Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 12:28:31 PM Hello, this is regarding the project on nohl ranch rd and royal oaks. I live in the area, I feel strongly that this project is not suitable for a residential neighborhood. It will create a lot more traffic, noice and parking issues. I vote against this project. DEV2019-00172 Thanks Arshad Sent from my iPhone NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 1 Simonne Fannin From:Bailey Cook > Sent:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 6:20 PM To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Project; CUP2019-06048/DEV Number DEV2019-00172 Dear Planning Commission, I am very concerned about the size and scale of the proposed Holden Assisted living/memory care complex that is proposed at 5275 Nohl Ranch Road. This proposal is exceeding the capacity of this piece of property and the neighborhood that surrounds it. I appreciate the landowner of the church property’s right to develop their property to the best use but also do not think that city regulations should be waived or stretched to allow for overbuilding on this site. There is a very steep slope going down from this parcel to the houses to the north of it. One of which houses, my family and I have owned for several years and thoroughly enjoy the peacefulness of the backyard and the wildlife that inhabit the hill. The property line is actually at the bottom of this slope but historically this slope has been maintained primarily by the homeowners to the north. Vegetation has been established to help hold the slope and maintain the “feel” of the Anaheim Hills community. There are two huge iconic palms on this slope that are very dear to me and provide food and shelter for lots of wildlife. I do not think that this slope should be made into a retaining wall staircase with backfill so that the builder can squeak a few more feet out of the site that is too small for the proposal. I worry about construction on this slope and the instability that it will cause and the disruption to the trees, wildlife habitat, and groundcover that we have worked so hard to establish. I appreciate the planning commission evaluating the pros and cons of this assisted living facility. We definitely need good places for our older residents and I am not opposed to that overall use for this piece of property but I think it is imperative that it fit into the neighborhood, provide adequate facilities and parking for its use, and not negatively change the neighborhood around it. My impression is that a facility approximately half the size of this proposal would fit well on this property. Sincerely, Bailey Cook MBA NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:bertie@costreview.com To:"Rick Pollgreen" Cc:Joanne Hwang Subject:RE: Important questions Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 10:20:29 AM Attachments:No to Holden.pdf Hello Ms. Hwang, I am sure you are inundated with e-mails and letters today. Please find attached my letter to add to the pile. https://notoholden.com/ Thanks Bertie Chawla, PE Lake Forest, CA 92630 www.costreview.com NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 Professional Associates CONSTR UCTION SERVICES, Inc. Construction & Engineering Solutions for Financial Industries 26481 Rancho Parkway S. Lake Forest, CA 92630 T: (714) 571-0287 F: (714) 571-0033 info@costreview.com CALIFORNIA TEXAS ARIZONA NEVADA OREGON WASHINGTON COLORDAO Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, Thank you for your service to the residents of the City of Anaheim. My name is Bertie Chawla, and my house backs on Nohl Ranch Road and is about 75 yards away from the proposed apartment complex. I am a licensed Civil Engineer and work in the Development and Construction field. I have lived in Anaheim Hills for the past 21 years and have seen quite a few accidents, including fatal accidents on Nohl Ranch, near the Church. My family was involved in an accident due to a speeding driver on the curvy Nohl Ranch road, where the speed limit changes every ½ a mile or so. We all will get old and are getting there sooner than we realize. There is a need for Sr. Apartments, but this location is not suitable for such a facility. As the staff report notes, all surrounding area is single-family residences. In the data provided by the Staff and the Developer, I did not see mention of the following: 1) Parking for construction personnel during the construction phase. There may be up to 50 cars and trucks that will end up parking on the surrounding streets for the two-year construction duration. Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak have no street parking 2) There is no signalized left-turn lane from eastbound Nohl Ranch to Northbound Royal Oak. 3) There is no mention of traffic accidents and violations in the vicinity. It seems to me that the 5 or 6 letters advocating the project are from folks connected to the lobbying firm hired by the Developer and owned by the former elected official of the City of Anaheim. It is disappointing to see this lobbying firm use its influence to push this project thru and benefit financially at the expense of the residents of Anaheim. There is a reason the Developer has hired a local firm. The houses backing on to the development will lose $100K in value and houses 50 to 100 yards away will lose $50K. If there are two similar homes, but one backs to this development and the other does not, which one do you think will sell for a higher price? The Church and the Developer are gaining financially at the expense of the neighbors. The Commission’s responsibility is to the residents first, and not NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 26481 Rancho Parkway S., Lake Forest, CA 92630 T: (714) 571-0287 F: (714) 571-0033 info@costreview.com 2 the Developer. All cities charge development impact fees for sewer, water, school, traffic, parks, etc. By the same logic, should there not be a neighborhood impact fee that compensates the neighbors for their loss if this project is approved? If you approve this project, we lose. Does that seem reasonable? Single-family houses in this area are welcome or another Church that has already made an offer to buy this property. This apartment project should be built at the Kaiser facility on Lakeview. You may hear the term Highest and Best Use of the site. But please remember, the highest use of the site is not the best use for the neighbors. Thank you for allowing me to present my views. Bertie Chawla 5/24/21 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Cathy Wills To:Cathy Wills Cc:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang; Kimberly.keys6140 ; Lucille Kring; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Luis Andres Perez; Dave Vadodaria; awhiteste Subject:Support For Holden-Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 7:43:21 AM Dear City of Anaheim Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and Staff: My name is Cathy Wills and I am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed best-in-class senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! Cathy Wills NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Celia Barker To:Planning Commission Subject:The Holden Project - Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak Anaheim Hills Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 1:24:48 PM Hello. I have been a resident of Anaheim Hills for 28 years and I am very concerned about the Plans for a residential care facility on the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak. I am astounded that the planning commission would allow such an enormous facility in the middle of our quiet neighborhood. I have seen the renderings for the facility and in spite of the beautiful Mediterranean design, the fact is the structure is massive and sits right up onto the sidewalk. It will look like a giant monolith in the midst of our beautiful natural setting. I am also concerned about the parking as there will not be enough spaces for visitors, deliveries and the very large staff they will require for the residents and to maintain the grounds. Parking will most assuredly spill over onto our residential streets and cause more traffic for the residents to contend with and block Nohl Ranch which is an Emergency evacuation route. Please consider this business’ proposal for this site very carefully. There are many other suitable locations in the area that they could consider that would not be set right in the center of a quiet residential setting. Thank You for your Consideration, Celia and Steven Bennett Joel Bennett Brett, Lance and Nattie Barker Sent from Mail for Windows 10 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:CHARLYN BARTON To:Planning Commission Subject:Fwd: Holden project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 12:30:51 PM Attachments:Anaheim Holden.pages Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: CHARLYN BARTON <cbarton584@aol.com> Date: May 24, 2021 at 12:18:29 PM PDT To: Charlyn Home Barton <cbarton584@aol.com> Subject: Holden project Sent from my iPhone NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:CHARLYN BARTON To:Planning Commission Subject:Fwd: Holden project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 12:30:51 PM Attachments:Anaheim Holden.pages Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: CHARLYN BARTON m> Date: May 24, 2021 at 12:18:29 PM PDT To: Charlyn Home Barton m> Subject: Holden project Sent from my iPhone NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:colleen del mazzio To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Planning Commission meeting Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 2:29:51 PM Hi, my name is Colleen DelMazzio , a 39 year resident of Anaheim. I am writing you because I am unable to Attend Monday May 24ths meeting. I would like to strongly express my objection to the building variances requested by the Holden Community and their intent to build a 117 bed convalescent home on the corner of Nohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak. At present there is a 17,000 sq ft church on the property that is primarily used on Sundays. The Holden Community plans to build a 98,500 sq ft facility with only 54 parking spaces.!! The proposal goes directly against the RH-3 zoning in this area. It will increase noise and traffic in an area designated for residential use only. Currently Nohl Ranch Rd is already quite busy with commuters using it as an alternative to the super congested 91 Fwy. This will only add to it. The building will also be an eyesore in this scenic vista The proposal also asks to exceed the 25 ft, height maximum for the area. I ask that you deny these requests and keep the area single family residential , which is the current designation. Thank you for reading this and hearing my husbands and my objections, This has been our” neighborhood” since 1982 and we pray it continues to be the wonderful family oriented neighborhood it has always been. Sincerely, Colleen and Don DelMazzio Anaheim 92807 Sent from my iPhone NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Cynthia Barile To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 12:42:41 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Cynthia Barile and I am an Anaheim resident reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtedly provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you!” NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Daniel Hernandez To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Please approve Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Sunday, May 23, 2021 7:37:53 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Daniel Hernandez. I grew in Anaheim and currently still live here. I am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Danielle Encinas To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Regarding proposed Holden Project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 7:32:48 AM Dear Mrs Hwang, I wanted to reach out regarding the proposed Holden project in advance of tonight’s city meeting. First of all, Thank you for your continued service to our beautiful community! I am a resident on Evening View Rd., just a few streets away from the proposed location of the new senior center. As I’m sure you’ve heard, myself and many other residents have concerns about this project including it’s size, traffic issues at Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak, and noise issues. I am not opposed at all to using this space as fo a senior center, however the sheer size of this proposed building is far too large for the space provided. We desire for our - the residents living near this area - voices to be heard and valued as it will impact our daily life. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Danielle Encinas Sent from my iPhone NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 Comments on the Updated LLG Parking Analysis Prepared for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project •Proposal is to build a 127-bed senior living community on the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak. The preliminary plan shows 55 on-site parking spots. The Anaheim City Code parking requirement is 102 spaces. The LLG Parking Demand Analysis presents three approaches to determine the parking needs of the project. 1. Approach 1 uses the ITE Parking Generation Manual. Several studies have shown that while the ITE Manual provides quantitative data on parking, the correlation of that data to determine parking requirements for a specific project is nebulous at best, and subject to cherry-picking of the correlation factors. “ITE’s stamp of authority relieves planners from the obligation to think for themselves—the answers are right there in the book. ITE offers a precise number without raising difficult public policy questions, although it does warn, ‘Users of this report should exercise extreme caution when utilizing data that is based on a small number of studies’.”from ‘Truth in Transportation Planning’ Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 2002 by Donald Shoup, Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA Department of Urban Planning at UCLA. 2. Approach 2 is labeled as a practical estimation of parking demand. This approach is based on a highly subjective set of assumptions. For example, the LLG study shows the first shift staff as 28. However, not included in that number are the beauticians, the 2nd driver, the bistro chef/bartender, laundry attendants, theater operator, medical technicians, maintenance staff, concierge, and security staff. Also, what about trainees and volunteer staff? These additions would easily make the first shift employee count greater than 40. During shift change, the overall requirement for just the staff parking would be more than 55. Add to that residents, third-party caregivers, visitors, the van, the community car, etc., and the 102 spaces in the city code may not be enough. 3. Approach 3 is a comparative analysis, based on four similar properties in Southern California. This type of analysis, when based on actual data for the properties, can provide a reasonable indication of parking demand. Note that the comparative analysis as presented in the report by LLG did not use the actual number of spots at these facilities, but rather the number generated from other parking demand studies. All four of these properties are now complete and the number of parking spaces provided was physically counted. Another important consideration is that any available street parking can also be observed. 5/20/2021 Page 2 of 10 The following pages focus on Approach 3 – the most reasonable of the 3 approaches NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 Parking Analysis - Overview of Approach 3 Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project •Proposal is to build a 127-bed senior living community on the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak. This Anaheim Hills location is surrounded totally by residential neighborhoods. The location is unique in that there is zero on-street parking except in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. •The preliminary plan prepared by the developer shows 55 on-site parking spots compared to the Anaheim City Code parking requirement of 102 spaces. The purpose of the city code is to eliminate or minimize the impact of new projects on the surrounding neighborhood. This Code is based on the analysis of similar prior projects which would reflect typical street parking availability. •Four properties are presented in the Parking Demand Comparative Analysis prepared by LLG dated February 19, 2021. •The following table uses the same four properties as presented in the Parking Demand Comparative Analysis prepared by LLG dated February 19, 2021. The data presented in the table are from personal visits to the three Orange County properties. The Santa Clarita property was updated based on the most recent satellite imagery. The pages following the table are supporting images of the on-street parking for each of the properties. •The following table shows that the city code gives a 20% lower assessment compared to average parking for the four properties including available non-residential on-street parking. Applied to the Anaheim Hills location with no on- street parking available, the city code is 27 spaces short compared to the average for the comparison properties. The developer’s preliminary plan is short an additional 47 parking spots relative to the City Code. The overall shortfall is 74 parking spots compared to the average for the four properties. •LLG states “The Project will not allow assisted living residents to bring a car to the community (except for the two 2- bedroom units).” The LLG analysis shows that if enforced this would translate into a 12-space reduction (including the 2-bedroom units). This does not make up for either a 47- or 74-space shortfall in the proposed project. 5/20/2021 Page 3 of 10 LLG Parking Analysis is Flawed and Misleading The Requested Variance Should be Denied NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 Parking Analysis - Afterthoughts Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project •The LLG Parking Demand Analysis includes a section on “parking management measures that will be implemented to ensure the adequacy of on-site parking for the Project.” •Several of the alternative transportation strategies listed would be impossible to implement at the Anaheim Hills location. 1. Nearest public transportation is not within walking distance. The nearest bus stop is at intersection of Imperial and La Palma, 2 miles away, up and down hills. 2. Bike or walk to work is extremely difficult in the hilly environment. 3. The closest church parking is 2 miles away. •LLG states “The Project will not allow assisted living residents to bring a car to the community (except for the two 2- bedroom units).” Even if this were fully implemented, the LLG analysis shows that this would only save 12 spaces (when including the 2 spaces for the 2-bedroom units). 12 spaces does not make up for a 74-space shortfall. •During shift change, will arriving staff, upon finding the lot full, actually drive 2 miles to another lot and wait for the shuttle van? Or will they just park around the corner in the residential neighborhood? Same question applies to visitors. 5/20/2021 Page 10 of 10 Item No. 5 of the Planning Commission Report dated May 24, 2021 states: “Parking Variance: Before the Planning Commission may approve a parking variance, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that the following conditions exist: … 2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use” Based on the evidence: the requested parking variance must be denied NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Derrell Brown To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Subject:Additional inputs on Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Community (Item #5 on agenda) Date:Sunday, May 23, 2021 3:35:05 PM A couple additional thoughts on the Holden senior community proposal. First, the average stay in a senior living community ranges from 21 to 29 months (ref: carepredict.com). That equates to a turnover of 1 to 1½ residents per week for the proposed 127 beds. This will require a significant staff in marketing and showing units, plus staff to move people in and out. Is parking allocated for this? Second, of the four comparison Senior residences in the LLG parking analysis, two do not have underground parking. Comparing land use for the 2 without underground parking to the proposed Anaheim Hills project. Oakmont Fullerton - 20 beds per acre. Oakmont Valencia - 25 beds per acre. Anaheim Hills proposal - 42 beds per acre. Thanks, Derrell Brown Anaheim Hills NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Diane Varga To:Planning Commission Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Concerns Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 5:09:34 PM Hello Joanne Hwang, I'm writing today to express my concerns about the plans for a large senior care home on Nohl Ranch and Royal Oaks. I don't believe there is adequate space for such a large facility on that small area of land. I don't believe 54 parking spots is sufficient, either. You may say that the 127 residents with memory issues won't have cars and I agree that's true; however, with only 54 spots, what happens at Christmas when people try to visit their loved ones? What even happens on a weekly basis when the employees have taken up all the spots and visitors can't find parking? Seriously, I'm sure as a member of the planning commission, you must feel that that's bad planning, no pun intended. I also disagree with terracing the ground to avoid the city's height requirement of 25 feet. Getting around a requirement by methods such as terracing is not honoring the intent or the requirement. That area is a quiet residential neighborhood and this facility is too big and poorly planned to be right for that space. I know there are other places this facility could and should be built; this is not the right place for that at all. They need a much bigger plot of land and I'm sure that is evident when reviewing the proposal. Thank you for taking the time to read of my serious concerns, Diane Varga Anaheim Resident NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Niles Guichet To:Planning Commission Cc:Lucille Kring Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 7:47:41 PM Dear City of Anaheim Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and Staff: My name is Emily Guichet and I am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed best-in-class senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! Emily Guichet NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Eric Mouness To:Planning Commission Subject:holden development anaheim hills Date:Sunday, May 23, 2021 7:22:48 PM Good eveinig, Re: Holden development project in Anaheim Hills, Perhaps I overlooked the particulars, but how long and what would it take to evacuate 120 elderly patients in the event of a fire? Eric Mouness Anaheim, 92807 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Georgia Price To:Planning Commission Cc:Georgia Price Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Sunday, May 23, 2021 5:23:11 PM Attachments:image.png Dear Planning Commission, I am asking you to reject the proposed building of a large assisted living complex on the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak (Holden Anaheim Hills). A building of this size with considerably less parking than required in an area consisting of only single family homes, would negatively change our quiet hillside neighborhood forever. We were drawn to this area because of how thoughtfully the homes were planned and built. The homes in this area are arranged to give residents a true sense of privacy. Backyards do not overlook each other, giving every homeowner the space to enjoy the natural scenery and wildlife this area offers. Some of our regular visitors include owls, hawks, parrots, coyotes, rabbits, woodpeckers, egrets, deer, bobcats and an occasional eagle. Many of these animals use the slope behind our property as their highway, traveling easily through neighborhoods and open spaces. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 If approved the proposed project will create approximately 20 extra feet of parking lot on the north side of the property by backfilling and adding multiple tiers of retaining walls on the slope directly behind our home. When the Senior Planner was asked about the purpose of the large retaining wall near the property line, she stated that it was for “securing” the property. She was also asked if there was any backfilling proposed and she stated “slightly”. Both responses are not true. It will also bring the lights of the parking lot and vehicle noise even closer to our home. We will have cars parking just 25 feet away from the shared property line. That is entire too close to single family homes. It will also make it extremely easy for people to get into the backyards of the homes (most with pools) along the slope. The driveway on Royal Oak is being moved 72 feet to the north. Bringing it closer to homes and the slope. This will only amplify the vehicle noise including all the trucks that can only use this driveway for deliveries. Deliveries that will be made for 7am to 7pm 7 days a week. Every proposed change to this slope is unsafe. We all remember what happened to the homes on Ramsgate and do not wish to repeat history. Even with expanding the parking lot by 20 feet, the proposal is for almost half the amount of required parking spaces. This will create complete chaos on the residential streets. There is no street parking on Royal Oak or Nohl Ranch, meaning all the extra cars will be looking to park in front of our homes. The provided parking study is completely deceptive and just a flat out NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 joke. Stating that the maximum number of employees will not exceed 45, is just not possible. There are so many job descriptions that have zero people listed as employees. They plan to offer numerous amenities but do not list any actual people to provide these services. They try to say all the right things, like shuttling people in or not allowing anyone associated with the building to park on residential streets. This is just not enforceable or even practical. Visitors who show up and cannot find an open spot in the lot, most certainly will not turn around and go home. They will search for street parking and walk onto the site. This is not acceptable and places an unnecessary burden on homeowners! The developer would like us to believe that this building will not exceed 25 feet in height. This is simply not true. The lot slopes down on the north side. The front of the building at the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak will be 25 feet but the rear of the building to the north will have a height closer to 31 feet plus another 5 feet for the elevator. This means all of the windows on the second story will look directly into private backyards. No one wants strangers gawking at their small children playing and swimming! This is completely unacceptable. (Height of proposed building on the north side) NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 To build this project it will take nearly two years of construction. Homeowners will have months and months of non-stop noise from heavy machinery. During this time it will make the surrounding homes unsellable. No one wants to move into an area of nonstop noise and construction. Once built it will drastically lower property values. No one wants to buy a house with a gigantic building towering overhead and zero privacy. It is unfair to financially destroy hard working homeowners. It is the City’s job to ensure that new developments are designed in a manner that preserves the quality of life in existing neighborhoods. This project destroys the quality of life for existing neighbors. No longer will we enjoy our quiet private yards. Our neighborhood is RH-3 zoned. The intent of the single family hillside residential zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single-family units on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This zone implements the low density residential land use designation in the city’s general plan. This proposal clearly does not fit within this described zone and should be denied. The area of this proposed project is located in what is referred to as the Hill and Canyon Area of Anaheim. The city’s general plan states that it seeks to preserve those characteristics that make the Hill and Canyon Area a special place and to provide current and future residents with adequate community services and amenities of hillside living and retain the overall lower density, semi-rural, uncontested character of the Santa Ana Canyon Area. This project does NOT fit the city’s general plan for this area and should be rejected. The site of this proposal is also in a protected Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. The city is required to preserve and protect the natural scenic assets of the area. This project only harms the natural rural scenic beauty of the area and should be denied. The general plan for the city designates a large assisted living facility as institutional. It states - to the extent possible, institutional facilities should be clustered in activity centers to support other similar uses and benefit from access to various modes of transportation. This building as proposed smack in the middle of only single family homes clearly doesn’t not fit with the City’s general plan. This area does NOT have any public transportation reasonably close! In order to grant a conditional use permit certain criteria must be met. This project clearly does not meet that criteria. Thus it should be denied. The proposed project will absolutely adversely affect the surrounding homeowner’s ability to use their land/yards. This project will be built in close proximity to many single family homes, overlooking and towering over many private backyards. Stripping homeowners of all privacy. Parents will no longer feel comfortable having their children/grandchildren swimming and NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 playing in their own backyards. It will also be detrimental to the area’s health and safety. A building of this size will have constant deliveries from large diesel trucks, frequent emergency vehicles, and trash collecting trucks all of which will release large amounts of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides into the air. The traffic created by this project will impose an undue burden on surrounding streets. All large trucks will use Royal Oak to access this complex, not only will this create more traffic on this street but also create more collisions or near collisions on a street with many blind curves. Nohl Ranch is an evacuation route. When nearby wildfires caused many residents to pack up and leave, it was terrifying to see bumper to bumper traffic on Nohl Ranch. Adding extra vehicles from this project will only add to the burden on these streets. This project will also be detrimental to the health and safety of the local citizens. The increase in traffic, noise, and pollution will affect the health of all local residents. The increased traffic, especially large vehicles will make for an unsafe situation in this neighborhood, especially for the children and adults that enjoy jogging, walking their dogs, and riding bikes. Any one of the above reasons should easily justify the denial of this proposal! It is hard to understand how a proposal for a building of this size, without the appropriate number of parking spaces, in the middle of single family homes is even being considered. The Senior Planner’s hands off approach and asking homeowners to work directly with the developer to address safety issues is completely not acceptable. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Georgia Price Sent from my iPad NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Rick Pollgreen To:Planning Commission; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O"Neil; John Armstrong; Kimberly Keys; Michelle Lieberman; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Dave Vadodaria; Steve White; Joanne Hwang; Justin Glover; Lucille Kring; Luis Andres Perez Subject:Holden Project Opposition Date:Saturday, May 22, 2021 12:38:20 PM Hello Planning Commission, I see (from the 1394 page report) that the city planning department is recommending APPROVAL of this HOLDEN project to the Planning Commission! Despite all the opposition and the Master plan guidelines! Do you know if any Sewer study was done on this project? I would think that that much additional sewage might not be accounted for in the current sewer system. 12 residential homes (WHAT OUGHT TO GO THERE) would surely be WAY LESS SEWAGE! Please take this, along with all the other complaints and reasons, into account when you consider this project! Very concerned AH resident! Rick Pollgreen NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Jason Sleiman To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Subject:Yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 11:17:45 AM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Jason Sleiman and I am reaching out today to express my support of the Holden Anaheim Hills project, a proposed senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim Hills. As a nearby community member, I care much about the future of our community and the ability to have my family stay close to home when the time comes for senior care. My family has lived in the area for over 20 years and staying near to our roots, family, and community we built (even late in life) means much to us. We only hope you too, would support theability for our seniors to stay close to their families and communities by providing them with the option of this senior housing facility. With that being said, this email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. For our seniors, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you for your time! Jason Sleiman NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Jennifer To:Planning Commission Subject:Please vote yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 7:49:27 PM To whom it may concern. My name is Jennifer Hernandez and I am a long time Anaheim resident. My mom is getting older and we would love to keep her nearby. Holden Anaheim Hills seems like a great place for her and it keeps her near her family and roots. Please vote yes on Holden Anaheim Hills at the meeting on May 24, 2021. This is a wonderful project and we are excited at the possibilities. Thank you! Jennifer Hernandez NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Jerome To:Planning Commission Subject:Planning Commission: Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172. Date:Saturday, May 22, 2021 2:00:26 PM I want to lodge my opposition to the planned assisted living facility on Nohl Ranch Road as it represents an intrusion of a business entity into a neighborhood setting. I am particularly concerned about the negative impact the facility will have due to lack of proper planning as it relates to parking to support the size and staffing. I Also the increase in traffic would have a negative impact on roads and basic infrastructure. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Jill Cook To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Oppose Holden Project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 5:57:18 AM Dear Planning Commission, I am strongly opposed to the Holden assisted living project as it is currently proposed. This project is just much too large for this site and will change our neighborhood in a negative way. I am not opposed to an assisted living facility somewhere in the neighborhood but this site is not right for this large of a project. This facility will significantly change our neighborhood from the quiet single family neighborhood that drew us to the area and that is in the Anaheim Hills community values. The plan has numerous questionable aspects including insufficient parking, height of the building being effectively above the 25’ regulation, changes to the historic slope to the north creating issues for the surrounding land owners, removal of historic trees, increased noise, and safety issues. I would suggest that the commission either not approve this proposal or require that it is significantly reduced in size to allow it to come into compliance with existing regulations and not allow for multiple variances. Please make good decisions for the quality of life in our neighborhood. Jill Cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Joan Dornbach To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Cc:Kimberly Keys; Lucille Kring; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Dave Vadodaria; Luis Andres Perez; awhistle@pacbell.net Subject:Case # CUP2019-06058 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 "Holden Anaheim Hills" Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 12:00:43 PM Regarding "Holden Anaheim Hills": We strongly oppose the above referenced development and urge you to deny approval of the application. The scale of the project is excessively out of step with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of both size and usage. Access to the property from both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak is awkward and poor, at best, and was never ideal, even for the minimal and infrequent use by the church. Environmental impacts would be negative, including parking concerns, noise, traffic, slope stability and aesthetics. Great care has been applied by Planning Commissions for more than fifty years to retain the visual integrity and character of Nohl Ranch Road from its most western and eastern points. Except for two commercial (one including medical) zoned areas, it is a bedroom community. Single family and multi unit homes, none higher than two levels, are well concealed and buffered by landscaping and setbacks and none face either Nohl Ranch Road or Royal Oak. Please maintain the health, integrity and safety of the area and say no to the Holden proposal. Joe and Joan Dornbach 335 S. Smokeridge Terrace Anaheim Hills, CA. 92807 joandornbach@aol.com NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Joan Dornbach To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Cc:Kimberly Keys; Lucille Kring; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Dave Vadodaria; Luis Andres Perez; awhistle@pacbell.net Subject:Case # CUP2019-06058 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 "Holden Anaheim Hills" Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 12:00:43 PM Regarding "Holden Anaheim Hills": We strongly oppose the above referenced development and urge you to deny approval of the application. The scale of the project is excessively out of step with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of both size and usage. Access to the property from both Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak is awkward and poor, at best, and was never ideal, even for the minimal and infrequent use by the church. Environmental impacts would be negative, including parking concerns, noise, traffic, slope stability and aesthetics. Great care has been applied by Planning Commissions for more than fifty years to retain the visual integrity and character of Nohl Ranch Road from its most western and eastern points. Except for two commercial (one including medical) zoned areas, it is a bedroom community. Single family and multi unit homes, none higher than two levels, are well concealed and buffered by landscaping and setbacks and none face either Nohl Ranch Road or Royal Oak. Please maintain the health, integrity and safety of the area and say no to the Holden proposal. Joe and Joan Dornbach Anaheim Hills, CA. 92807 joandornbach@aol.com NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Park, John To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 4:32:45 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is John Park and I am reaching out today as a resident of Anaheim Hills to express my support of the Holden Anaheim Hills project on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24th. As a proposed senior living community (located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road), I believe this project will undoubtably benefit our communities' senior population by providing and opportunity to stay local to the community they have grown to love and have already developed roots within. Which is why I would like to happily inform you of my formal support of the Holden Project. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you for your time.” Best, John Park NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! Jolynn Mahoney com NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Jose M Martinez To:Kimberly Keys; Luis Andres Perez; Lucille Kring; awhistle@pacbell.net; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Dave Vadodaria; Joanne Hwang Subject:Opposition to Anaheim Hills Senior Center aka Senior Hospital case#CUP2019-06048 DEV 2019-00172 Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 11:31:13 AM Importance:High Please be on the side of the regular folks and stand with us residences!!!! VOTE NOT to approve the Holden’s Anaheim Hills Senior Center project Quick points on concerns and respectfully ask you to review to aid you voting against the proposed center: Parking: As I understand, city requires 102 parking spaces. Holden’s plot plan shows only 55 spaces. So does Holden have real factual data to back their plan for only needing 55 spaces? Basic math and logic would tell anyone that a structure with 120+ beds in going to require a lot more parking places when you add visitors, regular employees, support staff, etc. Holden’s data showing only 44 employees to support facility is understated. Counting the number of beds, its obvious 44 employees no way can provide the necessary care to all patients. Holden has minimized the count in order to meet parking requirements. This is a misrepresentation by Holden and common sense again brings light to the fact. Environment Impact: We believe daily meal preparation at facility’s cafeteria/restaurant will spew constant smell, smoke, and other toxic fumes which will be detrimental to our neighborhood. We homeowners enjoy our single family residences and like having our windows open to enjoy nature’s scent. Last thing we need is to close our windows because of restaurant odors and fumes in addition to increase in traffic noise and exhaust fumes from delivery trucks. Traffic: Traffic at intersection of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak is already an issue. This project will at a minimum double current traffic with patient visitations, supply deliveries, waste pickups and many other services which will increase the changes of more traffic accidents including pedestrian fatalities. Emergency vehicles: Since proposed property is for 120+ seniors and patients, is logical to expect increase in fire trucks and EMT units coming across Nohl Ranch Rd. and/or up Royal Oak. Last thing we need is loud sounding siren and loud trucks at any time during the day but specially in the middle of the night tending emergencies. We live in single family residences neighborhood not senior facility/hospital zone. Additional unwanted noise pollution: Once again common sense presents that a facility of the size proposed will require 24/7 heating and air conditioning. We enjoy having windows open to take in what nature gives us, birds singing, ruffling of tree leaves and on occasion wild life interactions. The sound from the HVAC units is not what we want to hear in the cool of summer or any other time. Viewable structure: The building is stated to be only 25 ft. high at the corner of Nohl NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 Ranch and Royal Oak. Not an expert, but 2 stories building with full “basement” in no way can it be built in a 25ft high structure. This structure when complete will be an eye sore in our neighborhood, blocking sunsets and nature which is totally unacceptable for a neighborhood of single-family homes! Other Holden Facilities: Did some checking and noticed Holden other listed facilities are not at residential neighborhood. . Respectfully, Jose and Linda Martinez 5311 E Westridge Rd NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Jose M Martinez To:Kimberly Keys; Luis Andres Perez; Lucille Kring; awhistle@pacbell.net; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Dave Vadodaria; Joanne Hwang Subject:Opposition to Anaheim Hills Senior Center aka Senior Hospital case#CUP2019-06048 DEV 2019-00172 Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 11:31:13 AM Importance:High Please be on the side of the regular folks and stand with us residences!!!! VOTE NOT to approve the Holden’s Anaheim Hills Senior Center project Quick points on concerns and respectfully ask you to review to aid you voting against the proposed center: Parking: As I understand, city requires 102 parking spaces. Holden’s plot plan shows only 55 spaces. So does Holden have real factual data to back their plan for only needing 55 spaces? Basic math and logic would tell anyone that a structure with 120+ beds in going to require a lot more parking places when you add visitors, regular employees, support staff, etc. Holden’s data showing only 44 employees to support facility is understated. Counting the number of beds, its obvious 44 employees no way can provide the necessary care to all patients. Holden has minimized the count in order to meet parking requirements. This is a misrepresentation by Holden and common sense again brings light to the fact. Environment Impact: We believe daily meal preparation at facility’s cafeteria/restaurant will spew constant smell, smoke, and other toxic fumes which will be detrimental to our neighborhood. We homeowners enjoy our single family residences and like having our windows open to enjoy nature’s scent. Last thing we need is to close our windows because of restaurant odors and fumes in addition to increase in traffic noise and exhaust fumes from delivery trucks. Traffic: Traffic at intersection of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak is already an issue. This project will at a minimum double current traffic with patient visitations, supply deliveries, waste pickups and many other services which will increase the changes of more traffic accidents including pedestrian fatalities. Emergency vehicles: Since proposed property is for 120+ seniors and patients, is logical to expect increase in fire trucks and EMT units coming across Nohl Ranch Rd. and/or up Royal Oak. Last thing we need is loud sounding siren and loud trucks at any time during the day but specially in the middle of the night tending emergencies. We live in single family residences neighborhood not senior facility/hospital zone. Additional unwanted noise pollution: Once again common sense presents that a facility of the size proposed will require 24/7 heating and air conditioning. We enjoy having windows open to take in what nature gives us, birds singing, ruffling of tree leaves and on occasion wild life interactions. The sound from the HVAC units is not what we want to hear in the cool of summer or any other time. Viewable structure: The building is stated to be only 25 ft. high at the corner of Nohl NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Karlie Mckenzie To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:23:27 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Karlie Romero. I am an Anaheim Hills resident reaching out to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. This senior living community is crucial for our local residents. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Kate Schwab To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 9:56:42 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Katelyn Schwab and I am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. As you may know, our county is ill prepared to meet the looming increase of a senior population. Holden Anaheim Hills would help aid the need for senior housing specifically in Anaheim Hills and provide a safe place for our communities seniors to live in the event they are unable to live alone later in their lifetime, yet still wish to live in the beautiful place of Anaheim Hills that they lived the majority of their lifetime. Help our seniors, and please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! Sent from my iPhone NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Luke Callahan To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Comments Opposing Holden Anaheim Hills Project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 9:33:11 AM Attachments:Signed Letter - Re Holden Anaheim Hills - 05-24-21.pdf Hello Joanne, I would like to submit my comments into the record opposing the Holden Anaheim Hills project for the commission's consideration. See attached for a signed letter from my wife and I. Thank you, Luke Callahan NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:RMAGUIRE7@roadrunner.com To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Proposed Holden Senior Living Development- 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road & Royal Oak Date:Sunday, May 23, 2021 3:45:37 PM Dear Ms. Hwang, We have been homeowners in Anaheim Hills for the last 28 years. We reside in the adjacent Pointe Quissett Community on the opposite side of Nohl Ranch. This proposed development would back up against many of the perimeter homes in our established community, and have a further far reaching impact to our community overall. As you can imagine, as homeowners in this location for the last 28+ years, we have seen our area increase in popularity along with many changes some positive and some adverse to what was once a sleepy community. We understand change will come with time, sometimes we can't control it and sometimes we can. In this case, it seems we have a proposed project here, the scope of which is well within our collective control to evaluate, consider and manage to ensure the best benefit and least impact to our neighborhood/community. Our concerns to the current proposed project are as follows: *Size, height and scope of the proposed project and impact to the adjacent residences: You would have to ask yourself, if you owned an existing home that backs up to this development or owned a home in the surrounding communities, like Westridge, Pointe Quissett , etc. would you want your family to be impacted in this way? Two story building with 118 proposed units, visited daily at a minimum by all the service, health and maintenance personnel needed to ensure resident's care, nutrition, well being and safety. There will be associated noise/activity emanating from this structure by default, not to mention all of the additional noise from the coming and going of support services. This doesn't even consider family visitation. We have nothing against Senior living residences, but scope of this project overburdens the site itself and what we locally know is an already burdened intersection (Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak) at peak commute times. The lack of parking, does have the potential to push visitors, service, health care workers. etc. out to neighborhood streets in search of parking and exacerbates what is already a challenging intersection to navigate. *Traffic noise increase and flow control: You have to live in our neighborhood to appreciate the mini speedway Nohl Ranch Road has become over the last few years especially during peak commute hours. If this project were to move forward, trying to make a simple turn out of Honeywood onto to Royal Oak will be dangerous and nearly impossible. The current traffic conditions make this maneuver challenging now. Adding increased traffic volume to this area overall will make turning out of many of these adjacent streets (Andover would be another immediate example) onto Nohl Ranch nearly impossible and frankly unsafe at peak times without the addition of any traffic lights or controls. Our surrounding neighborhoods have witnessed multiple auto accidents over the years due to speeding on Nohl Ranch Road ironically many in the exact vicinity of this NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 proposed project. *Lastly, as a general comment, at a time when our environment can use all the help it can get, do we really need to remove two Specimen trees because they are inconvenient to this proposal. We are very proud of our neighborhoods and Anaheim Hills community, and want only the best for all of our neighbors. This project as proposed, doesn't accomplish this goal. It will impact the quality of life for all of us in these immediate surrounding, established neighborhoods, who best understand our present local dynamics, please re- evaluate your decision to approve this project as submitted. Thank you for your consideration, Maguire Family Anaheim Hills, CA NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:mdesq1 To:Joanne Hwang Cc:mdesq1@aol.com Subject:Holden Anaheim Hills Assisted Living Proposal Date:Saturday, May 22, 2021 1:44:30 PM Hi Ms. Hwang This email is directed to the planning commission: I have read the 1394 page report and I disagree with the recommendation to APPROVE this project! The report only highlights just how inappropriate this project is for this neighborhood. Manny Dominguez Anaheim CA 9287 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Matthew Brady To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Cc:Courtney Brady Subject:Reply to City Staff"s Recommendation re Holden Project in Anaheim Hills Date:Sunday, May 23, 2021 7:38:36 PM Attachments:Reply to City Staff Recommendation re Holden Project.pdf Opposition to Anaheim Hills Holden Facility.pdf Dear Planning Commission, Please find attached reply to the City Staff's Recommendation regarding the Holden Project in Anaheim Hills. We have also attached our opposition to the plan that was previously emailed to Ms. Hwang. Please let us know if you have any questions or have any difficulties opening the attached documents. Sincerely, Matthew and Courtney Brady NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 1 ANAHEIM HILLS RESIDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO THE HOLDEN COMMUNITY’S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL AT 5275 EAST NOHL RANCH ROAD PROPERTY Dear Anaheim Planning Commission, Please accept this correspondence as our vehement opposition and objections to the planned Holden Community being built in Anaheim Hills, California. We live directly across from 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints located at the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road ("site"). The planned Holden Community will have a substantial negative impact on our lives and our children's lives, if it is allowed to be built. We urge you to deny the entirety of the plan (No. DEV2019-00172) and specifically deny the applications for a Conditional Use Permit (No. 2019-06048), Variance (No. 2020-05144), and Specimen Tree Removal (No. 2021-00001). We have reviewed the claims contained in the Holden Community project plan ("PROJECT PLAN"). Hopefully, you have caught the major deficiencies, mistakes and deceitful statements included in the PROJECT PLAN. I. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE PROHIBITS THE PROJECT PLAN’S REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Simply put, the PROJECT PLAN violates the intent of Anaheim's RH-3 Zoning, which states: Single-Family Hillside Residential. The intent of the "RH-3" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. [emphasis added] (Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.020.030) The PROJECT PLAN is the antithesis of every single element of RH-3 Zoning. The PROJECT PLAN is ugly; will decrease safety; will decrease the health of the environment via diesel fumes emitted by numerous emergency vehicles, constant sirens, noxious smells, and more; looks unnatural and nothing like the surrounding neighborhood; and will block existing views destroying the scenic resources of the area. Most importantly in regards to zoning, the PROJECT PLAN is not for single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The PROJECT PLAN flagrantly violates the intent of the neighborhood's RH-3 Zoning and should be denied without further consideration. Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.030 Table 4-A identifies the permissible uses, prohibited uses, and those that require a conditional use permit. The PROJECT PLAN indicates that Holden Community will be what amounts to a convalescent and rest home that will have 31 beds NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 2 in "memory care dwelling units." Convalescent and rest homes are expressly prohibited in Anaheim's RH-3 Zone. Do not be deceived into believing that the PROJECT PLAN is simply for a Senior Living Facility (Large) or Senior Citizens' Apartment Project that would require a conditional use permit. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a rest home as “an establishment that provides housing and general care for the aged or the convalescent. (https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/rest%20home) Holden's own website FAQs for the proposed development states "Residents will receive help with activities of daily living, including: bathing, dressing, grooming, medication management, assistance with ambulation...and 24 hour monitoring." Those are the services for the most able-bodied proposed residents. The memory care patients will be placed in "a secured wing for those impacted by dementia and dementia related diseases." (holdenanaheimhills.com/faq) The PROJECT PLAN is clearly a convalescent and rest home; any other interpretation is disingenuous. If your commission takes the developer's word that this is a Senior Living Facility (Large), the applications should still be denied. The classification of uses that a Senior Living Facility (Large) would fall under is controlled by Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.36.020 which requires “uses that have similar functional characteristics or impacts upon the surrounding area.” In this case, a Senior Living Facility (Large) IS DESIGNATED AS A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE under Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.36.040.190. A non-residential use should not be built smack dab in the middle of one of the nicest residential-only areas in Orange County. For context, this designation would fall under the same code section as a self-storage facility, sports arena or a sex club. No matter what nomenclature the PROJECT PLAN uses to attempt to fool the Planning Commission with, there can be no doubt that a 118-unit gigantic complex on two-plus acres does not have similar functional characteristics or impacts upon the surrounding area that is surrounded by single family homes with real property lots that measure 10,000 square feet to multiple acres. If your commission is to take the position that the PROJECT PLAN is a Senior Citizens' Apartment Project, it would not meet the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.50.040.040 et seq. which states that the minimum floor area of any senior citizen dwelling must be 400 square feet. 63 of the 118 units in the PROJECT PLAN are less than the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED, including more than 70% of the memory care units. This is evident in Architectural Site Plan page A2 (Revision 4, dated March 31, 2021). The attempt to cram in more paying customers into a dwelling that is below the minimum allowed square footage is disgusting and disturbing for the planned residents. It presents obvious safety and ethical concerns. A. THE SITE IS IN A PROTECTED LOW DENSITY AREA The City of Anaheim’s General Plan – Land Use has designated the area that includes the site at issue as being one of low density. This designation includes a maximum of 6.5 dwelling units per acre, which the surrounding area is well below. The PROJECT PLAN seeks to place 118 units on 2.99 acres. That is the equivalent of 39.5 dwellings per acre! The PROJECT PLAN does not conform to the low density area and is woefully out of place in our neighborhood. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 3 B. OUR VIEWS MUST BE PRESERVED The first goal of the City of Anaheim’s General Plan – Land Use for the area where the site is located is to “Encourage the preservation of scenic vistas and views through Green Element Policies and Zoning Code development standards.” Allowing the PROJECT PLAN will be in direct contradiction to the City of Anaheim’s General Plan to preserve views. Any argument that views are not protected in this area of Anaheim Hills is simply false and misleading. As the City of Anaheim recognizes in its General Plan: Since the 1960s, the Hill and Canyon Area has become home to thousands of hillside residents and one of Orange County’s most desired communities. Scenic views, well-planned residential development, access to a variety of natural, scenic and recreational resources like the Santa Ana River, Deer Canyon Park Preserve and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, all contribute to the sense of pride felt by area residents. The General Plan seeks to preserve those characteristics that make the Hill and Canyon Area a special place and to provide current and future residents with adequate community services and facilities. It is further intended to encourage and maintain living areas which preserve the amenities of hillside living and retain the overall lower density, semi-rural, uncongested character of the Santa Ana Canyon Area. Careful planning and protection of the area’s scenic views, lower density, and uncongested character are what makes this area of Anaheim Hills one of Orange County’s most desired communities. Allowing the PROJECT PLAN will irreparably harm all of the qualities that make the area so desirable. C. THE SITE IS IN A PROTECTED SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE AND IT SUPERSEDES ANY REGULATIONS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH The area where the site is located is in a protected Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. As stated in Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.18.010 et seq.: Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, is to provide for and promote orderly growth in certain areas of the City designated as being of distinctive, scenic importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the unique and natural scenic assets of these areas as a valuable resource to the community. This area has been designated as an area of distinctive natural and rural beauty, characterized and exemplified by the interrelationship between such primary natural features as the rolling terrain, winding river, Specimen Trees, and the profusion of natural vegetation. This site at issue is subject to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, which is defined as: NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 4 The area of the City designated as being within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone is defined as that area lying easterly of the intersection of the State Route 55/Costa Mesa and State Route 91/Riverside Freeways, westerly of the Orange County line, southerly of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of- way, and northerly of the present or any future south city limits of the City of Anaheim. Further, "The (SC) Overlay Zone is combined with any zone ("underlying zone") within the scenic corridor. The regulations contained in this chapter shall apply in addition to, and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the zone with which the (SC) Overlay Zone is combined." Building a monstrous, nearly-100,000 square feet convalescent and rest home would only harm the natural beauty of the area. Any regulation inconsistent with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone must be denied. People driving from miles away will be able to see it hideously sticking out on the hillside. The City of Anaheim is required to protect and preserve the natural scenic assets of the area. As such, the PROJECT PLAN must be denied. D. THE AREA DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN INSTITUTION If the developer claims that the PROJECT PLAN is for an institution, then please see statements above that this is actually a planned convalescent and rest home. If you still find that the site will not be a convalescent and rest home, then note that per the Anaheim General Plan “institutional facilities should be clustered in activity centers to support other similar uses and benefit from access to various modes of transportation.” The site could not possibly be considered an activity center as it is smack dab in the middle of single family homes in every direction. There are no similar uses nearby the site to be support. There is also not access to various modes of transportation to the site. The only mode of transportation to the site is by way of motor vehicle, which there will be many more of in the area if the PROJECT PLAN is approved. E. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOES NOT MEET ANY OF THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS, LET ALONE ALL OF THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS IN THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE The requirements to obtain a conditional use permit are stated in Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.010: The purpose of this chapter is to provide a process to accommodate certain uses which, because of their characteristics, size of the area required for full development of such uses, traffic problems incidental to their operation, or potential effects of such uses on adjoining land uses and on the growth and development of the area, and to ensure compatibility with the General Plan, need to be reviewed in accordance with the provisions in this chapter. As stated above, the PROJECT PLAN is in direct contradiction to the City of Anaheim General Plan. Further, traffic problems in the area will be worse than they already are. We witness NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 5 numerous traffic collisions often and near-collisions on a daily basis at the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road. The proposed PROJECT PLAN will only create more traffic on a dangerous stretch of road. It also creates a serious potential problem with clogging an important evacuation route. During the fires a few years ago, it was incredibly distressing to see dead-stopped traffic on East Nohl Ranch Road while we were packing to evacuate exactly where the site is located. Allowing this development will put many lives in danger due to extreme congestion in an area designed for low density when the next fires occur. Specific conditions are required in order to grant the conditional use permit: In approving minor conditional use permits and conditional use permits, the approval authority may establish such conditions as it may determine to be reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the public health and safety, promote the general welfare, and ensure the development of any use authorized in accordance with approved plans, provided such conditions are reasonably related to the impacts of the use of the property for which the minor conditional use permit or conditional use permit is requested. (Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.050) These conditions will not be remotely satisfied in this matter. Granting the proposed conditional use permit is not reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the public health and safety. It will only serve to make the area more dangerous due to increased traffic, stress, noise, environmental pollution, light pollution and clogging an important evacuation route. The Planning Commission must make a finding of fact per Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.060 et seq. that the evidence presented, including this written objection, other written objections, all oral objections made at the Planning Commission Hearing scheduled to take place on May 24, 2021, and any such hearings regarding the PROJECT PLAN thereafter that each of the following conditions exist: .010 That the proposed use is properly one for which a minor conditional use permit or a conditional use permit is authorized by this code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority); .020 That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; .030 That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; .040 That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and .050 That the granting of the minor conditional use permit or conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 6 As thoroughly described above, the proposed conditional use permit must be denied as it violates every applicable zoning code section to this area. The proposed conditional use permit also cannot meet every single one of the required conditions and, as such, must be denied. The PROJECT PLANS flagrantly violate required condition of Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.060.20 as it would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and development of the area for which it is located. The proposed project would be detrimental to the particular area as there are numerous zoning code provisions that would have to be violated or disregarded in order for it to be constructed. The proposed project would also be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the surrounding neighborhood. That alone requires the denial of the conditional use permit. Traffic would obviously increase and parking would an undue burden upon the adjacent streets. Further, the proposed project will be detrimental to the health and safety to the local citizens of Anaheim via increased traffic, noise, lights, etc. All citizens of the City of Anaheim would have their safety compromised by allowing the congestion of this major evacuation route. II. THE VARIANCE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE AND MUST BE DENIED Since the PROJECT PLAN does not comply with the City of Anaheim General Plan nor its Municipal Zoning Code, the developers are seeking a variance. Municipal Code section 18.74.060 et seq. identifies the findings that must be made for the Planning Commission to grant a variance, which we are sure you are familiar with. Of particular importance, there must be a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 18.74.060.0201: That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; 18.74.060.0202: That, because of special circumstances shown in subsection .0201, strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. There can be no finding that the site at issue has “special circumstances” applicable to the property. The site is adjacent to Peralta Hills, which would allow a maximum of two single family homes on a lot of its size. Point being, the site is not of special size. The shape of the site is fairly rectangular, similar to a vast majority of the surrounding properties. The topography is essentially similar to the surrounding neighborhood. There is nothing about the location or surroundings which do not apply to other property in identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Further, no conceivable “special circumstances” associated with the site would be deprived by the application of the Zoning Code under identical zoning classifications in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood is single family homes that comply with the Zoning Code. The PROJECT PLAN does not comply with the variance requirements and thus must be denied. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 7 A. THE PROJECT PLAN’S “UPDATED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS” MAKES FALSE CLAIMS AND IS DECEITFUL The PROJECT PLAN readily admits that the proposed parking for the site is well below the amount that is required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. In fact, it only provides for about half of the required parking spaces in an area that is not accessible by mass transit, walking is impractical, and bicycling is possible only for the greatest of athletes. So, that leaves motor vehicles that will take up lots of parking on the adjoining residential streets. The “Updated Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project” portion of the PROJECT PLAN dated February 19, 2021, is full of misleading statements and outright fiction. It purports to identify three similar development for comparison regarding parking. To say that these comparisons are “apples and oranges” is an extreme understatement. The first identified comparison is located at 18922 Delaware Street in Huntington Beach, California. This facility is located next door to an 11-story medical complex and apartment buildings. The area is comprised of shopping centers, other convalescent and rest homes, and car dealerships. It is also located approximately one block west of Beach Boulevard in the heart of Huntington Beach with lots of mass transit availability. Quite simply, this is a deceitful comparison to the site located in Anaheim Hills. The second comparison is at 433 W. Bastanchury Road in Fullerton, California. That facility is located across the street from the St. Jude Medical Center complex that encompasses numerous city blocks, multiple convalescent and rest homes, restaurants, and shopping centers. It is also located on a six-lane highway with many available forms of mass transportation. This is also a deceitful comparison to the site located in Anaheim Hills. The third comparison is allegedly located at 630 The City Drive South also in Fullerton, California. However, this site does not exist. Go ahead, search for it. You will not find it in Fullerton despite multiple citations in the “updated analysis” that it is there. This comparison is a false claim that attempts to fool the Planning Commission. The “updated analysis” also purports that employees are encouraged to walk or bike to work. Clearly, these folks have no idea how steep the terrain is in this area. Mass transit is also non- existent in this area. There is no other church or school parking lot to make arrangements with on holidays and special occasions because they purchased the only one in the area and hope to make it dramatically smaller to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. As such, the requested variance should be denied. B. A SOUND ATTENUATION STUDY MUST BE CONDUCTED IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE PROJECT PLAN IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.40.090.010 states, “Residential developments involving the construction of two (2) or more dwelling units, or residential subdivisions resulting in two (2) or NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 8 more parcels, and located within six hundred (600) feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, shall comply with the provisions of this section.” Nohl Ranch Road, which the site is located adjacent to, is a second arterial, which makes this code section applicable if the development is considered to be residential (which it should not be as described above). However, if this project is considered to be residential, Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.40.090.020 requires that a sound study be performed: A noise level analysis shall be performed for any new residential development or subdivision to determine the projected interior and exterior noise levels within the development. The study shall include mitigation measures that would be required to comply with applicable City noise standards, as identified in this section. The study shall be provided by the applicant, at its sole expense, to the City at the time of application for development of the residential development or subdivision. The PROJECT PLAN materials made available to the public via the City of Anaheim website do not include a noise level analysis of what heavy machinery will sound like in the surrounding residential community for the years it would take to build the proposed development. As such, the requested variance should be denied. III. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL The trees that the PROJECT PLAN seeks to cut down are mature specimen trees that have been identified as being important to the history and nature of the area. They have been growing for many decades and should be protected. Planting a few small trees in their place and claiming that is sufficient is pathetic in this day and age when society is more cognizant of the importance of these vital pillars of our environment. IV. CONCLUSION The Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Specimen Tree Removal applications submitted by the PROJECT PLAN must all be denied. The proposed gigantic development is not permitted whatsoever in RH-3 zoning where the site is located. If the Planning Commission finds that the requested purpose is subject to a potential conditional use permit, said conditional use permit should be denied as it cannot possibly meet each and every requirement in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Further, the development would build a massive non-residential facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood of single family homes and no similar uses nor supporting similar projects. Anaheim Municipal Code protects the low density, attractiveness, safety and scenic views of the area and strictly prohibits this proposed development. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 9 We ask that you follow the City of Anaheim’s General Plan and Municipal Code which require that the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Specimen Tree Removal applications presented in the PROJECT PLAN be denied. Sincerely, Matthew S. Brady Courtney M. Brady Matthew S. Brady, Esq. Courtney M. Brady, Esq. 5309 East Rural Ridge Circle Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 ANAHEIM HILLS RESIDENTS’ REPLY TO ANAHEIM CITY STAFF’S INCOMPLETE AND INCORRECT PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT REGARDING THE HOLDEN COMMUNITY’S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL AT 5275 EAST NOHL RANCH ROAD PROPERTY Dear Anaheim Planning Commission: We note that you received our nine-page Opposition to the Holden Community’s requested Conditional Use Permit (No. 2019-06048), Variance (No. 2020-05144), and Specimen Tree Removal (No. 2021-00001) (“HOLDEN PROJECT”). We hope that our Opposition helps illuminate the reasons why the HOLDEN PROJECT should not be approved with precise citations to the Anaheim Municipal Code and General Plan. Please accept this correspondence as our Reply to Anaheim City Staff’s incomplete and incorrect Planning Commission Report Regarding the HOLDEN PROJECT. ANAHEIM’S MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN PROHIBIT THE HOLDEN PROJECT The HOLDEN PROJECT is a prohibited use, not subject to consideration of a conditional use permit because it is a convalescent or rest home. But wait, Holden claims this is a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly. What is that? “Other terms used to refer to this level of care are assisted living facilities, board and care homes, rest homes and that component of Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) that provide personal care and supervision.” [emphasis added] (canhr.org/RCFE/rcfe_what.htm) The City staff’s recommendation ignores that the HOLDEN PROJECT is a convalescent or rest home which is specifically NOT PERMITTED in RH-3 Zoning per Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.030 Table 4-A. Again, this is a rest home that is specifically written in the zoning code as a prohibited use in the area’s RH-3 Zone. Therefore, the HOLDEN PROJECT’s applications for conditional use permit, variance, and specimen tree removal must be denied by the Planning Commission. The City staff’s recommendation includes no analysis regarding the HOLDEN PROJECT being a rest home, but claims this is a synonymous Senior Living Facility (Large). It also fails to mention that it is a NON-RESIDENTIAL use (a.k.a. business). A massive, nearly 100,000 square foot business in the middle of a protected low density residential neighborhood with a scenic overlay makes no sense whatsoever. Then there is the specious claim that “The services provided on-site is limited to assistance with daily living activities, and does not include medical services.” (Enumerated paragraph 2 on page 2 of the draft resolution) However, the California Department of Health Care Services who licenses Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) BASIC REQUIREMENTS state “facilities are required to have licensed nursing staff.” Further, the HOLDEN PROJECT admits NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 in their March 12, 2021 correspondence to Planning Department Staff that services will include “Access to health and medical services.” (Attachment 2 to the City staff’s recommendation) The HOLDEN PROJECT’s claims are incompatible with the City staff’s recommendation. THE CITY STAFF’S INTERPRETATION OF VIEWS NOT BEING PROTECTED BY THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN ARE INCORRECT The staff’s recommendation states “neither the City’s Code nor the General Plan provide for view protection or preservation standards; as such, private view is not a protected feature in the City.” Incorrect. The first goal of the City of Anaheim’s General Plan – Land Use Element for the area where the site is located, is to “Encourage the preservation of scenic vistas and views.” The HOLDEN PROJECT does the opposite. It destroys the scenic vistas and views. Further, the General Plan for the Hill and Canyon Area of Anaheim Hills, where the site is located, includes “Scenic views, well-planned residential development, access to a variety of natural, scenic and recreational resources like the Santa Ana River, Deer Canyon Park Preserve and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, all contribute to the sense of pride felt by area residents. The General Plan seeks to preserve those characteristics.” The General Plan can easily be followed by preserving the current scenic views and denying the HOLDEN PROJECT. THE ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA The acoustical analysis only shows the potential impact on the properties north of the property. (See Attachment No. 5) The impacts upon the west and south are not delineated in the study. Figure 3 in Attachment No. 5 shows that 99 decibels of noise will be sent directly towards our home. 100 decibels is equal to a helicopter hovering 100 feet above your head. (https://www.purdue.edu/ehps/rem/documents/programs/HCP.pdf - Purdue University’ Hearing Conservation Report – Appendix F) THE PARKING VARIANCE MUST BE DENIED Our Opposition pointed out the numerous reasons why the parking variance should be denied and we will not regurgitate them here. However, we take note that that the company who performed the parking study identified three properties in their fourth revision which formed the basis for the City’s staff recommendations, one of the properties does not exist. The exact same day our Opposition was submitted to Joanne Hwang of the City’s Planning Department, the parking study firm (who also performed their other referenced parking studies) filed an addendum attempting to correct their mistakes. They didn’t correct all of them, but did correct one that had been submitted to the City for at least three months, if not years. How could that have happened unless they were made immediately aware of it by someone at the City? The studies should all be disregarded as they still cannot get their story straight. The new site that the parking study company claims is comparable is a three-story facility in a commercial area next to the 22 Freeway and Outlets at Orange in Orange, California. Basic common sense and logic tells us that these are not comparable sites. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 The parking minimum requirements are in the Anaheim Municipal Code to protect everyone involved in a development. The HOLDEN PROJECT does not meet those guidelines nor shown that a variance should be granted. As such, the requested parking variance should be denied. ARCHITECTURE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM The HOLDEN PROJECT states that it will be “resort-like traditional Spanish style architecture.” (Attachment 9). The City staff’s recommendation states “The proposed design represents a Mediterranean architectural style.” Which one is it? They are not the same. THE COMMUNITY REACTION IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE HOLDEN PROJECT Every single resident in the affected area who has commented on the HOLDEN PROJECT is AGAINST it. Every single one. If you read the community objections, they represent over 200 area homeowners, not 60 households as misrepresented in the City staff’s recommendations. Interestingly, the City staff’s recommendations to the Planning Commission included a few comments claiming to be in favor of the HOLDEN PROJECT that all had nearly identical language and font. All of them were submitted on May 11 or May 12, 2021. We investigated these alleged “concerned” citizens. One of whom is an employee of Curt Pringle & Associates, the agency that stands to make hundreds of thousands of dollars if they are able to destroy the neighborhood with this sale. We likely will not know until this matter proceeds to litigation to determine if this employee of Curt Pringle & Associates was paid to influence the Planning Commission. We do know that he lives in an apartment next to the 5 Freeway, which zoning- wise is NOTHING like the site at issue. Of further interest, two of the other folks who sent emails in favor of the HOLDEN PROJECT are related by blood or marriage to Zeshaun Younos, the agent of Curt Pringle & Associates. These two individuals live in far West Anaheim across the 57, 5, and 55 freeways from the site in Anaheim Hills. They are not residents of the local community. In fact, they live more than a 20-minute drive away from the site. Further, it cannot be merely a coincidence that the employee and family members of Curt Pringle & Associates are more than half of the comments in favor. Further investigation revealed that another of these individuals is a commercial insurance agent who happens to be married to the owner of the company the City of Anaheim uses as its tree cutting contractor. Will she be the insurance agent for the HOLDEN PROJECT? Will her husband’s company cut down the specimen trees on the site and maintain the property in the future? We likely will not know these things until this matter proceeds to litigation. The last person we investigated who claimed to be in favor of the project is a Washington D.C. lobbyist who is the former Policy Committee Chair for the Alzheimer's Association of Orange County. Has she been retained as a lobbyist for Holden? Again, we likely will not know this until litigation. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 It only takes minimal common sense to determine why the few folks who do not live in the area claimed to be in support of it. The true community response of more than 200 local homeowners is overwhelmingly opposed to the HOLDEN PROJECT. The homeowners do not want a giant business in the middle of their community, especially when the Anaheim Municipal Code and General Plan forbid it from being built. Comically, the draft resolution prepared by the City staff states: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that negate the findings made in this Resolution. Please save us all substantial time and effort by deleting the draft resolution and denying the HOLDEN PROJECT. CONCLUSION We again ask that you follow the City of Anaheim’s General Plan and Municipal Code which require that the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Specimen Tree Removal applications presented in the HOLDEN PROJECT be denied. Sincerely, Matthew S. Brady Courtney M. Brady Matthew S. Brady, Esq. Courtney M. Brady, Esq. 5309 East Rural Ridge Circle Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Max Willingham To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 1:20:28 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff, My name is Max Willingham, and I’m reaching out as a resident of Anaheim Hills to express my support for the Holden Anaheim Hills project on the Planning Commission agenda at the end of this month. With increased concern regarding a growing senior community in conjunction with a shortage of senior housing options throughout the United States, I’m confident this project will benefit our Anaheim Hills community both now and in the future. As I’ve come to understand, the current site of the project has been underutilized for quite some time – when it could be benefiting our elderly population. I believe it’s our duty to care for our seniors, and to prioritize thoughtful projects that generate positive, long-term results. For the reasons stated above I’d like to formally express my support for the Holden Project, and I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Supporting our senior citizen neighbors in this way would keep noise to a minimum, reduce the amount of traffic on our streets, and help us keep loved ones close for whenever that day comes. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you for your time. Kind regards, Max Willingham NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Reza Mirbeik To:Planning Commission Cc:Joanne Hwang; Kimberly Keys; nataliemeeks@gmail.com; Rosa Mulleady; Luis Andres Perez; dhiruv@gmail.com; Steve White; Zahra Azadbadi Subject:opposition to Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 3:37:01 PM Dear Planning Commision members, As a homeowner who is the immediate house to the Holden community proposed project in Royal Oak ( ), I am deeply concerned with the proposed assisted living community at the former location of Church of Jesus Christ located at the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road. I am sending this email to voice my concern and opposition to the planned Holden Community project behind our property. This proposed facility will impact our privacy and the quality of our lives in the neighborhood. The amount of traffic, noise, structure height, service vehicles, and parking challenges caused by this plan will drastically change our neighborhood's nature from the existing quiet area. As a college professor who has been working from home since last year, I have observed many traffic challenges, such as collisions at the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and south Royal Oak Road. Hence, the proposed plan only makes the situation more challenging. Moreover, the royal oak is one of the main roads to access the 91 and imperial highways daily and worked as an evacuation route in the fire and other natural disasters in the area in the past. Allowing this massive increase in the traffic in the area puts many lives in danger in a fire, which is common in the area. I would request you to deny the application for this massive non-residential facility in the middle of our beautiful neighborhood to protect the neighborhood, residents' safety, and our environment from this devastating disturbance. Mohammadreza Mirbeik Sabzevary Zahra Azadbadi, Pharm. D. Anaheim Hills, CA92807 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Mike Yasuda To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 7:42:06 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff, My name is Mykee Yasuda and I am reaching out today to express my support of the Holden Anaheim Hills project, a proposed senior living community to be located in Anaheim Hills. As a resident of Anaheim Hills I believe supporting our elderly is essential to the fabric of our society. Providing options for our loved ones to go to ensure their independence while also staying near to family is essential to keeping family relationships strong. I only hope you too, would support the chance for our seniors to stay near their families by providing them with the option of this senior housing facility. With that being said, this email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtedly provide meaningful care for generations to come. For our seniors, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! Mykee Yasuda NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:myoffers0403 To:Planning Commission Subject:We do not support Case CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 Date:Saturday, May 22, 2021 1:30:33 PM Re: Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 We are residents of Anaheim Hills and want to inform the commission that we DO NOT support the holden project being built in our community. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:myoffers0403 To:Joanne Hwang Subject:We do not support Case CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172. Date:Saturday, May 22, 2021 1:32:26 PM Re: Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172. We live in Anaheim Hills, 92807, and we DO NOT support the holden project being built in our community. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Nathan Seidman To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 10:55:53 AM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Nathan Seidman and I am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtedly provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! Best Regards, Nathan Seidman NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Rick Pollgreen To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Subject:Opposition to the Holden Senior project in Anaheim Hills! Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 11:57:33 AM Attachments:Sandy-speech.docx Please see the attached letter voicing my opposition to the HOLDEN project AH! Thanks, Sandy Pollgreen ____________________________________________________________ Choose to be safer online. Opt-in to Cyber Safety with NortonLifeLock. Plans starting as low as $6.95 per month.* NetZero.com/NortonLifeLock NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:phern1230 To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:YES on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Saturday, May 22, 2021 10:53:55 AM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Pat Hernandez and I am a long time Anaheim resident. I am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. I currently care for my 92 year old father and a home near us where he can live would be wonderful. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtedly provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Rick Pollgreen To:Steve White; Dave Vadodaria; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); John Armstrong; Joanne Hwang; Justin Glover; Kimberly Keys; Luis Andres Perez; Lucille Kring; Michelle Lieberman; Natalie Meeks; Planning Commission; Rosa Mulleady; Trevor O"Neil Subject:Opposed to Holden AH project Date:Saturday, May 22, 2021 11:57:56 PM Attachments:image0.png Hi, I thought this might be of some interest to you. This is from a 1977 marketing brochure or ad on Anaheim Hills! Notice the "A special spirit... country air. Wide open scenic splendor... carefully planned TO STAY THAT WAY for you and your family! NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 Please vote NO on this horrendous business venture in our quiet neighborhood! Rick Pollgreen NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Rick Pollgreen To:Planning Commission; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O"Neil; John Armstrong; Kimberly Keys; Michelle Lieberman; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Dave Vadodaria; Steve White; Joanne Hwang; Justin Glover; Lucille Kring; Luis Andres Perez Subject:My opposition to Holden AH project Date:Sunday, May 23, 2021 6:48:45 PM Attachments:MySpeech.docx Please see attached! Thanks, Rick Pollgreen NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 Good evening city Planning Commission members. Hi, my name is Rick Pollgreen and I live in Anaheim Hills. In fact, my wife Sandy and I got our home adjacent to the existing church property in 2016 exactly for our EXPANSIVE view and privacy at that location. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying location, location, location! Well, this location is NOT the location for this project! The developer claims its senior citizen residents deserve living in a quiet suburban neighborhood like ours! So even they recognize what this location is, a neighborhood of homes! Not a place for a business such as this! Let’s be honest, these resident senior citizens are not going out of this beautifully designed facility much at all, so it really is irrelevant to them where it’s located! It doesn’t matter if it is here or a couple miles down the road. But it matters a great deal to all of the people of this neighborhood that you are trying to put a HUGE BUSINESS IN OUR BACKYARD! There are plenty of other locations fairly close by that seem pretty perfect for this facility. Like the recently closed Kaiser Hospital property at La Palma and Lakeview, for example. For the safety and well- being of its residents this facility should be as close to medical facilities as possible. I asked the city if any financial data was analyzed with regards to this facility and I was told adamantly “NO”! They claim that is not allowed in making their decision. Well, I’m sorry but it seems pretty obvious that everyone knows what a huge money maker this would be for the city! There are Property Taxes which will be paid, whereby the current church does not pay since they are tax exempt. And then there is the revenue income. If I do the math right, 118 beds at $10,000/month per bed = $1.18 MILLION PER MONTH! That is $14.16 MILLION annually! I realize this is a pretty big number. So, let’s be clear here, money has a lot, if not everything, to do with the decision being made here tonight. Hopefully this is not what should be looked at when reviewing this project. What should be looked at is whether it truly fits in the RH-3 zoning and the intent of the people that setup Anaheim Hills and the Master Plan. A church is the right fit for this property. Or 12 single family homes to complete our neighborhood. BUT NOT A HUGE BUSINESS! You can bet that Holden has done a complete financial analysis of this whole project! What normal business would not? Why else would they outbid the 2 churches that wanted the property? Are you even aware there were 2 churches that made full priced offers on the property? NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 Those churches could basically move in as-is. They would not be razing the building and/or making some huge mega-church. The facility that is there is turn-key as they say! Sure, they might very well do some internal redesign/remodeling to meet their own personal needs/wants. But the basic footprint of the property would remain as it is now. Which, by the way, the current church project, won some award when it was built because it fit in so nicely in the neighborhood. They purposefully placed the main sanctuary up in the southeast corner so it did the least damage to the awesome views of its neighbors. When I first heard about the size of the planned building, both in total square footage as well as in height, I contacted the city. Well, I was quickly told by numerous city staff members “Well, you know VIEWS are NOT protected in the city of Anaheim”. I find this sort of humorous as it is obvious to anybody that has been in Anaheim Hills, that the design and plan of this region is to give almost everybody some awesome views. The fact that the region is hilly and then the lots are all terraced, is proof of this. You do not get that without planning for it! I even have an ad from 1977 that says “A special spirit... country air. Wide open scenic splendor... carefully planned TO STAY THAT WAY for you and your family!” Well, let the current Planning Commission really read that and let it sink in. Then you make your decision. It seems obvious to all of us that live here that this location is a terrible one for a business such as this. Please vote NO! Thank you for listening. NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Roseli Wildvank To:Planning Commission Subject:SUPPORT FOR HOLDEN- ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Rd Anaheim Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 9:19:15 PM Dear City of Anaheim Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and Staff: My name is Roseli WILDVANK and I am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed best-in-class senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! Roseli Wikdvank NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Ryan Arroyo To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Yes on Holden Anaheim Hills Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 12:29:53 PM Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commissioners and Staff: My name is Ryan Arroyo and I am reaching out today to express my support of Holden Anaheim Hills, a proposed senior living community to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This email is to inform you of my formal support of the project which will be on the Planning Commission agenda for May 24, 2021. I encourage you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. It is a crucial resource for our seniors and will undoubtably provide meaningful care for generations to come. Once again, please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. Thank you! NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Rick Pollgreen To:Planning Commission; Steve White; Dave Vadodaria; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); John Armstrong; Joanne Hwang; Justin Glover; Kimberly Keys; Luis Andres Perez; Lucille Kring; Michelle Lieberman; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Trevor O"Neil Subject:Opposition to the Holden Senior project in Anaheim Hills! Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 10:28:59 PM To: The City of Anaheim Planning Commission Regarding: Holden Anaheim Hills building project OPPOSITION My name is Sandy Pollgreen. I am a local resident of Anaheim Hills, and I am in complete opposition towards the building of Holden Anaheim Hills (assisted living/memory care) ...AKA rest home/nursing home project/facility! I believe the planning commission is obligated to adhere to the intent of the master plan for Anaheim Hills. This master plan design includes low density housing (RH-3) and beautiful vistas. The Holden project does not meet those goals/guidelines of our beloved city! It will be an utter eyesore in its massive build! As a very concerned neighbor of a QUIET RESIDENTIAL ONLY area, the above-mentioned facility would be nothing but a nightmare for everyone in this community and surrounding communities! (Orange and Villa Park would also be affected since many of their residents use this pathway for freeway access, etc.) I wrote to voice my opinion months ago, and I never got one response from anyone on the Anaheim planning commission. I feel as though, and possibly I’m speaking for others; we have been deceived in a very sly way as this sneaky ridiculously huge hideous facility is being planned behind our backs, without taking any of the residents that are surrounding it, into consideration! After reading some of the other objection letters, I will say I am in complete agreement with all of my neighbors who oppose this project and for all of the same reasons and more! Considering this project will potentially be approved, we plan on passing out the letter written so beautifully by Mr. and Mrs. M. Brady (local residents) to ALL of the surrounding neighborhoods (including Orange and Villa Park), so others can see how we are being duped by lies and deceptions and insane “guilt trip oriented” marketing ploys to attempt to convince us the project is a “good thing”, and “better than houses being built” on the land! ”The lesser of two evils!” so they’ve said. Also, we are, and have been contacting local news channels and newspapers if the need to resort to getting more exposure to the county, etc., about this debacle, is necessary! The one and ONLY meeting has been very much on the low down, not widely advertised, and VERY FEW PEOPLE WERE AWARE UNTIL THE RECENT POSTINGS TOOK PLACE! AND the ONE community “informational” Zoom meeting conducted by the Holden Company was a big joke, since it was nothing more than a WOWZA sales pitch about “how fantastic and amazing, and state of the art” this “high tech” building will be! They’ve been trying to market the facility while also laying the guilt trip in regards to how “our dear elderly people deserve to have such a lovely place to go in their later years! Well, guess what? That property is zoned for single family homes that would fit the criteria of ALL RESIDENTIAL HOMES in this entire area, and the BONUS would be YOUNG FAMILIES could buy the house of their dreams for their families! Are THEY NOT ALSO DESERVING OF A PLACE TO CALL HOME? Don’t get me wrong or misquote me, I believe elderly people are VERY deserving of being treated extremely well as they age! (I personally would NEVER put mine in a large place such as this, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic! There are MANY other options out there! Just ONE virus of any kind can put the place on lockdown and traumatize the poor patients and their families for life!) Most facilities I have ever seen, are usually placed next to medical buildings, hospitals, and not in the middle of all residential only neighborhoods where response teams such as ambulances, etc. would have a hard time getting to them quickly, or taking them to where they need to go in a hurry! I believe placing this facility here would be cruel and unjust to those poor elderly people! A form of elderly abuse! It may have many beautiful bells and whistles, and be attractive to the eye (in their opinion and their words), but it’s really not being considerate of their patients and residents by building it so far away from what is of NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 utmost importance to them and their health! I believe this proposed nursing home is nothing but a money maker with no consideration to the residents who will be convinced to live here. The builders are quite deceptive in trying to market this! Now for some of the areas that I truly believe will be affected because of this building! And whether they are my opinion or not, I believe them to be facts! The existing Latter Day Saints church that is on the property was built originally planned with regards to caring about the local neighbors surrounding it. It is located mostly on the south east corner of that property and the rest of the buildings that are attached to it are low and not many. The church was always extremely quiet except for their Sunday services and occasional evening services. The parking was plenty for them, as their buildings were not massive, and the traffic levels were only busy mostly Sundays when the rest of the traffic was low. This new planned ginormous structure will take up almost that entire space of this piece of property with not enough parking for employees and visitors and transportation vehicles or delivery trucks etc.! This extra traffic will inundate both Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road causing more treacherous situations in that entire area and intersection. People will not be able to pull out of their streets onto these busy roads with all of the above happening. The lack of the correct amount of parking spaces will cause overspill in the surrounding streets. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the local residents! Possibly speaking for myself, but I can tell you this will be a battle that will be a thorn in their sides for years to come! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE IT! (Again, single-family residences built on that land would not cause this problem whatsoever! It’s the right solution!) There will be an over-abundance of nonstop traffic in that parking lot all day long and probably 24 hours a day! Residents will have to be transported to dialysis centers, doctors’ appointments, and other places of need! There will be trucks delivering food, and picking up trash, etc. The noise level, while they try to convince us that it will be quiet and low, will definitely be elevated to a point that is not tolerable! And same for the lighting! Property lights, bedroom lights, building lights, etc. IT IS A DARK PIECE OF LAND RIGHT NOW! So much light pollution will be happening! Also, an unacceptable situation for the local residence surrounding this massive beast of a property! The round the clock cooking of meals and smells will permeate our neighborhood in an unpleasant never-ending aroma that will also not be acceptable! And with all that cooking meals round the clock, comes lots of trash, lots of rats, and other pesty things and critters! What also is not being taken into consideration with this building project and again the traffic situation, is the fact that there is literally a school right down the street. In the mornings the traffic backs up all the way up Royal Oak and it would be a nightmare for parents trying to get their kids to school on time! It will also tremendously affect the Peralta Hills community in a big way! And while our neighborhood is mostly extremely quiet, one consideration that the planning commission ought to take in deeply is the fact that in the evenings, often late at night, young kids race and rev their engines up and down Royal Oak Road! And it’s LOUD!!! You can have triple pane glass windows for all I care in that building, but that traffic of those kids and their loud cars is going to scare those poor patients!!!! Has anyone even been to this area to have this tested late at night? Or to check out how dark and unpolluted this area is? And because it is a facility for elderly people, or memory care people, the lighting will have to be fairly bright for liability purposes! I have many other issues with this building being completed or approved, but I’m sure you have heard many of them in the letters that the residents surrounding this area have provided for you. I’m not as aware of all of the regulations and legalities of the city as my neighbors are, so I can mostly come to you sharing my concerned heart. I will conclude by saying I am asking you to PLEASE not approve this crazy project and try to think of how many Anaheim Hills local residents this will affect for many years to come. Please find a different location for this project! This builder/buyer has plenty of money floating around since this is what it does!!! PLEASE HEAR AND UNDERSTAND OUR OPPOSITION! Sincerely, Sandy Pollgreen NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 while also laying the guilt trip in regards to how “our dear elderly people deserve to have such a lovely place to go in their latter years!!!”Well, guess what? That property is zoned for single family homes that would fit the criteria of ALL RESIDENTIAL HOMES in this entire area, and the BONUS would be YOUNG FAMILIES could buy the house of their dreams for their families! Are THEY NOT ALSO DESERVING OF A PLACE TO CALL HOME? Don’t get me wrong or misquote me, I believe elderly people are VERY deserving of being treated extremely well as they age! (I personally would NEVER put mine in a large place such as this, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic! There are MANY other options out there! Just ONE virus of any kind can put the place on lockdown and traumatize the poor patients and their families for life!) Most facilities I have ever seen, are usually placed next to medical buildings, hospitals, and not in the middle of all residential only neighborhoods where response teams such as ambulances, etc. would have a hard time getting to them quickly, or taking them to where they need to go in a hurry! I believe placing this facility here would be cruel and unjust to those poor elderly people! A form of elderly abuse! It may have many beautiful bells and whistle’s, and be attractive to the eye (in their opinion and their words), but it’s really not being considerate of their patients and residents by building it so far away from what is of utmost importance to them and their health! I believe this proposed nursing home is nothing but a money maker with no consideration to the residents who will be convinced to live here. The builders are quite deceptive in trying to market this! Now for some of the areas that I truly believe will be affected because of this building! And whether they are my opinion or not, I believe them to be facts! The existing Latter Day Saints church that is on the property was built originally planned with regards to caring about the local neighbors surrounding it. It is located mostly on the south east corner of that property and the rest of the buildings that are attached to it are low and not many. The church was always extremely quiet except for their Sunday services and occasional evening services. The parking was plenty for them, as their buildings were not massive, and the traffic levels were only busy mostly Sundays when the rest of the traffic was low. This new planned ginormous structure will take up almost that entire space of this piece of property with not enough parking for employees and visitors and transportation vehicles or delivery trucks etc.! This extra traffic will inundate both Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road causing more treacherous situations in that entire area and intersection. People will not be able to pull out of their streets onto these busy roads with all of the above happening. The lack of the correct amount of parking spaces will cause overspill in the surrounding streets. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the local residents! Possibly speaking for myself, but I can tell you this will be a battle that will be a thorn in their side’s for years to come! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE IT! (Again, single-family residences built on that land would not cause this problem whatsoever! It’s the right solution!) There will be an over abundance of nonstop traffic in that parking lot all day long and probably 24 hours a day! Residents will have to be transported to dialysis centers, doctors appointments, and other places of need! There will be trucks delivering food, and picking up trash, etc! The noise level, while they try to convince us that it will be quiet and low, will definitely be elevated to a point that is not tolerable! And same for the lighting! Property lights, bedroom lights, building lights, etc! IT IS A DARK PIECE OF LAND RIGHT NOW! So much light pollution will be happening! Also an unacceptable situation for the local residence surrounding this massive beast of a property! The round the clock cooking of meals and smells will permeate our neighborhood in an unpleasant never ending aroma that will also not be acceptable! And with all that cooking meals round the clock, comes lots of trash, lots of rats, and other pesty things and critters! What also is not being taken into consideration with this building project and again the traffic NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Preserve Mabury To:Planning Commission Subject:Oppose Holden Development Case # CUP2019-06048 DEV # DEV2019-00172 Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 6:53:10 AM Dear Planning Commission, I oppose granting a reduced parking variance for this proposed development. This would but an unnecessary strain on the surrounding neighborhoods. The size is too large for this lot and would create a dangerous traffic situation for this all-residential neighborhood. The height is also unreasonable considering the close proximity to homes - many of which are one-story. Please deny this developer’s request. Thank you, Stephanie Lesinski NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Public Comment To:Joanne Hwang; Niki J. Wetzel Cc:Simonne Fannin Subject:FW: Holden Project - Opposition to project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 8:15:52 AM The below email was submitted to the City Council's public comment email. -----Original Message----- From: Tina Locklear <Tina@locklearlaw.com> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 8:41 PM To: Public Comment <publiccomment@anaheim.net> Cc: Tina Locklear <Tina@locklearlaw.com> Subject: Holden Project - Opposition to project Dear City Council Members, The location being considered for this large development is flawed. The first reason is there is already too much traffic. As it is now, before the increase in traffic from this project, it takes me 10 minutes to turn left onto Nohl Ranch coming out of Point Quissette, the community across the street from the Proposed project. (Another traffic light would have to be installed before adding any more crush to the traffic in this area. People come down Nohl Ranch so fast that the block wall marquee on my backyard easement had to be repaired / replaced twice recently from people crashing into it after underestimating that curve. ) The second reason is that this is a quiet bedroom neighborhood, free from commercial noise and after hours activity. A 24 hour assisted living center is bound to have numerous ambulances and emergency service vehicles frequenting it due to falls and the varying medical needs of its residents. The sirens and disruption to our peaceful Anaheim Hills oasis will never be the same once this development comes in. Third; the aesthetic of the development is not suited to this strictly residential neighborhood. Look around - there are no multistory commercial structures anywhere between Meats and Imperial Highway off of Nohl Ranch, until you get to Orange on the West end. Then the aesthetic clearly changes. Anaheim Hills should be preserved as a quiet bedroom community with lots of trees, wildlife and meandering sidewalks. Once you sell that off, there is no restoring it. There are plenty of other lots in Anaheim to develop into this type of structure. In closing, the church that was there had minimal traffic; did not make traffic worse at key traffic times; and was a single story structure that fit in with the neighborhood. Another church tenant or development of the lot into regular housing parcels would be more suited than the Holden Project. As a resident here for 15 years, I strongly oppose this development. Tina Locklear 5241 E Fairlee Ct Anaheim Hills, CA The Law Offices of Tina Locklear One Park Plaza, Sixth Floor Irvine, CA. 92614 (714) 331-1014 Short and pithy due to mobile constraints NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Public Comment To:Joanne Hwang; Niki J. Wetzel Cc:Simonne Fannin Subject:FW: Holden Project - Opposition to project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 8:15:52 AM The below email was submitted to the City Council's public comment email. -----Original Message----- From: Tina Locklear <Tina@locklearlaw.com> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 8:41 PM To: Public Comment <publiccomment@anaheim.net> Cc: Tina Locklear <Tina@locklearlaw.com> Subject: Holden Project - Opposition to project Dear City Council Members, The location being considered for this large development is flawed. The first reason is there is already too much traffic. As it is now, before the increase in traffic from this project, it takes me 10 minutes to turn left onto Nohl Ranch coming out of Point Quissette, the community across the street from the Proposed project. (Another traffic light would have to be installed before adding any more crush to the traffic in this area. People come down Nohl Ranch so fast that the block wall marquee on my backyard easement had to be repaired / replaced twice recently from people crashing into it after underestimating that curve. ) The second reason is that this is a quiet bedroom neighborhood, free from commercial noise and after hours activity. A 24 hour assisted living center is bound to have numerous ambulances and emergency service vehicles frequenting it due to falls and the varying medical needs of its residents. The sirens and disruption to our peaceful Anaheim Hills oasis will never be the same once this development comes in. Third; the aesthetic of the development is not suited to this strictly residential neighborhood. Look around - there are no multistory commercial structures anywhere between Meats and Imperial Highway off of Nohl Ranch, until you get to Orange on the West end. Then the aesthetic clearly changes. Anaheim Hills should be preserved as a quiet bedroom community with lots of trees, wildlife and meandering sidewalks. Once you sell that off, there is no restoring it. There are plenty of other lots in Anaheim to develop into this type of structure. In closing, the church that was there had minimal traffic; did not make traffic worse at key traffic times; and was a single story structure that fit in with the neighborhood. Another church tenant or development of the lot into regular housing parcels would be more suited than the Holden Project. As a resident here for 15 years, I strongly oppose this development. Tina Locklear The Law Offices of Tina Locklear One Park Plaza, Sixth Floor Irvine, CA. 92614 (714) 331-1014 Short and pithy due to mobile constraints NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Tina Locklear To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Subject:Opposition to Holden Project Date:Sunday, May 23, 2021 8:45:29 PM Dear Planning Commission Members, The location being considered for this large development is flawed. The first reason is there is already too much traffic. As it is now, before the increase in traffic from this project, it takes me 10 minutes to turn left onto Nohl Ranch coming out of Point Quissette, the community across the street from the Proposed project. (Another traffic light would have to be installed before adding any more crush to the traffic in this area. People come down Nohl Ranch so fast that the block wall marquee on my backyard easement had to be repaired / replaced twice recently from people crashing into it after underestimating that curve. ) The second reason is that this is a quiet bedroom neighborhood, free from commercial noise and after hours activity. A 24 hour assisted living center is bound to have numerous ambulances and emergency service vehicles frequenting it due to falls and the other varying medical needs of its residents. The sirens and disruption to our peaceful Anaheim Hills oasis will never be the same once this development comes in. Third; the aesthetic of the development is not suited to this strictly residential neighborhood. Look around - there are no multistory commercial structures anywhere between Meats and Imperial Highway off of Nohl Ranch, until you get to Orange on the West end. Then the aesthetic clearly changes. Anaheim Hills should be preserved as a quiet bedroom community with lots of trees, wildlife and meandering sidewalks. Once you sell that off, there is no restoring it. There are plenty of other lots in Anaheim to develop into this type of structure. In closing, the church that was there had minimal traffic; did not make traffic worse at key traffic times; and was a single story structure that fit in with the neighborhood. Another church tenant or development of the lot into regular housing parcels would be more suited than the Holden Project. As a resident here for 15 years, I strongly oppose this development. Tina Locklear Hills NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Zahra Azadbadi To:Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O"Neil; John Armstrong; Kimberly Keys; Michelle Lieberman; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Dave Vadodaria; Steve White; Lucille Kring; Luis Andres Perez; Joanne Hwang; Justin Glover; Planning Commission Subject:Opposition to Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Date:Sunday, May 23, 2021 6:58:33 PM Dear Planning Commission, Please take a look at the attached pictures. These pictures are taken from my backyard. My house is located at the south of Church. The beautiful slop, that I have circled with the red mark, is filled with established vegetation to prevent erosion and offer stability. The developer's plans include multiple retaining walls, a driveway, and backfilling a portion of this slope to increase the amount of useable land. As we all know, disturbing the slop could be disastrous for the homeowners below it. If you approve of this plan, instead of having this beautiful slop, we will have a 35-foot building in our backyard. Please place yourself in my shoes: Would you be able to sit in your back yard to relax and enjoy your evening after a very stressful working day if you have such a thing almost in your back yard??? Don't you think privacy will be an issue??? I am oncology and investigational drug pharmacy manager at UCI Hospital. I work with cancer patients every day. My work is very stressful. I spent my life-saving money to purchase this house 3 years ago. Please say NO to Holden Anaheim Hills plan. I appreciate your time. Zahra Azadbadi, PharmD ( Anaheim, CA 92807 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Zahra Azadbadi To:Joanne Hwang; Planning Commission Subject:Opposition to Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:19:19 AM Dear Planning Commission, I am the homeowner of the house just next to the Church located at Road. I recently heard about the Holden Anaheim Hills Project, and I am immensely concerned about this project. I urge the Planning Commission to reject this proposal as soon as possible. Here are some facts about this project: The size of the structure (almost 100,000 sq ft) will be 5.6 times larger than the current structure. The number of parking spots is 45% less than code!!! Can I ask you where the employees of this business should park their car? Are they going to use our quiet street as their parking lot? One side of this property consists of a natural slope with established vegetation to prevent erosion and offer stability. The developer is planning to backfill this portion and add multiple retaining walls. Disturbing the slop could be disastrous for homeowners below and above the slope. I am one of them!!! The noise due to emergency vehicles (24/7), three shifts workers seven days a week, daily food and supply deliveries will be very, very disturbing for neighbors. Interestingly, the developer has NO PLAN to build a sound wall!! Please place yourself in our shoes! Considering all the above, would you still approve this plan if you would live next to this massive business structure??!! Best regards, Zahra Azadbadi Anaheim, CA 5250 NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. •5 From:Brenda Tapley To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Cc:Kimberly Keys; Lucille.King@Kring.us; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Luis Andres Perez; Dave Vadodaria; Steve White Subject:HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS - Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 - AGAINST PROJECT Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 4:20:27 PM Attachments:image001 png Importance:High Hello Planning Commission, I am aware of the proposed assisted living community Holden Anaheim Hills consisting of 118 units and 127 beds to be built on the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak in Anaheim Hills. I am a homeowner (on Honeywood Lane) and am directly impacted by your project. I have some major concerns on how your project will negatively impact our neighborhood and quality of life. I am against this project for the following reasons: The Size of Structure – at almost 100,000 sq. ft, it is 5.6 times larger than the current structure. You are misleading the public claiming the new structure will not exceed 25 feet. This is extremely deceptive. The height of the structure will be 25 feet at the highest point of the lot. The building will grow in height with the slope of the lot. It will be 36 feet tall at the back, towering over the neighborhood to the north. The proposed structure is entirely too large for the size of the current lot and location. Parking – The city code requires 102 parking spaces . The proposal is for only 55 spaces! This severe shortage will result in employees, third parties caregivers, vendors, and visitors to park in the surrounding residential streets daily. Our quiet streets will be overrun by the lack of parking spaces. Slope Stability – The north slope will be backfilled to add 20 feet of parking and usable land. Disturbing the slope could be disastrous for homeowners both below and above the slope. Noise and Traffic – The proposed structure will bring unimaginable traffic to our quite neighborhood with three shifts of workers 7 days a week, daily food/supply deliveries, and constant emergency vehicles. There are no plans to build any sound walls. This will result in constant noise and an unacceptable burden placed upon our neighborhood. I urge you to reconsider the location of the proposed structure. Please find a lot that can accommodate the size of the structure and one that is better suited to handle all of the traffic. Myself and my fellow neighbors are AGAINST the building of this structure. Please reconsider. Thank you, Brenda Tapley Edwards Lifesciences life is now Healthcare Solutions | Associate Manager, GPO Contracts Phone 949-250-2770 brenda_tapley@edwards.com | www.edwards.com LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 From:JAMES VANDERHEIDE To:Joanne Hwang; Kimberly Keys; Lucillle.Kring@Kring.us; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Dave Vadodaria; Luis Andres Perez; awhistle@pacbell.net; Planning Commission Subject:Anaheim Planning Commission Case Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 3:48:17 PM Attachments:Holden"s Anaheim Hills Senior Center.docx Ref: Case # CUP 2019 - 06048 / DEV # DEV2019 - 00172 To: Anaheim Planning Commission for consideration: please find attached arguements supporting our opposition to the proposed Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Center. From: Dr. & Mrs. James D. Vander Heide Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 May 12, 2021 To: City of Anaheim Senior Planner and Seven Members of the Anaheim Planning Commission Case: #CUP2019-06048 DEV 2019-00172 From: Dr. and Mrs. James D. Vander Heide Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Re: Opposition to Holden’s proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Center / Senior Hospital The location for the proposed “Senior Center” is the North – West corner of Royal Oak intersecting with Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim Hills. A single story church building presently exists on the property, in a neighborhood of exclusively single family homes. Our opposition to this project is not the purpose, but the scope relative to the size of the available developed property – the proposed total square footage of the buildings, their height and the woefully inadequate parking. Our understanding of the City parking requirement, for the size of the proposal, is 102 spaces. Holden proposes only 55 spaces. A similar Senior Center in Anaheim named Walnut Village was allowed to be developed without adequate parking. They utilize a valet who parks visitor’s cars on the streets in the adjoining residential neighborhood. We don’t want that to happen in our adjacent neighborhood, which has limited street parking already. There is presently no legal street parking adjacent to the proposed project on either Royal Oak or Nohl Ranch Road. Holden proposes building a massive retaining wall along the north lot line, which is presently a landscaped slope adjacent to the back yards of private residences. They want to backfill to the retaining wall to gain additional site area. This will be an unsightly intrusion for the homeowners of the adjacent properties. The height of the proposed buildings is considerably higher than the existing church building, and is too high for a residential neighborhood. LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 From:Brenda Tapley To:Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Cc:Kimberly Keys; Lucille.King@Kring.us; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Luis Andres Perez; Dave Vadodaria; Steve White Subject:HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS - Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 - AGAINST PROJECT Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 4:20:27 PM Attachments:image001 png Importance:High Hello Planning Commission, I am aware of the proposed assisted living community Holden Anaheim Hills consisting of 118 units and 127 beds to be built on the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak in Anaheim Hills. I am a homeowner (on Honeywood Lane) and am directly impacted by your project. I have some major concerns on how your project will negatively impact our neighborhood and quality of life. I am against this project for the following reasons: The Size of Structure – at almost 100,000 sq. ft, it is 5.6 times larger than the current structure. You are misleading the public claiming the new structure will not exceed 25 feet. This is extremely deceptive. The height of the structure will be 25 feet at the highest point of the lot. The building will grow in height with the slope of the lot. It will be 36 feet tall at the back, towering over the neighborhood to the north. The proposed structure is entirely too large for the size of the current lot and location. Parking – The city code requires 102 parking spaces . The proposal is for only 55 spaces! This severe shortage will result in employees, third parties caregivers, vendors, and visitors to park in the surrounding residential streets daily. Our quiet streets will be overrun by the lack of parking spaces. Slope Stability – The north slope will be backfilled to add 20 feet of parking and usable land. Disturbing the slope could be disastrous for homeowners both below and above the slope. Noise and Traffic – The proposed structure will bring unimaginable traffic to our quite neighborhood with three shifts of workers 7 days a week, daily food/supply deliveries, and constant emergency vehicles. There are no plans to build any sound walls. This will result in constant noise and an unacceptable burden placed upon our neighborhood. I urge you to reconsider the location of the proposed structure. Please find a lot that can accommodate the size of the structure and one that is better suited to handle all of the traffic. Myself and my fellow neighbors are AGAINST the building of this structure. Please reconsider. Thank you, Brenda Tapley Edwards Lifesciences life is now Healthcare Solutions | Associate Manager, GPO Contracts Phone 949-250-2770 brenda_tapley@edwards.com | www.edwards.com LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 From:JAMES VANDERHEIDE To:Joanne Hwang; Kimberly Keys; Lucillle.Kring@Kring.us; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Dave Vadodaria; Luis Andres Perez; awhistle@pacbell.net; Planning Commission Subject:Anaheim Planning Commission Case Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 3:48:17 PM Attachments:Holden"s Anaheim Hills Senior Center.docx Ref: Case # CUP 2019 - 06048 / DEV # DEV2019 - 00172 To: Anaheim Planning Commission for consideration: please find attached arguements supporting our opposition to the proposed Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Center. From: Dr. & Mrs. James D. Vander Heide Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 May 12, 2021 To: City of Anaheim Senior Planner and Seven Members of the Anaheim Planning Commission Case: #CUP2019-06048 DEV 2019-00172 From: Dr. and Mrs. James D. Vander Heide Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Re: Opposition to Holden’s proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Center / Senior Hospital The location for the proposed “Senior Center” is the North – West corner of Royal Oak intersecting with Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim Hills. A single story church building presently exists on the property, in a neighborhood of exclusively single family homes. Our opposition to this project is not the purpose, but the scope relative to the size of the available developed property – the proposed total square footage of the buildings, their height and the woefully inadequate parking. Our understanding of the City parking requirement, for the size of the proposal, is 102 spaces. Holden proposes only 55 spaces. A similar Senior Center in Anaheim named Walnut Village was allowed to be developed without adequate parking. They utilize a valet who parks visitor’s cars on the streets in the adjoining residential neighborhood. We don’t want that to happen in our adjacent neighborhood, which has limited street parking already. There is presently no legal street parking adjacent to the proposed project on either Royal Oak or Nohl Ranch Road. Holden proposes building a massive retaining wall along the north lot line, which is presently a landscaped slope adjacent to the back yards of private residences. They want to backfill to the retaining wall to gain additional site area. This will be an unsightly intrusion for the homeowners of the adjacent properties. The height of the proposed buildings is considerably higher than the existing church building, and is too high for a residential neighborhood. LATE CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 5 Julie Sarkis Anaheim, CA 92807 May 24, 2021 Ms. Joanne Hwang City of Anaheim Planning Commission 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 REF: Case #CUP2019-06048 / DEV2019-00172 Dear Ms. Hwang, I am writing to you and the members of the Anaheim Planning Commission that I am in strong opposition to the proposed assisted living community, Holden Anaheim Hills. I have been a resident of Anaheim Hills for the past thirty-eight years. I chose to live in this community for its suburban atmosphere and calm surroundings. My husband and I raised our family here and I always felt that if I were to outgrow my home here, that I would move to another home in this same community. The proposed development of the Holden Anaheim Hills senior living community into the tight corner space of a quiet residential neighborhood is the wrong choice. An assisted living community (with special memory care services) is akin to a real hospital. Contrary to the developer’s survey results, a business that requires special care to the elderly, will require much greater round-the-clock staff and attention to this population with special needs. The lack of parking spaces in favor of more living spaces will add to the congestion of parked vehicles and foot traffic onto the adjoining side streets and neighborhoods. In addition, the high slope of the parcel will carry the noise that comes along with the normal operations of a 24/7 business. To think that special care to residents will require minimal support staff is a major understatement. Although my residence is very close to the proposed building site, I feel the distress and misfortune of those that have homes directly adjacent to the proposed site. Please consider how this development will have a negative impact on the surrounding residential neighborhoods of our peaceful community. Please do not allow this development to move forward. It is not a good fit. Sincerely, Julie Sarkis From:Michele Duncan To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Fwd: Opposed to Holden Project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 2:33:18 PM Please help keep our neighborhood residential! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Michele Duncan > Date: May 24, 2021 at 1:50:59 PM PDT To: lucille.kring@kring.us Subject: Fwd: Opposed to Holden Project Please save our community! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Michele Duncan Date: May 24, 2021 at 1:42:43 PM PDT To: kimberly.keys614@gmail.com Subject: Opposed to Holden Project Dear Kimberly: I have been living on Honeywood Lane since 1991 and have always adored our Anaheim Hills Planned Community, with a quiet residential atmosphere. I walk a three mile circle along Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch! Often times walking to the Canyon Hills Library! Now I walk this sleepy town community with my grandchildren, and I would be outraged if the quiet cul de sac we live on would become a parking lot for the 118 unit nonresidential housing facility! My children and grandchildren learned to ride bikes and roller skate on the Honeywood Cul de sac. Please do not change the zoning and turn our community into a city project! Michele Duncan Sent from my iPhone From:Spencer Puskas To:Joanne Hwang Subject:Holden property on Royal Oak Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 2:10:21 PM Hello I would just like to voice my opinion regarding the planned senior living complex on Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road. As a long time neighbor living very near that future planned assisted senior living site I have many concerns. First off the size and the scale of the project seems to be way too large to fit into an area of that planned size. I heard there was also no plan for a sound wall either & parking spaces are an issue as well. I believe a more thorough evaluation and reduced scale in size of the living facility is in order. There are just too many rooms and just not enough space on that area to be dedicated to that many rooms in a senior assisted living center. Also the noise with the increased traffic through my neighborhood is an issue of mine as well. There just seems to be too many issues and too big of a rush to start this project perhaps ? I think a more in-depth evaluation needs to be accomplished before the building can even be started. Just the amount of noise and lack of parking spaces is going to be having people park in the neighborhoods in the surrounding areas that’s a real concern of mine. How is that going to be addressed? Please let me know what the planning commissions true intent is and if you are actually going to go through with this and allow this to be built. I just think it’s irresponsible to put that big of a building with those many rooms in my neighborhood which was never designed to have that many people living in close proximity to establishes houses. Thank you for taking the time to read my email. Respectfully, Spencer Puskas