Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Attachment 4 - Initial Study Checklist
CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM SUBJECT NOLIN II (SWC Lincoln/Laxore) CASE NO. DEV2023-00033 ADDRESS 2952 & 2960 West Lincoln Ave. APN 126-602-33, -35 LOCATION The project is located on the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Laxore Street. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural & Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resource Noise Paleontological Resources Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. _______________ Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date Nick Taylor, AICP, Senior Planner (714) 765-4323 Printed Name, Title Phone Number ATTACHMENT NO. 4 - 2- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as Project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section. 3) Response column heading definitions: a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the Project creates no significant impacts, only “Less Than Significant impacts”. d) No Impact applies where a Project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to Projects like the one proposed (e.g., the Project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on Project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis). 4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (§ 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project. 5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. - 3- Project Setting/Background The Nolin II (SWC Lincoln/Laxore) Project (the “Project”) is located within the area of the City subject to the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan (BBSP). Figure 1 – Site Map shows the location of the Project site, which is located on 1.72 acres designated for Mixed-Use High land use by the General Plan. The Project site is within the Mixed-Use High (MU-H) Development Area of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zone (BBSP), as shown on Figure 2 - BBSP Development Areas. The Mixed-Use High designation allows a mix of uses including residential, commercial, services, hotel, and professional office uses in a high-quality environment. The focus of this designation is on creating a pedestrian-friendly environment, including increased connectivity and community gathering spaces. Uses and activities integrate to create a dynamic urban environment. Continuous commercial street frontage on the first and, perhaps, second floors, supported by residential and/or office uses above, is the typical pattern of vertically mixed land use. The mix of uses may also be in a horizontal or multi-use pattern. Stand-alone uses within a multi-use project need to integrate into an overall project design and connect to other adjoining uses by plazas, promenades, and landscaped corridors . The uses should include common architectural themes and signage. Typical residential uses could include stacked flats, live-work units, townhouses, and artist-style lofts. Residential development in these areas emphasizes quality and offers a variety of amenities. Within the MU-H Development Area, the BBSP permits the residential component of mixed-use development at a density of up to 60 dwelling units per acre. The non-residential component of mixed-use development is permitted at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35.The Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC or Code) includes the Zoning and Development Standards for the BBSP in Chapter 18.122. The underlying AMC base zone is the “MU” Mixed Use Overlay Zone. If the standards in the BBSP are silent on a particular topic, the MU Overlay Zone shall apply. A mix of land uses surround the Project site, as shown on Figure 1 – Site Map. Directly adjacent to the north of the Project site is Lincoln Avenue. Further north, directly adjacent and north of Lincoln Avenue is an existing three-story residential townhome project recently constructed under land use application DEV2019-00120. To the east of the site, across Laxore Street and adjacent to Lincoln Avenue, is a retail center. South of the retail center, and adjacent to the project’s southern border is a multi-family neighborhood, consisting of multiple fourplex apartment buildings. To the west, a vacant retail property which has recently been demolished. All surrounding properties are within the the BBSP. Project Description The Applicant proposes to construct a for-sale residential project consisting of 44 three-story townhomes (proposed Project), as further described below and in conformance with the BBSP. The proposed Project would provide vehicular ingress and egress to the Project site via a private driveway at Laxore Street on the east side of the Project site. Figure 3 – Site Plan shows the proposed site layout. The Applicant would construct the townhomes in a series of 5-plex to 8-plex townhome buildings that would be approximately 43 feet in height, or three-stories tall. Amenities for the residents of the townhome units would include an activity lawn, seating area and a trellis with covered gathering area. The proposed Project would assign the townhomes, also referred to in this document as dwelling units (du), one to two garage bays to each unit. The townhomes would include 86 garage parking spaces and one open parking stall. The proposed Project would be subject to the following discretionary approvals: • Tentative Tract Map: for a one lot subdivision to create 44 “airspace” condominium units. • Administrative Adjustment for landscape setbacks up to 20-percent less than required by the Zoning Code. - 4- • Conditional Use Permit (CUP): to permit 44 single-family attached residential units. -5 - Figure 1 – Site Map - 6- Figure 2 - BBSP Development Areas - 7- Figure 3 – Site Plan - 8- Beach Boulevard Specific Plan (BBSP) The BBSP guides the future development of approximately 283 acres along a 1.5-mile portion of the Beach Boulevard (State Route 39 [SR-39]) in the City of Anaheim, Orange County. Beach Boulevard is an eight-lane divided highway that connects the cities of Huntington Beach, Westminster, Garden Grove, Stanton, Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Mirada, and La Habra. The BBSP is a community- driven vision for Beach Boulevard and the properties adjacent to this transportation corridor. The BBSP supports this vision through the implementation of development standards, permitted and prohibited uses, design guidelines, sustainable practices, economic development incentives, and capital improvements that improve the quality of life for all future users of the corridor. The City of Anaheim received funding for the BBSP through the California Strategic Growth Council’s Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program. Implementation of the BBSP will strengthen the West Anaheim community and meet the Strategic Growth Council’s goals to help local governments address the challenges of land use planning and transforming communities for long-term prosperity. The Strategic Growth Council defines a sustainable community as one that promotes equity, health, and safety and strengthens the economy while protecting the environment. The City anticipates that the BBSP will promote revitalization of this corridor by implementing market -driven land use changes to encourage infill development of currently vacant or underutilized properties. The BBSP allows for the development of vacant parcels and the adaptive reuse or redevelopment of existing uses. At buildout, implementation of the BBSP would result in a maximum of 5,128 dwelling units and 2,189,445 square feet of nonresidential development, as shown in Table 1-1. In addition to revitalizing the corridor with new development, use types, and adaptive reuse, the BBSP would also facilitate and encourage use of multiple modes of transportation by improving pedestrian amenities, and access to Orange County Transit Authority Route 29 (La Habra to Huntington Beach), Route 42 (Seal Beach to Orange), and Route 46 (Los Alamitos to Orange). Within the City of Anaheim, Beach Boulevard (SR-39) is a California state highway that travels through Orange and Los Angeles counties. In order to have greater control over all infrastructure, which includes roadway, landscaping, medians, pedestrian access ramps and driveway entrances, the City may seek relinquishment of Beach Boulevard from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to the City of Anaheim. The BBSP also proposes other improvements within the public realm including urban amenities and improvements to public rights-of-way, including key intersections, streets, alleys and drives, parks, plazas, and gateways. The BBSP identifies public street design elements, landscaping, intersection enhancements, entry treatments, public open space, right-of-way detail, and other unique public realm features within the proposed Development Areas. Other improvements include the undergrounding of utilities and removal of utility poles. As previously noted, the 1.72-acre Project site is within the Mixed Use High Development Area. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 60 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 103 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 44 du and on the Project site. - 9- Table 1-1 Beach Boulevard Specific Plan Buildout Statistical Summary Development Areas Acreage Units/Acre Units Population FAR Non-Res. SF Employment Flood Control Channels 4.2 – – – – – – Low-Medium Residential 44.8 18 806 2,621 – – – Medium Residential 49.4 36 1,778 5,781 – – – Mixed-Use High1 32.3 60 1,938 6,300 0.35 492,446 1,231 Mixed-Use Medium2 16.8 36 605 1,966 0.35 210,575 526 Neighborhood Commercial 22.6 – – – 0.35 344,560 861 Office 2.2 -- -- -- 0.50 47,916 168 Public-Recreational 27.9 -- -- -- 0.10 134,532 304 Regional Commercial3 27.4 – – – 0.35 380,000 950 Right of Way 41.6 – – – – – – Semi-Public4 13.6 – -- -- 1.00 592,416 1,481 Total5 282.8 – 5,128 16,6696 – 2,189,445 5,5227 Existing – – 1,477 – – 1,282,124 – Net New – – 3,651 – – 907,321 – Source: PlaceWorks, 2018. 1 Mixed-Use High buildout includes 54,000 SF of hotel/motel (108 rooms) and the following assumptions for other non-residential uses: 20% service, 20% office, 20% restaurant, and 40% retail. 2 Mixed-Use Medium buildout includes 140,000 SF of hotel/motel (280 rooms) and following assumptions for other non -residential uses: 25% service, 10% office, 25% restaurant, and 40% retail. 3 Regional Commercial buildout includes 35,000 SF of hotel/motel (70 rooms). 4 The West Anaheim Medical Center provides 219 hospital beds. 5 Hotels were included in the buildout assumptions for Commercial, Mixed-Use Medium, and Mixed-Use High uses. Hotels were estimated at approximately 500 gross SF per room (including walls, elevators, stairways, corridors, storage, mechanical areas, etc.). (De Roos 2011) 6 Population estimates are based on a citywide 3.44 persons per household factor published in the City of Anaheim 2014 -2021 Housing Element. 7 Employment estimates are City of Anaheim General Plan Employment Generation Rates of 400 SF per employee for Commercial uses, 285 SF per employee for Office uses, and 400 SF per employee for Mixed-Use uses. Previously-Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2017-00350 On November 20, 2018, the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2017-00350 (EIR No. 350), including the adoption of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 342 (MMRP No. 342), and a Water Supply Assessment. The certification of EIR No. 350 was in conjunction with the Council’s approval of amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code (zoning text and zoning map); and, adoption the BBSP. EIR No. 350 was prepared as a Program EIR. The legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as for a Project EIR; however, Program EIRs are typically more conceptual than Project EIRs, with a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions characterized as one large Project. Use of a Program EIR gives the lead agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address Project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. Agencies prepare Program EIRs for programs or a series of related actions linked geographically; logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program; or individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects, mitigated in similar ways. - 10- Once a Program EIR has been prepared, the City as the Lead Agency must evaluate subsequent activities within the program to determine whether an additional CEQA document is necessary. However, if the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities may be within the Program EIR’s scope, and additional environmental documents may not be required (Guidelines § 15168[c]). When a lead agency relies on a Program EIR for a subsequent activity, it must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives from the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (Guidelines § 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects outside the scope of the Program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. Even in this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first -tier environmental analysis. The CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages: 1. Provide a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR; 2. Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; 3. Avoid continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues; 4. Consider broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them; 5. Reduce paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering). (Guidelines § 15168[h]) The following analysis confirms that the proposed Project is consistent with development assumptions analyzed by EIR No. 350 for the Project site. The mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342 address any significant impacts, with the exception of those impacts (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation and Traffic) described in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in conjunction with the certification of EIR No. 350. The City, as the Lead Agency, will apply all applicable mitigation measures to the proposed Project. - 11- I. AESTHETICS -- Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the aesthetic impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.1. According to EIR No. 350, the area regulated by the BBSP consists of a variety of uses, including residential, commercial, mixed-use, office, and public-recreational developments and is not located on a scenic resource or vista. The area regulated by the BBSP is generally flat in topography. The proposed Project is a three-story residential development. The Project site does not have a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vista. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Beach Boulevard (SR-39), is not a state-designated scenic highway. Moreover, the area regulated by the BBSP consists of a variety of uses, including residential, commercial, mixed-use, office, and public-recreational developments, and no trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway would be damaged due to construction of the proposed Project. Impacts associated with state scenic highways would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. The BBSP allows for the redevelopment of existing uses, resulting in new development that differs from existing land uses in height, scale, mass, and character. Implementation of the BBSP would have the potential to alter the visual character of the area to provide a more consistent and cohesive design character. The Project site currently consists of a vacant single story retail building which is partially demolished. The proposed Project would remove the remaining existing on-site structures and construct a residential development consisting of 44 townhomes. The proposed Project would implement the BBSPs vision plan and would create a more visually cohesive and appealing environment and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation program. The area regulated by the BBSP consists of a variety of uses, including residential, commercial, mixed-use, office, and public- recreational developments and include existing sources of light include street lights, vehicle headlights, building and security lights, and parking lot lights. The BBSP allows for intensification of existing land uses and new development with associated lighting. Therefore, new sources of light and glare could increase levels of light and glare above existing conditions, poten tially resulting in adverse impacts to day or nighttime views. - 12- The proposed townhomes would have a building height of approximately 43 feet tall, at their highest peak. The proposed Project would be developed with quality design features, architectural materials, and landscaping, which would help break up the massing of the proposed Project and create visual interest. The proposed Project would create a more visually cohesive and appealing environment and impacts that would be consistent with the BBSP and would be less than significant. The Project site is in an urbanized area of the City, and glare sources currently exist from sunlight reflecting off vehicles parked and traveling on nearby roads, and from glass and light-colored building materials. The proposed Project’s architectural treatment and building materials would not be highly reflective and would not produce significant glare impacts. Glare from building materials and vehicles are typical of the surrounding area. Therefore, glare would not increase beyond what is typic al for an urban area, glare impacts from the proposed Project. Furthermore, compliance with adopted building codes and proposed development standards ensure that the proposed Project would not result in a significant lighting pollution impact during the night. The overall amount of light and glare generated would not be result in a significant impact when compared to existing conditions and compared to surrounding uses. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, le ad agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Depart ment of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? - 13- e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed Project would be a residential development consisting of 44 townhomes. The proposed Project site is located within an area of the City regulated by the BBSP, which is not within an area with agricultural or forest uses. There is no unique, prime or farmland of statewide importance located on the Project site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the Project site. No impacts would occur. III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non- attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the air quality impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017 -1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.2. EIR No. 350 concluded that, the area regulated by the BBSP is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and is subject to the air quality management plan (AQMP) prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Construction activities of future development, revitalization, and/or redevelopment activities pursuant to the BBSP would generate exhaust from construction equipment and vehicle trips, fugitive dust from demolition and ground -disturbing activities, and off-gas emissions from architectural coatings and paving. Implementation of the BBSP allows development of a mix of uses, resulting in an increase in development intensity and associated increase in criteria air pollutants. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact. Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed Project have the potential to generate fugitive dust, stationary-source emissions, and mobile-source emissions. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would occur over the short term for site preparation and construction activities of the proposed Project. In addition, emissions would result from the long-term operation. The air quality analysis conducted for the BBSP, which determined that the short- and/or long-term emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. However, the Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact. Emissions from construction equipment used during the construction of the proposed Project, such as diesel exhaust and VOCs from architectural coatings, may generate odors. However, these odors would be low in concentration, temporary, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant odor - 14- impacts, and no mitigation measures are required. As previously noted, the 1.72-acre Project site is within the Mixed Use High Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 60 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 103 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35 ; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct a residential development consisting of 44 townhomes. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. The following mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342 would address any impacts and will be conditions of approval for the proposed Project (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): AQ-1: Applicants for new development Projects in the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt Projects) The Project Applicant shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards for off -road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Anaheim that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by t he California Air Resources Board’s regulations. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, documentation shall be provided by the applicant to the City of Anaheim that verifies, to the satisfaction of the City, the use of construction equipment as stated in this mitigation measure. AQ-2: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer Project Applicant shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used on the Project site for Projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non -exempt Projects). This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment. AQ-3: During construction activities, for Projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non- exempt Projects), the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the Planning and Building Department that the construction contractors shall ensure that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. AQ-4: Prior to issuance of a building permit for Projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non- exempt Projects), the property owner/developer Project Applicant shall require the construction contractor and provide a note on construction plans indicating that: a) All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). b) All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) us ing a high-volume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand -roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency. c) The construction contractor shall also use pre -coated/natural colored building materials, where feasible. The City shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections. AQ-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development Projects in the Project Area, the Project applicant shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. AQ-6: Prior to issuance of building permits for non-single-family residential and mixed use residential development Projects in the Project Area, the Project applicant shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Anaheim prior to t he issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code - 15- AQ-7: Prior to the issuance of building permits for nonresidential development Projects in the Project Area, the Project Applicant applicants shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Anaheim Building Division prior to th e issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • For buildings with more than ten tenant-occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each nonresidential building with 30 or more par king spaces. Installation shall be consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. AQ-8: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, for Projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt Projects), the property owner/developer the Project Applicant shall submit a dust control plan that implements the following measures during ground -disturbing activities, in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions: a) Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site thro ugh seeding and watering. b) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186 –compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. c) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24 -inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amoun t of protection. d) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day. e) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no m ore than 15 miles per hour. The City shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? - 16- b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 addressed the potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017 -1. Refer to EIR No. 350. The Project site is within the BBSP and is currently built-out with the exception of one vacant parcel of land at APN 126-602- 04. As identified in EIR 350, impacts related to Biological resources were determined less -than-significant during the Initial Study of the BBSP. The proposed Project would not impact sensitive species, and no mitigation measures are required. As identified in EIR 350 for the BBSP, which includes the Project site, properties within the BBSP do not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies; known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species; or known to be important wildl ife corridors. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. As identified in EIR 350 for the BBSP, which includes the Project site, properties within the BBSP do not include any wetlands. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impact wetlands, and no mitigation measures are required. EIR 350 identified that properties within the BBSP, which includes the Project site, and the surrounding area are in a highly urbanized setting that lacks suitable habitat for wildlife species and is not a native wildlife nursery site. The Project site is built- out with the exception of one vacant parcel of land at APN 126-602-04. The vacant land parcel has trees on-site that Migratory birds may use for nesting on the Project site. The proposed Project would be subject to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; US Code, Title 16, §§ 703– 712). The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchas e, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. If removal of t he vegetation occurs during nesting season (typically between February 1 and July 1), the Project applicant is required to conduct nesting bird surveys in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements. Compliance with the - 17- MBTA would ensure that no significant impacts to migratory birds occur and no mitigation measures are required. The Project site does contain trees on-site; however, none of these trees have been identified to protected and/or a sensitive species. Additionally, there are street trees adjacent to the Project area on Lincoln Avenue and Laxore Street and may include the removal of ornamental trees street trees on the City’s right -of-way during street modification. However, Chapter 13.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code establishes applicable regulations for the protection, maintenance, removal, and replacement of street trees within the City’s right-of-way. There are no local policies protecting trees on private properties. Therefore, impacts associated with policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. The area regulated by the BBSP, which includes the Project site, is not in the Orange County's Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) area and does not contain any sites designated for nature reserves under the NCCP. The proposed Project does not conflict with the provision of any adopted habitat conservation plan. No impacts occur, and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. EIR No. 350 concluded that compliance with existing regulations related to Biological Resources would reduce any impacts to less than significant; and, therefore, MMRP No. 342 does not include any mitigation measures related to Biological Resources and none would be applicable to the proposed Project. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (April 15, 2010)? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 addressed the potential impacts to cultural resources associated with implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017 -1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.3. According to EIR No. 350, there are no historical landmarks in the area regulated by the BBSP, including the Project site. The Project site is built-out with the exception of one vacant parcel of land at APN 126-602-04. The proposed Project would not involve any demolition of any historically preserved structures. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. It is possible that previously unidentified archaeological artifacts could be present within the project area, however, the proposed Project is within the area regulated by the BBSP, and the Project Applicant would comply with mitigation measures outlined in EIR. No 350. The discovery of buried resources on the Project site would not contribute cumulatively to potential archaeological resources impacts in the region. Consequently, impacts to tribal cultural resources would not be cumulatively - 18- considerable. Development of the proposed Project may cause the disturbance of archaeological resources. Building construction in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires excavation to depths greater than current foundations has the potential to encounter unknown archaeological resources. Therefore, mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed Project. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within a Project area, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the huma n remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The proposed Project would comply with existing law, and potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would impact a property located within the area regulated by the BBSP; and therefore, would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. The proposed Project would address any impacts by implementing the mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): CUL-1: Prior to demolition, the Project Applicant applicant/developer shall provide documentation of the presence/absence of historic resources for the properties that are 50 years old or over by a qualified historical resources professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The criteria for determining the historically significant structures shall meet one or more the following criteria: 1. It strongly represents a significant event or broad patterns of local, regional, or national history. 2. It is associated with the life of a significant person in local, regional, or national history. 3 . It is a very good example of a significant architectural style, property type, period, or method of construction; or it represents the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder who is locally, regionally, or nationally significant; or it is a signif icant visual feature of the City. CUL-2: On properties where historically significant resources are identified, a proper documentation meeting the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Guidelines shall be prepared and implemented, as approved by the qualified historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. Such documentation shall include drawings, photographs, and written data for each building/structure/element, and provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program, recovery, rehabilitation, redesign, relocation, and/or in situ preservation plan. CUL-3: Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than current foundations, the Project Applicantapplicant/developer shall retain an archeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology for the Project and will be on call during all grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that the following measures are followed for the Project. • Prior to any ground disturbance, the Qualified Archaeologist, or their designee, shall provide a worker environmental awareness protection (WEAP) training to construction personnel regarding regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural (prehistoric and historic) resources. As part of this training, construction personnel shall be briefed on proper procedures to follow should unanticipated cultural resources be made during construction. Workers will be provided contact information and protocols to follow in the event that inadvertent discoveries are made. The WEAP training can be in the form of a video or PowerPoint presentation. Printed literature (handouts) can accompany the training and can also be given to new workers and contractors to avoid the necessity of continuous training over the course of the Project. • In the event that unanticipated cultural material is encountered during any phase of Project construction, all construction work within 50 feet (15 meters) of the find shall cease and the Qualified Archaeologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the appropriate City, the discovery is determin ed not to be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. • If a resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or has a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the Qualified Archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources, and construction allowed to proceed. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections - 19- 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. • If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. • Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institutio n with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State Universit y, Fullerton. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical socie ty in the area for educational purposes, as determined as appropriate by the City of Anaheim. VI. ENERGY – Would the Project Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Narrative Summary: Less-than-significant Impact. EIR No 350 did not analyze Energy as the City Council certified the document before the 2019 updated CEQA checklist became the new standard. Regulatory Framework California State Building Regulation California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2022 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technol ogies and methods. The 2022 Standards continues to improve upon the previous 2019 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 20 22 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the prior 2008 standards as a result o f better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. While the 20 22 standards do not achieve zero net energy, they do get very close to the state’s goal and make important steps toward changing residential building practices in California. The 2022 standards move towards cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of 3 stories and less. Four key areas the 2022 standards will focus on include 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requir ements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements.. California Building Code: CALGreen. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2019. The 2019 CALGreen became effective on January 1, 2020. - 20- Senate Bill 350. Senate Bill 350 (de Leon), was signed into law in September 2015. SB 350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures. SB 100. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which replaces the SB 350 requirement of 45 percent renewable energy by 2027 with the requirement of 50 percent by 2026 and raises California’s RPS requirements for 2050 from 50 percent to 60 percent. SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target. Local Regulation The City’s Green Element outlines goals and policies conserve energy during the construction and operation of buildings. Key goals and policies from the Green Element regarding new construction are: • Goal 15.2: Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve energy. Policy 15.2(1): Encourage increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development (e.g., orienting buildings to maximize exposure to cooling effects of prevailing winds and locating landscaping and landscape structures to shade buildings). Policy 15.2(2): Encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings throughout the City. • Goal 17.1: Encourage building and site design standards that reduce energy costs. Policy 17.1(1): Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure features such as daylighting design, natural ventilation, space planning and thermal massing. During construction, the proposed Project would utilize main forms of available energy supply; electricity, natural gas, and oil. Construction of the proposed Project, would result in energy consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance of water used for dust control, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities that requi re electrical power. Construction activities typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. However, construction activities would also consume energy in the form of petroleum -based fuels associated with the use of off- road construction vehicles and equipment, round-trip construction worker travel to the Project site, and delivery and haul truck trips. Construction activities would comply with CARB’s “In -Use Off- Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation”, which limits engine idling times to reduce harmful emissions and reduce wasteful consumption of petroleum -based fuel. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would reduce short-term energy demand during the proposed Project’s construction to the extent feasible, and proposed Project construction would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Therefore, during construction no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project is a residential Project, where its intensities and uses have been considered in EIR No. 350 and would be implemented pursuant the BBSP. The proposed Project would comply with State and Local regulations, in compliance with building codes, as they pertain to energy efficiency, therefore during operation, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact - 21- a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis: • Geotechnical Investigation Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue City of Anaheim, California Alta California Geotechnical, Inc, December 08, 2020 & Geotechnical Update Letter, Alta California Geotechnical, Inc., August 07, 2023 (Appendix A) Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the geotechnical and soils impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.4. Further, the analysis in EIR No. 350 relied upon an approved Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared for the proposed Project: Geotechnical Investigation Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue City of Anaheim, California. According to EIR No. 350, the area regulated by the BBSP, including the Project site, is not on a known fault. Therefore, there - 22- is no potential for the rupture of a known earthquake fault in the Project site. No impacts related to an earthquake rupture would occur and no mitigation measures are required. The Project site is subject to ground shaking and potential damage in the event of seismic activity (Seismic Zone 4, encompassing most of southern California). The Project site could be subject to moderate and possibly strong ground motion due to the proximity and potential earthquake magnitude of these faults, which would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Based on a review of the Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Anaheim Quadrangle, the entire regulated by the BBSP is within a liquefaction zone, including the Project site. Appendix A analyzed the Project site specifically and found fill material overlying native alluvial deposits. The fill material generally consists of dense silty sand, clayey sand with scattered gravel. Appendix A indicates that groundwater was encountered from 17 to 19 feet below the surface. Liquefaction occurs at depths shallower than 50-feet and occurs with generally loose, relatively clean granular soils and low plasticity silts. Appendix A identified groundwater shallower than 50-feet with fill material consisting of dense silty sand, clayey sand with scattered gravel, would not create as susceptible conditions as with looser soil material. Appendix A also makes conclusions regarding liquefaction potentials in respect to loss of bearing, lateral spreading, settlement, flow failure and dry sand settlement. Liquefaction c an potentially cause foundation bearing failure due to ground softening and near -failure in bearing, however, based on removal recommendations established in Appendix A, the potential for loss of bearing would be minimal. Lateral displacement can occur as a result of liquefaction in a subsurface layer and Appendix A determines the potential for lateral spread based on presence of continuous potentially liquefiable soil layers underneath the structures, present of lateral confinement and vari ous analyses including empirical modeling. Appendix A identifies recommended unsuitable soil removals and foundation desig n recommendations to ensure later spread would be within design tolerances. Settlement due to seismic shaking can occur as a result of liquefaction and saturated sediments or rearrangement of dry sand particles. Appendix A contains an analysis and calculations and makes recommendations pertaining to dynamic settlement design. Appendix A identifies that flow failure would be minimal due to the Project site’s flat nature and relatively horizontal deposition of its underlying deposits. Dry sand settlement is the process of non‐uniform settlement of the ground surface during a seismic event. Appendix A identifies that the potential for dry and sand settlement is low and within foundation design tolerances, based on subsurface investigations and removal/re-compaction recommendations. The proposed Project would comply with all relevant Federal, State and local regulations. As such, the liquefaction potential of the Project site is consistent with the analysis with EIR No. 350, therefore no new impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Construction of the proposed Project would disturb large amounts of soil during site grading and construction, and thus could cause widespread erosion if effective erosion control measures were not used. Erosion control measures to be specified in Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) – that would be prepared and implemented for each Project developed pursuant to the BBSP. EIR No. 350 identified a potential for expansive soils within the confines of the area regulated by the BBSP. However, according to Appendix on-site soils are expected to have low expansive soil indices when considering soil import and owner improvements. Geology and soils impacts related to future development in the rea regulated by the BBSP, including the Project site would involve hazards related to site-specific soil conditions, erosion, and ground-shaking during earthquakes. The impacts on each site would be specific to that site and its users and would not be common or contribute to the impacts (or shared with, in an additive sense) on other sites. In addition, development on each site would be subject to existing regulations and standards that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, cumulative geology and soils impacts would be less than significant. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement is a residential development that is consistent with the standards of the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the Project: - 23- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the potential impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.5. A typical Project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. Implementation of the BBSP could increase GHG emissions through new construction and an increase in vehicle trips. Recommended mitigation measures would ensure that GHG emissions from buildout of the BBSP would be minimized. EIR No. 350 concluded that although implementation of the BBSP, including the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and although feasible mitigation measures would be incorporated into the implementation of the BBSP, the magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions would remain cumulatively considerable and the impact to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential impacts. As previously noted, the 1.72-acre Project site is within the Mixed Use High Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 60 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 103 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35 . The Project Applicant is proposing to construct a residential development consisting of 44 townhomes. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Implementation of Air Quality Mitigation Measures (AQ-5 and AQ-6) and Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures (T-1, T-2 and T-3) from MMRP No. 342, would reduce impacts relative to GHG emissions. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? - 24- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017 -1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.6. Onsite construction equipment might require routine or emergency maintenance that could result in the release of oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. Therefore, the proposed Project will require implementation of mitigation measures from EIR No. 350, adopted to minimize any impacts. Construction activities could expose the public and, in particular, construction personnel, to hazardous substances. Contaminated structures or soils could also expose workers to health or safety risks (e.g., mold and lead). With implementation of mitigation, including compliance with the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law, potential impacts related to hazardous material on or near the Project site would be reduced to less than significant levels. The Project site is not within the airport’s land use plan and is outside of the areas where land uses are regulated respecting air crash hazards, and areas where heights of structures are limited to prevent airspace obstructions for aircraft approaching or departing Fullerton Municipal Airport. Additionally, since the Project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and the nearest heliport is North Net Training Authority Heliport, approximately 6.8 miles to the southeast (Airnav.com 2021), the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area regulated by the BBSP. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Operation activities not anticipated to have any impacts on an established emergency response plan. The proposed Project will require implementation of mitigation measures from EIR No. 350, adopted to minimize any impacts. The Project site and properties within its vicinity consist of urban uses and are not adjacent to any wildland. The proposed Project would not expose people or structure to significant safety impacts due to wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would provide a stormwater treatment control best management practice (BMP) that would intercept first - 25- flush runoffs through two subsurface infiltration systems (i.e., Contech corrugated metal pipe infiltration systems or approv ed equivalent), where stormwater would be infiltrated into the subsoil onsite prior to entering the regional storm drain system. The BBSP encourages sustainable community development incentives, and the contribution of hazardous materials use and hazardous waste disposal would be minimal. Moreover, the existing regulations would ensure that the cumulative impact of hazardous materials release or emissions from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Projects in the vicinity would be less than significant. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures that would be demolished in conjunction with individual development Projects pursuant to the Proposed Project, the Project Applicant applicant/developer shall conduct the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Anahe im with a copy of the report of each investigation or assessment. • The Project applicant shall retain a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) to perform abatement Project planning, monitoring (including air monitoring), oversight, and reporting of all asbestos -containing materials (ACM) encountered. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all ACM shall be conducted in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403 and California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1529 (Asbestos). • The Project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified lead inspector/assessor to conduct the abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered. The contracted lead inspector/assessor shall be certified by the California Departmen t of Public Health (CDPH). All lead abatement shall be performed by a CDPH-certified lead supervisor or a CDPH-certified worker under the direct supervision of a lead supervisor certified by CDPH. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered shall be conducted in accordance with the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Rule 29, CFR Part 1926, and California Code of Regulation, Title 8, Section 1532.1 (Lead). • Evidence of the contracted professionals retained by the Project applicant shall be provided to the City of Anaheim. Additionally, contractors performing ACM and lead waste removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City of Anaheim. HAZ-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for individual development Projects that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project, the Project Applicant applicant/developer shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City of Anaheim to identify environmental conditions of the development site and determine whether contamination is present. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR 312.10 and in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527.05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. If recognized environmental conditions related to soils are identified in the Phase I ESA, the Project applicant shall perform soil, groundwater, and/or vapor sampling as a part of a Phase II ESA. If contamination is found at significant levels, the Project applicant shall remediate all contaminated soils in accordance with state and local agency requirements (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Anaheim Fire & Rescue, etc.). All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report documenting the completion, results, and any follo w- up remediation on the recommendations, if any, shall be p rovided to the City of Anaheim evidencing that all site remediation activities have been completed. X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Project: - 26- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis: • Geotechnical Investigation Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue City of Anaheim, California Alta California Geotechnical, Inc, December 08, 2020 & Geotechnical Update Letter, Alta California Geotechnical, Inc., August 07, 2023 (Appendix A) • Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Study S. Beach Boulevard & W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA TTM 19286 TECH2023-01477, C&V Consulting, August 2023. (Appendix B) - 27- • County of Orange/Santa Ana Region City of Anaheim Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan TTM 19286, C&V Consulting, August 2023 (Appendix C) Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the hydrology and water quality impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.7. According to EIR No. 350, implementation of the BBSP could result in short-term construction-related and long-term operational water quality impacts. However, compliance with Federal, State, Regional and Local standard and regulatory requirements reduces these impacts. Although direct impacts to the underlying groundwater resources would not occur, indirect impacts associated with the anticipated increase in long-term demand for domestic water, landscape irrigation, and maintenance activities would be significant. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce demand for groundwater resources. The proposed Project is an attached single-family residential development consisting of 44 townhomes within the BBSP. Urban runoff, during both dry and wet weather conditions, discharges into storm drains, and in most cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff can have harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. The Project site has drainage outlets along the westerly edge, discharging into the public street gutter in Laxore Street. This closely follows the existing drainage pattern of the previous retail development which is being demolished and replaced by th e proposed Project. Ultimately the surface flows in Laxore will travel southerly, and discharge into the Carbon Creek Channel located approximately 1,000-ft south of the Project. According to the City of Anaheim Master Plan of Storm Drainage for Carbon Creek Channel Tributary Area indicates the Project site is within Drainage Basin 2. Drainage Basin 2 has a tributary area of approximately 286 -acres with 13 drainage areas. The Project site is located within Drainage Area 2-1. While the City recommends upgrading a portion of the existing storm drain within the drainage area to accommodate the flood width criteria, the Project site is not tributary to the storm drain segment with recommended improvements. Runoff from the proposed Project would be collected and conveyed via surface flow and through area drains towards curb-inlet catch basins located at relative low points on-site. The catch basins will convey flows to Modular Wetlands Systems (MWS) Biofiltration vaults for water quality treatment. The proposed Project would rely on storm drains and various gutters for emergency overflow, which would direct sheet flow to Lincoln Avenue and Laxore Street toward the right-of-way at their respective proposed driveway locations. Upon entering the public right-of-way, proposed drainage runoff will follow the historic drainage pattern of the site and drain to the existing Carbon Creek Channel. Construction Impact During construction, there is the potential for short-term surface water quality impacts. Such impacts include runoff of loose soils and/or a variety of construction wastes and fuels that could be carried off -site in surface runoff and into local storm drains and streets that drain eventually into water resources. The proposed Project would be required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP includes BMPs to reduce water quality impacts, including various measures to control on-site erosion, reduce sediment flows into storm water and wind erosion; reduce tracking of soil and debris into adjacent roadways and off -site areas; and manage wastes, materials, wastewater, liquids, hazardous materials, stockpiles, equipment, and other site conditions to prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the provisions of the NPDES permit and compliance with City grading requirements would minimize construction impacts through BM Ps that reduce construction-related pollutants. Therefore, impacts would be less- than-significant and no mitigation measures are required. Operational Impact Stormwater runoff from the proposed Project has the potential to introduce small amounts of pollutants into the stormwater system. The Project site is currently 90 percent impervious and a post development condition as a result of the proposed Project would be approximately 82 percent impervious. The proposed Project would result in less imperviousness that would generate a decreased peak runoff volume and flowrate. The Project site will be graded to convey stormwater as surface flow towards proposed curb‐inlet catch basins, located at relative low points on‐site. The catch basins will convey flows to proposed MWS for water quality treatment through a proposed underground storm drain system, ultimately discharging into the Laxore Street right-of-way, mimicking the existing and historical drainage flows. A pump is proposed to bring the treated stormwater from the MWS unit, which is underground, to outlet into a parkway culvert in Laxore Street. Additionally, prior to the issuance of a - 28- building permit for the proposed Project, the Project applicant would have to comply with all applicable regulations and obtain a NPDES stormwater permit to indicate that the Project features BMPs. As such, the proposed Project would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or stormwater NPDES standards, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required. The City receives approximately 75 percent of its water supply from groundwater from Orange County Basin (OC Basin) and 25 percent from imported water. The OC Basin, managed by Orange County Water District (OCWD). It underlies the northerly half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands and covers approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City owns and operates a network of groundwater wells to supply potable water to their users. The City is currently using a small amount of recycled water and is planning to increase its water use in the future. The proposed Project would create an increased demand for water, which could lead to an increase in groundwater pumping. However, a replenishment assessment fee is levied on cities in accordance with the Orange County Water District Act for the amount of groundwater extracted, and this fee is used by OCWD for various groundwater replenishment programs to ensure that no overdraft of local groundwater resources occurs. OCWD’s groundwater is recharged primarily through artificial replenishment, not natural recharge. Additionally, the Project site is not a groundwater recharge area, and the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required. The area regulated by the BBSP, including the Project site is in the inundation zone for Prado Dam (Anaheim 2004a), which is on the Santa Ana River and approximately 20 miles east from the Project site. However, due to the length of time required for water to reach the Project site if the Prado Dam were to fail, and the lack of appreciable amounts of water behind the Prado Dam, implementation of the BBSP would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death in the case of dam failure, and impacts are considered to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. No impact involving arising from a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur and no mitigation measures are required. While the proposed Project could generate increased pollutants during construction, to minimize these potential impacts, the Project will be required to comply with the NPDES CGP as well as prepare a SWPPP. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? - 29- Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the land use impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.8. EIR No. 340 concluded The area regulated by the BBSP consists of residential and commercial uses surrounded by a mixture of uses such as commercial, industrial, recreational, and residential. Land uses of the BBSP would be compatible with various uses in the area and would not physically divide an established community. Impacts would not be significant and no mitigation measures are required. The BBSP required a General Plan amendment, Municipal Code amendment, and amendment of the zoning map to reclassify approximately 232.8 acres of certain real property, to provide consistency between the BBSP and the General Plan. Implementation of the BBSP would allow for additional jobs, restaurants, residential, and other support services and uses, supported by necessary infrastructure and sustainable features. Future individual development Projects would be subject to compliance with the local and regional plans, programs, and policies in order to ensure orderly urban development. Implementation of the BBSP would not result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts. The area regulated by the BBSP consists of residential and commercial uses and roadway improvements, and it is not part of any habitat or natural community conservation plans. The nearest habitat conservation plan area, the NCCP area, generally lie s south of SR-91 and east of SR-55, approximately ten miles to the east. The BBSP would not conflict with any applicable habitat or natural conservation plans. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would be a residential development consisting of 44 townhomes. The proposed Project would be consistent with the BBSP land uses and zoning. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Narrative Summary: No Impact. The Project site is not located in an area with active mining operations. According to the California Department of Mines and Geology, there are no mineral resources or mining operations currently located within the Project site. No impacts would occur. The proposed Project is a single-family attached residential development that would be consistent with the BBSP and therefore the no impacts would occur. - 30- XIII. NOISE -- Would the Project result in: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the noise impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.9. Regulatory Framework California State Noise Regulation The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a general plan that includes a noise element which is to be prepared according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The purpose of the noise element is to “limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels.” California Code of Regulations, Title 24. The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise -sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major tran sportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA (Community Noise Equivalent Level) CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45dBA CNEL. City of Anaheim City of Anaheim General Plan. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan contains noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses throughout the City. These standards and criteria are used in the land use planning process to reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities. The standards shown in the table are the primary tool that allows the Cit y to ensure integrated planning for compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise. City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance AMC Chapter 6.70. The City has the authority to set land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that generate excessive or intrusive noise. The applicable standards for these activities are - 31- specified in the AMC. The AMC limits sound levels for stationary sources of noise radiated for extended periods from any premises in excess of 60 decibels at the property line. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises with in the City is also exempt from the applications of the AMC during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. AMC Section 18.040.090.060. The Planning Commission may grant a deviation from the requirements pertaining to exterior noise levels, given that all of the following conditions exist: • The deviation does not exceed 5 dB above the prescribed levels for exterior noise; and • Measures to attenuate noise to the prescribed levels would compromise or conflict with the aesthetic value of the Project. EIR No. 350 determined that development in the BBSP, including the proposed Project would have the potential to increase noise levels due to an increase in vehicle trips, outdoor use of proposed open space and recreation areas, and stationary sources, including mechanical systems. In addition, demolition and construction activities could generate substantial noise affecting existing residents within the BBSP boundary and in the surrounding areas. Groundborne vibration or noise would primarily be associated with construction activities. Temporary increased levels of vibration could impact vibration-sensitive land uses. The proposed Project would not be in proximity to sensitive vibration sensitive land uses. Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the area regulated by the BBSP and at adjacent land uses. The City of Anaheim recognizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and provides an exemption for this type of noise when the work takes place within the hours specified in Section 6.70.010 of the City’s Municipal Code (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Mitigation measures from MMRP No. 342 would be required as conditions of approval for the proposed Project. These measures would significantly reduce short-term noise levels. There are no public airports within two miles of the proposed Project and the Project site does not lie within the 65 CNEL contour of any public airport. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose future residents or workers to excessive noise levels from aircraft. No private airstrip–related impacts would occur; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts would be addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): N-1: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on plans for grading, demolition, and construction activities, indicating that the property owner/developer Project Applicant shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction -related noise: • Construction activity is limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., as prescribed in the City’s Municipal Code (Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or Building Official). • All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. • Stationary equipment such as generators, air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive uses. • Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors • Construction traffic shall be limited to the established haul routes. N-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, each Project applicant within the Project area the Project Applicant shall prepare a construction management plan that shall be approved by the City of Anaheim Public Works. The construction management plan shall: • Establish truck haul routes on the appropriate transportation facilities. Truck routes that avoid congested streets and sensi tive land uses shall be considered. • Provide Traffic Control Plans (for detours and temporary road closures) that meet the minimum City criteria. Traffic control plans shall determine if dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction truck and equipment on and offsite are available. • Minimize offsite road closures during the peak hours. • Keep all construction-related traffic onsite at all times. - 32- • Provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. N-3: Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for new residential or subdivision developments within the Project Area involving the construction of two or more dwelling units, or residential subdivisions resulting in two or more parcels, and located within six-hundred feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, are required to the Project Applicant shall submit a noise level analysis, which must include mitigation measures that comply with applicable City noise standards including the following: • 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 65 dB CNEL; interior noise levels shall be attenuated to a maximum of 45 dB CNEL, or to a level designated by the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City (identified in Section 18.40.090). • Exterior noise within common recreation areas of any single family attached or multiple family dwelling Project shall be attenuated to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL; interior noise levels shall be attenuated to a maximum of 45 dB CNEL, or to a level designated by the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City (identified in Section 18.40.090). The Planning Commission may grant a deviation from the requirements pertaining to exterior noise levels, given that all of the following conditions e xist (Section 18.040.090.060): • The deviation does not exceed 5 dB above the prescribed levels for exterior noise; and • Measures to attenuate noise to the prescribed levels would compromise or conflict with the aesthetic value of the Project. In addition, residential portions of the mixed-use the proposed Project shall be designed to limit the interior noise caused by adjacent commercial uses and parking areas portions of the Project to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room with windows closed. Commercial uses shall be designed and operated, and hours of operation limited so neighboring residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries, and/or late -night activities. No use shall produce continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at the site between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (Section 18.32.130, Compatibility Standards). The required exterior noise reduction can be accomplished with sound walls or berms, or by site plan/building layout design. The required interior noise reduction can be accomplished with enhanced construction design or materials such as upgraded dual-glazed windows and/or upgraded exterior wall assemblies. These features shall be shown on all building plans and incorporated into construction of the Project. City inspectors shall verify compliance of the building with the acoustic report’s recommendations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. N-4: Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants for Projects within the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan that if the proposed Project involves high-vibration construction activities, such as pile driving or vibratory rolling/compacting, said activities shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The Project applicant shall submit a vibration report prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim to determine if the use of pile driving and/or vibratory rolling/compacting equipment would exceed the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) vibration -annoyance criteria of 78 VdB during the daytime or FTA’s vibration-induced architectural damage PPV criteria of 0.2 inches/second for wood -framed structures or 0.5 inches/second for reinforced masonry buildings. The construction contractor shall require the use of lower vibration-producing equipment and techniques. Examples of lower-vibration equipment and techniques would include avoiding the use of vibratory rollers near sensitive areas and/or the use of drilled piles, sonic pile driving, or vibratory pile driving (as opposed to impact pile driving). XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? - 33- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 3 50/No impact. EIR No. 350 analyzed the population and housing impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.10. The BBSP allows for build-out that would result in a net increase of approximately 3,496 residential units accommodating an additional 16,166 residents. As previously noted, the 1.72-acre Project site is within the Mixed Use High Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed -use configuration at a density of up to 60 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 103 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct a development consisting of 44 townhomes. Based on the average household size of 3.36 persons per household (Department of Finance, 2020), the proposed Project could generate approximately 148 residents. This would result in less than 1-percent of the planned residential increase identified in the BBSP. Although implementation of the proposed Project would result in direct and indirect growth in the area, EIR No. 350 determined that implementation of the BBSP would be generally consistent with SCAG’s growth management policies that aim to better coordinate infrastructure development with Projected population, housing, and employment growth. Also, it presents opportunities for the City to meet its RHNA allocation and better house the substantial amount of people working in the City. In addition, it would not exceed the APA’s recommended target range for jobs -housing ratios at the county level. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated. EIR No. 350 determined that impacts would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, i n order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the impacts on public services related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.11. EIR No. 350 determined that implementation of the BBSP could have a substantial demand for fire and police protection services, school services, parks, and libraries. Fire - 34- The proposed Project would construct an attached residential development consisting of 44 townhomes and appurtenant passive open space areas. As discussed in section XV. Population and Housing, the proposed Project would generate approximately 148 residents, which would be less than one-percent increase compared to the BBSP. As a result, the proposed Project would not substantially impact Anaheim Fire & Rescue’s (AF&R) ability to meet response time goals and the deployment conditions individually or cumulatively. Additional fire personnel and associated facilities and equipment would be provided through the annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program review process that would evaluate not only implementation of the BBSP but other Projects in the City. This periodic review process would ensure adequate service throughout the City and no significant cumulative impact is anticipated to occur. Police The proposed Project, in conjunction with other development in the City, would increase the overall police services demands for Anaheim Police Department (APD). The proposed Project would generate approximately 148 residents, which would be less than one-percent increase compared to the BBSP. The BBSP identified buildout of the area along with other City development would occur over an extended period of time, and the actual needs for police protection staff and facilities woul d be assessed annually with the budget allocation process. This periodic review process would ensure adequate service throughout the City and no significant cumulative impact is anticipated to occur. Schools The proposed Project would construct 44 with approximately 148 residents and this increase in residents would increase the demand for school facilities. However, compliance with the fee program established by SB 50 would mitigate this impact. Library The proposed Project would construct a horizontal mixed-use development consisting of 44 townhomes with approximately 148 residents and this would increase services demand in the current library system. 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 ca pita of books, media, computers, and library public service space. Therefore, in order to maintain current per capita levels and lice nsing agreements, the City would need to provide additional physical and virtual resources to the Anaheim library system. However, 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, project -related impacts to library facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Parks See Section XVI Recreation. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts from build-out of the BBSP would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XVI. RECREATION -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? - 35- b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the impacts to recreation and recreational facilities related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.12. The proposed Project would construct a residential development consisting of 44 townhomes. The proposed Project would generate approximately 148 residents, which would be a less than 1 percent increase compared to the BBSP. Residents living at the Project site would utilize the various public park and recreation facilities in proximity to the Project site. The following City Parks have been identified within approximately one-mile radius of the Project site; Schweitzer Park, Twila Reid Park and Maxwell Park. The closest regional park to the Project site is Ralph B. Clark Regional Park, approximately five miles to the north. The number of residents introduced by the proposed Project would not create a demand that would exacerbate the physical deterioration of these parks. Furthermore, The proposed Project would be subject to the state’s Quimby Act and AMC Section 17.274.010, which requires development Projects to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay in -lieu fees for park improvements. Therefore, cumulative recreational impacts are not considered significant. EIR No. 350 determined that upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant, and therefore not mitigation measures are necessary or included in MMRP No. 342. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Since no mitigation measures were adopted in MMRP No. 342, none would be applicable to the proposed Project. XVII. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis: • Anaheim Nolin II Trip Generation Assessment and VMT Assessment, FEHR & PEERS, November 6, 2023 (Appendix D) Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the transportation and traffic impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017 -1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.13. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and Level of Service (LOS) from consideration for transportation impacts - 36- under CEQA. The adopted guidelines, evaluates transportation impacts based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Lead agencies were allowed to continue using their current impact criteria until June 30, 2020, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. In late 2019, State courts stated that under section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing l aw is that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congesti on shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. While the Proposed Project does not create a significant impact through LOS or delay, for the purposes of this recent court decision, t he Proposed Project was also screened for VMT analysis. On June 23, 2020, the City of Anaheim City Council adopted the VMT Thresholds of Significance for purpose of analyzing transportation impacts and also approved the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis. Based on the City Guidelines, the proposed Project type is one of the screening thresholds that could be used for determining if a VMT analysis is required. As noted previously, on June 23, 2020, the City adopted the Vehicle Miles Travelled Thresholds of Significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts and also approved the TIA Guidelines. Per the City’s TIA Guidelines, certain projects tha t meet specific screening criteria are presumed to have a less than significant impact with respect to CEQA Section 15064.3 absent substantial evidence to the contrary (City of Anaheim 2020e). There are three project -screening types that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment. A project only needs to fulfill one of the screening types below to qualify for screening. These screening types are summarized below: Type 1: Transit Priority Area Screening. A Transit Priority Area is defined as a half-mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. Projects located within a Transit Priority Area may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project has a total floor area ratio of less than 0.75, includes more parking for use by residents, custom ers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction, Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate - or high-income residential units. Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening. A low VMT-generating area is an area that has a VMT per service population metric that is 15% below the County average. Residential and office projects located within a low VMT -generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Other employment -related and mixed-use projects within a low VMT-generating area may also be presumed to have a less than significant impact if the project can reasonably be expected to generate a VMT per service population metric similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area. Type 3: Project Type Screening. Some project types are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature. Projects that are presumed to have a less tha n significant impact due to their local serving nature include local -serving K-12 schools, neighborhood and community parks, day care centers, certain local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses, community and religious assembly uses, public services, local-serving community colleges, affordable or supportive housing, convalescent and rest homes, senior housing, and projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips. The proposed Project qualifies for a Type 1 and Type 2 screening criteria. Under the Type 1 screening, the proposed Project is within a TPA, but does not meet the additional criteria for TPA screening, the Proposed Project is not recommended to be screened under the Type 1 VMT criteria, based on the following analysis: 1. Must have total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than 0.75; The 44 unit attached single-family housing has a 44% site coverage at three stories tall, making the Project’s FAR higher than 0.75. 2. Cannot include more parking for use by residents than the City municipal code requires; the Project is providing the minimum number of spaces as required by the Municipal Code. 3. Cannot be inconsistent with the Southern California Regional Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); According to the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) that the Project is located in assumes growth from the 2016 base year to the 2045 future year of 68 households. The 44-unit Project is smaller than the assumed growth in the RTP/SCS and is therefore consistent. 4. Cannot replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate - or high income residential units; the Project is not replacing any units. Because the proposed Project would not meet the third additional criteria as discussed above, the proposed Project would not be screened under a Type 1 screening threshold. Under the Type 2 screening, The proposed Project is located in a Low VMT Area, as identified in Attachment B of Appendix D - Daily VMT per Service Population in Anaheim TAZs as Compared to the Orange County Average (2012). The proposed - 37- Project is located in TAZ 332 which is bound by Beach Boulevard, Lincoln Avenue, Dale Avenue and Crescent Avenue, as shown in Attachment D of Appendix D - Eastern Anaheim OCTAM TAZs. Attachment C of Appendix D - OCTAM Socioeconomic Data shows that the baseline assumptions for TAZ 332 include 646 households. The households within the TAZ 332 boundary include market rate apartments, senior living apartments and single-family homes. The proposed Project, which proposes to build more residential homes, are similar to the existing TAZ land use. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a similar VMT per resident which is more than 15% below the County of Orange average VMT per service population and would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT Type 2 criteria. While the revised CEQA Guidelines prohibit a Lead Agency from using vehicle delay and LOS to evaluate a proposed Project’s transportation impact, the following analysis provides the proposed Project’s consistency with these policies, as well as the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for informational purposes. As evaluated in EIR No. 350, traffic impacts associated with buildout of the BBSP would result in significant impacts at 20 area intersections, and four roadway segments. Proposed improvements have been recommended for identified impacts; however, since the impacted facilities are under Caltrans or City of Buena Park control, Anaheim cannot guarantee that these mitigation measures will be implemented and therefore the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Improvement measures were developed to minimize the impact of implementation of the BBSP on the study intersections and roadway segments. These improvements were developed in order to bring operations back to acceptable or pre -Project conditions The proposed Project is a residential development consisting of 44 townhomes, within the BBSP. The Trip Generation Memo conducted by Fehr & Peers determined that the proposed Project would generate approximately 317 net new daily trips, with approximately 21 net new trips during the AM peak hour and approximately 25 net new trips during the PM peak hour. In accordance to the BBSP, and the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, the proposed Project would generate fewer than 100 trips during AM/PM peak hour, which does not require a Level of Service assessment. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. As previously noted, the 1.72-acre Project site is within the Mixed-Use High Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 60 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 103 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. The following mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342 would address any impacts and will be conditions of approval for the proposed Project (minor changes have been made to the measures to make them applicable to the Project Applicant; deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold): T-3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer Project Applicant shall pay all applicable transportation impact fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effe ct at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City -authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established. - 38- XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in §21074? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the tribal cultural resources impacts related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017 -1, which includes the Project site. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.14. According to EIR No. 350, The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the ancestral tribal group, did not identify any recorded Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) on or near the area regulated by the BBSP. However, it is possible that buried TCRs could be present within the area during ground-disturbing activities. With implementation of mitigation measures, it would be required to protect these resources if they are uncovered during grading activities. The discovery of buried resourc es within the BBSP area would not contribute cumulatively to potential TCRs impacts in the region. Consequently, impacts to TCRs would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts would be addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant: TCR-1: Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground -disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than current foundations, the Project applicant/developer shall retain qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction - related ground disturbance activities. The monitor(s) shall be approved by the Tribal Representatives of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and be present on-site during construction that involve ground disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) shall be responsible for the following activities during the monitoring, as appropriate: • Complete monitoring logs on a daily basis, providing descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. • If the monitoring site has hazardous materials concerns, the monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) certification. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for tribal cultural resources. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? - 39- b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? This section utilizes the following technical studies in its analysis: • 39 Commons Development Sewer Analysis GHD, April 18, 2020 (Appendix E) Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed the impacts to utilities and service systems related to the implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1. Refer to EIR No. 350, Section 5.15. Wastewater. The proposed Project would be served by the Anaheim Public Works Department for wastewater (sanitary sewer) collection service. Wastewater generated in the City is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The City’s existing sewer network in the vicinity of the proposed Project consists of an 8-inch sewer main on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, an 8-inch sewer main on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a 15 -inch sewer main near the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. The three parallel sewer mains flow westerly and converge at Manhole SW012307. The sewer main continues westerly as an 18-inch main after the confluence until reaching the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewer outfall at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue. The proposed Project would connect to Manhole SW013123, where the flows enter a 15” main in Lincoln and proceed westerly along Lincoln until they reach an Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewer outfall at Western and Lincoln. Appendix E studied the Project site south of Lincoln Avenue. The study does not analyze the Project site along Beach Boulevard, as the City’s Public Works department has identified no concern regarding sewer impacts and Appendix E identifies that there would be no downstream deficiencies from the southerly 8-inch sewer main on Beach Boulevard. Appendix E conservatively estimates 150 dwelling units (du), with a generation factor of 215 gallons per day (gpd)/du, with a sewer loading capacity of 32,250 gpd. The project proposes to construct 44 dwelling units (du) of the planned 150 du for this sub-area. The study demonstrates that with the build out of the proposed project, no existing downstream sewer main from the project site to the westerly outfall to the OCSD trunk main will have a flow depth exceeding 50% of the capacity of the pipe . The analysis revealed the additional sewer loadings from both developments will not cause any hydraulic deficiencies in the pipelines downstream of the Study Area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Impacts would be addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. Water: APUD, Water Services Division, operates the City’s water production and distribution system. The City of Anaheim 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA). The UWMPA requires every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 AF of water annually to prepare, adopt, and file a UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) eve ry five years in the years ending in zero and five. The 2015 UWMP provides water supply planning for a 25-year planning period in five (5)-year increments and identifies water supplies needed to meet existing and future demands. The demand analysis must identify supply reliability under three hydrologic - 40- conditions: a normal year, a single-year, and multiple dry years. The City’s service area is approximately 49.63 square miles and includes approximately 63,800 municipal connections. The City relies on a combination of approximately 70 percent local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) and 30 percent imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project supplies provided by the Municipal Water District (MWD). The current water system includes eight (8) import connections to MWD, 18 active wells, 14 water reservoirs, and approximately 752 miles of water mains. The City also maintains 14 interconnections with neighboring cities and districts to supply water during emergency situations. In 2015 , the City supplied a volume of approximately 62,053 AF of water to municipal customers. In its most recent UWMP, the City determined that it would have reliable supplies to meet single-and multiple dry-year demands from 2020 through 2040, even with a six percent increase from 2015 demand totals. Total demand is expected to increase from 62,050 AF in 2020 to 67,143 AF in 2040. Demand would be met through diversified supply and water conservation measures. The UWMP also includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that describes policies that MWD and the City have in place to respond to catastrophic interruption and reduction in water supply. The proposed Project would not exceed water supplies or result in a significant increase in water demand. In addition, as previously noted the 1.72-acre Project site is within the Mixed-Use High Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 60 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 103 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35 ; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 44 du of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Impacts would be addressed by mitigation set forth i n MMRP No. 342. Stormwater. On-site grading and drainage improvements proposed in conjunction with the proposed site work would be required to meet the City’s and Orange County Flood Control District’s (OCFCD) flood control criteria including design discharges, design/construction standards and maintenance features. The proposed Project’s runoff has the potential to introduce small amounts of pollutants into the stormwater system. The Project site is currently 90 percent impervious and a post development condition as a result of the proposed Project would be approximately 80 percent impervious. The proposed Project would result in less imperviousness that would generate a decreased peak runoff volume and flowrate. The Project site will be graded to convey stormwater as surface flow towards proposed curb‐inlet catch basins, located at relative low points on‐site. The catch basins will convey flows to proposed MWS for water quality treatment through a proposed underground storm drain system, ultimately discharging into Laxore Street right-of-way via proposed pump vaults. Proposed connection points for the pump vault force mains consist of proposed parkway culverts adjacent to Laxore Street. The storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed via surface flow and through area drains towards five proposed curb‐inlet catch basins within the proposed private drive aisle which are equipped with Dvert system to divert low flows to a proposed MWS Biofiltration vault for water quality treatment. Additionally, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed Project, the Project applicant would have to comply with all applicable regulations and obtain a NPDES stormwater permit to indicate that the Project features BMPs. As such, the proposed Project would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or stormwater NPDES standards, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less-than- significant and no mitigation measures are required. Electrical Power: Anaheim Public Utilities (APU) provides electricity to the City of Anaheim, including the area regulated by the BBSP and the Project site. The proposed Project would require modification and upgrades to the existing electrical facilities (e.g., underground and overhead cables, conduits, transformers, switches, high voltage lines, etc.) to accommodate new development. The electrical lines are owned by Southern California Edison (SCE), and could be moved underground as part of buildout. Implementation of the BBSP would require compliance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and would be required to coordinate with the City’s Electrical Engineering Division and comply with the City of Anaheim’s Rates, Rules, and Regulations. As previously noted, the 1.72-acre Project site is within the Mixed Use High Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed -use configuration at a density of up to 60 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 103 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; the Project Applicant is proposing to construct 44 du of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides gas service in the City of Anaheim and has facilities throughout the City, including the area regulated by the BBSP and the Project site. Although SCG serves the area regulated by the BBSP, change in land use from industrial and commercial uses to residential and retail would require changes in supply system. However, the improvements would occur in accordance with the SCG’s policies and extension rules on file with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) when the contractual agreements between the Applicant and SCG are made. The availability of natural gas service is based on present gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, SCG is under the auspices of the PUC and federal regulatory agencies. Private services provide telecommunication services to the City of - 41- Anaheim, including the area regulated by the BBSP and the Project site. Telecommunications: The proposed Project is located within an urbanized area within the City of Anaheim. As such, the area is adequately served by telecommunications facilities. The proposed Project would include on-site connections to off-site telecommunication services and facilities in the immediate area of the Project site. Additionally, facilities and infrastructure for the various telecommunication providers are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. The proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required. Solid Waste: Solid waste services in the City are provided by Republic Services, a private recycling and non -hazardous solid waste hauler. Republic Services is responsible for all residential, commercial, and industrial waste and recycling services. Solid waste is disposed of in Orange County Waste and Recycling Landfills. Currently, there are three active landfills in the Count y: Olinda Alpha, Frank R. Bowerman, and Prima Deshecha. The landfills are among the largest statewide and receive more than four million tons of waste annually. Olinda-Alpha Landfill in the City of Brea accepts up to 8,000 tons per day (tpd) and has a remaining capacity of 34,200,000 cubic yards (cy). Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine accepts up to 11,500 tpd and has a remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cy. Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano accepts up to 4,000 tpd and has a remaining capacity of 134,300,000 cy. The proposed Project would construct 44 townhomes. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) soil waste generation rates, a residential development produces approximately 12.23 pounds/household/day and commercial retail would produce approximately 2.5 lbs/1000 sq.ft./day. The proposed Project’s residential components would produce an estimated quarter of a ton per day. Furthermore, compliance with the existing recycling and disposal programs would further ensure proposed Project does not exceed service levels at applicable landfills. The proposed Project would result in a less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would implement the BBSP and would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. The following applicable mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant: USS-2: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building permits, whichever occurs first, the developer/applicant shall pay sewer impact fees per the updated the current Combined West Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. described in Mitigation Measure USS-1. USS-3: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, building or water permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Public Utilities Department for review. The Public Utilities Department shall revie w the location of each Project to determine if it is an area served by potentially deficient water facilities, as identified in the latest updated water study for the BBSP. In such a case, the property owner/developer shall perform a hydraulic analysis for the existing and proposed public water improvements to determine if the Project domestic or fire flow demands will increase flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate water master plan study for the area or if the Project will create a deficiency in an existing water mains. The hydraulic water analysis for the existing and proposed public water improvements shall incorporate the anticipated flow, pressure, and any other information specific for the Project to determine the conditions for final design. With the hydraulic water analysis, the property owner/developer shall submit the results of a field fire flow test and provide a written response from Anaheim Fire Department confirming the fire flow requirements for the Project. The property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of t he Public Utilities Department and City Attorney’s Office per Anaheim’s most current Water Rules and Regulations. XX. WILDFIRE – Would the Project Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? - 42- b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Narrative Summary: No Impact. EIR No 350 did not analyze Wildfire as it was previously approved before the 2019 updated CEQA checklist became the new standard. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for the City of Anaheim, the Project site is not within a State Responsibility Area. The Project site is in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone within a local responsibility area. The Project site is flat and does not have a slope or other features that could exacerbate wildfire risks. The proposed Project would tie into existing infrastructure that currently serves the Project site. Project implementation would not result in the new construction, installation, or maintenance of new infrastructure that would exacerb ate fire risk. The proposed Project construction would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction. Temporary construction activities would not impede use of the road for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. The proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project is located in a developed, urbanized area, and surrounded primarily by commercial and residential uses. There are no slopes or hills near the Project site that would have the potentially expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. XX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350 No New Impact No Impact a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have Impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)? - 43- c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 350/No new impacts. EIR No. 350 analyzed impacts related to the implementation of the BBSP and found that implementation of the BBSP could degrade the quality of the environment and may result in cumulative impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazard ous conditions, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic , tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Therefore, mitigation measures have been adopted to reduce the impacts. As previously noted, the 1.72-acre Project site is within the Mixed Use High Development Area of the BBSP. This designation allows residential in either a standalone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 60 du per acre. The BBSP would allow development of the site with up to 103 du, in addition to commercial development at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35; The Project Applicant is proposing to construct a residential development consisting of 44 townhomes. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts b eyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 350. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 342. - 44- Appendix A – Geotechnical Study Corona Office Phone: 951.509.7090 TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS August 7, 2023 Three Hughes Project No. 1‐0354 Irvine, California 92618 Attention: Mr. Alan Toffoli Subject: GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE LETTER Tentative Tract Map No. 19286, Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, City of Anaheim, California References: See Appendix A Dear Mr. Toffoli: Presented herein is Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.'s (Alta) geotechnical update letter for the proposed residential development, located southeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, California. This letter is based on a review of the recommendations presented in the referenced reports. Alta previously conducted a geotechnical investigation for the overall 7.3‐acre site bounded to the north by Lincoln Avenue, to the west by Beach Boulevard, to the south by a youth center and to the east by a residential development (Alta, 2020b). The overall site has been subdivided, and the subject TTM addresses the northeasterly 1.7 acres of the site. Based on our review of the Tentative Tract Map, our previous conclusions and recommendations presented in the reports remain applicable to the current project. Additionally, the improvement design recommendations presented in the reports remain valid under the 2022 CBC. 00003 9/18/2023, 10:04:54 AM ANAH-TECH2023-01478 Aram Eftekhari Project No. 1‐0354 Page 2 August 7, 2023 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you and your organization. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the undersigned at our Corona office. Respectfully submitted, Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. _______________________________ LOGAN A. MARQUETTE Civil Engineering Associate Project Manager _______________________________ SCOTT A. GRAY/RGE 2857 Reg. Exp.: 12‐31‐24 Registered Geotechnical Engineer President Distribution: (1) Addressee SAG: LM: 1‐0354, August 7, 2023 (Geotechnical Update Letter, Beach Blvd and Lincoln Ave) Project No. 1‐0354 Page 3 August 7, 2023 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX A Selected References 1. Alta California Geotechnical, Inc., 2021, Response to Plan Check Comments, Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, City of Anaheim, California, dated February 3, 2021 (Project Number 1‐0354). 2. Alta California Geotechnical, Inc., 2020b, Geotechnical Investigation, Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, City of Anaheim, California, dated December 8, 2020 (Project Number 1‐0354). 3. Alta California Geotechnical, Inc., 2020a, Geotechnical Desktop Report, Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, City of Anaheim, California, dated November 9, 2020 (Project Number 1‐0354). Corona Office Phone: 951.509.7090 TOFFOLI INVESTMENTS December 8, 2020 Three Hughes Project No. 1‐0354 Irvine, California 92618 Attention: Mr. Alan Toffoli Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue City of Anaheim, California References: See Appendix A Dear Mr. Toffoli: Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. (Alta) is pleased to present this geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development located southeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, California. This report is based on a recent subsurface investigation conducted by Alta, laboratory testing and a review of the referenced reports. Alta’s review of the data indicates that the proposed development is feasible, from a geotechnical perspective, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the grading and improvement plans and implemented during site development. Also included in this report are: Discussion of the site geotechnical conditions. Recommendations for remedial and site grading, including unsuitable soil removals. Geotechnical site construction recommendations. Foundation design parameters. 00008 2/27/2021, 11:10:37 AM OTH2020-01316 Cesar Morales Project Number 1‐0354 Page ii December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. If you have any questions or should you require any additional information, please contact the undersigned at (951) 509‐7090. Alta appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical consulting services for your project. Sincerely, Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. ________________________________ SCOTT A. GRAY/RGE 2857 Reg. Exp.: 12‐31‐22 Registered Geotechnical Engineer President ___________________________________ THOMAS J. MCCARTHY/CEG 2080 Reg. Exp.: 9‐30‐22 Certified Engineering Geologist Vice President Distribution: (1) Addressee SAG: TJM:‐1‐0354, December 8, 2020 (Prelim Geo Investigation, Beach Blvd and Lincoln Ave, Anaheim) Project Number 1‐0354 Page 1 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................4 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Report Limitations ................................................................................................. 5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................5 2.1 Site Location and Existing Conditions .................................................................... 5 2.2 Proposed Development ......................................................................................... 5 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................6 3.1 Investigation and Laboratory Testing .................................................................... 6 3.2 Infiltration Testing ................................................................................................. 6 4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................7 4.1 Geologic and Geomorphic Setting ......................................................................... 7 4.2 Stratigraphy ........................................................................................................... 7 4.2.1 Alluvium (map symbol Qyfsa) .......................................................... 7 4.3 Geologic Structure ................................................................................................. 8 4.3.1 Tectonic Framework ...................................................................... 8 4.3.2 Regionally Mapped Active Faults ................................................... 8 4.3.3 Geologic Structure ......................................................................... 8 4.4 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 9 4.5 Earthquake Hazards ............................................................................................... 9 4.5.1 Local and Regional Faulting ............................................................ 9 4.5.2 Surface Rupture ............................................................................. 9 4.5.3 Seismicity ..................................................................................... 10 4.5.4 Liquefaction ................................................................................. 10 4.5.5 Dry Sand Settlement .................................................................... 12 5.0 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................12 5.1 Materials Properties ............................................................................................ 12 5.1.1 Excavation Characteristics ............................................................ 13 5.1.2 Compressibility ............................................................................. 13 5.1.3 Hydro‐Consolidation .................................................................... 13 5.1.4 Expansion Potential ...................................................................... 13 5.1.5 Earthwork Adjustments ............................................................... 14 5.1.6 Chemical Analyses ........................................................................ 14 5.2 Engineering Analysis ............................................................................................ 14 5.2.1 Bearing Capacity and Lateral Earth Pressures .............................. 15 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................15 6.1 Remedial Grading Recommendations ................................................................. 15 6.1.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................... 15 6.1.2 Unsuitable Soil Removals ............................................................. 16 Project Number 1‐0354 Page 2 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 6.2 General Earthwork Recommendations ................................................................ 17 6.2.1 Compaction Standards ................................................................. 17 6.2.2 Groundwater/Seepage ................................................................. 17 6.2.3 Documentation of Removals ........................................................ 17 6.2.4 Treatment of Removal Bottoms ................................................... 18 6.2.5 Fill Placement ............................................................................... 18 6.2.6 Mixing .......................................................................................... 18 6.2.7 Import Soils .................................................................................. 18 6.2.8 Utility Trenches ............................................................................ 19 6.2.9 Backcut Stability ........................................................................... 20 6.3 Liquefaction ......................................................................................................... 21 6.4 Storm Water Infiltration Systems ........................................................................ 21 6.5 Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................... 22 7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................22 7.1 Structural Design ................................................................................................. 22 7.1.1 Foundation Design ....................................................................... 23 7.1.2 Post‐Tensioned Slabs/Foundation Design Recommendations ..... 23 7.2 Moisture Barrier .................................................................................................. 24 7.3 Seismic Design ..................................................................................................... 25 7.4 Fence and Garden Walls ...................................................................................... 26 7.5 Footing Excavations ............................................................................................. 27 7.6 Retaining Walls .................................................................................................... 27 7.7 Exterior Slabs and Walkways ............................................................................... 29 7.7.1 Subgrade Compaction .................................................................. 29 7.7.2 Subgrade Moisture ....................................................................... 29 7.7.3 Concrete Slab Thickness ............................................................... 29 7.7.4 Concrete Slab Reinforcement ...................................................... 29 7.7.5 Control Joints ............................................................................... 29 7.8 Concrete Design .................................................................................................. 30 7.9 Corrosion ............................................................................................................. 30 7.10 Pavement Design ................................................................................................. 30 7.11 Site Drainage ....................................................................................................... 31 8.0 LOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................31 8.1 Lot Drainage ........................................................................................................ 32 8.2 Burrowing Animals .............................................................................................. 32 9.0 FUTURE PLAN REVIEWS .....................................................................................................32 10.0 CLOSURE.............................................................................................................................33 10.1 Geotechnical Review ........................................................................................... 33 10.2 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 33 Project Number 1‐0354 Page 3 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX A: REFERENCES APPENDIX B: SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION APPENDIX C: LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX D: LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS APPENDIX E: MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX F: EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX G: GRADING DETAILS Project Number 1‐0354 Page 4 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following report presents Alta’s findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed residential development located southeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, California. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to examine the existing onsite geotechnical conditions and assess the impacts that the geotechnical conditions may have on the proposed development. The property is depicted on the Figure 1. This report is suitable for use in developing grading plans and engineer’s cost estimates. 1.2 Scope of Work Alta’s Scope of Work for this geotechnical investigation included the following: Reviewing the referenced reports and air photos (Appendix A). Site geologic mapping. Excavating, logging, and sampling five (5) hollow‐stem auger borings to a maximum depth of 51.5‐feet below the existing surface (Appendix B). Conducting four (4) cone penetration tests (CPT) soundings to a maximum depth of 50 feet below the existing surface (Appendix B). Conducting laboratory testing on samples obtained during our investigation (Appendix C). Performing an infiltration study on an additional two (2) borings to provide an assessment of the infiltration characteristics of the onsite soil and their impact on storm water disposal. Conducting a liquefaction analysis. Evaluating engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering data, including laboratory data, to develop recommendations for site remedial grading including specialized grading techniques for unsuitable soil removals along the property boundary, import soil, foundations and utilities. Preparing this report and accompanying exhibits. CPT-1 CPT-3 CPT-2 CPT-4 B-1 B-3 B-4 B-5 P-1 P-2 Qyfsa Qyfsa LEGEND Alluvium Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring Approximate Location of Infiltration Test Approximate Location of Cone Penetration Test Qyfsa B-2 B-1 P-1 CPT-1 Figure 1 Project Number 1‐0354 Page 5 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1.3 Report Limitations The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the field and laboratory information generated during this investigation, and a review of the referenced reports. The information contained in this report is intended to be used for development of grading plans and preliminary construction cost estimates. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Site Location and Existing Conditions The rectangular‐shaped site is relatively flat and is located southeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue in the city of Anaheim. The site is currently occupied by commercial structures and asphalt parking lots. The site is bounded to the north by Lincoln Avenue, to the west by Beach Boulevard, to the south by a youth center and to the east primarily by a residential development. Online review of vintage air photographs indicates the site was previously used for agriculture purposes in 1953. By 1963 some of the structures onsite had been constructed. By 1980 the remaining structures onsite, specifically in the northeastern corner, were built. By 2003 the residential structures located in the southern portion of the site were removed. Since then, the site has remained relatively unchanged. 2.2 Proposed Development Alta anticipates that the existing structures and parking lot will be demolished, and the site will be redeveloped into a residential development. We anticipate that remedial grading will be required to develop the site to support the proposed structures with shallow foundations and reinforced concrete slabs‐on‐ grade. Significant height slopes are not anticipated for the project. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 6 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 3.1 Investigation and Laboratory Testing Alta conducted a subsurface investigation on November 13 and 19 of 2020, consisting of the excavation, logging and select sampling of four (4) CPT soundings up to a depth of 50 feet, five (5) hollow‐stem auger borings up to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet and the installation of two (2) five feet deep wells for infiltration testing. The locations of the exploratory excavations are shown on Figure 1 and the boring logs and CPT soundings are presented in Appendix B. Laboratory testing was performed on bulk and ring samples obtained during the field investigation. A brief description of the laboratory test procedures and the test results are presented in Appendix C. 3.2 Infiltration Testing It is Alta’s understanding that the project may utilize infiltration systems for storm water disposal. Details of the system are not known at this time. Infiltration testing was undertaken using two (2) five‐foot‐deep borings (P‐1 and P‐2). The testing was performed on November 20, 2020 in general accordance with the County of Orange WQMP standards. The two test wells were presoaked at least 24 hours prior to testing. During testing, the water level readings were recorded every 30 minutes until the readings stabilized The data was then adjusted to provide an infiltration rate utilizing the Porchet Method. The resulting infiltration rates are presented in Table 3‐1. The results do not include a factor of safety. Recommendations for infiltration BMP design are presented in Section 6.4. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 7 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Table 3‐1‐Summary of Infiltration Testing (No Factor of Safety) Test Designation P‐1 P‐2 Approximate Depth of Test 5 ft 5 ft Time Interval 30 minutes 30 minutes Radius of Test Hole 4 inches 4 inches Tested Infiltration Rate 0.6 (in/hr) 2.1 (in/hr) 4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 4.1 Geologic and Geomorphic Setting Regionally, the subject site is located in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, which characterizes the southwest portion of southern California where right lateral major active fault zones predominately trend northwest‐ southeast. The Peninsular Ranges province is composed of plutonic and metamorphic rock, with lesser amounts of Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rock, Quaternary drainage in‐fills and sedimentary veneers. 4.2 Stratigraphy Based on our literature review and subsurface investigation, the site is underlain by alluvium. This geologic unit is briefly described below. There is also likely undocumented artificial fill associated with the previous/current development onsite. 4.2.1 Alluvium (map symbol Qyfsa) The alluvium observed at the site consists mainly of light brown to brown, gray brown silty sand, sand, silty clay, sandy silt and sandy clay in a dry to wet, medium dense to very dense and firm to very stiff condition. The unit was logged to a depth of 51.5 feet below the ground surface. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 8 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 4.3 Geologic Structure 4.3.1 Tectonic Framework Jennings and Bryant (1985, 2010) defined eight structural provinces within California that have been classified by predominant regional fault trends and similar fold structure. These provinces are in turn divided into blocks and sub‐blocks that are defined by “major Quaternary faults.” These blocks and sub‐blocks exhibit similar structural features. Within this framework, the subject site is located within Structural Province I, which is controlled by the dominant northwest trend of the San Andreas Fault and is divided into two blocks, the Coast Range Block and the Peninsular Range Block. The Peninsular Range Block, on which this site is located, is characterized by a series of parallel, northwest trending faults that exhibit right lateral dip‐slip movement. These faults are terminated by the Transverse Range block to the north and extend southward into the Baja Peninsula. These northwest trending faults divide the Peninsular Range block into eight sub‐blocks. The site is located on the northwest portion of the Santa Ana Sub‐block, one of the eight sub‐blocks, which is bound on the east by the Elsinore fault zone and on the west by the Newport‐Inglewood fault zone. 4.3.2 Regionally Mapped Active Faults Several large, active fault systems including the Elsinore‐Whittier, Newport‐Inglewood, and the San Andreas occur in the region surrounding the site. These fault systems have been studied extensively and in a large part control the geologic structure of southern California. 4.3.3 Geologic Structure Based upon our site investigation and literature review, the sediments are of Quaternary age, and are not folded or faulted. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 9 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 4.4 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at a depth between approximately 17 to 19 feet below the ground surface during our subsurface investigation within borings B‐1 through B‐5. Based on state‐provided information, the historic‐high groundwater is approximately 10 feet below the ground surface (CDMG, 1997). 4.5 Earthquake Hazards The subject site is located in southern California, which is a tectonically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting a site are dependent on the distance to the causative fault and the intensity and magnitude of the seismic event. The seismic hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction and/or ground lurching. 4.5.1 Local and Regional Faulting The nearest known active faults (movement occurring ≤ 11,700 years ago) are, the Puente Hills fault, the Newport‐Inglewood fault, the Elsinore fault, the San Joaquin Hills fault, the San Jose fault, and the Palos Verdes fault, located approximately 3.2, 7.0, 8.0, 9.1, 12.2, and 16.1 miles from the site (USGS, 2008). The site is not within an Alquist‐Priolo Fault Hazard Zone (CGS, 2018). 4.5.2 Surface Rupture Active faults are not known to exist within the project and a review of Special Publication 42 indicates the site is not within a California State designated earthquake fault zone. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture on the subject site is very low. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 10 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 4.5.3 Seismicity Ground shaking hazards caused by earthquakes along other active regional faults do exist. The 2019 California Building Code requires use‐ modified spectral accelerations and velocities for most structural designs. Seismic design parameters using soil profile types identified in the 2019 California Building Code are presented in Section 7.3. 4.5.4 Liquefaction Seismic agitation of relatively loose saturated sands, silty sands, and some silts can result in a buildup of pore pressure. If the pore pressure exceeds the overburden stresses, a temporary quick condition known as liquefaction can occur. Liquefaction effects can manifest in several ways including: 1) loss of bearing; 2) lateral spread; 3) dynamic settlement; and 4) flow failure. Lateral spreading has typically been the most damaging mode of failure. In general, the more recent that a sediment has been deposited, the more likely it will be susceptible to liquefaction. Other factors that must be considered are groundwater, confining stresses, relative density, and the intensity and duration of seismically‐induced ground shaking. Groundwater was encountered during our subsurface investigation at a depth between approximately 17 to 19 feet below the ground surface in all five hollow stem borings (B‐1 through B‐5). The regional groundwater map indicates that the historic‐high groundwater level is approximately 10 feet below the ground surface (CDMG, 1997). Alta performed a liquefaction analysis utilizing data from the CPT soundings to analyze the liquefaction potential of the alluvium. A description of Alta's analysis and calculations are presented in Appendix Project Number 1‐0354 Page 11 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. D of this report. A groundwater level of 10 feet below existing ground surface was assumed. The results of our findings are discussed below under the headings of the specific types of liquefaction which can be manifested during seismic shaking. Conclusions regarding liquefaction are presented in Section 6.3. Loss of Bearing: Liquefaction can potentially cause foundation bearing failure due to ground softening and near‐failure in bearing. Based on the removal recommendations presented in this report, Alta anticipates that the potential for loss of bearing will be minimal. Lateral Spreading: The lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment can occur as a result of liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The most pervasive forms of lateral spreading typically involve sites located near a "free‐face" (large slopes, channels, etc.), however, it has been noted that lateral spreading can occur on sites with gently sloping (1% or more) ground, such as the subject site. Determination of the potential for lateral spread is based on the presence of continuous potentially liquefiable soil layers underneath the structures, the presence of lateral confinement, and various analyses such as empirical modeling. Bartlett, Hansen and Youd (2002) states that surface manifestation of lateral spread is typically limited to sites with liquefiable soils within 10 meters (32 feet) of grade, and that sites underlain by soils with (N1)60 values 15 and greater do not experience significant displacements from earthquakes with magnitudes less than 8. Given the flat nature of the site, the limited liquefiable layers with (N1)60 values less than 15, our recommended unsuitable soil removals (Section 6.1.2) and our foundation design recommendations (Section 7.1), it is our opinion that the potential for lateral spread to occur onsite is considered within design tolerances of the proposed foundation systems, upon the completion of remedial grading. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 12 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Settlement: Settlement due to seismic shaking can occur as a result of both liquefaction of saturated sediments or rearrangement of dry sand particles. Our liquefaction analysis was performed utilizing CPT data and laboratory test results to analyze the potential amount of settlement. A description of Alta's analysis and calculations are presented in Appendix D of this report. In summary, the analysis showed that the amount of dynamic settlement on the CPT’s that reached 50‐feet varies from 1.8 inches to 2.9 inches (1.1 inches differential). Dynamic settlement design recommendations are presented in Section 7.1. Flow Failure: Due to the relatively flat nature of the site, and the relatively horizontal deposition of the underlying deposits, the potential for flow failure onsite is considered minimal. 4.5.5 Dry Sand Settlement Dry sand settlement is the process of non‐uniform settlement of the ground surface during a seismic event. Based on our subsurface investigation and our removal/recompaction recommendations, the potential for dry sand settlement is anticipated to be low and within foundation design tolerances. Design dynamic settlement parameters are presented in Table 7‐1. 5.0 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Materials Properties Presented herein is a general discussion of the engineering properties of the onsite materials that will be encountered during construction of the proposed project. Descriptions of the soil (Unified Soil Classification System) are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 13 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5.1.1 Excavation Characteristics Based on the data provided from the subsurface investigation, it is our opinion that the majority of the onsite materials possess favorable excavation characteristics such that conventional earth moving equipment can be utilized. 5.1.2 Compressibility The upper portions of the alluvium onsite are considered compressible and unsuitable to support the proposed improvements. Recommended removal depths are presented in Section 6.1.2. 5.1.3 Hydro‐Consolidation Hydro‐consolidation is the effect of introducing water into soil that is prone to collapse. Upon loading and initial wetting, the soil structure and apparent strength are altered resulting in almost immediate settlement. That settlement can have adverse impacts on engineered structures, particularly in areas where it is manifested differentially. Differential settlements are typically associated with differential wetting, irregularities in the subsurface soil conditions, or irregular loading patterns. Based on our laboratory testing (Appendix C), there is a minimal potential for hydro‐collapse in the alluvium onsite. 5.1.4 Expansion Potential Expansion index testing was performed on samples taken during our subsurface investigation. Based on the results, it is anticipated that the majority of materials onsite are “very low” to “low” in expansion potential (0≤EI≤50, Appendix C) when tested per ASTM D: 4829. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 14 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5.1.5 Earthwork Adjustments The values presented in Table 5‐1 are deemed appropriate for estimating purposes and may be used in an effort to balance earthwork quantities. As is the case with every project, contingencies should be made to adjust the earthwork balance when grading is in‐progress and actual conditions are better defined. TABLE 5‐1 Earthwork Adjustment Factors Geologic Unit Adjustment Factor Range Average Alluvium Shrink 10% to 14% 12% 5.1.6 Chemical Analyses Chemical testing was performed on samples of material underlying the proposed site. Soluble sulfate test results indicate that the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils tested are classified as negligible (Category S0) per ACI 318‐14. Negligible chloride levels were detected in the onsite soils. Resistivity testing conducted as part of this investigation, indicates that the soils are moderately corrosive to buried metals (per Romanoff, 1989). Additional discussions on corrosion are presented in Section 7.9. Corrosion tests results are presented in Appendix C. 5.2 Engineering Analysis Presented below is a general discussion of the engineering analysis methods that were utilized to develop the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 15 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5.2.1 Bearing Capacity and Lateral Earth Pressures Ultimate bearing capacity values were obtained using the graphs and formula presented in NAVFAC DM‐7.1. Allowable bearing was determined by applying a factor of safety of at least 3 to the ultimate bearing capacity. Static lateral earth pressures were calculated using Rankine methods for active and passive cases. If it is desired to use Coulomb forces, a separate analysis specific to the application can be conducted. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Alta’s findings during our subsurface investigation, the laboratory test results, our staff’s previous experience in the area, it is Alta’s opinion that the development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Presented below are recommendations that should be incorporated into site development and construction plans. 6.1 Remedial Grading Recommendations All grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project geotechnical consultant in accordance with the recommendations contained herein and the City of Anaheim criteria. 6.1.1 Site Preparation Vegetation, construction debris, and other deleterious materials are unsuitable as structural fill material and should be disposed of off‐site prior to commencing grading/construction. Any septic tanks, seepage pits or wells should be abandoned as per the County of Orange Department of Health Services. Existing concrete should be removed prior to the placement of engineered fill. The demolished concrete may be incorporated into compacted, engineered fills after it is crushed to a maximum size of six Project Number 1‐0354 Page 16 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. (6) inches. Prior to placement as engineered fill any protruding steel rebar should be cut from the concrete pieces and disposed of offsite. Existing asphaltic concrete should be removed prior to the placement of engineered fill. From a geotechnical perspective, this material may be incorporated into compacted, engineered fills after it is crushed to a maximum size of six (6) inches. The crushed asphalt should not be placed under residential structures, but rather, it can be placed in approved non‐ residential areas, such as streets, parking areas or open space. These recommendations should be verified by the environmental consultant. 6.1.2 Unsuitable Soil Removals The upper portions of the alluvium near the surface and any undocumented artificial fill are compressible and are not suitable to support the proposed structures. As such, it is anticipated that, on average, the upper five (5) feet of existing soils will require removal and recompaction, extending a minimum of five (5) feet horizontally outside the structures. This recommended removal combined with the foundation recommendations presented in Section 7.1 should provide suitable support for the proposed structures. Footings for structures should be underlain by a minimum of two (2) feet of compacted fill. As such, for building pads where unsuitable soil removals do not provide the minimum depth of compacted fill, or where design grades and/or remedial grading activities create cut/fill transitions, the cut and shallow fill portions of the building pads should be over‐excavated during grading and replaced with compacted fill. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should observe the removal bottom prior to placing fill. If unsuitable soils are exposed upon the completion Project Number 1‐0354 Page 17 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. of the removals recommended above, additional removals may be required. For fill areas in streets, in general, a minimum removal and recompaction of the upper two (2) feet is recommended. For cuts greater than two (2) feet in street areas, removals are not required. For cuts less than two (2) feet, the two (2) foot removal and recompaction applies. Material removed as part of the unsuitable soil removals can be used as artificial fill, provided it is free of deleterious materials. 6.2 General Earthwork Recommendations 6.2.1 Compaction Standards All fill and processed natural ground shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, as determined by ASTM Test Method: D‐1557. Fill material should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture or above, and as generally discussed in Alta’s Earthwork Specification Section presented in Appendix F. Compaction shall be achieved with the use of sheepsfoot rollers or similar kneading type equipment. Mixing and moisture conditioning will be required in order to achieve the recommended moisture conditions. 6.2.2 Groundwater/Seepage It is anticipated that groundwater will not be encountered during construction. It is possible that perched water conditions could be encountered depending on the time of year construction occurs. 6.2.3 Documentation of Removals All removal/over‐excavation bottoms should be observed and approved by the project Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. Consideration should be given to surveying the removal bottoms and Project Number 1‐0354 Page 18 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. undercuts after approval by the geotechnical consultant and prior to the placement of fill. Staking should be provided in order to verify undercut locations and depths. 6.2.4 Treatment of Removal Bottoms At the completion of removals/over‐excavation, the exposed removal bottom should be ripped to a minimum depth of eight (8) inches, moisture‐conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted in‐place to the project standards. 6.2.5 Fill Placement After removals, scarification, and compaction of in‐place materials are completed, additional fill may be placed. Fill should be placed in eight‐ inch bulk maximum lifts, moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content or above, compacted and tested as grading/construction progresses until final grades are attained. 6.2.6 Mixing Mixing of materials may be necessary to prevent layering of different soil types and/or different moisture contents. The mixing should be accomplished prior to and as part of compaction of each fill lift. 6.2.7 Import Soils Import soils, if necessary, should consist of clean, structural quality, low expansive, compactable materials similar to the on‐site soils and should be free of trash, debris, or other objectionable materials. The project Geotechnical Consultant should be notified not less than 72 hours in advance of the locations of any soils proposed for import. Import sources should be sampled, tested, and approved by the project Geotechnical Consultant at the source prior to the importation of the soils to the site. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 19 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. The project Civil Engineer should include these requirements on plans and specifications for the project. 6.2.8 Utility Trenches 6.2.8.1 Excavation Utility trenches should be supported, either by laying back excavations or shoring, in accordance with applicable OSHA standards. In general, existing site soils are classified as Soil Type "C" per OSHA standards. Upon completion of the recommended removals and recompaction, the artificial fill will be classified as Soil Type "B". The Project Geotechnical Consulting should be consulted if geologic conditions vary from what is presented in this report. 6.2.8.2 Backfill Trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D‐1557. Onsite soils will not be suitable for use as bedding material but will be suitable for use in backfill provided oversized materials are removed. No surcharge loads should be imposed above excavations. This includes spoil piles, lumber, concrete trucks, or other construction materials and equipment. Drainage above excavations should be directed away from the banks. Care should be taken to avoid saturation of the soils. Compaction should be accomplished by mechanical means. Jetting of native soils will not be acceptable. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 20 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Under‐slab trenches should also be compacted to project specifications. If select granular backfill (SE > 30) is used, compaction by flooding will be acceptable. 6.2.9 Backcut Stability Temporary backcuts, if required during unsuitable soil removals, should be made no steeper than 1:1 without review and approval of the geotechnical consultant. Flatter backcuts may be necessary where geologic conditions dictate and where minimum width dimensions are to be maintained. Care should be taken during remedial grading operations in order to minimize risk of failure. Should failure occur, complete removal of the disturbed material will be required. In consideration of the inherent instability created by temporary construction backcuts for removals, it is imperative that grading schedules are coordinated to minimize the unsupported exposure time of these excavations. Once started, these excavations and subsequent fill operations should be maintained to completion without intervening delays imposed by avoidable circumstances. In cases where five‐day workweeks comprise a normal schedule, grading should be planned to avoid exposing at‐grade or near‐grade excavations through a non‐work weekend. Where improvements may be affected by temporary instability, either on or offsite, further restrictions such as slot cutting, extending workdays, implementing weekend schedules, and/or other requirements considered critical to serving specific circumstances may be imposed. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 21 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 6.3 Liquefaction As discussed in Section 4.5.4 of this report, there is a potential for liquefaction to occur at the site during seismic shaking. More specifically, liquefaction could cause differential settlement. Alta's calculations indicate that as much as 2.92 inches of vertical settlement may occur due to liquefaction, upon the completion of the recommended removals. Typically, half to two thirds of that settlement should be considered differential (California Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, Special Publication 117a). For lightly loaded, well‐constructed structures underlain by a non‐liquefiable layer over the liquefiable layers, such as will be developed at the site, the ultimate differential settlement across the structure may be more limited (Idriss and Boulinger, 2008). The differential settlement between the CPT’s that reached 50‐feet was 1.1 inches. In consideration of the proposed removal and recompaction of the soils below the proposed structure, and the limited differential settlement between the CPT’s, it is Alta's opinion that a dynamic differential settlement of 1.5‐inches in 40 feet can be utilized in the design of the proposed structures onsite. 6.4 Storm Water Infiltration Systems From a geotechnical perspective, allowing storm water to infiltrate the onsite soil in concentrated areas increases the potential for settlement, liquefaction, and water‐related damage to structures/improvements, such as wet slabs or pumping subgrade, and should be avoided where possible. If infiltration systems are required on this site, care should be taken in designing systems that control the storm water as much as possible. Preliminary infiltration testing was conducted at the site as part of this investigation, and the methodology is discussed in 3.2. The resulting infiltration rates for P‐1 and P‐2 were calculated to be 0.6‐inches per hour and 2.1‐inches per hour, respectively. The results do not include a factor of safety. Test P‐1 was Project Number 1‐0354 Page 22 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. conducted in silty sand and sand lenses of the alluvium at approximately 5‐feet below the ground surface. Test P‐2 was conducted in silty sand lenses of the alluvium at approximately 5‐feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was encountered during our investigation at a depth between approximately 17 to 19 feet below the ground surface. The historic high ground water is approximately 10 feet below the ground surface (CDMG, 1997). Based on the infiltration rates of the underlying soil, infiltration‐type WQMP’s may be feasible for project within the depths tested, although the historic high groundwater may be a limiting factor. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review the final WQMP design prior to construction. 6.5 Boundary Conditions The site is bounded to the north by Lincoln Avenue, to the west by Beach Boulevard, to the south by a youth center and to the east primarily by a residential development. Construction of retaining/screen walls along these boundaries may require additional geotechnical recommendations concerning unsuitable soil removals and foundation design parameters. Boundary conditions for the project should be reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant as the design progresses. 7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Structural Design It is anticipated that multi‐story wood‐framed residential structures with slab on‐ grade and shallow foundations will be constructed. Upon the completion of rough grading, finish grade samples should be collected and tested in order to provide specific recommendations as they relate to the individual building pads. These test results and corresponding design recommendations should be presented in a final rough grading report. Final slab and foundation design Project Number 1‐0354 Page 23 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. recommendations should be made based upon specific structure sitings, loading conditions, and as‐graded soil conditions. It is anticipated that the majority of onsite soils will possess “very low” to “low” expansion potential when tested in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D: 4829. For budgeting purposes, the following foundation design requirements for a range of potential expansion characteristics are presented. Due to the potential for dynamic settlement onsite, it is recommended to utilize post‐ tensioned slabs for this project. 7.1.1 Foundation Design Foundations may be preliminary designed based on the values presented in Table 7‐1 below. Table 7‐1 Foundation Design Parameters* Allowable Bearing 2000 lbs/ft2 (assuming a minimum embedment depth and width of 12 inches) Lateral Bearing 250 lbs/ft2 at a depth of 12 inches plus 250 lbs/ft2 for each additional 12 inches of embedment to a maximum of 2000 lbs/ft2. Sliding Coefficient 0.30 Settlement Static Settlement – 0.5 inch in 40 feet Dynamic Settlement – 1.5 inches in 40 feet *These values may be increased as allowed by Code to resist transient loads such as wind or seismic. Building code and structural design considerations may govern depth and reinforcement requirements and should be evaluated. 7.1.2 Post‐Tensioned Slabs/Foundation Design Recommendations Post‐tensioned slabs for the project may be designed utilizing the parameters presented in Tables 7‐1 and 7‐2. The parameters presented herein are based on methodology provided in the Design of Post‐ Tensioned Slabs‐On‐Ground, Third Edition, by the Post‐Tensioning Institute, in accordance with the 2019 CBC. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 24 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 7‐2 POST‐TENSION SLAB DESIGN PARAMETERS Category Expansion Potential Minimum Embedment* Edge Lift Center Lift Em (ft) Ym (inch) Em (ft) Ym (inch) I Very Low to Low 12 inches 5.4 0.61 9.0 0.26 Slab Subgrade Moisture Category I Minimum 110% of optimum moisture to a depth of 12 inches prior to pouring concrete Embedment* The minimum footing embedments presented herein are based on expansion indexes. The structural engineer should determine minimum embedments based on the number of floors supported by the footings, the structural loading, and the requirements of the latest California Building Code. If mat slabs are utilized, alternate embedment depths can be provided. Moisture Barrier A moisture barrier should be provided in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 7.2 The parameters presented herein are based on procedures presented in the Design of Post‐Tensioned Slabs‐On‐ Ground, Third Edition. No corrections for vertical barriers at the edge of the slab, or for adjacent vegetation have been assumed. The design parameters are based on a Constant Suction Value of 3.9 pF. 7.2 Moisture Barrier A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below the slabs‐on‐ grade in portions of the structure considered to be moisture sensitive and should be capable of effectively preventing the migration of water and reducing the transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. Historically, a 10‐mil plastic membrane, such as Visqueen, placed between two to four inches of clean sand, has been used for this purpose. The use of this system or other systems can be considered, at the discretion of the designer, provided the system reduces the vapor transmission rates to acceptable levels. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 25 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 7.3 Seismic Design In accordance with the requirements in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7‐16 for sites with Site Class F, Alta has performed a site‐specific ground motion analysis for the subject project. The analysis was performed in accordance with Chapter 21 of ASCE 7‐16, the 2019 CBC, and the 2014 USGS Ground Acceleration Maps. The USGS Unified Hazard Tool (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/index.php) and the USGS National Seismic Hazard Map source model was utilized to perform the analysis. The site class was determined based on the referenced reports and published geologic maps in the area in general conformance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7‐16. There is a potential for liquefaction onsite which would result in a Site Class of F. However, it is assumed that the proposed structures onsite will have a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5s. As such, per Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7‐16, a Site Class of D may be utilized for the onsite soils. The structural engineer shall verify the fundamental period of vibration of the proposed structures. Probabilistic (MCER) ground motions were determined in accordance with Method 2 of Section 21.2.1 of ACE 7‐16. The site specific MCER was taken as the lesser of the probabilistic and deterministic ground motions. The design response spectrum was determined per Section 21.3 of ASCE 7‐16. Design acceleration parameters were determined per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7‐16 and the results are presented in Table 7‐3. These parameters should be verified by the structural engineer. Additional parameters should be determined by the structural engineer based on the Occupancy Category of the proposed structures. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 26 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 7‐3 Seismic Ground Motion Values 2019 CBC and ASCE 7‐16 Parameter Value Site Class D (assuming structures fundamental period of vibration is equal to or less than 0.5s) Site Latitude 33.8313 Site Longitude ‐117.9928 Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SS 1.464 Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S1 0.517 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient, Fv (Per Table 11.4‐2 of ASCE 7‐16. Site Specific Parameters Govern) 1.8 Site Specific Parameters Per Chapter 21 of ASCE 7‐16 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SMS 1.514 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SM1 1.187 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDS 1.009 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD1 0.791 Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.70 7.4 Fence and Garden Walls Block walls, if used, should be embedded a minimum of 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade. Construction joints (not more than 20 feet apart) should be included in the block wall construction. Side yard walls should be structurally separated from the rear yard wall. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 27 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 7.5 Footing Excavations Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in slab‐on‐grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be cleaned of all loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should observe the footing excavations prior to the placement of concrete to determine that the excavations are founded in suitably compacted material. 7.6 Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be founded on engineered fill and should be backfilled with granular soils that allow for drainage behind the wall. Foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 7‐1, above. Unrestrained walls, free to horizontally move 0.0005H (for dense cohesionless backfill), may be designed to resist lateral pressures imposed by a fluid with a unit weight determined in accordance with the Table 7‐4 below. The table also presents design parameters for restrained (at‐rest) retaining walls. These parameters may be used to design retaining walls that may be considered as restrained due to the method of construction or location (corner sections of unrestrained retaining walls). TABLE 7‐4 Equivalent Fluid Pressures for 90% Compacted Fill (Select Material) Backfill Active Pressure (psf/ft) At‐Rest Pressure (psf/ft) Level 35 55 Project Number 1‐0354 Page 28 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Per the requirements of the 2019 CBC, the seismic force acting on the retaining walls with backfill exceeding 6‐feet in height may be resolved utilizing the formula 14H2 lb/lineal ft (H=height of the wall). This force acts at approximately 0.6H above the base of the wall. The seismic value can be converted as required by the retaining wall engineer. Retaining walls should be designed in general accordance with Section 1807A.2 of the 2019 CBC. Restrained retaining walls should be designed for “at‐rest” conditions. The design loads presented in the above table are to be applied on the retaining wall in a horizontal fashion and as such friction between wall and retained soils should not be allowed in the retaining wall analyses. Additional allowances should be made in the retaining wall design to account for the influence of construction loads, temporary loads, and possible nearby structural footing loads. Select backfill should be granular, structural quality backfill with a Sand Equivalent of 20 or better and an ASCE Expansion Index of 20 or less. The backfill must encompass the full active wedge area. The upper one foot of backfill should be comprised of native on‐site soils (see Plate A). The wall design should include waterproofing (where appropriate) and backdrains or weep holes for relieving possible hydrostatic pressures. The backdrain should be comprised of a 4‐inch perforated PVC pipe in a 1 ft. by 1 ft., ¾‐inch gravel matrix, wrapped with a geofabric. The backdrain should be installed with a minimum gradient of 2 percent and should be outletted to an appropriate location. For subterranean walls this may include drainage by sump pumps. No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are achieved. It should be noted that the allowable bearing and lateral bearing values presented in Table 7‐1 are based on level conditions at the toe. Modified design parameters can be presented for retaining walls with sloping condition at the toe. Other conditions should be evaluated on a case by case basis. RETAINING WALL BACKFILL DETAIL NATIVE BACKFILL 12 tN. MtN. *OR AS MODIFIED BY A SPECIFIC REPORT DRAIN I.ATERALLY, OR PROVIDE WEEP HOLES AS REQUIRED TO DMIN PIPE: 4-INCH PERFORATED PVC, SCHEDULE 40, SDR35 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE MINIMUM 8 PERFORATIONS (1/4-IN. DIA.) PER LINEAL FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE ROCK: MINIMUM VOLUME OF 1 CU. FT. OF 3/4_IN. MAX. ROCK PER. LINEAL FOOT OF PIPE, OR APPROVED ALTERNATE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT "64 ALTA cALTFoRNTA eEorEcl{NrcAL, tNc, 'vER, tTto PI-ATE A PATH: S\Drofllns\ALTA GEoTECHNICAI\GRAoING DETAIIS\PLATE A.dws Project Number 1‐0354 Page 29 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 7.7 Exterior Slabs and Walkways Exterior concrete slabs and walkways should be designed and constructed in consideration of the following recommendations. 7.7.1 Subgrade Compaction The subgrade below exterior concrete slabs should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method: D 1557. 7.7.2 Subgrade Moisture The subgrade below concrete slabs should be moisture conditioned to a minimum of 110 percent of optimum moisture (low expansion) prior to concrete placement. 7.7.3 Concrete Slab Thickness Concrete flatwork and driveways should be designed utilizing four‐inch minimum thickness. 7.7.4 Concrete Slab Reinforcement Utilization of reinforcement for flatwork and driveways is subject to a cost/benefit analysis. Reinforcement will decrease the amount of cracking that may occur in flatwork, however, planning for occasional repairs may be more cost effective. Utilizing closely spaced control joints is likely more cost‐effective than utilizing reinforcement. The majority of the soils onsite are classified as very low to low in expansion potential. Consideration should be given to reinforcing flatwork with irregular (non‐ square/rectangular) shapes. 7.7.5 Control Joints Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at intervals of approximately eight feet (maximum) or less. Exterior slabs should be designed to withstand shrinkage of the concrete. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 30 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 7.8 Concrete Design As stated in Section 5.1.6, negligible concentrations of sulfates were detected in the onsite soils (Class S0). Therefore, the use of sulfate resistant concrete is not required per ACI 318‐14 at this time. Post‐grading conditions should be evaluated, and final recommendations made at that time. 7.9 Corrosion Based on preliminary testing, the onsite soils are corrosive to buried metal objects. Buried ferrous metals should be protected against the effects of corrosive soils in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Typical measures may include using non‐corrosive backfill, protective coatings, wrapping, plastic pipes, or a combination of these methods. A corrosion engineer should be consulted if specific design recommendations are required by the improvement designer. Per ACI 318‐14, an exposure class of C1 would be applicable to metals encased in concrete (rebar in footings) due to being exposed to moisture from surrounding soils. Per Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI 318‐14, the requirements for concrete with an exposure class of C1 are a minimum compressive strength of 2500 psi and a maximum water‐soluble chloride ion content in concrete of 0.30 (percent by weight of cement). 7.10 Pavement Design Pavement sections for the proposed streets shall be designed based on laboratory testing conducted on samples taken from the soil subgrade. Preliminarily, based on an assumed R‐Value of 30, the pavement may be designed utilizing the sections presented in Table 7‐5. These sections should be verified upon the completion of grading, based on R‐Value testing. The ultimate pavement section design for public streets is under the City of West Anaheim’s purview. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 31 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Table 7‐5 Preliminary Pavement Sections Traffic Index Pavement Section Options OR 5.0 3‐inch AC on 6‐inch AB 4‐inch AC on 4‐inch AB 5.5 3‐inch AC on 7‐inch AB 4‐inch AC on 5‐inch AB 6.0 3.5‐inch AC on 7.5‐inch AB 4‐inch AC on 6.5‐inch AB AC‐Asphalt Concrete AB‐Caltrans Class II Base Construction of the streets should be accomplished in accordance with the current criteria of the City of Anaheim. Prior to the placement of base material, the subgrade should be suitably moisture conditioned, processed and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density (ASTM: D 1557) to at least twelve (12) inches below subgrade. After subgrade compaction, the exposed grade should then be "proof"‐rolled with heavy equipment to ensure the grade does not "pump" and is verified as non‐yielding. Aggregate base material should be placed on the compacted subgrade and compacted in‐place to a minimum 95 percent of the laboratory standard obtained per ASTM: D 1557. 7.11 Site Drainage Positive drainage away from the proposed structures should be provided and maintained. Roof, pad, and lot drainage should be collected and directed away from the structures toward approved disposal areas through drainage terraces, gutters, down drains, and other devices. Design fine grade elevations should be maintained through the life of the structure or if design fine grade elevations are altered, adequate area drains should be installed in order to provide rapid discharge of water, away from structures. 8.0 LOT MAINTENANCE Ongoing maintenance of the improvements is essential to the long‐term performance of structures. As such, the owners must implement certain maintenance procedures. The attached " Maintenance and Improvement Considerations" presented in the Appendix E Project Number 1‐0354 Page 32 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. may be included as part of the sales packet to educate the owners in issues related to drainage, maintenance, improvements, etc. The following recommendations should also be implemented. 8.1 Lot Drainage Roof, pad, and lot drainage should be collected and directed away from structures and slopes and toward approved disposal areas. Design fine grade elevations should be maintained through the life of the structure or if design fine grade elevations are altered, adequate area drains should be installed in order to provide rapid discharge of water, away from structures and slopes. Residents should be made aware that they are responsible for maintenance and cleaning of all drainage terraces, down drains, and other devices that have been installed to promote structure and slope stability. 8.2 Burrowing Animals Owners should undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals. 9.0 FUTURE PLAN REVIEWS This report represents a geotechnical review of the site. As the project design for the project progresses, site specific geologic and geotechnical issues should be considered in the design and construction of the project. Consequently, future plan reviews may be necessary. These reviews may include reviews of: Grading Plans Foundation Plans Utility Plans These plans should be forwarded to the project Geotechnical Consultant for review. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 33 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 10.0 CLOSURE 10.1 Geotechnical Review For the purposes of this report, multiple working hypotheses were established for the project, utilizing the available data and the most probable model is used for the analysis. Future information collected during the proposed grading operations is intended to evaluate the hypothesis and as such, some of the assumptions summarized in this report may need to be changed. Some modifications of the grading recommendations may become necessary, should the conditions encountered in the field differ from the conditions hypothesized in this report. Plans and sections of the project specifications should be reviewed by Alta to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations contained in this report. If the project description or final design varies from that described in herein, Alta must be consulted regarding the applicability of the recommendations contained herein and whether any changes are required. Alta accepts no liability for any use of its recommendations if the project description or final design varies and Alta is not consulted regarding the alterations. 10.2 Limitations This report is based on the following: 1) the information obtained from Alta's laboratory testing included herein; and 2) from the information presented in the referenced reports. The findings and recommendations are based on the results of the subsurface investigation, laboratory testing, and office analysis combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of conditions between and beyond the subsurface excavation locations. However, the materials adjacent to or beneath those observed may have different characteristics than those observed, and no precise representations are made as to the quality or extent of the materials not observed. The results reflect an interpretation of the direct evidence obtained. Project Number 1‐0354 Page 34 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Work performed by Alta has been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. No other representation, either expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an appropriate level of field review will be provided by a geotechnical consultant who is familiar with the design and site geologic conditions. That field review shall be sufficient to confirm that geotechnical and geologic conditions exposed during grading are consistent with the geologic representations and corresponding recommendations presented in this report. The conclusions and recommendations included in this report are applicable to the specific design of this project as discussed in this report. They have no applicability to any other project or to any other location and any and all subsequent users accept any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data, opinions, and recommendations without the prior written consent of Alta. Alta has no responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures, safety precautions, programs in connection with the construction, acts or omissions of the CONTRACTOR or any other person performing any of the construction, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the construction in accordance with the final design drawings and specifications. ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX A REFERENCES Project Number 1‐0354 Page A‐1 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX A Selected References 1. California Code of Regulations, 2019, California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2, Based on the 2018 International Building Code, Effective Date January 1, 2020. 2. 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, 83 pages. 3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport 7.5‐Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California, Report 03. 4. California Geologic Survey, 1998, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Anaheim Quadrangle, Official Map Released: April 15, 1998, map scale 1:24,000. 5. Historic Aerials, 2020, www.historicaerials.com, by NETROnline, Copyright 1999‐2020, online review of vintage air photos from 1953, 1963, 1972, 1980, 1994, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016. 6. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008, Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Oakland, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 7. Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes: Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, v. 32, n. 1, p. 173‐188. 8. Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000. 9. Jennings, C. W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and geologic map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, special publication 42, revised 1985, 24 p. 10. Jennings, C. W., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197 p. 11. Romanoff, Melvin, 1989, Underground Corrosion, NBS Circular 579, Reprinted by NACE, Houston, TX, 1989 12. U.S. Geological Survey, 2008, National Seismic Hazards Maps – Source Parameters, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm. ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX B Subsurface Investigation Project Number 1‐0354 Page B‐1 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX B Subsurface Investigation Alta's subsurface investigation consisted of excavating, logging, and sampling five (5) hollow‐ stem auger borings and four (4) CPT soundings. Details of the subsurface investigation are presented in Table B. The approximate location of the exploratory excavation is shown on the accompanying Figure 1 and the Geotechnical Logs are attached. TABLE B SURFACE INVESTIGATION DETAILS Equipment Range of Depths Sampling Methods Sample Locations Hollow‐ stem auger Up to 51.5 feet 1. Bulk 2. Ring Samples 1. Bulk‐Select Depths 2. Rings‐Select Depths UNIFIED SOI L CLASSIFIICATION SYSTEM Major Divisions lfl tr Description Major Divisions an tr Coarse Grained Soils N4ore than 50% retained on No 200 steve Gravel and Sravelly Soils han 50% frachon relained on No, 4 'l ts* ,-l* EIF GW Well-graded grcvels or gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines Fine (lrained isoils l\lore than Silts And Clays LL,<50 n ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clavev silts with slioht olasticitv GP Poorly-graded gravels or gravel sand mixture, little or no fines CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean claysSilty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures OL Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Silts And Clays LL,<50 MF Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine or silty soils, elastic siltsSand and Sandy Soils than 50% fraclion Passes on No, 4 i'+. 3_'.JV! Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines on No 200 steve VH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat claysSP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines SM Silty sands, sarrd-silt mixtures OF Organic clays of medium to high plasticity sc Clayey sands, and-clay mixtures Highly Organic Soils PT Peat and other highly organic soils BoUNDARY CLASSIFICATIoN: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols PARTICLE SIZ:E LIMITS U.S. STANDA,RD SiERIES SIEVE 200 40 10 4 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 3t4" 3,, ,t2" LABORATORY TESTS Symbol Tesl DS DSR cc)N SA MAX RV EI SE AL CHEM HY Direct Shear Direct Shear (Remolded) Sieve Analysis Maximum Density Resistance (R) Value Expansion Index Sand Equivalent Atterberg Limits Chemical Analysis Hydrometer Analysis SOIL MOISTURE SIZE PROPORTIONS Trace - <5% Few-5to10% Some - 15 to 25% Increasing \/isual Moisture Content Silts an0 Clays Sand Gravel Cobbles Boulders Fine Medium Coarsi€r Fine Coarse RELATIVE DENSITY Sands and Gravels Blows/Foot (SPT) Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense <4 4-10 11-30 31 -50 >50 CON SI STENCY C IASSI FI CATI ON Silts and Clays Criteria Very Soft Soft Firm stiff Very Stiff Thumb penetrates soil >1 in. Thumb penetrates soil 1 in, Thumb penetrates soil 1/4 in Readily indented with thumbnail Thumbnail will not indent soil HARDNESS KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS} ,n /L>//J, ALTA CALIFORNTA GEOTECHNTCAL tNC. /\PI-ATE B 2" Asphalt over No Base ALLUVIUM (Qyfsa): SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, slightly moist, dense @ 5.0ft. SAND, medium grained, light brown to brown, dry, medium dense @ 10.0ft. medium to coarse grained, light brown @ 15.0ft. SILTY SAND, medium to coarse grained, brown, moist, medium dense @ 18.0ft. Groundwater Encountered @ 20.0ft. SAND, medium to coarse grained, brown, wet, dense @ 25.0ft. SILTY SAND, fine grained, brown, wet, medium dense @ 35.0ft. SILTY CLAY, brown, moist, firm Continued R B R R R R S S S 37 26 30 25 58 3,5,7 2,4,8 4,4,5 4.4 1.6 2.3 6.2 19.0 23 7 9 25 92 MAX, EI, HY, CHEM CON, HY 110 101 101 100 107 SM SP SM SP SM CL 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTH140 lbs. Beach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)B-1PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 1 OF 2 30 in. 18 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-1 ALLUVIUM (Qyfsasa): Continued; @ 45.0ft. SANDY SILT, brown, wet, stiff, fine grained sand @ 50.0ft. gray brown, moist TOTAL DEPTH 51.5 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 18.0 FEET NO CAVING OBSERVED S S S 3,4,5 6,10,10 7,10,13 31.2 AL, HY ML45 50 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTH140 lbs. Beach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)B-1PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 2 OF 2 30 in. 18 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-1 ALLUVIUM (Qyfsa): SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, slightly moist, dense @ 10.0ft. brown to dark brown, moist @ 15.0ft. SANDY SILT, brown, moist, very stiff, fine grained sand @ 19.0 Groundwater Encountered @ 20.0ft. SAND, medium to coarse grained, brown, wet, dense, few silt @ 30.0ft. SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, wet, medium dense @ 35.0ft. SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, firm Continued. R R R R R S S S 32 42 15 35 40 5,7,12 3,5,12 4,2,3 3.9 6.2 13.9 25.2 14.3 12 24 82 97 78 89 98 114 98 111 SM ML SP SM CL 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTH140 lbs. Beach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)B-2PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 1 OF 2 30 in. 19 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-2 ALLUVIUM (Qyfsa): Continued; SILTY CLAY, brown, moist, firm @ 45.0ft. SANDY CLAY, gray brown, moist, firm @ 50.0ft. SANDY SILT w/CLAY, gray brown, wet, firm, fine grained sand TOTAL DEPTH 51.5 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 19.0 FEET NO CAVING OBSERVED S S S 2,2,5 2,3,6 2,5,9 CL CL ML 45 50 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTH140 lbs. Beach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)B-2PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 2 OF 2 30 in. 19 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-2 ALLUVIUM (Qyfsa): SILTY SAND w/Clay, fine to medium grained, brown, moist, dense @ 5.0ft. medium dense @ 10.0ft. SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, dry, medium dense @ 15.0ft. SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, wet, dense @ 17.0ft. GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TOTAL DEPTH 21.0 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 17.0 FEET NO CAVING OBSERVED R R R R 27 28 37 13 14.7 1.7 21.3 22.5 87 6 85 99 MAX, EI, HY, CHEM CON, HY 114 97 100 103 SM SP SM 5 10 15 20 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTH140 lbs. Beach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)B-3PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 1 OF 1 30 in. 17 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-3 3" Asphalt over No Base ALLUVIUM (Qyfsa): SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, slightly moist, dense @ 2.5ft. light brown, very dense, trace gravel up to 0.5" in diameter @ 10.0ft. SAND, fine to coarse grained, light tan, dry, medium dense @ 15.0ft. brown, wet, dense @ 17.0ft. Groundwater Encountered @ 25.0ft. SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, wet, loose @ 30.0ft. medium dense @ 35.0ft. SANDY SILT, brown, moist, stiff, fine grained sand Continued. R R R R S S S S 69 30 25 37 10,8,5 8,4,5 4,8,12 3,4,10 4.8 4.4 0.9 19.6 31 22 82 117 108 101 SM SP SM ML 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTH140 lbs. Beach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)B-4PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 1 OF 2 30 in. 17 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-4 ALLUVIUM (Qyfsa): Continued; SILTY CLAY, brown, moist, firm @ 45.0ft. gray brown @ 50.0ft. SILT, gray brown, moist, stiff, few clay TOTAL DEPTH 51.5 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 17.0 FEET NO CAVING OBSERVED S S S 3,4,6 2,3,5 5,6,9 CL ML 45 50 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTH140 lbs. Beach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)B-4PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 2 OF 2 30 in. 17 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-4 3" Asphalt over No Base ALLUVIUM (Qyfsa): SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, dense @ 5.5ft. SAND, fine to medium grained, light tan, slightly moist, medium dense @ 10.0ft. dry, trace gravel up to 0.25" in diameter, trace silt @ 15.0ft. fine to medium grained, slightly moist @ 18.0ft. Groundwater Encountered TOTAL DEPTH 21.5 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 18.0 FEET NO CAVING OBSERVED R R R S 27 19 40 8,9,13 3.8 1.4 5.3 17 5 22 104 98 102 SM SP 5 10 15 20 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTH140 lbs. Beach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)B-5PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 1 OF 1 30 in. 18 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-5 ALLUVIUM (Qyfsa): SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, moist, dense @ 5.0ft. SAND, medium grained, light brown to brown, slightly moist, medium dense TOTAL DEPTH 5.0 FEET NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING OBSERVED SM SP5 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTHBeach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)P-1PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 1 OF 1 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-6 ALLUVIUM (Qyfsa): SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, moist, dense TOTAL DEPTH 5.0 FEET NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING OBSERVED SM 5 TYPE OF DRILL RIG DRILLER SAT-CONT (%)MOISTURE11/19/20 (%)URATIONDATE STARTED 11/19/20 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OTHERSAMPLEELEVDENSITYDRY (pcf)BORING DESIG. DROP DRIVE WT. GW DEPTH (FT) PROJECT NAME DATE FINISHED FR DEPTHBeach and Lincoln TESTSS SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE R RING (DRIVE) SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPES: SHEET NOTE LOGGED BY GROUPJ: JOINTINGB: BEDDINGS: SHEAR C: CONTACTF: FAULTRS: RUPTURE SURFACE 1-0354 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE(Feet)P-2PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG GROUND ELEV. 8" Hollow Stem 2R Drilling SYMBOLLITHOLOGYBLOWST TUBE SAMPLEB BULK SAMPLETYPE 1 OF 1 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 PLATE B-7 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Project Number 1‐0354 Page C‐1 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LABORATORY TESTING The following laboratory tests were performed on a representative sample in accordance with the applicable latest standards or methods from the ASTM, California Building Code (CBC) and California Department of Transportation. Classification Soils were classified with respect to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM D‐2487 and D‐2488. Particle Size Analysis Modified hydrometer testing was conducted to aid in classification of the soil. The results of the particle size analysis are presented in Table C. Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of two representative bulk samples were evaluated in accordance with ASTM D‐1557. The results are summarized in Table C. Expansion Index Tests Two (2) expansion index tests were performed to evaluate the expansion potential of typical on‐site soil. Testing was carried out in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D‐4829. The results are presented in Table C. Project Number 1‐0354 Page C‐2 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Consolidation Tests Consolidation testing was performed on two (2) relatively “undisturbed” soil samples at their natural moisture content in accordance with procedures outlined in ASTM D‐2435. The samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied incrementally in geometric progression. The samples (2.42‐inches in diameter and 1‐inch in height) were permitted to consolidate under each load increment until the slope of the characteristic linear secondary compression portion of the thickness versus log of time plot was apparent. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original 1‐inch height. The consolidation test results are shown on Plates C‐ 1 and C‐2. Atterberg Limits Atterberg Limit testing of one sample was performed by Alta. The results of the test are presented in Table C. Chemical Analyses Chemical testing was performed on two select samples by Alta. The results of these tests (sulfate content, resistivity, chloride content and pH) are presented on Table C. Boring/Pit No. Depth (Feet) Soil Description Group Symbol - Unified Soil Classification System Maximum Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) Direct Shear Gravel (% + No. 4 Screen) % Sand %Silt (0.074 to 0.005mm) % Clay (-0.005 mm) Expansion IndexSulfate Content (%) Consolidation Other Tests RemarksB-1 2-4 Silty Sand (Qyfsa)SM 125.9 9.7 - 2 53 33 12 11 ND - Min. Resistivity: 6,200 OHM-CM Chloride: 5ppm PH: 7.91 B-1 5 Sand (Qyfsa)SP - - - 0 90 7 3 - - See Plate C-1 - B-1 40 Silty Clay (Qyfsa)CL - - - 0 6 34 60 - - - - B-3 1-5 Silty Sand w/Clay (Qyfsa)SM 125.4 9.8 - 1 51 32 16 24 ND - Min. Resistivity: 4,600 OHM-CM Chloride: 10ppm PH: 8.06 B-3 10 Sand (Qyfsa)SP - - - 0 97 1 2 - - See Plate C-2 - TABLE C SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA P.N. 1-0354 Maximum Dry Density Grain Size Analysis Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. -2.0 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 REMARKS: WATER ADDED AT 1.07 TSF CONSOLIDATION CURVEPERCENT CHANGE IN HEIGHTPLATE C-1 COMPRESSIVE STRESS IN TSF satur. (%) 101 -200 Sand (Qyfsa)SP boring in situ 7 group typical namessymbolsieve (%)density (pcf) 1.6 moist. (%) in situdrydepth (ft.) 5.0B-1 10 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 -2.0 -1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 REMARKS: WATER ADDED AT 1.07 TSF CONSOLIDATION CURVEPERCENT CHANGE IN HEIGHTPLATE C-2 COMPRESSIVE STRESS IN TSF satur. (%) 97 -200 Sand (Qyfsa)SP boring in situ 6 group typical namessymbolsieve (%)density (pcf) 1.7 moist. (%) in situdrydepth (ft.) 10.0B-3 3 Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. P.N. 1-0354 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX D Liquefaction Analysis Project Number 1‐0354 Page D‐1 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX D LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS A liquefaction analysis was performed for the site based on CPT data presented in the enclosed logs by Kehoe Testing & Engineering. The Ishihara/Yoshimine method was used to analyze dynamic settlement for the CPT data. The calculations used the following constants: 0.7g for site acceleration, 7.7 for the magnitude of the earthquake, and a groundwater depth of 10 feet below existing grade. A factor of safety of 1.3 was utilized. The results are presented on Plates D‐1 through D‐4. LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civiltech.comCivilTech Corporation LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1-0354 Beach Blvd and Lincoln Avenue Plate D-1 Hole No.=CPT-1 Water Depth=10 ft Magnitude=7.7 Acceleration=0.7g (ft)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Shear Stress Ratio CRR CSR fs1 Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 0 2 Factor of Safety 0 51 Settlement Saturated Unsaturat. S = 2.07 in. 0 (in.) 10 fs1=1.30 LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civiltech.comCivilTech Corporation LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1-0354 Beach Blvd and Lincoln Avenue Plate D-2 Hole No.=CPT-2 Water Depth=10 ft Magnitude=7.7 Acceleration=0.7g (ft)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Shear Stress Ratio CRR CSR fs1 Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 0 2 Factor of Safety 0 51 Settlement Saturated Unsaturat. S = 2.92 in. 0 (in.) 10 fs1=1.30 LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civiltech.comCivilTech Corporation LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1-0354 Beach Blvd and Lincoln Avenue Plate D-3 Hole No.=CPT-3 Water Depth=10 ft Magnitude=7.7 Acceleration=0.7g (ft)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Shear Stress Ratio CRR CSR fs1 Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 0 2 Factor of Safety 0 51 Settlement Saturated Unsaturat. S = 2.31 in. 0 (in.) 10 fs1=1.30 LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civiltech.comCivilTech Corporation LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1-0354 Beach Blvd and Lincoln Avenue Plate D-4 Hole No.=CPT-4 Water Depth=10 ft Magnitude=7.7 Acceleration=0.7g (ft)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Shear Stress Ratio CRR CSR fs1 Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 0 2 Factor of Safety 0 51 Settlement Saturated Unsaturat. S = 1.76 in. 0 (in.) 10 fs1=1.30 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX E Maintenance and Improvement Considerations Project Number 1‐0354 Page E‐1 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS General Owners purchasing property must assume a certain degree of responsibility for improvements and for maintaining conditions around their home. Of primary importance from a geotechnical standpoint are maintaining drainage patterns and minimizing the soil moisture variation below all improvements. Such design, construction and owner maintenance provisions may include: Employing contractors for improvements who design and build in recognition of local building codes and specific site soils conditions. Establishing and maintaining positive drainage away from all foundations, walkways, driveways, patios, and other improvements. Avoiding the construction of planters adjacent to structural improvements. Alternatively, planter sides/bottoms can be sealed with an impermeable membrane and drained away from the improvements via subdrains into approved disposal areas. Sealing and maintaining construction/control joints within concrete slabs and walkways to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils. Utilizing landscaping schemes with vegetation that requires minimal watering. Watering should be done in a uniform manner, as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation, keeping the soil "moist" but not allowing the soil to become saturated. Maintaining positive drainage away from structures and providing roof gutters on all structures with downspouts that are designed to carry roof runoff directly into area drains or discharged well away from the foundation areas. Avoiding the placement of trees closer to the proposed structures than a distance of one‐half the mature height of the tree. Observation of the soil conditions around the perimeter of the structure during extremely hot/dry or unusually wet weather conditions so that modifications can be made in irrigation programs to maintain relatively uniform moisture conditions. Project Number 1‐0354 Page E‐2 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Sulfates Owners should be cautioned against the import and use of certain inorganic fertilizers, soil amendments, and/or other soils from offsite sources in the absence of specific information relating to their chemical composition. Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfate compounds into soils and increase the sulfate concentrations to potentially detrimental levels. Site Drainage The owners should be made aware of the potential problems that may develop when drainage is altered through construction of hardscape improvements. Ponded water, drainage over the slope face, leaking irrigation systems, overwatering, or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation must be avoided. No water should be allowed to flow over the slopes. No alteration of pad gradients should be allowed that would prevent pad and roof runoff from being directed to approved disposal areas. Drainage patterns have been established at the time of the fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. No alterations to these drainage patterns should be made unless designed by qualified professionals in compliance with local code requirements and site‐specific soils conditions. Slope Drainage Residents should be made aware of the importance of maintaining and cleaning all interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, down drains, and any other drainage devices, which have been installed to promote slope stability. Subsurface drainage pipe outlets may protrude through slope surfaces and/or wall faces. These pipes, in conjunction with the graded features, are essential to slope and wall stability and must be protected in‐place. They should not be altered or damaged in any way. Project Number 1‐0354 Page E‐3 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Planting and Irrigation of Slopes Seeding and planting of the slopes should be planned to achieve, as rapidly as possible, a well‐established and deep‐rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering. It is the responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants initially and of the residents to maintain such planting. Alteration of such a planting scheme is at the resident's risk. The resident is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of properly installed irrigation systems. Leaks should be fixed immediately. Sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap. Overwatering with consequent wasteful runoff and serious ground saturation must be avoided. If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for seasonal and natural rainfall conditions. Burrowing Animals Residents must undertake a program to eliminate burrowing animals. This must be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability. Owner Improvement Owner improvements (pools, spas, patio slabs, retaining walls, planters, etc.) should be designed to account for the terrain of the project, as well as expansive soil conditions and chemical characteristics. Design considerations on any given lot may need to include provisions for differential bearing materials, ascending/descending slope conditions, bedrock structure, perched (irrigation) water, special geologic surcharge loading conditions, expansive soil stresses, and long‐term creep/settlement. All owner improvements should be designed and constructed by qualified professionals utilizing appropriate design methodologies, which account for the on‐site soils and geologic conditions. Each lot and proposed improvement should be evaluated on an individual basis. Project Number 1‐0354 Page E‐4 December 8, 2020 ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Setback Zones Manufactured slopes maybe subject to long‐term settlement and creep that can manifest itself in the form of both horizontal and vertical movement. These movements typically are produced as a result of weathering, erosion, gravity forces, and other natural phenomenon. A setback adjacent to slopes is required by most building codes, including the California Building Code. This zone is intended to locate and support the residential structures away from these slopes and onto soils that are not subject to the potential adverse effects of these natural phenomena. The owner may wish to construct patios, walls, walkways, planters, swimming pools, spas, etc. within this zone. Such facilities may be sensitive to settlement and creep and should not be constructed within the setback zone unless properly engineered. It is suggested that plans for such improvements be designed by a professional engineer who is familiar with grading ordinances and design and construction requirements. In addition, we recommend that the designer and contractor familiarize themselves with the site specific geologic and geotechnical conditions on the specific lot. ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX F Earthwork Specifications ALTA CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIX G Grading Details - 45- Appendix B – Hydrology Study and Drainage Study TECH2023-01477 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE STUDY S. BEACH BOULEVARD & W. LINCOLN AVENUE ANAHEIM, CA TTM 19286 Project Address: 2952 and 2960 W. Lincoln Ave. Anaheim, CA 92804 Prepared For: Landsea Holdings Corporation 7525 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Thuan Vo (949) 272-9836 Prepared By: C&V Consulting Inc. 9830 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Dane McDougall, P.E. (949) 916-3800 Prepared: August 2023 9/18/2023, 12:56:56 PM ANAH-TECH2023-01477 Aram Eftekhari TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 1 4.0 PROPOSED CONDITIONS 2 5.0 METHODOLOGY 2 6.0 RESULTS 3 7.0 CONCLUSION 4 8.0 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS 5 9.0 REFERENCES 5 APPENDIX A: Hydrology Maps Existing Conditions Preliminary Hydrology Map Proposed Conditions Preliminary Hydrology Map 100-Year 24-Hr Storm Event Ponding Exhibit APPENDIX B: Hydrology Calculations Existing & Proposed Conditions Hydrology Calculations (10-year Storm Event) Existing & Proposed Conditions Hydrology Calculations (25-year Storm Event) Existing & Proposed Conditions Hydrology Calculations (100-year Storm Event) APPENDIX C: OC Stormwater Land Development Map, USDA Soils Map APPENDIX D: Hydraulic Calculations Catch Basin Sizing Parkway Culvert Sizing Pipe Sizing APPENDIX E: Reference Material Orange County Drainage Facilities Maps Pages from the City of Anaheim Master Plan of Storm Drainage for Carbon Creek Channel Tributary Area Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Study for 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA, 92804 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE PAGE This Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Study was prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc. under the supervision of Dane McDougall, P.E. ___________________________________ ____________ Dane McDougall, R.C.E. 80705 Date President, C&V Consulting, Inc. 8/30/2023 S. Beach Boulevard. & W. Lincoln Ave. 1.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY This preliminary hydrology and drainage study will estimate the amount of stormwater runoff tributary to W. Lincoln Avenue and Laxore Street generated by the project site in the existing and proposed conditions. This study will determine whether detention or other peak flow mitigation methods will be required by comparing the proposed and existing condition peak flow rates for the 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed development comprises 1.71 acres and is located at the southwest corner of W. Lincoln Avenue & Laxore Street, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange. The site is bound by W. Lincoln to the north, a portion of Embassy Ave. and existing alley to the south, a vacant lot to the west, and Laxore Street to the east. Flood hazard zone designation for the site has been identified as falling within “Zone X.” 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing site was formerly developed as a commercial lot and consisted of various commercial buildings prior to the demolition of the building structures. Existing land use for this lot will be designated as its previous commercial lot conditions within this report as building pad and parking lot paving are remained on site after the demolition had taken place. The perviousness values and runoff calculations are determined based off this assumption. The is an existing 54” R.C.P. SD line running through Laxore Street that collects upstream subbasin runoff and routes stormwater to the downstream facility where the site generated runoff confluences. Drainage from the site generally surface sheet flows southeasterly towards Laxore Street rights of way. Stormwater runoff flows from the site discharges directly onto Laxore Street rights of way, via existing ribbon gutter. Per exiting drainage, runoff continues downstream along Laxore Street and enters the downstream catch basin with full capturing requirement design at the corner of S. Laxore Street and W. Floyd Avenue, which connects to the Carbon Creek Channel. Carbon Creek Channel eventually confluences with the Coyote Creek Channel which drains to the San Gabriel River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro Bay. The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) Drainage Facilities Maps were utilized to verify the drainage pattern of site runoff and tributary offsite run-on. The topographic survey was utilized to identify existing onsite high points and overall site conveyance of storm water runoff. Refer to Appendix D for OCFCD drainage maps. Per the City of Anaheim, Master Plan of Storm Drainage for Carbon Creek Channel Tributary Area, the project site is located within Drainage Basin 2. Drainage Basin 2 has a tributary drainage area of approximately 286 acres consisting of 13 Drainage Areas. The project site is located within Drainage Area 2-2, which drain to an existing storm drain system discharging to Carbon Creek. Refer to the “Existing Conditions Hydrology Map” located within Appendix A of this study for additional information. S. Beach Boulevard. & W. Lincoln Ave. 4.0 PROPOSED CONDITIONS The proposed development consists of one (1) lot subdivision at approximately 1.71 acres and will consist of 42 townhome residential units. Associated resident and guest parking areas, a private drive aisle, recreational areas, sidewalks, and landscaped areas will also be included as part of the proposed development. The site will be accessible via a single proposed driveway entrances/exits along Laxore Street. The proposed site will be graded to convey stormwater as surface flow towards proposed curb-inlet modular wetland system, located at relative low points on-site. The proposed Modular Wetland Systems for water quality treatment routes treated stormwater through a proposed underground storm drain system, ultimately discharging into Laxore Street right of way via proposed pump vaults. Proposed connection points for the pump vault force mains are a proposed parkway drain adjacent to Laxore Street and runoff continues downstream following existing drainage conditions. Per exiting drainage, downstream catch basin with full capturing requirement design at the corner of S. Laxore Street and W. Floyd Avenue intercepts the onsite generated flow and these existing conditions are preserved with the proposed conditions with the additional treatment provided onsite. In the event the storm drain system becomes clogged or overwhelmed by extraordinary storm events, emergency overflow will be directed as sheet flow towards Laxore Street and overflow into the right-of-way via each proposed driveway entrance. Upon entering the public right-of-way, proposed drainage runoff will follow the historic drainage pattern of the site and drain to the existing Carbon Creek Channel. Refer to “Proposed Conditions Preliminary Hydrology Map” in Appendix A within this study for additional information. 5.0 METHODOLOGY The initial subareas and addition to subareas analyzed for acreage, land-use, soil type, peak flow rate and time of concentration according to the Rational Method. A perviousness value was calculated for each existing subarea based on site topography and proposed landscape plan. Existing conditions were assigned as commercial land use as describe in Section 3.0. The proposed conditions were assigned as apartment which matches an imperviousness of 80% imperviousness based conservative measure per residential land use for each respective subarea. 6.0 RESULTS Summary of Peak Flow Rates Storm Event Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions % Difference Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 10-Year 4.93 4.58 -7.1% 25-Year 5.93 5.48 -7.6% 100-Year 7.66 7.03 -8.2% S. Beach Boulevard. & W. Lincoln Ave. Catch Basin Sizing Catch basin sizing is based on the 25-year storm event. Catch basin sizing is provided in Appendix D of this report. Parkway Culvert Sizing Parkway culvert sizing is based on the 100-year storm event. Parkway Culvert sizing is provided in Appendix D of this report. Pipe Sizing Onsite underground storm drain pipe will be sized during Final Engineering. Main line pipe size is anticipated to be 18”. 7.0 CONCLUSION The results from this preliminary hydrology study demonstrate that the proposed condition of the project site will generate a decreased peak runoff volume and flow rate; therefore, detention will not be required for runoff mitigation. Refer to Appendix B for Peak Runoff Calculations. 8.0 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS 1. The property is located in the City of Anaheim, Orange County rainfall region. 2. 100-year storm event flood level protection analysis required for habitable structures per the requirements of the Orange County Flood Control District Design Manual. 3. Site located within Hydrologic Soil Type “B” per the Orange County Public Works (OCPW) Stormwater Program Land Development Tool NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups map. 4. Existing impervious coverage correlating to retail and parking lot paving was assumed as “commercial” land use of the site at approximately 90% impervious. 5. Proposed impervious coverage correlating to residential development was assumed as “apartment” land use of the site at approximately 80% impervious. 6. Peak flow rates and time of concentrations were calculated based on the Rational Method. 9.0 REFERENCES 1. Orange County Hydrology Manual 1986 (1996 Addendum) 2. City of Anaheim Master Plan of Storm Drainage for Carbon Canyon Creek Channel Tributary Area 3. Orange County Flood Control District Design Manual 2000 4. Orange County Drainage Facilities Map Nos. 12 & 13 APPENDIX A HYDROLOGY MAPS Existing Conditions Hydrology Map 0 SCALE: 1" = 30' 15 30 60STOPSTOPƩƩƩ Proposed Conditions Hydrology Map 0 SCALE: 1" = 30' 15 30 60 90° 15° 90° 15° 90° 15°56'-2"92'-5"88'-6"90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 15° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 15° 90° 15°56'-2"84'-11"90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15°49'-1"90° 45°UP45° 90° 90°DROPSTORAGE EXCEEDS 100 CUBIC FEET45° 45° 90°UP90° 90°92'-3"90° 15°UP90° 15°UP90° 15° UP 90° 15° UPSTOP STOP APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Existing & Proposed Conditions Hydrology Calculations (10-year Storm Event) ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * GLPX-001 * * EXISTING Q10 * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: GL01X10.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 19:01 08/29/2023 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I 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 2 26.0 1.0 0.020/0.020/ --- 0.33 1.50 0.0313 0.083 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.33 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 5.0 (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) = 123.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 82.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 82.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.941 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.364 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 0.17 0.30 0.100 36 6.94 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.51 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 92 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 82.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 81.70 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 307.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.083 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.040 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.01000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.214 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL B 1.55 0.30 0.100 36 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.53 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.90 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.00 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.58 Tc(MIN.) = 7.52 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.55 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.44 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.93 ** PIPE SIZED TO MAXIMIZE V-GUTTER FLOW AT DOWNSTREAM NODE ** ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.33 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.51 PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.86 Tc(MIN.) = 10.80 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.611 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.55 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.60 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.00 *NOTE: V-GUTTER CAPACITY MAY BE EXCEEDED* V-GUTTER HYDRAULICS BASED ON MAINLINE Tc : V-GUTTER HYDRAULICS COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.49 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.25 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 1.63 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 430.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 TC(MIN.) = 7.52 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.190 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * GLPX-001 * * PROPOSED Q10 * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: GL01P10.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:57 08/30/2023 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I 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 2 26.0 1.0 0.020/0.020/ --- 0.33 1.50 0.0313 0.083 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.33 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 5.0 (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) = 280.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 83.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 81.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.468 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.002 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) APARTMENTS B 1.15 0.30 0.200 36 8.47 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.04 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.04 **************************************************************************** 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) = 218.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 84.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 82.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.209 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.292 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) APARTMENTS B 0.53 0.30 0.200 36 7.21 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.54 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 TC(MIN.) = 7.21 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.53 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.200 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.54 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Existing & Proposed Conditions Hydrology Calculations (25-year Storm Event) ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * GLPX-001 * * EXISTING Q25 * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: GL01X25.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 19:00 08/29/2023 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 25.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *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 2 26.0 1.0 0.020/0.020/ --- 0.33 1.50 0.0313 0.083 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.33 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 5.0 (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) = 123.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 82.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 82.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.941 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.007 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 0.17 0.30 0.100 56 6.94 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.61 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.61 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 92 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 82.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 81.70 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 307.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.083 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.040 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.01000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.860 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL B 1.55 0.30 0.100 56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.07 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.80 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.00 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.47 Tc(MIN.) = 7.41 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.55 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.34 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.93 ** PIPE SIZED TO MAXIMIZE V-GUTTER FLOW AT DOWNSTREAM NODE ** ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.39 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.61 PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.68 Tc(MIN.) = 10.62 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.150 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.55 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.35 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.83 *NOTE: V-GUTTER CAPACITY MAY BE EXCEEDED* V-GUTTER HYDRAULICS BASED ON MAINLINE Tc : V-GUTTER HYDRAULICS COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.22 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.84 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 1.97 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 430.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 TC(MIN.) = 7.41 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.190 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.83 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * GLPX-001 * * PROPOSED Q25 * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: GL01P25.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:57 08/30/2023 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 25.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *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 2 26.0 1.0 0.020/0.020/ --- 0.33 1.50 0.0313 0.083 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.33 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 5.0 (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) = 280.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 83.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 81.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.468 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.580 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.) APARTMENTS B 1.15 0.30 0.200 56 8.47 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.64 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.64 **************************************************************************** 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) = 218.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 84.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 82.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.209 * 25 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.921 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.) APARTMENTS B 0.53 0.30 0.200 56 7.21 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.84 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.84 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 TC(MIN.) = 7.21 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.53 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.200 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.84 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Existing & Proposed Conditions Hydrology Calculations (100-year Storm Event) ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * GLPX-001 * * EXISTING Q100 * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: GL01X100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 18:59 08/29/2023 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *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 2 26.0 1.0 0.020/0.020/ --- 0.33 1.50 0.0313 0.083 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.33 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 5.0 (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) = 123.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 82.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 82.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.941 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.127 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 B 0.17 0.30 0.100 76 6.94 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.78 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.78 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 92 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 82.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 81.70 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 307.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.083 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.040 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.01000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.980 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL B 1.55 0.30 0.100 76 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.01 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.10 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.00 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.36 Tc(MIN.) = 7.30 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.55 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.91 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.66 ** PIPE SIZED TO MAXIMIZE V-GUTTER FLOW AT DOWNSTREAM NODE ** ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.1 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.49 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.78 PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.43 Tc(MIN.) = 10.37 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.073 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.55 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.64 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.26 *NOTE: V-GUTTER CAPACITY MAY BE EXCEEDED* V-GUTTER HYDRAULICS BASED ON MAINLINE Tc : V-GUTTER HYDRAULICS COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.48 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 19.26 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 2.56 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 430.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 TC(MIN.) = 7.30 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.72 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.16 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.190 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.26 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1580 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * GLPX-001 * * PROPOSED Q100 * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: GL01P100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:56 08/30/2023 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *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 2 26.0 1.0 0.020/0.020/ --- 0.33 1.50 0.0313 0.083 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.33 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 5.0 (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) = 280.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 83.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 81.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.468 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.575 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.) APARTMENTS B 1.15 0.30 0.200 76 8.47 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.67 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.67 **************************************************************************** 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) = 218.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 84.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 82.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.209 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.017 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.) APARTMENTS B 0.53 0.30 0.200 76 7.21 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.200 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.36 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.36 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 TC(MIN.) = 7.21 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.53 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.200 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.36 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS APPENDIX C OC Stormwater Land Development Map, USDA Soils Map 81 ft Carbon Creek W L i nco l n A v e S BeachBlvdS Beach BlvdN BeachBlvdNBeach Blvd39 W G rac i o s a L n W O li n da L n N Grand AveC h e r oke eW P a s o R o b l e s D r W V a ll e j o D r S GrandAveS Grand AveW D e l Mon t e Dr W Po l k A v e MohawkComancheNavajoSeminoleW Lindac i ta Ln S Delano StS Harding AveS TopangaDrWest Anaheim Medical Center W O r a n g e Ave Ca r bon C r eek W Linco l n A v e SDale AveSLaxore StS Laxore StSBelAir StWestern SkiesS Ridgeway St W Acade my A ve W S ky wood C i r SBenwoodDrW R o w l an d C i rNBelAir StS Vicki LnSShields DrW B r i dge p ort A v e W B r o a d w a yN Dale AveS Broder StLibertyParkRVMarlowe St Bri s tol D r Schweitzer Park S Doyle Dr Delineation Point TTM 19286 Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Anaheim, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Trace Results Soil B Outlets Inlets Local Drainage Closed Conveyance Regional Channels Open Conveyance Closed Conveyance 8/29/2023 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.15 0.30.07 km 1:4,976 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE EXISTING DOWNSTREAM INLET Soil Map—Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California (LSHC-008_Soil Map) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 1 of 33743870374388037438903743900374391037439203743930374394037439503743960374397037438703743880374389037439003743910374392037439303743940374395037439603743970408130408140408150408160408170408180408190408200408210408220408230408240408250408260408270408280408290408300 408130 408140 408150 408160 408170 408180 408190 408200 408210 408220 408230 408240 408250 408260 408270 408280 408290 408300 33° 49' 55'' N 117° 59' 34'' W33° 49' 55'' N117° 59' 27'' W33° 49' 51'' N 117° 59' 34'' W33° 49' 51'' N 117° 59' 27'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 35 70 140 210 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:802 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 6, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 14, 2022—Apr 23, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California (LSHC-008_Soil Map) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 164 Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum 2.4 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 2.4 100.0% Soil Map—Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California LSHC-008_Soil Map Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 3 of 3 Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California 164—Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hcn9 Elevation: 0 to 600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 65 degrees F Frost-free period: 320 to 365 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Metz and similar soils:75 percent Minor components:25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Metz Setting Landform:Flood plains, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock Typical profile A - 0 to 17 inches: loamy sand C1 - 17 to 40 inches: stratified sand to sandy clay loam C2 - 40 to 46 inches: silty clay loam C3 - 46 to 60 inches: stratified sand to sandy clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Map Unit Description: Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum---Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California LSHC-008_Soil Map_164 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 1 of 2 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R019XD035CA - SANDY Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Metz, loamy sand Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Flood plains, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No Hueneme, fine sandy loam Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No Corralitos, loamy sand Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No San emigdio Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 6, 2022 Map Unit Description: Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum---Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California LSHC-008_Soil Map_164 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX D Hydraulic Calculations Onsite Private Catch Basin Sizing Inlet Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Aug 30 2023 Prop. MWS #1 Inlet - Q25 Curb Inlet Location = Sag Curb Length (ft) = 3.50 Throat Height (in) = 6.00 Grate Area (sqft) = -0- Grate Width (ft) = -0- Grate Length (ft) = -0- Gutter Slope, Sw (ft/ft) = 0.083 Slope, Sx (ft/ft) = 0.020 Local Depr (in) = -0- Gutter Width (ft) = 1.50 Gutter Slope (%) = -0- Gutter n-value = -0- Calculations Compute by: Known Q Q (cfs) = 3.64 Highlighted Q Total (cfs) = 3.64 Q Capt (cfs) = 3.64 Q Bypass (cfs) = -0- Depth at Inlet (in) = 5.96 Efficiency (%) = 100 Gutter Spread (ft) = 20.11 Gutter Vel (ft/s) = -0- Bypass Spread (ft) = -0- Bypass Depth (in) = -0- Inlet Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Aug 30 2023 Prop. MWS #2 Inlet - Q25 Curb Inlet Location = Sag Curb Length (ft) = 3.00 Throat Height (in) = 6.00 Grate Area (sqft) = -0- Grate Width (ft) = -0- Grate Length (ft) = -0- Gutter Slope, Sw (ft/ft) = 0.083 Slope, Sx (ft/ft) = 0.020 Local Depr (in) = -0- Gutter Width (ft) = 1.50 Gutter Slope (%) = -0- Gutter n-value = -0- Calculations Compute by: Known Q Q (cfs) = 2.36 Highlighted Q Total (cfs) = 2.36 Q Capt (cfs) = 2.36 Q Bypass (cfs) = -0- Depth at Inlet (in) = 4.96 Efficiency (%) = 100 Gutter Spread (ft) = 15.93 Gutter Vel (ft/s) = -0- Bypass Spread (ft) = -0- Bypass Depth (in) = -0- Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Aug 30 2023 MWS #2 Q100 FLOOD PONDING Gutter Cross Sl, Sx (ft/ft) = 0.020 Cross Sl, Sw (ft/ft) = 0.083 Gutter Width (ft) = 1.50 Invert Elev (ft) = 82.50 Slope (%) = 1.50 N-Value = 0.015 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 2.36 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.26 Q (cfs) = 2.360 Area (sqft) = 0.76 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.10 Wetted Perim (ft) = 8.57 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.32 Spread Width (ft) = 8.30 EGL (ft) = 0.41 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 82.00 -0.50 82.50 0.00 83.00 0.50 83.50 1.00 84.00 1.50 Reach (ft) MWS #2 FL ELEV.= 82.51 PONDING ELEV. 82.51+0.26=82.77 0.26 FT Parkway Culvert Sizing Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Aug 30 2023 Parkway Culvert - Laxore Street Q100 Rectangular Bottom Width (ft) = 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.33 Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%) = 2.00 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 7.03 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.28 Q (cfs) = 7.030 Area (sqft) = 1.12 Velocity (ft/s) = 6.28 Wetted Perim (ft) = 4.56 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.33 Top Width (ft) = 4.00 EGL (ft) = 0.89 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.75 -0.25 100.00 0.00 100.25 0.25 100.50 0.50 100.75 0.75 101.00 1.00 Reach (ft) Pipe Sizing To be provided in Final Engineering. APPENDIX E Reference Material OCFCD Drainage Maps Project Location Pages from the City of Anaheim Master Plan of Storm Drainage for Carbon Creek Channel Tributary Area ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ))) ) ) ) ) ) )) )) ) ))) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) )))) ) ) ) ) )) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(LAXORE STWESTHAVEN ST EMBASSY ST RIDGEWAY STBROADWAY 36"30"30"30"42"54"SD_2-6_02 (P) SD_2-4_01 (P)SD_2-6_03 (P)SD_2-6_01 (P)SD_2-1_01 (P) 2-6 2-4 2-7 2-1 2-2 2-13 2-9 2-3 2-11 2-8 2-12 2-10 2-5 BEL AIR STROME AVE LA REINA STACADEMY AVEKENDOR DRYALE AVESTANTON AVEPOLK AVE VICKI LNTYLER AVE DEL MONTE DR HALLIDAY STLOCUST DRCEDAR DRDEVOY DRDELANO STDRACAENA DR SHIELDS DRGLEN HOLLY DR COLORADO STLASSEN CTCOLGATE STDOYLE DRKEYS LN HAYWARD STELMLAWN DR MONROE AVE FILLMORE DR SHERRILL STLOMA LINDA DRJACKSON WAY VALLEJO DR MARLOWE STBAKER DRCOOLIDGE AVE LINDACITA LN BRONWYN DROLINDA LN BAYLOR AVE LYNROSE DR SYRACUSE STPINYON STBIRCHLEAF DRLAXORE STGRAND AVEADAMS WAY MACDUFF STGRACIOSA LN HALDOR PL TOPANGA DRBENWOOD DRHARDING AVETOLA AVE CABOT DR LUCY DR PARKVIEW STBRISTOL DR WESTHAVEN DRPASO ROBLES DR BRIDGEPORT AVE TERANIMAR DR YANA DRTROJAN STTAMARA DR ROWLAND CIR SKYWOOD CIR FAIRCREST DR JOSHUA CIR PEPPER CIR OLIVER DRMADISON AVEWASCO RDSCOTT LNROBERT DR STONYBROOK DR STOCKTON AVE MAHOGANY CIR GARFIELD CIRNEWCASTLE DRLA BELLE FONTANE ESTATESBUCHANAN CIRRAMBLEWOOD DRSAVOY PL MONROE PL CORNELL PL MONROE AVE ROME AVE MONROE AVE LAXORE STSTONYBROOK DR JACKSON WAY HALLIDAY STTYLER AVE COOLIDGE AVE LYNROSE DR DEVOY DR SHIELDS DRCOOLIDGE AVE VICKI LNTYLER AVE GRAND AVESKYWOOD CIR FILLMORE DR SHERRILL STHARDING AVETERANIMAR DR DALE AVEBEACH BLVDORANGE AVE LINCOLN AVE WESTERN AVECRESCENT AVE GRAND AVEGRAND AVECarbon Creek (B01) Crescent Avenue Storm Drain (B02P03) 96 36 39 48 60 42 305 42445 511827" X 42" ELLIP 2' X 6'24 2 4 42 24453939 48 3030 30482436244842Figure 5 Drainage Basin 2 Master Plan of Storm Drainage for Carbon Creek Channel Tributary Area± 1 inch equals 1,000 feet \\CHERON\Projects\AnaheimCaCityOf\381357\GIS\Maps January 22, 2010 SD 1-1_01 (P) Proposed Pipeline ID Drainage Area_Line No. (Proposed) Note: Priority 2 proposed improvements will parallel existing storm drains unless otherwise noted Legend Anaheim City Limits Street Right of Way Drainage Area Proposed Storm Drains Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Existing Storm Drains Anaheim (Pipe size in inches) County Caltrans Private Lateral 30 0 1,000500 Feet BEL AIR ST5-1 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE - 46- Appendix C – Preliminary WQMP WQMP2023-01485 County of Orange/Santa Ana Region City of Anaheim Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Project Name: 2952 & 2960 W. LINCOLN AVENUE TTM 19286 ANAHEIM, CA 92804 APN: 126-602-33, 35 Prepared for: Landsea Holdings Corporation 7525 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 272-9836 Prepared by: C&V Consulting, Inc./ Dane McDougall, P.E. 9830 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 916-3800 Prepared: August 2023 9/19/2023, 11:22:38 AM ANAH-WQMP2023-01485 Aram Eftekhari Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Engineer’s Certification North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page ii Preparer (Engineer): Dane McDougall, P.E. Title President PE Registration # 80705 Company C&V Consulting, Inc. Address 9830 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618 Email dmcougall@cvc-inc.net Telephone # (949) 916-3800 I hereby certify that this Water Quality Management Plan is in compliance with, and meets the requirements set forth in, Order No. R8-2009-0030/NPDES No. CAS618030, of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Preparer Signature Date Place Stamp Here 8/8/20238/30/2023 Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Table of Contents North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page iii Contents Page No. Section I Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance ........... 1 Section II Project Description .................................................................................. 2 Section III Site Description ....................................................................................... 7 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) ...................................................... 11 Section V Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs ................................. 26 Section VI BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) ......................................................................... 30 Section VII Educational Materials ............................................................................ 31 Attachments Attachment A . ................................................................................. Educational Materials Attachment B . ............................................................................................ WQMP Exhibit Attachment C . ......................................................................... BMP Fact Sheets & Details Attachment D . ........................................................................ TGD Worksheets & Figures Attachment E . .................................................................. Operation & Maintenance Plan Attachment F . ........................ Soils Report, USDA Web Soil Survey & GeoTracker Exhibit Attachment G . ...................................................................................... Notice of Transfer Attachment H . ...................................................................... Final Conditions of Approval Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section I North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 1 Section I Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance Project Infomation Permit/Application No. (If applicable) Grading or Building Permit No. (If applicable) TBD Address of Project Site (or Tract Map and Lot Number if no address) and APN Beach Blvd. & Lincoln Ave. TTM 19286 APN: 126-602-33,-35 Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance applied to this project. (Please list verbatim.) Conditions of Approval have not been provided at this time. Conceptual WQMP Was a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan previously approved for this project? N/A Watershed-Based Plan Conditions Provide applicable conditions from watershed - based plans including WIHMPs and TMDLS. Heavy Metals (Technical TMDL1) 1 This TMDL has been adopted for Coyote/San Gabriel River by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 4); however, it applies to the areas of Orange County that drain to Coyote Creek and San Gabriel River Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 2 Section II Project Description II.1 Project Description Description of Proposed Project Development Category (From Model WQMP, Table 7.11-2; or -3): 8. All 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. Project Area (ft2): 318,859* Number of Dwelling Units: 42 SIC Code: n/a Project Area Pervious Impervious Area (acres or sq ft) Percentage Area (acres or sq ft) Percentage Pre-Project Conditions 0.08 ac 5% 1.63 ac 95% Post-Project Conditions 0.33 ac 19% 1.38 ac 81% Drainage Patterns/Connections Drainage from the site generally surface sheet flows southeasterly towards Laxore Street rights of way. Stormwater runoff flows from the site discharges directly onto Laxore Street rights of way, via existing ribbon gutter. Per exiting drainage, runoff continues downstream along Laxore Street and enters the downstream catch basin with full capturing requirement design at the corner of S. Laxore Street and W. Floyd Avenue, which connects to the Carbon Creek Channel. Carbon Creek Channel eventually confluences with the Coyote Creek Channel which drains to the San Gabriel River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro Bay. The is an existing 54” R.C.P. SD line running through Laxore Street that collects upstream subbasin runoff and routes stormwater to the downstream facility where the site generated runoff confluences. Narrative Project Description: (Use as much space as necessary.) The proposed project consists of approximately 1.71 net acres located at 2952 and 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, California. The existing site was formerly developed as a commercial lot and consisted of various commercial buildings prior to the demolition of the building structures. Existing land use for this lot will be designated as its previous commercial lot conditions within this report as building pad and parking lot paving are remained on site after the demolition had taken place. The perviousness values and runoff calculations are determined based off this assumption. The proposed site will be graded to convey stormwater as surface flow towards proposed curb-inlet modular wetland system, located at relative low points on- Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 3 site. The proposed Modular Wetland Systems for water quality treatment routes treated stormwater through a proposed underground storm drain system, ultimately discharging into Laxore Street right of way via proposed pump vaults. Proposed connection points for the pump vault force mains are a proposed parkway drain adjacent to the Laxore Street and runoff continue downstream following existing drainage conditions. Pump vault sizing will be based on Modular Wetland System outflow rate and will be provided in the Final WQMP. In the event the storm drain system becomes clogged, emergency overflow will be directed as sheet flow towards Laxore Street and overflow into the right-of- way via each proposed driveway entrance. Upon entering the public right-of-way, proposed drainage runoff will follow the historic drainage pattern of the site and drain to the existing Carbon Creek Channel. In order to meet ultimate right-of-way width requirements for W. Lincoln Avenue, there is a proposed right-of-way dedication to the City of Anaheim along the project’s northerly boundary. The northerly frontage will undergo minor improvements as part of the proposed development; however it will ultimately be part of future street widening by the City of Anaheim. Refer to the WQMP Exhibit located within Attachment B of this report for additional information. *The gross project area includes all improvement areas within the right-of-way (approximately 0.04 acres). Improvements within right-of-way include drive approach modifications and parkway improvements. Proposed Public improvements within Lincoln Ave. will be determined during Final Engineering. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 4 II.2 Potential Stormwater Pollutants Pollutants of Concern Pollutant Check One for each: E=Expected to be of concern N=Not Expected to be of concern Additional Information and Comments Suspended-Solid/ Sediment E N Residential Development Nutrients E N Residential Development Heavy Metals E N Drive Aisle/ Parking Areas Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) E N Residential Development Pesticides E N Landscaping Areas Oil and Grease E N Drive Aisles/ Parking Areas Toxic Organic Compounds E N Drive Aisles/ Parking Areas Trash and Debris E N Residential Development Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 5 II.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern No – Show map. See Calculations below. Yes – Describe applicable hydrologic conditions of concern below. Per the TGD Figure 1, Susceptibility Analysis San Gabriel-Coyote Creek, the project location is not susceptible to hydrologic conditions of concern. Refer to Attachment D for the TGD Figure 1. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section II North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 6 II.4 Post Development Drainage Characteristics The proposed site will be graded to convey stormwater as surface flow towards proposed curb-inlet modular wetland system, located at relative low points on-site. The proposed Modular Wetland Systems for water quality treatment routes treated stormwater through a proposed underground storm drain system, ultimately discharging into Laxore Street right of way via proposed pump vaults. Proposed connection points for the pump vault force mains are a proposed parkway drain adjacent to Laxore Street and runoff continue downstream following existing drainage conditions. In its existing condition, flows are generally captured by an existing parking lot ribbon gutter, and directed as sheet flow over existing driveway entrance off Laxore Street. Per exiting drainage, downstream catch basin with full capturing requirement design at the corner of S. Laxore Street and W. Floyd Avenue intercepts the onsite generated flow and this existing conditions are preserved with the proposed conditions with the additional treatment provided onsite. In the event the storm drain system becomes clogged, emergency overflow will be directed as sheet flow towards Laxore Street and overflow into the right-of-way via proposed driveway entrance. II.5 Property Ownership/Management The proposed project will be maintained by an appointed Homeowner’s Association (HOA) selected by the Developer, Landsea Holdings Corporation. The HOA will be responsible for maintaining and providing regular inspections on all of the post-construction BMPs. Landsea Holdings Corporation 7525 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 272-9836 Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section III North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 7 Section III Site Description III.1 Physical Setting Name of Planned Community/Planning Area (if applicable) n/a Location/Address 2952 and 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92804 General Plan Land Use Designation Mixed-Use High Zoning Existing Zone: SP 2017-1 Beach Boulevard Specific Plan Proposed Zone: SP 2017-1 Beach Boulevard Specific Plan Acreage of Project Site 1.71 ac (including right-of-way dedication area and extents of right- of-way improvements) Predominant Soil Type Soil Type A Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section III North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 8 III.2 Site Characteristics Site Characteristics Precipitation Zone The site is located within 0.90 inches (85th percentile rainfall) from Figure XVI-1 (Rainfall Zones) from Orange County Technical Guidance Document. Topography The site is generally flat with elevations above sea level ranging between 79.5 feet and 82.8 feet. The existing site is comprised of commercial use & residential buildings, with very minimal landscaping. Drainage Patterns/Connections Drainage at the site generally sheet flows via on-site ribbon gutters, entering the existing storm drain system via drain inlets, or overflowing onto street right of ways via ribbon gutter & existing driveway. See Section II.1 for a complete description of existing and proposed drainage patterns and connections. Soil Type, Geology, and Infiltration Properties See Attachment F for soils report, USDA web soil survey described existing subsurface conditions as “Metzy loamy sand, moderately fine substratum.” From Orange County Stormwater Program Land Development Tool and USDA web soil survey, the hydrologic soil type for this area is designated as Soil Group “B”. Refer to Attachment F within this report for a copy of the project’s USDA web soil survey & map exported from the Orange County Technical Guidance document. Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Conditions Per TGD Figure XVI, historic groundwater is encountered at approximately 10 feet below existing grades. Furthermore, the project site is located outside any Plume Protection Boundaries. Per the GeoTracker website, the project site is in close proximity of a former landfill area which is restricted by RWQCB from infiltration due to potential for groundwater contamination. A copy of the GeoTracker map of the project site has been included in Attachment F of this report. Geotechnical Conditions (relevant to infiltration) Percolation and Infiltration testing has not been conducted at this stage, and no information regarding geotechnical condition relevant and specific to infiltration is currently available. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section III North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 9 According to GeoTracker website information, an existing landfill site with land use regulations is located across Lincoln Ave, north of our project site. Refer to Attachment F within this report for a copy of the GeoTracker report. Off-Site Drainage No tributary off-site run on exists. Utility and Infrastructure Information An existing underground storm drain system is located off-site within the W. Lincoln Avenue street frontage. Existing domestic Water and Sewer mains are located within W. Lincoln Avenue & Laxore Street. III.3 Watershed Description Receiving Waters Carbon Canyon Creek, Coyote Creek Channel, San Gabriel River Reach 1, San Gabriel River Estuary, Pacific Ocean 303(d) Listed Impairments Carbon Canyon Creek is not listed for any 303(d) impairments. Coyote Creek Channel is listed for Dissolved Copper, Indicator Bacteria, Iron, Malathion, pH, and Toxicity. San Gabriel River Reach 1 is listed for pH and Water Temperature. San Gabriel River Estuary is listed for Copper, Dioxin, Indicator Bacteria, Nickel, and Dissolved Oxygen. Applicable TMDLs Applicable TMDLs for each downstream water body include the following: San Gabriel River: Dissolved Copper, Lead, Selenium, & Zinc. Pollutants of Concern (POC) for the Project Primary POC: Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus), Pesticides, Heavy Metals, Nutrients, Toxic Organic Compounds Other POC: Suspended Solids/Sediment, Oil & Grease, Trash & Debris Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological Significant Areas Per the Water Board GeoTracker website, the project site Is in close proximity to a former landfill area. Therefore, infiltration BMPs were not considered for this project due to potential for groundwater contamination and restrictions set by the RWQCB. Refer to Attachment F for the GeoTracker exhibit. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 10 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) IV. 1 Project Performance Criteria (NOC Permit Area only) Is there an approved WIHMP or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility criteria or if there are opportunities identified for implementing LID on regional or sub-regional basis? YES NO If yes, describe WIHMP feasibility criteria or regional/sub-regional LID opportunities. n/a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 11 Project Performance Criteria If HCOC exists, list applicable hydromodification control performance criteria (Section 7.II- 2.4.2.2 in MWQMP) Per the TGD Figure 1, Susceptibility Analysis San Gabriel-Coyote Creek, the project location is not susceptible to hydrologic conditions of concern and does not drain to any unstable, natural channels. Therefore, downstream erosion is not a concern. Refer to Attachment D for the TGD Figure 1. List applicable LID performance criteria (Section 7.II-2.4.3 from MWQMP) Per 7.II-2.4.3 of the Model WQMP, the LID implementation criteria are as follows: • Priority Projects must infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter, the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). • A properly designed biotreatment system may only be considered if infiltration, harvest and use, and evapotranspiration (ET) cannot be feasibly implemented for the full design capture volume. In this case, infiltration, harvest and use, and ET practices must be implemented to the greatest extent feasible and biotreatment may be provided for the remaining design capture volume. Since infiltration and harvest and use are infeasible onsite, the project will utilize biotreatment BMPs to treat the required treatment flowrate. Refer to Section IV.3.4 for more information on proposed BMPs. List applicable treatment control BMP performance criteria (Section 7.II- 3.2.2 from MWQMP) Per 7.II-2.4.2.3 of the Model WQMP, if the LID performance criteria is not feasibly met by retention and/or biotreatment, then sizing of onsite treatment control BMPs are required. Sizing of these treatment control BMPs will include, if applicable any Water Quality credits as calculated per the Technical Guidance Document. If the additional required volume cannot be met, however has a medium to high effectiveness, then a waiver application and participation in an alternative program may be not required. If the cost of providing treatment control BMPs greatly outweighs the pollution control benefits, a waiver of treatment control and LID requirements can be requested. Calculate LID design storm capture volume for Project. The DCV for each DMA was calculated using the TGD Worksheet B as follows: DMA 1: Vdesign = (0.755)(0.9)(1.149 acres)(43,560 sf/acre)(1 foot/12 inches) = 2,833 cf DMA 2: Vdesign = (0.749)(0.9)(0.565 acres)(43,560 sf/acre)(1 foot/12 inches) = 1,382 cf The Design Flowrate for each DMA was calculated using the TGD Worksheet D as follows: DMA 1: Qdesign = (0.755)(0.22 in/hr)(1.149 acres) = 0.191 cfs DMA 2: Qdesign = (0.749)(0.22 in/hr)(0.565 acres) = 0.093 cfs See Attachment D of this report for DCV and treatment flowrate calculations. Biotreatment BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment of the DCV and will have a flow-based design. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 12 IV.2. Site Design and Drainage The proposed development has been divided into two (2) Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) based on the site’s grading and drainage design. The storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed via surface flow and through area drains towards to two (2) proposed curb inlet type MWS Biofiltration vaults for water quality treatment. During large storm events and when the proposed MWS Biofiltration Vaults are at capacity, storm water runoff will bypass treatment devices and be conveyed to proposed underground detention piping (per separate Hydrology Study) which discharges to Laxore Street to follow the historic drainage pattern. The Modular Wetland Biofiltration Systems are designed to provide a 3 phase treatment train. Initially, when the stormwater enters the system, a trash rack, filter media and settling chamber will capture large trash/ debris and sediment in the stormwater before entering into the plant media. This system is designed to treat stormwater flow horizontally. Before the stormwater enters the planting or “wetland” chamber, the runoff flows through the 2nd phase, a pre-filter cartridge which captures fines TSS, metals, nutrients and bacteria. The pre-filter chamber eliminates additional maintenance of the planting area. The wetland chamber is the 3rd phase of the system which provides final treatment through a combination of physical, chemical and biological processes. The proposed landscaped area locations are shown on the WQMP Exhibit located within Attachment B of this report. Refer to Worksheets B and D in Attachment D of this report. Drainage Management Areas (DMA) Table: Drainage Area No. (DMA) Area (ac) Design Flow Rate (cfs) Design Capture Volume (cf) BMP 1 1.149 0.191 2,833 MWS Biofiltration *2 0.565 0.093 1,382 MWS Biofiltration ∑ 1.714 0.284 4,215 MWS Biofiltration *DMA 2 includes offsite right-of-way dedication/improvement areas. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 13 IV.3 LID BMP Selection and Project Conformance Analysis IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) Name Included? Localized on-lot infiltration Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection) Street trees (canopy interception) Residential rain barrels (not actively managed) Green roofs/Brown roofs Blue roofs Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design) Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: No HSCs included. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 14 IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Name Included? Bioretention without underdrains Rain gardens Porous landscaping Infiltration planters Retention swales Infiltration trenches Infiltration basins Drywells Subsurface infiltration galleries French drains Permeable asphalt Permeable concrete Permeable concrete pavers Other: Other: Infiltration Feasibility: Infiltration BMPs were not considered for this project due to an existing RWQCB restriction on infiltration due to proximity to a landfill site. Refer to Attachment F for the GeoTracker exhibit. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 15 IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs Name Included? All HSCs; See Section IV.3.1 Surface-based infiltration BMPs Biotreatment BMPs Above-ground cisterns and basins Underground detention Other: Other: Other: Evaptranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs will not be utilized for the proposed development and have been deemed infeasible due to site design constraints. Refer to Worksheet J within Attachment D of this report for more information. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 16 IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs Name Included? Bioretention with underdrains Stormwater planter boxes with underdrains Rain gardens with underdrains Constructed wetlands Vegetated swales Vegetated filter strips Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems Wet extended detention basin Dry extended detention basins Other: Other: Biotreatment: Modular Wetland Stormwater (MWS) Biofiltration Systems will utilize to capture and treat the stormwater runoff before leaving the site. The Biofiltration Systems utilizes a 3 phase treatment train by collecting the stormwater runoff in a Pre-Treatment Chamber, Planting or “Wetland” Chamber and Discharge Chamber. Treated stormwater runoff of the site will be conveyed to Laxore Street Right of way and enters an existing City 54” storm drain facility downstream which drains to the Carbon Canyon Creek and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. Westerly runoff will be drained through proposed pump vaults located along W. Lincoln Ave., connecting to proposed parkway culverts for dischar4ge. Refer to Attachment C for additional MWS Biofiltration System BMP information. The MWS Biofiltration System was sized primarily on flow-based calculations. Refer to Worksheet D in Attachment D for additional calculations. Drainage Area No. (DMA) Area (ac) Design Flow Rate (cfs) Proposed MWS Model MWS Flowrate Capacity (cfs) 1 1.149 0.191 MWS-L-8-8 0.231 *2 0.565 0.093 MWS-L-6-8 0.147 ∑ 1.714 0.284 - 0.378 *DMA 2 includes offsite right-of-way dedication/improvement areas. IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 17 Hydromodification Control BMPs BMP Name BMP Description n/a IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs n/a IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs Treatment Control BMPs BMP Name BMP Description n/a n/a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 18 IV.3.8 Non-structural Source Control BMPs Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One If not applicable, state brief reason Included Not Applicable N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants N2 Activity Restrictions N3 Common Area Landscape Management N4 BMP Maintenance N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Title 22 CCR Compliance does not apply. N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance Residential development. N7 Spill Contingency Plan Residential development N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No proposed underground storage tanks N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance No proposed hazardous materials. N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation N11 Common Area Litter Control N12 Employee Training N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks No proposed loading docks. N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets Residential development. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 19 N1: Education for Property Owners, Tenants & Occupants Project conditions of approval will require that the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) periodically provide environmental awarness education materials, made available by the municipalities, to all of its members. Among other things, these materials will be descrive the use of che mcials (including household type) that should be limited to the property, with no discharge of wastes via hosing or other direct discharge to gutters, catch basins and storm drains. Educational materials available from the County of Orange can be downloaded here: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/PublicEd/resources/default.aspx N2: Activity Restrictions Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) must be prepared by the developer for the appointed HOA for the purpose of surface water quality protection. The CC&Rs shall incorporate the restrictions based on the Project WQMP. N3: Common Area Landscape Management All common landscaping and/ or open space areas shall have on‐going landscape maintenance by an appointed professional landscaping maintenance company as selected by the HOA. Maintenance shall incorporate all current County Water Conservation Resolution usage and follow the Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers per the DAMP Section 5.5. Refer to Section 5 of this report for additional landscape maintenance requirements. N4: BMP Maintenance Refer to Section 5 and Attachment E of this report for additional non‐structural BMP maintenance requirements, responsibility and frequency. N10: Uniform Fire Code Implementation HOA is responsible for compliance with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code enforced by the local fire protection agency. N11: Common Area Litter Control HOA to implement trash management and litter control procedures in the common areas aimed at reducing pollution of drainage water. HOA to contract with landscape maintenance company to provide this service during regularly scheduled maintenance, which will consist of litter patrol, emptying of trash receptacles in common areas, and noting trash disposals violations by homeowners, tenants or occupants and reporting the violations to the HOA for investigation. N12: Employee Training HOA to provide Educational Materials and Property Management manuals to all employees upon initial hiring. Any updated information shall be provided to employees within a timely manner along with information on implementation. N14: Common Area Catch Basin Inspections HOA to inspect, clean and repair common area catch basins within the development to verify that the private drainage system is working properly. All trash/ debris and sediment build up is removed and any repairs/ replacements are conducted. Cleaning should take place in late summer/ early fall prior to the start of the raining season. Drainage facilities include catch basins (storm drain inlets), detention basins, retention basins, sediment basins, open drainage channels, area drains, and lift stations. Records shall be kept onsite to document the annual maintenance. N15: Street Sweeping of Private Streets & Parking Lots HOA to schedule at a minimum street sweeping of private streets and parking areas prior to the start of the rainy seasons, in late summer or early fall. Additional sweeping may be required to remove landscaping foliage and/ or pollution. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 20 IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One If not applicable, state brief reason Included Not Applicable S1 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage S2 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction No proposed outdoor storage areas. S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Individual Trash Bins per Unit S4 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation No proposed slopes or channels. Incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories (from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit) Not applicable. S6 Dock areas No proposed dock areas. S7 Maintenance bays No proposed maintenance bays. S8 Vehicle wash areas No proposed vehicle wash areas. S9 Outdoor processing areas No proposed outdoor processing areas. S10 Equipment wash areas No proposed equipment wash areas. S11 Fueling areas No proposed fueling areas. S12 Hillside landscaping Development not located within hillside area. S13 Wash water control for food preparation areas No proposed wash control areas for food preparation areas. S14 Community car wash racks No proposed community car wash areas. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 21 S1 (CASQA Fact Sheet SD-13): Storm Drain Stenciling & Signage HOA to inspect, repair and/ or replace storm drain stenciling and signage immediately. Inspection of stenciling and signage shall occur at least once per month and prior to the start of the raining season. Storm Drain stenciling and signage with a reference that indicates “Drains to Ocean” per CASQA BMP SD‐13 Fact Sheet is required. S4 (CASQA Fact Sheet SD-12): Use Efficient Irrigation Systems & Landscape Design HOA shall implement the timing and application methods of irrigation water to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the storm drain systems. HOA to implement the following methods to reduce excessive irrigation water runoff, where applicable: • Employ rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation • Utilizing landscape specific irrigation water requirements • Utilize flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by pressure drop to control water loss due to broken sprinkler heads • Implement landscaping practices per the County Water Conservation Resolution or City agency equivalent • Group plants or landscaping with similar water consumption in order to promote surface infiltration Refer to CASQA BMP Fact Sheet SD‐12 for additional information. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 22 IV.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (If Applicable) IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits Description of Proposed Project Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits (Select all that apply): 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 WQ if not redeveloped. 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. Calculation of Water Quality Credits (if applicable) The entire DCV for the project site is being treated by a LID BMP. Water quality credits will not be used. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section IV North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 23 IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information n/a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section V North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 24 Section V Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs The property is currently owned by Landsea Holdings Corporation. The Owner will be responsible for the long‐term maintenance of the project’s storm water facilities and conformance to this WQMP after construction is complete. A Notice of Transfer of Responsibility is located in Attachment G of this report and should be executed as part of any ownership transfer after construction is complete. The owner may appoint a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) to provide long term BMP maintenance for the proposed development upon completion of construction. Owner/Developer: Landsea Holdings Corporation 7525 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Thuan Vo, Forward Planner (949) 272-9836 The owner is aware of the maintenance responsibilities of the proposed BMPs. A funding mechanism is in place to maintain the BMPs at the frequency stated in the WQMP. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section V North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 25 BMP Inspection/Maintenance BMP Reponsible Party(s) Inspection/ Maintenance Activities Required Minimum Frequency of Activities Education for Property Owners, Tenants, Occupants & Employees Homeowner’s Association (HOA) HOA to provide education material, a copy of the approved WQMP and Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M) to new property owners, tenants, occupants & employees. At time of hiring, leasing and/ or home purchase. Activity Restrictions HOA HOA employees notified of activities that are prohibited by homeowners. Restrictions identified in Employee Manual and reviewed yearly by employees. Common Area Landscape Management HOA HOA to hire professional landscape company to conduct maintenance of landscaping to meet current water efficiency and keep plants healthy and bio areas maintained with proper soil amendments. Regular maintenance once a week and monthly inspection to determine deficiencies. BMP Maintenance HOA HOA to hire professional BMP maintenance company to conduct regular inspections, repairs and cleanings per manufacturer’s specifications. A minimum 2 inspections/ cleanings per year per manufacturer’s specifications prior to October 1st (before rainy season) Uniform Fire Code Implementation HOA HOA to comply with fire regulations and keep informed of the latest rules and requirements. Comply with annual fire inspections and maintain building and access per the latest fire codes. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section V North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 26 Common Area Litter Control HOA HOA to provide litter removal of site parking lot and landscape areas and to empty common area trash bins. Once per week. Employee Training HOA The distribution of these materials will be the reasonability of the HOA at the initial hiring of the employee. At time of hiring. Private Street & Parking Lot Sweeping HOA HOA to provide maintenance of Parking Lot and provide Street Sweeping services. Weekly basis. Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control HOA HOA to provide maintenance of landscaping to meet current water efficiency standards, and keep plants healthily. Regular maintenance once a week and monthly inspection to determine any water deficiencies. Common Area Catch Basin Inspections HOA HOA shall inspect common areas where catch basins are located within the surrounding area and remove any trash/ debris. Inspections/ Cleaning shall occur at least twice per month. Storm Drain System Stencilling & Signage HOA HOA to inspect and repair as needed all onsite storm drain stencilling & signage. Inspection should occur at minimum twice per year. Modular Wetlands System (MWS) Biofiltration Vaults HOA HOA will be required to hire a professional maintenance company to provide regular inspections, repairs and cleaning per manufacturer’s specifications. Maintenance/cleaning should include removing trach from screening device, removing sediment from separation chamber, replacing cartridge Inspections/ Cleanings should occur at least two times per year and before the start of the rainy season (October 1st). Refer to Attachment C for additional information and manufacturer’s specifications. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section V North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 27 and down drain filter media, and trimming vegetation. Refer to Attachment E for manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section VI North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 28 Section VI BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) VI.1 BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) Refer to Attachment B of this report for the WQMP Exhibit. VI.2 Submittal and Recordation of Water Quality Management Plan Following approval of the Final Project-Specific WQMP, three copies of the approved WQMP (including BMP Exhibit, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and Appendices) shall be submitted. In addition, these documents shall be submitted in a PDF format. Each approved WQMP (including BMP Exhibit, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and Appendices) shall be recorded in the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s Office, prior to close-out of grading and/or building permit. Educational Materials are not required to be included. Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim CA 92804 Landsea Holdings Corporation Section VII North OC Priority WQMP Template August 17 2011 Page 29 Section VII Educational Materials Education Materials Residential Material (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Applicable Business Material (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Applicable The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Tips for the Automotive Industry Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar Tips for the Home Mechanic Tips for the Food Service Industry Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business Household Tips Other Material Check If Attached Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North County) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (South County) Tips for Maintaining a Septic Tank System Responsible Pest Control Sewer Spill Tips for the Home Improvement Projects Tips for Horse Care Tips for Landscaping and Gardening Tips for Pet Care Tips for Pool Maintenance Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardscape Drains Tips for Projects Using Paint Attachment A Educational Materials Please visit www.ocwatersheds.com for educational materials. Attachment B WQMP Exhibit 0 SCALE: 1" = 30' 15 30 60 90° 15° 90° 15° 90° 15°56'-2"92'-5"88'-6"90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 15° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 15° 90° 15°56'-2"84'-11"90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 90° 15°49'-1"90° 45°UP45° 90° 90°DROPSTORAGE EXCEEDS 100 CUBIC FEET45° 45° 90°UP90° 90°92'-3"90° 15°UP90° 15°UP90° 15° UP 90° 15° UP Attachment C BMP Fact Sheets & Details 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.65 3.70 3.75 3.80 3.85 3.90 3.95 MWS‐L‐4‐4 6.70 1.0 0.022 0.023 0.025 0.026 0.028 0.029 0.031 0.032 0.034 0.035 0.037 0.038 0.040 0.042 0.043 0.045 0.046 0.048 0.049 0.051 0.052 0.054 0.055 0.056 0.057 0.058 0.058 0.059 0.060 0.061 MWS‐L‐3‐6 10.06 1.0 0.032 0.035 0.037 0.039 0.042 0.044 0.046 0.048 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.058 0.060 0.062 0.065 0.067 0.069 0.072 0.074 0.076 0.078 0.081 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.087 0.088 0.089 0.090 0.091 MWS‐L‐4‐6 9.30 1.0 0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.041 0.043 0.045 0.047 0.049 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.058 0.060 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.073 0.075 0.077 0.078 0.079 0.080 0.081 0.082 0.083 0.084 MWS‐L‐4‐8 14.80 1.0 0.048 0.051 0.054 0.058 0.061 0.065 0.068 0.071 0.075 0.078 0.082 0.085 0.088 0.092 0.095 0.099 0.102 0.105 0.109 0.112 0.115 0.119 0.122 0.124 0.126 0.127 0.129 0.131 0.132 0.134 MWS‐L‐4‐13 18.40 1.0 0.059 0.063 0.068 0.072 0.076 0.080 0.084 0.089 0.093 0.097 0.101 0.106 0.110 0.114 0.118 0.122 0.127 0.131 0.135 0.139 0.144 0.148 0.152 0.154 0.156 0.158 0.160 0.163 0.165 0.167 MWS‐L‐4‐15 22.40 1.0 0.072 0.077 0.082 0.087 0.093 0.098 0.103 0.108 0.113 0.118 0.123 0.129 0.134 0.139 0.144 0.149 0.154 0.159 0.165 0.170 0.175 0.180 0.185 0.188 0.190 0.193 0.195 0.198 0.200 0.203 MWS‐L‐4‐17 26.40 1.0 0.085 0.091 0.097 0.103 0.109 0.115 0.121 0.127 0.133 0.139 0.145 0.151 0.158 0.164 0.170 0.176 0.182 0.188 0.194 0.200 0.206 0.212 0.218 0.221 0.224 0.227 0.230 0.233 0.236 0.239 MWS‐L‐4‐19 30.40 1.0 0.098 0.105 0.112 0.119 0.126 0.133 0.140 0.147 0.153 0.160 0.167 0.174 0.181 0.188 0.195 0.202 0.209 0.216 0.223 0.230 0.237 0.244 0.251 0.255 0.258 0.262 0.265 0.269 0.272 0.276 MWS‐L‐4‐21 34.40 1.0 0.111 0.118 0.126 0.134 0.142 0.150 0.158 0.166 0.174 0.182 0.189 0.197 0.205 0.213 0.221 0.229 0.237 0.245 0.253 0.261 0.268 0.276 0.284 0.288 0.292 0.296 0.300 0.304 0.308 0.312 MWS‐L‐6‐8 18.80 1.0 0.060 0.065 0.069 0.073 0.078 0.082 0.086 0.091 0.095 0.099 0.104 0.108 0.112 0.116 0.121 0.125 0.129 0.134 0.138 0.142 0.147 0.151 0.155 0.157 0.160 0.162 0.164 0.166 0.168 0.170 MWS‐L‐8‐8 29.60 1.0 0.095 0.102 0.109 0.115 0.122 0.129 0.136 0.143 0.149 0.156 0.163 0.170 0.177 0.183 0.190 0.197 0.204 0.211 0.217 0.224 0.231 0.238 0.245 0.248 0.251 0.255 0.258 0.262 0.265 0.268 MWS‐L‐8‐12 44.40 1.0 0.143 0.153 0.163 0.173 0.183 0.194 0.204 0.214 0.224 0.234 0.245 0.255 0.265 0.275 0.285 0.296 0.306 0.316 0.326 0.336 0.346 0.357 0.367 0.372 0.377 0.382 0.387 0.392 0.397 0.402 MWS‐L‐8‐16 59.20 1.0 0.190 0.204 0.217 0.231 0.245 0.258 0.272 0.285 0.299 0.312 0.326 0.340 0.353 0.367 0.380 0.394 0.408 0.421 0.435 0.448 0.462 0.476 0.489 0.496 0.503 0.509 0.516 0.523 0.530 0.537 MWS‐L‐8‐20 74.00 1.0 0.238 0.255 0.272 0.289 0.306 0.323 0.340 0.357 0.374 0.391 0.408 0.425 0.442 0.459 0.476 0.493 0.509 0.526 0.543 0.560 0.577 0.594 0.611 0.620 0.628 0.637 0.645 0.654 0.662 0.671 MWS‐L‐10‐20 or MWS‐L‐8‐24 88.80 1.0 0.285 0.306 0.326 0.346 0.367 0.387 0.408 0.428 0.448 0.469 0.489 0.509 0.530 0.550 0.571 0.591 0.611 0.632 0.652 0.673 0.693 0.713 0.734 0.744 0.754 0.764 0.774 0.785 0.795 0.805 4'x'4 media cage 14.80 1.0 0.048 0.051 0.054 0.058 0.061 0.065 0.068 0.071 0.075 0.078 0.082 0.085 0.088 0.092 0.095 0.099 0.102 0.105 0.109 0.112 0.115 0.119 0.122 0.124 MWS MODEL SIZE WETLAND PERMITER LENGTH LOADING RATE GPM/SF HGL HEIGHT SHALLOW MODELS STANDARD HEIGHT MODEL HIGH CAPACITY MODELS MWS Linear 2.0 HGL Sizing Calculations MWS Linear Advanced Stormwater Biofiltration Contents 1 Introduction 2 Applications 3 Configurations 4 Advantages 5 Operation 6 Orientations | Bypass 7 Performance | Approvals 8 Sizing 9 Installation | Maintenance | Plants www.ModularWetlands.com The Urban Impact For hundreds of years natural wetlands surrounding our shores have played an integral role as nature’s stormwater treatment system. But as our cities grow and develop, these natural wet- lands have perished under countless roads, rooftops, and parking lots. Plant A Wetland Without natural wetlands our cities are deprived of water purification, flood control, and land stability. Modular Wetlands and the MWS Linear re-establish nature’s presence and rejuvenate water ways in urban areas. MWS Linear The Modular Wetland System Linear represents a pioneering breakthrough in stormwater tech- nology as the only biofiltration system to utilize patented horizontal flow, allowing for a smaller footprint and higher treatment capacity. While most biofilters use little or no pre-treatment, the MWS Linear incorporates an advanced pre-treatment chamber that includes separation and pre- filter cartridges. In this chamber sediment and hydrocarbons are removed from runoff before it enters the biofiltration chamber, in turn reducing maintenance costs and improving performance. Parking Lots Parking lots are designed to maximize space and the MWS Linear’s 4 ft. standard planter width al- lows for easy integration into parking lot islands and other landscape medians. Mixed Use The MWS Linear can be installed as a raised plant- er to treat runoff from rooftops or patios, making it perfect for sustainable “live-work” spaces. Industrial Many states enforce strict regulations for dis- charges from industrial sites. The MWS Linear has helped various sites meet difficult EPA mandated effluent limits for dissolved metals and other pol- lutants. Residential Low to high density developments can benefit from the versatile design of the MWS Linear. The system can be used in both decentralized LID de- sign and cost-effective end-of-the-line configura- tions. Streets Street applications can be challenging due to limited space. The MWS Linear is very adaptable, and offers the smallest footprint to work around the constraints of existing utilities on retrofit pro- jects. Commercial Compared to bioretention systems, the MWS Lin- ear can treat far more area in less space - meeting treatment and volume control requirements. Applications The MWS Linear has been successfully used on numerous new construction and retrofit projects. The system’s superior versatility makes it beneficial for a wide range of stormwater and waste water applications - treating rooftops, streetscapes, parking lots, and industrial sites. More applications are available on our website: www.ModularWetlands.com/Applications • Agriculture • Reuse • Low Impact Development • Waste Water www.ModularWetlands.com Configurations The MWS Linear is the preferred biofiltration system of Civil Engineers across the country due to its versatile design. This highly versatile system has available “pipe-in” options on most models, along with built-in curb or grated inlets for simple integration into your stormdrain design. Curb Type The Curb Type configuration accepts sheet flow through a curb opening and is commonly used along road ways and parking lots. It can be used in sump or flow by conditions. Length of curb opening varies based on model and size. Grate Type The Grate Type configuration offers the same features and benefits as the Curb Type but with a grated/drop inlet above the systems pre-treatment chamber. It has the added benefit of allowing for pedestrian access over the inlet. ADA compliant grates are available to assure easy and safe access. The Grate Type can also be used in scenarios where runoff needs to be intercepted on both sides of landscape islands. Downspout Type The Downspout Type is a variation of the Vault Type and is designed to accept a vertical downspout pipe from roof top and podium areas. Some models have the option of utilizing an internal bypass, simplifying the overall design. The system can be installed as a raised planter and the exterior can be stuccoed or covered with other finishes to match the look of adjacent buildings. Vault Type The system’s patented horizontal flow biofilter is able to accept inflow pipes directly into the pre-treatment chamber, meaning the MWS Linear can be used in end-of-the-line installations. This greatly improves feasibility over typical decentralized designs that are required with other biofiltration/bioretention systems. Another benefit of the “pipe in” design is the ability to install the system downstream of underground detention systems to meet water quality volume requirements. Page 3 Cartridge Housing Pre-filter Cartridge Curb Inlet Individual Media Filters Advantages & Operation The MWS Linear is the most efficient and versatile biofiltration system on the market, and the only system with horizontal flow which improves performance, reduces footprint, and minimizes maintenance. Figure-1 and Figure-2 illustrate the invaluable benefits of horizontal flow and the multiple treatment stages. • Horizontal Flow Biofiltration • Greater Filter Surface Area • Pre-Treatment Chamber • Patented Perimeter Void Area • Flow Control • No Depressed Planter Area Separation • Trash, sediment, and debris are separated before entering the pre-filter cartridges • Designed for easy maintenance access Pre-Filter Cartridges • Over 25 ft2 of surface area per cartridge • Utilizes BioMediaGREEN filter material • Removes over 80% of TSS & 90% of hydrocarbons • Prevents pollutants that cause clogging from migrating to the biofiltration chamber Pre-Treatment1 1 2 Drain-Do 1 2Vertical Underdrain Manifold Featured Advantages www.ModularWetlands.com Fig. 1 Horizontal Flow • Less clogging than downward flow biofilters • Water flow is subsurface • Improves biological filtration Patented Perimeter Void Area • Vertically extends void area between the walls and the WetlandMEDIA on all four sides. • Maximizes surface area of the media for higher treatment capacity WetlandMEDIA • Contains no organics and removes phosphorus • Greater surface area and 48% void space • Maximum evapotranspiration • High ion exchange capacity and light weight Flow Control • Orifice plate controls flow of water through WetlandMEDIA to a level lower than the media’s capacity. • Extends the life of the media and improves performance Drain-Down Filter • The Drain-Down is an optional feature that completely drains the pre-treatment chamber • Water that drains from the pre-treatment chamber between storm events will be treated 2x to 3x More Surface Area Than Traditional Downward Flow Bioretention Systems.Fig. 2 - Top View Biofiltration2 Discharge3 Perimeter V o i d A r e a 3 4 3 Flow Control Riser Drain-Down Line Outlet Pipe Page 5 Orientations Bypass Internal Bypass Weir (Side-by-Side Only) The Side-By-Side orientation places the pre-treat- ment and discharge chambers adjacent to one an- other allowing for integration of internal bypass. The wall between these chambers can act as a by- pass weir when flows exceed the system’s treatment capacity, thus allowing bypass from the pre-treat- ment chamber directly to the discharge chamber. External Diversion Weir Structure This traditional offline diversion method can be used with the MWS Linear in scenarios where run- off is being piped to the system. These simple and effective structures are generally configured with two outflow pipes. The first is a smaller pipe on the upstream side of the diversion weir - to divert low flows over to the MWS Linear for treatment. The second is the main pipe that receives water once the system has exceeded treatment capacity and water flows over the weir. Flow By Design This method is one in which the system is placed just upstream of a standard curb or grate inlet to intercept the first flush. Higher flows simply pass by the MWS Linear and into the standard inlet down- stream. End-To-End The End-To-End orientation places the pre-treat- ment and discharge chambers on opposite ends of the biofiltration chamber therefore minimizing the width of the system to 5 ft (outside dimension). This orientation is perfect for linear projects and street retrofits where existing utilities and sidewalks limit the amount of space available for installation. One limitation of this orientation is bypass must be ex- ternal. Side-By-Side The Side-By-Side orientation places the pre-treat- ment and discharge chamber adjacent to one an- other with the biofiltration chamber running paral- lel on either side. This minimizes the system length, providing a highly compact footprint. It has been proven useful in situations such as streets with di- rectly adjacent sidewalks, as half of the system can be placed under that sidewalk. This orientation also offers internal bypass options as discussed below. This simple yet innovative diversion trough can be installed in existing or new curb and grate inlets to divert the first flush to the MWS Linear via pipe. It works similar to a rain gutter and is installed just below the opening into the inlet. It captures the low flows and channels them over to a connecting pipe exiting out the wall of the inlet and leading to the MWS Linear. The DVERT is perfect for retrofit and green street applications that allows the MWS Lin- ear to be installed anywhere space is available. DVERT Low Flow Diversion DVERT Trough www.ModularWetlands.com Rhode Island DEM Approved Approved as an authorized BMP and noted to achieve the following minimum removal efficiencies: 85% TSS, 60% Pathogens, 30% Total Phosphorus for discharges to freshwater systems, and 30% Total Nitrogen for discharges to saltwater or tidal systems. MASTEP Evaluation The University of Massachusetts at Amherst – Water Resources Research Center, issued a technical evaluation report noting removal rates up to 84% TSS, 70% Total Phosphorus, 68.5% Total Zinc, and more. Washington State DOE Approved The MWS Linear is approved for General Use Level Designation (GULD) for Basic, En- hanced, and Phosphorus treatment at 1 gpm/ft2 loading rate. The highest performing BMP on the market for all main pollutant categories. Approvals The MWS Linear has successfully met years of challenging technical reviews and testing from some of the most prestigious and demanding agencies in the nation, and perhaps the world. DEQ Assignment The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality assigned the MWS Linear, the highest phosphorus removal rating for manufactured treatment devices to meet the new Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Technical Criteria. VA TSS Total Phosphorus Ortho Phosphorus Nitrogen Dissolved Zinc Dissolved Copper Total Zinc Total Copper Motor Oil 85% 64% 67% 45% 66% 38% 69% 50% 95% Performance The MWS Linear continues to outperform other treatment methods with superior pollutant removal for TSS, heavy metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons and bacteria. Since 2007 the MWS Linear has been field tested on nu- merous sites across the country. With it’s advanced pre-treatment chamber and innovative horizontal flow biofilter, the system is able to effectively remove pollutants through a combination of physical, chemical, and biological filtration processes. With the same biological processes found in natural wetlands, the MWS Linear harnesses natures ability to process, transform, and remove even the most harmful pollutants. Page 7 Treatment Flow Sizing Table Model # Dimensions WetlandMedia Surface Area Treatment Flow Rate (cfs) MWS-L-4-4 4’ x 4’ 23 ft 2 0.052 MWS-L-4-6 4’ x 6’ 32 ft 2 0.073 MWS-L-4-8 4’ x 8’ 50 ft 2 0.115 MWS-L-4-13 4’ x 13’ 63 ft 2 0.144 MWS-L-4-15 4’ x 15’ 76 ft 2 0.175 MWS-L-4-17 4’ x 17’ 90 ft 2 0.206 MWS-L-4-19 4’ x 19’ 103 ft 2 0.237 MWS-L-4-21 4’ x 21’ 117 ft 2 0.268 MWS-L-8-8 8’ x 8’ 100 ft 2 0.230 MWS-L-8-12 8’ x 12’ 151 ft 2 0.346 MWS-L-8-16 8’ x 16’ 201 ft 2 0.462 Flow Based Sizing The MWS Linear can be used in stand alone applica- tions to meet treatment flow requirements. Since the MWS Linear is the only biofiltration system that can ac- cept inflow pipes several feet below the surface it can be used not only in decentralized design applications but also as a large central end-of-the-line application for maximum feasibility. Volume Based Sizing Many states require treatment of a water quality volume and do not offer the option of flow based design. The MWS Linear and its unique horizontal flow makes it the only biofilter that can be used in volume based design installed downstream of ponds, detention basins, and underground storage systems. Treatment Volume Sizing Table Model #Treatment Capacity (cu. ft.) @ 24-Hour Drain Down Treatment Capacity (cu. ft.) @ 48-Hour Drain Down MWS-L-4-4 1140 2280 MWS-L-4-6 1600 3200 MWS-L-4-8 2518 5036 MWS-L-4-13 3131 6261 MWS-L-4-15 3811 7623 MWS-L-4-17 4492 8984 MWS-L-4-19 5172 10345 MWS-L-4-21 5853 11706 MWS-L-8-8 5036 10072 MWS-L-8-12 7554 15109 MWS-L-8-16 10073 20145 www.ModularWetlands.com Installation The MWS Linear is simple, easy to install, and has a space efficient design that offers lower excavation and in- stallation costs compared to traditional tree-box type systems. The structure of the system resembles pre-cast catch basin or utility vaults and is installed in a similar fashion. The system is delivered fully assembled for quick in- stallation. Generally, the structure can be unloaded and set in place in 15 minutes. Our experienced team of field technicians are available to supervise installations and provide technical support. Plant Selection Abundant plants, trees, and grasses bring value and an aesthetic benefit to any urban setting, but those in the MWS Linear do even more - they increase pollutant removal. What’s not seen, but very important, is that below grade the stormwater runoff/flow is being subjected to nature’s secret weapon: a dynamic physical, chemi- cal, and biological process working to break down and remove non-point source pollutants. The flow rate is controlled in the MWS Linear, giving the plants more “contact time” so that pollutants are more successfully decomposed, volatilized and incorporated into the biomass of The MWS Linear’s micro/macro flora and fauna. A wide range of plants are suitable for use in the MWS Linear, but selec- tions vary by location and climate. View suitable plants by selecting the list relative to your project location’s hardy zone. Please visit www.ModularWetlands.com/Plants for more information and various plant lists. Maintenance Reduce your maintenance costs, man hours, and materials with the MWS Linear. Unlike other biofiltration systems that provide no pre-treatment, the MWS Linear is a self-contained treatment train which incorporates simple and effective pre-treatment. Maintenance requirements for the biofilter itself are almost completely eliminated, as the pre-treatment chamber removes and isolates trash, sediments, and hydrocarbons. What’s left is the simple maintenance of an easily accessible pre-treatment chamber that can be cleaned by hand or with a standard vac truck. Only periodic replacement of low- cost media in the pre-filter cartridges is required for long term opera- tion and there is absolutely no need to replace expensive biofiltration media. Page 9 MWS – Linear Hybrid Stormwater Filtration System SPECIFICATIONS Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. www.modularwetlands.com P.O. Box 869 P 760-433-7640 Oceanside, CA 92049 F 760-433-3179 MWS – Linear Hybrid Stormwater Filtration System Save valuable space with small otprint for urban sites. d tropical ndscape plants. er and ss expensive maintenance ystem unoff is in d ischarge chamber the rate of discharge is controlled by valves set to a desired rate”. ested Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: fo Improve BMP aesthetics with attractive native an la Reduce lifetime costs with saf le “The MWS – Linear hybrid stormwater treatment system is described as a self contained treatment train. This system utilizes an innovative combination of l treatment processes. Stormwater runoff flows into the s via pipe or curb/grate type catch basin opening. Polluted runoff first encounters a screening device to remove larger pollutants and then enters a hydrodynamic separation chamber which settles out the sediments and larger suspended solids. Next the r treated by a revolutionary filter media, BioMediaGREEN that removes fines and associated pollutants, including bacteria. From there runoff enters of bioretention filter the form of a subsurface flow vegetated gravel wetland. Within the wetland physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms remove the remaining particulate and dissolve pollutants. The purified runoff leaves the system via the discharge chamber. In the d T Removal Di d Removal D Removal TPH Removal Removal TSS ssolve Lead issolved Copper E. coli Turbidity 98% 81% 92% 99% 60.2% 92% “Nature and Harmony Working Together in Perfect Harmony” SPECIFICATIONS – MWS- LINEAR gaged in the engineering design and roduction of treatment systems for stormwater. treat the entire water quality olume when used with pre-storage and properly sized. ls. g ¾” x 1 nels are g ted of UV protected/marine grade berglass and stainless steel hinge and mount. uires tails of this are provided in the installation section of the WS-Linear Design Kit. Track Record: The MWS- Linear Hybrid Stormwater Treatment System is manufactured by a company whom is regularly en p Coverage: The MWS- Linear is designed to treat the water quality volume or water quality flow. For flow based design, high flow bypass is internal, for volume based design, high flow bypass is external and prior to pre-detention system. For offline volume based designs the MWS - Linear has the ability to v Non-Corrosive Materials: The MWS – Linear is designed with non-corrosive materia All internal piping is SD35 PVC. Catch basin filter components, including mountin hardware, fasteners, support brackets, filtration material, and support frame are constructed of non-corrosive materials (316 stainless steel, and UV protected/marine grade fiberglass). Fasteners are stainless steel. Primary filter mesh is 316 stainless steel welded screens. Filtration basket screens for coarse, medium and fine filtration is ¾“expanded, 10 x 10 mesh, and 35 x 35 mesh, respectively. No polypropylene, monofilament netting or fabrics shall be used in this system. Media Protective Pa constructed of UV protected/marine grade fiberglass. Mounts are constructed of stainless steel. BioMediaGREEN is an inert rock substrate and is non-corrosive. Perimeter filter structure is constructed of lightweight injection molded plastic. Mountin brackets are constructed of SD40 PVC and are mounted with 3/8” diameter stainless steel redheads. Drain down filter cover is construc fi Weight: Each complete unit weighs approximately 29,000 to 40,000 pounds and req a boom crane to install. De M Transportation: The Modular Wetland System – Linear is designed to be transported a standard flat bed t on ruck. The unit easily fits on a flat bed truck without the need of pecial permitting. d noff can enter the system through a pipe, and/or a uilt in curb or grate type opening. etland System – Linear is completely passive and quires no external energy sources. he tation. As a precaution a footing can lso be built into the systems concrete structure. re o slippage, breaking, or tearing. All filters are warranted for a minimum of five (5) years. e hydrocarbon removal abilities. Within the wetland filter biological processes capture and s Alternative Technology Configurations: The Modular Wetland System – Linear is modular is design. Each module will be up to 22 feet long and 5 feet wide. The system can be made in lengths varying from 13 to 100s of feet long. For lengths longer than 22 feet the system will shipped in modules and assembled on site. The Modular Wetlan System – Linear has many alternative configurations. This allows the system to be adapted to many site conditions. Ru b Energy Requirements: The Modular W re Buoyancy Issues: Buoyancy is only a an issue when ground water levels rise above t bottom of the Modular Wetland System – Linear’s concrete structure. With 8.5 cubic yards of wetland media there is no concern of floa a Durability: The structure of the box will be precast concrete. The concrete will be 28 day compressive strength fc = 5,000 psi. Steel reinforcing will be ASTM A – C857. Structu will support an H20 loading as indicted by AASHTO. The joint between the concrete sections will ship lap and joint sealed with ram-nek. Filter (excluding oil absorbent media) and support structures are of proven durability. The filter and mounting structures are of sufficient strength to support water, sediment, and debris loads when the filter is full, with n Oil Absorbent Media: The MWS – Linear utilizes both physical and biological mechanisms to capture and filter oil and grease. A skimmer and boom system will b positioned on the internal perimeter of the catch basin insert. The primary filtration media, BioMediaGreen, utilized in the perimeter and drain down filters, has excellent break down oil and grease. Much of the breakdown and transformation of oil and grease performed by natural occurring bacteria. n system. For eak flows that exceed internal bypass capacity, external bypass is use. for internally bypassed flows. External bypass will bypass of eatment processes. ze. Annual een and quarter-scale boratory tests on the MWS – Linear flow based system. POLLUTANT FICIENCY is Overflow Protection: The grate and curb type MWS – Linear are designed with an internal bypass consisting of two SD PVC pipes which direct high flows around the perimeter and wetland filter, directly into the discharge chamber. For the volume based vault type configuration, bypass should be located prior to the pre-detentio p Filter Bypass: Runoff will bypass filtration (BioMediaGREEN and wetland filter) components of the MWS - Linear. The system will still provide screening and settling during higher flow rates tr Pollutant Removal Efficiency: The MWS - Linear is capable of removing over 90% of the net annual total suspended solids (TSS) load based on a 20-micron particle si TSS removal efficiency models are based on documented removal efficiency performance from full-scale laboratory tests on BioMediaGr la REMOVAL EF Trash & Litter 99% TPH (mg/L) 99% TSS (mg/L) 98% E. Coli (MPN/100ml) 60% Turbidity (NTU) 92% Dissolved Metals (mg/L) 76% Non-Scouring: During heavy storm events the runoff bypasses perimeter and wetland lter components. The system will not re-suspend solids at design flows. rticle diameter = 19 microns Sil-Co-Sil 106. Mean pa fi Uniqueness: The Modular Wetland System – Linear is a complete self contain treatment train that incorporates capture, screening, sedimentation, filtration, bioretention, high flow bypass, and flow control into a single modular structure. This system provides four stages of treatment making it the only 4 stage treatment train stormwater filtration system, therefore making it unique to the industry. Other s not incorporate all the necessary attributes to make it a complete stormwater management device as ed ystems do with the Modular Wetland System – Linear. Therefore, no equal xists for this system. ter management system no external retreatment of preconditioning is necessary. PECIFICATIONS – BioMediaGREEN se nd is also biodegradable. It is stable with no nown adverse environmental effects. injection) studies have hown that the products disappear very rapidly from the lung. dies that show no relation between inhalation exposure nd the development of tumors. e Pretreatment & Preconditioning: Since the Modular Wetland System – Linear is a complete capture and treatment train stormwa p S BioMediaGREEN is a proprietary engineered filter media. Made of a unique combination of the inert naturally occurring material this product is non-combustible and do not po a fire hazard, stable and non-reactive, a k This product has been tested in long-term carcinogenicity studies [inhalation and intraperitoneal injection (i.p.)] with no significant increase in lung tumors or abdominal tumors. Short-term biopersistent (inhalation and intra-tracheal s In October 2001, IARC classified this product as Group 3, "not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans". The 2001 decision was based on the latest epidemiological studies and animal inhalation stu a The product can typically be disposed of in an ordinary landfill (local regulations may apply). If you are unsure of the regulations, contact your local Public Health Department r the local office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). nt REEN ut ut filters, catch basin inserts, ater polishing units, and hydrodynamic separators. ve Materials: The BioMediaGreen material is made of non-corrosive aterials. MediaGREEN material has been tested through gorous flow and loading conditions. has been proven to capture and tain hydrocarbons. and liage, sediments, TSS, particulate and dissolved etals, nutrients, and bacteria. le o Coverage: When properly installed BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks provide sufficie contact time, at rated flows, of passing contaminate water. The BioMediaG material will capture and retain most pollutants that pass through it. The BioMediaGREEN material is made of a proprietary blend of inert substances. The BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks can be used in different treatment devices, including b not limited to flume filters, trench drain filters, downspo w Non-Corrosi m Durability: The BioMediaGREEN material has been chosen for its proven durability, with an expected life of 2 plus years. The BioMediaGREEN material is of sufficient strength to support water, sediment, and debris loads when the media is at maximum flow; with no slippage, breaking, or tearing. The Bio ri Oil Absorbent Media: The BioMediaGREEN material re Pollutant Removal Efficiency: The BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks are designed to capture high levels of Hydrocarbons including but not limited to oils & grease, gasoline, diesel, and PAHs. BioMediaGREEN Filter Blocks have the physical ability to block filter trash and litter, grass and fo m BioMediaGREEN technology is based on a proprietary blend of synthetic inert natural substances aimed at removal of various stormwater pollutants. BioMediaGREEN was created to have a very porous structure capable of selectively removing pollutants whi allowing high flow through rates for water. As pollutants are captured by its structure, ioMediaGREEN captures most pollutants and maintains porosity and filtering rge percentage of TSS, hydrocarbons, nutrients, and heavy metals. Microbial reduction ary depending on colony size, flow rates and site specific conditions. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY B capabilities. Field and laboratory tests have confirmed the BioMediaGREEN capability to capture la efficiency will v POLLUTANT Oil & Grease (mg/L) 90% TPH (mg/L) 99% TSS (mg/L) 85% Turbidity (NTU) 99% Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 69.6% Dissolved Metals (mg/L) 75.6% Replacement: Removal and replacement of the blocks is simple. Remove blocks from ltration system. Replace with new block of equal size. Sil-Co-Sil 106. Mean particle diameter = 19 microns fi TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-69 December 20, 2013 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 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 Drainage areas of 0.25 to 1.0 acres. 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. 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: Catch basin planter box Bioretention vault Tree box filter Proprietary biotreatment Source: http://www.americastusa.com /index.php/filterra/ TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-70 December 20, 2013 □ 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 Proprietary biotreatment devices can be volume based or flow-based BMPs. 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. 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). In South Orange County, the provided ponding plus pore volume must be checked to demonstrate that it is greater than 0.75 of the remaining DCV that this BMP is designed to address. Many propretary biotreatment BMPs will not be able to meet the definition of “biofiltration” that applies in South Orange County. See Section III.7 and Worksheet SOC-1. Additional References for Design Guidance 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 Los Angeles County Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual, Chapter 9: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/DES/design_manuals/StormwaterBMPDesignandMaintenance.pdf Santa Barbara BMP Guidance Manual, Chapter 6: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/91D1FA75-C185-491E-A882- 49EE17789DF8/0/Manual_071008_Final.pdf Attachment D TGD Worksheets & Figures Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (12-20-2013) 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. 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. Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 3 Would infiltration of the DCV from drainage area violate downstream water rights? Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (12-20-2013) 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? 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. 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? 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? Provide citation to applicable study and summarize findings relative to the amount of infiltration that is permissible: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (12-20-2013) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) Infiltration Screening Results (check box corresponding to result): 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: Summarize findings of infeasibility screening 10 If any answer from row 4-8 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: Summarize findings of infeasibility screening 11 If all answers to rows 1 through 10 are no, infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, BMPs must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the maximum extent practicable. Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method DMA 1 Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d= 0.75 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC=0 inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder=0.75 inches Step 2: Calculate the DCV 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres)A= 0.65 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.70 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.67 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Vdesign= 1,197 cu-ft Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate 1 Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasured (in/hr) (Appendix VII) Kmeasured= n/a In/hr 2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Sfinal (unitless) Sfinal=n/a 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesign = Kmeasured / Sfinal Kdesign= n/a In/hr Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint 4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours)T= n/a Hours 5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12)Dmax= n/a Feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), Amin = Vdesign/ dmax Amin= n/a sq-ft 0.9 0.9 1.149 0.81 0.755 2,833 DMA 1 0 Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method DMA 1 Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d= 0.75 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC=0 inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder=0.75 inches Step 2: Calculate the DCV 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres)A= 0.65 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.70 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 0.67 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Vdesign= 1,197 cu-ft Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate 1 Enter measured infiltration rate, Kmeasured (in/hr) (Appendix VII) Kmeasured= n/a In/hr 2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Sfinal (unitless) Sfinal=n/a 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesign = Kmeasured / Sfinal Kdesign= n/a In/hr Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint 4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours)T= n/a Hours 5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12)Dmax= n/a Feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), Amin = Vdesign/ dmax Amin= n/a sq-ft 0.9 0.9 0.565 0.80 0.749 1,382 DMA 2 0 Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (12-20-2013) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2)Tc= 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I1 I1=in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y2 (Worksheet A)Y2=% 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency(Y2), I2 I2= 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, design= I1-I2 Idesign= Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres)A=acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless)imp= 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 4 Calculate design flowrate, Qdesign= (C x idesign x A)Qdesign=cfs Supporting Calculations Describe system: Provide time of concentration assumptions: Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (12-20-2013) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Graphical Operations Provide supporting graphical operations. See Example III.7. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (12-20-2013) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2)Tc= 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I1 I1=in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y2 (Worksheet A)Y2=% 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency(Y2), I2 I2= 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, design= I1-I2 Idesign= Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres)A=acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless)imp= 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 4 Calculate design flowrate, Qdesign= (C x idesign x A)Qdesign=cfs Supporting Calculations Describe system: Provide time of concentration assumptions: Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (12-20-2013) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs Graphical Operations Provide supporting graphical operations. See Example III.7. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES VIII-13 December 20, 2013 Worksheet I: Summary of Groundwater-related Feasibility Criteria 1 Is project large or small? (as defined by Table VIII.2) circle one Large Small 2 What is the tributary area to the BMP? A acres 3 What type of BMP is proposed? 4 What is the infiltrating surface area of the proposed BMP? ABMP sq-ft 5 What land use activities are present in the tributary area (list all) 6 What land use-based risk category is applicable? L M H 7 If M or H, what pretreatment and source isolation BMPs have been considered and are proposed (describe all): 8 What minimum separation to mounded seasonally high groundwater applies to the proposed BMP? See Section VIII.2 (circle one) 5 ft 10 ft 9 Provide rationale for selection of applicable minimum separation to seasonally high mounded groundwater: 10 What is separation from the infiltrating surface to seasonally high groundwater? SHGWT ft 11 What is separation from the infiltrating surface to mounded seasonally high groundwater? Mounded SHGWT ft 12 Describe assumptions and methods used for mounding analysis: 13 Is the site within a plume protection boundary (See Figure Y N N/A 1.71 Biofiltration vault Existing land use consists of commercial, Proposed land use will consist of residential/commercial Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES VIII-14 December 20, 2013 Worksheet I: Summary of Groundwater-related Feasibility Criteria VIII.2)? 14 Is the site within a selenium source area or other natural plume area (See Figure VIII.2)? Y N N/A 15 Is the site within 250 feet of a contaminated site? Y N N/A 16 If site-specific study has been prepared, provide citation and briefly summarize relevant findings: 17 Is the site within 100 feet of a water supply well, spring, septic system? Y N N/A 18 Is infiltration feasible on the site relative to groundwater- related criteria? Y N Provide rationale for feasibility determination: Note: if a single criterion or group of criteria would render infiltration infeasible, it is not necessary to evaluate every question in this worksheet. Project site is in close proximity to a former landfill area which is restricted by RWQCB from infiltration Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet J: Summary of Harvested Water Demand and Feasibility 1 What demands for harvested water exist in the tributary area (check all that apply): 2 Toilet and urinal flushing □ 3 Landscape irrigation 4 Other:_______________________________________________________ □ 5 What is the design capture storm depth? (Figure III.1) d 0.90 inches 6 What is the project size? A 3.92 ac 7 What is the acreage of impervious area? IA 3.18 ac For projects with multiple types of demand (toilet flushing, irrigation demand, and/or other demand) 8 What is the minimum use required for partial capture? (Table X.6) gpd 9 What is the project estimated wet season total daily use (Section X.2)? gpd 10 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 9 > Line 8?) For projects with only toilet flushing demand 11 What is the minimum TUTIA for partial capture? (Table X.7) 12 What is the project estimated TUTIA? 13 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 12 > Line 11?) For projects with only irrigation demand 14 What is the minimum irrigation area required based on conservation landscape design? (Table X.8)[3.18x1.01]3.21 ac 15 What is the proposed project irrigated area? (multiply conservation landscaping by 1; multiply active turf by 2)0.74 ac 16 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 15 > Line 14?) No Provide supporting assumptions and citations for controlling demand calculation: Due to the proposed development type, density and amount of available landscaping, Harvest and Use BMPs for irrigation purposes will not be feasible. No 1.43x1.01 0.90 1.72 1.43 1.44 0.28 ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYRIVERS IDE COUNTYRIVERS IDE COUNTY O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY1.05 0.7 10.950.90.850.80.750.70.650. 9 5 0.70.90.9 0 . 7 5 P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-1_RainfallZones_20110215.mxdFIGUREJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP04/22/10DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYTECHNICAL GUIDANCEDOCUMENTORANGE CO.CARAINFALL ZONESSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION 03.67.21.8 Miles 06123 Kilometers 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 Project Site ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYRIVERS IDE COUN TYRIVERS IDE COUN TY O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY1010 3 51030103010 20 10 10 5 50 3 30 30 303020 5 102 0 30 50 1030 20 P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-2d_DepthToGroundwaterOverview_20110215.mxdFIGURE XVI-2dJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.25 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP02/09/11DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYINFILTRATION STUDYORANGE CO.CANORTH ORANGE COUNTYMAPPED DEPTH TO FIRST GROUNDWATERSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION 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 02.551.25 Miles 0482 Kilometers LEGEND Depth To First Groundwater Contours City Boundaries OCWD Groundwater Basin Protection Boundary Project Site ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYRIVERS IDE COUN TYRIVERS IDE COUN TY O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYP:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-2a_HydroSoils_20110215.mxdFIGURE XVI-2aJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP02/09/11DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYINFILTRATION STUDYORANGE CO.CANRCS HYDROLOGICSOILS GROUPSSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION Source: Soils: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey - soil_ca678, Orange County & Western Riverside Date of publication: 2006-02-08 !I 03.67.21.8 Miles 05102.5 Kilometers LEGEND City Boundaries Hydrologic Soil Groups A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Project Site P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\SuceptabilityMaps_20100505\9526E_SanGabrielCo yoteCreekSusc eptibility_20100430.mxd $QDKHLP%D\+XQWLQJWRQ+DUERU :DWHUVKHG 1HZSRUW%D\ 1HZSRUW&RDVWDO 6WUHDPV:DWHUVKHG 6DQWD5LYHU:DWHUVKHG /RV$QJHOHV&RXQW\ &KDQQHOLQ 5HWDUGLQJ%DVLQ Los Alamitos Naval Air Station Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Fullerton Airport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roject Site ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYRIVERS IDE COUNTYRIVERS IDE COUNTY O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYP:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Re ports\Infiltratio nFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-2f_No rthOCGroundwaterProte c tio nAre asStreetMap_20110215.mxd FIGURE XVI-2fJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.25 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP04/22/10DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYINFILTRATION STUDYORANGE CO.CANORTH ORANGE COUNTYGROUNDWATER PROTECTIONAREASSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION Note: Individual contamination sites are not plotted. See State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker database (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov), Department of Toxic Substance Control Envirostor database (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov) and other applicable sources for current listing of active contaminated sites. Groundwater basin and plume protection boundaries for South Orange County are not shown on this exhibit at this time !I 0 2.5 51.25 Miles 0 4 82 Kilometers LEGEND City Boundaries OCWD Groundwater Basin Protection Boundary Plume Protection Boundaries North Basin Groundwater Protection Project South Basin Groundwater Protection Project El Toro Marine Base Tustin Marine Air Base Approximate Selenium Contamination Area Project Site 81 ft Carbon Creek W L i nco l n A v e S BeachBlvdS Beach BlvdN BeachBlvdNBeach Blvd39 W G rac i o s a L n W O li n da L n N Grand AveC h e r oke eW P a s o R o b l e s D r W V a ll e j o D r S GrandAveS Grand AveW D e l Mon t e Dr W Po l k A v e MohawkComancheNavajoSeminoleW Lindac i ta Ln S Delano StS Harding AveS TopangaDrWest Anaheim Medical Center W O r a n g e Ave Ca r bon C r eek W Linco l n A v e SDale AveSLaxore StS Laxore StSBelAir StWestern SkiesS Ridgeway St W Acade my A ve W S ky wood C i r SBenwoodDrW R o w l an d C i rNBelAir StS Vicki LnSShields DrW B r i dge p ort A v e W B r o a d w a yN Dale AveS Broder StLibertyParkRVMarlowe St Bri s tol D r Schweitzer Park S Doyle Dr Delineation Point TTM 19286 Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Anaheim, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Trace Results Soil B Outlets Inlets Local Drainage Closed Conveyance Regional Channels Open Conveyance Closed Conveyance 8/29/2023 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.15 0.30.07 km 1:4,976 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE EXISTING DOWNSTREAM INLET Attachment E Operations & Maintenance Page 1 of 7 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan Water Quality Management Plan For TR 19286 2952 & 2960 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92804 APN: 126-602-33, -35 Owner/ Developer: Landsea Holdings Corporation 7525 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Contact: Thuan Vo (949) 272-9836 Homeowner’s Association: To be determined Page 2 of 7 Exhibit A, Operations and Maintenance Plan 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 and Maintenance Responsibility Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Yes N1. Education for Property Owners, Tenants, and Occupants This will be addressed through educational materials. All included materials provide ways of mitigating stormwater pollution in everyday activities associated with residents as well as employees of the property management company and their sub-contractors. Practical informational materials are provided to residents, occupants, or tenants to increase the public’s understanding of stormwater quality, sources of pollutants, and what they can do to reduce pollutants in stormwater. HOA to provide educational materials, a copy of the approved WQMP and Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M) to new property owners, tenants, occupants & employees, at time of hire, leasing and/ or home purchase. HOA Yes N2. Activity Restriction Rules or guidelines for developments are established within the appropriate documents which prohibit activities that can result in discharges of pollutants. HOA employees notified of activities that are prohibited by homeowners. Restrictions identified in Employee Manual and reviewed yearly by employees. Yes N3. Common Area Landscaped Management Specific practices are followed and ongoing maintenance is conducted to minimize erosion and over-irrigation, conserve water, and reduce pesticide and fertilizer applications. Professional landscape company to conduct maintenance of landscaping to meet current water efficiency and keep plants healthy and bio areas maintained with proper soil amendments. Regular maintenance once a week and monthly inspection to determine deficiencies The HOA will maintain or hire professionals to manage the upkeep of the project’s landscaped areas. Yes N4. BMP Maintenance In order to ensure adequate and comprehensive BMP implementation, all responsible parties are identified for implementing all non-structural and structural BMPs, cleaning, inspection, and other maintenance activities are specified including responsible parties for conducting such activities. A minimum 2 Inspections/ Cleanings per year per manufacturer’s specifications prior to October 1st (before the rainy season) HOA to hire professional BMP maintenance company to conduct regular inspections, repairs and cleaning per manufacturer’s specifications. No N5. Title 22 CCR Compliance Hazardous waste is managed properly through compliance with applicable Title 22 regulations. Hazardous materials or wastes will be generated, handled, transported, or disposed of in association with the project; measures are taken to comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulation to avoid harm to humans and the environment. Page 3 of 7 No N7. Spill Contingency Plan No N8. Underground Storage Tank Compliance Yes N10. Uniform Fire Code Implementation HOA to comply with fire regulations and keep informed of the latest rules and requirements. Comply with annual fire inspections and maintain building and access per the latest fire codes. HOA Yes N11. Common Area Litter Control The proposed project will have various trash receptacles located near the common areas. Trash management and litter control procedures are specified within this report, including responsible parties, and implemented to reduce pollution of drainage water. Once per week provide litter removal of site parking lot and landscape areas and to empty common area trash bins. HOA Yes N12. Employee Training Practical informational materials and/or training are provided to employees at the initial time of hiring by the HOA to increase their understanding of stormwater quality, sources of pollutants, and their responsibility for reducing pollutants in stormwater. The distribution of these materials will be the responsibility of the HOA at the initial hiring of the employee. HOA No N13. Housekeeping of Loading Docks Yes N14. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection In order to ensure adequate and comprehensive BMP implementation, all responsible parties are identified for implementing all non-structural and structural BMPs, cleaning, inspection, and other maintenance activities are specified including responsible parties for conducting such activities. Inspection twice per month of common areas where catch basins are located within the surrounding area and remove any trash/ debris. HOA Yes N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Regular sweeping is conducted to reduce pollution of drainage water. City’s Street Sweeping Services or approved Private Company on a weekly basis HOA No N17. Retail Gasoline Outlets Structural Source Control BMPs Yes Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage Catch Basin Stenciling and Signage will be placed on all on-site catch basins to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Inspect and repair as needed all onsite storm drain stencilling & signage. Inspection should occur at minimum twice per year. HOA No Design and Construct Outdoor Material Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction Page 4 of 7 No Design and Construct Trash and Waste Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction (trash enclosures) Yes Use Efficient Irrigation Systems and Landscape Design Site efficient irrigation and landscaping has been implemented by the project’s landscape architect to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Department. HOA to provide maintenance of landscaping to meet current water efficiency standards, and keep plants healthily. Regular maintenance once a week and monthly inspection to determine any water deficiencies. The HOA will maintain or hire professionals to manage the upkeep of the project’s landscaped areas. No Protect Slopes and Channels and Provide Energy Dissipation No Loading Docks No Maintenance Bays No Vehicle Wash Areas No Outdoor Processing Areas No Equipment Wash Areas No Fueling Areas No Hillside Landscaping No Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Area Treatment Control BMPs Yes Treatment Control BMP #1 Modular Wetlands System Biofiltration Vaults See attached for specific BMP detail information pertaining to operation and maintenance. Inspections/ Cleanings should occur at least two times per year and before the start of the rainy season (October 1st). Refer to Attachment C for additional information and manufacturer’s specifications. HOA will be required to hire a professional maintenance company to provide regular inspection, repairs and cleaning per manufacturer’s specifications. All trash/ debris and loose sediment/ silt shall be removed per manufacturer’s specifications. Flood Control Yes ADS Detention Piping ADS detention piping is provided onsite to mitigate flood control requirements and temporarily detain flows exceeding allowable discharge rate during large storm events. Piping should now allow standing water within system for more than 48 hours. Inspections/ Cleanings should occur at least two times per year and before the start of the rainy season (October 1st). Inspect for standing water 48 hours after major storm events. HOA to inspect detention piping and schedule maintenance/cleanings when deficiencies or sediment buildup/ trash/ debris is observed. HOA to check for standing water following major storm events and contact manufacturer if standing water does not drain within 48 hours. Page 5 of 7 Required Permits This section must list any permits required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. Possible examples are: • No required permits are needed for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the previously listed BMPs. Forms to Record the BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection The form that will be used to record the implementation, maintenance, and inspection of the BMPs is attached. Recordkeeping All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years and must be made available for review upon request. Notice to Owner: The property is currently owned by Landsea Holdings Corporation. The Owner will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the project’s storm water facilities and conformance to this WQMP after construction is complete. The owner is aware of the maintenance responsibilities of the proposed BMPs. A funding mechanism is in place to maintain the BMPs at the frequency stated in the WQMP. Page 6 of 7 RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity: (Printed) Signature: BMP Name (As Shown on O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed Page 7 of 7 Operation & Maintenance Plan ‐ Attachments Modular Wetlands System, Maintenance Guidelines www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Guidelines for Modular Wetland System - Linear Maintenance Summary o Remove Trash from Screening Device – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. (5 minute average service time). o Remove Sediment from Separation Chamber – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. (10 minute average service time). o Replace Cartridge Filter Media – average maintenance interval 12 to 24 months. (10-15 minute per cartridge average service time). o Replace Drain Down Filter Media – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. (5 minute average service time). o Trim Vegetation – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. (Service time varies). System Diagram Access to screening device, separation chamber and cartridge filter Access to drain down filter Pre-Treatment Chamber Biofiltration Chamber Discharge Chamber Outflow Pipe Inflow Pipe (optional) 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. 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 Yes Type 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 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 Modular Wetland System - Linear (MWS-Linear) Maintenance Schedule MWS - LINEAR Cleaning Required Est. Cleaning Time Year 1 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 2 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 3 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 4 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 5 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 6 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 7 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 8 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 9… 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes Year 15 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) (does not apply to vault type) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media (12 month Intervals) 4) Remove & Replace Wetland Plants & Media (every 10-20 years) 10 Minutes 25 Minutes 45 Minutes 6 to 8 Hours Procedure 1 Clean Inlet Filter (does not apply to vault type) Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the catch basin filter be inspected and cleaned a minimum of once every six months and replacement of hydrocarbon booms once a year. The procedure is easily done with the use of any standard vacuum truck. Before doing maintenance please use proper safety and traffic control. 1) Remove grate or manhole, remove the deflector shield (grate type only). Note: entry into an underground stormwater vault such as an inlet vault requires certification in confined space training. 2) Remove all trash, debris, organics, and sediments collected by the inlet filter insert either manually or with the use of a vactor truck. 3) Evaluate hydrocarbon boom. If the boom is filled with hydrocarbons and oils it should be replaced. Attach new boom to basket with plastic ties through pre-drilled holes in basket. Place the deflector shield (grate type only) back into the filter. Hydrocarbon boom should be replaced annually. (The hydrocarbon boom may be classified as hazardous material and will have to be picked up and disposed of as hazardous waste). 10 Minutes Procedure 2 Vacuum Catch Basin Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the separation chamber be inspected and cleaned a minimum of once a year. The procedure is easily done with the use of any standard vacuum truck. Before doing maintenance please use proper safety and traffic control. 1) Remove grate or manhole. 2) Remove catch basin filter. 3) Spray down pollutants accumulated on cartridge filters and catch basin walls. 4) Vacuum out sediments and debris accumulated on catch basin floor. 5) Replace catch basin filter, and replace grate or manhole cover. 25 Minutes Procedure 3 Replace BioMedia Green Media Filter Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the BioMediaGREEN Cartridge Filters be inspected and cleaned a minimum of once a year. The procedure will require prior maintenance of catch basin. Before doing maintenance please use proper safety and traffic control. 1) Remove grate, remove catch basin filter. 2) Perform maintenance activities on catch basin. 3) Enter separation chamber, unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on the cartridge filter. This will expose the 14 pieces of BioMediaGREEN in each cartridge. 4) Evaluate media condition, replace if necessary. If the spaces between the media are filled with sediment and the surface of the media is dark brown or black the media should be replaced. The old media can be removed by hand by pulling the media pieces up out of the cartridge and taking them out of the catch basin. 5) Once all old media is removed, spray down the interior of the cartridge and vacuum out accumulated debris. 6) Use new pieces of BioMediaGREEN and slide down over the perforated PVC risers. The media will only go in one way for easy installation. Replace media over all risers. 5) Replace cartridge filter lid, replace catch basin filter, and replace grate or manhole cover. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the drain down filter be inspected and maintained a minimum of once a year. 1) Open hatch of discharge chamber, enter chamber. 2) Unlatch fiberglass cover, remove media block, replace with new block, replace and latch cover. 3) Exit chamber, close and lock down the hatch. 45 Minutes Procedure 4 Replace Wetland Media Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. recommends the wetland media be evaluated every 3 to 5 years to test flow rate. The media life is approximately 15 to 20 years. The wetland media is an expanded shale that can be ordered from the manufacturer or independent supplier. If the flow through the wetland filter is decreasing the internal inflow and outflow pipes leading to and from the wetland chamber can be jetted. If the flow through the wetland is still minimal then the media may need to be replaced. To replace the media the following steps are required. Before doing maintenance please use proper safety and traffic control. 1) Remove plants and dispose. Have new plants standing ready to plant. 2) Use a larger vacuum truck to remove the media from the wetland chamber. 3) Spray down the chamber walls and remove all sediment and water. 4) Replace with new wetland media and plant plants. 6 to 8 Hours WWW.MODULARWETLANDS.COM P: 760-433-7640 Modular Wetland System (MWS) – LINEAR Maintenance Cost (per acre) MWS - LINEAR Cleaning Required Yearly Maintenance Cost Year 1 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 2 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 3 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 4 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 5 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 6 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 7 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 8 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 9 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media $80 / each (x2) $350 / year $500 / year Year 10 1) Clean Inlet Filter (6 Month Intervals) 2) Vacuum Catch Basin (12 Month Intervals) 3) Replace BioMedia Green Filter Media 4) Remove & Replace Wetland Plants & Media $80 / each (x2) $350/ year $500 / year $2,500 Total 1 - 10 Total Maintenance Cost Over 10 Years $11,800 Average Yearly Cost Assumes 10 Year Replacement of Wetland Media. $1,180 / Year WWW.MODULARWETLANDS.COM P: 760-433-7640 Attachment F Soils Report & GeoTracker Exhibit Attachment F USDA Web Soil Survey & GeoTracker Exhibit Project Location Soil Map—Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California (LSHC-008_Soil Map) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 1 of 33743870374388037438903743900374391037439203743930374394037439503743960374397037438703743880374389037439003743910374392037439303743940374395037439603743970408130408140408150408160408170408180408190408200408210408220408230408240408250408260408270408280408290408300 408130 408140 408150 408160 408170 408180 408190 408200 408210 408220 408230 408240 408250 408260 408270 408280 408290 408300 33° 49' 55'' N 117° 59' 34'' W33° 49' 55'' N117° 59' 27'' W33° 49' 51'' N 117° 59' 34'' W33° 49' 51'' N 117° 59' 27'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 35 70 140 210 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:802 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 6, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 14, 2022—Apr 23, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California (LSHC-008_Soil Map) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 164 Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum 2.4 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 2.4 100.0% Soil Map—Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California LSHC-008_Soil Map Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 3 of 3 Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California 164—Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hcn9 Elevation: 0 to 600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 65 degrees F Frost-free period: 320 to 365 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Metz and similar soils:75 percent Minor components:25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Metz Setting Landform:Flood plains, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock Typical profile A - 0 to 17 inches: loamy sand C1 - 17 to 40 inches: stratified sand to sandy clay loam C2 - 40 to 46 inches: silty clay loam C3 - 46 to 60 inches: stratified sand to sandy clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Map Unit Description: Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum---Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California LSHC-008_Soil Map_164 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 1 of 2 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R019XD035CA - SANDY Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Metz, loamy sand Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Flood plains, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No Hueneme, fine sandy loam Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No Corralitos, loamy sand Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No San emigdio Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 6, 2022 Map Unit Description: Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum---Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California LSHC-008_Soil Map_164 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/30/2023 Page 2 of 2 Attachment G Notice of Transfer Water Quality Management Plan Notice of Transfer of Responsibility 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 (and his/ her agent) of the site (or a portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. I. Previous Owner/ Previous Responsibility Party Information Company/ Individual Name Contact Person Street Address Title City State Zip Phone II. Information about Site Transferred Name of Project Title of WQMP Applicable to Site: Street Address of Site Tract Number(s) for Site Lot Numbers Date WQMP Prepared (or Revised) 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 Number(s) of Site Transferred to New Owner Remaining Lot/ Tract Number(s) 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 the 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 the Previous Owner. Those portions retained by the Previous Owner shall be labeled “Previous Owner,” and those portions previously transferred by the 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 of property subject to a WQMP that such New Owner is now the Responsible Party of record for the WQMP for this 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 New Owner. Print 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 amendment of the WQMP for the Transferred Site, which the New Owner has acquired from the Previous Owner. Print Name of New Owner Representative Title Signature of New Owner Representative Date Attachment H Final Conditions of Approval 2 UPDATED HOURS: M-TH 7:30 AM – 5:30 PM | F 8:00 AM –NOON FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. an employee owned company 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92606 949.474.1960 | fuscoe.com IRVINE . SAN DIEGO . ONTARIO . LOS ANGELES full circle thinking® WARNING: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This information is not to be reproduced or forwarded without permission from the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender or system manager. From time to time, our spam filters eliminate or block legitimate email. If your email contains important attachments or instructions, please ensure that we acknowledge receipt of those attachments or instructions From: Haley Bauer Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:02 AM To: dmcdougall@cvc‐inc.net Cc: Cesar Morales <CMorales2@anaheim.net>; Howard Wen <hwen@fuscoe.com>; 'Keith Linker ‐ Anaheim' <klinker@anaheim.net>; Craig Siefert <Craig.siefert@weareharris.com>; Stephanie Castle Zinn <SCastleZinn@fuscoe.com> Subject: WQMP for S Beach Boulevard & W Lincoln Avenue OTH2020‐01317 is "Approvable" with conditions. Final Approval corrections/resubmittal Hello Dane, Regarding the Preliminary WQMP for S Beach Boulevard & W Lincoln Avenue (OTH2020‐01317), the WQMP is “approvable” pending the inclusion of the items listed below, addressing minor comments, incorporating documentation for three conditions for the Final WQMP in the next Preliminary WQMP submittal and following the City’s resubmittal process. Please note that this most recent submittal in EPR will be marked as “CORRECTIONS”; however, the next submittal will be “APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS” as long as it addresses the items below: Please include updated signed Owner’s and Engineer’s Certification Pages reflecting the most recent revision date Include this email as a new attachment to the Preliminary WQMP in the next submittal to memorialize the conditions that must be addressed in the Final WQMP which are provided below. o Condition 1 for Final WQMP: Additional information shall be provided during final engineering to determine the exact sizing and type of BMP to be used within the public Right of Way (ROW). The applicant is encouraged to work with the case engineer to confirm the preferred BMP strategy within the public ROW. o Condition 2 for Final WQMP: Information on how the proposed site BMPs will address the full capture of trash will need to be provided in the Final WQMP. MWS units are considered full capture systems, but only if sized for the 1‐year, 1‐hour storm event. The proposed MWS units should either be sized for the 1‐year, 1‐hour storm event or should incorporate a full capture system into the diversion system. 3 o Condition 3 for Final WQMP: GIS coordinates of the LID BMPs will need to be included on the WQMP exhibit in the Final WQMP. Please ensure that the correct OTH number (OTH2020‐01317) is included on the Title Page of the WQMP. Once these items are included in the WQMP, the applicant should follow the City’s standard E‐Plan Check submittal process (for any questions, please contact PWEPC@anaheim.net). Electronic PDF versions of the Final Approved WQMP should be compiled directly from the original electronic source files (.docx, .dwg, etc.) to preserve integrity and quality, minimize file size and allow search functionality. Scanned versions of the final report will not be accepted with the exception of the signed Owner’s Certification page, the signed Engineer’s Certification page and the approved Cover Page. Please submit via web‐based file transfer or via email (only if file is smaller than 10 MB) to Fuscoe Engineering Plan Checker. The Plan Checker will confirm receipt of WQMP via email. In addition, in order to expedite the review, please also email an electronic copy of the WQMP to the Fuscoe Engineering Plan Checker. Note that any changes that are made to the grading plans that affect the WQMP or WQMP site plan will require a revised WQMP to be resubmitted for an additional review to ensure consistency. These edits can be a result of grading plan checks, client requests, or internal design changes. Once the resubmittal is received and accepted by the City, Fuscoe Engineering will review and ensure it satisfies all the requirements above, it will be approved in final and you will receive an email confirmation from the City. Only after the Final WQMP is approved, will the City Case Engineer consider allowing Mylar Grading Plan submittal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, HALEY BAUER |Stormwater Engineer hbauer@fuscoe.com UPDATED HOURS: M-TH 7:30 AM – 5:30 PM | F 8:00 AM –NOON FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. an employee owned company 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92606 949.474.1960 | fuscoe.com IRVINE . SAN DIEGO . ONTARIO . LOS ANGELES full circle thinking® WARNING: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This information is not to be reproduced or forwarded without permission from the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender or system manager. From time to time, our spam filters eliminate or block legitimate email. If your email contains important attachments or instructions, please ensure that we acknowledge receipt of those attachments or instructions 1 Andre Vejar From:Dane McDougallSent:Friday, February 26, 2021 2:55 PMTo:Joy Hendricks; Jeff CollinsSubject:Fwd: WQMP for S Beach Boulevard & W Lincoln Avenue OTH2020-01317 is "Approvable" with conditions. Final Approval corrections/resubmittal Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Get Outlook for iOS From: Haley Bauer <HBauer@fuscoe.com> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 2:47:49 PM To: Dane McDougall <DMcDougall@cvc‐inc.net> Cc: Cesar Morales <CMorales2@anaheim.net>; Howard Wen <hwen@fuscoe.com>; 'Keith Linker ‐ Anaheim' <klinker@anaheim.net>; Craig Siefert <Craig.siefert@weareharris.com>; Stephanie Castle Zinn <SCastleZinn@fuscoe.com> Subject: RE: WQMP for S Beach Boulevard & W Lincoln Avenue OTH2020‐01317 is "Approvable" with conditions. Final Approval corrections/resubmittal Hello Dane, After further discussion with the City, we have determined that a fourth condition should be added to the list of conditions that must be addressed in the Final WQMP that was included in the prior approvable email. Please see below: o Condition 4 for Final WQMP: The applicant shall provide additional information in the Final WQMP to support the determination that infiltration is infeasible on the project site. In addition to the proximity to a landfill noted in the Preliminary WQMP, infiltration is likely infeasible on the site due to the following conditions, which should all be discussed in the Final WQMP: Depth to seasonally high groundwater of 10 ft bgs; Multiple LUST sites (both open and closed, with an open site downstream of the project site); A relatively low measured infiltration rate of 0.6 inches per hour. Due to the seasonally high groundwater, the infiltration rate of 0.6 inches per hour would likely result in a shallow BMP with a large footprint. Adequate separation to groundwater, as well as proper setbacks to buildings, may further conclude infiltration is infeasible. This is to be explored in the Final WQMP. A Closure Letter from the RWQCB regarding the adjacent landfill should also be included in the Final WQMP if available. Please include this entire email in the Final WQMP. I just left you a voicemail – please feel free to give me a call back if you have any questions or if you’d like to discuss anything. My direct number is (949) 271‐4367. Thank you, HALEY BAUER |Stormwater Engineer hbauer@fuscoe.com - 47- Appendix D – Trip Generation Memo and VMT Memo Assessment Memorandum Date: To: From: Subject: November 6, 2023 Alan To Gr ffoli, een Part law ners Paul Herrmann, P.E. Omar Monsalvo Anaheim Nolin II Trip Generation and VMT Screening Assessment OC19-0700.01 This memorandum documents the trip generation assessment and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening assessment conducted by Fehr & Peers in support of the Anaheim Nolin II project (Project) in Anaheim, California. The following was completed in this assessment: 1.To determine if the Project will generate enough project trips to warrant a transportation study per the requirements set in the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan, Anaheim Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, and Caltrans transportation study requirements. The assessment concludes that trips generated by the Project would add less than 100 net new peak hour trips and will not require level of service (LOS) analysis per City requirements. The assessment also concludes that Caltrans would not require a traffic study as the Project is not anticipated to add more than 50 peak hour trips to any intersection along State Route 39 (Beach Boulevard, SR-39). 2.Screening criteria from the City of Anaheim’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act Analysis (April 2020) Were utilized to document how the Project is presumed to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact related to VMT and is not subject to a full VMT assessment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is located on the southeast corner of West Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, directly west of Laxore Street. The Project proposes the development of 44 single-family attached housing units. The Project also includes recreational facilities including 5,321 square feet of open space. The Project is proposing the redevelopment of an existing (inactive) strip mall. The Project can be accessed directly through proposed a driveway on Laxore Street. The Project opening year is proposed to be 2024. 101 Pacifica | Suite 300 | Irvine, CA 92618 | (949) 308-6300 | Fax (949) 859-3209 www.fehrandpeers.com TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2017) were used to estimate the number of net new trips associated with the Project. Trip generation rates are presented as Attachment E Trip Generation Rates and trip generation estimates are presented in Table 1. Single-Family Attached Housing (ITE Code 215) was chosen to represent the 44 units, which has higher trip generation rates than standard apartment trip generation rates and is most appropriate for the Project product type. No existing use credit was applied to the trip generation estimates because the uses on site are not active. Table 1: Project Trip Generation Estimates Land Use ITE Land Code Quantity Unit Estimated Trip Generation Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak In Out Total In Out Total Single-Family Attached Housing 215 44 DUs 317 5 16 21 15 10 25 Total Trips 317 5 16 21 15 10 25 Notes: 1.DUs = Dwelling Units 2.ITE Codes: 215 = Single-Family Attached Housing Source: Trip Generation, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2021) As presented in Table 1, the Project is estimated to generate 317 new daily trips, 21 new AM peak trips and 25 new PM peak trips. TRIP GENERATION CONCLUSION The Beach Boulevard Specific Plan classifies the Project site as Residential Low-Medium and allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre. The 44 units are proposed on 1.678 net acres at a density of 25 units per acre. The Project is not anticipated to generate 100 or more new peak hour trips. Per guidelines in the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan, this phase of the Project would not require further analysis related to capacity of nearby intersections and does not warrant a LOS assessment per the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The Project is also not anticipated to add more than 50 peak hour trips to any Caltrans intersections (any intersections along SR-39). VMT SCREENING The City’s traffic impact analysis guidelines provide a process for projects to be screened from full VMT assessment under the assumption that the Project will result in a less-than-significant transportation impact related to VMT. There are three types of screening criteria included in the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The Project qualifies for Type 1 and Type 2 Screening. Type 1 Screening is known as Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening and Type 2 Screening is Low VMT Area Screening. The three criteria are described in detail below. TYPE 1 TPA SCREENING A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor, per the definitions below. A Major transit stop is a site containing an existing rail transit station or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. A high-quality transit corridor is a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A map of TPAs in Anaheim is provided as Attachment A Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) in Anaheim and shows that the Project is within the TPA area. This type of screening also has additional criteria for the Project to qualify: 1.Must have total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than 0.75; The 44-unit attached single-family housing has a 42% site coverage at three stories tall, making the Project’s FAR higher than 0.75. 2.Cannot include more parking for use by residents than the City municipal code requires; the Project is providing the minimum number of spaces as required by the Municipal Code. 3.Cannot be inconsistent with the Southern California Regional Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); According to the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) that the Project is located in assumes growth from the 2016 base year to the 2045 future year of 68 households. The 44-unit Project is smaller than the assumed growth in the RTP/SCS and is therefore consistent. Socioeconomic input assumptions for the TAZ of the Project are included as Attachment C OCTAM Socioeconomic Data. 4.Cannot replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high- income residential units; the Project is not replacing any units. The Project is within a TPA and does meet the additional criteria for TPA screening. Therefore, it is recommended to screen the Project for TPA screening assuming it would result in a less-than- significant impact related to VMT. TYPE 2 LOW VMT AREA SCREENING Low VMT areas are defined as Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) which produce a VMT per service population which is more than 15% below the County of Orange average VMT per service population. The Project is located in a Low VMT Area, as identified in Attachment B Daily VMT per Service Population in Anaheim TAZs as Compared to the Orange County Average (2012). The Project is located in TAZ 248 which is bound by Beach Boulevard, Lincoln Avenue, Dale Avenue and Crescent Avenue, as shown in Attachment D Eastern Anaheim OCTAM TAZs. Attachment C OCTAM Socioeconomic Data shows that the baseline assumptions for TAZ 332 include 646 households. The households within the TAZ 332 boundary include market rate apartments and single-family homes. The Project, which proposes to build more single-family units, are similar to the existing housing types within the Project TAZ. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Project would result in a similar VMT per resident which is more than 15% below the County of Orange average VMT per service population and would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT. TYPE 3 PROJECT TYPE SCREENING The City’s traffic impact analysis guidelines specify that certain project types are eligible to screen from VMT assessment as they are assumed to be low-VMT generating projects; the Project is not eligible for this type of screening. VMT IMPACT CONCLUSION The Project is located within a TPA and is located within a Low-VMT generating area. The Project can be screened from full VMT assessment under the presumption that it will result in a less-than- significant impact related to VMT based on Type 1 TPA Screening and Type 2 Low VMT Area Screening. We hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Paul Herrmann (p.herrmann@fehrandpeers.com or 949-308-6318) with questions or comments. ATTACHMENTS A.Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) in Anaheim B.Daily VMT per Service Population in Anaheim TAZs as Compared to the Orange County Average (2012) C.OCTAM Socioeconomic Data D.Eastern Anaheim OCTAM TAZs E.ITE Trip Rates IrvineRanch OS ChinoHills SP Rose DrBeachBlGarden Grove Bl Cen t u r y B l State College BlYorba Linda Bl Tu s t in A v Valley View StThe City Drive SouthBeach Bl17 thSt W Orangethorpe Av Euclid StVill a P a r k R dS a n taAnaCanyo nRdEa s t I m p er i a l H w North Harbor BlWestminster Bl Newport AvTrask Av Chapman Av Harbor Bl La Palm a A v Ka t e l la A v OrangethorpeAv North Main StSouth Brookhurst StSoEspera n z a R d North Cannon StLaMiradaBl South Newport BlImperial Hw Knot t S t Jamboree RdSouth Weir CanyonRdEast Chapman Av ·142 ·261 ·241 ∙91 ∙55 ∙57 ∙22 ∙90 ∙39 %&405 !"5 Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) in Anaheim Attachment A Anaheim Metrolink Stations HQT Bus Stops Buffer(0.5 mile)Anaheim BlSource: OCTA, March, 2020, http://www.octa.net/Bus/Routes-and-Schedules/Overview/ Project ·142 ·261 ·241 ∙91 ∙55 ∙57 ∙22 ∙90 ∙39 %&405 !"5 Source: OCTAM Version 5, Base Year (2016), March, 2020 Attachment B Daily VMT per Service Population in Anaheim TAZs as Compared to the Orange County Average (2016) Anaheim City No Service Population < -15% below the Orange County Average 0 to -15 % below the Orange County Average Higher than the Orange County Average Project Attachment C: OCTAM Socioeconomic Data SCENARIO ZONE TOT_POPHH_POP EMP_POP TOT_HH MDN_INC RET_EMP SVC_EMP BAS_EMP SCH_ENR UNIV_ENRPOPDEN Base Year 2016 332 2,533 2,450 1,127 646 37,355 5 68 235 0 0 38.3 Future Year 2045 332 2,720 2,637 1,763 714 37,355 8 71 235 0 0 41.2 Attachment D: Eastern Anaheim OCTAM TAZ Attachment E: Trip Generation RatesLand Use ITE Land Code Quantity Unit Trip Generation Rates Daily Rate AM Peak PM Peak Rate % In % Out Rate % In % Out Single-Family Attached Housing 215 44 DUs 7.20 0.48 25% 75% 0.57 59% 41% Notes: 1. DUs = Dwelling Units 2. ITE Code: 215 = Single-Family Attached Housing Sources: Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021. - 48- Appendix E – Sewer Study GHD 320 Goddard Way Suite 200 Irvine California 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 W www.ghd.com April 18, 2020 To: Keith Linker, City of Anaheim Ref. No.: 11140066 TO7 From: Ulysses Fandino, GHD Tel: 949-585-5203 CC: Kyle Aube, City of Anaheim Subject: 39 Commons Development (OTH2020-01247) Sewer Analysis 1. Background The City of Anaheim (City) has retained GHD to perform a sewer analysis on the City’s sewer collection system to determine the effects of an approved mixed-use development, herein referred to as 39 Commons Development, located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard within the West Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewer (WAMPSS) study area. Furthermore, the City requested an additional scenario to be examined in which several parcels at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard are redeveloped into a medium density residential area in addition to the 39 Commons Development. A sewer hydraulic analysis was conducted to quantify the effects of these developments to the sanitary sewer system. 2. Methodology The sewer hydraulic analysis utilized the current iteration of the sewer hydraulic model prepared for the 2015 WAMPSS update. The WAMPSS sewer model includes all sewer improvements the City has constructed since the previous 2005 Combined West Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. Sewer loadings to the model have been calibrated to flow monitoring data to reflect the current sewer flow conditions. Sewer pipe alignments, elevations, connections, and manholes for the project area were verified during the WAMPSS update. Based on recent City data, the WAMPSS sewer model has been further refined from field verifications that were performed in the vicinity of the Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue intersection located upstream and east of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard intersection. This sewer analysis takes into account the revisions that have been made. The anticipated sewer generation changes are inputted into the hydraulic model for analysis. The following sections describe the study area for this sewer analysis, the proposed land use changes, the methodology for preparing the sewer hydraulic model, and the revised sewer loadings from the proposed developments. Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 2 2.1 Study Area The 39 Commons Development will be constructed at an approximately 30.1-acre vacant lot located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard (red outline in Figure 2.1). The development will consist of an 85-dwelling unit (DU) medium density residential area in the south, a 40,000 square feet (SF) retail area in the west, a 250-room hotel near the center, a 40,000 SF community center and a 35,000 barrel per year brewery in the northeast, and a 60,000 SF market retail area in the north. The medium density residential development located at the southeast corner of the Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, referred to as the South of Lincoln Development herein, consists of redeveloping four existing commercial parcels into 150 DUs (blue outline in Figure 2.1). The development will span an area of approximately 3.0 acres and replaces the existing structures in the following parcels: APN 12660222, APN 12660229, APN 12660235 and APN 12660233. The City’s existing sewer network in the vicinity of the developments consists of an 8-inch sewer main on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, an 8-inch sewer main on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a 15-inch sewer main near the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. The three parallel sewer mains flow westerly and converge at Manhole SW012307. The sewer main continues westerly as an 18-inch main after the confluence until reaching the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewer outfall at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue. The proposed developments, referred to as the Study Area, and the nearby sewer network are presented in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 Study Area Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 3 2.2 Sewer Model Methodology The sewer hydraulic model prepared for the WAMPSS was used as a basis for this sewer study. The model was developed using the Innovyze H2OMAP Sewer hydraulic modeling software. Average sewage flows were calculated based on the land use and census data provided by the City, and unit flow factors were developed for the WAMPSS according to flow monitoring data and past sewer master plan studies. These flows were then allocated to the nearest manholes within the model. Peak flows were determined by applying diurnal curves according to land uses, as described in the next section. The ratio of flow depth to pipe diameter at the actual peak flow is designated d/D. This d/D was calculated by the modeling program and was used to identify pipes needing improvement. The City’s analysis criteria calls for a maximum allowable d/D = 0.67 for pipes with diameters less than 12 inches, and d/D = 0.75 for pipes with diameters equal to or greater than 12 inches. Thus, pipes with d/D ratios equal to or greater than these values were identified as needing improvement. The City also has a separate criterion for new sewer design. This is more stringent than the analysis criteria specified above. This criteria calls for a maximum allowable d/D = 0.50 for pipes with diameters less than 12 inches, and a d/D = 0.60 for pipes with diameters equal to or greater than 12 inches. 2.3 Peak Flow Methodology The methodology for peak sewer flow modeling within the Study Area is based on diurnal curves, which uses a 24-hour flow generation curve to represent the pattern of sewage flows generated by type of land use. The residential and non-residential diurnal curves from the WAMPSS update were applied to the model. The diurnal curves are shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3. The x-axis represents a 24-hour period starting and ending at midnight, while the y-axis represents the peaking factor applied to the normal flow factor at each hour of the day. Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 4 Figure 2.2 Residential Diurnal Curve Figure 2.3 Non-Residential Diurnal Curve Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 5 2.4 Sewer Loadings for Study Area The proposed land uses and the associated sewage generation factor, along with the quantity of each land use in terms of area or units, determined the sewage flows generated within the Study Area. 2.4.1 Sewer Loadings for 39 Commons Development Building areas were provided for the retail area, market and community center of the 39 Commons Development. Sewage flow projection generated using building areas are typically more representative of the actual flow condition compared to projections made using the overall site area since the building area has a direct correlation to its occupancy capacity and the amount of sanitary features that contributes to the sewer system. Sewage generation factors based on building area were adopted from the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Sewer Design Manual. An excerpt from the manual containing the sewage flow projections are included with this memorandum as Attachment A. Sewer loadings for the remaining land uses were quantified using the calibrated and adjusted generation factors from the WAMPSS update. The 39 Commons Development is planned to connect to the City sewer system at two existing manholes along the northern 8-inch sewer main in Lincoln Avenue: Manhole SW012304 for the residential portion of the development and Manhole SW012303 for the rest of the development. The estimated sewer loading contribution is presented in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 below. Table 2.1 Estimated Sewer Loading Contribution – 39 Commons Development Proposed Land Use Loading Manhole Building Area or Dwelling Units Generation Factor Sewer Loading Commercial - Retail SW012303 40,000 sf 100 gpd/1,000 sf 4,000 gpd Hotel SW012303 250 rooms 150 gpd/room 37,500 gpd Commercial - Market SW012303 60,000 sf 100 gpd/1,000 sf 6,000 gpd Community Center SW012303 40,000 sf 300 gpd/1,000 sf 12,000 gpd Brewery SW012303 See Table 2.2 below 49,000 gpd Residential SW012304 85 du 215 gpd/du 18,275 gpd gpd = gallons per day du = dwelling unit sf = square foot Table 2.2 Estimated Sewer Loading Contribution for Proposed Brewery at 39 Commons Quantity Annual Beer Production 1,225,000 gallons (= 35,000 barrels) Sewage Generation Factor 10 gallons sewage/gallon beer Annual Sewage Production 12,250,000 gallons/year Daily Sewage Generation (at 250 working days per year)* 49,000 gallons/day *Common practice: Accounts for typical work week Monday through Friday and ten Federal Holidays per year. Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 6 2.4.2 Sewer Loadings for South of Lincoln Development For the South of Lincoln Development, three of the four existing commercial parcels contribute to the southerly 8-inch sewer at Manholes SW013103, SW013102 and SW013101, which flows along Beach Boulevard, Cherokee, Seminole, Olinda Lane, Grand Avenue and Lindacita Lane as a 8-inch to 12-inch main before reaching the OCSD trunk sewer outfall at the intersection of Lindacita Lane and Western Avenue. The remaining parcel to be redeveloped is currently draining into the southern 8-inch sewer main in Lincoln Avenue at Manhole SW013122. The estimated sewer loadings from the four parcels to be removed from the system is presented in Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 below. Table 2.3 Existing Condition Sewer Loading Reduction – South of Lincoln Development APN Existing Land Use Loading Manhole Sewer Loading Removed 12660222 Commercial Auto SW013103 4,136 gpd* 12660229 Commercial Retail SW013102 2,122 gpd* 12660235 Commercial Retail SW013101 4,147 gpd* 12660233 Commercial Retail SW013122 837 gpd * Loadings for these parcels were elevated in the WAMPSS hydraulic model to match downstream flow monitoring results gpd = gallons per day Table 2.4 Build-Out Condition Sewer Loading Reduction – South of Lincoln Development APN Build-Out Land Use Loading Manhole Sewer Loading Removed 12660222 Residential Low-Mid SW013103 3,900 gpd 12660229 Residential Low-Mid SW013102 2,860 gpd 12660235 Commercial General SW013101 2,073 gpd 12660233 Commercial General SW013122 837 gpd gpd = gallons per day The South of Lincoln Development is planned to connect solely to Manhole SW013123 along the southern 8-inch sewer main in Lincoln Avenue. The estimated sewer loading contribution to the City sewer system is presented in Table 2.5 below. Table 2.5 Estimated Sewer Loading Contribution – South of Lincoln Development Build-Out Land Use Loading Manhole Area or Dwelling Units WAMPSS Generation Factor Sewer Loading to be Diverted Residential (Medium Density) SW013123 150 du 215 gpd/du 32,250 gpd gpd = gallons per day du = dwelling unit Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 7 3. Hydraulic Model Analysis To determine the effects of the proposed developments to the existing City sewer system, two (2) model scenarios were analyzed: WAMPSS Condition plus 39 Commons Development WAMPSS Condition plus 39 Commons and South of Lincoln Developments For simplicity, the model results focus on the pipe segments downstream of the Study Area only. The model results are reported by Pipe ID, which is comprised of each pipe’s upstream and downstream manhole identification number. 3.1 Scenario 1 – WAMPSS Condition plus 39 Commons Development The first scenario builds on the WAMPSS model, with the addition of sewage flows from the 39 Commons Development to the northern 8-inch sewer main on Lincoln Avenue. The 39 Commons Development introduces an additional steady state loading of 126,775 gallons per day (gpd) to the sewer system, 86% of which are from non-residential sources and the remaining 14% are from residential users. Two sub-scenarios based on the WAMPSS Existing Condition and WAMPSS Build-Out Condition were conducted to analyze the effects of the additional sewer loadings under existing flow conditions and build-out flow conditions. The analysis revealed that the additional sewer loadings from the 39 Commons Development will not create any hydraulic deficiencies in the pipelines downstream of the Study Area. The peak flows in these pipelines were within the allowable d/D ratios, with a maximum d/D ratio of 0.30 under Existing Condition and 0.35 under Build-Out Condition. The hydraulic model results are presented in Table 3.1 from upstream to downstream. The Existing Condition and Build-Out Condition model results are also depicted in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2, respectively. Table 3.1 - Scenario 1 Model Results Maximum Flow (MGD)Maximum Velocity (ft/s)Maximum d/D Maximum Flow (MGD)Maximum Velocity (ft/s)Maximum d/D 8-inch to 15-inch Main (North Side of Lincoln Avenue) SW012305-SW012304 8 320 0.0030 0.044 1.3 0.21 0.065 1.4 0.26 SW012304-SW012303 8 334 0.0030 0.077 1.4 0.29 0.097 1.5 0.32 SW012303-SW012307 15 43 0.0730 0.234 5.7 0.10 0.254 5.8 0.10 18-inch Main (Center of Lincoln Avenue) SW012307-SW012306 18 207 0.0040 0.649 2.8 0.26 0.825 3.0 0.29 SW012306-SW008415 18 226 0.0040 0.653 2.8 0.26 0.828 3.0 0.29 SW008415-SW008414 18 256 0.0040 0.653 2.8 0.26 0.828 3.0 0.29 SW008414-SW008413 18 24 0.0040 0.656 2.8 0.26 0.831 2.9 0.30 SW008413-SW008412 18 261 0.0040 0.656 2.7 0.26 0.831 2.9 0.30 SW008412-SW008411 18 198 0.0040 0.696 2.8 0.27 0.903 3.0 0.31 SW008411-SW008410 18 206 0.0040 0.704 2.8 0.27 0.913 3.0 0.31 SW008410-SW008409 18 206 0.0130 0.706 4.2 0.21 0.920 4.5 0.23 SW008409-SW009129 18 98 0.0040 0.724 2.8 0.28 0.983 3.1 0.33 SW009129-SW009128 18 227 0.0030 0.731 2.5 0.30 0.993 2.8 0.35 SW009128-SW009127 18 289 0.0030 0.731 2.5 0.30 0.993 2.8 0.35 SW009127-SW009126 18 233 0.0030 0.731 2.5 0.30 0.993 2.8 0.35 SW009126-SW009125 18 294 0.0030 0.731 2.5 0.30 0.993 2.8 0.35 SW009125-SW009124 18 222 0.0090 0.745 3.7 0.23 1.037 4.1 0.27 SW009124-OT005205 18 20 0.0170 0.746 4.8 0.20 1.041 5.3 0.23 Pipe ID Existing ConditionPipe SlopePipe Length (feet) Pipe Diameter (inch) Build-Out Condition 0 300 600150 Feet ") ") ") ") ") ") ") SW008412SW009124SW009125SW009126SW009127SW009128SW009129 SW008409 SW008410 SW008413 SW008414 SW008415 SW012306 SW012303SW008411 SW012307 SW012305SW012304 OT005205 0.29 0.21 0.30 0.26 0.280.20.26 0.30 0.26 0.300.23 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.21 0.260.30 0.26 Existing Non-Deficient Lines Non-Deficient Lines Downstream of Study Area Proposed Development Area for Scenario 1 Existing Manhole ")Existing Connection to OCSD Trunk 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 E irvmail@ghd.com W www.ghd.comN:\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11140066 NPDES and Sewer W RD Support\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Lincoln Beach Sewer Study TM\11x17\Figure 3.1 - Model Results-EX_Scene1.mxd© 2012. W hilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, com pleteness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (w hether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, dam ages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incom plete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. LEGEND Map Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicHorizontal Datum: North American 1983Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Figure 3.1 Job Number 1114006620 Apr 2020oDate Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. C reated by:pwleung Paper Size ANSI B City of Anaheim Department of Public WorksLincoln at Beach (39 C om mons)Sew er AnalysisScenario 1 Existing ConditionPlus 39 Commons Development 39 Commo ns Maximum d/D Ratio0.30 Model Results 0 300 600150 Feet ") ") ") ") ") ") ") SW008412SW009124SW009125SW009126SW009127SW009128SW009129 SW008409 SW008410 SW008413 SW008414 SW008415 SW012306 SW012303 SW008411 SW012307 SW012305SW012304 OT005205 0.30 0.32 0.260.29 0.35 0.330.10 0.29 0.290.300.35 0.350.27 0.31 0.31 0.230.23 0.35 Existing Non-Deficient Lines Non-Deficient Lines Downstream of Study Area Proposed Development Area for Scenario 1 Existing Manhole ")Existing Connection to OCSD Trunk 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 E irvmail@ghd.com W www.ghd.comN:\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11140066 NPDES and Sewer W RD Support\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Lincoln Beach Sewer Study TM\11x17\Figure 3.2 - Model Results-BO_Scene1.m xd© 2012. W hilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, com pleteness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (w hether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, dam ages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incom plete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. LEGEND Map Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicHorizontal Datum: North American 1983Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Figure 3.2 Job Number 1114006620 Apr 2020oDate Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. C reated by:pwleung Paper Size ANSI B City of Anaheim Department of Public WorksLincoln at Beach (39 C om mons)Sew er Analysis 39 Commo ns Maximum d/D Ratio0.30 Scenario 1 Build-out ConditionPlus 39 Commons DevelopmentModel Results Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 11 3.2 Scenario 2 – WAMPSS Condition plus 39 Commons and South of Lincoln Developments Scenario 2 expands on the first scenario with the addition of the South of Lincoln Development. Sewer loadings from the 39 Commons Development remain the same as Scenario 1. Since the South of Lincoln Development consists of redeveloping four commercial parcels, existing loadings from these parcels were removed from the model and replaced with the projected flows from the development per the methodology outlined in Section 2.4.2. Similar to Scenario 1, two sub-scenarios based on the WAMPSS Existing Condition and WAMPSS Build-Out Condition were performed to analyze the effects of additional sewer loadings under existing flow conditions and build-out flow conditions. In summary, an additional 159,025 gpd is loaded to Lincoln Avenue sewer mains in Scenario 2 from these developments. The analysis revealed the additional sewer loadings from both developments will not cause any hydraulic deficiencies in the pipelines downstream of the Study Area. The peak flows in the downstream Lincoln Avenue sewer mains were within the allowable d/D ratios, with a maximum d/D ratio of 0.31 under Existing Condition and 0.36 under Build-Out Condition. The southerly 8-inch sewer main on Beach Boulevard downstream of the four existing commercial parcels for the South of Lincoln Development observed a steady state flow decrease of 11,242 gpd under Existing Condition and 9,670 gpd under Build-Out Condition due to the redirection of sewer flows proposed for the South of Lincoln Development. As mentioned in Section 2.4.2, this main continues along Beach Boulevard, Cherokee, Seminole, Olinda Lane, Grand Avenue and Lindacita Lane as an 8-inch to 12-inch main before reaching the OCSD trunk sewer outfall at the intersection of Lindacita Lane and Western Avenue. After the development, these pipe segments are expected to have maximum d/D ratios of 0.27 under Existing and Build-Out Conditions. Three segments of the southern 8-inch sewer main in Lincoln Avenue upstream of the South of Lincoln Development tie-in point were identified as deficient under the Build-Out Condition in the WAMPSS model (Basin Area BO-6). The redistribution of sewer loadings from the South of Lincoln Development removed the sewer loadings from APN 12660233 to the deficient segment (Pipe SW013122-SW013123). However, the decrease in flow is insignificant and the segment remains deficient under the Build-Out Condition with a maximum d/D ratio of 0.68. The hydraulic model results are presented in Table 3.2 from upstream to downstream, The Existing Condition and Build-Out Condition model results are also depicted in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4, respectively. Table 3.2 - Scenario 2 Model Results Maximum Flow (MGD)Maximum Velocity (ft/s)Maximum d/D Maximum Flow (MGD)Maximum Velocity (ft/s)Maximum d/D 8-inch to 15-inch Main (North Side of Lincoln Avenue) SW012305-SW012304 8 320 0.0030 0.044 1.3 0.21 0.065 1.4 0.26 SW012304-SW012303 8 334 0.0030 0.077 1.4 0.29 0.097 1.5 0.32 SW012303-SW012307 15 43 0.0730 0.234 5.7 0.10 0.254 5.8 0.10 8" Main (South Side of Lincoln Avenue) SW013122-SW013123 8 308 0.0020 0.202 1.6 0.54 0.283 1.7 0.68 SW013123-SW012307 15 66 0.0285 0.257 4.2 0.13 0.339 4.6 0.15 18-inch Main (Center of Lincoln Avenue) SW012307-SW012306 18 207 0.0040 0.703 2.9 0.27 0.878 3.0 0.30 SW012306-SW008415 18 226 0.0040 0.706 2.9 0.27 0.881 3.0 0.30 SW008415-SW008414 18 256 0.0040 0.706 2.9 0.27 0.881 3.0 0.30 SW008414-SW008413 18 24 0.0040 0.710 2.8 0.27 0.884 3.0 0.31 SW008413-SW008412 18 261 0.0040 0.710 2.8 0.28 0.884 3.0 0.31 SW008412-SW008411 18 198 0.0040 0.750 2.8 0.28 0.957 3.0 0.32 SW008411-SW008410 18 206 0.0040 0.757 2.8 0.28 0.967 3.0 0.32 SW008410-SW008409 18 206 0.0130 0.760 4.3 0.21 0.974 4.6 0.24 SW008409-SW009129 18 98 0.0040 0.778 2.9 0.29 1.037 3.1 0.33 SW009129-SW009128 18 227 0.0030 0.785 2.6 0.31 1.047 2.8 0.36 SW009128-SW009127 18 289 0.0030 0.785 2.6 0.31 1.047 2.8 0.36 SW009127-SW009126 18 233 0.0030 0.785 2.6 0.31 1.047 2.8 0.36 SW009126-SW009125 18 294 0.0030 0.785 2.6 0.31 1.047 2.8 0.36 SW009125-SW009124 18 222 0.0090 0.799 3.8 0.24 1.091 4.2 0.28 SW009124-OT005205 18 20 0.0170 0.800 4.9 0.20 1.095 5.3 0.24 8" to 12" Main on Beach Boulevard, Cherokee, Seminole, Olinda Lane, Grand Avenue, Lindacita Lane and Western Avenue SW013101-SW013102 8 356 0.0038 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 SW013102-SW013103 8 274 0.0039 0.006 0.8 0.08 0.005 0.7 0.07 SW013103-SW013104 8 284 0.0032 0.006 0.7 0.08 0.005 0.7 0.08 SW013104-SW013105 8 321 0.0032 0.025 1.1 0.16 0.034 1.2 0.19 SW013105-SW013106 8 315 0.0076 0.032 1.5 0.15 0.037 1.6 0.16 SW013106-SW009211 15 129 0.0075 0.190 2.4 0.16 0.187 2.4 0.15 SW009211-SW009499 12 11 0.0035 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009499-SW009498 12 278 0.0028 0.190 1.7 0.27 0.187 1.7 0.27 SW009498-SW009497 12 86 0.0035 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009497-SW009496 12 263 0.0035 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009496-SW009495 12 87 0.0035 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009495-SW009494 12 239 0.0034 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009494-SW009493 12 245 0.0032 0.190 1.8 0.26 0.187 1.8 0.26 SW009493-SW009492 12 198 0.0033 0.190 1.9 0.26 0.187 1.8 0.25 SW009492-SW009491 12 201 0.0031 0.190 1.8 0.26 0.187 1.8 0.26 SW009491-SW009399 12 198 0.0034 0.190 1.9 0.25 0.187 1.9 0.25 SW009399-SW009398 12 157 0.0033 0.190 1.9 0.26 0.188 1.9 0.25 SW009398-SW009397 12 286 0.0033 0.191 1.9 0.26 0.201 1.9 0.26 SW009397-SW009396 12 189 0.0032 0.193 1.8 0.26 0.203 1.9 0.27 SW009396-SW009395 12 95 0.0079 0.194 2.5 0.21 0.204 2.6 0.21 SW009395-SW009394 12 231 0.0032 0.195 1.9 0.26 0.205 1.9 0.27 SW009394-SW009393 12 86 0.0032 0.196 1.8 0.26 0.206 1.9 0.27 SW009393-SW009392 12 237 0.0032 0.196 1.9 0.26 0.206 1.9 0.27 SW009392-SW009303 12 44 0.0054 0.196 2.2 0.23 0.206 2.3 0.24 SW009303-OT005402 12 34 0.0235 0.196 3.7 0.16 0.206 3.8 0.16 Build-Out ConditionExisting ConditionPipe ID Pipe Diameter (inch) Pipe Length (feet)Pipe Slope 0 300 600150 Feet ") ") ") ") SW008412 OT005402 SW009393 SW009394 SW009395 SW009396 SW009397 SW009398 SW009399 SW009491 SW009492 SW009493 SW009494 SW009495 SW009496 SW009497SW009498 SW009499 SW009211 SW009124 SW009125 SW009126 SW009127 SW009128 SW009129 SW008409 SW008410 SW008413 SW008414 SW008415 SW012306 SW012303 SW013123 SW008411 SW012307 SW009303 SW013122 SW012305SW012304 SW013101 SW013102SW013103 SW013104 SW013105 OT005205 SW013106 SW009392 0.000.29 0.160.21 0.150.54 0.080.28 0.27 0.31 0.250 .290.200.16 0.26 0.250.260.260.27 0.21 0 .2 5 0.27 0.260.26 0.08 0.31 0.25 0.310.24 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.10 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.16 0.26 0.25 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.31 Existing Non-Deficient Lines Non-Deficient Lines Downstream of Study Area Proposed Development Area for Scenario 2 Existing Manhole ")Existing Connection to OCSD Trunk 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 E irvmail@ghd.com W www.ghd.comN:\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11140066 NPDES and Sewer W RD Support\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Lincoln Beach Sewer Study TM\11x17\Figure 3.3 - Model Results-EX_Scene2.mxd© 2012. W hilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, com pleteness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (w hether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, dam ages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incom plete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. LEGEND Map Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicHorizontal Datum: North American 1983Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Figure 3.3 Job Number 1114006619 May 2020oDate Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. C reated by:pwleung Paper Size ANSI B City of Anaheim Department of Public WorksLincoln at Beach (39 C om mons)Sew er Analysis 39 Commo ns FutureSouth of Lincoln Development Maximum d/D Ratio0.30 Scenario 2 Existing Condition Plus 39 Commonsand South of Lincoln DevelopmentsModel Results 0 300 600150 Feet ") ") ") ") SW008412 OT005402 SW009393 SW009394 SW009395 SW009396SW009397 SW009398 SW009399 SW009491 SW009492 SW009493 SW009494 SW009495 SW009496 SW009497SW009498 SW009499 SW009211 SW009124 SW009125 SW009126 SW009127 SW009128 SW009129 SW008409 SW008410 SW008413 SW008414 SW008415 SW012306 SW012303 SW013123 SW008411 SW012307 SW009303 SW013122 SW012305SW012304 SW013101 SW013102SW013103 SW013104 SW013105 OT005205 SW013106 SW009392 0.000.31 0.32 0.190.26 0.160.68 0.080.07 0.27 0.36 0.250.150.330.21 0.300.31 0.250.27 0.36 0.26 0 .2 5 0.260.25 0.30 0.250.25 0.27 0.360.28 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.10 0.240.25 0.25 0.16 0.36 0.26 0.30 0.32 0.27 0.27 0.32 Existing Non-Deficient Lines Non-Deficient Lines Downstream of Study Area Existing Sewer Needs Sewer N eeds Downstream of Study Area Proposed Development Area for Scenario 2 Existing Manhole ")Existing Connection to OCSD Trunk 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 E irvmail@ghd.com W www.ghd.comN:\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11140066 NPDES and Sewer W RD Support\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Lincoln Beach Sewer Study TM\11x17\Figure 3.4 - Model Results-BO_Scene2.m xd© 2012. W hilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, com pleteness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (w hether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, dam ages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incom plete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. LEGEND Map Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicHorizontal Datum: North American 1983Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Figure 3.4 Job Number 1114006619 May 2020oDate Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. C reated by:pwleung Paper Size ANSI B City of Anaheim Department of Public WorksLincoln at Beach (39 C om mons)Sew er Analysis 39 Commo ns FutureSouth of Lincoln Development Maximum d/D Ratio0.30 Scenario 2 Build-out Condition Plus 39 Commonsand South of Lincoln DevelopmentsModel Results Lincoln at Beach (39 Commons) Sewer Analysis 15 4. Conclusion The 39 Commons Development is a mixed-use development approved for an existing 30.1-acre vacant lot on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The development will consist of medium density residential units, commercial retailers, a hotel, a community center and a brewery. The South of Lincoln Development will replace four existing commercial parcels at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard with medium density residential units. The 39 Commons Development (Scenario 1) is projected to contribute an additional steady state sewage flow of 126,775 gpd to the sewer system. While both developments together (Scenario 2) are projected to contribute additional steady state sewage flows of up to 159,025 gpd. Due to the flow redirection from the South of Lincoln Development, there will be a decrease in flow in the 8-inch to 12-inch sewer main along Beach Boulevard, Cherokee, Seminole, Olinda Lane, Grand Avenue and Lindacita Lane. The sewer analysis revealed no hydraulic deficiencies in the pipelines downstream of the Study Area in either Scenario1 or Scenario 2 with the proposed developments. The maximum d/D ratios of the 8-inch to 18-inch sewer mains in Lincoln Avenue remains under 0.4 for all analyzed scenarios, which are within the City’s maximum allowable d/D = 0.67 for pipes with diameters less than 12 inches, and d/D = 0.75 for pipes with diameters equal to or greater than 12 inches. Attachment A – City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Sewer Design Manual (Part F) Attachment Attachment A City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Sewer Design Manual (Part F) Bureau of Engineering Manual - Part F SEWER DESIGN 6/92 F 200 PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES AVERAGE DAILY FLOW PROJECTIONS TABLE F229 Units Ave. daily flow (gpd/unit) Type description SEAT 5/SEAT AUDITORIUM 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 25/1000 GR.SQ.FT. AUTO PARKING 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. AUTO REPAIR GARAGE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BAKERY 7 GR.SQ.FT. 5/7 GR.SQ.FT. BALLROOM 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 200/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BANK: HEADQUARTERS 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BANK: BRANCH 15 GR.SQ.FT. 20/15 GR.SQ.FT. BANQUET RMS/CONFERENCE SEAT 20/SEAT BAR: FIXED SEAT 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BAR: JUICE (NO FOOD) 15 GR.SQ.FT. 20/15 GR.SQ.FT. BAR:PUB. AREAS(TABLES) 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BARBER SHOP 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BEAUTY COLLEGE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 25/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BEAUTY CLG. STRG>15% 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 200/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BEAUTY COLLEGE:OFFICE> 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BEAUTY PARLOR OFFICE 200/OFFICE BLDG. CONSTR. OFFICE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. BOWLING ALLEY SEAT 50/SEAT CAFETERIA: FIXED SEAT GPM PEAK 412/GPM CARWASH: BASED ON PEAK STALL 206/STALL CAR WASH: COIN-OPERATED 5 GPM PEAK 412/GPM CARWASH: IN BAY SEAT 5/SEAT CHURCH:FIXED SEAT 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE OCCUPANT 10/OCCUPANT ChurchSch:DayCare/Elem. 20 GR.SQ.FT. 5/20 GR.SQ.FT. CHURCH SCH: 1 DAY USE/W N/A NO CHARGE CITY: BLDG. CONTS. OFC. 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. CLINIC SEAT 20/SEAT COCKTAIL LOUNGE:FXD ST 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 25/1000 GR.SQ.FT. COLD STORAGE:NO SALES 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. ColdStorage:RetailSales FIXTURE 120/FIXTURE COMFORT STATION:PUBLIC 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. COMMERCIAL USE OCCUPANT 5/OCCUPANT COMMUNITY CENTER 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 200/1000 GR.SQ.FT. CREDIT UNION GPM PEAK 412/GPM DAIRY GPM PEAK 412/GPM DAIRY: BARN 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. DAIRY: RETAIL AREA 7 GR.SQ.FT. 5/7 GR.SQ.FT. DANCE HALL 15 GR.SQ.FT. 20/15 GR.SQ.FT. DISCOTEQUE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. DOUGHNUT SHOP 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 300/1000 GR.SQ.FT. DRUG ABUSE 1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100/1000 GR.SQ.FT. FILM PROCESSINGGPM PEAK 412/GPM FOOD PROCESSING PLANT URINAL OR W.C. 120/W.C. GAS STATION:SELF SERVE STATION 430/STATION GAS STATION:4 BAYS MAX Bureau of Engineering Manual - Part F SEWER DESIGN 6/92 F 200 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.GYMNASIUM 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.HANGAR (AIRCRAFT) BED 85/BED HOSPITAL: CONVALESCENT 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.HOSPITAL: DOG AND CAT BED 85/BED HOSPITAL: NONPROFIT BED 500/BED HOSPITAL: SURGICAL UNIT 150/UNIT HOUSEKEEPING:LIGHT GPM PEAK 412/GPM INDUSTRIAL INMATE 85/INMATE JAIL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.DOG KENNEL/OPEN 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.LAB: COMMERCIAL GPM PEAK 412/GPM LAUNDROMAT:INDUSTRIAL WASHER 220/WASHER LAUNDROMAT WASHER 220/WASHER LAUNDROMAT:AUTOMATIC 50 GR.SQ.FT.50/50 GR.SQ.FT.LIBRARY:PUBLIC AREA 1000 GR.SQ.FT.25/1000 GR.SQ.FT.LIBRARY:STACKS/STORAGE SEAT 5/SEAT LODGE HALL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MACHINE SHOP 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MNFG/INDUSTRY 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MASSAGE PARLOR 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MEDICAL BLDG 1000 GR.SQ.FT.200/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MINI-MALL (SHELL) 7 GR.SQ.FT.5/7 GR.SQ.FT.MORTUARY:CHAPEL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MORTUARY: LIVING AREA ROOM 150/ROOM MOTEL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.25/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MUSEUM: ALL AREAS 1000 GR.SQ.FT.200/1000 GR.SQ.FT.OFFICE OVER 15% 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.MUSEUM: SALE AREA 1000 GR.SQ.FT.200/1000 GR.SQ.FT.OFFICE BUILDING GPM PEAK 412/GPM PLATING PLANT 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.POOL HALL(NO BEER/WINE) 1000 GR.SQ.FT.120/1000 GR.SQ.FT.POST OFFICE: FLOOR PLAN STUDENT 85/STUDENT DORM: COLLEGE OR RES. DWELLING UNIT 330/DU RES: TOWNHS/SET GRD DWELLING 150/DU RES: APT. - 1 BDR DWELLING 200/DU RES: APT. - 2 BDR DWELLING 250/DU RES: APT. - 3 BDR DWELLING 100/DU RES: APT. - BACH/SNGLE BED 85/BED RES: BOARDING HOUSE DWELLING 150/DU RES: CONDO-1 BDR DWELLING 200/DU RES: CONDO-2 BDR DWELLING 250/DU RES: CONDO-3 BDR DWELLING UNIT 300/DU RES: DUPLEX HOME SPACE 200/SPACE RES: MOBILE HOME DWELLING UNIT 330/DU RES: SNGL FAM DWL. 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.RES: ARTIST (2/3 AREA) DWELLING 100/DU RES: ARTIST RESDNCE.DWELLING UNIT 330/DU RES: GUEST HOUSE W/KIT. BED 85/BED REST HOME SEAT DINING 50/SEAT RESTAURANT: DRIVE-UP PARKING STALL 100/STALL RESTAURANT: DRIVE-UP SEAT 50/SEAT RESTAURANT: FIXED SEAT 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.RESTAURANT: TAKE-OUT Bureau of Engineering Manual - Part F SEWER DESIGN 6/92 F 200 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.RETAIL AREA CHILD 10/CHILD SCHL: DAY CARE CENTER STUDENT 10/STUDENT SCHL: ELEMENTARY/JR-HI STUDENT 15/STUDENT SCHL: HIGH SCHOOL 35 GR.SQ.FT.10/35 GR.SQ.FT.SCHL: KINDERGARTEN CHILD 10/CHILD SCHL: NURSERY-DAY CARE STUDENT 10/STUDENT SCHL: SPECIAL CLASS-LAC STUDENT 15/STUDENT SCHL: TRADE OR VOCTNL STUDENT 20/STUDENT SCHL: UNIV. OR COLLEGE 1000 GR.SQ.FT.25/1000 GR.SQ.FT.StorageBldg-RentingSpace 1000 GR.SQ.FT.10/1000 GR.SQ.FT.ICE CREAM STORE(RETAIL) 70 GR.SQ.FT.5/7 GR.SQ.FT.STUDIO: MOTION PICTURE 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.STUDIO: RECORDING VEHICLE 12/VEHICLE THEATRE: DRIVE-IN SEAT 5/SEAT THEATRE: FIXED SEAT 1000 GR.SQ.FT.5/SEAT THEATRE: MOVIE HOUSE 1000 GR.SQ.FT.300/1000 GR.SQ.FT.VETERINARIAN 1000 GR.SQ.FT.25/1000 GR.SQ.FT.WAREHOUSE STATION 430/STATION WASTE DUMP: RECREATIONAL 1000 GR.SQ.FT.215/1000 GR.SQ.FT.WINE TASTING RM: KTCHN 1000 GR.SQ.FT.100/1000 GR.SQ.FT.WineTastingRm: AllArea EXPLANATION FOOTNOTES 1.The column headings are: Average Daily Flow = flow in gallons per day (gpd) per unit as indicated. For example, "5/7 gr. sq. ft." means 5 gpd per every 7 gross square feet of development. Type description - type of development or process. 2.Gr. sq. ft. = gross square feet: area included within the exterior of the surrounding walls of a building excluding courts. 3.Gpm Peak = peak flow in gallons per minute. There is an assumption that the peak to average flow ratio is 3.5. Therefore, 1 gpm x 1440 min/day ) 3.5 = 412 gpd which is the unit flow factor in the table. 4.Example Calculation - Assume a 10,000 sq. ft. office building is proposed. The estimated average daily flow is calculated as 10,000 sq. ft. x 200 gpd/1000 sq. ft. = 2000 gpd. 5.Another Example - Assume a car wash (in bay type) is proposed. The estimated peak flow is 5 gpm as determined by industrial waste permit or other data. The average daily flow is estimated as 5 gpm x 412 gpd/gpm = 2060 gpd.