Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment No. 5 Attachment No. 5 Attachment No. 5 Categorical Exemption Memorandum with technical studies COLORADO COLLECTION PROJECT CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION REPORT FEBRUARY 2026 Prepared for: City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 180 E. Main Street, Suite 108 Tustin, CA 92780 De Novo Planning Group A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm COLORADO COLLECTION PROJECT CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report LEAD AGENCY: City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Contact: Fiona Graham, Planning Services Manager fgraham@ArcadiaCA.gov (626) 574.5442 PREPARED BY: De Novo Planning Group 180 E. Main Street, Suite 108 Tustin, California 92780 Contact: Starla Barker, AICP sbarker@denovoplanning.com (949) 396-8193 February 2026 City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project | CEQA Exemption Report PAGE i Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 CEQA Compliance ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Existing Setting .................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Project Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 7 3.0 CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CRITERIA ANALYSIS ............................................................. 17 4.0 EXCEPTIONS TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ANALYSIS ............................................................... 49 5.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 53 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 55 Appendices Appendix A, Tree Report Appendix B, VMT Assessment Appendix C, Noise Analysis Appendix D, Air Quality Data Appendix E, Hydrology and LID Reports Appendix F, Preliminary Water Systems Analysis Appendix G, Sewer Area Studies Appendix H, Historic Resources Assessments Appendix I, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project | CEQA Exemption Report PAGE ii List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Map ...................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 11 Figure 4a Exterior Elevations 1 ......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4b Exterior Elevations 2 ......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4c Exterior Elevations 3 ......................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4d Exterior Elevations 4 ......................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5 Preliminary Landscape Plan .............................................................................................. 16 List of Tables Table 1 Arcadia General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis ............................................................ 17 Table 2 R-F Overlay Zone Development Standards ....................................................................... 24 Table 3 Existing Short-Term Measured Noise Levels .................................................................... 31 Table 4 Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses .......................................................... 32 Table 5 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ............................................... 34 Table 6 Vibration Annoyance Criteria............................................................................................ 35 Table 7 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................................... 35 Table 8 Vibration Annoyance Assessment at Nearest Uses .......................................................... 36 Table 9 Building Damage Assessment at Nearest Uses ................................................................. 36 Table 10 Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ......................................... 40 Table 11 Operational-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ........................................... 41 Table 12 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ............... 42 Table 13 Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ................ 43 Colorado Collection Project CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 CEQA Compliance CEQA Guidelines Section 15300, Categorical Exemptions, states Section 21804 of the Public Resources Code requires these Guidelines to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA. As a result, several classes of projects have been identified and declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-fill Development Projects, states Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the following conditions: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. This report serves as the technical documentation and analysis for the proposed Colorado Collection Project (Project) in the City of Arcadia. The analysis is intended to determine whether the Project is eligible for an exemption from further environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15332, In-fill Development Projects, based upon the findings documented in Section 3.0 and Section 4.0 of this report. Colorado Collection Project CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 2 This page intentionally blank. Colorado Collection Project CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The Colorado Collection Project (Project) site is located at the northeast corner of Colorado Place and San Juan Drive, in the central portion of the City of Arcadia (City) within the County of Los Angeles; refer to Figure 1, Regional Map. The Project site consists of two parcels (APNs 5775-011-032 and -031) totaling approximately 3.7 acres, located at 201 and 225 Colorado Place; refer to Figure 2, Vicinity Map. Regional access to the site is provided via Interstate 210 (I-210) located to the north of the Project site. Local access to the site is provided from Colorado Place, San Juan Drive, and Santa Rosa Road. 2.2 Existing Setting On-Site Land Uses The Project site is a relatively flat, irregularly-shaped property located approximately 490 feet above mean sea level. The northern parcel consists of a two-story motel (Motel 6) and associated improvements, including an outdoor pool, parking lot, and landscaping. The southern parcel consists of a one-story building containing administrative/office uses (California Thoroughbred Breeders Association), parking lot, and landscaping. A flood control channel (Arcadia Wash – East Branch) runs in a north-south direction along a portion of the eastern boundary of the site and through the site. The northern portion of the channel is concrete-lined and surrounded on both sides by a low block wall and chain link fence. The channel travels underground through the southern parcel within the Project site. An easement is in place for both the daylighted and the undergrounded portions of the channel, which a portion cannot be built over and must meet the land use development guidelines of Los Angeles County Flood Control. Fencing and privacy walls of various materials extend along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site’s northern parcel and along the northern boundary of the southern parcel. A vinyl privacy fence separates the two Project site parcels. Three driveways provide access to the Project site from Colorado Place. General Plan and Zoning According to the City of Arcadia Land Use Policy Map (Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Figure LU-4), the Project site is designated Commercial with a Downtown Overlay. The Commercial designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The designation allows a broad array of commercial enterprises, including restaurants, durable goods sales, food stores, lodging, professional offices, specialty shops, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and entertainment uses. For commercial uses, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1.0 within the Downtown Overlay. In addition, the Commercial designation allows for residential development at a minimum density of 30 dwelling unit per acre and a maximum density of up to 50 dwelling unit per acre if affordable housing units are provided. The City’s Zoning Map identifies the Project site zoning district as General Commercial (C-G) with a Residential Flex Overlay (R-F) and Downtown Overlay (DO). The C-G Zone is intended to provide areas for retail and service uses, offices, restaurants, public uses, and similar and compatible uses. The R-F Zone is intended to provide for greater flexibility in land use planning and to maximize the housing types and styles by allowing residential uses in the C-G Zone. The DO Zone is an extension of the General Plan’s Downtown focus area. It is intended to provide opportunities for more intense, high-quality development in the areas including and surrounding the downtown core. Colorado Collection Project CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 4 Surrounding Uses Uses surrounding the Project site include: • North: North of the Project site is (from west to east) the Santa Anita Church complex, which includes a church, private school (Barnhart School), and single-story residential uses; the Arcadia Wash flood control channel; and single- and two-story residential uses. The Santa Anita Church complex is zoned C-G; the flood control channel is zoned Public Facilities (PF); and the residential uses are zoned (from south to north) High Density Residential (R-3) and Low Density Residential (R-1). • East: Immediately east of the Project site are the single- and two-story residential uses referenced above and Santa Rosa Road. East of Santa Rosa Road are single- and two-story residential uses. The residential uses are zoned (from south to north) R-3 and R-1. • South: The Project site is bounded on the south by San Juan Drive. South of San Juan Drive is a vacant site, followed by a three-story medical use building and parking structure. The vacant site and medical use building are zoned C-G. • West: The Project site is bounded on the west by Colorado Place. West of Colorado Place is the parking lot associated with the Santa Anita Park racetrack. The parking lot is zoned R-1 with a Racetrack Event Overlay (RTE). Angeles National Forest Alhambra Anaheim Arcadia Artesia Azusa Baldwin Park Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Beverly Hills Bradbury Brea Buena Park Burbank Carson Cerritos Chino Chino Hills Commerce Compton Costa Mesa Covina Culver City Cypress Diamond Bar Downey Duarte El Monte El Segundo Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Gardena Glendale Glendora Hawthorne Huntington Beach Huntington Park Industry Inglewood Irvine Irwindale La Cañada Flintridge La Habra La Habra Heights La Mirada La Palma La Puente La Verne Lakewood Lomita Long Beach Los Alamitos Los Angeles Lynwood Manhattan Beach Monrovia Montclair Montebello Monterey Park Norwalk Ontario Orange Palos Verdes Estates Paramount Pasadena Pico Rivera Placentia Pomona Rancho Palos Verdes Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates Rosemead San Dimas San Gabriel San Marino Santa Ana Santa Clarita Santa Fe Springs Seal Beach Sierra Madre Signal Hill South El Monte South Gate South Pasadena Stanton Temple City Torrance Tustin Upland Vernon Villa Park Walnut West Covina West Hollywood Westminster Whittier Yorba Linda 2 91 91 55 261 241 30 39 90 187 39 42 2 66 107 57 1 22 91 118 159 72 134 103 19 60 170 213 90 47 1 19 133 142 14 60 71 392 105 405 110 10 605 210 710 710 605 5 210 10 5 210 110 5 10 405 Los Angeles County Orange County San Bernardino County Legend Project Location City of Arcadia Other Incorporated Areas County Boundary National Forest Sources: California State Geoportal; USGS Transportation Dataset; USDA Administrative Forests. Map Date: January 5, 2026. Figure 1. Regional Map COLORADO COLLECTION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 0 52½ Miles Project Location ®v Gr e e n f i e l d A v e S 1 s t A v e Alta St S 2 n d A v e N 1 s t A v e Carriag e Hou s eDr W Colorado Blvd W Foothill Blvd N S a n t a A n i t a A v e S B a l d w i n A v e N B ald w i n A v e W H u n t i n g t o n D r W Floral Ave N 2 n d A v e Genoa St Colorado St W H untin g ton D r Ho l l y A v e el Dorado St S 2 n d A v e California St S S a n t a A n i t a A v e Louise Ave W H u ntington Dr E Colorado Blvd Sa n A n t o n i o R d Oakhaven R d la Porte St Wi gw a m A v e E Saint Joseph St E Sycamore Ave S 3 r d A v e S 3 r d A v e Ha rv a rd D r A rbol a da D r Campus Dr N O l d R a n c h R d SanLuis R ey R d N 2 n d A v e W Duarte Rd Rod eoRd H a c i enda D r S 1 s t A v e N B a l d w i n A v e San t a C lara S t S Ol d R a n ch R d N 1 s t A v e Cambridge D r Hampton Rd Christina St la C a d e n a A v e E Foothill Blvd Fairview Ave S a n C a rlo s R d Wheeler Ave E Duarte Rd Alice St R o d e o R d P a r k A v e Laurel Ave Arbolad a D r Ro l y n P l E Huntington DrW Huntington Dr Sa n t a C r u z R d E Santa Clara St W Sycamo re Ave Fro n t S t Hi g h l a n d O a k s D r R a n c h o Rd Oa k w o o d D r O a k l a w n R d Sa n t a R o s a R d Oxford Dr Caballero R d Anoakia Ln E Floral Ave Bonita St E Forest Ave Diamond St Fano St Alice St Lucile St E Duarte Rd Mo rlan P l e l M o n t e A v e C o l o r a d o P l Oa k M e a d o w R d R a m o n a R d W o o d l a n dLn S ta n f or d D r Sa n L u i s R e y R d W Forest Ave Oak g l en A v e Arcadia Ave SanMigue l D r G l o ri a R d W Magna Vista Ave 210 Arcadia High Holly Avenue Elementary First Avenue Middle Foothills Middle Station 105 Station 106 Legend Project Boundary Public Schools City of Arcadia Fire Station Arcadia Police Department ®v USC Arcadia Hospital Sources: California State Geoportal; USGS Transportation Dataset; USDA Administrative Forests. Map Date: January 5, 2026. Figure 2. Vicinity Map COLORADO COLLECTION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 0 1,000500 Feet Project LocationLos Angeles County Arboretum & Botanical Garden Santa Anita Golf Course Arcadia County Park Santa Anita Park The Shops at Santa Anita Colorado Collection Project CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 7 2.3 Project Characteristics The Project Applicant requests approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) to consolidate the two lots as one parcel and subdivide the airspace for condominium units, Multi-Family Architectural Design Review with a Density Bonus, and including incorporation of 225 Colorado Place into a residential development project with a site on the Residential Sites’ Inventory, Major Administrative Modification to reduce the density below the minimum requirement, Removal of a Healthy Protected Tree permit, and a Protected Tree Encroachment permit to develop 86 three-story attached condominiums and associated improvements, as described below. Proposed Residential Development The Project proposes to remove the existing on-site structures and develop 86 three-story attached for- sale condominiums in 14 buildings; refer to Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan. Each building would contain between three to nine dwelling units and have a maximum height of 39 feet, which is below the maximum height limit of 60 feet. The condominiums would consist of a mix of floor plans with two- to three- bedroom plus flex options, ranging in size from approximately 1,201 to 1,676 square feet. Nine of the for- sale units would be deed restricted affordable units at the moderate-income level. Site Access Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided from Colorado Place via a 26-foot wide driveway and from Santa Rosa Road via a 25-foot wide driveway. The existing driveways along Colorado Place would be removed, and new curbs and sidewalks would be constructed in their place. A private interior driveway system, consistent with City of Arcadia Fire access requirements, would provide access to the individual condominiums units. The Project proposes an interior pedestrian walkway system that would provide access to each condominium unit from Colorado Place, Santa Rosa Road, and San Juan Drive. Pedestrian walkways proposed within the site interior would connect to existing pedestrian facilities along Colorado Place and Santa Rosa Road. A 12-foot wide vehicle access point would be provided to the right side of the existing channel, within the Project site, to provide Los Angeles County Flood Control District access from Colorado Place to the channel. Parking Each condominium unit will have an attached two-car garage for a total of 172 enclosed spaces. An additional five guest parking spaces would be provided within the southern portion of the site. The parking spaces provided meet the minimum dimensions of 10 feet by 19 feet. Short-term bicycle parking racks would also be provided in the southern portion of the site. Architecture, Landscaping, and Open Space The Project proposes eight floor plans and two architectural styles across the 14 buildings. Each building would be designed in either a Spanish Colonial or Spanish Santa Barbara architectural style. The Project proposes a cohesive architectural design that would provide visual interest through variations in the typical building elevations and the use of varied but complimentary colors, details, and materials. The buildings would have a maximum building height of 39 feet; refer to Figure 4a to Figure 4d, Exterior Colorado Collection Project CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 8 Elevations.1 The buildings would primarily be stucco with concrete tile roofing, metal garage doors, and decorative elements such as stucco vents and recesses, stucco finial, accent ceramic tile, metal Juliet railing and planter boxes, and window shutters. Landscaping would be provided throughout the site; refer to Figure 5, Preliminary Landscape Plan. A variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover would be provided along the perimeter of the site and adjacent to and between the residential buildings. A total of 10 trees protected under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Arcadia Municipal Code, Article IX, Division of Use of Land, Chapter 1, Development Code,2 Division 10, Tree Preservation are either located on the Project site (five trees) or located off-site and encroach onto the Project site (five trees). Of the five protected trees located within the Project site, four would be removed to accommodate the proposed residential development. The fifth tree, located within the channel easement would be removed to allow for the construction of the 12-foot wide Los Angeles County Flood Control District channel access road, as described above. Removal and replacement of these five on-site trees would require a Removal of a Healthy Protected Tree Permit and would occur in accordance with Arcadia Development Code Section 9110.01.080, Tree Replacement, which requires replacement at 2:1 ratio. The five off-site protected trees that encroach into the Project site are located along a portion of the Project site’s northern boundary. An Encroachment into a Protected Zone of Protected Trees Permit would be required in accordance with Arcadia Development Code Section 9110.01.070, Tree Permit Requirements, for these five protected trees located on the adjacent property. Of the five trees located within the public right-of-way along Colorado Place, three would remain in place. The two Deodar Cedars that would be removed are not protected trees. Two replacement trees would be required to be planted with the location to be determined by the Public Works Inspector during construction. The Project proposes a total of 9,161 square feet of private open space comprised of porches, decks, and patios, and 10,249 square feet of common open space. A central community open space area with a shade structure, BBQ counter, trash receptacle, table seating, and lawn would be provided within the site interior. The Project would also provide an active pocket park in the northern portion of the site, with play lawn, corn hole, outdoor ping pong table, and seating; and a passive pocket park within the southern portion of the site, with pet relief lawn area, benches, and seating. Utilities The Project would connect to existing utilities within the Project area. The Project would install four-inch domestic water and eight-inch fire water service lines within the Project site and connect to an existing eight-inch water main within Colorado Place. As part of the Project, eight-inch sanitary sewer laterals would be installed within the Project site and connect to the existing 10-inch sewer line located within Colorado Place. An existing 10-inch sewer line that extends through the northeast corner of the Project site would be relocated within the site and connect to the existing 10-inch sewer line located within 1 It should be noted that the illustrative building plans shown in Figure 4a through Figure 4d provide typical representations of the proposed condominium buildings; however, there are slight variations across the 14 buildings. The actual product design may vary. 2 Arcadia Municipal Code Article IX (Division of Use and Land) is referenced herein as the Arcadia Development Code. Colorado Collection Project CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 9 Colorado Place; the Project would not connect to the relocated line. Catch basins would be installed and connected via drainage pipes to two underground infiltration systems located in the northern and southern portions of the Project site. Overflow from the infiltration systems would outlet to existing stormwater drainage infrastructure along Colorado Place and Santa Rosa Road. One existing power pole will remain on the northern property line to continue to serve offsite properties and the Project site. The Project proposes to connect to existing electrical and telecommunications infrastructure to receive electricity and telecommunications service. The Project does not propose to connect to natural gas service. Project Construction and Phasing The Project is proposed to be constructed over approximately 42 months beginning in August 2026 and ending in February 2030. Construction of the proposed condominiums would occur over 10 phases. Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving, architectural coating, and landscaping. Entitlements and Approvals The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site and would require the following entitlements and discretionary approvals: • CEQA Environmental Clearance; • Vesting Tentative Tract Map; • Multi-Family Architectural Design Review with Density Bonus; • Major Administrative Modification (to reduce the minimum density); • Removal of a Healthy Protected Tree Permit; and • Encroachment into a Protected Zone of Protected Trees Permit. Colorado Collection Project CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 10 This page intentionally blank. Figure 3. Proposed Site Plan COLORADO COLLECTION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Total - 86 units P1 - 6 units P1X - 6 units P2 - 11 units P3 - 25 units P4 AU* - 9 units P5 - 28 units P5X - 1 unit Units (Gross) * AU = Accessible Unit (10% of total Units = 9 units) 0 10050 Feet 201 Colorado Place: +/- 1.3 ac 225 Colorado Place: +/- 2.4 ac Site Summary Total Area: +/-3.7 ac Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning, January 27, 2026. Map Date: February 4, 2026. Figure 4a. Exterior Elevations COLORADO COLLECTION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning, September 25, 2025. Map Date: January 6, 2026. Text Right Elevation Left Elevation Rear Elevation Front Elevation Figure 4b. Exterior Elevations COLORADO COLLECTION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning, September 25, 2025. Map Date: January 6, 2026. Text Right Elevation Left Elevation Rear Elevation Front Elevation Figure 4c. Exterior Elevations COLORADO COLLECTION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning, September 25, 2025. Map Date: January 6, 2026. Text Right Elevation Left Elevation Rear Elevation Front Elevation Figure 4d. Exterior Elevations COLORADO COLLECTION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning, September 25, 2025. Map Date: January 6, 2026. Text Right Elevation Left Elevation Rear Elevation Front Elevation Figure 5. Preliminary Landscape Plan COLORADO COLLECTION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 0 8040 Feet Source: studio PAD Landscape Architecture, January 27, 2025. Map Date: February 4, 2026. 1. Transformer to be screened with landscape, quantity/final locations TBD 2. Six bronze Type III Cluster Box Unit mailboxes and two bronze Type II Outdoor Parcel Locker mailboxes or equivalent, per USPS review and approval. 3. Proposed wall, pilaster, gate or fence, per Wall & Fence Plan. 4. Enhanced paving at main project entries. 5. Proposed trees, per Planting Plan. 6. Short term bike parking (4 bike racks to accommodate 8 bike stalls). 7. Public street R.O.W. 8. Property line. 9. Community dog bag station (black in color), for pet owners. 10. Common area landscape, builder installed and HOA maintained. 11. Private patio/yard: homeowner installed & maintained 12. 4' wide natural colored concrete sidewalk: light top-cast finish & saw-cut joints. 13. Accessible parking stall and striping, per Civil plans. 14. Guest parking stall. 15. Natural colored concrete driveway: light broom finish and tooled joints. 16. Central community open space with metal or wood shade structure, BBQ counter, trash bin, table seating and lawn area for larger event gatherings. 17. North community active pocket park: play lawn, corn hole, ping pong table, seating. 18. South community passive pocket park: pet relief lawn area, benches, Adirondack seating. 19. Monument signage: metal lettering, Goudy Old Style True Type font (5-10" High). City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 17 3.0 CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CRITERIA ANALYSIS Criterion (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. General Plan Consistency According to the City of Arcadia Land Use Policy Map (Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Figure LU-4), the Project site is designated Commercial with a Downtown Overlay. The Commercial designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The designation allows a broad array of commercial enterprises, including restaurants, durable goods sales, food stores, lodging, professional offices, specialty shops, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and entertainment uses. For commercial uses, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1.0 within the Downtown Overlay. In addition, the Commercial designation allows for residential development at a minimum density of 30 dwelling unit per acre and a maximum density of up to 50 dwelling unit per acre if affordable housing units are provided. The Project proposes to develop an 86-unit for-sale condominiums development with nine units (approximately 10.5 percent of the total units) set aside as deed-restricted affordable units at the moderate-income level, which would be consistent with the Commercial designation. The proposed development would occur at a density of 23 dwelling units per acre, which would be below the minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan specifies that land use designations provide general parameters for development standards, including standards related to density, and that the Development Code governs the type and intensity of uses that will be permitted in a given area. (See pages 2-11 to 2- 12 of the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element.) As part of the Project, a Major Administrative Modification is requested for the reduction in the minimum density; refer to the Development Code Consistency discussion below. The Arcadia General Plan has several policies that are relevant to the Project. Table 1, Arcadia General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis, provides an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the applicable General Plan policies. Table 1 Arcadia General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis CHAPTER 2 – LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN Goal LU-1: A balance of land uses that preserves Arcadia’s status as a Community of Homes and a community of opportunity. Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. Consistent. The Project would redevelop a 3.7-acre site with 86 three-story attached for-sale condominiums, consistent with the Commercial with Downtown Overlay General Plan land use designation and C-G (General Commercial) with R-F (Residential Flex) zoning district. Development of the site with condominiums would be compatible with surrounding existing uses which primarily consist of residential uses directly adjacent to the site. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 18 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Policy LU-1.4: Encourage the gradual redevelopment of incompatible, ineffective, and/or undesirable land uses. Consistent. The Project would remove the existing on- site structures, including the two-story motel (Motel 6) and the one-story office building (California Thoroughbred Breeders Association), and redevelop the site with a new residential project. The Project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site and introduce a condominium development adjacent to existing residential, church, and school uses. Policy LU-1.8: Encourage development types that support transit and other alternative forms of transportation, including bicycling and walking. Consistent. The Project would provide condominium uses, including affordable units, within approximately 0.7-miles of the Arcadia Transit Station and within 0.3 to 0.6 miles of local bus stops. As part of the Project, an interior pedestrian walkway system would be constructed that connects the residents to existing sidewalk facilities on Colorado Place, Santa Rosa Road, and San Juan Drive. Short-term bicycle parking racks would be provided in the southern portion of the site, supporting bicycling. Policy LU-1.10: Require that new development projects provide their full fair share of the improvements necessary to mitigate project generated impacts on the circulation and infrastructure systems. Consistent. The Project would construct required frontage improvements (including new curbs and sidewalks) and install on-site utility connections and drainage facilities to serve the proposed Project consistent with Arcadia Development Code Section 9105.09, Subdivision Design and Improvements, which establishes standards for the design and layout of subdivisions, and the design, construction, and installation of public improvements within subdivisions. Goal LU-2: A City with a distinctive and attractive public realm, with pedestrian-friendly amenities in commercial and mixed-use districts and single-family neighborhoods that continue to maintain Arcadia’s standard of architectural and aesthetic quality. Policy LU-2.1: Ensure that trees planted in the public right-of-way continue to be well maintained where they exist, are planted in areas where they are currently lacking, and encourage replacement of undesirable tree species in public right-of ways. Consistent. The Project proposes to plant two new replacement street trees within the public right-of-way. Three of the five existing public trees adjacent to the Project site on Colorado Place would be preserved and protected in place. Two of the public trees (Deodar Cedars) would be removed and replacement trees would be required to be planted with the location to be determined by the Public Works Inspector. Goal LU-4: High-quality and attractive multifamily residential neighborhoods that provide ownership and rental opportunities for people in all stages of life. Policy LU-4.1: Require that new multifamily residential development be visually and functionally integrated and consistent in scale, mass, and character with structures in the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent. The proposed residential development would be comprised of 3-story condominiums within 14 buildings distributed throughout the site. At 3- stories the building heights would complement and provide a transition from the adjacent one- and two- story residential structures and three story commercial uses within the area. The separation of the buildings would provide for visual relief and open space areas City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 19 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis and landscaping. The condominium units would front the adjacent roadways and be designed with cohesive Spanish-inspired architecture, articulated elevations, porches, decks, and patios, and perimeter landscaping intended to integrate the three-story condominium development with surrounding developed uses and provide pedestrian scale at the sidewalks. Policy LU-4.3: Require the provision of adequate private and common open space for residential units. Require sufficient on-site recreational facilities to meet the daily needs of residents, if possible, commensurate with the size of the development. Consistent. The Project would provide 9,161 square feet of private open space comprised of porches, decks, and patios, and 10,249 square feet of common open space, including a central community open space with a shade structure, BBQ counter, table seating, trash receptacle, and lawn, plus an active pocket park with play lawn, corn hole, outdoor ping pong, and seating, and a passive pocket park with a pet relief lawn area, benches, and seating to meet the daily needs of residents. Policy LU-4.7: Arrange multifamily buildings on a site to meet the following criteria: • Provide interest to the “street scene” within the development and give as open a feel as possible to the site. • Create a sense of place by relating buildings to each other and to adjacent open space. • Provide a variety of open spaces of different sizes and shapes that perform different functions on the site, including contiguous areas large enough to be used for both active and passive recreation. • Separate balconies and patios on adjacent buildings from one another to increase the privacy of these spaces. Consistent. The Project’s site layout and building arrangement would create an engaging internal “street scene” by providing 14 separate buildings that reduced the overall massing and scale of the development. The condominiums would front the adjacent roadways and be designed with cohesive Spanish-inspired architecture, articulated elevations, porches, decks, and patios, and perimeter landscaping intended to integrate the three-story condominium development with surrounding developed uses and provide pedestrian scale at the sidewalks. Landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the site and between and adjacent to the proposed buildings and individual condominiums. The Project would provide common open space areas situated throughout the site, including a central community open space with a shade structure, BBQ counter, table seating, trash receptacle, and lawn, plus an active pocket park with play lawn, corn hole, outdoor ping pong, and seating, and a passive pocket park with a pet relief lawn area, benches, and seating. The placement of the buildings, provision of common open space areas and landscaping, and the location of porches, decks, and patios provide separation to increase the privacy of the spaces. Goal LU-6: Attractive and vibrant commercial corridors that provide for the retail, commercial, and office needs of Arcadia with expanded opportunities for mixed-use development. Policy LU-6.14: Provide opportunities for high density residential development providing affordable housing units in a commercial zone that will serve as a catalyst Consistent. The Project would redevelop an underutilized site with 86 condominiums, including nine moderate-income deed-restricted units, on a site currently developed with commercial uses and zoned City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 20 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis for other types of development in the surrounding area. General Commercial (C-G) with a Residential Flex Overlay (R-F) and Downtown Overlay (DO). Development of the site, as proposed, would introduce higher density residential development with affordable housing units serving as a potential catalyst for other types of development in the surrounding area. Goal LU-10: A thriving Downtown, with healthy commercial areas supported by high quality, residential uses and supportive of the Metro station. Policy LU-10.1: Provide diverse housing, employment, and cultural opportunities in Downtown, with an emphasis on compact, mixed-use, transit- and pedestrian-oriented development patterns that are appropriate to the core of the City. Consistent. The Project site is within the Downtown Overlay Zone. As discussed above, the Project would provide a condominium residential development with affordable housing units that supports compact and pedestrian-oriented development patterns appropriate to the core of the City. CHAPTER 4 – CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT Goal CI-1: An efficient roadway system that serves all of Arcadia, supports all transportation modes, and balances the roadway system with planned land uses. Policy CI-4.8: Require that development projects within commercial districts provide pedestrian-focused access independent from vehicle entrances, as feasible. Consistent. The Project would provide pedestrian- focused access via an interior walkway system connecting to existing sidewalks on Colorado Place, Santa Rosa Road, and San Juan Drive, independent from vehicle drive aisles. Additionally, the Project is designed so the condominium units front onto the adjacent roadways and provide direct pedestrian access away from the proposed vehicle entrances. Goal CI-9: A water production, storage, and distribution system that provides quality service equally to all areas of Arcadia, allows the City to maximize use of local water sources, and includes use of recycled water. Policy CI-9.6: Require developers to pay the full costs associated with water system improvements needed specifically to service their development, as well as fair- share costs for enhancements identified in the Water Master Plan and Capital Improvement and Equipment Plan. Consistent. A Preliminary Water Systems Analysis (Appendix F) was conducted to determine the adequacy of the existing water distribution system to supply the proposed development with adequate domestic water and fire water demands and to verify the proposed size of the domestic water and firewater main conveyance pipes. As verified by the analysis, the Project would install four-inch domestic water and eight-inch fire water service lines and four fire hydrants within the Project site and connect to an existing eight- inch water main within Colorado Place to serve the proposed residential development. Off-site water system improvements are not required. All on-site utility connections would be required to comply with Arcadia Development Code Section 9105.09, Subdivision Design and Improvements, which establishes standards for the design and layout of subdivisions, and the design, construction, and installation of public improvements within subdivisions. Goal CI-11: Storm drain infrastructure that minimizes regional and localized flood hazards. Policy CI-11.5: Require developers to pay the full costs associated with storm drain system improvements Consistent. A Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Appendix E) was prepared to verify the City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 21 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis needed specifically to service their development, as well as fair-share costs for enhancements identified in the Capital Improvement and Equipment Plan. adequacy of the proposed storm drain infrastructure design for the Project. The Project proposes to install catch basins that would connect via drainage pipes to two underground infiltration systems located in the northern and southern portions of the Project site. Overflow from the infiltration systems would outlet to existing stormwater drainage infrastructure along Colorado Place and Santa Rosa Road. Off-site storm drain improvements would not be required; therefore, no fair share costs are required to be paid for project implementation. All on-site utility connections would be required to comply with Arcadia Development Code Section 9105.09, Subdivision Design and Improvements, which establishes standards for the design and layout of subdivisions, and the design, construction, and installation of public improvements within subdivisions. Goal CI-13: Private telecommunications and utilities infrastructure and services responsive to consumer demands and consistent with City aesthetic objectives. Policy CI-13.3: Continue to require the placement of utilities underground for all new developments. Consistent. One existing power pole will remain on the northern property line to continue to serve offsite properties and the Project site. The Project proposes to connect to existing electrical and telecommunications infrastructure to receive electricity and telecommunications service; natural gas service is not proposed. All on-site utility connections would be required to comply with Arcadia Development Code Section 9105.09, Subdivision Design and Improvements, which establishes standards for the design and layout of subdivisions, and the design, construction, and installation of public improvements within subdivisions. CHAPTER 5 – HOUSING Goal H-2: Provide suitable sites for housing development to accommodate a range of housing for residential use that meet the City’s RHNA growth needs for all income levels. Policy H-2.1: Provide for a range of residential densities and products, including low density single family-uses, moderate-density townhomes, higher-density townhomes, higher-density apartments/ condominiums, and units in mixed-use developments. Consistent. The Project would provide a residential condominium product on an underutilized site currently developed with commercial uses and zoned General Commercial (C-G) with a Residential Flex Overlay (R-F) and Downtown Overlay (DO). The 86 condominiums would consist of a mix of floor plans with two- to three-bedrooms plus flex options, ranging in size from approximately 1,201 to 1,676 square feet. Nine of the units would be deed restricted affordable units at the moderate-income level. Thus, the Project would support the City’s policy to provide a range of residential densities and housing products. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 22 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Policy H-2.4: Maintain development standards, regulations and design features that are flexible to provide a variety of housing types and facilitate housing that is appropriate for the neighborhoods in which they are located. Consistent. The Project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site and introduce a condominium development adjacent to existing residential, church, and school uses. As discussed below in Table 2 (R-F Overlay Zone Development Standards) the Project would be consistent with the development standards with approval of a Major Administrative Modification for the proposed reduction in minimum density. Waivers from the City’s Objective Development Standards specific to Site Design, Massing, and Wall Plan Variation are also requested. The City provides flexibility in development standards through the Major Administrative Modification and by waiving up to three objective development standards for eligible mixed-use residential projects when the development standard cannot be achieved; refer to the Major Administrative Modification and Request for Waivers discussion below. Policy H-2.6: Require that the density of intensity, as well as design of new developments, be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. Consistent. The Project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site and introduce a condominium development adjacent to existing residential, church, and school uses. The proposed residential development would be comprised of 3-story condominiums within 14 buildings distributed throughout the site. At 3-stories, the building heights would complement and provide a transition from the adjacent one- and two-story residential structures and three story commercial uses within the area. The separation of the buildings would provide for visual relief and open space areas and landscaping. The condominium units would front the adjacent roadways and be designed with cohesive Spanish-inspired architecture, articulated elevations, porches, decks, and patios, and perimeter landscaping intended to integrate the three-story condominium development with surrounding developed uses and provide pedestrian scale at the sidewalks. Goal H-3: A range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community, including housing for persons with special needs. Policy H-3.1: Promote the use of State density bonus provisions to encourage affordable housing for lower, moderate income households and senior housing. Consistent. The Project Applicant would utilize State density bonus provisions to provide for the development of nine moderate-income deed- restricted units as part of the proposed residential Project. The State density bonus allows for concessions and incentives, including a waiver to the development standard if the standard would physically preclude the project from building built, as described under the Development Code Consistency discussion below. CHAPTER 6 – RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 23 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Goal R-5: Wise and creative energy use that incorporates new technologies for energy generation and new approaches to energy conservation. Policy R-5.3: Require that all new development meets or exceeds the state and local energy conservation requirements. Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local energy conservation requirements, including the California Green Building Standards Code subject to certain changes and amendments as adopted in Arcadia Municipal Code Article VIII, Chapter 14, California Green Building Standards Code, and Title 24 provisions of the California Building Code as verified through City building plan check and permitting process. CHAPTER 7 – PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES Goal PR-1: Providing superior parks, public spaces, and recreation facilities to meet the community’s evolving needs. Policy PR-1.4: Require parkland dedications, provision of onsite usable public space, and/or payment of in lieu fees for development projects involving new residential construction. Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with Arcadia Development Code Section 9105.15, Dedication of Land for Park and Recreational Facilities, which establishes the requirements for the collection of fees for parks and related recreational purposes to serve the residents of newly created subdivisions. The Project would provide 9,161 square feet of private open pace comprised of porches, decks, and patios, and 10,249 square feet of common open space, including a central community open space with a shade structure, BBQ counter, table seating, trash receptacle, and lawn, plus an active pocket park with play lawn, corn hole, outdoor ping pong, and seating, and a passive pocket park with a pet relief lawn area, benches, and seating to meet the daily needs of residents. Goal PR-3: Ensuring that trees and the urban forest make a continuing and significant contribution to community character. Policy PR-3.6: Ensure that existing mature trees on private property are considered in the planning and development process and are retained to the greatest extent feasible. Consistent. A Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation study (Appendix A) was prepared to identify the potential for protected trees to be impacted by the proposed residential development and to retain trees to the extent feasible. A total of 10 trees protected under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Arcadia Municipal Code, Article IX, Division of Use of Land, Chapter 1, Development Code,3 Division 10, Tree Preservation are either located within the Project site (five trees) or are located off-site (five trees) and encroach onto the Project site. The five protected trees on the Project site include four Western Sycamores and one Chinese Elm. The five protected trees located off-site include four Western Sycamores and one Coast Live Oak. All trees 3 Arcadia Municipal Code Article IX (Division of Use and Land) is referenced herein as the Arcadia Development Code. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 24 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis were determined to be in good overall health and structure except for the Chinese Elm, which was determined to be in poor overall health and structure. Of the five protected trees located on the Project site, the four Western Sycamores would be removed to accommodate the proposed residential development. The Chinese Elm, located within the channel easement, would be removed to allow for the construction of the 12-foot wide Los Angeles County Flood Control District channel access road. Removal and replacement of these five on-site trees would require a Removal of a Healthy Protected Tree Permit and would occur in accordance with Arcadia Development Code Section 9110.01.080, Tree Replacement, which requires replacement at 2:1 ratio. The five off-site protected trees that encroach into the Project site are located along a portion of the Project site’s northern boundary. An Encroachment into a Protected Zone of Protect Trees Permit would be required in accordance with Arcadia Development Code Section 9110.01.070, Tree Permit Requirements, for these five protected trees located on the adjacent property. New landscaping, in addition to the replacement trees, would be provided along the perimeter of the site and within the site. CHAPTER 8 – SAFETY Goal S-4: Minimized potential for loss of life, physical injury, and property damage resulting from earthquakes and geologic hazards. Policy S-4.3: Require detailed geologic investigations to accompany development proposals for sites that lie within known or suspected seismic and geologic hazard areas. Require that such investigations and reports conform to accepted professional standards and any applicable State and City requirements. Consistent. A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations study (Appendix I) was prepared to evaluate the existing onsite geotechnical conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed residential development. The Project site is not located within an identified seismic and geologic hazard area, and the study determined the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint with implementation of the geotechnical recommendations during horizontal development and construction. The study’s geotechnical findings and recommendations are reviewed by the City’s Geologist and any additional requirements identified would be required to be implemented during the development permitting process. Goal S-5: Minimized potential for loss of life, physical injury, and property damage resulting from earthquakes and geologic hazards. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 25 General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Policy S-5.3: Require that new development projects retain as much runoff as possible on the development site to reduce flow volumes into the storm drain system, allow for recharge of the groundwater basins, and comply with the City’s stormwater permitting requirements (consistent with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems program) and employ best management practices. Consistent. Arcadia Municipal Code Article VII, Chapter 8, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, establishes the requirements to protect and enhance water quality. A Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report and Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Plan (Appendix E) were prepared to determine whether detention or other peak flow mitigation methods would be required and verify the adequacy of the proposed storm drain infrastructure design and to provide compliance with the City’s NPDES stormwater requirements. As part of the Project, catch basins would be installed and connected via drainage pipes to two underground infiltration systems located in the northern and southern portions of the Project site. Overflow from the infiltration systems would outlet to existing stormwater drainage infrastructure along Colorado Place and Santa Rosa Road. Peak runoff generated by the Project would be reduced for the 25-, 50-, and 100- year storm event when compared to the existing condition. The proposed infiltration system would provide water quality treatment and further reduce the peak flow runoff. The LID Plan, prepared consistent with the NPDES requirements, identifies best management practices (BMPs) that would be required to be implemented as part of the Project to ensure compliance with the City’s stormwater permitting requirements. Development Code Consistency The City’s Zoning Map identifies the Project site’s Zone as General Commercial (C-G) with a Residential Flex Overlay (R-F) and Downtown Overlay (DO). The C-G Zone is intended to provide areas for retail and service uses, offices, restaurants, public uses, and similar and compatible uses. The R-F Zone is intended to provide for greater flexibility in land use planning and to maximize the housing types and styles by allowing residential uses in the C-G Zone. The DO Zone is an extension of the General Plan’s Downtown focus area. It is intended to provide opportunities for more intense, high-quality development in the areas including and surrounding the downtown core. The C-G Zone permits residential uses if affordable units are provided per the City’s Density Bonus requirements (refer to the Request for Waivers discussion below) and the R-F Overlay Zone provides the option to build a residential project in a commercial zone. According to Arcadia Development Code Section 9102.11.050, RF Residential Flex Overlay Zone, residential units are permissible if affordable units are provided per the City's Density Bonus requirements (Arcadia Development Code Section 9103.15). Properties in C-G zone with a R-F Overlay may only be developed with residential uses if the site is on the Residential Sites Inventory in the City’s adopted Housing Element (Appendix A: Adequate Sites). Adjacent parcels not listed on the Residential Sites Inventory may be included as part of the development site only if they are under the same ownership as the listed property, and subject to Architectural Design Review. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 26 The Project site is comprised of two adjacent properties; the southern property (California Thoroughbred Breeders Association) is listed on the Site Inventory (Housing Element Appendix A Site ID 33). The inclusion of 225 Colorado Place, which is not on the Residential Sites Inventory, will not impact the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as the proposal is only to allow residential development, and not to include it on the Sites' Inventory. The Project proposes a residential development with 86 for-sale condominiums of which nine of the units would be restricted at the moderate-income level. The proposed residential use is consistent with the C- G and R-F Overlay Zones. Arcadia Development Code Section 9102.11.050, RF Residential Flex Overlay Zone, establishes the development standards within the R-F Overlay Zone; refer to Table 2, R-F Overlay Zone Development Standards. Table 2 R-F Overlay Zone Development Standards Development Standard Consistency Analysis Maximum Height: 60 feet Consistent. The Project would have a maximum height of 39 feet. Residential Density Maximum: 50 units/acre Minimum: 30 units/acre The Project would have a residential density of approximately 23.2 units/acre. Refer to the Major Administrative Modification Request discussion below. Minimum Setbacks1 Front or adjacent to a street: 10 feet Side (interior): 10 feet Side (Street side): 10 feet Rear: 10 feet Subject to Density Bonus Waiver The reduced setbacks of minimum 7'-7" are subject to a Density Bonus waiver. Distance Between Structures Minimum: 6 feet (or as may otherwise be required by the Building Code) Consistent. The Project would provide a minimum of 6- foot setbacks between structures. Minimum Open Space for Residential Uses: 100 sf per unit (private or common) Consistent. The Project proposes a total of 19,410 square feet of open space (9,161 square feet private and 10,249 square feet public) providing an average of 225 square feet per unit. Parking Minimum Requirements Head In (10x20): 1.5 spaces per unit Guest Parking: 1.0 space for every 3 units Consistent. The Project would provide 172 garage parking spaces, resulting in 2.0 parking spaces for each unit, exceeding the requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit. The Project would provide five guest parking spaces; refer to the Request for Waivers discussion below. Source: Arcadia Development Code Section 9102.11.050 Notes: 1. Refer to Section H for additional setback provisions. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 27 Major Administrative Modification Request The proposed development would occur at a density of 23 dwelling units per acre, which would be below the minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre identified for the R-F Zone. As part of the Project, a Major Administrative Modification is requested for the reduction in the minimum density. Arcadia Development Code Section 9107.05, Administrative Modifications, provides a procedure to secure an appropriate improvement of a parcel, to prevent unreasonable hardship, and/or to promote uniformity of development. Modification of minimum density requires review and approval by the Community Development Director in accordance with Development Code Section 9107.05.050, Findings and Decision. Upon approval of the Major Administrative Modification for the reduction in minimum density, the Project would be consistent with the site’s density requirements for purposes of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a). As discussed above, the General Plan contemplates that land use designations provide general parameters for development standards, including standards related to density, and that the Development Code governs the type and intensity of uses that will be permitted in a given area. (See pages 2-11 to 2-12 of the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element.) As such, the General Plan provides some flexibility for development standard requirements, such as those related to minimum densities, particularly in those instances where the Development Code authorizes relief from strict application of those standards, such as the relief that may be provided by virtue of a major administrative modification. This is in keeping with other references in the General Plan to flexible development standards and general compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. For example, Housing Policy H-2.4 states: “Maintain development standards, regulations, and design features that are flexible to provide a variety of housing types and facilitate housing that is appropriate for the neighborhoods in which they are located.” Housing Policy H-2.6 states: “Require that the density or intensity, as well as design of new developments, be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods.” Further, Housing Policy H-4.1 specifies that the City: “Review and modify as appropriate development standards, regulations, and processing procedures that may constrain housing development, particularly housing for lower and moderate income households and for persons with special needs.” Request for Waivers Pursuant to Arcadia Development Code Section 9103.15, Density Bonuses for Affordable and Senior Housing, to be eligible for a density bonus and other incentives, a proposed housing development is required to comply with the eligibility requirements specified in Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918. The Project qualifies for a density bonus, one concession or incentive, and waivers since 10 percent of the units would be restricted at the moderate-income level (Arcadia Development Code Section 9103.15.020, Density Bonus). As discussed above, the Project does not include a request for additional density. To allow for the residential development, including the affordable units as proposed, the Applicant is requesting the following waivers consistent with the State and City’s Density Bonus provisions: State Waiver #1: Parking Setback Reduction. All parking spaces are to be a minimum of 20-feet from the property line at a driveway. State Waiver #2: Reduced setbacks of 7'-7" whereas 10 feet is required, and reduced stepbacks (additional 3 feet is required) on buildings higher than 30 feet that abut residential uses. State Waiver #3: Definition of Entries. Both primary building and individual unit entries shall incorporate the following to clearly define the entrance: City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 28 ii.Entries should provide a sheltered area in front of the primary door. Flat roof porches are not allowed. In accordance with State Density Bonus law, the City must grant a waiver of any development standard that would preclude the construction of the Project within the permitted building envelope unless the City finds that the requested waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment which cannot be mitigated; would have an adverse impact on any property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or that the waiver would be contrary to State or federal law. The proposed waivers would not result in a direct physical impact on the environment due to a conflict with a regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Additionally, as discussed under Section 4.0, Exception (f) below, the Project would not have an adverse impact on a property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Arcadia Development Code Section 9012.01.170, Multifamily Objective Development Standards, establishes design standards for eligible residential development in the City. A residential development may be eligible for a waiver of up to three objective design standards if the standard is determined to not be applicable or cannot be achieved subject to review and approval by the Director or designee. The Applicant is requesting the following three waivers from the multifamily objective design standards: City Waiver #1 D.1.b: Site Design. Deck and balconies should be recessed and/or incorporated into the massing of the home, rather than protruding out of the home, to enhance privacy. City Waiver #2 D.2.a: Massing. Where applicable, the third floor of the building must be set back a minimum of three feet from the first or first and second floor footprint. City Waiver #3 D.2.b: Wall Plan Variation. All exterior walls must have a minimum two-foot variation in depth at least every 40 feet of wall length to provide relief along the wall plane. In addition, all walls shall include at least two of the following features: windows, trellises, arcades, balconies, different exterior material, or awnings. The proposed waivers would not result in a direct physical impact on the environment due to a conflict with a regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Moreover, a project is considered consistent with General Plan and zoning development standards for purposes of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a) despite the project’s use of concessions or waivers for relief from applicable standards. Criterion (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project site consists of two parcels (APNs 5775-011-032 and -031) totaling approximately 3.7 acres located at the northeast corner of Colorado Place and San Juan Drive in the City of Arcadia. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the site is located within a developed area and is substantially surrounded by urban uses, including (from west to east) the Santa Anita Church complex (church and private school) and nearby residential uses, as well as the Arcadia Wash flood control channel to the north; Santa Rosa Road and additional residential uses to the east; San Juan Drive, a vacant site, and a three- story medical use building and parking structure to the south; and Colorado Place and the Santa Anita Park racetrack parking lot to the west. As such, the Project site is consistent with this criterion. i.Entries shall match the first floor plate height. Entry designs greater than one-story are not allowed. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 29 Criterion (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The Project site is developed with existing urban uses consisting of a two-story motel and office building and associated improvements, including an outdoor pool, parking lot, and landscaping. The Project site is landscaped with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs, and lawn areas. A flood control channel (Arcadia Wash – East Branch) runs in a north-south direction along a portion of the eastern boundary of the site and through the site. The northern portion of the channel is concrete-lined and surrounded on both sides by a low block wall and chain link fence. The channel travels underground through the southern parcel within the Project site. The surrounding area is also developed with primarily residential uses to the east, a church and private school to the north, and the Sana Anita Park racetrack to the west, west of Colorado Place. Based on review of the existing and surrounding conditions, no candidate, sensitive, or special status plant or wildlife species occur on the Project site or adjacent properties. The City has adopted a Tree Preservation Ordinance (Arcadia Development Code Section 9110.01), to recognize oaks, sycamores and mature trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources as well as valuable environmental assets, and to create favorable conditions for the preservation and propagation of irreplaceable plant heritage for the benefit of the current and future residents of the City. The ordinance identifies protected and unprotected trees within the City. A Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation (Tree Report), dated June 2025 and revised November 2025, was prepared by Arbor Care, Inc.; refer to Appendix A, Tree Report, to identify the potential for protected trees to be impacted by the proposed residential development and to retain trees to the extent feasible. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, a total of five trees protected under Arcadia Development Code Division 10, Tree Preservation, currently existing within the Project site would be removed and replaced in accordance with Arcadia Development Code Section 9110.01.080, Tree Replacement, which requires replacement at a ratio of 2 to 1. A protected tree encroachment permit would be required in accordance with Arcadia Development Code Section 9110.01.070, Tree Permit Requirements, for the five protected trees located on the adjacent property. Two of the five trees located within the public right-of-way along Colorado Place would be removed. These trees are not protected and two replacement trees would be required to be planted with the location to be determined by the Public Works Inspector. Additionally, removal of the trees would be required to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code by scheduling construction activities outside of nesting season (between September and February), if feasible. If avoidance of construction during bird nesting season is not feasible, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey would be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure birds are not engaged in active nesting within or adjacent to the Project’s construction limits. If nesting birds are discovered during preconstruction surveys, a no-disturbance buffer, to be determined by a qualified biologist, would be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the biologist determines that the nesting cycle is complete. Criterion (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. TRAFFIC Conflict with any Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy The proposed Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, as discussed further below. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 30 Transit Facilities The City is served by the Arcadia Transit fixed-route system, which operates three local bus lines (Green, Blue, and Red) that connect multiple activity centers to the Arcadia Transit Station, located approximately 0.7-miles from the site. The Green Line (Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue) connects the Arcadia Transit Station with Santa Anita Park, City Hall, University of Southern California Arcadia Hospital, The Shops at Santa Anita, and the Los Angeles County Arboretum; the Blue Line (Holly Avenue and Duarte Road) connects southwest Arcadia activity centers to the Arcadia Transit Station; and the Red Line (First Avenue and Sixth Avenue) connects east Arcadia activity centers to the Arcadia Transit Station.4 In addition to local service, regional bus service is available within walking distance of the Project site via stops along Huntington Drive, generally east of the site in the vicinity of Santa Clara Street. The closest stops along Huntington Drive are within approximately one-half mile of the Project site, with additional stops located slightly farther along the corridor. These stops are served by Foothill Transit Line 187,5 which provides regional service between the Azusa and Pasadena areas with stops in Arcadia and connections to major destinations, and by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Line 179, which provides service between the Rose Hill Transit Center and the Arcadia Transit Station via Huntington Drive. Based on published schedules, both routes provide early morning and evening service.6 The Arcadia General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element identify the City’s expectations and plans for future transit. Figure CI-6, Transit Corridors, identifies Colorado Place as a future Secondary Transit Corridor. A Secondary Transit Corridor is described as a street that is expected to carry lower but still significant levels of transit service, and probably with a greater orientation to local rather than regional bus routes. The Project does not propose physical changes or improvements that would impede existing routes or stops or future use of Colorado Place as a transit corridor. The Project site would be served by existing and future transit systems after Project implementation. The population growth associated with the Project could incrementally increase the demand for public transit services. However, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit. Roadway Facilities The Project site is located at the northeast corner of Colorado Place and San Juan Drive in the City of Arcadia, and regional access is provided via Interstate 210 (I-210) located north of the site. Local access is provided from Colorado Place, San Juan Drive, and Santa Rosa Road. The Arcadia General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element Roadway Plan (Figure CI-3) identifies Colorado Place in the Project vicinity as a Primary Arterial and San Juan Drive and Santa Rosa Road are local roads. A Primary Arterial is identified as a divided roadway having four to six lanes with a right-of- 4 City of Arcadia, n.d. Fixed Route Services. Available at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/transportation_services/fixed_route_servic es.php. Accessed December 2025. 5 Foothill Transit, n.d. Line 187: Azusa- Arcadia-Pasadena. Available at: https://www.foothilltransit.org/line/187. Accessed December 2025. 6 Los Angeles Metro, December 2023. Route 179. Available at: https://www.metro.net/wp- content/uploads/2023/12/179_TT_12-10-23.pdf. Accessed December 2025. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 31 way width of 100 to 108 feet. The City’s designated truck route network includes Colorado Street/Colorado Place.7 The Project does not propose any changes to Colorado Place, San Juan Drive, or Santa Rosa Road. Currently, the Project site is accessed by three driveways from Colorado Place. The Project proposes to remove the existing driveways and new curbs and sidewalks would be constructed in their place. Primary vehicular access to the Project site would be provided from Colorado Place via a 26-foot driveway with secondary access provided from Santa Rosa Road via a 25-foot driveway. No other modifications to the existing roadways would occur. The Project would not preclude continued use of the surrounding roadway network for its intended function, and would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing roadway facilities. Bicycle Facilities There are no existing bicycle facilities adjacent to the Project site. The Arcadia General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element Bicycle Plan (Figure CI-7) identifies a proposed bikeway system to be implemented in the City. The closest bicycle facilities are identified for Huntington Drive (Class I Bike Path) and Santa Clara Street (Class II Bike Lane), south of the Project site. The City has received funding for the Colorado Boulevard Complete Streets Project (Complete Streets Project). The Complete Streets Project includes Colorado Boulevard between Michillinda and Fifth Avenue, as well as Colorado Place between Colorado Boulevard and Huntington Drive. The Complete Streets Project will generally include the installation of sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and additional infrastructure improvements to enhance mobility and connectivity along the corridor. As part of the Complete Streets Project, the City proposes to close the north-south bicycle lane gap by installing Class II bike lanes along Colorado Place, between Colorado Boulevard and Huntington Drive, in proximity to the Project site. The Project would not remove or obstruct the implementation of planned bicycle facilities, including the Class II bike lanes planned along Colorado Place, and would not conflict with any adopted bicycle-related program, plan, ordinance, or policy. Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are currently provided along Colorado Place, San Juan Drive, and Santa Rosa Road, adjacent to the Project site. As discussed above, the Project proposes to remove three existing driveways on Colorado Place and construct new curbs and sidewalks adjacent to the Project site. Reduction of the driveways from three to one along Colorado Place would provide for improved pedestrian connectivity with reduced vehicular and pedestrian interaction. The existing width of the sidewalks would not change. The Project would include an interior pedestrian walkway system and provide access to the condominiums directly from Colorado Place, Santa Rosa Road, and San Juan Drive. Trees, shrubs, and ground cover would be installed along the perimeter of the site, further contributing to the pedestrian experience. The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian facilities. 7 City of Arcadia, 2010. 2010 General Plan Update EIR. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 32 Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) This discussion is based primarily on the Colorado Collection Townhomes Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment (VMT Assessment), dated November 14, 2025, and prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc.; refer to Appendix B, VMT Assessment. In response to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted new CEQA Guidelines identifying Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impact under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. The City of Arcadia’s Resolution No. 7548 Adopting Updated “Vehicle Miles Traveled” Thresholds of Significance for Purposes of Analyzing Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), recommends the use of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool for assessing the potential VMT impacts of a project. The SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool was utilized to evaluate the Project’s VMT based on the Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening Criteria and the Low VMT Area Screening Criteria. Proximity Transit Screening Criteria According to the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool, projects that are located near a transit priority area (TPA) would meet the Proximity Transit Screening Criteria. Typically, projects that are located within a TPA (and have not been determined to meet certain criteria) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. A transit priority area is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor. A major transit stop refers to a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. A high-quality transit corridor refers to a corridor with fixed route bus service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. As documented in the VMT Assessment, the Project is not located within a TPA, or within a half-mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor, and therefore does not meet the Proximity Transit Screening Criteria. Low VMT Area Screening Criteria Typically, residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area and that incorporate certain features such as density, are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. To identify if the Project is in a low VMT-generating area, the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool was utilized to compare the appropriate baseline project TAZ VMT to the City’s adopted threshold of significance of 19.80 VMT per capita (i.e., 15 percent below the Northwest San Gabriel Valley sub-regional average VMT per capita). Per the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool, the Project is located within TAZ 22220100, which has an existing average VMT rate of 22.3 VMT per capita. The TAZ predominantly consists of single-family homes which typically have a density of approximately 2-4 units per acre. The Project has a residential density of 23.2 units per acre, which will therefore increase the residential density of the TAZ when compared to the density currently existing within the TAZ. To account for inherent VMT reduction due to Project-specific features, increased residential density was input into the VMT tool. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 33 The Project would result in a 15.62 VMT per capita, which would be below the City of Arcadia’s threshold of significance of 19.80 VMT per capita. Therefore, the proposed Project satisfies the Low VMT-Generating Area Screening and may be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT under CEQA. The Project would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Use Currently, the Project site is comprised of two developed parcels accessed by three driveways from Colorado Place. The Project proposes to remove the existing hotel and commercial office use and construct a residential condominium development. Primary vehicular access to the Project site would be provided from Colorado Place via a 26-foot driveway with secondary access provided from Santa Rosa Road via a 25-foot driveway. The three existing driveways along Colorado Place would be removed, and new curbs and sidewalks would be constructed in their place. Reduction of the driveways from three to one along Colorado Place would provide for improved pedestrian connectivity with reduced vehicular and pedestrian interaction. A private interior driveway system, consistent with City of Arcadia Fire access requirements, would provide access to the individual condominium units. All driveways would be required to be constructed in compliance with the Arcadia Municipal Code Article VII, Chapter 2, Streets and Street Improvements and engineering requirements. The Project would not alter geometric design of the site (e.g., introduce sharp curves, dangerous intersections, blind spots, etc.). The Project proposes to remove the existing on site structures and develop a residential development consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning for the site. The Project site is located adjacent to primarily residential uses within the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would not introduce an incompatible use to the area. The Project would not introduce a hazard due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use and no impact would occur. Emergency Access The Arcadia General Plan Safety Element identifies evacuation routes (Figure S-11) within the City. Colorado Place is identified as an evacuation route. The construction and operation of the proposed Project would not place any permanent physical barriers on Colorado Place. There is the potential that portions of roadways, located immediately adjacent to the Project site, may be temporarily closed, or controlled by construction personnel during construction activities. Any work within the public right of way would be subject to City encroachment permit requirements and would be required to comply with the City’s adopted standards, including the use of appropriate signage, barricades, and traffic control measures. Any such effects would be temporary, and emergency access to the Project site and surrounding area would be required to be maintained at all times. Additionally, all construction staging would occur within the boundaries of the Project site and would not interfere with circulation within the Project area. As previously discussed, the Project would provide two driveways (one from Colorado Place and one from Santa Rosa Road) to access the internal private driveway system, which has been designed to meet City of Arcadia Fire Department access requirements, including minimum driveway widths and turnaround provisions for fire apparatus. The Project would also be equipped with a fully automatic fire sprinkler systems designed in accordance with National Fire Protection Association standards, which would further support emergency response and life safety. The Project would be subject to review by the City during the building permit and plan check process to verify compliance with applicable access, fire lane, signage, and circulation requirements. With compliance with these requirements, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 34 NOISE The following analysis is based on De Novo Planning Group’s assessment of potential noise impacts attributable to the Project; refer to Appendix C, Noise Analysis, for the noise data and calculations. The existing noise environment in the Project area is influenced by traffic noise on nearby roads as well as the adjacent school. The roadway contributing the most noise to the Project site is Colorado Place and to a much lesser extent local roadways which includes San Juan Drive and Santa Rosa Road. Ambient noise surveys were conducted on December 11 and 12, 2025 at each of the Project’s property lines; refer to Appendix C. One, 24-hour noise measurement was conducted along the western property line adjacent to Colorado Place. Measured noise levels range from 53 to 76 dBA Leq. The 24-hour weighted noise level at this location is 70 dBA CNEL. Short-term noise measurements were conducted along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines. Table 3, Existing Short-Term Measured Noise Levels, identifies the noise levels at the property lines. Table 3 Existing Short-Term Measured Noise Levels Measurement Location Noise Levels (dBA) Primary Noise Source Lmin Leq Lmax Northern Property Boundary 43.3 59.7 76.9 Playground noise Eastern Property Boundary 43.2 51.9 62.4 Distant playground noise and traffic along Colorado Place Southern Property Boundary 42.2 58.5 73.9 Traffic along Colorado Place dBA: A-weighted decibels; Leq: equivalent sound level; Lmax: maximum sound level; Lmin: minimum sound level. Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Construction Noise Arcadia Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Part 6, Nighttime Construction, prohibits construction activities after the hour of 6:00 p.m. of any weekday; any time before the hour of 7:00 a.m. of any weekday; any time after the hour of 5:00 p.m. of any Saturday; any time before the hour of 8:00 a.m. of any Saturday; any time on any Sunday; and any time on City-observed holidays. The Friday shall constitute the holiday if the holiday falls on a Saturday, or the following Monday if the holiday falls on a Sunday. The development of the proposed Project would entail construction activities which include noise generated from grading/excavation and building construction activities. Residents and the adjacent preschool would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of Project-related construction equipment. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would temporarily change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Construction noise levels reported in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances were used to estimate future construction noise levels for the Project (USEPA 1971). Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by equipment that produces the highest noise levels. Construction noise City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 35 levels for each generalized construction phase (ground clearing, excavation, foundation construction, building construction, paving, and site cleanup) are based on a typical construction equipment mix for an industrial project and do not include use of atypical, very loud, and vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., pile drivers). The degree to which noise-sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity. Estimated noise levels attributable to the development of the proposed Project are shown in Table 4, Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses, and calculations are included in Appendix C. Table 4 shows the average noise levels of construction noise levels attributable to the Project based on an assessment distance at the center of the site. Average noise levels represent the noise exposure to sensitive uses based on the distance to the center of all Project components. Noise levels from general Project-related construction activities would range from 58 to 75 dBA Leq for the average noise levels. Noise levels from construction equipment would be less than the 80 dBA noise criterion developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for construction noise, and therefore would not be substantial. Table 4 Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses Construction Phase Noise Levels (Leq dBA) Residents to the North of the Project site Residents to the East of the Project site Residents to the South of the Project site Residents to the West of the Project site 430 feet away 160 feet away 450 feet away 190 feet away Demolition 60 70 59 69 Site Preparation 65 75 64 74 Grading 58 68 57 67 Building Construction 58 68 57 67 Paving 65 75 64 74 Maximum Construction Noise 65 75 64 74 FTA Construction Criterion 80 80 80 80 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. Leq dBA: Average noise energy level; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures. While temporary noise from construction activities on-site would be audible above the existing ambient noise environment, it would occur during the least noise-sensitive portions of the day in compliance with Arcadia Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Part 6, Nighttime Construction, and would not include excessively loud activities such as pile driving and blasting, and would cease after construction is completed. Increased traffic volumes related to construction workers and truck trips needed for delivery of equipment and building materials would result in additional noise within the Project area. The amount of construction related traffic would be a small proportion of the overall traffic volume along Colorado Place. A doubling of traffic is generally necessary to increase traffic noise levels by 3 dBA. Construction traffic would not double the traffic volumes along Colorado Place and consequently would not result in a 3 dBA City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 36 noticeable change in noise levels. Therefore, construction noise associated with mobile sources would not be substantial. Operational Noise The operations phase of the Project would involve noise generation from stationary and mobile noise sources. Stationary noise sources associated with the proposed Project would include, but not be limited to, mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units); landscape maintenance equipment; and vehicles on the local internal roadway. The City of Arcadia’s General Plan Noise Element and Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 6, Noise Regulations, are designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by specifying noise levels that cannot be exceeded. Arcadia Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 6, Section 4610.3, Noise Limits, defines the noise level exposure limits at properties affected by specific noise sources. HVAC units and other stationary equipment would be selected and installed to comply with the City’s noise limits. Because HVAC units are potentially continuous sources that may operate at night, the applicable Municipal Code requirement is that the noise shall not exceed these noise limits at the property lines of residential and other noise-sensitive land uses. Compliance with the City’s noise limits would minimize these impacts to less than significant levels. Noise from landscape maintenance and residential activities would be similar to noise currently occurring within the Project area. Noise from landscaping activities are specifically addressed under Arcadia Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 6, Section 4630.2, Noise. Gardening and Landscaping. Operation of mechanical equipment related to the gardening and/or landscaping of any property within a residential zone is prohibited outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays, with the use of mechanical equipment for tree trimming prohibited on Sundays. The Project Homeowner’s Association would be responsible for managing these noise requirements and restrictions. Therefore, operational noise from stationary sources associated with the Project would not be substantial. An assessment of changes in noise levels due to future cumulative traffic conditions and those with the Project over existing conditions was also conducted. Colorado Place near the Project site has approximately 13,559 Average Daily Trips (ADT) (Arcadia 2019). The Project is estimated to generate 562 ADT while the existing motel use generates 346 ADT, resulting in a net increase of 216 ADT. The addition of 216 ADT over 13,559 ADT would result in noise increases of less than 1 dBA. A 3 dBA change in noise levels is necessary for human hearing to discern a change in outdoor noise environments. Because the Project would not result in an audible change in noise levels, a substantial permanent increase in operational noise from mobile sources associated with Project would not occur. Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels Construction Vibration Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The City has not adopted standards for vibration-induced annoyance or structural damage related to construction activities. In the absence of City-adopted thresholds, the thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in Table 5, Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria, provides general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts. The threshold for “Older residential structures” of 0.3 peak particle velocity (ppv) inch per second (in/sec) for the adjacent residential structures and 0.5 ppv for commercial buildings for the adjacent preschool have been used for this analysis. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 37 Table 5 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 Source: Caltrans, 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. ppv = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. The Caltrans vibration annoyance potential guideline thresholds are shown in Table 6, Vibration Annoyance Criteria. As shown, the strongly perceptible threshold is 0.10 ppv. These thresholds are used to assess the potential for a significant vibration impact for human annoyance. Annoyance is evaluated within occupied buildings. Table 6 Vibration Annoyance Criteria Human Response Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.4 Source: Caltrans, 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. ppv = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. The proposed Project would not generate or expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration from the construction phase. The construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, blasting, or vibratory rollers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. Conventional construction equipment would be used for grading and building construction activities. Table 7, Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, summarizes typical vibration levels measured during construction activities for various vibration-inducing pieces of equipment. Table 7 City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 38 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second) at 25 feet Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 0.644 (typical) Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 0.170 typical Vibratory Roller 0.210 Large bulldozer 0.089 Caisson drilling 0.089 Loaded trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small bulldozer 0.003 Source: Caltrans, 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual; Federal Transit Administration, 2018, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. ppv = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second Grading, and construction would occur up to the property lines. Table 8, Vibration Annoyance Assessment at Nearest Uses, shows the vibration annoyance criteria from construction-generated vibration activities proposed at the Project site and the Project-related vibration level relative to residences near the Project site. Table 8 Vibration Annoyance Assessment at Nearest Uses Equipment Vibration Level (ppv) Nearest Building to the North of the Project Site Nearest Building to the East of the Project Site Nearest Building to the South of the Project Site Nearest Building to the West of the Project Site 140 feet away 40 feet away 190 feet away 40 feet away Large bulldozer 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Jackhammer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Small bulldozer 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 Loaded trucks 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Maximum 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Annoyance Criteria 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Exceeds Annoyance Criteria? No No No No Source: Federal Transit Administration; refer to Appendix C for calculations. ppv = peak particle velocity As shown in Table 8, vibration decibel levels would not exceed the criteria threshold when construction activities occur under maximum (i.e., closest to the receptor) exposure conditions. Because vibration generated by construction equipment would be below the FTA’s annoyance criteria, impacts for vibration annoyance at the nearest sensitive receptors would be less than significant. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 39 Table 9, Building Damage Assessment at Nearest Uses, shows the building damage criteria from construction-generated vibration activities proposed at the Project site and the Project-related vibration level at the adjacent buildings. Table 9 Building Damage Assessment at Nearest Uses Equipment Vibration Level (ppv) Nearest Building to the North of the Project Site Nearest Building to the East of the Project Site Nearest Building to the South of the Project Site Nearest Building to the West of the Project Site 140 feet away 40 feet away 190 feet away 40 feet away Large bulldozer 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Jackhammer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Small bulldozer 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 Loaded trucks 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Maximum 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Building Damage Criteria 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 Exceeds Criteria? No No No No Source: Federal Transit Administration; refer to Appendix C for calculations. ppv = peak particle velocity As shown in Table 9, vibration levels would be below the building damage threshold at the nearest offsite buildings and the potential for Project construction activities to result in building damage would be less than significant. Airport Noise The Project site is not located 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. The nearest airport to the Project site is the San Gabriel Valley Airport which is located approximately four miles to the south. Therefore, the Project would not result in exposure of people residing in the Project area to excessive noise levels. AIR QUALITY The following analysis is based on De Novo Planning Group’s assessment of potential regional and localized air quality impacts attributable to the Project based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) significance thresholds and assessment methodologies; refer to Appendix D, Air Quality Data, for the emissions modeling output. Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) jurisdiction. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in non-attainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2022 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 40 achieving State (California) and national air quality standards. The 2022 AQMP is a regional and multi- agency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The AQMP’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including those included within SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The proposed Project is subject to SCAQMD’s AQMP. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators: • Consistency Criterion No. 1: A proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of the AQMP’s air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: A proposed project would not exceed the AQMP’s assumptions or increments based on the years of the project build-out phase. Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As shown in Table 10 and Table 11 (below), the proposed Project construction and operational emissions would be below SCAQMD’s thresholds. As the Project would not generate localized construction or regional construction or operational emissions that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the Project would not violate any air quality standards. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the first criterion. Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers to SCAG’s growth forecasts and associated assumptions included in the AQMP. The future air quality levels projected in the AQMP are based on SCAG’s growth projections, which are based, in part, on the general plans of cities located within the SCAG region. Therefore, projects that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily emissions thresholds. With respect to determining consistency with Consistency Criterion No. 2, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the air basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria. 1. Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP? Growth projections included in the 2022 AQMP form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions and are based on the General Plan land use designations. According to the City of Arcadia Land Use Policy Map (Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Figure LU-4), the Project site is designated Commercial with a Downtown Overlay. The Commercial designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 41 designation allows a broad array of commercial enterprises, including restaurants, durable goods sales, food stores, lodging, professional offices, specialty shops, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and entertainment uses. For commercial uses, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1.0 within the Downtown Overlay. In addition, the Commercial designation allows for residential development at a minimum density of 30 dwelling unit per acre and a maximum density of up to 50 dwelling unit per acre if affordable housing units are provided. The Project proposes to develop an 86-unit condominium development with nine units (approximately 10.5 percent of the total units) set aside as deed-restricted affordable units at the moderate-income level, which would be consistent with the Commercial designation. The proposed development would occur at a density of 23 dwelling units per acre, which would be below the minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the Project would be within the population projections anticipated and planned for by the City’s General Plan and would not increase growth beyond the AQMP’s projections. 2. Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? The proposed Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with all feasible emission reduction measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as discussed further below. As such, the proposed Project meets this 2022 AQMP consistency criterion. 3. Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? The determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the air basin. The proposed Project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. Further, the proposed Project’s long-term influence on air quality in the air basin would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2022 AQMP. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the above criteria. As demonstrated above, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Cumulative Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants Project Construction Emissions Project construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project site include ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., Reactive Organic Gases [ROG] and NOx) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and temporary, lasting only while construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if Project related pollutants exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from demolition, site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with grading activities, as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water for dust control. The Project’s construction-related emissions were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 42 typical construction requirements; refer to Appendix D, for additional information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. The Project’s predicted maximum daily construction-related emissions are summarized in Table 10, Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day). As shown in Table 10, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the proposed Project would be subject to compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113, which would further reduce specific construction- related emissions. Therefore, Project construction impacts would be less than significant. Table 10 Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Construction Year Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulfur Oxides (Sox) Course Particulates (PM10) Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 2026 2 22 21 <1 3 2 2027 32 10 17 <1 1 <1 Maximum Emissions 32 22 21 <1 3 2 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Criteria? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.35 Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust were not applied; if this rule were applied, the emissions results provided above would be even lower. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment; refer to Appendix D for model outputs. Cumulative Construction Emissions SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. As discussed above, the Project’s construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Since these thresholds indicate whether individual Project emissions have the potential to affect cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that the Project-related construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumes that fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related cumulative projects. As concluded above, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further minimize the proposed Project’s construction-related emissions. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. The Project’s construction- related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 43 Project Operational Emissions The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with motor vehicle use and area sources. Area sources include gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance equipment, and consumer products (such as household cleaners). Mobile sources emissions are generated from vehicle operations associated with Project operations. Typically, area sources are small sources that contribute very minor emissions individually, but when combined may generate substantial amounts of pollutants. Area specific defaults in CalEEMod were used to calculate area source emissions. CalEEMod was also used to calculate pollutants emissions from vehicular trips generated from the proposed Project. The vehicle trip rate for the Project was obtained from the trip generation prepared by RK Engineering as part of the VMT Assessment; refer to Appendix B. CalEEMod default inputs for vehicle mix and trip distances were unaltered for this analysis. CalEEMod estimated emissions from Project operations are summarized in Table 11, Operational-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day). It is noted that emissions rates differ from summer to winter because weather factors are dependent on the season and these factors affect pollutant mixing, dispersion, ozone formation, and other factors. As shown in Table 11, emission calculations generated from CalEEMod demonstrate that Project operations would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants. Therefore, Project operational impacts would be less than significant. Table 11 Operational-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Source Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulfur Oxides (Sox) Course Particulates (PM10) Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Maximum Summer and Winter Emissions Mobile 2 1 16 <1 4 1 Area 3 1 5 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Total 5 3 22 <1 4 1 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Criteria? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.35; refer to Appendix D for model outputs. Cumulative Operational Emissions The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As shown in Table 11, the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 44 significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Project operations would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. Overall, the Project’s resulting construction and operational air quality emissions would not exceed established thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not 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 and impacts would be less than significant. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Localized Construction Significance Analysis The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are single family residences located adjacent to the Project site, to the south and east, as well as preschool uses located to the north of the Project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions. The maximum daily disturbed acreage would be 1.5 acres based on the estimated construction equipment use. The appropriate SRA for the LSTs is located within SCAQMD SRA 9 (Arcadia), since SRA 9 includes the Project site. LSTs apply to CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As recommended by the SCAQMD, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were utilized in this analysis for receptors closer than 25 meters. Table 12, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day), presents the results of localized emissions during proposed Project construction. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 45 Table 12 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)1 Construction Activity Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Course Particulates (PM10) Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Demolition 21 19 2 1 Site Preparation 12 15 2 1 Grading (2026) 15 17 2 1 Building Construction (2026) 20 26 1 1 Paving (2026) 18 26 1 1 Architectural Coating (2027) 6 9 0 0 Maximum Emissions 21 19 2 1 SCAQMD Localized Screening Thresholds (1 acres at 25 meters) 108 788 6 4 Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.35; refer to Appendix D for model outputs. Notes: 1. Emissions reflect on-site construction emissions only, per SCAQMD guidance. As shown in Table 12, the emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of Project construction would not result in significant emissions of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Further, the Project would be subject to compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402, and 403, which would further reduce specific construction-related emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning LSTs during construction activities. Localized Operational Significance Analysis The on-site operational emissions are compared to the LST thresholds in Table 13, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day). As shown in Table 13, during Project operations the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning LSTs during operational activities. Table 13 Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Emission Sources Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Course Particulates (PM10) Fine Particulates (PM2.5) On-Site Emissions (mobile, area, and energy sources) 1 5 <1 <1 SCAQMD Localized Screening Thresholds (1 acres at 25 meters) 170 1,395 3 2 Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.35; refer to Appendix D for model outputs. Notes: 1. Emissions reflect on-site construction emissions only, per SCAQMD guidance. The Project would not involve the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants, and no significant toxic airborne emissions would result from operation of the proposed Project. Construction activities are subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 46 the regional, State, and federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial concentrations of these emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of toxic air contaminants would be less than significant. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the proposed Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with approximately 100,000 average daily traffic (ADT), was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 ADT, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any Project area intersections from the 562 ADT attributable to the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter Project construction would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic and occur throughout the Project site. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment would dissipate rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of nine, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has not identified short-term health effects from diesel particulate matter (DPM). Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the site (i.e., moving from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time. Construction activities would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes to further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. For these reasons, DPM generated by Project construction activities, in and of itself, would not expose sensitive City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 47 receptors to substantial amounts of air toxins and the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact. Overall, the Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning LSTs during construction and operation activities, criteria pollutant levels, carbon monoxide hotspots, and construction-related diesel particulate matter. Thus, the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to criteria pollutant levels more than the health-based ambient air quality standards. Emissions Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People Construction Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related activities would be less than significant. Operational The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project proposes development of residential uses, which would not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting substantial numbers of people. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors and impacts would be less than significant. WATER QUALITY The following analysis is based in part on the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Preliminary Hydrology Report) and the Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Plan for the Colorado Connection (TTM 84968) (LID) Plan (Preliminary LID Plan), both dated September 2025 and prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc.; refer to Appendix E, Hydrology and LID Reports. The existing site is currently developed with a motel, office building, associated surface parking, and landscaping. Drainage from the site is generally divided into two areas. The topography of the northern (motel) portion of the site shows runoff flowing away from the building into the existing parking lot. There is an existing valley gutter that conveys flows to an existing catch basin at the southern end of the parking lot. It is assumed that the catch basin conveys flows into the Arcadia Wash adjacent to the site. The topography of the southern portion of the site shows runoff flowing overland from the north to the southeast property line. Runoff discharges from the site via the existing driveway that outlets onto San Juan Drive. From San Juan Drive, runoff flows southwest in curb and gutter and crosses San Juan Drive City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 48 going south in an existing valley gutter. Runoff continues in the existing curb and gutter in Colorado Place before entering a City-owned catch basin. It is assumed that the catch basin from the northern portion of the site and the catch basin in Colorado Place both discharge into the Arcadia Wash – East Branch. From here, the captured stormwater travels south to confluence at Arcadia Wash – Main Branch which then drains to the Rio Hondo Channel. Rio Hondo Channel travels southeast before draining to the existing Los Angeles River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro Bay. Arcadia Municipal Code Article VII, Chapter 8, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, identifies the requirements to protect and enhance water quality. The Project site is more than one acre and is therefore required to obtain a General Construction Permit. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has issued the Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, which became effective on September 1, 2023) (Construction General Permit). To obtain coverage, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required for the Project. The SWPPP would include BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation, and to manage waste and non-stormwater in accordance with the Construction General Permit. Additionally, the Project is required to comply with Arcadia Development Code Section 9105.09.060, Improvement Plans, which requires subdivision improvement plans to include, as applicable, grading, drainage, erosion and sediment control, and a SWPPP. The Project’s grading permit would only be issued after the Project Applicant/Property Owner submits proof that a SWRCB issued Notice of Initiation (NOI) was filed and a SWPPP prepared to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Impacts to water quality during construction would be less than significant. The Project proposes to develop the approximately 3.7-acre site with 14 buildings comprised of 86 residential condominiums. The proposed residential development hydrology is analyzed as two subareas, the northern drainage management area (DMA P1) and the southern drainage management area (DMA P2). DMA P1 will consist of four grated inlet catch basins and one curb inlet catch basin. DMA P2 will be equipped with four curb inlet catch basins. All the inlets are proposed to be equipped with FloGard (or equivalent) inlet filters which would pretreat runoff prior to entering the underground infiltration trenches. The infiltration trenches would be sized to detain and infiltrate the 85th percentile rain event in conformance with water quality treatment standards. During the design storm event when the infiltration/detention system reaches full capacity, excess runoff would pond within the most downstream catch basin and be conveyed through a proposed parkway drain into the right of way. DMA P1 would discharge excess runoff into Colorado Place and DMA P2 would discharge excess runoff into San Juan Drive. Runoff from the site would follow historic drainage patterns to the Pacific Ocean. The Preliminary LID Plan indicates the proposed Project is classified as a “Designated Project” per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW), Low impact Development Standards Manual. A “Designated Project” is defined by the LACDPW as “Redevelopment projects, which are developments that result in creation or addition or replacement of either: (1) 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface on a site that was previously developed…; or (2) 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on a site that was previous developed as a single-family home.” The County of Los Angeles LID Standards Manual lists preference for selection of BMPs which includes retention-based stormwater quality control measures, biofiltration, vegetation-based storm quality control measures, and/or treatment-based stormwater quality control measures. The Project would implement an infiltration trench system, described above. Additional BMPs, as described in the Preliminary LID Plan, would ensure that Project operations would not violate any water quality standards. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the City’s LID Ordinance and requirements contained in the County’s LID Standards Manual, would ensure that long-term water quality impacts would be less than significant. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 49 Overall, compliance with the Regional MS4 Permit requirements and applicable City stormwater/LID requirements would ensure that the Project’s construction and operational activities would not violate water quality standards or substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant effects related to water quality. Criterion (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Water. Domestic and fire water service lines would be installed within the Project site and connect to existing City water infrastructure to serve the proposed development. The Project would connect a new 4-inch domestic water line and an 8-inch fire service line to the existing 8-inch water main in Colorado Place. The Preliminary Water Systems Analysis dated September 2025 and prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc.; refer to Appendix F, Preliminary Water Systems Analysis, determined the proposed water distribution system has been adequately designed to provide domestic water service and fire flow for the proposed Project. The City of Arcadia provides water service, and its water supplies include groundwater and treated imported water.8 The City’s Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP) indicates that projected water supplies are sufficient to meet projected water demands under normal, single-dry, and multiple dry-year conditions through 2045.9 The Project site’s existing land uses are served by the City and receive water. Redevelopment of the site with residential uses would increase water demand compared to existing conditions. However, as previously discussed, the Project proposes to develop an 86-unit condominium development. The proposed development would occur at a density of 23 dwelling units per acre, which would be below the minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Because the 2020 UWMP accounts for future growth and the Project is within the growth anticipated in the 2020 UWMP, adequate water supplies would be available to serve the Project. Thus, adequate water facilities would be available to serve the Project. Wastewater. The sanitary sewer collection system is owned and operated by the City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department, which provides day-to-day operation, maintenance, and administration of the wastewater collection system, and conveys flows through the City’s gravity sewers and pump stations to Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) trunk sewers for regional treatment and disposal.10 As part of the Project, 8-inch sanitary sewer laterals would connect to the existing 10-inch sewer line located within Colorado Place. The Sewer Area Study dated January 2026 and prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc.; refer to Appendix G, Sewer Area Studies, determined the existing sewer system has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project. In addition, an existing 10-inch sewer line that extends through the northeast corner of the Project Site would be relocated within the site and connect to the existing 10-inch sewer line located within Colorado Place; the Project would not connect to the relocated line. The Project would increase the demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment when compared to existing site conditions. However, as previously discussed, the growth associated with development of the 8 City of Arcadia, n.d. Water and Sewer. Available at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/public_works_services_department/water___sewer_services/water_sewer.php. Accessed December 2025. 9 City of Arcadia, June 2021. Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. 10 City of Arcadia, 2010. 2010 General Plan Update EIR. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 50 Project site has been anticipated by the SCAG regional growth forecasts,11 which forecast Arcadia households to increase from approximately 19,200 in 2019 to approximately 23,800 by 2035.12 Further, LACSD has the authority to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to the LACSD’s Sewage System for increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. The fee payment would be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. Thus, adequate wastewater treatment would be available to serve the proposed Project. Solid Waste. The City has a Refuse Collection and Recycling Services Franchise Agreement with Waste Management.13 The proposed development would result in an increase in solid waste generation at the Project site. However, the increase in solid waste would not be substantial. As stated, the Project would be consistent with the growth anticipated for the site in the City’s General Plan. The Arcadia General Plan anticipates increased development of residential uses and plans for this growth. Solid waste pickup and disposal services would be available to serve the Project. Electricity and Natural Gas. Southern California Edison, Sempra Utilities, and Southern California Gas Company provide power and gas to the City.14 The Project proposes to connect to existing electrical to receive electricity. The Project does not propose to connect to natural gas service. The electricity demand associated with the residential uses would be consistent with the development potential anticipated by the General Plan. The service providers would have the capacity to provide adequate services for the proposed development. Fire and Police. The Arcadia Police Department and the Arcadia Fire Department provide police, fire protection, and emergency medical services to the City, including the Project site.15 The Project site is currently served by police and fire protection services. The proposed residential development would be within the development potential anticipated by the General Plan. Fire and police protection services would have the capacity to provide adequate services to the proposed development. 11 Southern California Association of Governments, The 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, Demographics & Growth Forecast Technical Report, Adopted April 4, 2024. 12 City of Arcadia, 2010. 2010 General Plan Update EIR. 13 City of Arcadia, n.d. Trash and Recycling. Available at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/public_works_services_department/trash_and_recycling.php. Accessed December 2025. 14 City of Arcadia, 2010. 2010 General Plan Update EIR. 15 City of Arcadia, 2010. 2010 General Plan Update EIR. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 51 4.0 EXCEPTIONS TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ANALYSIS The following are exceptions to CEs pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15300.2, Exceptions: Exception a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, expect where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state or local agencies. This exception applies to Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11, and requires consideration of whether the project is located in a particularly sensitive environment where a typically minor project could become significant due to the location. The Project is being evaluated under Class 32 (Infill Development Projects), not Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11. Therefore, Exception (a) does not apply. Exception b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The cumulative impact exception provides that a categorical exemption is inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant. The Project proposes to remove the existing on-site structures and develop the site with 86 residential condominiums within the City of Arcadia. The Project site is designated Commercial with a Downtown Overlay and is zoned General Commercial (C-G) with a Residential Flex Overlay (R-F) and Downtown Overlay (DO), and it is substantially surrounded by existing urban uses, including the Santa Anita Church complex (church, private school, and nearby residences) to the north, residential uses to the east, medical office uses south of San Juan Drive, and the Santa Anita Park racetrack parking lot west of Colorado Place. There are no known projects of the same type in the same place anticipated. As demonstrated throughout this report, the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact and would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. Further, similar to the Project, future development within the City would be required to undergo CEQA review and address any potential impacts associated with its proposed development. Exception (b) would not apply to the Project. Exception c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances associated with the Project site or the Project. The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City on a developed infill site currently improved with commercial uses (including a motel and an office building) and is substantially surrounded by existing urban uses. The Project proposes to remove the existing on-site structures and develop an 86 unit condominium development consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation and zoning identified for the site. Exception (c) would not apply to the Project. Exception d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 52 highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. There are no officially designated or eligible State Scenic Highways within proximity of the Project site.16 Thus, the proposed Project would not result in damage to scenic resources within an officially designated State Scenic Highway. Exception (d) would not apply to the Project. Exception e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update a regulatory sites listing (per the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The Project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.17 Thus, Exception (e) would not apply to the Project. Exception f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The Project site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 3.7 acres (201 and 225 Colorado Place) in the City of Arcadia. The Project site is currently developed with a two-story motel (Motel 6) and associated improvements on the northern parcel, and a one-story administrative and office building (California Thoroughbred Breeders Association) on the southern parcel, with associated parking, landscaping, and the Arcadia Wash–East Branch flood control channel along the eastern boundary. A Historic Resources Evaluation - Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object (BSO) Form for 201 Colorado Place (LSA Project No. 20252274; dated April 7, 2025) and Historic Resources Evaluation - Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object (BSO) Form for 225 Colorado Place (LSA Project No. 20252629; dated November 7, 2025), prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. and included as Appendix H, Historic Resources Assessments, were prepared to determine if the existing structures met the eligibility requirements to be considered historical resources. According to the evaluation, the 1956 Ranch style office building (201 Colorado Place) has served as the offices for the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association (CTBA) for its entire history. Although the CTBA is an important part of the support system for the Thoroughbred industry in California, research did not identify the CTBA as responsible for any innovations or advancements to the industry or the sport of horseracing. Similarly, no associations with historically important people or master architects or builders were found. Despite two additions, the building retains a high degree of architectural integrity but does 16 California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed December 2025. 17 California Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed December 2025. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 53 not rise to a level above the ordinary and is not iconic. For these reasons, it was determined that the property at 201 Colorado Place does not qualify as a “historical resource” as defined by CEQA. The motel (225 Colorado Place) was built on Route 66 in 1963, but no evidence was found that it is marketing specifically targeted Route 66 travelers.18 Although it is associated with the Postwar Commercial Development theme, 1946-1970, it is not one of the associated property types identified by the Citywide historic context statement. It is associated with William Becker and Paul Greene who specialized in low-cost housing developments and pioneered the Motel 6 formula. However, the original Motel 6, built in Santa Barbara, still exists and has a stronger association with Becker and Greene than the numerous subsequent motels they built, such as the Motel 6 located within the Project site. The existing on-site motel has sustained extensive alterations including removal of the original brick siding and rock roof, replacement of the original pole sign, and interior and exterior Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance improvements to the buildings, pool, and site. Although two vintage postcards of the motel were found, there is no indication that the property is iconic or particularly representative of Arcadia. Therefore, it was determined that the property at 225 Colorado Place does not qualify as a “historical resource” as defined by CEQA. As demonstrated above, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Thus, Exception (f) would not apply to the Project. 18 In the early 1930s, Route 66 was re-routed along Colorado Place and Colorado Street to connect the Arcadia segments of Route 66 on Huntington Drive and Foothill Boulevard. This was the Route 66 alignment from 1934 to 1974 through Arcadia. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 54 This page intentionally blank. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 55 5.0 CONCLUSION As detailed herein, and based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, the proposed Colorado Collection Project meets the criteria for a Class 32 categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 56 This page intentionally blank. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 57 6.0 REFERENCES Arbor Care, Inc., June 2025, Revised November 2025. Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation, 201 & 225 Colorado Place, Arcadia, CA 91006, included as Appendix A, Tree Report. California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i- scenic-highways. Accessed December 2025. California Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed December 2025. California Regional Water Resources Control Board, Regional Phase I MS4 NPDES Permit, Order R4-2021- 0105, NPDES No. CAS004004, Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges Within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/public_doc s/2022/1_Order(ACC-RPSignature).pdf. Accessed December 2025. City of Arcadia, September 2010. City of Arcadia 2010 General Plan Update EIR. City of Arcadia, November 2010. City of Arcadia General Plan. City of Arcadia, n.d. Fixed Route Services. Available at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/transportation_services/fixed_r oute_services.php. Accessed December 2025. City of Arcadia, June 2021. Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. City of Arcadia, n.d. Trash and Recycling. Available at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/public_works_services_department/trash_and_recycling.php. Accessed December 2025. City of Arcadia, n.d. Water and Sewer. Available at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/public_works_services_department/water___sewer_services/water_ sewer.php. Accessed December 2025. C&V Consulting, Inc., January 2026. Sewer Area Study, included as Appendix G, Sewer Area Studies. C&V Consulting, Inc., September 2025. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (TTM 84968), included as Appendix E, Hydrology and LID Reports. C&V Consulting, Inc., September 2025. Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Plan for the Colorado Connection (TTM 84968), included as Appendix E, Hydrology and LID Reports. C&V Consulting, Inc., September 2025. Preliminary Water Systems Analysis, included as Appendix F, Preliminary Water Systems Analysis. City of Arcadia Colorado Collection Project| CEQA Exemption Report PAGE 58 Foothill Transit, n.d. Line 187: Azusa- Arcadia-Pasadena. Available at: https://www.foothilltransit.org/line/187. Accessed December 2025. Los Angeles Metro, December 2023. Route 179. Available at: https://www.metro.net/wp- content/uploads/2023/12/179_TT_12-10-23.pdf. Accessed December 2025. LGC Geotechnical, Inc., June 26, 2025. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations, Proposed Residential Development, Located at 225 Colorado Place (Motel 6) and 201 Colorado Place, Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California, included as Appendix I, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation. LSA Associates, Inc., April 7, 2025. Historic Resources Evaluation, Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object (BSO) Form for 201 Colorado Place (LSA Project No. 20252274), included as Appendix H, Historic Resources Assessments. LSA Associates, Inc., November 7, 2025. Historic Resources Evaluation, Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object (BSO) Form for 225 Colorado Place (LSA Project No. 20252629), included as Appendix H, Historic Resources Assessments. RK Engineering Group, Inc, November 14, 2025. Colorado Collection Townhomes Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment, included as Appendix B, VMT Assessment. Southern California Association of Governments, The 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, Demographics & Growth Forecast Technical Report, Adopted April 4, 2024. COLORADO COLLECTION PROJECT CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report | Technical Appendices LEAD AGENCY: City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Contact: Fiona Graham, Planning Services Manager fgraham@ArcadiaCA.gov (626) 574.5442 PREPARED BY: De Novo Planning Group 180 E. Main Street, Suite 108 Tustin, California 92780 Contact: Starla Barker, AICP sbarker@denovoplanning.com (949) 396-8193 January 2026 Appendix A Tree Report Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 201 & 225 Colorado Place Arcadia, CA 91006 Prepared For: MW Investment Group, LLC 27702 Crown Valley Parkway Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Email: matt@mwakenig.com Prepared By: Michael Crane Arbor Care, Inc. 1660 E. Mountain St. Pasadena, CA 91104 Tel: (626) 737-4007 Email: info@arborcareinc.net June 2025 Revised November 2025 Table of Contents Summary of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background and Purpose of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Location, Description & Protected Tree Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Conceptual Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Tree Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Tree Identification, Health & Condition Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Construction Impact Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Findings & Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Proposed Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A - Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix B - Protected Tree Construction Impact Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Author’s Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Certification of Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 1 SUMMARY OF DATA BACKGROUND & PURPOSE I was retained to be the consulting arborist for the planned redevelopment of the combined properties located at 201 and 225 Colorado Place. There are Protected Trees located on the property, off-site with portions of their driplines encroaching over the property lines, and in the immediate right-of-way areas. The proposed construction will encroach these trees and this report will serve to both notify the City of Arcadia Planning Division of the extent of the anticipated impacts as well as to inform the builder of the proper protection measures which must be taken for the trees planned to be retained. As part of my preparation for this report I made a site visit to the property on June 16, 2025. I was provided with a full-scale conceptual site plan overlaid on an architectural survey for my analysis. This report was reviewed by the Development Services Department and redlined for corrections. This report has been revised accordingly. Total number of healthy Protected Trees on property including street trees located in the adjacent public right-of-way area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Total number of off-site Protected Trees with canopies (driplines) encroaching onto the property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Total number of diseased/hazardous Protected Trees on site proposed for removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Total number of healthy Protected Trees to be preserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Total number of healthy Protected Trees to be removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Total number of Protected Trees that will be preserved, which will be impacted by construction within dripline (encroached) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Total number of Protected Trees with no significant dripline encroachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Total number of proposed mitigation trees to be planted on site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 2 PROJECT LOCATION, DESCRIPTION & TREE ORDINANCE This aerial view (courtesy of Google Maps) has been illustrated with orange lines to show the approximate boundary area of 201& 225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia. Project Description The property consists of a single-story commercial building with a large parking lot at 201 Colorado Pl., and a Motel 6 at 225 Colorado Pl, also with an ample-sized parking lot. Both properties will be demolished and re-graded to develop a multi-residential complex. The subject properties are landscaped with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs, and lawn areas. The landscapes will be completely removed for the site grading. Five street trees located along Colorado Pl. will remain in place. N Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 3 City of Arcadia Tree Ordinance Oaks, Sycamore, and many other tree species are Protected under the various tree ordinances. Here is a summary of the tree protection laws. On January 21, 1992 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1962 recognizing oak trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources and establishing criteria for the preservation of oak trees. The regulations (Chapter 7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code) provide that the following oak trees shall not be removed, relocated, damaged, or have their protected zones encroached upon unless an Oak Tree Permit is granted: • Engelmann Oaks (Quercus engelmannii) or Coast Live Oak, California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) which have a trunk diameter larger than four (4) inches measured at a point four and one half (4 ½) feet above the crown root, or, two (2) or more trunks measuring three (3) inches each or greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one half (4 ½) feet above the crown root. • Any other living oak tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve (12) inches measured at a point four and one half (4 ½) feet above the crown root, or, two (2) or more trunks measuring ten (10) inches each or greater in diameter measured at a point four and one half (4 ½) feet above the crown root. On March 3, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2323 amending the code to add Sycamore trees to the list of City's Tree Preservation Regulations. The protected trees are Oak and Sycamore trees. Protected Sycamore trees are defined as: • Plantanus racemosa (Sycamore) with a trunk diameter larger than six (6) inches measured at a point four and one-half (4½) feet above the root crown, or two (2) or more trunks measuring four (4) inches each or greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one-half (4½) feet above the root crown. On August 2, 2016, The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2338 to add additional protected trees and unprotected trees to the City’s tree preservation regulations. In September, the City began protecting mature trees that are located within a required front, side, street-side, or rear yard setback area that are either larger than 12 inches in diameter or two or more trunks larger than 10 inches in diameter if there are multiple trunks. Below is a list of the unprotected trees: 1. Fruit trees 2. Fraxinus uhdei (Shamel Ash) 3. Ficuses – Exception: Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig) 4. Eucalyptus 5. Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven) 6. Arecaceae (Palm Tree) 7. Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) 8. Ceratonia siliqua (Carob) 9. Betula pendula (European White Birch) 10. Grevillea robusta (Silk Oak) 11. Morus (Mulberry) 12. Acer saccharinum (Silver Maple) 13. Cupressus sempervirens (Italian cypress) 14. Populus Fremontii (Western Cottonwood) 15. Alnus rhombifolia (White Alder) 16. Populus trichocarpa (Black Cottonwood) 17. Populus ‘Highland’ hybrid 18. Salix lasiolepis (Arroyo Willow) 19. Liquidambars (Sweet Gum) STOP 10' 10' 40 ' 1 0 ' 1 0 ' 1 0 ' 10' 25 ' 3 0 ' 2 5 ' 25' 25 ' 25' 15' 15' 2 5 ' 20 ' 20 ' 10' Neighborhood Entry COLO R A D O P L A C E S A N J U A N D R Open Space ±3,500sf Additional Hotel Parcel ±2.36 ac to be verified 40' WASH EASEMENT to be verified 10' Corner Side Setback 10' Front Setback 10' Side/Rear Setback 10 ' 25' 10' Front Setback Secondary AccessSANTA ROSA RD Open Space ±3,000sf 15' Open Space ±4,000sf 8'8'8' 8' Setback to Wash ±5,000sf 10' 14 ' 1 4 ' 1 6 ' 25' 13' 70' 20 ' 22' 10' 14' 10 ' 26' 3' - 0 " 3' - 7 " 5'-7" 4'-0" 3'- 0 " 3'- 7 " 5'-7" 4'-0" LACFD Hammer Head T T T 42 . 0 ' 33 . 2 ' 43 . 9 ' 20.7' 26.6'33.4' 20 . 7 ' 33.2' 33 . 2 ' 20.7' P1 P1X P5 P5X P3 P2P4 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com COLORADO PLACE 2024-1253 MW INVESTMENTS ARCADIA, CA PROJECT INFORMATION APN:5775-011-032 Address: 201 Colorado Place City: Arcadia, CA County: Los Angeles Zoning: C-G with Residential Flex Overlay RES FLEX OVERLAY DEV STANDARDS Density: 30-50 du/ac Building Height: 60' Setbacks: Front: 10' Side: 10' Corner Side: 10' Rear: 10' Building Separation: 6' Open Space (Private or Common): 100sf/unit Parking Required per Res Flex Overlay: Res: 1.5 sp/unit Head-In: 10x20 SITE SUMMARY Site Area: Original Site Area: ±1.3 ac Additional Parcel: ±2.4 ac Total Area: ±3.7 ac Units: 6 units - P1 (1150nsf - 2bd/2.5ba, sxs) 6 units - P1X (1225nsf - 2bd/2.5ba, sxs) 11 units - P2 (1350nsf - 3bd/3ba, tandem) 27 units - P3 (1525nsf - 3bd+flex/2.5ba, sxs) 9 units - P4 (1625nsf - 3-4bd/4ba, sxs) 27 units - P5 (1700nsf) - 3-4bd/4ba,sxs 86 units - Total (±130,800nsf) Density: ±23.2 du/ac Parking Required: 1.5 sp/unit - 129 spaces (Residential Flex Overlay Zone - Table 3-3) Parking Provided: 172 spaces - Garage 12 spaces - Open 184 spaces - Total (±2.14 sp/unit) Open Space Required: 100sf/unit Open Space Provided: ±10,500sf (±120sf/unit) No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com COLORADO PLACE 2024-1253 MW INVESTMENTS ARCADIA, CA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN MAY 14, 2025 OPTION 5c 0 40 8020 31 24 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 24 23 27 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 - 42 434445 46 47 48 49 50 - 59 60 - 66 67 68 69 70 71 Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 5 TREE SURVEY This table lists all trees with trunk diameters measuring four inches or greater located on the property, as well as all other trees with trunk diameters measuring six inches or greater located on or encroaching onto the property. Off-site trees are indicated with an “os” next to their tree numbers. Multi-trunked specimens are indicated next to the trunk diameter with an “m” and the diameters of the two largest trunks are listed. A determination is then provided for the protected status of each tree based on criteria of species, size and location. All street trees or trees in public areas are Protected regardless of species or size and these trees are marked with an asterisk in the Location column. Tree numbers correspond to the tree locations plotted on the Conceptual Site Plan included on the previous page and to all references to each tree in this report. Only non-street trees have numbered tags affixed to their trunks. Tree Survey for 201 & 225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia Tree Identification Protected Status Tree # Botanical Name Common Name Trunk Diameter Protected Species Minimum Required Size Street or Public Tree PROTECTED TREE 1 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 18" Yes Yes No Yes 2 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 26" Yes Yes No Yes 3 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 25" Yes Yes No Yes 4 Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma 5", 6" Yes No No No 5 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry 12" Yes No No No 6 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm 12", 12" Yes Yes No Yes 7 Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia 10" Yes No No No 8 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood 6" Yes No No No 9 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 6", 6" Yes No No No 10 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 6", 6" Yes No No No 11 Pyrus kawakamii Japanese Evergreen Pear 12" Yes No No No 12 Quercus ilex Holly Oak 12", 6" Yes No No No 13 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood 6" Yes No No No Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 6 Tree Identification Protected Status Tree # Botanical Name Common Name Trunk Diameter Protected Species Minimum Required Size Street or Public Tree PROTECTED TREE 14 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 7", 5" Yes No No No 15 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 7", 6" Yes No No No 16 Syzygium australe Brush Cherry 21" Yes Yes No No 17 Pyrus kawakamii Japanese Evergreen Pear 6" Yes No No No 18 Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia 8" Yes No No No 19 Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia 9" Yes No No No 20 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 4" Yes No No No 21 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 22 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 26" No Yes No No 23 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 38" No Yes No No 24 Eriobotra deflexa Bronze Loquat 3", 2" Yes No No No 25 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood 12" Yes No No No 26 Fraxinus uhdei Shamel Ash 47" No Yes No No 27 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 6" Yes No Yes No 28 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 18" Yes Yes Yes No 29 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 4" Yes No Yes No 30 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 1" Yes No Yes No 31 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 2" Yes No Yes No 32 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 20" Yes Yes No Yes 33 Platanus x hispanica London Plane 12" Yes No No No 34 Fraxinus uhdei Shamel Ash 26" No Yes No No 35 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 7 Tree Identification Protected Status Tree # Botanical Name Common Name Trunk Diameter Protected Species Minimum Required Size Street or Public Tree PROTECTED TREE 36 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 37 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 38 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 39 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 40 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 41 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 42 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 43 Schinus terebinthifoius Brazilian Pepper 10",8" No No No No 44 Schinus terebinthifoius Brazilian Pepper 14" No Yes No No 45 Schinus terebinthifoius Brazilian Pepper 8",8" No No No No 46 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 47 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm N/A No N/A No No 48 Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum 16" No Yes No No 49 Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum 16" No Yes No No 50os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 18" Yes Yes No No 51os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 18" Yes Yes No No 52os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 18" Yes Yes No No 53os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 16" Yes Yes No No 54os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 16" Yes Yes No No 55os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 16" Yes Yes No No 56os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 16" Yes Yes No No Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 8 Tree Identification Protected Status Tree # Botanical Name Common Name Trunk Diameter Protected Species Minimum Required Size Street or Public Tree PROTECTED TREE 57os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 14" Yes Yes No No 58os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 12" Yes Yes No No 59os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 16" Yes Yes No No 60os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 14" Yes Yes No No 61os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 12" Yes Yes No No 62os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 14" Yes Yes No No 63os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 14" Yes Yes No No 64os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 14" Yes Yes No No 65os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 14" Yes Yes No No 66os Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 12" Yes Yes No No 67os Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 14" Yes Yes No Yes 68os Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 16" Yes Yes No Yes 69os Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 14" Yes Yes No Yes 70os Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 14" Yes Yes No Yes 71os Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 16" Yes Yes No Yes Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 9 TREE IDENTIFICATION, SIZE & CONDITION MATRIX This chart includes all Protected Trees that are either located or encroaching on the property. It provides physical data collected from field observations. The trees have been surveyed and numbers correspond to the numbers plotted on the Site Plan included in this report. Tree numbers with an “os” after them indicate that the specimen is located off-site, and a portion of the canopy or root mass extends over or onto the subject property or work zone. Both the botanical and common names of the Protected Trees are listed as well as their trunk diameters, heights and spreads. The trunk diameters are measured at 4 ½ feet above grade which is an industry standard height referred as Diameter at Breast Height, or DBH. Specimens that are low-branching or have multiple trunks that emerge from a single root crown are categorized as “multi-trunked” specimens. These trees and shrubs are measured by taking a cumulative measurement of all trunks or branches at standard height. The multitrunked specimens are listed with the sizes of their individual trunks or branches. Heights are approximate from grade to the nearest five feet and spreads are the average diameters of the canopies in all four directions. The health rating considers the condition of the biological health of the tree, also known as the symplastic parts, which are formed by living cells with protoplasm. These components broadly consist of leaves, cork cambium, vascular tissue containing living phloem and xylem, and fine feeder roots. The health rating is based on the life and vigor of the tree or shrub. The structure rating considers the integrity of the wood strength and other attributes that would raise the hazard rating of a tree or shrub. These components contain the apoplastic parts which are made up of non-living cells without protoplasm, mainly heartwood and buttress roots. Decay is the primary issue affecting the quality of structural wood. Other factors are trunk and branch taper; overextended and end-weighted branches and poor branch attachments. These issues can be mitigated through pruning or support systems in many cases, but in the case of extensive decay the hazard often can’t be reduced. The overall condition of each tree is given according to its health and structure. It isn’t an average of both scores as a tree or shrub that is non-viable but has no decay and is sound and stable is still dead; and a tree with a full crown of live foliage but with extensive decay at the buttress area still has a high probability of toppling at any time. Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 10 Identification Size Health Structure Rating Tree # Species Trunk Diameter (Inches) Height (Feet) Spread (Feet) Go o d Fa i r Po o r No n -Vi a b l e So u n d a n d S t a b l e Ma n a g e a b l e D e f e c t s Ha z a r d o u s Overall Health and Structure 1 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 18 50 40 X X Good 2 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 26 50 40 X X Good 3 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 25 50 40 X X Good 6 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm 12, 12 20 40 X X X Poor 32 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 18 40 30 X X Good 67os Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 14 40 20 X X Good 68os Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 16 40 20 X X Good 69os Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 14 40 20 X X Good 70os Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 14 40 20 X X Good 71os Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 16 40 20 X X Good Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 11 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS MATRIX This section includes all Protected Trees that are either located or encroaching on the property. It provides data collected from the analysis of construction plans. They have been surveyed and numbers correspond to the locations plotted on the Site Plan included in this report. Tree numbers with an “os” indicate that the specimen is located off-site and a portion of the canopy or root mass extends over or onto the subject property or work zone. The botanical name is given for each tree as well as its trunk diameter and condition rating as provided in the Identification, Size and Condition Matrix. Analysis regarding rootzone impacts are based on the type of impact, e.g, soil compaction, grading, fill, which are all significant. The severity of these encroachments is determined by the number of sides which they occur as well as the distance from the trunk. It is commonly accepted among professional arborists that a distance equal to three times a trunks diameter contains the structural roots responsible for keeping the tree upright. This critical rootzone area is defined as the root plate. Beyond the root plate the roots typically taper off into smaller, less significant sizes. A significant encroachment on one side of a tree at three times the trunk’s diameter is tolerable but will require care in to limit the impacts. A significant encroachment on one or two sides at five time the trunk’s diameter is typically rather soft on a tree as is a significant encroachment on three or four sides at ten times the trunk’s diameter. Existing infrastructure such as foundations, pools, or walls with deep footings provide excellent root barriers and any new construction built in the footprint or beyond these infrastructural elements are not considered encroachments. Significant encroachments that do not impact the stability of a tree typically sever relatively smaller roots are usually two inches in diameter or smaller and make up the root mass responsible for water and nutrient uptake. Although roots of these sizes can be cut without significantly impacting health and stability it is advised that no more than 30 percent of the root mass within the dripline is severed. An estimation has been made in the matrix of the percentage of total root mass that will be removed from each tree or shrub. It takes into account any additional light grading of six inches or less that will be required for typical improvements such as understory vegetation clearing and landscape renovations. More information regarding rootzone impacts is provided in the Excavation and Root Pruning section of the Construction Impact Guidelines in Appendix B of this report. Analysis of required pruning of the live crown of each tree is provided as an estimate to complete the project. Examples for required pruning include crown raising for roofline clearance and vertical clearance for driveways, and reduction pruning for exterior walls. Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 12 TREE or SHRUB SPECIES SIZE & CONDITION ROOT ZONE IMPACTS REQUIRED PRUNING OF LIVE CROWN TR E E N U M B E R Protected Trees: • Quercus agrifolia, engelmannii, and any other species of Quercus genus larger than 12” • Platanus racemosa • Any tree located in the public right-of-way All other species 12” or larger that are not on the exemption list TR U N K D I A M E T E R ( D B H ) CO N D I T I O N si d e s w h e r e g r a d i n g ( s i x i n c h e s o r de e p e r ) w i l l o c c u r si d e s w h e r e g r a d i n g i m p a c t s a r e b u f f e r e d by e x i s t i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e Ex c a v a t i o n w i l l r e m a i n a d i s t a n c e o f a t le a s t 1 0 X D B H f r o m t h e t r u n k . Ex c a v a t i o n w i l l r e m a i n a d i s t a n c e o f a t le a s t 5 X D B H f r o m t h e t r u n k . Ex c a v a t i o n w i l l r e m a i n a d i s t a n c e o f a t le a s t 3 X D B H f r o m t h e t r u n k . Re m o v a l o r R e l o c a t i o n Ad d i t i o n a l l i g h t g r a d i n g l e s s t h a n s i x in c h e s d e e p w i l l o c c u r w i t h i n d r i p l i n e Es t i m a t e d % o f t o t a l r o o t m a s s t o b e re m o v e d o r s e v e r e d No P r u n i n g R e q u i r e d Pr u n i n g n o t t o e x c e e d 1 0 % Pr u n i n g n o t t o e x c e e d 3 0 % Nu m b e r o f c u t s l a r g e r t h a n 3 " i n d i a m e t e r re q u i r e d Di a m e t e r o f c u t s f o r b r a n c h r e m o v a l s 1 Platanus racemosa 18 Good All - - - - - - - - 2 Platanus racemosa 26 Good All - - - - - - - - 3 Platanus racemosa 25 Good All - - - - - - - - 6 Ulmus parvifolia 24 Poor All - - - - - - - - 32 Platanus racemosa 20 Good All - - - - - - - - 67os Platanus racemosa 14 Good S S No <10 0 N/A 68os Platanus racemosa 16 Good S S No <10 0 N/A 69os Platanus racemosa 14 Good S S No <10 0 N/A 70os Platanus racemosa 14 Good S S No <10 0 N/A 71os Quercus agrifolia 16 Good None W No <10 0 N/A Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 13 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS • Five Protected Trees located on the property will be removed to accommodate the redevelopment. • Four of the removals are required for the grading for the necessary roads and building pads of the residential units. • The one non-native Protected Tree located in the wash easement at 201 Colorado Pl. (Tree #6) will be removed as requested by the County Flood Control to build a 12-foot- wide access road. • All five Public Trees connected to the property will be preserved in place. The sidewalk provides a good buffer from the work zone and the planned grading, and the work site fence that will be set at the edge of the property line will be an adequate Tree Protection Zone fence. • All 21 of the off-site trees are well buffered from root zone impacts due to the existing infrastructure. A concrete block wall, with an assumed 12-24-inch-deep footing, and asphalt pavement that restricted water percolation has restricted root development in the planned work zone. It is unlikely that many significant roots or a large quantity of fine feeder root mass will be encountered. • There are areas of open space designated in the project where mitigation trees can be planted. The City of Arcadia shall determine the number and sizes of mitigation trees to be installed. • Mitigation trees should be planted in the landscape installation phase that will occur near the project’s completion. • Although it is unlikely that roots will be encountered on the street trees and the off-site trees located just beyond the far north end of the project, the arborist of record should monitor the demolition of the pavement and the initial grading that occurs within 20 feet of the property line. PROPOSED MITIGATION The five trees planned for removal: Four Western Sycamores (Platanus racemosa) and one Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia) will be mitigated at 2:1 with all ten mitigation trees being Western Sycamores that are 24” box-sized nursery grown specimens. The mitigation trees should be planted towards the end of the project during the landscape installation phase. Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 14 APPENDIX A – Photos ABOVE: Looking northwest at Trees # 1,2 and 3. BELOW: Looking north at Tree #6, which is located in the County Flood Control easement and will be removed to provide a 12-foot-wide access road. 1,2,3 6 Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 15 ABOVE: Looking west at Tree #32, which is planned for removal. BELOW: Looking south at largest of the Deodar Cedars along the street. All of the street trees will be preserved in place 32 Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 16 ABOVE Looking northeast at off-site Trees #50 - #59. These and the other 11 off-site trees located on the property to the north have been well buffered by the block wall and pavement. BELOW: Trees #67 - #70, all Western Sycamores, located on the property to the north. 67 50 - 59 68 69 70 Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 17 APPENDIX B - Protected Tree Construction Impact Guidelines Size and Distribution of Tree Roots – Taken from Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees Shrubs and Vines. Harris, R.W., Clark, J.W., Matheny N.P. Prentice Hall 2004. Roots of most plants, including large trees, grow primarily in the top meter (3 ft) of soil (see figure below). Most plants concentrate the majority of their small absorbing roots in the upper 150 mm (6 in.) of soil if the surface is protected by a mulch or forest litter. In the absence of a protective mulch, exposed bare soil can become so hot near the surface that roots do not grow in the upper 200 to 250 mm (8 to 10 in.). Under forest and many landscape situations, however, soil near the surface is most favorable for root growth. In addition, roots tend to grow at about the same soil depth regardless of the slope of the soil surface. Although root growth is greatly influenced by soil conditions, individual roots seem to have an inherent guidance mechanism. Large roots with vigorous tips usually grow horizontally. Similar roots lateral to the large roots grow at many angles to the vertical, and some grow up into the surface soil. However, few roots in a root system actually grow down. Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 18 The importance of soil Soil supports and anchors tree roots and provides water, minerals and oxygen. Furthermore, soil is a habitat for soil microorganisms that enhance root function. A soil’s ability to sustain tree growth is largely determined by its texture, structure (bulk density), organic matter, water and mineral content, salinity, aeration, and soil-microbe abundance and diversity. Soil physical properties Soil texture – the relative proportion of sand, silt and clay, is important because it affects water – and nutrient-holding capacity, drainage and aeration (gaseous diffusion). Soil structure is the arrangement of individual soil particles into clumps (aggregates). The net result is the formulation of larger voids between the aggregates which serve as channels for gaseous diffusion, movement of water and root penetration. Unfortunately, soil aggregates are readily destroyed by activities that compact the soil (increase bulk density). When this occurs, gaseous exchange, permeability, drainage and root growth are restricted. The influence of the organic matter content of soil properties is quiet significant. Its decomposition by soil organisms releases substances that bind soil particles into larger granules, which improves both soil aeration, and drainage. In essence, the breakdown of organic matter improves water – and nutrient-holding capacity and reduces bulk density. Furthermore, it is the primary source of nitrogen and a major source of nitrogen and a major source of phosphorus and sulfur. Without organic matter soil organisms could not survive and most biochemical processes in the soil would cease. Soil aeration, the movement and the availability of oxygen, is determined by both soil texture and structure. In general, compacted and finer soils, due to a higher proportion of small pore spaces (micropores), tend to drain slowly and hold less air than coarser, sandy, or well-structured find soils. Water retained in the small pores displaces oxygen and inhibits gaseous diffusion. The availability of soil water is largely determined by the size of the pore spaces between the soil particles and the larger aggregates in which water is held. Most of the water in the larger pore spaces drains readily due to gravitational forces. A relatively thin film of water, which is readily available to plant roots, remains following drainage. Much of water held within the smaller pore spaces resists uptake by plant roots because it is held tightly on the soil surfaces. Plant roots require an adequate supply of oxygen for development. Injury or dysfunction results when oxygen availability drops below a critical level. Root respiration is the first process to be restricted, followed by disruptions in growth, metabolism, nutrient and water uptake, and photosynthesis. Furthermore, the accumulation of high levels of carbon dioxide, produced by the roots during respiration can also impair root function. Reduced soil aeration resulting from soil compaction, flooding, excess irrigation, or Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 19 impervious pavement favors the development of crown rot (Phytophthora root disease). It also inhibits mycorrhizal fungi that enhance water and nutrient uptake and resist root pathogens. The forest floor under a canopy in most undeveloped forests and woodland settings is typically covered by a layer of fallen leaves and other woody debris. It is usually cool, shady, well-aerated, and relatively moist – conditions that favor normal root growth. When the natural leaf litter is removed and when a tree’s lower canopy is pruned up to provide clearance, the absorbing roots in the upper few inches of the soil experience higher soil temperatures and increased desiccation due to direct exposure to sunlight. Minimizing the Effects of Construction and Development on Tree Root Systems Activities that injure roots or adversely affect the root zone should be avoided or kept as far from the trunk as possible. Design changes or alternative building practices that avoid or minimize construction-related impacts should be considered and proposed when applicable. Soil Compaction Soils are intentionally compacted under structures, sidewalks, reads, parking areas, and load-bearing fill to prevent subsidence, and to prevent soil movement on slopes. Although unintentional, soil within the root zone of trees is often compacted by unrestricted foot traffic, parking of vehicles, operation of heavy equipment, and during installation of fill. Compaction destroys the soil’s natural porosity by eliminating much of the air space contained within it. It leaves the soil hardm impenetrable and largely unfavorable for root growth. The soil’s natural porosity, which allows for water movement and storage, gaseous exchange, and root penetration, is greatly reduced. Consequently, root growth and tree health suffer. Soil compaction is best managed by preventing it. Bulk density is used to describe a soil’s porosity, or the amount of space between soil particles and aggregates. High bulk densities indicate a low percentage of total pore space. Pavement Paving over the root systems of trees is another serious problem because it reduces the gaseous diffusion and soil moisture. Most paving materials are relatively impervious to water penetration and typically divert water away from a tree’s root zone. Cracks and expansion joints do, though, allow for some water infiltration into the soil below. Of greater concern, is the loss of roots from excavation to achieve the required grade, and the necessary compaction to prevent subsidence. Once the soil surface is compacted, a base material is then added and compacted as well. With that done, the surface can then be paved. Thus, pavement within the root zones of trees can damage roots and create Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 20 unfavorable soil conditions. One alternative to minimize pavement impacts is to consider placing the pavement on the natural grade over a layer of minimally compacted base material. To reduce sub-grade compaction, consider using reinforced concrete or asphalt over a geotextile blanket to help stabilize the soil. On-grade patios or paving that covers more than one-third of the tree protection zone (TPZ) should be constructed using permeable materials that allow aeration and water penetration. Soil under permeable surfaces should not be compacted to more than 80 percent. Excavation and root pruning Excavation within the root zones of trees should be avoided as much as possible. The extent of root pruning (selective) or cutting (non-selective) should be based on the species growth characteristics and adaptive traits, environmental conditions, age, health, crown size, density, live crown ration and structural condition of the tree. The timing of the root pruning or cutting is another important consideration. Moderate to severe root loss during droughts or particularly hot periods can cause serious water-deficit injury or death. When root pruning/ cutting is unavoidable, roots should be pruned or cut as far from the trunk as possible. Cutting roots on more than one side of a tree should also be avoided. Root cutting extending more than half-way around a tree should generally be no closer than about 10 times the trunk diameter. Recommended distances range from as little as 6 times trunk diameter (DBH) for young trees to 12 times trunk diameter for mature trees. The size of the TPZ should, however, be increased for over mature and declining trees and species that are sensitive to root loss. The minimum distance from the trunk that roots can be cut on one side of the tree without destabilizing it, is a distance equal to about three times the diameter (DBH) of the trunk. Roots severed within that distance provide little or no structural support. Root pruning or cutting distances from the trunk should be greater for trees that lean and/ or those growing on shallow or wet soil. In cases where the proposed grading will adversely affect trees designated for retention, special attention should be given to proper root pruning and post-construction care for injured trees. Where structural footings are required for foundations, retaining walls, etc., and roots larger than 2 inches in diameter will be impacted, consider design changes or alternative building methods. When excavation within 5 times trunk diameter is unavoidable, roots greater than 1 ½ inches in diameter should be located prior to excavation and then pruned to avoid unnecessary damage. Hand-digging or use of a hydraulic or pneumatic soil excavation tool is the least disruptive way to locate roots for pruning. Although mechanical root pruners make clean cuts, they are non-selective. A backhoe bucket, dozer blade or trencher will typically pull, rip or shatter the larger root, causing additional damage toward the tree. Once the roots that interfere with the structure being built, e.g., Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 21 foundations, footings, retaining wall, curbs, etc., are exposed, they should then be cut perpendicular to their long axis using a hand-saw, ‘carbide-tipped chainsaw’ or sharp ax, depending on size. Roots that are pruned in this manner typically regenerate new roots from near the cut. Roots exposed by excavation should be protected from exposure to sun and desiccation. Exposed roots that can not be covered with soil by the end of the day should be covered with moistened burlap or similar material. Roots can generally be cut in a non-selective manner when excavating near of beyond the dripline. Ripped, splintered or fractured portions of roots however, should be re-cut. The damaged portion should be removed using sharp tools. The cut should be flat across the root with the adjacent bark intact. Wound dressings should not be applied to pruned or damaged roots except when recommended for disease, insect or sprout control. The best approach to avoid water-deficit injury following root loss during the growing season is to provide ample irrigation. Irrigation should be considered prior to, during, and after root pruning. Watering schedules should also consider local soil conditions, climate, topography, time of year, species adaptability, extent of root pruning and tree health. If possible, irrigate the tree 7 to 10 days prior to excavation so that there is an adequate reservoir of soil water. Water can be delivered to large construction sites via water-tank trucks and applied directly to affected trees or stored nearby in plastic tanks. On relatively flat terrain, a 6 to 8 inch soil berm at the tree’s dripline should be constructed to act as a watering basin. On steep terrain, soaker hoses should be used. They can be placed across the slope or spirally around the trunk, from about six feet away to the dripline. In addition, a two to four inch layer of wood chip mulch should be applied to as much of the root zone as possible to retard soil water loss. Pruning foliage to compensate for root loss is not supported by scientific research and likely to result in slower recovery. Fertilization to stimulate root growth is generally unwarranted and may be counterproductive. Trenching within the Tree Protection Zone Trenching for underground utilities should be routed around the TPZ. When this is unavoidable, trenching within the TPZ should be done by ‘hand’ or using a pneumatic or hydraulic soil excavation tool, carefully working around larger roots. Roots larger than 1 ½ inches in diameter should not be cut. Dig below these roots to route utilities or install drains. A combination of tools can also produce satisfactory results, for example, a skillful backhoe operator under the arborist’s supervision can dig down several inches at a time and detect larger roots by ‘feel’ (resistance). At that point, as assistant can expose the root and dig around it. In this manner, the backhoe can then continue extending the trench though the TPZ. Tunneling (boring) through the TPZ is the preferable alternative. For most large trees, tunneling depth should be at least 36 inches. Tunneling should begin at the edge of the TPZ, but no closer than a distance equal to one foot of clearance for each inch of tree DBH. Tunnels should also be offset to either side of the trunk. For trenching that extends only part way into TPZ, consider trenching radially to the tree trunk, as this is less harmful than tangential trenching. All trenches Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 22 made within the TPZ should be backfilled as quickly as possible to prevent root and soil desiccation. Managing Root Injured Trees Root-pruned trees should be monitored for symptoms of water-deficit injury for a specified period following root pruning. Irrigation should be considered prior to, during, and after root pruning. Irrigation schedules should consider local soil conditions, climate, topography, time of year, species tolerance, extent of root pruning and tree health. Grade Change: Fill Soil Fill soil placed within the root zones of trees can have an adverse effect, particularly if the soil is compacted to support a structure or pavement. Soil compaction reduces aeration and water infiltration. Fill soil, die to textural changes, can also prevent water from penetrating the original soil layer below where the roots are. Furthermore, soil placed against the root crown and lower trunk can lead to root disease problems, especially if the soil near the trunk remains moist during the summer from irrigation. Alternatives to placing fills over roots zones shall be considered and proposed as appropriate. Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 23 AUTHOR’S CREDENTIALS Protected Tree Report 201&225 Colorado Pl., Arcadia, 91007 Michael Crane, RCA #440, November 2025 24 CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE I, Michael Crane, certify that: • I have personally inspected the tree(s) and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. • I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts. • My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. • No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. • My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party not upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of Horticulture in a full-time capacity for a period of more than 25 years. Signed: ____________________________ Registered Consulting Arborist #440; American Society of Consulting Arborist Board Certified Master Arborist #WE 6643B; International Society of Arboriculture Licensed California Agricultural Pest Control Adviser #AA08269 June 17, 2025 Date: ______________________________ Appendix B VMT Assessment NOVEMBER 14, 2025 Mr. Matt Waken MW INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC 27702 Crown Valley Parkway Suite D-4-197 SUBJECT: COLORADO COLLECTION TOWNHOMES PROJECT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ASSESSMENT, CITY OF ARCADIA Dear Mr. Waken: INTRODUCTION RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Assessment for the proposed Colorado Collection Townhomes Project (hereinafter referred to as “project”). The purpose of this study is to utilize the Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, dated December 2021, and the Resolution No. 7548 Adopting Updated “Vehicle Miles Traveled” Thresholds of Significance for Purposes of Analyzing Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), dated April 16, 2024 (collectively referred to herein as VMT Guidelines) which establishes uniform analysis methodologies and thresholds of significance for determining VMT impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to determine if the project will require a detailed VMT modeling analysis. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is generally bound by Colorado Place to the west, Santa Rosa Road to the east, and San Juan Drive to the south, in the City of Arcadia. The project site is currently occupied by an 88- room Motel 6 and 6,500 square feet office building occupied by the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association (CTBA). The project proposes to raze the existing motel and office buildings and construct 86 attached single- family townhomes. Approximately 10% of the total unit count is designated as affordable housing for moderate-income households. Access to the site is proposed via one (1) unsignalized (ungated) driveway located along Colorado Place, and one (1) unsignalized (ungated) driveway located along Santa Rosa Road. Exhibit A shows an aerial location map of the project site. Exhibit B shows the project’s proposed site plan. ENGINEERINGGROUP INC. Exhibit A Location Map 3267-2025-02 THE COLORADO COLLECTION TOWNHOMES PROJECT // CITY OF ARCADIA Legend = Project Site Boundary N = Arcadia Train Station Santa Cla r a S t Huntington Drive No r t h S a n t a A n i t a A v e n u e C o l o r a d o P l a c e = Local Bus Stops Arcadia Train Station ENGINEERINGGROUP INC. Exhibit B Site Plan 3267-2025-02 THE COLORADO COLLECTION TOWNHOMES PROJECT // CITY OF ARCADIA N RK21092 // 3267-2025-02 2 TRIP GENERATION Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. Typically, trip generation rates from the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (12th Edition, 2025) are used when calculating a proposed project’s trip generation forecast. This publication provides a comprehensive evaluation of trip generation rates for a variety of land uses. As previously mentioned, the project proposes to demolish the existing 88-room Motel 6 and 6,500 square feet office building and construct 86 attached single family housing. Of the 86 attached single family townhomes, approximately 9 will be designated as affordable housing for moderate-income households. As such, the following ITE land use trip rates have been utilized to determine the trip generation for the existing land use and the proposed project: • ITE Land Use 215: Single Family Attached Housing • ITE Land Use 220: Affordable Housing • ITE Land Use 320: Motel • ITE Land Use 710: General Office Building Table 1 shows the ITE trip generation rates utilized for the trip generation analysis of the proposed project land use and the proposed project trip generation forecasts based on those ITE trip generation rates. RK21092 // 3267-2025-02 3 Table 1 | Project Trip Generation Rates & Forecast1 Land Use (ITE Code) Quantity Units2 Weekday Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total ITE Trip Generation Rate Single Family Attached Housing (215) -- DU 25% 75% 0.47 57% 43% 0.51 6.57 Affordable Housing (220) -- DU 24% 76% 0.41 62% 38% 0.52 6.21 Motel (320) -- Rooms 39% 61% 0.33 54% 46% 0.37 3.35 General Office (710) -- TSF 88% 12% 1.24 16% 84% 1.18 7.83 Existing Entitled Land Use Trip Generation Motel (320) 88 Rooms 11 18 29 18 15 33 295 General Office (710) 6.500 TSF 7 1 8 1 7 8 51 Existing Entitled Land Use Trip Generation Sub-Total [A] 18 19 37 19 22 41 346 Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast Single Family Attached Housing (215) 77 DU 9 27 36 22 17 39 506 Affordable Housing (220) 9 DU 1 3 4 3 2 5 56 Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast Sub-Total {B] 10 30 40 25 19 44 562 Net Total Project Trip Generation Forecast [B] – [A] -8 11 3 6 -3 3 216 1 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (12th Edition, 2025). 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Rooms As shown in Table 1, based on the ITE trip generation rates, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 216 net daily trips, which include approximately 3 net AM peak hour trips and 3 net PM peak hour trips. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING The City of Arcadia’s Resolution No. 7548 Adopting Updated “Vehicle Miles Traveled” Thresholds of Significance for Purposes of Analyzing Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) recommends the use of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool for assessing the potential VMT impacts of a project. The tool is a computer program that operates by entering parcel-specific development parameters to assess the extent of a specific project’s VMT impact. It is based on the latest 2024 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy activity-based model that was developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool includes inputs for project specific features that can reduce VMT such as low-income affordable housing units, increasing housing and/or employment densities, improved bicycle/pedestrian/transit accessibility, and traffic calming measures. It should be noted that these project specific features are not mitigation measures. These project-specific features are aspects of the project itself, allowing for an inherent reduction in VMT from what is existing in the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) because these features naturally reduce the need for driving by changing the built environment rather than by relying on discrete mitigation measures, such as external incentives to reduce the need for driving. RK21092 // 3267-2025-02 4 The tool also provides a menu of transportation demand management (TDM) measures such as incentives for alternative travel modes, ridesharing, bike-sharing, vanpools, transit subsidies, and alternative work schedules to reduce the project’s impact to an acceptable levels. The SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool was utilized to evaluate the project’s VMT based on the Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening Criteria and the Low VMT Area Screening Criteria. The printouts from the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool are included in Appendix A. Proximity Transit Screening Criteria According to the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool, the projects that are located near a transit priority area (TPA) would meet the Proximity Transit Screening Criteria. Typically, projects that are located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, this presumption may not be appropriate if the project: • Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75 • Includes more parking for than required by City requirements • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization) • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units. A transit priority area is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or a high - quality transit corridor. A major transit stop refers to a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. A high-quality transit corridor refers to a corridor with fixed route bus service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. Exhibit C illustrates the pedestrian walking path towards the local transit, and Exhibit D illustrates the straight-line distances between the project site, and the local transit stops. As shown in Exhibit C and D, the Project is located outside of the half-mile area of the Arcadia Transit Station. However, it should be noted that the Arcadia Station is located within approximately 0.7-mile walking distance from the Project Site, which would approximately be a 15 minute walk. While the Project is located beyond the half-mile radius to be considered within a TPA, future residents are within a reasonable range of an accessible walk to the Arcadia Station. Consistent with the findings from the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool in Appendix A, the Project is not located within a TPA, or within a half-mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. and therefore does not meet the Proximity Transit Screening Criteria. ENGINEERINGGROUP INC. Exhibit C Pedestrian Walking Path Towards Local Transit 3267-2025-02 THE COLORADO COLLECTION TOWNHOMES PROJECT // CITY OF ARCADIA Legend = Project Site Boundary N = Arcadia Train Station Santa Cla r a S t Huntington Drive No r t h S a n t a A n i t a A v e n u e C o l o r a d o P l a c e = Local Bus Stops Arcadia Train Station = Pedestrian Walking Path Towards Bus Stops = Pedestrian Walking Path Towards Arcadia Train Station 0.34 miles 0.55 miles 0.68 miles 0.68 miles ENGINEERINGGROUP INC. Exhibit D Straight-Line Distance From Project Site to Local Transit 3267-2025-02 THE COLORADO COLLECTION TOWNHOMES PROJECT // CITY OF ARCADIA Legend = Project Site Boundary N = Arcadia Train Station Santa Cla r a S t Huntington Drive No r t h S a n t a A n i t a A v e n u e C o l o r a d o P l a c e = Local Bus Stops Arcadia Train Station = Straight Line Distance from Project Site to Bus Stops = Straight-Line Distance from Project Site to Arcadia Train Station 0.3 m i l e s 0.6 miles 0.5 mi l e s 0.6 mil e s RK21092 // 3267-2025-02 5 Low VMT Area Screening Criteria Typically, residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area and that incorporate certain features such as density, are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. To identify if the project is in a low VMT-generating area, the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool was utilized to compare the appropriate baseline project TAZ VMT to the City’s adopted threshold of significance of 19.80 VMT per capita (i.e., 15% below the Northwest San Gabriel Valley sub-regional average VMT per capita). Per the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool, the project is located within TAZ 22220100, which has an existing average VMT rate of 22.3 VMT per capita. The TAZ predominantly consists of single-family homes which typically have a density of approximately 2-4 units per acre. The project has a residential density of 23.2 units per acre, which will therefore increase the residential density of the TAZ beyond the density currently existing within the TAZ. As such, to account for the inherent VMT reduction due to project-specific features, the following variables were inputted into the VMT: • Increased residential density The results of the Low VMT screening Assessment are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 | Low VMT Area Screening Assessment1 Project TAZ Baseline Year VMT/Capita 22220100 2025 15.622 City of Arcadia VMT Threshold of Significance 19.80 Potentially Significant Impact? (Yes/No) No 1 Source: San Gabriel Valley Council of Government (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool. Please see Appendix A. 2 The reported VMT/capita is a reduced VMT rate as a result of the Project’s increase in residential density and affordable housing. It should be noted that this reduction is not a result of any mitigation measures, but is a result of a natural reduction due to project specific features. As shown in Table 2, the Project’s VMT rate was calculated to be 15.62 per capita, which does not exceed the City of Arcadia’s threshold of significance of 19.80 VMT per capita. Therefore, the proposed project satisfies the Low VMT-Generating Area Screening and may be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT under CEQA. As such, no additional VMT analysis is required. RK21092 // 3267-2025-02 6 CONCLUSIONS RK Engineering Group, Inc. has completed this Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Assessment for the proposed Colorado Collection Townhomes Project. The proposed project is screened out from a full VMT analysis based on the Low VMT Area Screening and may be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT under CEQA. Therefore, no additional VMT analysis is required. RK Engineering Group, Inc. appreciates this opportunity to work with the MW INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC on the Colorado Collection Townhomes Project. If you have any questions regarding this review, or need further clarification, please contact us at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Justin Tucker, P.E., T.E. Nhi Ly, T.E. Principal Engineer III Attachments Appendices Appendix A San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool Worksheets SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report Project Details Timestamp of Analysis November 15, 2025, 04:21:21 PM Project Name Colorado Collection Townhomes Project Project Description The project proposes to raze the existing motel and office buildings and construct 86 attached single-family townhomes. Approximately 10% of the total unit count is designated as affordable housing for moderate-income households. Project Location Map jurisdiction: Arcadia APN TAZ 5775011032 22220100 5775011031 22220100 Analysis Details Data Version SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model 2024 Analysis Methodology TAZ Target Baseline Year 2025 Project Land Use Residential: Single Family DU: 86 Multifamily DU: 0 Total DUs: 86 Non-Residential: Office KSF: 0 Industrial KSF: 0 Local Serving Retail KSF: 0 Residential Affordability (percent of all units): Low Income: 0 % Parking: Motor Vehicle Parking: 177 Bicycle Parking: 0 Proximity Transit Screening Inside a transit priority area? No SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Results Land Use Type Residential VMT Metric Home-Based VMT per Capita VMT Baseline Description Northwest VMT Baseline Value 23.29 VMT Threshold Description / Threshold Value -15% / 19.80 Summary Project Without TDM Reduction Project With TDM Reduction Project Generated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Rate 22.31 15.62 Screening Results No (Fail) Yes (Pass) SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report INDIVIDUAL MEASURE REDUCTION RESULTS VMT REDUCTION LAND USE T-01 Increase Residential Density (P/S) 30.00% Residential density of project development (du/acre) 23.2 T-02 Increase Job Density (P/S) Not Selected Job density of project development (jobs/acre) - T-03 Provide Transit-Oriented Development (P/S) Not Selected T-04 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing (P/S) Not Selected Percent of multifamily units permanently dedicated as affordable (%) - T-17 Improve Street Connectivity (P/C) Not Selected Intersection density in project site with measure (int/sq mile) - SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report INDIVIDUAL MEASURE REDUCTION RESULTS VMT REDUCTION TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM T-05 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - voluntary (P/S) Not Selected Percent of employees eligible for program (%) - T-06 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - mandatory (P/S) Not Selected Percent of employees eligible for program (%) - T-07 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing - Employment Project (P/S) Not Selected Percent of employees eligible for program (%) - T-08 Provide Ride-Sharing Program - Employment Project (P/S) Not Selected Percent of employees eligible for program (%) - T-09 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program - Employment Project (P/S) Not Selected Average transit fare without subsidy ($) - Subsidy amount ($) - Percent of employees eligible for subsidy (%) - Percent of project-generated VMT from employees (%) - T-10 Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (P/S) Not Selected Project provides shower, lockers, and bike parking - T-11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool (P/S) Not Selected T-12 Price Workplace Parking (P/S) Not Selected Proposed parking price per day ($) - Baseline parking price per day ($) - Share of employees paying for parking (%) - T-13 Implement Employee Parking Cashout (P/S) Not Selected Pecent of employees eligible (%) - T-23 Provide Community-Based Travel Planning - Employment Project (P/S or P/ C) Not Selected Scale of application - Employees in Project/Site or Plan/Community - Employees in Project/Site or Plan/Community targeted for CBTP - T-07 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing - Residential Project (P/S) Not Selected Percent of residents eligible for program (%) - T-08 Provide Ride-Sharing Program - Residential Project (P/S) Not Selected Percent of residents eligible for program (%) - T-09 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program - Residential Project (P/S) Not Selected Average transit fare without subsidy ($) - Subsidy amount ($) - Percent of residents eligible for subsidy (%) - Percent of project-generated VMT from residents (%) - T-23 Provide Community-Based Travel Planning - Residential Project (P/S or P/C) Not Selected Scale of application - Residences in Project/Site or Plan/Community - Residences in Project/Site or Plan/Community targeted for CBTP - SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report INDIVIDUAL MEASURE REDUCTION RESULTS VMT REDUCTION PARKING OR ROAD PRICING MANAGEMENT T-15 Limit Residential Parking Supply (P/S) Not Selected Residential parking demand (parking space) - Project residential parking supply (parking space) - Percentage of project VMT generated by residents (%) - T-16 Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost (P/S) Not Selected Annual Parking cost per space ($/year) - T-24 Implement Market Price Public Parking - On-Street (P/C) Not Selected VMT in priced area without measure (VMT/day) - VMT in plan/community without measure (VMT/day) - Proposed parking price ($) - Initial parking price ($) - Default percentage of trips parking on street (%) - SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report INDIVIDUAL MEASURE REDUCTION RESULTS VMT REDUCTION NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement (P/S or P/C) Not Selected Existing sidewalk length in study area (miles) - Sidewalk length in study area with measure (miles) - T-19A Construct or Improve Bike Facility (P/S or P/C) Not Selected Percent of Plan/Community VMT on parallel roadway (%) - Average Daily Traffic on parallel roadway (vehicle trips per day) - One-way facility length (mile) - Adjustment factor for population (Population greater or less than 250k, Identified as university town (UT) or non-university town (NUT) - Number of key destinations within 0.5 mile - Facility type - T-19B Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard (P/S or P/C) Not Selected Percent of plan/community vmt on roadway to have bicycle boulevard (%) - T-20 Expand Bikeway Network Not Selected Existing bikeway miles in plan/community (miles) - Bikeway miles in plan/community with measure (miles) - T-21A Implement Conventional Carshare Program (P/C) Not Selected Number of vehicles deployed in plan/community - VMT in plan/community without measure (VMT per day) - T-21B Implement Electric Carshare Program (P/C) Not Selected Number of vehicles deployed in plan/community - VMT in plan/community without measure (VMT per day) - T-22A Implement Pedal (Non-electric) Bikeshare Program (P/C) Not Selected Percent of residence with access to bikeshare without measure (%) - Percent of residence with access to bikeshare with measure (%) - T-22B Implement (Electric) Bikeshare Program (P/C) Not Selected Percent of residence with access to electric bikeshare without measure (%) - Percent of residence with access to electric bikeshare with measure (%) - T-22C Implement Scootershare Program (P/S) Not Selected Percent of residence with access to scootershare without measure (%)) - Percent of residence with access to scootershare with measure (%) - SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report INDIVIDUAL MEASURE REDUCTION RESULTS VMT REDUCTION TRANSIT T-25 Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours (P/S) Not Selected Transit miles before expansion (miles) - Transit miles after expansion (miles) - T-26 Increase Transit Service Frequency (P/C) Not Selected Percent increase in transit frequency (%) - Total daily person trips in corridor (trips/day) - Vehicle trip length (miles/trip) - Bus frequency without measure (round trips/hour) - Bus frequency with measure (round trips/hour) - Bus hours of operation (hour) - Bus route one-way length (miles/route) - T-27 Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatment (P/C) Not Selected Percent of plan/community transit routes that recieve treatment (%) - T-28 Provide Bus Rapid Transit (P/C) Not Selected Percent increase in transit frequency due to BRT (%) - Percent change in transit travel time due to BRT (%) - Total daily person trips in corridor (trips/day) - Vehicle trip length (miles/trip) - Bus frequency without measure (round trips/hour) - Bus frequency with measure (round trips/hour) - BRT hours of operation (hours/day) - BRT route one-way length (miles) - T-29 Reduce Transit Fare (P/C) Not Selected Percent reduction in transit fare with measure (%) - Percent of Plan/Community transit routes that recieve reduced fare (%) - Appendix C Noise Analysis NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR THE COLORADO COLLECTION PROJECT JANUARY 2026 Prepared for: City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 180 E. Main Street, Suite 108 Tustin, CA 92780 D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e nt a l F i r m NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR THE COLORADO COLLECTION PROJECT JANUARY 2026 Prepared for: City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 180 East Main Street, Suite 108 Tustin, California 92780 949-396-8193 The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 1 Table of Contents Project Description.................................................................................................................................... 2 Scope of Noise and Vibration Assessment ................................................................................................ 2 Noise And Vibration Basics And Terminology ........................................................................................... 2 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Vibration ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 5 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................................... 6 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 7 State of California ................................................................................................................................. 7 City of Arcadia ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 14 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 16 Vibration Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 18 Aircraft Noise Exposure....................................................................................................................... 20 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 21 References .............................................................................................................................................. 22 The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes to remove the existing on-site structures and develop 86 three-story attached townhomes in 14 buildings. Each building would contain between three to nine dwelling units and have a maximum height of 39 feet. The townhomes would consist of a mix of floor plans with two- to three- bedroom plus flex options, ranging in size from approximately 1,201 to 1,676 square feet. Nine of the units would be deed restricted affordable units at the moderate-income level. This Noise and Vibration Report identifies the existing Noise and Vibration conditions within the Planning Area and provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project. SCOPE OF NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT Relevant elements of the proposed Project related to the analysis of potential noise impacts include: (1) the use of construction equipment during construction of the proposed residential uses (2) noise generated during the operations phase of the Project, which would include noise sources such as stationary sources (e.g., mechanical equipment, landscape maintenance equipment) and (3) the vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project. This Report provides discussions of noise and vibration relative to the regulatory and environmental setting, and Projects impacts. NOISE AND VIBRATION BASICS AND TERMINOLOGY Noise “Sound” is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected. “Noise” is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance; interference with speech communication; sleep disturbance; and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (Caltrans 2013). Sound pressure levels are described in units called the decibel (dB). Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale. A doubling of the energy of a noise source (such as doubling of traffic volume) would increase the noise level by 3 dB. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. To accommodate this phenomenon, the A-scale was devised; the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) approximates the frequency response of the average healthy ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds and is used in this analysis. Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with acoustical energy. Due to subjective thresholds of tolerance, the annoyance of a given noise source is perceived very differently from person to person. The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at 3 feet is approximately 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises at 1,000 feet equate to 100 dBA, which can cause serious discomfort. Table 1 shows the relationship of various noise levels in dBA to commonly experienced noise events. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 3 Table 1 Noise Levels For Common Events Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) 100 Gas lawn mower at 1 m (3 ft) 90 Diesel truck at 15 m (50 ft) at 80 km/hr (50 mph) 80 Food blender at 1 m (3 ft); garbage disposal at 1 m (3 ft) Noisy urban area, daytime gas lawn mower at 30 m (100 ft) 70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial area, heavy traffic at 90 m (300 ft) 60 Normal speech at 1 m (3 ft) Quiet urban daytime 50 Large business office, dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Library Quiet rural nighttime 20 Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) 10 Broadcast/recording studio Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Notes: dBA: A-weighted decibels; m: meter; ft: feet; km/hr: kilometers per hour; mph: miles per hour Source: Caltrans 2013. Two noise sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. As stated above, a doubling of noise sources results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. It is widely accepted that (1) the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of a 3 dBA increase or decrease; (2) a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and (3) an increase (decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (Caltrans, 2013). From the source to the receiver, noise changes both in the level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious change is the decrease in noise level as the distance from the source increases. Sound from a small localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. For point sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units or construction equipment, the sound level attenuates (or drops off) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance (i.e., if the noise level is 70 dBA at 25 feet, it is 64 dBA at 50 feet). Vehicle movement on a road makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (line source) rather than a point when viewed over some time interval. The sound level attenuates or drops off at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance for line sources. A large object in the path between a noise source and a receiver can significantly attenuate noise levels at that receiver location. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain or landform features as well as man- made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can significantly alter noise exposure levels. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view from the receiver to a road or to the noise source. Effective noise barriers can reduce outdoor noise levels at the receptor by up to 15 dBA. Several rating scales (or noise “metrics”) exist to analyze effects of noise on a community. These scales include the equivalent noise level (Leq), including Lmax and Lmin, which are respectively the highest and The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 4 lowest A-weighted sound levels that occur ding a noise event, and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours are usually expressed as dBA Leq, which is the equivalent noise level for that period of time. The period of time averaging may be specified; for example, Leq(3) would be a three-hour average. Noise of short duration (i.e., substantially less than the averaging period) is averaged into ambient noise during the period of interest. Thus, a loud noise lasting many seconds or a few minutes may have minimal effect on the measured sound level averaged over a one-hour period. To evaluate community noise impacts, CNEL was developed to account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise. CNEL represents the 24-hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night. The CNEL computation divides a 24-hour day into 3 periods: daytime (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM), evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). The evening sound levels are assigned a 5 dBA penalty, and the nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10 dBA penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels. Vibration Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity, and the rate of change of the speed is described as the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During construction of a project, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. Analysis of this type of vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration. The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are surface or Rayleigh waves, compression or P-waves, and shear or S-waves. • Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their energy along an expanding cylindrical wave front, similar to the ripples produced by throwing a rock into a lake. The particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the direction of propagation (known as retrograde elliptical). • Compression or P-waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push-pull motion. P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. • Shear or S-waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. Unlike P-waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The peak particle velocity (ppv) or the root mean square (rms) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. The ppv is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and the rms is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The ppv is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, whereas the rms is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 5 The units for ppv and rms velocity are normally inches per second (in/sec). Often, vibration is presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. In this study, all ppv and rms velocity levels are in in/sec and all vibration levels are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). The threshold of perception is approximately 65 VdB. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly as they move away from the source of the vibration. Manmade vibration problems are, therefore, usually confined to short distances (500 feet or less) from the source. Construction generally includes a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne vibration. In general, blasting and demolition of structures generate the highest vibrations. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at distances within 200 feet of the vibration sources. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which vary depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, and other anomalies all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than vibration of normal traffic on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, and heavy loads. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing noise environment in the Project area is influenced by traffic noise on nearby roads as well as the Village Playgarden Preschool. The roadway contributing the most noise to the Project site is Colorado Place and to a much lesser extent local roadways which includes San Juan Drive and Santa Rosa Road. De Novo conducted ambient noise surveys on December 11 and 12, 2025 for the Project at each of the Project’s property lines. Noise level measurements were taken using a Larson Davis Laboratories SoundTrack 821 sound level meter (LD 821). The LD 821 were set up at a height of approximately five feet above the ground and equipped with a windscreen. The LD 821s were calibrated before and after use with a Larson Davis Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure that the measurements would be accurate. The sound level meters were programmed to record noise levels in “slow” mode in A-weighted form. Meteorological conditions during all measurement periods were favorable, with clear skies and low winds. The noise level measurements were collected for approximately 24 hours near the western property boundary along Colorado Place. Short-term measurements (20-minutes) were taken at other Project site boundaries. The minimum (Lmin), average (Leq), and maximum noise levels (Lmax) are taken at each ambient noise measurement location. Figure 1 shows the hourly noise levels at the western Project site boundary. The western project boundary was selected for 24-hour measurements to account for the primary noise source (Colorado Place) proximate to the Project site. Measured noise levels range from 53 to 76 dBA Leq. The 24-hour weighted noise level at this location is 70 dBA CNEL. The complete noise monitoring results are included in Attachment A. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 6 Figure 1 Hourly Noise Levels at the Western Project Site Boundary The measurement data for the short-term measurements are summarized in Table 2. Noise sources at these locations comprised of intermittent preschool noise at the northern property boundary. There were no substantial noise sources at the eastern boundary due to the presence of residential uses. Noise associated with the southern boundary are from infrequent traffic along local roadways. Table 1 Existing Measured Noise Levels Measurement Location Noise Levels (dBA) Primary Noise Source Lmin Leq Lmax Northern Property Boundary 43.3 59.7 76.9 Playground noise from the adjacent preschool. Eastern Property Boundary 43.2 51.9 62.4 Distant playground noise and distant traffic along Colorado Place. Southern Property Boundary 42.2 58.5 73.9 Traffic along Colorado Place. Notes: dBA: A-weighted decibels; Leq: equivalent sound level; Lmax: maximum sound level; Lmin: minimum sound level. Sensitive Receptors Noise-sensitive receptors are generally considered to be humans who are engaged in activities that may be subject to the stress of significant interference from noise. Activities usually associated with sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, talking, reading, and sleeping. Noise-sensitive receptors closest - 20 40 60 80 100 120 12 : 0 0 A M 1: 0 0 A M 2: 0 0 A M 3: 0 0 A M 4: 0 0 A M 5: 0 0 A M 6: 0 0 A M 7: 0 0 A M 8: 0 0 A M 9: 0 0 A M 10 : 0 0 A M 11 : 0 0 A M 12 : 0 0 P M 1: 0 0 P M 2: 0 0 P M 3: 0 0 P M 4: 0 0 P M 5: 0 0 P M 6: 0 0 P M 7: 0 0 P M 8: 0 0 P M 9: 0 0 P M 10 : 0 0 P M 11 : 0 0 P M No i s e L e v e l (d B A ) Max Leq Min The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 7 to the Project site include single-family residences and a preschool adjacent to the Project site. The Project uses also consist of residential uses which are also noise sensitive and need to comply with the State of California’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for habitable rooms. REGULATORY SETTING Public agencies have established noise guidelines and standards to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. State of California Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, establishes building standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the state. Section 1207.11.2 requires that residential structures other than detached single-family dwellings be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior noise attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room. Section 1207.12 states, “if interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior requirement. The ventilation system must not compromise the dwelling unit or guest room noise reduction.” City of Arcadia The City of Arcadia has established guidelines and standards in the General Plan and the Municipal Code. Historically, Arcadia has used a very traditional and practical approach to protecting residential neighborhoods and noise-sensitive receptors such as schools and the Methodist Hospital from potentially harmful noise sources. Large-scale industrial businesses generally are clustered in a district at the southeast end of the City. Commercial uses largely occur along major roadway corridors, and the regional shopping center and racetrack property are separated from surrounding residential neighborhoods by expanses of parking lots. Land use planning decisions have been and will continue to be guided by the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria set forth in Figure N-4. The more detailed criteria set forth in Table N-2 will be used on a project-specific basis. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 8 Table N-2: Interior/exterior noise standards (General Plan) Land Use Maximum Exterior Noise Level Maximum Interior Noise Level Residential: Rural, Single-Family, and Multifamily 65 dBA CNEL 45 dBA CNEL Schools Classroom Playground 70 dBA CNEL 70 dBA CNEL 45 dBA Leq — Libraries — 45 dBA Hospitals/Convalescent Facilities Sleeping Areas Living Areas Reception, Office 65 dBA CNEL — — 45 dBA CNEL 50 dBA CNEL 50 dBA Leq Hotels/Motels Sleeping Areas Reception, Office — — 45 dBA CNEL 50 dBA Leq Places of Worship 65 dBA CNEL 45 dBA Leq Open Space/Recreation Wildlife Habitat Passive Recreation Areas Active Recreation Areas 60 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 70 dBA CNEL — — — Commercial and Business Park Office Restaurant, Retail, Service Warehousing/Industrial — — — 55 dBA Leq 65 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq Source: Arcadia 2010. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 9 Figure N-4: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (General Plan) Land Use Category Community Noise Exposure Level (CNEL), dB 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Estate Residential, Very Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential (1) Medium Density Residential High Density Residential, Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use Commercial, Regional Commercial, Horse Racing Commercial/Light Industrial Public/Institutional Open Space - Outdoor Recreation Open Space - Resource Protection Note: (1) Areas along the I-210 corridor may be exempted, provided mitigation is provided to meet State Health and Safety Code requirements for interior noise levels. NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, assuming buildings are of conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. New development should be undertaken only after analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed insulation features are incorporated into design. New construction or development generally is discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and incorporated into project design. New construction or development is discouraged. Source: Arcadia 2010. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 10 Within mixed-use development districts in Downtown and along Live Oak Avenue, higher ambient noise levels—relative to a strictly low-density residential neighborhood—are generally acceptable due to residents’ expectations for a livelier environment. The Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria allow for higher ambient (CNEL) noise levels for residential development within areas designated High Density Residential, Mixed Use, and Downtown Mixed Use. However, where mixed-use is allowed in Arcadia, and where residential neighborhoods directly interface with commercial development, such as in the neighborhoods south of Downtown and surrounding First Avenue, careful review of site design and operational characteristics of individual commercial uses will allow the City to address any site-specific noise concerns through design and operational conditions applied to individual projects. Goals and Policies The City’s goals and policies regarding noise are to minimize adverse noise impacts on residents and people who come to Arcadia for work and entertainment, and to preserve a quality noise environment for City residents. Arcadia will maintain a peaceful environment by identifying noise impacts and mitigating noise problems through application of noise/land use compatibility criteria and acoustical treatments. Transportation is the dominant source of noise in the City. However, the City has limited ability to abate vehicle-generated noise. The City, through the Police Department, can enforce the State’s established noise limits for vehicles by citing noise offenders whose engines, exhaust, or music systems create noise beyond defined limits. With regard to freeway noise, the City will continue to work within the construct of Caltrans’ programs (as implemented by Metro) to have freeway sound walls completed. New technology in transportation infrastructure will be explored to attenuate sound. Goal N-1: Effective incorporation of noise considerations into land use planning decisions Policy N-1.1: Consider noise impacts as part of the development review process relative to residential and other noise-sensitive land uses. Policy N-1.2: Ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained near schools, hospitals, and other sensitive areas in accordance with the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines in Figure N-4, Table N-2 Interior/Exterior Noise Standards, and the City’s noise ordinance. Policy N-1.3: New commercial and industrial developments located adjacent to residential areas and identified noise-sensitive uses shall demonstrate reduction of potential noise impacts on neighboring sensitive uses to acceptable levels. Policy N-1.4: Discourage new development of residential or other noise-sensitive uses in noise- impacted areas unless effective mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design to reduce noise levels that comply with Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines in Figure N-4 and Table N-2 Interior/Exterior Noise Standards. Policy N-1.5: Require that proposed projects that have the potential to result in noise impacts include an acoustical analysis and appropriate mitigation to achieve the interior and exterior noise standards indicated in Table N-2 Interior/Exterior Noise Standards. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 11 Goal N-2: Reduced noise impacts from transportation sources Policy N-2-1: Enforce State Motor Vehicle Code noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles, and coordinate enforcement with the California Highway Patrol and County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Policy N-2-2: Continue to work with and lobby Metro to fund gap closure of the I-210 sound walls between Baldwin and Santa Anita Avenues. Policy N-2-3: Consider using roadway sound attenuation techniques for resurfacing projects that use “quiet” pavement or noise-reducing rubberized asphalt. Policy N-2-4: Consider the noise impacts on adjacent residential uses associated with establishing stop signs or other traffic control or traffic calming devices. Policy N-2-5: Enforce truck routes established in the Circulation and Infrastructure Element and the Municipal Code. Policy N-2-6: Work with Metro to provide that the design and operation of the Gold Line tracks, crossings, and station area use approaches that will minimize noise impacts associated with train operations on the community. In particular, construct the Santa Anita Avenue crossing as a grade- separated crossing. Goal N-3: Limited intrusion of point-source noise within residential neighborhoods and on noise- sensitive uses Policy N-3-1: Enforce the noise ordinance to protect residents and noise-sensitive uses from excessive noise levels associated with stationary sources. Policy N-3-2: Encourage industrial and commercial activities to restrict their receiving operations to daytime periods, and condition such operations for new development projects. Policy N-3-3: Explore requiring the use of noise suppression devices and techniques on all exterior noise sources (construction operations, pumps, fans, leaf blowers) to lower exterior noise to levels that are compatible with adjacent land uses. Policy N-3-4: Require any new mixed-use structures to be designed to minimize the transfer of noise and vibration from commercial or industrial to residential and other noise-sensitive uses. Policy N-3-5: Require noise created by new non-transportation noise sources to be mitigated so as not to exceed acceptable interior and exterior noise level standards identified in this Noise Element. Policy N-3-6: Provide appropriate funding to monitor noise levels and investigate noise complaints. Policy N-3-7: Educate the community at large about the importance of maintaining a healthy noise environment, and identify ways residents can assist in noise abatement efforts. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 12 Municipal Code Below are the relevant portions of the City’s Municipal Code that affect Project related construction and operations phase activities. PART 6. - NIGHTTIME CONSTRUCTION 4261. - PROHIBITED HOURS DEFINED. The term "prohibited hours" as used in this Part shall mean any time after the hour of 6:00 p.m. of any weekday; any time before the hour of 7:00 a.m. of any weekday; any time after the hour of 5:00 p.m. of any Saturday; any time before the hour of 8:00 a.m. of any Saturday; any time on any Sunday; and any time on any of the following holidays: New Year's Day; Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day; Veteran's Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day, provided that if in any calendar year any such holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall constitute the holiday. (Ord. No. 2316, § 2, 5-6-14) 4262. - CONSTRUCTION LIMITED. Unless a permit so to do shall first have been obtained as provided in Section 4263, no person shall during prohibited hours engage in any earth excavation, land fill or earth moving operation or in the construction of any portion of a building or structure, nor shall any person during prohibited hours use or operate any truck, tractor, crane, rig or any mechanical equipment of any kind in connection with, in the performance of or in furtherance of any of the foregoing. CHAPTER 6. NOISE REGULATIONS PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 4610. DECLARATION OF POLICY. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises from all sources subject to its police power. At certain levels, noises are detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry, and, in the public interests, such noise levels shall be systematically proscribed. PART 2. SPECIAL NOISE SOURCES 4620. RADIOS, TELEVISION SETS, AND SIMILAR DEVICES. Any noise level from the use or operation of any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set, or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., which exceeds the noise limit at the property line of any receiving property, or, if a condominium, within any condominium unit within the complex, by more than five (5) decibels shall be a violation of the provisions of this Chapter. 4620.2. EXEMPTIONS. (a) Lawfully conducted parades. (b) Bells, chimes, or carillons while being used in conjunction with religious or patriotic services. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 13 (c) Systems used to warn the community of attack or imminent public danger. (d) All authorized school activities being conducted upon school or public property. (Amended by Ord. 2012 adopted 7-5-94) PART 3. GENERAL NOISE REGULATIONS 4630. LOUD, UNNECESSARY AND UNUSUAL NOISE. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made and continued, any loud, unnecessary and unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, or which causes discomfort or annoyance to residents of the area. The standards which may be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this Section exists, may include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) The level of the noise; (b) Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; (c) The nature of the area within which the noise emanates; (d) The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; (e) The time of day or night; (f) The duration of the noise; (g) Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. 4630.1. NOISE. MOTORCYCLE, MOTOR-DRIVEN CYCLE, OR MOTOR SCOOTER. No person shall operate a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motor scooter on residential property, or permit such operation on such property under his control, except in the course of driving the vehicle directly onto or off of said property. This Section shall not be construed to permit the operation of a motor vehicle on any unimproved property in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Motor vehicles operated on the street are regulated by the Vehicle Code and are excluded from the provisions of this Section. 4630.2. NOISE. GARDENING AND LANDSCAPING. No person shall operate any mechanical equipment related to the gardening and/or landscaping of any property within a residential zone other than from seven (7) a.m. to seven (7) p.m., Monday through Saturday, and from twelve (12) p.m. to five (5) p.m. on Sundays within all residential zones; provided, however, that use of mechanical equipment for tree trimming on Sundays shall be prohibited. (Added by Ord. 2246 adopted 10-7-08) (Ord. No. 2396, § 4(Ex. C), 4-18-2023) The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 14 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The following questions correspond to the questions in the Noise section of the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. • Generation of a 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; • Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; and/or • 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. Temporary Construction Noise Impacts Determining "substantial increases" in construction noise depends on factors such as duration, time of occurrence, whether the noise source is constant or impulsive, and overall changes in decibel levels. According to the City of Arcadia noise ordinance, construction activities are prohibited after the hour of 6:00 p.m. of any weekday; any time before the hour of 7:00 a.m. of any weekday; any time after the hour of 5:00 p.m. of any Saturday; any time before the hour of 8:00 a.m. of any Saturday; any time on any Sunday; and any time on any of the following holidays: New Year's Day; Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day; Veteran's Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day, provided that if in any calendar year any such holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall constitute the holiday. Operational Noise Impacts A project may be considered to have a significant environmental impact if it exceeds the limits identified within the Municipal Code. For those noise sources not specifically addressed in the City’s Municipal Code, a significant impact would occur if Project activities substantially increases ambient noise levels in adjacent areas or exposes individuals to high noise levels. Significant impacts are also defined as those that either exceed local ordinances and criteria or substantially raise noise levels at sensitive locations. Research on human perception of sound changes indicates: • 3 dB increase is barely noticeable. • 5 dB increase is clearly perceptible. • 10 dB increase is perceived as twice as loud or half as quiet. To assess ambient noise increases, the Arcadia General Plan Noise Element states: “Given that the industry standard for assessing whether noise increases are generally perceptible to most people is 3.0 dBA CNEL, future roadway noise in Arcadia will not create any new conditions of concern.” In addition, Municipal Code Section 4610.3. Noise Limits provide noise limits that cannot be exceeded based on location and time. Exceedances of the limits represent significant noise impacts. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 15 Vibration Impacts The City’s has not adopted standards for vibration-induced annoyance or structural damage related to construction activities. As such, assessment methods and standards from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will be used. These vibration damage thresholds are shown in Table 3. The threshold for “Older residential structures” is 0.3 peak particle velocity (ppv) inch per second (in/sec) and 0.5 ppv for commercial buildings for the preschool are selected for analysis. This threshold represents the adjacent uses to the Project site. Table 3 Vibration Damage Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition Maximum ppv (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 ppv:peak particle velocity; in/sec: inch(es) per second Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Source: Caltrans 2020. The Caltrans vibration annoyance potential guideline thresholds are shown in Table 4. As shown in this Table, the strongly perceptible threshold is 0.1 ppv. These thresholds are used to assess the potential for a significant vibration impact for human annoyance. Annoyance is evaluated within occupied buildings. Table 4 Vibration Annoyance Criteria Human Response Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.4 ppv: peak particle velocity; in/sec: inch(es) per second Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Source: Caltrans 2020. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 16 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following questions correspond to the questions in the Noise section of the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Noise Generation of a 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. Construction Noise The development of the proposed Project would entail construction activities which include noise generated from grading/excavation and building construction activities. Local residents and the adjacent preschool would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of Project-related construction equipment. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Construction noise levels reported in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances were used to estimate future construction noise levels for the Project (USEPA 1971). Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by equipment that produces the highest noise levels. Construction noise levels for each generalized construction phase (ground clearing, excavation, foundation construction, building construction, paving, and site cleanup) are based on a typical construction equipment mix for an industrial project and do not include use of atypical, very loud, and vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., pile drivers). The degree to which noise-sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity. Estimated noise levels attributable to the development of the proposed Project are shown in Table 5, and calculations are included in the Appendix B. Table 5 shows the average noise levels of construction noise levels attributable to the Project based on an assessment distance at the center of the site. Average noise levels represent the noise exposure to sensitive uses based on the distance to the center of all Project components. Noise levels from general Project-related construction activities would range from 58 to 75 dBA Leq for the average noise levels. Noise levels from construction equipment would be less than the 80 dBA noise criterion developed by the Federal Transit Administration for construction noise. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 17 Table 5 Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses Construction Phase Noise Levels (Leq dBA) Residents to the North of the Project site Residents to the East of the Project site Residents to the South of the Project site Residents to the West of the Project site 430 feet away 160 feet away 450 feet away 190 feet away Demolition 60 70 59 69 Site Preparation 65 75 64 74 Grading 58 68 57 67 Building Construction 58 68 57 67 Paving 65 75 64 74 Maximum Construction Noise 65 75 64 74 FTA Construction Criterion 80 80 80 80 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Leq dBA: Average noise energy level; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures. Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. Noise is also associated with traffic volumes related to construction workers and truck trips needed for delivery of equipment and building materials. The amount of construction related traffic would be a small proportion of the overall traffic volume along Colorado Place. A doubling of traffic is generally necessary to increase traffic noise levels by 3 dBA. Construction traffic would not double the traffic volumes along Colorado Place and consequently would not result in a 3 dBA noticeable change in noise levels. This noise impact would be less than significant due to the traffic noise levels would be below the 3 dBA threshold adopted by the City and because construction traffic would be limited to the allowed hours of construction activity. While noise from construction activities on-site would be audible above the existing ambient noise environment, it would occur during the least noise-sensitive portions of the day as per Municipal Code section 4261 - Prohibited Hours Defined, does not include excessively loud activities such as pile driving and blasting, and would cease after construction is completed. Consequently, noise associated with Project-related construction would not result in significant impacts and no mitigation is required. Operations Phase Noise The operations phase of the Project would involve noise generation from stationary and mobile noise sources. Stationary noise sources associated with the proposed Project would include, but not be limited to, mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units); landscape maintenance equipment; and vehicles on the local internal roadway. The City of Arcadia’s Noise Element and Ordinance are designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by specifying noise levels that cannot be exceeded. Municipal Code Section 4610.3. Noise Limits defines the noise level exposure limits at properties affected by specific noise sources. HVAC units and other stationary equipment would be selected and installed to comply with the City of Arcadia’s Noise Ordinance. Because HVAC units are potentially continuous sources that may operate at night, the applicable Noise Ordinance requirement is that the noise shall not exceed these noise limits at the property lines of residential and other noise- The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 18 sensitive land uses. Noise associated with HVAC units that are closest to offsite residential uses were calculated and would result in noise levels of 51 dBA as measured at 20 feet from the property line. This is below the City’s noise limit of 55 dBA for residential uses. Compliance with the City’s noise limits would minimize these impacts to less than significant levels. Noise from landscape maintenance, vehicles, and residential activities would be similar to noise currently occurring in other land uses. Noise from landscaping activities are specifically addressed under Municipal Code Section 4630.2. Noise. Gardening and Landscaping. Compliance with these requirements would result in less than significant noise impacts. Noise impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. An assessment of changes in noise levels due to future cumulative traffic conditions and those with the Project over existing conditions was also conducted. Colorado Place near the Project site has approximately 13,559 Average Daily Trips (ADT) (Arcadia 2019). The Project is estimated to generate 562 ADT while the existing motel use generates 346 ADT with a net increase of 216 ADT. The addition of 216 ADT over 13,559 ADT would result in noise increases of less than 1 dBA. A 3 dBA change in noise levels is necessary for human hearing to discern a change in outdoor noise environments (California Department of Transportation 2013). Because the Project would not result in an audible change in noise levels, there would be less than significant impact from traffic noise increases associated with Project generated traffic. Vibration Impacts Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The proposed Project would not generate or expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration from the construction phase. Pile driving, blasting, and vibratory rollers are generally the sources of the most severe vibration during construction. Neither pile driving, vibratory rollers, nor blasting would be used during Project construction. Conventional construction equipment would be used for grading and building construction activities. Table 6 summarizes typical vibration levels measured during construction activities for various vibration- inducing pieces of equipment. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 19 Table 6 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment ppv at 25 ft (in/sec) Pile driver (impact) upper range 1.518 typical 0.644 Pile driver (sonic) upper range 0.734 typical 0.170 Vibratory roller 0.210 Large bulldozer 0.089 Caisson drilling 0.089 Loaded trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small bulldozer 0.003 ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet; in/sec: inches per second. Source: Caltrans 2020; FTA 2018. Grading, and construction would occur up to the property lines and as previously discussed under sensitive receptors, some land uses are relatively close to the property lines. Table 7 shows the vibration annoyance criteria from construction-generated vibration activities proposed at the Project site and the Project related vibration level relative to residences near the Project site. Table 7 Vibration Annoyance Assessment at Nearest Uses Equipment Vibration Level (ppv) Nearest Building to the North of the Project Site Nearest Building to the East of the Project Site Nearest Building to the South of the Project Site Nearest Building to the West of the Project Site 140 feet away 40 feet away 190 feet away 40 feet away Large bulldozer 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Jackhammer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Small bulldozer 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 Loaded trucks 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Maximum 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Annoyance Criteria 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Exceeds Annoyance Criteria? No No No No ppv: Peak Particle Velocity Source: FTA (Calculations can be found in Attachment B). The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 20 As shown in Table 7, vibration decibel levels would not exceed the criteria threshold when construction activities occur under maximum (i.e., closest to the receptor) exposure conditions. Because vibration generated by construction equipment would be below the FTA’s annoyance criteria, impacts for vibration annoyance at the nearest sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Table 8 shows the peak particle velocity levels (ppv) relative to structural damage to sensitive uses from vibration activities. Table 8 Building Damage Assessment at Nearest Uses Equipment Vibration Levels (ppv) Nearest Building to the North of the Project Site Nearest Building to the East of the Project Site Nearest Building to the South of the Project Site Nearest Building to the West of the Project Site 140 feet away 40 feet away 190 feet away 40 feet away Jackhammer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Large bulldozer 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 Small bulldozer 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Loaded trucks 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Maximum 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 Building Damage Criteria 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 Exceeds Building Damage Criteria? No No No No ppv: peak particle velocity. Source: FTA (Calculations can be found in Appendix B). As shown in Table 8, all ppv levels would be below the building damage threshold at the nearest offsite buildings. As such, impacts related to the potential for cosmetic building damage would be less than significant. Aircraft Noise Exposure 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. The Project site is not located 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. The nearest airport to the Project site is the San Gabriel Valley Airport which is located approximately four miles to the south. Therefore, it would not result in exposure of people residing in the Project area to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 21 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts may occur if the Project along with related projects would result in combined impacts to the local area. Construction Noise The Project would be constructed in phases and would occur at various locations within the Project site. Noise associated with construction activities would be located and diminishes substantially within 1,000 feet of a construction site. As such, it is unlikely that other related projects would occur within the same time frame and proximate to the Project site to substantially increase cumulative construction noise. As such, cumulative construction noise impacts would result in less than significant noise impacts. Construction Vibration The Project would generate vibration from construction equipment. Vibration from these activities would dissipate over very short distances of less than 50 feet from each piece of equipment. Construction of related projects would not occur within the same proximity of the Project. As such, cumulative construction impacts related to vibration would result in less than significant impacts. Operations Noise Onsite activities at the Project site are generally localized due to the infrequency of occurrence, the relative low magnitude of noise generated by vehicle travel and loading/unloading activities, as well as the Project buildings acting as sound barriers to offsite uses. As such, noise generated by these activities are localized and the combination of noise generated by offsite uses would be limited by distance and the noise limits identified by the City’s Municipal Code. As such, cumulative noise increases associated with the Project’s onsite uses in conjunction with related projects would result in less than significant noise impacts. As discussed previously, Dale Road would experience a substantial increase in vehicle traffic which would result in a significant cumulative noise impact. Because there would be no practical mitigation measures that would reduce traffic noise increases associated with traffic growth along Dale Avenue, cumulative traffic noise increases would result in unavoidable significant noise impacts. Operations Vibration Vibration generated by onsite operations at the Project would not involve sources of vibration that would result in perceptible levels of vibration at offsite uses. Trucks travelling along local roadways would not result in substantial levels of vibration due to air filled rubber tires unless there are roadway irregularities such as potholes. As such, vibration associated with the Project and related projects would result in less than significant vibration impacts. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Page 22 REFERENCES Arcadia, City. Code of Ordinances. Available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/Arcadia/codes/code_of_ordinances. Arcadia, City. General Plan. 2010. Available at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_ plan.php. Arcadia, City. 2019 Engineering and Traffic Survey. Available at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/Document%20Center/Government/Development%20Services/Engineeri ng/Traffic%20Projects/Traffic%20Volume%20Map%202019.pdf. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). September 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental- analysis/noise-vibration. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). April 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Federal Transit Administration. September 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Appendix A – Noise Measurements SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2025-12-11 16:01:43 User: Location: Western Boundary Job Description: Notes: Meter General Information Model Serial Meter SoundExpert 821 40582 Preamplifier PRM821 Microphone 377B02 Unique File Id 00C:00009E86:69398C00:000021DF Overall Measurement Start Date & Time 2025-12-10 15:04:32 Stop Date & Time 2025-12-11 15:31:27 Run Time 00:26:55 Pre-Calibration Date/Time 2025-12-10 15:03:28 Calibrator Level 114.00 dB Meter Sensitivity -26.31 dB re 1V/Pa Post-Calibration Date/Time 2025-12-11 15:35:02 Calibrator Level 114.00 dB Meter Sensitivity -26.21 dB re 1V/Pa Sensitivity Delta 0.10 dB A C Z Lweq 67.2 71.9 73.0 Lwpk 125.0 dB 123.3 dB 124.7 dB 2025-12-10 15:04:40 2025-12-10 15:04:40 2025-12-10 15:04:40 LwSmin 44.7 dB 57.8 dB 60.8 dB 2025-12-11 11:26:49 2025-12-11 02:14:25 2025-12-11 02:14:25 LwFmin 44.0 dB 56.1 dB 58.2 dB 2025-12-11 11:26:46 2025-12-11 03:36:09 2025-12-11 02:14:50 LwImin 45.7 dB 60.2 dB 63.2 dB 2025-12-11 11:26:53 2025-12-10 23:48:46 2025-12-10 23:54:02 LwSmax 105.8 dB 104.6 dB 104.8 dB 2025-12-11 14:45:53 2025-12-11 14:45:53 2025-12-11 14:45:53 LwFmax 110.1 dB 109.0 dB 109.1 dB 2025-12-11 14:45:53 2025-12-11 14:45:53 2025-12-11 14:45:53 LwImax 111.5 dB 110.3 dB 110.4 dB 2025-12-11 14:45:53 2025-12-11 14:45:53 2025-12-11 14:45:53 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z) Community Noise LDN LDay (07:00-22:00)LNight (22:00-07:00) dB dB dB LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00)LEve (19:00-22:00)LNight (22:00-07:00) dB dB dB dB LCeq - LAeq 4.7 dB LAIeq 71.9 dB Overload Count 0 Overload Duration 00:00:00 A C Z Under Range Peak 50.0 dB 50.0 dB 62.0 dB Under Range Limit 24.0 dB 27.0 dB 37.0 dB Noise Floor 17.0 dB 18.0 dB 25.0 dB Ln Percentiles LAS 5.0 71.6 dB LAS 10.0 69.8 dB LAS 33.3 64.3 dB LAS 50.0 59.1 dB LAS 66.6 55.1 dB LAS 90.0 51.2 dB Exceedances Count Duration LAS > 85.0 dB 10 62 LAS > 95.0 dB 3 12 LCpk > 135.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 137.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 140.0 dB 0 0 Sound Exposure SELA 116.7 dB EA (Pa²s)185.3 Pa²s EA,8 h (Pa²s)60.6 Pa²s EA,40 h (Pa²s)303.2 Pa²s EA (Pa²h)0.1 Pa²h EA,8 h (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h EA,40 h (Pa²h)0.1 Pa²h Powered by Larson Davis SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2025-12-11 13:36:05 User: Location: Eastern Boundary Job Description: Notes: Meter General Information Model Serial Meter SoundExpert 821 40583 Preamplifier PRM821 Microphone 377B02 Unique File Id 00C:00009E87:69398002:00001FA9 Overall Measurement Start Date & Time 2025-12-10 14:13:22 Stop Date & Time 2025-12-10 14:33:38 Run Time 00:20:16 Pre-Calibration Date/Time 2025-12-10 14:12:27 Calibrator Level 114.00 dB Meter Sensitivity -25.74 dB re 1V/Pa Post-Calibration Date/Time 2025-12-10 15:31:13 Calibrator Level 114.00 dB Meter Sensitivity -25.64 dB re 1V/Pa Sensitivity Delta 0.10 dB A C Z Lweq 51.9 63.3 67.4 Lwpk 77.4 dB 83.1 dB 85.2 dB 2025-12-10 14:16:27 2025-12-10 14:14:30 2025-12-10 14:14:52 LwSmin 43.2 dB 58.8 dB 62.9 dB 2025-12-10 14:23:47 2025-12-10 14:23:47 2025-12-10 14:26:00 LwFmin 42.7 dB 57.2 dB 60.4 dB 2025-12-10 14:23:45 2025-12-10 14:19:27 2025-12-10 14:28:16 LwImin 44.3 dB 61.2 dB 65.8 dB 2025-12-10 14:23:47 2025-12-10 14:28:14 2025-12-10 14:28:19 LwSmax 62.4 dB 73.4 dB 74.9 dB 2025-12-10 14:16:27 2025-12-10 14:14:30 2025-12-10 14:29:54 LwFmax 63.7 dB 76.4 dB 79.5 dB 2025-12-10 14:16:27 2025-12-10 14:14:30 2025-12-10 14:29:54 LwImax 70.0 dB 82.7 dB 84.8 dB 2025-12-10 14:13:22 2025-12-10 14:13:22 2025-12-10 14:13:22 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z) Community Noise LDN LDay (07:00-22:00)LNight (22:00-07:00) dB dB --- dB LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00)LEve (19:00-22:00)LNight (22:00-07:00) dB dB --- dB --- dB LCeq - LAeq 11.4 dB LAIeq 54.5 dB Overload Count 0 Overload Duration 00:00:00 A C Z Under Range Peak 50.0 dB 50.0 dB 62.0 dB Under Range Limit 24.0 dB 27.0 dB 37.0 dB Noise Floor 17.0 dB 18.0 dB 25.0 dB Ln Percentiles LAS 5.0 55.9 dB LAS 10.0 54.7 dB LAS 33.3 52.0 dB LAS 50.0 50.6 dB LAS 66.6 49.1 dB LAS 90.0 46.4 dB Exceedances Count Duration LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0 LAS > 95.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 135.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 137.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 140.0 dB 0 0 Sound Exposure SELA 82.7 dB EA (Pa²s)0.1 Pa²s EA,8 h (Pa²s)1.8 Pa²s EA,40 h (Pa²s)8.8 Pa²s EA (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h EA,8 h (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h EA,40 h (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h Powered by Larson Davis SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2025-12-11 13:35:48 User: Location: Northern Boundary Job Description: Notes: Meter General Information Model Serial Meter SoundExpert 821 40583 Preamplifier PRM821 Microphone 377B02 Unique File Id 00C:00009E87:69398519:00001FAE Overall Measurement Start Date & Time 2025-12-10 14:35:05 Stop Date & Time 2025-12-10 14:55:07 Run Time 00:20:02 Pre-Calibration Date/Time 2025-12-10 14:12:27 Calibrator Level 114.00 dB Meter Sensitivity -25.74 dB re 1V/Pa Post-Calibration Date/Time 2025-12-10 15:31:13 Calibrator Level 114.00 dB Meter Sensitivity -25.64 dB re 1V/Pa Sensitivity Delta 0.10 dB A C Z Lweq 59.7 63.4 67.1 Lwpk 92.7 dB 91.3 dB 91.3 dB 2025-12-10 14:35:26 2025-12-10 14:35:26 2025-12-10 14:35:26 LwSmin 43.3 dB 58.0 dB 62.7 dB 2025-12-10 14:54:25 2025-12-10 14:49:57 2025-12-10 14:48:15 LwFmin 42.6 dB 56.0 dB 60.0 dB 2025-12-10 14:52:13 2025-12-10 14:49:26 2025-12-10 14:50:18 LwImin 44.4 dB 60.1 dB 65.7 dB 2025-12-10 14:54:23 2025-12-10 14:49:57 2025-12-10 14:48:31 LwSmax 76.9 dB 76.1 dB 76.6 dB 2025-12-10 14:35:54 2025-12-10 14:35:54 2025-12-10 14:35:54 LwFmax 81.0 dB 79.9 dB 80.3 dB 2025-12-10 14:35:53 2025-12-10 14:35:53 2025-12-10 14:35:53 LwImax 82.8 dB 81.7 dB 83.2 dB 2025-12-10 14:35:26 2025-12-10 14:35:26 2025-12-10 14:53:22 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z) Community Noise LDN LDay (07:00-22:00)LNight (22:00-07:00) dB dB --- dB LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00)LEve (19:00-22:00)LNight (22:00-07:00) dB dB --- dB --- dB LCeq - LAeq 3.8 dB LAIeq 65.4 dB Overload Count 0 Overload Duration 00:00:00 A C Z Under Range Peak 50.0 dB 50.0 dB 62.0 dB Under Range Limit 24.0 dB 27.0 dB 37.0 dB Noise Floor 17.0 dB 18.0 dB 25.0 dB Ln Percentiles LAS 5.0 64.9 dB LAS 10.0 62.4 dB LAS 33.3 58.0 dB LAS 50.0 55.7 dB LAS 66.6 53.7 dB LAS 90.0 48.3 dB Exceedances Count Duration LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0 LAS > 95.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 135.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 137.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 140.0 dB 0 0 Sound Exposure SELA 90.5 dB EA (Pa²s)0.4 Pa²s EA,8 h (Pa²s)10.7 Pa²s EA,40 h (Pa²s)53.6 Pa²s EA (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h EA,8 h (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h EA,40 h (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h Powered by Larson Davis SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2025-12-11 13:35:15 User: Location: Southern Boundary Job Description: Notes: Meter General Information Model Serial Meter SoundExpert 821 40583 Preamplifier PRM821 Microphone 377B02 Unique File Id 00C:00009E87:69398D4A:00001FB3 Overall Measurement Start Date & Time 2025-12-10 15:10:02 Stop Date & Time 2025-12-10 15:30:22 Run Time 00:20:20 Pre-Calibration Date/Time 2025-12-10 14:12:27 Calibrator Level 114.00 dB Meter Sensitivity -25.74 dB re 1V/Pa Post-Calibration Date/Time 2025-12-10 15:31:13 Calibrator Level 114.00 dB Meter Sensitivity -25.64 dB re 1V/Pa Sensitivity Delta 0.10 dB A C Z Lweq 58.5 68.4 70.8 Lwpk 89.2 dB 97.3 dB 97.9 dB 2025-12-10 15:22:54 2025-12-10 15:22:54 2025-12-10 15:22:54 LwSmin 42.2 dB 59.7 dB 63.1 dB 2025-12-10 15:25:18 2025-12-10 15:18:31 2025-12-10 15:18:31 LwFmin 41.5 dB 58.2 dB 61.1 dB 2025-12-10 15:25:17 2025-12-10 15:25:16 2025-12-10 15:18:27 LwImin 43.0 dB 61.8 dB 65.9 dB 2025-12-10 15:25:17 2025-12-10 15:18:31 2025-12-10 15:18:31 LwSmax 73.9 dB 84.5 dB 84.7 dB 2025-12-10 15:22:55 2025-12-10 15:22:55 2025-12-10 15:22:55 LwFmax 78.5 dB 88.8 dB 88.9 dB 2025-12-10 15:22:54 2025-12-10 15:22:55 2025-12-10 15:22:55 LwImax 80.1 dB 89.8 dB 90.0 dB 2025-12-10 15:22:54 2025-12-10 15:22:54 2025-12-10 15:22:54 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z) Community Noise LDN LDay (07:00-22:00)LNight (22:00-07:00) dB dB --- dB LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00)LEve (19:00-22:00)LNight (22:00-07:00) dB dB --- dB --- dB LCeq - LAeq 9.9 dB LAIeq 61.3 dB Overload Count 0 Overload Duration 00:00:00 A C Z Under Range Peak 50.0 dB 50.0 dB 62.0 dB Under Range Limit 24.0 dB 27.0 dB 37.0 dB Noise Floor 17.0 dB 18.0 dB 25.0 dB Ln Percentiles LAS 5.0 63.2 dB LAS 10.0 61.8 dB LAS 33.3 58.9 dB LAS 50.0 57.2 dB LAS 66.6 54.2 dB LAS 90.0 47.4 dB Exceedances Count Duration LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0 LAS > 95.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 135.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 137.0 dB 0 0 LCpk > 140.0 dB 0 0 Sound Exposure SELA 89.4 dB EA (Pa²s)0.3 Pa²s EA,8 h (Pa²s)8.2 Pa²s EA,40 h (Pa²s)41.1 Pa²s EA (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h EA,8 h (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h EA,40 h (Pa²h)0.0 Pa²h Powered by Larson Davis The Colorado Collection Project Noise and Vibration Report January 2026 Appendix B – Noise and Vibration Modeling Results Construction Generated Noise Building Type Domestic Housing Distance (ft) Construction Noise at 50 Feet (dBA Leq)50 Construction Phase All Applicable Equipment in Use1 Ground Clearing/Demolition 83 Excavation 88 Foundation Construction 81 Building Construction 81 Finishing and Site Cleanup 88 Average Construction Noise (dBA Leq)430 Construction Phase All Applicable Equipment in Use1 Ground Clearing/Demolition 60 Excavation (Site Preparation)65 Foundation Construction 58 Building Construction 58 Paving 65 Average Construction Noise (dBA Leq)160 Construction Phase All Applicable Equipment in Use1 Ground Clearing/Demolition 70 Excavation (Site Preparation)75 Foundation Construction 68 Building Construction 68 Paving 75 Average Construction Noise (dBA Leq)450 Construction Phase All Applicable Equipment in Use1 Ground Clearing/Demolition 59 Excavation (Site Preparation)64 Foundation Construction 57 Building Construction 57 Paving 64 Average Construction Noise (dBA Leq)190 Construction Phase All Applicable Equipment in Use1 Ground Clearing/Demolition 69 Excavation (Site Preparation)74 Foundation Construction 67 Building Construction 67 Paving 74 West Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," prepared for the USEPA, December 31, 1971. Based on analysis for Office Building, Hotel, Hospital, School, and Public Works. North East South Construction Generated Vibration North Closest Distance (feet): 140 Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS 66 73.000 Equipment inch/second inch/second Large bulldozer 0.1 0.0 Small bulldozer 0.0 0.0 Jackhammer 0.0 0.0 Loaded trucks 0.1 0.0 Criteria 0.200 1700 East Closest Distance (feet): 40 Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS Velocity at 25 ft,Velocity Level, Equipment inch/second inch/second Large bulldozer 0.1 0.0 Small bulldozer 0.0 0.0 Jackhammer 0.0 0.0 Loaded trucks 0.1 0.0 Criteria 0.200 South Closest Distance (feet): 190 Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS Velocity at 25 ft,Velocity Level, Equipment inch/second inch/second Large bulldozer 0.1 0.0 Small bulldozer 0.0 0.0 Jackhammer 0.0 0.0 Loaded trucks 0.1 0.0 Criteria 0.200 West Closest Distance (feet): 40 Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS Velocity at 25 ft,Velocity Level, Equipment inch/second inch/second Large bulldozer 0.1 0.0 Small bulldozer 0.0 0.0 Jackhammer 0.0 0.0 Loaded trucks 0.1 0.0 Criteria 0.2 Based on distance to nearest structure 1. Determined based on use of jackhammers or pneumatic hammers that may be used for pavement demolition at a distance of 25 feet Notes: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch/second. Source: Based on methodology from the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006). HVAC Noise HVAC At East Project Boundary At North Project Boundary Noise Level Single Unit (dBA Leq @ 1 meter)69 69 Units 7 2 Noise Level Multiple Units (dBA Leq @ 1 meter)77 72 Utilization Factor 100%100% Source Receptor Distance (ft)60 20 Noise Level (dBA Leq)51 56 Barrier Attenuation (dBA)0 -5 Daytime Total Noise Levels (dBA Leq)51 51 City Noise Limit (Daytime)55 55 Exceeds Noise Limit?No No Appendix D Air Quality Data Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 1 / 45 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated 3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated 3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 2 / 45 3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated 3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 3 / 45 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 4 / 45 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 5 / 45 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 6 / 45 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data 8.1. Justifications Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 7 / 45 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name Colorado Collection v2 Construction Start Date 6/1/2026 Operational Year 2028 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)0.50 Precipitation (days)24 Location 34.143227040875985, -118.03959423736757 County Los Angeles-South Coast City Arcadia Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 4922 EDFZ 7 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.35 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Condo/Townhouse 86 Dwelling Unit 3.7 91,160 28,500 —255 — Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 8 / 45 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.32 22 21 0.04 0.86 2.0 2.7 0.79 0.94 1.5 —4,861 4,861 0.22 0.23 3.6 4,939 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.1.3 10 17 0.03 0.38 0.89 1.3 0.35 0.21 0.56 —3,479 3,479 0.15 0.09 0.09 3,510 Average Daily (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.2.0 5.1 7.1 0.01 0.19 0.43 0.62 0.18 0.12 0.29 —1,499 1,499 0.06 0.04 0.60 1,514 Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.36 0.93 1.3 < 0.005 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.05 —248 248 0.01 0.01 0.10 251 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) ————————————————— 2026 2.4 22 21 0.04 0.86 2.0 2.7 0.79 0.94 1.5 —4,861 4,861 0.22 0.23 3.6 4,939 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 9 / 45 2027 32 9.9 17 0.03 0.34 0.89 1.2 0.31 0.21 0.52 —3,501 3,501 0.14 0.09 3.3 3,534 Daily - Winter (Max) ————————————————— 2026 1.3 10 17 0.03 0.38 0.89 1.3 0.35 0.21 0.56 —3,479 3,479 0.15 0.09 0.09 3,510 2027 1.3 10.0 16 0.03 0.34 0.89 1.2 0.31 0.21 0.52 —3,458 3,458 0.12 0.09 0.09 3,488 Average Daily ————————————————— 2026 0.61 5.1 7.1 0.01 0.19 0.43 0.62 0.18 0.12 0.29 —1,499 1,499 0.06 0.04 0.60 1,514 2027 2.0 3.4 5.6 0.01 0.12 0.29 0.41 0.11 0.07 0.18 —1,166 1,166 0.04 0.03 0.47 1,176 Annual ————————————————— 2026 0.11 0.93 1.3 < 0.005 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.05 —248 248 0.01 0.01 0.10 251 2027 0.36 0.63 1.0 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 —193 193 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 195 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.4.5 3.1 22 0.05 0.17 3.9 4.1 0.16 0.99 1.2 40 6,787 6,827 4.4 0.18 12 7,004 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.4.1 3.2 16 0.05 0.16 3.9 4.1 0.16 0.99 1.2 40 6,601 6,641 4.4 0.19 0.95 6,809 Average Daily (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.4.1 2.0 17 0.04 0.07 3.4 3.5 0.07 0.87 0.94 40 4,796 4,837 4.3 0.17 5.1 5,002 Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.75 0.36 3.2 0.01 0.01 0.63 0.64 0.01 0.16 0.17 6.7 794 801 0.72 0.03 0.85 828 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 10 / 45 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 1.9 1.4 16 0.04 0.02 3.9 3.9 0.02 0.99 1.0 —4,174 4,174 0.19 0.16 12 4,239 Area 2.6 1.3 5.4 0.01 0.10 —0.10 0.10 —0.10 0.00 1,552 1,552 0.03 < 0.005 —1,554 Energy 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —1,037 1,037 0.09 0.01 —1,041 Water ——————————6.1 23 29 0.63 0.02 —50 Waste ——————————34 0.00 34 3.4 0.00 —120 Refrig.———————————————0.65 0.65 Total 4.5 3.1 22 0.05 0.17 3.9 4.1 0.16 0.99 1.2 40 6,787 6,827 4.4 0.18 12 7,004 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 1.9 1.5 15 0.04 0.02 3.9 3.9 0.02 0.99 1.0 —4,002 4,002 0.20 0.17 0.30 4,057 Area 2.2 1.2 0.52 0.01 0.10 —0.10 0.10 —0.10 0.00 1,539 1,539 0.03 < 0.005 —1,541 Energy 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —1,037 1,037 0.09 0.01 —1,041 Water ——————————6.1 23 29 0.63 0.02 —50 Waste ——————————34 0.00 34 3.4 0.00 —120 Refrig.———————————————0.65 0.65 Total 4.1 3.2 16 0.05 0.16 3.9 4.1 0.16 0.99 1.2 40 6,601 6,641 4.4 0.19 0.95 6,809 Average Daily ————————————————— Mobile 1.7 1.3 14 0.04 0.02 3.4 3.5 0.02 0.87 0.89 —3,622 3,622 0.18 0.15 4.5 3,676 Area 2.4 0.11 3.4 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.00 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 —114 Energy 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —1,037 1,037 0.09 0.01 —1,041 Water ——————————6.1 23 29 0.63 0.02 —50 Waste ——————————34 0.00 34 3.4 0.00 —120 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 11 / 45 Refrig.———————————————0.65 0.65 Total 4.1 2.0 17 0.04 0.07 3.4 3.5 0.07 0.87 0.94 40 4,796 4,837 4.3 0.17 5.1 5,002 Annual ————————————————— Mobile 0.30 0.25 2.5 0.01 < 0.005 0.63 0.63 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 —600 600 0.03 0.03 0.74 609 Area 0.44 0.02 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 19 19 < 0.005 < 0.005 —19 Energy 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —172 172 0.02 < 0.005 —172 Water ——————————1.0 3.8 4.9 0.10 < 0.005 —8.2 Waste ——————————5.7 0.00 5.7 0.57 0.00 —20 Refrig.———————————————0.11 0.11 Total 0.75 0.36 3.2 0.01 0.01 0.63 0.64 0.01 0.16 0.17 6.7 794 801 0.72 0.03 0.85 828 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 2.3 21 19 0.03 0.84 —0.84 0.78 —0.78 —3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 —3,438 Demoliti on —————0.95 0.95 —0.14 0.14 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 12 / 45 Off-Road Equipment 0.13 1.1 1.0 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.04 —0.04 —188 188 0.01 < 0.005 —188 Demoliti on —————0.05 0.05 —0.01 0.01 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —31 31 < 0.005 < 0.005 —31 Demoliti on —————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.06 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 —203 203 0.01 0.01 0.69 206 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.5 0.58 0.01 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.02 0.09 0.11 —1,231 1,231 0.07 0.20 2.8 1,294 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 —67 67 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 71 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.8 1.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 13 / 45 3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.3 12 15 0.02 0.51 —0.51 0.47 —0.47 —2,540 2,540 0.10 0.02 —2,549 Dust From Material Movement —————1.7 1.7 —0.88 0.88 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.17 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —35 35 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35 Dust From Material Movement —————0.02 0.02 —0.01 0.01 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.8 5.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.8 Dust From Material Movement —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 14 / 45 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.05 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 —169 169 0.01 0.01 0.57 172 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.2 2.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.6 15 17 0.03 0.65 —0.65 0.59 —0.59 —2,960 2,960 0.12 0.02 —2,970 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 15 / 45 Dust From Material Movement —————1.8 1.8 —0.89 0.89 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.04 0.33 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —65 65 < 0.005 < 0.005 —65 Dust From Material Movement —————0.04 0.04 —0.02 0.02 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11 Dust From Material Movement —————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.06 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 —203 203 0.01 0.01 0.69 206 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 16 / 45 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.3 4.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.71 0.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.72 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.1 9.9 13 0.02 0.38 —0.38 0.35 —0.35 —2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 —2,405 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.1 9.9 13 0.02 0.38 —0.38 0.35 —0.35 —2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 —2,405 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 17 / 45 —————————————————Average Daily Off-Road Equipment 0.35 3.2 4.2 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 —774 774 0.03 0.01 —777 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.06 0.58 0.76 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —128 128 0.01 < 0.005 —129 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.23 0.24 4.0 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 —839 839 0.03 0.03 2.8 851 Vendor 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —287 287 0.01 0.04 0.77 300 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.23 0.27 3.4 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 —795 795 0.04 0.03 0.07 805 Vendor 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —287 287 0.01 0.04 0.02 299 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker 0.07 0.09 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 —261 261 0.01 0.01 0.40 264 Vendor < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —93 93 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 97 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 —43 43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 44 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15 15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 18 / 45 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.0 9.4 13 0.02 0.34 —0.34 0.31 —0.31 —2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 —2,405 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.0 9.4 13 0.02 0.34 —0.34 0.31 —0.31 —2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 —2,405 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.32 2.9 4.0 0.01 0.10 —0.10 0.10 —0.10 —741 741 0.03 0.01 —744 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.06 0.53 0.73 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 —123 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 19 / 45 —————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.22 0.21 3.7 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 —823 823 0.03 0.03 2.6 835 Vendor 0.01 0.30 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —281 281 0.01 0.04 0.73 294 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.22 0.27 3.2 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 —780 780 0.01 0.03 0.07 789 Vendor 0.01 0.31 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —281 281 0.01 0.04 0.02 293 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker 0.07 0.08 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —245 245 < 0.005 0.01 0.34 248 Vendor < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —87 87 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 91 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —41 41 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 41 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —14 14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.66 6.1 8.8 0.01 0.24 —0.24 0.22 —0.22 —1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 —1,355 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 20 / 45 Paving 0.00 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.30 0.44 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —67 67 < 0.005 < 0.005 —67 Paving 0.00 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.05 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11 Paving 0.00 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.07 0.07 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 —266 266 0.01 0.01 0.83 270 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13 13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 21 / 45 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.1 2.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.11 0.83 1.1 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Architect ural Coatings 32 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —6.6 6.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.6 Architect ural Coatings 1.6 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 22 / 45 Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.1 1.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.1 Architect ural Coatings 0.29 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 —165 165 0.01 0.01 0.51 167 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.8 7.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.3 1.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 23 / 45 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 1.9 1.4 16 0.04 0.02 3.9 3.9 0.02 0.99 1.0 —4,174 4,174 0.19 0.16 12 4,239 Total 1.9 1.4 16 0.04 0.02 3.9 3.9 0.02 0.99 1.0 —4,174 4,174 0.19 0.16 12 4,239 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 1.9 1.5 15 0.04 0.02 3.9 3.9 0.02 0.99 1.0 —4,002 4,002 0.20 0.17 0.30 4,057 Total 1.9 1.5 15 0.04 0.02 3.9 3.9 0.02 0.99 1.0 —4,002 4,002 0.20 0.17 0.30 4,057 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 0.30 0.25 2.5 0.01 <0.005 0.63 0.63 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 —600 600 0.03 0.03 0.74 609 Total 0.30 0.25 2.5 0.01 < 0.005 0.63 0.63 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 —600 600 0.03 0.03 0.74 609 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 24 / 45 377—< 0.0050.04375375———————————Condo/T ownhous e Total ———————————375 375 0.04 < 0.005 —377 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————375 375 0.04 <0.005 —377 Total ———————————375 375 0.04 < 0.005 —377 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————62 62 0.01 <0.005 —62 Total ———————————62 62 0.01 < 0.005 —62 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 0.03 0.52 0.22 <0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —662 662 0.06 < 0.005 —664 Total 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —662 662 0.06 < 0.005 —664 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 0.03 0.52 0.22 <0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —662 662 0.06 < 0.005 —664 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 25 / 45 Total 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —662 662 0.06 < 0.005 —664 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e 0.01 0.10 0.04 <0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —110 110 0.01 < 0.005 —110 Total 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —110 110 0.01 < 0.005 —110 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Hearths 0.07 1.2 0.52 0.01 0.10 —0.10 0.10 —0.10 0.00 1,539 1,539 0.03 < 0.005 —1,541 Consum er Products 2.0 ———————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.16 ———————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt 0.43 0.05 4.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —13 13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13 Total 2.6 1.3 5.4 0.01 0.10 —0.10 0.10 —0.10 0.00 1,552 1,552 0.03 < 0.005 —1,554 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Hearths 0.07 1.2 0.52 0.01 0.10 —0.10 0.10 —0.10 0.00 1,539 1,539 0.03 < 0.005 —1,541 Consum er Products 2.0 ———————————————— Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 26 / 45 Architect Coatings 0.16 ———————————————— Total 2.2 1.2 0.52 0.01 0.10 —0.10 0.10 —0.10 0.00 1,539 1,539 0.03 < 0.005 —1,541 Annual ————————————————— Hearths < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 17 17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —17 Consum er Products 0.36 ———————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.03 ———————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt 0.05 0.01 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.5 1.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.5 Total 0.44 0.02 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 19 19 < 0.005 < 0.005 —19 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————6.1 23 29 0.63 0.02 —50 Total ——————————6.1 23 29 0.63 0.02 —50 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 27 / 45 50—0.020.6329236.1——————————Condo/T ownhous Total ——————————6.1 23 29 0.63 0.02 —50 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————1.0 3.8 4.9 0.10 <0.005 —8.2 Total ——————————1.0 3.8 4.9 0.10 < 0.005 —8.2 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————34 0.00 34 3.4 0.00 —120 Total ——————————34 0.00 34 3.4 0.00 —120 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————34 0.00 34 3.4 0.00 —120 Total ——————————34 0.00 34 3.4 0.00 —120 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ——————————5.7 0.00 5.7 0.57 0.00 —20 Total ——————————5.7 0.00 5.7 0.57 0.00 —20 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 28 / 45 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————————0.65 0.65 Total ———————————————0.65 0.65 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————————0.65 0.65 Total ———————————————0.65 0.65 Annual ————————————————— Condo/T ownhous e ———————————————0.11 0.11 Total ———————————————0.11 0.11 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 29 / 45 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 30 / 45 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio n ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 31 / 45 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 32 / 45 —————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 6/1/2026 6/29/2026 5.0 20 — Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/30/2026 7/7/2026 5.0 5.0 — Grading Grading 7/8/2026 7/19/2026 5.0 8.0 — Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 33 / 45 Building Construction Building Construction 7/20/2026 6/7/2027 5.0 230 — Paving Paving 6/8/2027 7/3/2027 5.0 18 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/4/2027 7/29/2027 5.0 18 — 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 33 0.73 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 36 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 4.0 8.0 84 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 148 0.41 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 36 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 84 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.0 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 14 0.74 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 46 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 3.0 7.0 84 0.37 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 84 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel Average 2.0 6.0 10.0 0.56 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 34 / 45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 81 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.0 6.0 89 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.0 6.0 36 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.0 37 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition Worker 15 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —10 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 18 20 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT Site Preparation Worker 13 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor —10 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading Worker 15 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor —10 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction Worker 62 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 9.2 10 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT Paving Worker 20 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor —10 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 35 / 45 Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating Worker 12 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor —10 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Architectural Coating 184,599 61,533 0.00 0.00 — 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Building Square Footage) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 31,396 0.00 Site Preparation ——2.5 0.00 0.00 Grading ——8.0 0.00 0.00 Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74%74% Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 36 / 45 Water Demolished Area 2 36%36% 5.7. Construction Paving Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Paving Condo/Townhouse —0% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 562 625 482 204,170 4,938 5,498 4,243 1,795,421 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)Mitigated (number) Condo/Townhouse Wood Fireplaces 0 0 Condo/Townhouse Gas Fireplaces 73 73 Condo/Townhouse Propane Fireplaces 0 0 Condo/Townhouse Electric Fireplaces 0 0 Condo/Townhouse No Fireplaces 9 9 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 37 / 45 Condo/Townhouse Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0 Condo/Townhouse Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0 Condo/Townhouse Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0 Condo/Townhouse Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings —Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) undefined 184,599 61,533 0.00 0.00 — 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 250 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 394,926 346 0.0330 0.0040 2,066,611 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 3,205,547 488,523 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 38 / 45 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Condo/Townhouse 64 0.00 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10.0 Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 39 / 45 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 26 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 9.2 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth Wildfire 17 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 40 / 45 Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3.Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 41 / 45 Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4.Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 85 AQ-PM 71 AQ-DPM 58 Drinking Water 74 Lead Risk Housing 54 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 70 Traffic 80 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 75 Groundwater 0.00 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 60 Impaired Water Bodies 0.00 Solid Waste 70 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 42 / 45 Sensitive Population — Asthma 6.0 Cardio-vascular 7.5 Low Birth Weights 7.3 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 43 Housing 10 Linguistic 80 Poverty 28 Unemployment 46 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 84.3320929 Employed 68.92082638 Median HI 57.88528166 Education — Bachelor's or higher 80.67496471 High school enrollment 100 Preschool enrollment 84.88387014 Transportation — Auto Access 70.20402926 Active commuting 5.915565251 Social — 2-parent households 35.26241499 Voting 21.00603105 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 43 / 45 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 87.47593995 Park access 34.12036443 Retail density 39.49698447 Supermarket access 46.73424868 Tree canopy 66.75221352 Housing — Homeownership 46.75991274 Housing habitability 43.07712049 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 33.1707943 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 70.48633389 Uncrowded housing 63.4800462 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 52.11086873 Arthritis 0.0 Asthma ER Admissions 94.2 High Blood Pressure 0.0 Cancer (excluding skin)0.0 Asthma 0.0 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0 Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 97.0 Cognitively Disabled 87.2 Physically Disabled 80.2 Heart Attack ER Admissions 84.0 Mental Health Not Good 0.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 44 / 45 Obesity 0.0 Pedestrian Injuries 97.1 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 84.9 Elderly 16.5 English Speaking 18.2 Foreign-born 95.7 Outdoor Workers 60.7 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 34.1 Traffic Density 80.4 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 23.2 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 20.4 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)30 Colorado Collection v2 Detailed Report, 12/19/2025 45 / 45 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)65 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data 8.1. Justifications Screen Justification Land Use acreage based on project description Construction: Off-Road Equipment site preparation for clearing and grubbing is minimal due to developed site Operations: Vehicle Data trip rate based on traffic study Operations: Hearths no wood stoves and fire places Appendix E Hydrology and LID Reports PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS REPORT TTM 84968 Colorado Connection City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles Project Address: 201 Colorado Place City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles Prepared For: MW Investment Group 27702 Crown Valley Parkway, Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Contact: Matthew Waken (626) 710-6377 Prepared By: C&V Consulting, Inc. 9830 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Contact: Dane P. McDougall, P.E., President/ CFO (949) 916-3800 Prepared: September 2025 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Report For Tentative Tract Map 84968 Colorado Connection Acknowledgement and Signature Page This Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Report was prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc. under the supervision of Dane P. McDougall, P.E. ___________________________________________ _________________ Dane P. McDougall, P.E. 80705 Date C&V Consulting, Inc. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................... 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 1 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 2 IV. PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 2 V. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 3 VI. DESIGN ASSUMPTION ....................................................................................................... 3 VII. HYDROLOGY RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 4 Hydrology Summary ........................................................................................................... 4 VIII. HYDRAULIC RESULT ......................................................................................................... 5 Catch Basin Inlet Capacity Sizing ...................................................................................... 5 Pipe Sizing .......................................................................................................................... 5 Parkway Culvert Sizing ...................................................................................................... 5 100-Year Water Surface Elevation (WSE) ......................................................................... 5 IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 6 X. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A MAPS AND EXHIBITS APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Existing Conditions – HydroCalc Outputs Proposed Conditions – HydroCalc Outputs APPENDIX C HYDRAULICS ANALYSIS Inlet Sizing / Water Surface Elevation Analysis Pipe Sizing – WSPG Parkway Culvert Sizing APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX E REFERENCE MATERIALS Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 1 | P a g e I. Purpose This hydrology and hydraulics study anticipates whether detention or other peak flow mitigation methods will be required by comparing the development’s proposed conditions to existing conditions peak flow rates for the 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events. This study provides quantitative information to verify the adequacy of the proposed storm drain infrastructure design, which fulfills the hydrologic methodology of the project site. The values and statements within the study confirm the subject site is designed and planned in accordance with the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual and the City of Arcadia drainage requirements. II. Site Description The proposed project site is located at 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, California (APN 5775-011-032). It is comprised of 3.69 acres. The site is bounded by Colorado Place to the West, San Juan Drive to the south, Santa Rosa Road to the east, and a Private Elementary/ Junior High School to the north. There is an existing LA County Flood Control Channel along the eastern property line as well. According to as built plans, the channel continues underground, south through the middle of the site. Refer to Appendix A for additional information on site location. According to the federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM rate map number 06037C1400F, effective date September 26, 2008, the site is located within flood Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 2 | P a g e III. Existing Conditions The existing site is currently occupied by a commercial building, an associated parking lot, and a hotel and associated parking lot. It is a relatively flat site with elevations ranging between 487 feet to 482 feet above mean sea level. Drainage from the site is generally divided into two areas. The topography of the northern (hotel) portion of the site shows runoff flowing away from the building into the existing parking lot. There is an existing valley gutter that conveys flows to an existing catch basin at the southern end of the parking lot. It is assumed that the catch basin conveys flows into the Arcadia Wash adjacent to the site. The topography of the southern portion of the site shows runoff flowing overland from the north to the southeast property line. Runoff discharges from the site via the existing driveway that outlets onto San Juan Drive. From San Juan Drive, runoff flows southwest in curb and gutter and crosses San Juan Drive going south in an existing valley gutter. Runoff continues in the existing curb and gutter in Colorado place for approximately 530’ south before entering a city owned Catch Basin. It is assumed that the catch basin from the northern portion of the site and the catch basin in Colorado Place both discharge into the Arcadia Wash – East Branch. From here, the captured stormwater travels south to confluence at Arcadia Wash – Main Branch which then drains to the Rio Hondo Channel. Rio Hondo Channel travels southeast before draining to the existing Los Angeles River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro Bay. Refer to the Existing Conditions Hydrology Maps located within Appendix D. IV. Proposed Conditions The development proposes to construct fourteen (14) multi-family residential buildings consisting of eighty-six (86) units with private garages, private drive aisles, sidewalks, guest parking areas, and common landscaped areas. The project site will be accessible via an entrance/exit along Colorado Place and secondary entrance/ exit along Santa Rosa Road. The proposed residential development has been divided into two Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) and the grading is designed to collect and convey stormwater runoff in the proposed drive aisles within the proposed curb and gutter to proposed catch basins and an underground private storm drain system. The storm drain systems will direct stormwater runoff to a proposed Infiltration Trench System in the DMA to promote subsurface infiltration of the entire Storm Water Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Each DMA will have its own infiltration Trench System. The Infiltration Trench System has been designed to capture 100% of the Storm Water Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) and infiltrate that volume over a maximum drawdown time of 72 hours. Once the system has reached capacity, stormwater runoff will overflow through an underground storm drain pipe into a parkway culvert into the Public Right of Way. Refer to the Proposed Conditions Hydrology Maps located within Appendix D. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 3 | P a g e V. Methodology The site was analyzed using the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. The initial subarea was analyzed for acreage, land-use, soil type, peak flow rate and time of concentration according to the Rational Method described in the manual. Drainage management areas are delineated for each proposed inlet. Onsite conditions impervious area percentage values were analyzed with an 86% impervious based selected land use per Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. In accordance with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual all habitable structures must have a finished floor elevation to allow 1 ft of freeboard during the 100- year storm event. Catch basin sizing and the 100-year water surface elevation calculation has been provided in Appendix E. VI. Design Assumption 1. The property is in the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County rainfall region. 2. According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual 50- Year 24-Hour Isohyet Map 1-H1.30, the drainage area is in Soil Group 007, the site receives 7.8 inches of rainfall over a 24-Hr storm (Q50). 3. The LACDPW HydroCalc was utilized to determine the time of concentration, run-off peak flow rate for site. 4. The site was analyzed for the 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events per the requirements of the January 2006 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. The Rational Method Analysis was performed, and the appropriate calculations are provided herein. 5. 100-year storm event flood level protection analysis required for habitable structures per the requirements of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 4 | P a g e VII. Hydrology Results A summary of the project site’s existing and proposed conditions peak runoff values generated from the project site has been provided below. Hydrology Summary Existing conditions generated runoff peak flowrate summary: Pre-Development Conditions Area (ac) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) DMA X1 2.39 7.13 8.86 10.02 DMA X2 1.31 4.63 5.32 6.01 Total 3.7 11.76 14.18 16.03 Proposed conditions onsite generated runoff peak flowrate for the confluence outlets summary: Post Development Conditions Area (ac) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) DMA P1 2.62 7.47 9.14 10.30 DMA P2 1.08 3.88 4.44 5.00 Total 3.7 11.35 13.58 15.30 Refer to Appendix B of this report for additional information. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 5 | P a g e VIII. Hydraulic Result Catch Basin Inlet Capacity Sizing The onsite inlets will be sized during final engineering to fully intercept its onsite tributary area generated runoff during the 25-year storm event. Pipe Sizing Onsite storm drainage pipes will be sized for 25-year frequency storm event. The Qs are developed from pro-rating the flow generated in hydrology analysis. Pipes are sized to flow in an open flow condition. A 4” pipe is the minimum size and used for single yard drains. A 6” pipe size will collect multiple yard drains. Pipe sizes 18” and larger are considered the mainline drainage pipes that are used to convey run-off to the proposed infiltration system. Since all pipes are sized for open flow WSPG hydraulic pressure analysis is not warranted. Instead, Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 6 | P a g e IX. Conclusion The result from this hydrology study demonstrates that the overall proposed development condition will generate a slightly lower peak runoff flowrates for the 25-, 50-, and 100-year storm event than the existing condition. An infiltration system is provided for water quality treatment which will also assist in reducing the peak flow runoff even further. Refer to separate LID report for additional information regarding the infiltration system. The proposed project will have no hydrologic or hydraulic impacts on the existing downstream drainage facilities. In cases of higher storm event, runoff will overflow through two (2) proposed parkway drains and into Santa Rosa Road and Colorado Place following the existing drainage pattern. X. References 1. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, “Hydrology Manual”, January 2006. 2. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, “HydroCalc” Outputs and Data 3. Hydraulic Toolbox 5.0. Federal Highways Administration. Build: 21 Aug 2021 4. Hydraflow Express Extensions for Civil 3D 2021. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles APPENDIX A Maps and Exhibits Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles A.1 – Vicinity Map Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................... 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 1 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 2 IV. PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 2 V. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 3 VI. DESIGN ASSUMPTION ....................................................................................................... 3 VII. HYDROLOGY RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 4 Hydrology Summary ........................................................................................................... 4 VIII. HYDRAULIC RESULT ......................................................................................................... 5 Catch Basin Inlet Capacity Sizing ...................................................................................... 5 Pipe Sizing .......................................................................................................................... 5 Parkway Culvert Sizing ...................................................................................................... 5 100-Year Water Surface Elevation (WSE) ......................................................................... 5 IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 6 X. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A MAPS AND EXHIBITS APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Existing Conditions – HydroCalc Outputs Proposed Conditions – HydroCalc Outputs APPENDIX C HYDRAULICS ANALYSIS Inlet Sizing / Water Surface Elevation Analysis Pipe Sizing – WSPG Parkway Culvert Sizing APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX E REFERENCE MATERIALS Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 1 | P a g e I. Purpose This hydrology and hydraulics study anticipates whether detention or other peak flow mitigation methods will be required by comparing the development’s proposed conditions to existing conditions peak flow rates for the 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events. This study provides quantitative information to verify the adequacy of the proposed storm drain infrastructure design, which fulfills the hydrologic methodology of the project site. The values and statements within the study confirm the subject site is designed and planned in accordance with the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual and the City of Arcadia drainage requirements. II. Site Description The proposed project site is located at 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, California (APN 5775-011-032). It is comprised of 3.69 acres. The site is bounded by Colorado Place to the West, San Juan Drive to the south, Santa Rosa Road to the east, and a Private Elementary/ Junior High School to the north. There is an existing LA County Flood Control Channel along the eastern property line as well. According to as built plans, the channel continues underground, south through the middle of the site. Refer to Appendix A for additional information on site location. According to the federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM rate map number 06037C1400F, effective date September 26, 2008, the site is located within flood Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 2 | P a g e III. Existing Conditions The existing site is currently occupied by a commercial building, an associated parking lot, and a hotel and associated parking lot. It is a relatively flat site with elevations ranging between 487 feet to 482 feet above mean sea level. Drainage from the site is generally divided into two areas. The topography of the northern (hotel) portion of the site shows runoff flowing away from the building into the existing parking lot. There is an existing valley gutter that conveys flows to an existing catch basin at the southern end of the parking lot. It is assumed that the catch basin conveys flows into the Arcadia Wash adjacent to the site. The topography of the southern portion of the site shows runoff flowing overland from the north to the southeast property line. Runoff discharges from the site via the existing driveway that outlets onto San Juan Drive. From San Juan Drive, runoff flows southwest in curb and gutter and crosses San Juan Drive going south in an existing valley gutter. Runoff continues in the existing curb and gutter in Colorado place for approximately 530’ south before entering a city owned Catch Basin. It is assumed that the catch basin from the northern portion of the site and the catch basin in Colorado Place both discharge into the Arcadia Wash – East Branch. From here, the captured stormwater travels south to confluence at Arcadia Wash – Main Branch which then drains to the Rio Hondo Channel. Rio Hondo Channel travels southeast before draining to the existing Los Angeles River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro Bay. Refer to the Existing Conditions Hydrology Maps located within Appendix D. IV. Proposed Conditions The development proposes to construct fourteen (14) multi-family residential buildings consisting of eighty-six (86) units with private garages, private drive aisles, sidewalks, guest parking areas, and common landscaped areas. The project site will be accessible via an entrance/exit along Colorado Place and secondary entrance/ exit along Santa Rosa Road. The proposed residential development has been divided into two Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) and the grading is designed to collect and convey stormwater runoff in the proposed drive aisles within the proposed curb and gutter to proposed catch basins and an underground private storm drain system. The storm drain systems will direct stormwater runoff to a proposed Infiltration Trench System in the DMA to promote subsurface infiltration of the entire Storm Water Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Each DMA will have its own infiltration Trench System. The Infiltration Trench System has been designed to capture 100% of the Storm Water Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) and infiltrate that volume over a maximum drawdown time of 72 hours. Once the system has reached capacity, stormwater runoff will overflow through an underground storm drain pipe into a parkway culvert into the Public Right of Way. Refer to the Proposed Conditions Hydrology Maps located within Appendix D. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 3 | P a g e V. Methodology The site was analyzed using the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. The initial subarea was analyzed for acreage, land-use, soil type, peak flow rate and time of concentration according to the Rational Method described in the manual. Drainage management areas are delineated for each proposed inlet. Onsite conditions impervious area percentage values were analyzed with an 86% impervious based selected land use per Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. In accordance with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual all habitable structures must have a finished floor elevation to allow 1 ft of freeboard during the 100- year storm event. Catch basin sizing and the 100-year water surface elevation calculation has been provided in Appendix E. VI. Design Assumption 1. The property is in the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County rainfall region. 2. According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual 50- Year 24-Hour Isohyet Map 1-H1.30, the drainage area is in Soil Group 007, the site receives 7.8 inches of rainfall over a 24-Hr storm (Q50). 3. The LACDPW HydroCalc was utilized to determine the time of concentration, run-off peak flow rate for site. 4. The site was analyzed for the 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events per the requirements of the January 2006 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. The Rational Method Analysis was performed, and the appropriate calculations are provided herein. 5. 100-year storm event flood level protection analysis required for habitable structures per the requirements of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 4 | P a g e VII. Hydrology Results A summary of the project site’s existing and proposed conditions peak runoff values generated from the project site has been provided below. Hydrology Summary Existing conditions generated runoff peak flowrate summary: Pre-Development Conditions Area (ac) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) DMA X1 2.39 7.13 8.86 10.02 DMA X2 1.31 4.63 5.32 6.01 Total 3.7 11.76 14.18 16.03 Proposed conditions onsite generated runoff peak flowrate for the confluence outlets summary: Post Development Conditions Area (ac) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) DMA P1 2.62 7.47 9.14 10.30 DMA P2 1.08 3.88 4.44 5.00 Total 3.7 11.35 13.58 15.30 Refer to Appendix B of this report for additional information. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 5 | P a g e VIII. Hydraulic Result Catch Basin Inlet Capacity Sizing The onsite inlets will be sized during final engineering to fully intercept its onsite tributary area generated runoff during the 25-year storm event. Pipe Sizing Onsite storm drainage pipes will be sized for 25-year frequency storm event. The Qs are developed from pro-rating the flow generated in hydrology analysis. Pipes are sized to flow in an open flow condition. A 4” pipe is the minimum size and used for single yard drains. A 6” pipe size will collect multiple yard drains. Pipe sizes 18” and larger are considered the mainline drainage pipes that are used to convey run-off to the proposed infiltration system. Since all pipes are sized for open flow WSPG hydraulic pressure analysis is not warranted. Instead, Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 6 | P a g e IX. Conclusion The result from this hydrology study demonstrates that the overall proposed development condition will generate a slightly lower peak runoff flowrates for the 25-, 50-, and 100-year storm event than the existing condition. An infiltration system is provided for water quality treatment which will also assist in reducing the peak flow runoff even further. Refer to separate LID report for additional information regarding the infiltration system. The proposed project will have no hydrologic or hydraulic impacts on the existing downstream drainage facilities. In cases of higher storm event, runoff will overflow through two (2) proposed parkway drains and into Santa Rosa Road and Colorado Place following the existing drainage pattern. X. References 1. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, “Hydrology Manual”, January 2006. 2. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, “HydroCalc” Outputs and Data 3. Hydraulic Toolbox 5.0. Federal Highways Administration. Build: 21 Aug 2021 4. Hydraflow Express Extensions for Civil 3D 2021. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles APPENDIX A Maps and Exhibits Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles A.1 – Vicinity Map Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................... 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 1 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 2 IV. PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 2 V. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 3 VI. DESIGN ASSUMPTION ....................................................................................................... 3 VII. HYDROLOGY RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 4 Hydrology Summary ........................................................................................................... 4 VIII. HYDRAULIC RESULT ......................................................................................................... 5 Catch Basin Inlet Capacity Sizing ...................................................................................... 5 Pipe Sizing .......................................................................................................................... 5 Parkway Culvert Sizing ...................................................................................................... 5 100-Year Water Surface Elevation (WSE) ......................................................................... 5 IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 6 X. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A MAPS AND EXHIBITS APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Existing Conditions – HydroCalc Outputs Proposed Conditions – HydroCalc Outputs APPENDIX C HYDRAULICS ANALYSIS Inlet Sizing / Water Surface Elevation Analysis Pipe Sizing – WSPG Parkway Culvert Sizing APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX E REFERENCE MATERIALS Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 1 | P a g e I. Purpose This hydrology and hydraulics study anticipates whether detention or other peak flow mitigation methods will be required by comparing the development’s proposed conditions to existing conditions peak flow rates for the 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events. This study provides quantitative information to verify the adequacy of the proposed storm drain infrastructure design, which fulfills the hydrologic methodology of the project site. The values and statements within the study confirm the subject site is designed and planned in accordance with the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual and the City of Arcadia drainage requirements. II. Site Description The proposed project site is located at 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, California (APN 5775-011-032). It is comprised of 3.69 acres. The site is bounded by Colorado Place to the West, San Juan Drive to the south, Santa Rosa Road to the east, and a Private Elementary/ Junior High School to the north. There is an existing LA County Flood Control Channel along the eastern property line as well. According to as built plans, the channel continues underground, south through the middle of the site. Refer to Appendix A for additional information on site location. According to the federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM rate map number 06037C1400F, effective date September 26, 2008, the site is located within flood Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 2 | P a g e III. Existing Conditions The existing site is currently occupied by a commercial building, an associated parking lot, and a hotel and associated parking lot. It is a relatively flat site with elevations ranging between 487 feet to 482 feet above mean sea level. Drainage from the site is generally divided into two areas. The topography of the northern (hotel) portion of the site shows runoff flowing away from the building into the existing parking lot. There is an existing valley gutter that conveys flows to an existing catch basin at the southern end of the parking lot. It is assumed that the catch basin conveys flows into the Arcadia Wash adjacent to the site. The topography of the southern portion of the site shows runoff flowing overland from the north to the southeast property line. Runoff discharges from the site via the existing driveway that outlets onto San Juan Drive. From San Juan Drive, runoff flows southwest in curb and gutter and crosses San Juan Drive going south in an existing valley gutter. Runoff continues in the existing curb and gutter in Colorado place for approximately 530’ south before entering a city owned Catch Basin. It is assumed that the catch basin from the northern portion of the site and the catch basin in Colorado Place both discharge into the Arcadia Wash – East Branch. From here, the captured stormwater travels south to confluence at Arcadia Wash – Main Branch which then drains to the Rio Hondo Channel. Rio Hondo Channel travels southeast before draining to the existing Los Angeles River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro Bay. Refer to the Existing Conditions Hydrology Maps located within Appendix D. IV. Proposed Conditions The development proposes to construct fourteen (14) multi-family residential buildings consisting of eighty-six (86) units with private garages, private drive aisles, sidewalks, guest parking areas, and common landscaped areas. The project site will be accessible via an entrance/exit along Colorado Place and secondary entrance/ exit along Santa Rosa Road. The proposed residential development has been divided into two Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) and the grading is designed to collect and convey stormwater runoff in the proposed drive aisles within the proposed curb and gutter to proposed catch basins and an underground private storm drain system. The storm drain systems will direct stormwater runoff to a proposed Infiltration Trench System in the DMA to promote subsurface infiltration of the entire Storm Water Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Each DMA will have its own infiltration Trench System. The Infiltration Trench System has been designed to capture 100% of the Storm Water Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) and infiltrate that volume over a maximum drawdown time of 72 hours. Once the system has reached capacity, stormwater runoff will overflow through an underground storm drain pipe into a parkway culvert into the Public Right of Way. Refer to the Proposed Conditions Hydrology Maps located within Appendix D. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 3 | P a g e V. Methodology The site was analyzed using the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. The initial subarea was analyzed for acreage, land-use, soil type, peak flow rate and time of concentration according to the Rational Method described in the manual. Drainage management areas are delineated for each proposed inlet. Onsite conditions impervious area percentage values were analyzed with an 86% impervious based selected land use per Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. In accordance with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual all habitable structures must have a finished floor elevation to allow 1 ft of freeboard during the 100- year storm event. Catch basin sizing and the 100-year water surface elevation calculation has been provided in Appendix E. VI. Design Assumption 1. The property is in the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County rainfall region. 2. According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual 50- Year 24-Hour Isohyet Map 1-H1.30, the drainage area is in Soil Group 007, the site receives 7.8 inches of rainfall over a 24-Hr storm (Q50). 3. The LACDPW HydroCalc was utilized to determine the time of concentration, run-off peak flow rate for site. 4. The site was analyzed for the 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events per the requirements of the January 2006 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. The Rational Method Analysis was performed, and the appropriate calculations are provided herein. 5. 100-year storm event flood level protection analysis required for habitable structures per the requirements of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 4 | P a g e VII. Hydrology Results A summary of the project site’s existing and proposed conditions peak runoff values generated from the project site has been provided below. Hydrology Summary Existing conditions generated runoff peak flowrate summary: Pre-Development Conditions Area (ac) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) DMA X1 2.39 7.13 8.86 10.02 DMA X2 1.31 4.63 5.32 6.01 Total 3.7 11.76 14.18 16.03 Proposed conditions onsite generated runoff peak flowrate for the confluence outlets summary: Post Development Conditions Area (ac) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) DMA P1 2.62 7.47 9.14 10.30 DMA P2 1.08 3.88 4.44 5.00 Total 3.7 11.35 13.58 15.30 Refer to Appendix B of this report for additional information. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 5 | P a g e VIII. Hydraulic Result Catch Basin Inlet Capacity Sizing The onsite inlets will be sized during final engineering to fully intercept its onsite tributary area generated runoff during the 25-year storm event. Pipe Sizing Onsite storm drainage pipes will be sized for 25-year frequency storm event. The Qs are developed from pro-rating the flow generated in hydrology analysis. Pipes are sized to flow in an open flow condition. A 4” pipe is the minimum size and used for single yard drains. A 6” pipe size will collect multiple yard drains. Pipe sizes 18” and larger are considered the mainline drainage pipes that are used to convey run-off to the proposed infiltration system. Since all pipes are sized for open flow WSPG hydraulic pressure analysis is not warranted. Instead, Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 6 | P a g e IX. Conclusion The result from this hydrology study demonstrates that the overall proposed development condition will generate a slightly lower peak runoff flowrates for the 25-, 50-, and 100-year storm event than the existing condition. An infiltration system is provided for water quality treatment which will also assist in reducing the peak flow runoff even further. Refer to separate LID report for additional information regarding the infiltration system. The proposed project will have no hydrologic or hydraulic impacts on the existing downstream drainage facilities. In cases of higher storm event, runoff will overflow through two (2) proposed parkway drains and into Santa Rosa Road and Colorado Place following the existing drainage pattern. X. References 1. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, “Hydrology Manual”, January 2006. 2. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, “HydroCalc” Outputs and Data 3. Hydraulic Toolbox 5.0. Federal Highways Administration. Build: 21 Aug 2021 4. Hydraflow Express Extensions for Civil 3D 2021. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles APPENDIX A Maps and Exhibits Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles A.1 – Vicinity Map Vicinity Map Not to Scale Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles A.2 – Existing Conditions Hydrology Map STOP 1" = 30' 0 15 30 60 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles A.3 – Proposed Conditions Hydrology Map TR A S H RE C Y C L E 64 G 64 G UP16R UP16R WH WH UP16R UP16R WH T R A S H R E C Y C L E TR A S H RE C Y C L E WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WHWHWHWHWH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH W H W H WH WH WH WHWH WH WH UP16R UP 16R WH WH WH UP 16 R UP 16 R WH UP16R UP16R UP16R UP16R WH WHWHWHWHWH WH STOP 1" = 30' 0 15 30 60 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles A.4 – Mount Wilson 50-year 24-hour Isohyet Map PROJECT SITE Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles A.5 – FEMA Flood Map National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 3/17/2025 at 11:11 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 118°2'38"W 34°8'46"N 118°2'1"W 34°8'16"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles APPENDIX B Hydrology Calculations Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles A.1 - Existing Conditions – HydroCalc Outputs Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/X1-Q25.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID X1 Area (ac)2.39 Flow Path Length (ft)585.93 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0119 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.77 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)6.8484 Peak Intensity (in/hr)3.4883 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.7035 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.8548 Time of Concentration (min)7.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)7.1266 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)7.1266 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)0.9857 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)42935.1368 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/X1-Q50.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID X1 Area (ac)2.39 Flow Path Length (ft)585.93 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0119 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.77 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Peak Intensity (in/hr)4.2715 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.761 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.868 Time of Concentration (min)6.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)8.8618 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)8.8618 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)1.1261 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)49052.075 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/X1-Q100.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID X1 Area (ac)2.39 Flow Path Length (ft)585.93 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0119 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.77 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 100-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)8.7516 Peak Intensity (in/hr)4.7926 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.7902 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.8747 Time of Concentration (min)6.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)10.0196 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)10.0196 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)1.2672 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)55199.9844 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/X2-Q25.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID X2 Area (ac)1.31 Flow Path Length (ft)332.24 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0166 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.77 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)6.8484 Peak Intensity (in/hr)4.0859 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.7507 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.8657 Time of Concentration (min)5.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)4.6335 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)4.6335 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)0.5404 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)23539.3306 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/X2-Q50.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID X2 Area (ac)1.31 Flow Path Length (ft)332.24 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0166 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.77 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Peak Intensity (in/hr)4.6537 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.7824 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.873 Time of Concentration (min)5.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)5.3218 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)5.3218 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)0.6173 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)26888.8189 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/X2-Q100.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID X2 Area (ac)1.31 Flow Path Length (ft)332.24 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0166 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.77 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 100-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)8.7516 Peak Intensity (in/hr)5.2214 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.8091 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.8791 Time of Concentration (min)5.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)6.013 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)6.013 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)0.6946 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)30258.856 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles A.2 - Proposed Conditions – HydroCalc Outputs Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/P1-Q50.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID P1 Area (ac)2.62 Flow Path Length (ft)660.89 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0087 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.86 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)6.8484 Peak Intensity (in/hr)3.2761 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.686 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.87 Time of Concentration (min)8.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)7.4679 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)7.4679 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)1.1799 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)51395.2328 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/P1-Q50.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID P1 Area (ac)2.62 Flow Path Length (ft)660.89 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0087 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.86 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Peak Intensity (in/hr)3.973 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.7436 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.8781 Time of Concentration (min)7.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)9.1404 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)9.1404 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)1.3461 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)58637.0772 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/P1-Q100.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID P1 Area (ac)2.62 Flow Path Length (ft)660.89 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0087 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.86 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 100-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)8.7516 Peak Intensity (in/hr)4.4577 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.7714 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.882 Time of Concentration (min)7.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)10.3011 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)10.3011 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)1.5129 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)65900.3861 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/P2-Q25.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID P2 Area (ac)1.08 Flow Path Length (ft)285.53 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.016 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.86 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)6.8484 Peak Intensity (in/hr)4.0859 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.7507 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.8791 Time of Concentration (min)5.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)3.8793 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)3.8793 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)0.4865 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)21189.8241 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/P2-Q50.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID P2 Area (ac)1.08 Flow Path Length (ft)285.53 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.016 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.86 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Peak Intensity (in/hr)4.6537 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.7824 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.8835 Time of Concentration (min)5.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)4.4406 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)4.4406 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)0.555 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)24173.6632 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/Hydrology/P2-Q100.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID P2 Area (ac)1.08 Flow Path Length (ft)285.53 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.016 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)7.8 Percent Impervious 0.86 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 100-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)8.7516 Peak Intensity (in/hr)5.2214 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.8091 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.8873 Time of Concentration (min)5.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)5.0035 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)5.0035 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)0.6237 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)27167.8143 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles APPENDIX C Hydraulics Analysis – to be provided during final engineering Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles C.1 - Inlet Sizing / Water Surface Elevation Analysis Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles C.2 - Pipe Sizing – WSPG Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles C.3 - Parkway Culvert Sizing Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles APPENDIX D Geotechnical Report 131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com June 26, 2025 Project No. 25041-01 Mr. Matthew J. Waken Crestfield Townhomes, LLC 27702 Crown Valley Parkway, Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations, Proposed Residential Development, Located at 225 Colorado Place (Motel 6) and 201 Colorado Place, Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development, located at 225 Colorado Place (Motel 6) and 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the existing onsite geotechnical conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed residential development. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully Submitted, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. Ryan Douglas, PE, GE 3147 Mason Gonzales, PG 10174 Vice President of Engineering Project Geologist John Navarrete Senior Staff Engineer RLD/JMN/amm Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic copy) Project No. 25041-01 Page i June 26, 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation ............................................................................................... 3 1.4 Field Infiltration Testing ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Regional Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Site-Specific Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions ............................................... 6 2.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Faulting ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement .............................................................................. 9 2.5.2 Lateral Spreading .................................................................................................................... 10 2.6 Oversized Material ................................................................................................................................ 10 2.7 Expansion Potential .............................................................................................................................. 10 3.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 11 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 12 4.1 Site Earthwork ....................................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.1 Site Preparation ....................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction Depths and Limits .......................................................... 13 4.1.3 Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................................... 14 4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation .............................................................. 15 4.1.5 Material for Fill ........................................................................................................................ 15 4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills ................................................................................... 16 4.1.7 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction ................................................. 16 4.1.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence .................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ............................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design Parameters .................................... 18 4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters ............................... 18 4.2.3 Post-Tensioned Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance ............. 18 4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines .......................................................................................... 19 4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance .............................................................................................. 20 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls .............................................................................. 20 4.5 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control ......................................................................... 22 4.6 Subsurface Water Infiltration ........................................................................................................... 23 4.7 Preliminary Asphalt Pavement Sections .................................................................................... 25 4.8 Soil Corrosivity ....................................................................................................................................... 26 4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................... 27 4.10 Geotechnical Plan Review .................................................................................................................. 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d) Project No. 25041-01 Page ii June 26, 2025 4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction ................................................ 28 5.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 29 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES, AND APPENDICES Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 2) Figure 2 – Boring Location Map (Rear of Text) Figure 3 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail (Rear of Text) Tables Table 1 – Summary of Field Infiltration Testing (Page 4) Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters (Page 8) Table 3 – Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Onsite or Imported Sandy Soils (Page 21) Table 4 – Shallow Surface Infiltration - Reduction Factors Applied to Infiltration Rate (Page 24) Table 5 – Preliminary Pavement Sections (Page 25) Table 6 – Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Guidelines for Very Low Expansion Potential (Page 27) Appendices Appendix A – References Appendix B – Boring Logs Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results Appendix D – Infiltration Test Results Appendix E – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Project No. 25041-01 Page 1 June 26, 2025 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development, located at 225 and 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California. Refer to the Site Location Map (Figure 1). The purpose of our study was to provide a geotechnical evaluation relative to the proposed residential development. As part of our scope of work, we have: 1) reviewed available geotechnical information and in-house geologic maps pertinent to the site (Appendix A); 2) performed a subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site consisting of the excavation and sampling of eight small-diameter borings ranging from approximately 10.0 to 50.5 feet below existing ground surface, 3) performed four falling head infiltration tests within the borings; 4) performed laboratory testing of select soil samples obtained during our subsurface evaluation; and 5) prepared this preliminary geotechnical summary report presenting our findings and preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the development of the proposed project. It should be noted that our evaluation and this report only address geotechnical issues associated with the site and do not address any environmental issues. 1.2 Project Description The approximately 3.7-acre site is bound to the north by Barnhart School and west by Colorado Place, to the east by existing residential homes and to the south by San Juan Drive. The site is currently occupied by a Motel 6 on the northern portion and the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association building on the southern portion. The site is bisected by an open U-shaped channel (wash) which runs north to south along the east side of the Motel 6 parcel leading into an underground culvert that spits the Motel 6 parcel and Thoroughbred parcel in the southern portion of the overall site. The exact dimensions and details of the channel and culvert are unknown at this time and the agency that owns the channel and culvert may have specific guidelines for loading and setback from the improvements. The proposed improvements relative to the existing channel and culvert should be further reviewed when grading plans are further developed and the details regarding the channel/culvert are available for review. The proposed development consists of 86 multi-family residential units, internal drive alleys, open space and other associated improvements. Design cut and fill information is not available at this time but is expected to be on the order of less than 2 to 3 feet. The proposed residential development is anticipated to consist of relatively light building loads (column and wall loads maximum of 20 kips and 2 kips per linear foot, respectively). The recommendations given in this report are based upon at-grade structures with estimated structural loads and grading information indicated above. LGC Geotechnical should be provided with any updated project information, plans and/or any structural loads when they become available, in order to either confirm or modify the recommendations provided herein. Site Location FIGURE 1 Site Location Map June 2025 DATE ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE RLD Not to Scale MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6 & 201 Colorado Place) 25041-01 Project No. 25041-01 Page 3 June 26, 2025 1.3 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation A limited subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site was performed by LGC Geotechnical. Our exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling eight small-diameter exploratory hollow-stem borings (HS-1 through HS-4 and I-1 through I-4) for the purpose of obtaining samples for evaluation and laboratory testing of site soils and performing infiltration testing. The borings were drilled by Choice Drilling under subcontract to LGC Geotechnical. The depths of the borings ranged from approximately 10.0 to 50.5 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical representative observed the drilling operations, logged the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. The borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem augers. Bulk samples of the near-surface soils were logged and collected for laboratory testing from select borings. Driven soil samples were collected by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California Drive (MCD) sampler generally obtained at 2.5 and 5-foot vertical increments. The MCD is a split-barrel sampler with a tapered cutting tip and lined with a series of 1-inch-tall brass rings. The SPT sampler (1.4-inch ID) and MCD sampler (2.4-inch ID, 3.0-inch OD) were driven using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches to advance the sampler a total depth of 18 inches or until refusal. The raw blow counts for each 6-inch increment of penetration were recorded on the boring logs. The borings were subsequently backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped and capped with asphalt cold patch. Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time. Infiltration testing was performed within the four borings (I-1 through I-4) to depths of approximately 10 to 15 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical engineer installed standpipes, backfilled the borings with crushed rock and pre-soaked the infiltration holes prior to testing. Infiltration testing was performed per the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021). Standpipes were removed and the locations were subsequently backfilled with native soils at the completion of testing. Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time. The approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are provided on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). The boring logs are provided in Appendix B. 1.4 Field Infiltration Testing Four shallow infiltration test wells were installed in Borings I-1 through I-4 to approximate depths of 10 to 15 feet below existing grade. The approximate infiltration boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). Estimation of infiltration rates was performed in general accordance with the “Boring Percolation Test Procedure” guidelines set forth by the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021). The borings for the infiltration tests were excavated using a drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. A 3-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe was placed in the borehole above a thin layer of gravel and the annulus was backfilled with gravel. Infiltration tests were performed using relatively clean water free of particulates, silt, etc. The infiltration wells were pre-soaked during the day of drilling and a 30-minute pre-test was performed during the day of testing. Subsequently, readings were taken a minimum of 6 times or until a “stabilized rate” was established. A “stabilized rate” is when the highest and lowest readings are within 10 percent of each other over three consecutive readings. At the completion of infiltration testing, the pipe was removed, and the holes were backfilled and tamped. Project No. 25041-01 Page 4 June 26, 2025 Based on the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021), the infiltration rate is calculated by dividing the volume of water discharged by the surface area of the test section (including the sidewalls and bottom of the boring) over a specific time period. The infiltration rate is taken as the average of the last three readings during which a “stabilized rate” is achieved. The infiltration rates are provided in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Summary of Field Infiltration Testing Infiltration Test Location Approximate Infiltration Test Depth (ft) Infiltration Rate* (inch/hr.) I-1 10.0 0.7 I-2 15.0 6.9 I-3 15.0 5.3 I-4 10.0 4.4 *Does Not Include Required Reduction Factors for Design. Please note that the values provided in Table 1 do not include reduction factors associated with the test procedure, site variability, and long-term siltation plugging that are used to calculate the design infiltration rate. Infiltration test data is presented in Appendix D. Refer to Section 4.6 for recommendations regarding infiltration of stormwater. 1.5 Laboratory Testing Representative bulk, grab, and driven (relatively undisturbed) samples were retained for laboratory testing during our field evaluation. Laboratory testing included in-situ moisture content and in-situ dry density, expansion index, fines content, Atterberg limits, consolidation, direct shear, laboratory compaction, and corrosion (sulfate, chloride, pH and minimum resistivity). The following is a summary of the laboratory test results: • Dry density of the samples collected ranged from approximately 99 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 119 pcf, with an average of 110 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from approximately 2 to 14 percent, with an average of approximately 7 percent. • Two Expansion Index (EI) tests was performed. The results indicate an EI value of 1, corresponding to “Very Low” expansion potential. • Three samples were tested for fines content indicating a fines content (passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from 4 to 38 percent. According to the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS), the tested samples are classified as “coarse grained” soil. • Two Atterberg Limit (liquid limit and plastic limit) test was performed. Results indicated a Plasticity Index (PI) range of 4 to 7. • Two consolidation tests were performed. The deformation versus vertical stress plots are provided in Appendix C. Project No. 25041-01 Page 5 June 26, 2025 • Two direct shear test was performed. The plots are provided in Appendix C. • Laboratory compaction of a near-surface bulk sample resulted in a maximum dry density of 130.5 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 8.5 percent. • Corrosion testing indicated soluble sulfate content of less than 0.01 percent, a chloride content ranging from 28 to 29 parts per million (ppm), pH ranging from 7.4 to 7.6 and a minimum resistivity ranging from 13,400 to 15,410 ohm-centimeters. A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Appendix C. The moisture and dry density results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. Project No. 25041-01 Page 6 June 26, 2025 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Regional Geology The site is located south of the foothills below the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern San Gabriel Valley within the transition area of California’s Peninsular and Transverse geomorphic provinces. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges, generally dominated by right lateral strike-slip faulting. The Transverse Ranges are characterized by predominately east-west trending mountain ranges dominated by reverse faulting. The Transverse Ranges geomorphology can be generally be attributed to the effects of the major bend within the northwest trending San Andreas fault and the subsequent north-south compression that results. The San Gabriel Mountain Range rises steeply north of the site and provides the sediment source for the alluvial fan deposits that underlie the area of the subject site (CGS, 2018). The site is within the San Gabriel Valley, west of the Santa Anita Wash (Dibblee, et al, 1998). The subject area is more locally geologically bounded at the north by the Raymond Fault (approximately 700 feet north of the site) and the Sierra Madre Fault Zone (approximately 2 miles north of the site). The Sierra Madre Fault Zone consists of reverse faults dipping to the north. The northeast trending Raymond Fault joins the east west trending Sierra Madre Fault Zone approximately 3 miles to the northeast of the site. The Raymond Fault is a left lateral fault that is generally assumed to be a part of the San Andreas Fault system. 2.2 Site-Specific Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions Based on review of the available geologic map (Dibblee, et al, 1998), the primary geologic unit underlying the site is Quaternary alluvial deposits. The undissected fan is largely described as alluvial gravel, sand, and silt (Dibblee, et al, 1998). The field explorations (borings) indicate the native alluvial soils generally consist of variable amounts of clayey sand, silty sand, and sand ranging from brown to gray, dry to moist, and generally medium dense/medium stiff to very dense/very stiff to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing grade. Potentially up to five feet of undocumented artificial fill may be present across the site but was not differentiated on the boring logs. Deeper amounts of undocumented fill, not encountered in the borings, may exist locally beneath the current building footprints and in various other areas across the site. These materials should be removed to competent native materials prior to placement of compacted fill. It should be noted that borings are only representative of the location and time where/when they are performed and varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the performed location. In addition, subsurface conditions can change over time. The soil descriptions provided above should not be construed to mean that the subsurface profile is uniform, and that soil is homogeneous within the project area. For details on the stratigraphy at the exploration locations, refer to Appendix B. Project No. 25041-01 Page 7 June 26, 2025 2.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing ground surface during our subsurface evaluation. Historic high groundwater is greater than 100 feet below current grade per the Seismic Hazard Report of the Mount Wilson 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, (CDMG, 1998). Groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed development. Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater elevations should be expected over time. In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present due to local seepage caused by irrigation and/or recent precipitation. Local perched groundwater conditions or surface seepage may develop once site development is completed. 2.4 Seismic Design Criteria The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable portions of ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC. Please note that the following seismic parameters are only applicable for code-based acceleration response spectra and are not applicable for where site-specific ground motion procedures are required by ASCE 7-16. Representative site coordinates of latitude 34.143305 degrees north and longitude -118.039915 degrees west were utilized in our analyses. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 2 on the following page. Since site soils are Site Class D, additional adjustments are required to code acceleration response spectrums as outlined below and provided in ASCE 7-16. The structural designer should contact the geotechnical consultant if structural conditions (e.g., number of stories, seismically isolated structures, etc.) require site-specific ground motions. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period (MCE) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 7.05 at a distance of 8.76 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 475-year average return period (Design Earthquake) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.96 at a distance of 13.79 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2014). Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for liquefaction potential. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.958g (SEAOC, 2025). The design PGA is equal to 0.639g (2/3 of PGAM). Project No. 25041-01 Page 8 June 26, 2025 TABLE 2 Seismic Design Parameters Selected Parameters from 2022 CBC, Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads Seismic Design Values Notes/Exceptions Distance to applicable faults classifies the site as a “Near-Fault” site. Section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7 Site Class D* Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 Ss (Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods) 2.000g From SEAOC, 2025 S1 (Risk-Targeted Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods) 0.736g From SEAOC, 2025 Fa (per Table 1613.2.3(1)) 1.000 For Simplified Design Procedure of Section 12.14 of ASCE 7, Fa shall be taken as 1.4 (Section 12.14.8.1) Fv (per Table 1613.2.3(2)) 1.700 Value is only applicable per requirements/exceptions per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7 SMS for Site Class D [Note: SMS = FaSS] 2.000g - SM1 for Site Class D [Note: SM1 = FvS1] 1.251g Value is only applicable per requirements/exceptions per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7 SDS for Site Class D [Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 1.333g - SD1 for Site Class D [Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 0.834g Value is only applicable per requirements/exceptions per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7 CRS (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec) 0.888 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 CR1 (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec) 0.891 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 *Since site soils are Site Class D and S1 is greater than or equal to 0.2, the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken equal to 1.5 times the value calculated in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > Ts, or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL. Refer to ASCE 7-16. 2.5 Faulting Prompted by damaging earthquakes in Northern and Southern California, State legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults have been developed. Their purpose was to prevent the construction of urban developments across the trace of active faults, resulting in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated along the traces of active faults within California. Where developments for human occupation are proposed within these zones, the state requires detailed Project No. 25041-01 Page 9 June 26, 2025 fault evaluations be performed so that engineering geologists can mitigate the hazards associated with active faulting by identifying the location of active faults and allowing for a setback from the zone of previous ground rupture. The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist-Priolo) and no active faults are identified on the site (CGS, 2025). The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction, and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. The closest major active faults that could produce these secondary effects include the Sierra Madre, Raymond, San Andreas, and Puente Hills Faults, among others. A discussion of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections. 2.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose near-surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction, depending on their plasticity and moisture content (Bray & Sancio, 2006). Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry loose sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event. Based on our review of the State of California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (CGS, 2025), the subject site is not within a liquefaction hazard zone. Based on our evaluation, site soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction due to the lack of a static groundwater table within the upper 50 feet and relatively dense on-site soils. However isolated sand layers may be susceptible to dry sand seismic settlement. Seismically induced dry sand settlements were estimated by the procedures outlined by Pradel (Pradel, 1998) and utilizing the design earthquake parameters. Based on the data obtained from our field evaluation, seismic settlement due to dry sands is estimated to be on the order of about 0.5-inches. Differential seismic settlement may be estimated as one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet (e.g., 0.25-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet). Project No. 25041-01 Page 10 June 26, 2025 2.5.2 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet, and very low potential for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low. 2.6 Oversized Material Oversized materials (material larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension) may be encountered during site grading based on our subsurface evaluation. If encountered, recommendations are provided for appropriate handling of oversized materials in Appendix E. 2.7 Expansion Potential Based on the results of our laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have a “Very Low” expansion potential. Final expansion potential of site soils should be determined at the completion of grading. Results of expansion testing at finish grades will be utilized to confirm final foundation design. Project No. 25041-01 Page 11 June 26, 2025 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are implemented. The following is a summary of the primary geotechnical factors that may affect future development of the site: • In general, field explorations (borings) indicate primarily native soils consisting of variable amounts of sandy clay, sandy silt, sand, silty sand and clayey sand, which are gray to brown, dry to moist, and generally loose/medium stiff to very dense, to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing grade. The near-surface loose and compressible soils are not suitable for the planned improvements in their present condition (refer to Section 4.1). • Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface evaluation to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50.5 feet below current grade. Historic high groundwater is greater than 100 feet below current grade (CDMG, 1998). • The subject site is not located within a state of California Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2025). The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life. • Based on our review of the State of California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (CGS, 2025), the subject site is not within a liquefaction hazard zone. The potential for liquefaction is considered very low due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet and very dense on-site soils. However, isolated sand layers may be susceptible to dry sand seismic settlement. Total seismic settlement is estimated to be on the order 0.5-inch. Differential seismic settlement may be estimated as one-half of the total seismic settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet. • Based on the results of preliminary laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have “Very Low” expansion potential. Final design expansion potential must be determined at the completion of grading. • Some of the onsite soils may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to the fines content; therefore, select grading and stockpiling of the onsite sandy soils or import of sandy soils meeting the project requirements should be anticipated by the contractor. • Excavations into the existing site soils should be feasible with heavy construction equipment in good working order. From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils are suitable material for use as fill, provided that they are relatively free from oversized material (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and significant organic material. • Oversized material (material larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension) may be encountered during site grading based on our subsurface evaluation. Project No. 25041-01 Page 12 June 26, 2025 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are to be considered preliminary and should be confirmed upon completion of grading and earthwork operations. In addition, they should be considered minimal from a geotechnical viewpoint, as there may be more restrictive requirements from the architect, structural engineer, building codes, governing agencies, or the owner. It should be noted that the following geotechnical recommendations are intended to provide sufficient information to develop the site in general accordance with the 2022 CBC requirements. With regard to the potential occurrence of potentially catastrophic geotechnical hazards such as fault rupture, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, etc. the following geotechnical recommendations should provide adequate protection for the proposed development to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an “acceptable level.” The “acceptable level” of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project” [Section 3721(a)]. Therefore, repair and remedial work of the proposed improvements may be required after a significant seismic event. With regards to the potential for less significant geologic hazards to the proposed development, the recommendations contained herein are intended as a reasonable protection against the potential damaging effects of geotechnical phenomena such as expansive soils, fill settlement, groundwater seepage, etc. It should be understood, however, that although our recommendations are intended to maintain the structural integrity of the proposed development and structures given the site geotechnical conditions, they cannot preclude the potential for some cosmetic distress or nuisance issues to develop as a result of the site geotechnical conditions. The geotechnical recommendations contained herein must be confirmed to be suitable or modified based on the actual as-graded conditions. 4.1 Site Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of the removal of existing improvements associated with the former land use followed by the required earthwork removals, precise grading, and construction of the proposed new improvements, including the residential structures, subsurface utilities, interior drive alleys, etc. We recommend that earthwork onsite be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, future grading plan review report(s), the 2022 CBC/City of Arcadia grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix E. The following recommendations should be considered preliminary and may be revised within the future grading plan review report or based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading. 4.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered improvements, the areas should be cleared of existing asphalt, surface obstructions, and demolition debris. Project No. 25041-01 Page 13 June 26, 2025 Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend below proposed finish grades, should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Any abandoned sewer or storm drain lines should be completely removed and replaced with properly placed compacted fill. Deeper demolition may be required in order to remove existing foundations. We recommend the trenches associated with demolition which extend below the remedial grading depth be backfilled and properly compacted prior to the demolition contractor leaving the site. If cesspools or septic systems are encountered, they should be removed in their entirety. The resulting excavation should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. As an alternative, cesspools can be backfilled with lean sand-cement slurry. Any encountered wells should be properly abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements. At the conclusion of the clearing operations, a representative of LGC Geotechnical should observe and accept the site prior to further grading. 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction Depths and Limits In order to provide a relatively uniform bearing condition for the planned building structures, upper loose/compressible soils are to be temporarily removed and recompacted as properly compacted fills. Existing undocumented artificial fill within the influence of the proposed structural improvements should be removed to suitable, competent native materials prior to placement of artificial fill to design grades. For preliminary planning purposes, the depth of required removals and recompaction may be estimated as indicated below. It should be noted that updated recommendations may be required based on changes to building layouts and/or grading plan. Buildings: Soils shall be temporarily removed and recompacted to a depth ranging from 5 to 6 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of foundations, whichever is deeper. Refer to the Boring Location Map (Figure 2) for recommended remedial grading depths. Where space is available, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum distance equal to the depth of removal and recompaction below finish grade or 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed building improvements, whichever is larger. Minor Site Structures: For minor site structures such as free-standing walls, retaining walls, etc., temporary removal and recompaction should extend a minimum of 3 feet below existing grade or 2 feet below proposed footings, whichever is greater. Where space is available, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the edges of the proposed minor site structure improvements. Pavement and Hardscape Areas: Within pavement and hardscape areas, temporary removal and recompaction should extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade or 2 feet below the bottom of the pavement section, whichever is deeper. Pavement areas encountering undocumented fill materials may require deeper removal and recompaction and should be determined based on the conditions exposed during grading. In general, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum lateral Project No. 25041-01 Page 14 June 26, 2025 distance of 2 feet beyond the edges of the proposed pavement or hardscape improvements. Local conditions may be encountered during excavation that could require additional over-excavation beyond the above noted minimum in order to obtain an acceptable subgrade. The actual depths and lateral extents of grading will be determined by the geotechnical consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading. Removal areas and areas to be over-excavated should be accurately staked in the field by the Project Surveyor. 4.1.3 Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. Based on our field evaluation, site soils within the upper 5 to 10 feet are anticipated to be OSHA Type “B” soils (refer to the attached boring logs). Sandy soils are present and should be considered susceptible to caving. Soil conditions should be regularly evaluated during construction to verify conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person,” required by OSHA standards, to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination with the geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. Where proposed improvements will be adjacent to property lines, the potential for impacting existing offsite improvements may be reduced by performing “ABC” slot cuts while performing earthwork removal and recompaction. “ABC” slot cuts are defined as excavations perpendicular to sensitive property boundaries that are divided into multiple “slots” of equal width. If slots are labeled A, B, C, A, B, C, etc., then all “A” slots can be excavated at the same time but must be backfilled before all “B” slots can be excavated, etc. Any given slot should be backfilled immediately with properly compacted fill to finish grade prior to excavation of the adjacent two slots. Please note sands susceptible to caving are present at the site. Recommendations for slot cut dimensions should be evaluated during grading. Protection of the existing offsite improvements during grading is the responsibility of the contractor. Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage should be set back from the perimeter of excavations a distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation. Once an excavation has been initiated, it should be backfilled as soon as practical. Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability. Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain. It should be noted that any excavation that extends below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection of an existing foundation will remove existing support of the structure foundation. If requested, temporary shoring parameter will be provided. Project No. 25041-01 Page 15 June 26, 2025 4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation In general, removal bottom areas and any areas to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content), and re-compacted per project recommendations. Removal bottoms, over-excavation bottoms and areas to receive fill should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement. Soil subgrade for planned footings and improvements (e.g., slabs, etc.) should be firm and competent. 4.1.5 Material for Fill From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally considered suitable for use as general compacted fill, provided they are screened of organic materials, construction debris, and oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension). From a geotechnical viewpoint, any required import soils for general fill (i.e., non-retaining wall backfill) should consist of clean, granular soils of “Very Low” expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less based on ASTM D 4829), and generally free of organic materials, construction debris and material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Import for required retaining wall backfill should meet the criteria outlined in the following paragraph. Source samples should be provided to the geotechnical consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of four working days prior to planned importation. Retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1140 (or ASTM D6913/D422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Soils should also be screened of organic materials, construction debris, and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Some of the onsite soils may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to fines content; therefore, select grading and stockpiling of the onsite sandy soils or import of sandy soils meeting the criteria outlined above should be anticipated by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. Aggregate base (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) should conform to the requirements of Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials (except processed miscellaneous base) or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. The placement of demolition materials in compacted fill is acceptable from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the demolition material is broken up into pieces not larger than approximately 2 to 4 inches in maximum dimension, and well blended into fill soils with essentially no resulting voids. Demolition material placed in fills must be free of construction debris (wood, brick, etc.) and reinforcing steel. If asphalt concrete fragments will be incorporated into the demolition materials, approval from an environmental Project No. 25041-01 Page 16 June 26, 2025 viewpoint may be required and is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. From our previous experience, we recommend that asphalt concrete fragments be limited to fill areas within planned streets, alleys or non-structural areas (i.e., not within building pad areas). 4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills Material to be placed as fill should be brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. Soils will generally require additional moisture in order to achieve the required compaction. Drying and/or mixing the very moist soils may also be required prior to reusing the materials in compacted fills. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and with observation and testing performed by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material as previously defined should be removed from site fills. During backfill of excavations, the fill should be properly benched into firm and competent soils of temporary backcut slopes as it is placed in lifts. Aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557 at or slightly above optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content). If gap-graded ¾-inch rock is used for backfill (around storm drain storage chambers, retaining wall backfill, etc.) it will require compaction. Rock shall be placed in thin lifts (typically not exceeding 6 inches) and mechanically compacted with observation by geotechnical consultant. Backfill rock shall meet the requirements of ASTM D2321. Gap-graded rock is required to be entirely wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved alternative) or at the very minimum to be vertically separated from the trench backfill with filter fabric to prevent the migration of fines into the rock backfill. 4.1.7 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction The onsite soils will generally be suitable as trench backfill, provided the soils are screened of rocks and other material greater than 6 inches in diameter, construction debris and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 12 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM Test Method D1557). If trenches are shallow or the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities, sand having a Project No. 25041-01 Page 17 June 26, 2025 sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater (per California Test Method [CTM] 217) may be used to bed and shade the pipes. Sand backfill within the pipe bedding zone may be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamped to ensure adequate compaction. Sand grains should be from a natural source with rounded shape. Manufactured sand from crushed rock or recycled material is not suitable for jetting/flooding as the grains are typically angular in shape and do not densify well enough with these methods. Manufactured sand can be used as shading material when mechanical compaction efforts are used. Subsequent trench backfill should be compacted in uniform thin lifts by mechanical means to at least a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). If any ¾-inch rock is used for backfill, see Section 4.1.6 for filter fabric requirements. Retaining wall backfill should consist of onsite or imported select sandy soils as outlined in preceding Section 4.1.5. The limits of select sandy backfill should extend a minimum ½ the height of the retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater, refer to Figure 3. Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials should not be permitted. In backfill areas where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, typically sand-cement slurry may be substituted for compacted backfill. The slurry should contain about one sack of cement per cubic yard. When set, such a mix typically has the consistency of compacted soil. Sand cement slurry placed near the surface within landscape areas should be evaluated for potential impacts on planned improvements. A representative from LGC Geotechnical should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project recommendations. 4.1.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence Allowance in the earthwork volumes budget should be made for an estimated 5 to 20 percent reduction (shrink) in volume of near-surface (upper approximate 5 feet) soils. It should be stressed that these values are only estimates and that an actual shrinkage factor would be extremely difficult to predetermine. Subsidence, due to earthwork operations, is expected to be on the order of 0.1 feet. These values are estimates only and exclude losses due to removal of vegetation or debris. The effective shrinkage of onsite soils will depend primarily on the type of compaction equipment and method of compaction used onsite by the contractor and accuracy of the topographic survey. Due to the combined variability in topographic surveys, inability to precisely model the removals and variability of on-site near-surface conditions, it is our opinion that the site will not balance at the end of grading. If importing/exporting a large volume of soils is not considered feasible or economical, we recommend a balance area be designated onsite that can fluctuate up or down based on the actual volume of soil. We recommend a “balance” area that can accommodate on the order of 5 percent (plus or minus) of the total grading volume be considered. Project No. 25041-01 Page 18 June 26, 2025 4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Provided that the remedial grading recommendations provided herein are implemented, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the residential structures using a conventional or post-tensioned foundation system designed to resist the impacts of expansive soils. Site soils are anticipated to be “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829) and special design considerations from a geotechnical perspective are not required. The structural designer should use their own judgment in the design of the foundation system. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of grading. Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided in the following sections. Recommended soil bearing and estimated settlement due to structural loads are provided in Section 4.3. The foundation should be designed in consideration of the site seismic settlement as outlined in Section 2.5.1. 4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design Parameters Due to the very low expansion potential of the onsite soils, the foundation/structural engineer may design a conventional foundation system that is tied together based upon the anticipated dead and live loads (wind, seismic) that will be imparted by the structure. The recommendations provided in the “Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance” section may be utilized in the design of a rigid slab-on-grade conventional foundation designed in accordance with Section 1808 of the 2022 C.B.C. 4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters The foundation designer may use a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pounds per square inch per inch of deflection). This value is for a 1-foot by 1-foot square loaded area and should be adjusted by the structural designer for the area of the proposed footing using the following formula: k = 200 x [(B+1)/2B]2 k = modulus of vertical subgrade reaction, pounds per cubic inch (pci) B = foundation width (feet) The moisture content of near surface fill soils should be kept at optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches prior to trenching and concrete placement. 4.2.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance The geotechnical parameters provided herein assume that if the areas adjacent to the foundation are planted and irrigated, these areas will be designed with proper drainage and adequately maintained so that ponding, which causes significant moisture changes below the foundation, does not occur. Our recommendations do not account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Plants should only be provided Project No. 25041-01 Page 19 June 26, 2025 with sufficient irrigation for life and not overwatered to saturate subgrade soils. Sunken planters placed adjacent to the foundation should either be designed with an efficient drainage system or liners to prevent moisture infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even with properly constructed planters. In addition to the factors mentioned above, future owners/property management personnel should be made aware of the potential negative influences of trees and/or other large vegetation. Roots that extend near the vicinity of foundations can cause distress to foundations. Future owners (and the owner’s landscape architect) should not plant trees/large shrubs closer to the foundations than a distance equal to half the mature height of the tree or 20 feet, whichever is more conservative unless specifically provided with root barriers to prevent root growth below the building foundation. It is the owner’s responsibility to perform periodic maintenance during hot and dry periods to ensure that adequate watering has been provided to keep soil from separating or pulling back from the foundation. Future owners and property management personnel should be informed and educated regarding the importance of maintaining a constant level of soil-moisture. The owners should be made aware of the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing potentially expansive soils to become too dry. Expansive soils can undergo shrinkage during drying, and swelling during the rainy winter season, or when irrigation is resumed. This can result in distress to building structures and hardscape improvements. The builder should provide these recommendations to future owners and property management personnel. 4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines The following recommendations are for informational purposes since they are unrelated to the geotechnical performance of the foundation. Some post-construction moisture migration should be expected below the foundation; the foundation engineer must assume soil moisture to be present below the slab. The following recommendations may be superseded by the foundation engineer and/or owner. In general, interior floor slabs with moisture sensitive floor coverings should be underlain by a minimum 10-15 mil thick vapor retarder, which has a water vapor transmission rate (permeance) of less than 0.3 perms, as determined by ASTM E 96, and meets the applicable code requirements (ASTM E 1745). It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisture/vapor retarder systems are properly installed in accordance with the project plans and manufacturer’s specifications, and that the moisture/vapor retarder materials are free of tears and punctures prior to and as a result of concrete placement. Additional moisture reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the performance requirements of future interior floor coverings. The foundation engineer/architect should determine whether the use of a capillary break (sand or gravel layer) in conjunction with the vapor retarder is necessary or Project No. 25041-01 Page 20 June 26, 2025 required by code. Sand layer thickness and location (above and/or below vapor retarder) should also be determined by the foundation engineer/architect. 4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance Provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and minimum embedment of 12 inches below lowest adjacent ground surface. This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of embedment and 150 psf for each additional foot of foundation width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. A post-tensioned mat foundation a minimum of 6 inches below lowest adjacent grade may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,200 psf. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Bearing values indicated are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads). In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity and provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be 1-inch or less. Differential static settlement may be taken as half of the static settlement (i.e., ½-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet). Recommendations for estimated seismic settlement are provided in Section 2.5.1. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with dead-load forces. For slabs constructed over a moisture retarder, the allowable friction coefficient should be provided by the manufacturer. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,500 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against properly compacted fill. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 340 pcf (maximum of 3,400 psf) for short duration seismic loading. This passive pressure is applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions. For a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) downward sloping condition, a reduced passive lateral earth pressure of 100 pcf to a maximum of 1,000 psf may be used. This allowable passive pressure may be increased to 135 pcf to a maximum of 1,350 psf for short duration seismic loading. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively. 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls Lateral earth pressures for approved native sandy or import soils meeting indicated project requirements are provided below. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf per foot of depth (or pcf). These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the retaining wall designer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil over the wall footing. Project No. 25041-01 Page 21 June 26, 2025 The following lateral earth pressures are presented in Table 3 below for approved granular soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve per ASTM D-421/422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Some of the onsite soils may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to fines content; therefore, select grading and stockpiling of the onsite soils or import of soils meeting the criteria outlined above should be anticipated by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. The wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the required select sandy soil backfill criteria. These preliminary findings should be confirmed during grading. TABLE 3 Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Onsite or Imported Sandy Soils Conditions Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf) Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf) Level Backfill 2:1 Sloped Backfill Approved Sandy Soils Approved Sandy Soils Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 70 If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for “active” pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the earth pressure will be higher. This would include 90-degree corners of retaining walls. Such walls should be designed for “at-rest.” The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. To reduce, but not eliminate, saturation of near-surface (upper approximate 1-foot) soils in front of the retaining walls, the perforated subdrain pipe should be located as low as possible behind the retaining wall. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. In general, we do not recommend retaining wall outlet pipes be connected to area drains. If subdrains are connected to area drains, special care and information should be provided to homeowners to maintain these drains. Typical retaining wall drainage is illustrated in Figure 3. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water containing soluble salts migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. Please note that waterproofing and outlet systems are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward Project No. 25041-01 Page 22 June 26, 2025 projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining wall. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, retaining walls adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 80 pounds per square foot (psf) due to normal street vehicle traffic if applicable. Uniform lateral surcharges may be estimated using the applicable coefficient of lateral earth pressure using a rectangular distribution. A factor of 0.45 and 0.3 may be used for at-rest and active conditions, respectively. The retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for any required geotechnical input in estimating any applicable surcharge loads. If retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height are proposed, the retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration of the planned retaining wall structures. Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Section 4.3. Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections. 4.5 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control From a geotechnical perspective, positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or to flow freely down a graded slope. Per section 1804.4 of the 2022 CBC, positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 5 percent for earthen surfaces for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the face of wall. If a distance of 10 feet cannot be achieved, an alternative of a gradient of at least 5 percent to an area drain or swale having a gradient of 2 percent is acceptable. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters are recommended and should reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets. Ultimately surface drainage and code compliance are the purview of the project civil engineer. Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided. Planters adjacent to a building or structure should be avoided wherever possible or be properly designed (e.g., lined with a membrane), to reduce the penetration of water into the adjacent footing subgrades and thereby reduce moisture related damage to the foundation. Planting areas at grade should be provided with appropriate positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above adjacent paved grades to facilitate drainage. Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless provisions for drainage, such as multiple depressed area drains, are constructed. Adequate drainage gradients, devices, and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into the planting areas. Irrigation methods should promote uniformity of moisture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete flatwork. Overwatering and underwatering of landscape areas must be avoided. Project No. 25041-01 Page 23 June 26, 2025 Area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to properly function. Homeowners should also be made aware that excessive irrigation of neighboring properties can cause seepage and moisture conditions on adjacent lots. Homeowners should be furnished with these recommendations communicating the importance of maintaining positive drainage away from structures, towards streets, when they design their improvements. The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradients can create perched water conditions. This may result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance-type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth movements such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a residential structure and associated improvements, moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as possible. Subdrains and v-ditches must be properly maintained, and their outlets kept free draining and clear of any potential obstructions. Routine maintenance should be performed, especially prior to and during the rainy season. Failure to properly maintain these elements may result in slope failures, slumps, excessive erosion, localized saturated zones, nuisance type water issues, etc. Any future trenches excavated on a slope face for utility or irrigation lines and/or for any purpose should be properly backfilled and compacted to the slope face. Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechnical consultant during trench backfill are recommended. A program for the elimination of burrowing animals in both native and graded slope areas must be established and properly maintained to protect slope stability by reducing the potential for surface water to penetrate into the soil. Continuous erosion control, rodent control, and maintenance are essential to the long-term stability of all slopes. 4.6 Subsurface Water Infiltration It should be noted that intentionally infiltrating storm water conflicts with the geotechnical engineering objective of directing surface water away from structures and improvements. The geotechnical stability and integrity of a site is reliant upon appropriately handling surface water. In general, the vast majority of geotechnical distress issues are directly related to improper drainage. Distress in the form of movement of foundations and other improvements could occur as a result of soil saturation and loss of soil support of foundations and pavements, settlement, collapse, internal soil erosion, and/or expansion. Additionally, off-site properties and improvements may be subjected to seepage, springs, instability, movements of foundations or other impacts as a result of water infiltration and migration. Infiltrated water may enter underground utility pipe zones or other highly permeable layers and migrate laterally along these layers, potentially impacting other improvements located far away from the point of infiltration. Any proposed infiltration system should not be located near slopes or settlement sensitive existing/proposed improvements in order to reduce the potential for slope failures and geotechnical distress issues related to infiltration. If water must be infiltrated due to regulatory requirements, we recommend the absolute Project No. 25041-01 Page 24 June 26, 2025 minimum amount of water be infiltrated and that the infiltration areas not be located near settlement-sensitive existing/proposed improvements, basement/retaining walls, or any slopes. As with all systems that are designed to concentrate surface flow and direct the water into the subsurface soils, some minor settlement, nuisance type localized saturation and/or other water related issues should be expected. Due to variability in geologic and hydraulic conductivity characteristics, these effects may be experienced at the onsite location and/or potentially at other locations beyond the physical limits of the subject site. Infiltrated water may enter underground utility pipe zones or flow along heterogeneous soil layers or geologic structure and migrate laterally impacting other improvements which may be located far away or at an elevation much lower than the infiltration source. Recommendations for subsurface water infiltration are provided below. The design infiltration rate is determined by dividing the infiltration rate by total reduction factor. The total reduction factor is calculated from a series of reduction factors, including; test procedure (RFt), site variability (RFv) and long-term siltation plugging and maintenance (RFs) as presented listed in Table 4 below (RFt + RFv + RFs). Based on the Los Angeles County testing guidelines (2021), the reduction factor for long-term siltation plugging and maintenance (RFs) is the purview of the infiltration system designer. TABLE 4 Shallow Surface Infiltration - Reduction Factors Applied to Infiltration Rate Consideration Reduction Factor Test procedure, boring percolation, RFt 1.0 Site variability, number of tests, etc., RFv 1.5 Long-term siltation plugging and maintenance, RFs TBD* Total Reduction Factor, RF = RFt + RFv + RFs TBD* *Reduction Factor for long-term siltation plugging and maintenance to be confirmed by civil engineer Per the requirements of the Los Angeles County testing guidelines (2021), subsurface materials shall have a design infiltration rate equal to or greater than 0.3 inches per hour. The Total Reduction Factor for test procedure, site variability considerations, and long-term siltation plugging and maintenance (RFt, RFv, and RFs) and the design infiltration rate will be determined by the civil engineer. Results of infiltration testing are provided in Appendix D. The following should be considered for the design of any expected infiltration system. • We recommend a minimum setback of 15 feet from the limits of the proposed infiltration system to structural improvements. • We recommend the design of any infiltration system include at least one redundancy or overflow system. It may be prudent to provide an overflow system directly connected to the storm drain system in order to prevent failure of the infiltration system, either as a result of lower than anticipated infiltration and/or very high flow volumes. Project No. 25041-01 Page 25 June 26, 2025 • Water discharge from any infiltration systems should not occur within the zone of influence of foundation footings (column and load bearing wall locations). • An adequate setback distance between any infiltration facility and adjacent property lines should be maintained. • The infiltration values provided are based on clean water and this requires the removal of trash, debris, soil particles, etc., and on-going maintenance. Over time, siltation and plugging may reduce the infiltration rate and subsequent effectiveness of the infiltration system. It should be noted that methods to prevent this shall be the responsibility of the infiltration designer and are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If adequate measures cannot be incorporated into the design and maintenance of the system, then the infiltration rates may need to be further reduced. These and other factors should be considered in selecting a design infiltration rate. • Any designed infiltration system will require routine periodic maintenance. • Contamination and environmental suitability of the site for infiltration was not evaluated by us and should be evaluated by others (environmental consultant). We only addressed the geotechnical issues associated with stormwater infiltration. LGC Geotechnical should be provided with details for any planned required infiltration system early in the design process for geotechnical input. 4.7 Preliminary Asphalt Pavement Sections For the purpose of these preliminary recommendations, we have selected a preliminary design R-value of 40 (assumed) and calculated pavement sections for assumed Traffic Indices (TI) of 5.0 (or less) and 6.0. These recommendations must be confirmed with R-Value testing of representative near-surface soils at the completion of grading and after underground utilities have been installed and backfilled. Final street sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the final design Traffic Index. Determination of the TI is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values. Should the city of Arcadia have more stringent requirements, updated pavement recommendations can be provided. TABLE 5 Preliminary Pavement Sections Assumed Traffic Index 5.0 (or less) 6.0 R -Value Subgrade 40 40 AC Thickness 4.0 inches 4.0 inches Base Thickness 5.0 inches 7.0 inches Due to anticipated construction traffic prior to completion of the project, we recommend that the total thickness (base course and capping course) of AC be placed at essentially the same time. Construction traffic loading on only the base course of the AC will increase the potential for pavement distress. It should be noted that construction traffic such as concrete trucks will Project No. 25041-01 Page 26 June 26, 2025 likely exceed traffic loading after completion of construction. Additionally, earth moving equipment should not be allowed to drive on paved surfaces. The weights of these vehicles far exceed the limits of the pavement and will cause distress, likely requiring the pavement sections to be removed and replaced. The pavement section thicknesses provided above are considered minimum thicknesses. Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur throughout the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement. Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in the previous Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the related sub-sections of this report. Please note that as the geotechnical consultant of record we will only be performing temperature checks of the asphalt and testing the wet density for calculating relative compaction. We recommend obtaining the services of others if material testing and evaluation of the quality of workmanship by the contractor is desired or required by the regulatory agency. 4.8 Soil Corrosivity Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary. Results of the corrosion testing indicated a soluble sulfate content ranging from approximately 8 to 32 parts per million (ppm), chloride content ranging from 28 to 29 ppm, pH value range of 7.4 to 7.6, and minimum resistivity value ranging from 13,400 to 15,410 ohm-cm. Note that based on minimum resistivity the soils are considered moderately corrosive to metallic improvements. If improvements that may be susceptible to corrosion are proposed, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. Based on our laboratory test results of representative site soil samples, onsite soils should be considered as having a severity categorization of “not applicable” and are designated class “S0” per ACI 318, Table 19.3.1.1 with respect to sulfates. Concrete in direct contact with the onsite soils can be designed according to ACI 318, Table 19.3.2.1 using the “S0” sulfate classification. Laboratory testing may need to be performed at the completion of grading by the project corrosion engineer to further evaluate the as-graded soil corrosivity characteristics, including sulfate, chloride, pH, minimum resistivity, etc. and provide design level recommendations. Accordingly, revision of the corrosion potential may be needed, should future test results differ substantially from the conditions reported herein. The client and/or other members of the development team should consider this during the design and planning phase of the project and formulate an appropriate course of action. Project No. 25041-01 Page 27 June 26, 2025 4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Nonstructural concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, patio slabs, etc.) has a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete may be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 6 below. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. TABLE 6 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Guidelines for Very Low Expansion Potential Community Sidewalks (≤4 feet wide) Patios/ Walkways (adjacent to homes or flatwork >4 feet wide) Private Vehicular Driveways City Sidewalk Curb and Gutters Minimum Thickness (in.) 4 (full) 4 (full) 4 (full) City/Agency Standard Presoaking Wet down prior to placing Wet down prior to placing Wet down prior to placing City/Agency Standard Reinforcement  No. 3 at 24 inches on centers No. 3 at 24 inches on centers City/Agency Standard Thickened Edge (in.)   8 x 8 City/Agency Standard Crack Control Joints Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness City/Agency Standard Maximum Joint Spacing 5 feet 6 feet 10 feet or quarter cut whichever is closer City/Agency Standard To reduce the potential for driveways to separate from the garage slab, the builder may elect to install dowels to tie these two elements together. Similarly, future homeowners should consider the use of dowels to connect flatwork to the foundation. Project No. 25041-01 Page 28 June 26, 2025 4.10 Geotechnical Plan Review When available, project plans (grading, foundation, retaining wall, etc.) should be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical in order to verify our geotechnical recommendations are implemented. Updated recommendations and/or additional fieldwork may be necessary. 4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and testing is required per Section 1705 of the 2022 CBC. Geotechnical observation and/or testing should be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages: • During grading (removal bottoms, fill placement, etc.); • During retaining wall backfill and compaction; • During utility trench backfill and compaction; • After presoaking building pads and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and prior to placement of aggregate base or concrete; • Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base; • After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placing reinforcement and/or concrete; and • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report. Project No. 25041-01 Page 29 June 26, 2025 5.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This report is based on data obtained from limited observations of the site, which have been extrapolated to characterize the site. While the scope of services performed is considered suitable to adequately characterize the site geotechnical conditions relative to the proposed development, no practical evaluation can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the anticipated geotechnical conditions in connection with a subject site. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during grading and construction. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the other consultants (at a minimum the civil engineer, structural engineer, landscape architect) and incorporated into their plans. The contractor should properly implement the recommendations during construction and notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe, or unsuitable. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client, any use of or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and modification. LEGEND Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Infiltration Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Estimated Removal and Recompaction Depths, if Feet Approximate Site Limits HS-4 T.D. = 26.5'I-4 T.D. = 5' HS-3 T.D. = 50.5' HS-4 T.D. = 26.5' I-3 T.D. = 15' I-4 T.D. = 15' HS-2 T.D. = 50.5' I-2 T.D. = 15' I-1 T.D. = 10' HS-1 T.D. = 21.5' 6'6' 6' 5' 5' 5' 5' FIGURE 2 Boring Location Map ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE DATE 1" = 60' June 2025 MWIG - Arcadia RLD 25041-01LGC Geotechnical, Inc. 131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200 San Clemente, CA 92672 TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142 4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE PER PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER COMPACTED SAND BACKFILL (EXPANSION INDEX £20, MAXIMUM 35% FINES) NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED PER REPORT MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT FOOTING/WALL PER DESIGN ENGINEER WATER PROOFING PER DESIGN ENGINEER 12" MINIMUM 18" MAXIMUM BACKCUT PER OSHA EXTENT OF REQUIRED IMPORTED SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER WA L L H E I G H T , H NOTE: PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAIN AT BASE OF WALL WILL NOT PREVENT SATURATION OF SOILS BELOW AND / OR IN FRONT OF WALL FIGURE 3 Retaining Wall Backfill Detail June 2025 DATE ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE RLD Not to Scale MWIG -Arcadia 25041-01 Appendix A References Project No. 25041-01 A-1 June 26, 2025 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute, 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2017. ________, 2018, Standard 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Supplement 1, effective: December 12, 2018. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D420 – D5876. Bray, J.D., and Sancio, R. B., 2006, Assessment of Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1165-1177, dated September 2006. California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2022. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2020, Highway Design Manual, Updated March 20, 2020. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Mt. Wilson 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 030, revised January 13, 2006. ________, 1999, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Mt. Wilson Quadrangle, Official Map, scale: 1:24,000, dated March 25, 1999. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, California Geological Survey Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. _______, 2017, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Mount Wilson Quadrangle, dated June 15, 2017. ________, 2018, Special Publication 42: Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Revised 2018. ________, 2025, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation website: CGS Earthquake Zones (ca.gov); retrieved June 24, 2025. County of Los Angeles, 2021, Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration, GS200.1, dated June 30, 2021. Project No. 25041-01 A-2 June 26, 2025 Diblee, et al, 1998, Geologic Map of the Mount Wilson & Azusa Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California, Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-67, Last edited 2010. Historic Aerials, 2025, viewed June 24, 2025, Aerial Maps from 1952 to 2022 https://www.historicaerials.com/. KTGY, 2025, Conceptual Site Plan, Option 5c, Colorado Place, Arcadia, California, dated May 14, 2025. Lew, et al, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Basements, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention Proceedings. Pradel, Daniel, 1998, Procedure to evaluate earthquake-induced settlement in dry sandy soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 124(4), pp. 364-368, dated April and October 1998. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2025, Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved June 24, 2025, from https://seismicmaps.org/ United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update)(v4.2.0), Retrieved June 24, 2025, from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Appendix B Field Exploration Logs THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 480 475 470 465 460 455 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1 4/14/2025 ~484' MSL 8" Truck Mounted Rig 30" 140 pounds Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 2 @ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete / 5" Aggregate Base 118.7 6.8 SC @ 5' - Clayey SAND: brown, slightly moist, loose 112.3 6.7 SM @ 7.5' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense 106.4 2.9 @ 10' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, medium dense 3.2 @ 15' - SAND with Silt: gray, dry, dense 11.9 @ 20' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense B- 1 865 R-1 6813 R-2 111419 R-3 182034 R-4 445 SPT-1 SC/SM SW-SM 113.5 Total Depth = 21.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Backfilled with Cuttings on 4/14/2024 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 485 480 475 470 465 460 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2 ~486' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 2" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base 109.9 6.8 SC/SM @ 5' - Clayey Silty SAND to Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense 110.6 8.0 CL/ML @ 7.5' - Sandy SILT/CLAY: brown, slightly moist, stiff 118.3 7.2 @ 10' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense 2.2 @ 15' - SAND: orangish brown, dry, medium dense @ 20' - No Recovery B- 1 1099 R-1 71015 R-3 556 R-2 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 4611 SPT-1 977 SPT-2 9.9 SC @ 25' - Clayey SAND: brown, moist, medium dense SP SM 50/5"R-3 to SM -#200 -#200 AL MDDSEICR CN Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) DESCRIPTION 60 TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX 55 50 45 40 35 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) De p t h ( f t ) Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N u m b e r Bl o w C o u n t Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) US C S S y m b o l DESCRIPTION Ty p e o f T e s t Date: Project Name: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drilling Company: Type of Rig: Drop: Drive Weight: Hole Diameter: 30 CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 455 450 545 540 535 530 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2 (Cont.) ~486' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 2 of 2 R-6 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 Total Depth = 50.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Caving: Hole Measured Approximately 40' after Removal of the Augers Backfilled with Cuttings on 4/14/2025 104.0 3.8 @ 30' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, dry, very dense 7.2 SM 108.0 3.0 SW-SM 5.2 SM 100.7 4.8 -#200 SM @ 35' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense @ 40' - SAND with Silt: gray, dry, very dense @ 45' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense @ 50' - Silty SAND: pale brown, slightly moist, very dense 4750/5" 7810 SPT-3 121522 SPT-4 343550 R-6 50/3"R-7 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 490 485 480 475 470 465 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3 ~492' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 4" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base 10.6 SC/SM @ 5' - Clayey Silty SAND: olive brown, moist, medium dense 106.2 2.3 SW-SM @ 7.5' - SAND with Silt: grayish brown, dry, very dense 109.7 2.1 @ 10' - SAND with Silt: grayish brown, dry, very dense 3.4 @ 15' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense @ 20' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, very dense B- 1 9109 R-1 3750/5" 143848 R-2 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 (Google Earth) 123334 SPT-1 91010 SPT-2 11.2 SC/SM @ 25' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense SP-SM R-3 AL-#200 203340 SPT-3 SM7.3117.4 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) DESCRIPTION 60 TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX 55 50 45 40 35 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) De p t h ( f t ) Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N u m b e r Bl o w C o u n t Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) US C S S y m b o l DESCRIPTION Ty p e o f T e s t Date: Project Name: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drilling Company: Type of Rig: Drop: Drive Weight: Hole Diameter: 30 CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3 (Cont.) ~492' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 2 of 2 R-4 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 (Google Earth) Total Depth = 50.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Caving: No Caving Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/28/2025 110.8 9.6 @ 30' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, very dense 3.7 SW-SM 105.5 3.7 SM to 3.9 SW-SM SM @ 35' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense @ 40' - Silty SAND to SAND with Silt: pale brown, dry, very dense @ 45' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense @ 50' - NO RECOVERY 3650/5" 284150/5.5" SPT-4 4050/5.5"SPT-5 50/5"R-5 50/5"R-6 SW-SM 460 455 450 445 440 435 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 485 480 475 470 465 460 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4 ~488' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 4" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base 111.8 5.1 SC/SM @ 5' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense 101.8 8.5 SM @ 7.5' - Silty SAND with Gravel: brown, moist, medium dense 107.3 6.4 @ 10' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense 9.3 @ 15' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense @ 20' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense B- 1 182629 R-1 141619 R-2 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 (Google Earth) 212321 SPT-1 243234 6.4 @ 25' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, very dense SC/SMR-3 DS -#200EICR 71013 142124 R-4 R-5 Total Depth = 26.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Caving: No Caving Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/28/2025 116.2 SM7.7 114.5 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-1 Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 2.5" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 10' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 4/14/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Cold Patch On 4/15/2025 ~484' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 764 R-1 355 SPT-1 107.0 6.0 SM to @ 5' - Silty SAND to Sandy CLAY: pale brown, slightly moist, loose/medium stiff 8.1 SC @ 8' - Clayey SAND: brown, moist, medium dense 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 CL 480 475 470 465 460 455 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 480 475 470 465 460 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-2 Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 2.5" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 15' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 4/14/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings On 4/15/2025 ~484' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 344 R-3 7811 SPT-1 3.6 SW-SM @ 13' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, medium dense 108.7 13.3 CL @ 5' - Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, medium stiff 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 455 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-3 Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 15' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 5/28/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings On 5/29/2025 ~488' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 142020 R-1 SPT-1 3.8 SW-SM @ 13' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense 99.3 3.9 SM @ 5' - Silty SAND: brown, dry, dense 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 878 SPT-2 102124 @ 10' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, very moist, medium denseSC/SM14.0 B- 1 485 480 475 470 465 460 (Google Earth) Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-4 Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 15' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 5/28/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings On 5/29/2025 ~487' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 162134 R-1 SPT-1 10.8 SC/SM @ 13' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense 112.5 2.8 SM to @ 5' - Silty SAND to SAND with Silt: pale brown, dry, dense 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 844 SPT-2 12724 @ 10' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, very moist, medium dense17.2 SC/SM SP-SMB- 1 485 480 475 470 465 460 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) Appendix C Laboratory Test Results Project No. 25041-01 C-1 June 2025 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results The laboratory testing program was formulated towards providing data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils with respect to residential construction. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results. Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, Standard ASTM D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch-thick by 4-inch-diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below. Sample Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential* HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 1 Very Low HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 1 Very Low * ASTM D4829 Grain Size Distribution/Fines Content: Representative samples were dried, weighed and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140). Where applicable, the portion retained on the No. 200 sieve and dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D6913 (sieve). Sample Location Description % Passing # 200 Sieve HS-2 @ 15 ft Sand 4 HS-2 @ 25 ft Clayey Sand 38 HS-2 @ 35 ft Silty Sand 29 HS-3 @ 25ft Clayey Silty Sand 37 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft Silty Sand 25 APPENDIX C (Cont’d) Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Project No. 25041-01 C-2 June 2025 Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits (“Atterberg Limits”) were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318 for engineering classification of fine-grained material and presented in the table below: Sample Location Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Plasticity Index (%) USCS Soil Classification HS-2 @ 7.5 feet 23 19 4 CL-ML HS-3 @ 25 feet 24 17 7 CL-ML Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) HS-2 @ 1-5 ft Dark Brown Silty Sand 130.5 8.5 Consolidation: Two consolidation tests were performed per ASTM D2435. A sample (2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height) was placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied. The sample was allowed to consolidate under “double drainage” and total deformation for each loading step was recorded. The percent consolidation for each load step was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The consolidation pressure curves are provided in this Appendix. Direct Shear: Two direct shear tests were performed on a remolded sample and an in-situ sample, which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. The samples were tested under various normal loads using a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus (ASTM D3080). The plot is provided in this Appendix. APPENDIX C (Cont’d) Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Project No. 25041-01 C-3 June 2025 Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below. Sample Location Sulfate Content (ppm) Sulfate Exposure Class * HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 8 S0 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 32 S0 *Based on ACI 318R-14, Table 19.3.1.1 Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method (CTM) 422. The results are presented below. Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 28 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 29 Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below. Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 7.6 15,410 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 7.4 13,400 Project Name:Tested By:GB/JD Date:04/17/25 Project No.:Checked By:J. Ward Date:04/30/25 Boring No.:Depth (ft.): Sample No.:Sample Type: Soil Identification: Sample Diameter (in.):2.415 Sample Thickness (in.):1.000 Weight of Sample + ring (g):191.83 Weight of Ring (g):44.27 Height after consol. (in.):0.9688 Before Test Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g):177.47 Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g):169.32 Weight of Container (g):39.71 Initial Moisture Content (%)6.3 Initial Dry Density (pcf)115.5 Initial Saturation (%):37 Initial Vertical Reading (in.)0.1162 After Test Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g):256.34 Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g):237.37 Weight of Container (g):57.28 Final Moisture Content (%) 13.97 Final Dry Density (pcf):116.6 Final Saturation (%):85 Final Vertical Reading (in.)0.1507 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70 Water Density (pcf):62.43 0.10 0.1165 0.9997 0.00 0.03 0.459 0.03 0.25 0.1190 0.9972 0.05 0.28 0.457 0.23 0.50 0.1209 0.9953 0.12 0.47 0.455 0.35 1.00 0.1247 0.9916 0.21 0.84 0.451 0.63 1.00 0.1250 0.9912 0.21 0.88 0.450 0.67 2.00 0.1286 0.9877 0.31 1.24 0.446 0.92 4.00 0.1346 0.9816 0.41 1.84 0.439 1.43 8.00 0.1437 0.9726 0.52 2.75 0.427 2.23 16.00 0.1603 0.9560 0.64 4.41 0.405 3.77 8.00 0.1589 0.9573 0.59 4.27 0.406 3.68 4.00 0.1573 0.9590 0.53 4.11 0.408 3.58 1.00 0.1531 0.9631 0.39 3.69 0.412 3.30 0.50 0.1507 0.9655 0.33 3.45 0.41 3.120 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION ASTM D 2435 25041-01 Arcadia Deformation % of Sample Thickness Final Reading (in.) PROPERTIES of SOILS Ring Void Ratio Pressure (p) (ksf)Time Dial Rdgs. (in.)Date Apparent Thickness (in.) Load Compliance (%) HS-2 R-2 Square Root of Time Corrected Deforma- tion (%) Olive brown silty sand (SM) Time Readings Elapsed Time (min) 7.5 0.400 0.410 0.420 0.430 0.440 0.450 0.460 0.470 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Vo i d R a t i o Pressure, p (ksf) Inundate with Tap water Consol HS-2, R-2 @ 7.5 Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification: Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft.) Moisture Content (%) ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES of SOILS ASTM D 2435 14.0 116.6HS-2 R-2 6.3 Olive brown silty sand (SM) Project No.: Arcadia 04-25 25041-01 Time Readings 0.414 37 85115.5 Degree of Saturation (%)Dry Density (pcf) 0.460 Void Ratio 7.5 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 0.1 1.0 De f o r m a t i o n D i a l R e a d i n g ( i n . ) Log of Time (min.) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 De f o r m a t i o n ( % ) Pressure, p (ksf) 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 0.0 10.0 Square Root of Time (min.1/2) Inundate with Tap water Project Name:Arcadia Tested By:G. Bathala Date:04/23/25 Project No.:25041-01 Checked By:J. Ward Date:04/30/25 Boring No.:Sample Type:90% Remold Sample No.:Depth (ft.):1-5 Soil Identification: 2.415 2.415 2.415 1.000 1.000 1.000 199.35 196.45 199.23 45.39 42.26 44.97 Before Shearing 218.81 218.81 218.81 207.98 207.98 207.98 77.77 77.77 77.77 0.2626 0.2739 0.0000 0.2713 0.2884 -0.0245 After Shearing 225.12 217.32 209.92 207.21 199.34 192.80 67.40 59.14 52.64 2.70 2.70 2.70 62.43 62.43 62.43 HS-2 Dark brown silty sand (SM) Sample Diameter(in): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): Vertical Rdg.(in): Final Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial Sample Thickness(in.): Weight of Sample + ring(gm): B-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Water Density(pcf): Specific Gravity (Assumed): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Ring(gm): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): DS HS-2, B-1 @ 1-5 Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 04-25 Project No.:25041-01 Sample Type: 90% Remold Dark brown silty sand (SM) 52.7 0.9913 12.8 ArcadiaDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 53.1 0.9755 12.2 1.000 0.912 0.777 0.0033 1.000 2.415 1.000 2.415 2.000 1.625 1.449 0.0033 4.000 3.122 2.804 0.0033 53.0 0.9855 12.8 Soil Identification:8.32 118.4 8.32 118.2 118.4 1.000 2.415 8.32 Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) HS-2 B-1 1-5 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) DS HS-2, B-1 @ 1-5 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Tested By:J. Domingo Date:06/04/25 Project No.:25041-01 Checked By:J. Ward Date:06/12/25 Boring No.:Sample Type:Ring Sample No.:Depth (ft.):7.5 Soil Identification: 2.415 2.415 2.415 1.000 1.000 1.000 175.86 176.56 178.72 45.03 45.39 42.81 Before Shearing 172.82 172.82 172.82 165.19 165.19 165.19 67.11 67.11 67.11 0.2737 0.2863 0.0000 0.2903 0.3168 -0.0573 After Shearing 193.66 199.08 201.22 166.85 174.96 180.45 49.74 56.35 57.05 2.70 2.70 2.70 62.43 62.43 62.43 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Water Density(pcf): Specific Gravity (Assumed): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Ring(gm): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): HS-4 Brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g Sample Diameter(in): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): Vertical Rdg.(in): Final Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial Sample Thickness(in.): Weight of Sample + ring(gm): R-2 DS HS-4, R-2 @ 7.5 Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 104.9 1.000 2.415 7.78 Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) HS-4 R-2 7.5 31.6 0.9695 20.3 Soil Identification:7.78 101.2 7.78 101.0 1.185 0.0033 4.000 2.842 2.836 0.0033 1.000 0.742 0.732 0.0033 1.000 2.415 1.000 2.415 2.000 1.191 31.4 0.9834 22.9 MWIG - ArcadiaDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 34.6 0.9427 16.8 06-25 Project No.:25041-01 Sample Type: Ring Brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) DS HS-4, R-2 @ 7.5 Appendix D Infiltration Test Results Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 10 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 8:39 9:09 30.0 7.02 7.66 0.64 Main Test Data 1 9:10 9:40 30.0 7.00 7.58 0.58 6.63 0.7 2 9:41 10:11 30.0 7.00 7.58 0.58 6.63 0.7 3 10:18 10:48 30.0 7.02 7.61 0.59 6.59 0.7 4 10:50 11:20 30.0 6.98 7.53 0.55 6.67 0.7 5 11:22 11:52 30.0 7.02 7.61 0.59 6.59 0.8 6 11:54 12:24 30.0 6.98 7.52 0.54 6.67 0.7 0.7 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Date:4/15/2025 I-1 Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): *measured at time of test Comments Water remained Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, Dt (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Change in Water Level, DD (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Measured Infiltration Rate Feasibility Factor of Safety Feasibility Infiltration Rate Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 15 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 8:44 9:06 22.0 12.05 15 2.95 Main Test Data 1 9:07 9:17 10.0 11.70 13.83 2.13 7.26 7.4 2 9:20 9:33 13.0 11.95 14.35 2.40 6.74 6.9 3 9:38 9:48 10.0 11.93 13.84 1.91 6.78 7.1 4 9:50 10:00 10.0 11.92 13.88 1.96 6.80 7.2 5 10:03 10:13 10.0 11.94 13.80 1.86 6.76 6.9 6 10:15 10:25 10.0 11.90 13.74 1.84 6.84 6.8 7 10:28 10:38 10.0 11.94 13.77 1.83 6.76 6.8 8 10:41 10:51 10.0 11.93 13.78 1.85 6.78 6.9 9 10:54 11:04 10.0 11.92 13.82 1.90 6.80 7.0 10 11:07 11:17 10.0 11.98 13.81 1.83 6.67 6.9 11 11:20 11:30 10.0 11.92 13.8 1.88 6.80 6.9 12 11:33 11:43 10.0 11.92 13.8 1.88 6.80 6.9 6.9 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Date:4/15/2025 I-2 Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): *measured at time of test Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Comments Water drained after 30 min Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, Dt (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Change in Water Level, DD (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Measured Infiltration Rate Feasibility Factor of Safety Feasibility Infiltration Rate Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 15 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 7:23 7:53 30.0 13.99 14.79 0.8 Main Test Data 1 7:58 8:28 30.0 11.91 14.38 2.47 6.82 3.0 2 8:32 8:42 10.0 11.96 13.59 1.63 6.72 6.1 3 8:45 8:55 10.0 11.95 13.47 1.52 6.74 5.7 4 8:57 9:07 10.0 11.96 13.44 1.48 6.72 5.5 5 9:09 9:19 10.0 11.95 13.49 1.54 6.74 5.7 6 9:22 9:32 10.0 11.96 13.41 1.45 6.72 5.4 7 9:34 9:44 10.0 11.99 13.38 1.39 6.65 5.3 8 9:45 9:55 10.0 11.98 13.44 1.46 6.67 5.5 9 9:58 10:08 10.0 11.95 13.47 1.52 6.74 5.7 10 10:12 10:22 10.0 11.96 13.42 1.46 6.72 5.5 11 10:24 10:34 10.0 11.95 13.40 1.45 6.74 5.4 12 10:36 10:46 10.0 11.91 13.32 1.41 6.82 5.2 13 10:59 11:09 10.0 11.97 13.39 1.42 6.70 5.3 14 11:12 11:22 10.0 11.96 13.37 1.41 6.72 5.3 15 11:24 11:34 10.0 11.97 13.35 1.38 6.70 5.2 16 11:36 11:46 10.0 11.95 13.4 1.45 6.74 5.4 5.3 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Infiltration Rate Factor of Safety Design Infiltration Rate Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Comments Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, ∆t (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Change in Water Level, ∆D (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) *measured at time of test Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): Date:5/29/2025 I-3 Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 15 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 8:07 8:37 30.0 12.15 14.2 2.05 Main Test Data 1 8:39 8:49 10.0 11.44 12.94 1.50 7.81 4.8 2 8:50 9:00 10.0 11.93 13.09 1.16 6.78 4.3 3 9:02 9:12 10.0 11.85 12.92 1.07 6.95 3.9 4 9:14 9:50 36.0 11.95 14.07 2.12 6.74 2.2 5 9:53 10:03 10.0 11.80 12.98 1.18 7.05 4.2 6 10:05 10:15 10.0 11.93 13.00 1.07 6.78 4.0 7 10:18 10:28 10.0 11.98 13.10 1.12 6.67 4.2 8 10:32 10:42 10.0 11.97 13.12 1.15 6.70 4.3 9 11:06 11:16 10.0 11.82 12.82 1.00 7.01 3.6 10 11:18 11:28 10.0 11.95 12.86 0.91 6.74 3.4 11 11:30 11:40 10.0 11.97 12.99 1.02 6.70 3.8 12 11:43 11:53 10.0 11.98 13.04 1.06 6.67 4.0 13 11:57 12:07 10.0 11.93 13.05 1.12 6.78 4.2 14 12:09 12:19 10.0 11.95 13.10 1.15 6.74 4.3 15 12:25 12:35 10.0 11.97 13.18 1.21 6.70 4.5 16 12:38 12:48 10.0 11.95 13.14 1.19 6.74 4.4 4.4 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Infiltration Rate Factor of Safety Design Infiltration Rate Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Comments Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, ∆t (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Change in Water Level, ∆D (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) *measured at time of test Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): Date:5/29/2025 I-4 Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Appendix E General Earthwork & Grading Specifications for Rough Grading General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture- conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1 contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor. 2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 2 2.3 Over-excavation In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 3 3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Layers Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557). 4.3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557. 4.5 Compaction Testing Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 4 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 5 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 6 the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles APPENDIX E Tentative Tract Map Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Preparation Date: September 2025 Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Plan Prepared for: MW Investment Group 27702 Crown Valley Parkway Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, Ca 92694 Matt Waken (626) 710-7377 Property: Colorado Connection 201 Colorado Place, Arcadia TTM 84968 APN 5775-011-032 201 Colorado Place Arcadia, CA 91007 Prepared by: C&V Consulting, Inc. 9830 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 916-3800 Dane McDougall, P.E. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 100 September 2025 ii Receipt of WDID REPLACE THIS SHEET To be provided prior to final approval Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 100 September 2025 iii Notice of Intent REPLACE THIS SHEET To be provided prior to final approval Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 100 September 2025 iv Table of Contents SECTION PAGE SECTION 100 COVER ............................................................................................................................................................ I RECEIPT OF WDID .......................................................................................................................................... II NOTICE OF INTENT ........................................................................................................................................... III LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... IV PROJECT OWNER’S CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................................. V ENGINEER CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................................................. VI SECTION 200 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 A.Contact Information/List of Responsible Parties ....................................................................................... 1 SECTION 300 ............................................................................................................................................... 2 A.References ................................................................................................................................................ 2 SECTION 400 – BODY OF LID .................................................................................................................... 3 A.Objectives/ Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 3 B.Project Background and Description ......................................................................................................... 3 C.Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................... 4 D.Existing Site Drainage Condition ............................................................................................................... 4 E.Proposed Site Drainage Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5 F.LID Project Types, Characteristics, & Activities ......................................................................................... 6 G.Pollutant Source Identification and BMP Selection ................................................................................... 6 H.Non- Structural BMPs ................................................................................................................................ 7 I.Structural Source Control BMPs ............................................................................................................. 130 J.BMP Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair .............................................................................................. 16 K.Inspection, Maintenance, and Responsibility for BMPs .......................................................................... 16 L.Operation/Maintenance Funding after Project Completion ...................................................................... 19 List of Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Figure 2: BMP Exhibit Figure 3: Impaired Waters List of Appendices Appendix A: Volume and Infiltration Calculations Appendix B: Site BMPs Appendix C: Infiltration Trench Sizing Appendix D: Catch Basin Stencil Examples and Catch Basin Cleaning Appendix E: General Education Materials Appendix F: Operation and Maintenance Plan Appendix G: Geotechnical Investigation Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 100 September 2025 v Project Owner’s Certification of the Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Plan Project Name: Colorado Connection Project Number: Tentative Tract Map No. 84968 APN 5775-011-0132 Project Address: 201 Colorado Place Arcadia, CA 91007 This Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Plan for the Colorado Connection (TTM 84968) project has been prepared for MW Investment Group by C&V Consulting, Inc. It is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Arcadia’s Conditions of Approval. The undersigned is authorized to approve implementation of provisions of this plan as appropriate, and will strive to have the plan carried out by successors consistent with the County of Los Angeles LID Manual and the intent of the NPDES storm water requirements. "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my jurisdiction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.” Owner’s Name: Matt Waken Owner’s Title: Managing Member Company: MW Investment Group Address: 27702 Crown Valley Parkway Suited D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, Ca 92694 Email: Telephone No.: (626) 710-6377 Signature: Date: Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 100 September 2025 vi Engineer Certification Engineer’s Name: Dane McDougall Engineer’s Title: Principal Company: C&V Consulting, Inc. Address: 9830 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618 Email: dmcdougall@cvc-inc.net Telephone No. (949) 916-3800 I hereby certify that this Low Impact Development Plan is in compliance with, and meets the requirements set forth in, Order No. R4-2012-0175, of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Engineer’s Signature Date Place Stamp Here Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 200 September 2025 1 Section 200 A. Contact Information/List of Responsible Parties The property contact information is: Matt Waken 27702 Crown Valley Parkway Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, Ca 92694 (626) 710-6377 The property owner shall have primary responsibility and significant authority for the implementation, maintenance, and inspection of the property BMPs. Duties of the Owner include but are not limited to: • Implementing all elements of the LID, including but not limited to: o Implementation of prompt and effective erosion and sediment control measures o Implementing all non-storm water management, and materials and waste management activities, such as: monitoring, discharges, general site clean-up; vehicle and equipment cleaning, spill control; good construction housekeeping to ensure that no materials other than storm water are discharged which may have an adverse effect on receiving waters or storm drain systems, etc. • Pre-storm inspections • Storm event inspections • Post-storm inspections • Routine inspections as described in the LID • Ensuring elimination of all unauthorized discharges • The Owner shall be assigned authority to mobilize crews in order to make immediate repairs to the control measures. • Coordinate all of the necessary corrections/repairs are made immediately, and that the project complies with the LID at all times. • Managing and report any Illicit Connections or Illegal Discharges. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 300 September 2025 2 Section 300 A. References The following documents are made a part of this LID by reference: • Project plans and specifications for the City of Arcadia to support the Colorado Connection (TTM 84968) project, prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc., 9830 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618. • County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Low Impact Development Standards Manual dated February 2014 • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 dated July 1, 2010 • California Stormwater BMP Handbook – Construction, January 2009. • California Stormwater BMP Handbook – New Development and Redevelopment, January 2003. • Los Angeles County Municipal Stormwater/ NPDES Permit Order R4-2012-0175 Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 3 Section 400 – Body of LID A. Objectives /Methodology This Low Impact Development (LID) Plan has the following main objectives: 1) Identify all pollutant sources, including sources of sediment that may affect the quality of storm water discharges associated with daily use / activity (storm water discharges) from the property site. 2) Identify, construct, implement and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from the property site. 3) Develop a maintenance schedule for BMPs designed to reduce or eliminate pollutants. The method of quantifying stormwater design capture volume was to utilize the Los Angeles County Public Works’ HydroCalc program for the project site. Since the 85th percentile rainfall depth (1.0 inch) was determined to be greater than the 0.75-in rainfall depth, the 85th percentile rainfall depth was applied to the analysis to obtain the 24-hr clear runoff volume. B. Project Background and Description The proposed project site is located at 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, California (APN 5775-011-032). It is comprised of 3.69 acres. The site is bounded by Colorado Place to the West, San Juan Drive to the south, Santa Rosa Road to the east, and a Private Elementary/ Junior High School to the north. There is an existing LA County Flood Control Channel along the eastern property line as well. According to as built plans, the channel continues underground, south through the middle of the site. Refer to Figure 1 for the Vicinity Map. The development proposes to construct fourteen (14) multi-family residential buildings consisting of eighty-six (86) units with private garages, private drive aisles, sidewalks, guest parking areas, and common landscaped areas. The project site will be accessible via an entrance/exit along Colorado Place and secondary entrance/ exit along Santa Rosa Road. The existing site is currently occupied by a commercial building, an associated parking lot, and a hotel and associated parking lot. It is a relatively flat site with elevations ranging between 487 feet to 482 feet above mean sea level. Pervious coverage is approximated to be 23% for the existing condition of the site per aerial topography. Proposed condition coverage is assumed to be 85% impervious based on land use per Hydrology Manual. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 4 C. Vicinity Map The site is located at 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles. The site is bounded by a school to the north, San Juan Drive to the South, an LA County Flood Control Channel and Santa Rosa Road to the east, and Colorado Place to the west. Refer to Figure 1 for the Vicinity Map. D. Existing Site Drainage Condition The existing site is currently occupied by a commercial building, an associated parking lot, and a hotel and associated parking lot. It is a relatively flat site with elevations ranging between 487 feet to 482 feet above mean sea level. Drainage from the site is generally divided into two areas. The topography of the northern (hotel) portion of the site shows runoff flowing away from the building into the existing parking lot. There is an existing valley gutter that conveys flows to an existing catch basin at the southern end of the parking lot. It is assumed that the catch basin conveys flows into the Arcadia Wash adjacent to the site. The topography of the southern portion of the site shows runoff flowing overland from the north to the southeast property line. Runoff discharges from the site via the existing driveway that outlets onto San Juan Drive. From San Juan Drive, runoff flows southwest in curb and gutter and crosses San Juan Drive going south in an existing valley gutter. Runoff continues in the existing curb and gutter in Colorado place for approximately 530’ south before entering a city owned Catch Basin. It is assumed that the catch basin from the northern portion of the site and the catch basin in Colorado Place both discharge into the Arcadia Wash – East Branch. From here, the captured stormwater travels south to confluence at Arcadia Wash – Main Branch which then drains to the Rio Hondo Channel. Rio Hondo Channel travels southeast before draining to the existing Los Angeles River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro Bay. Water bodies downstream of the project site are listed on the most current 303 (d) List as follows: • Rio Hondo Channel o Iron o Dissolved Oxygen o Indicator Bacteria • Los Angeles River o Ammonia o Cadmium o Coliform Bacteria o Dissolved Copper o Cyanide o Diazinon o Lead o Nutrients (Algae) o pH Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 5 o Trash o Dissolved Zinc • San Pedro Bay o Chlordane All facilities downstream of the project site are engineered, therefore the project is exempt from Hydromodification Control requirements. E. Proposed Site Drainage Conditions The proposed project is comprised of 3.69 acres and is located at 201 Colorado Place in the city of Arcadia in Los Angeles County. The site is bounded by Colorado Place to the West, San Juan Drive to the south, Santa Rosa Road to the east, and a Private Elementary/ Junior High School to the north. The onsite residential development will be analyzed as two subareas, the northern drainage management area (DMA P1) and the southern drainage management area (DMA P2). DMA P1 will consist of four (4) grated inlet catch basins and one (1) curb inlet catch basin. DMA P2 will be equipped with four (4) curb inlet catch basins. All of these inlets will be equipped with FloGard inlet filters which will pretreat runoff prior to entering the underground infiltration trenches. The infiltration trenches will be sized to detain and infiltrate the 85th percentile rain event in conformance with water quality treatment standards. During the design storm event when the infiltration/ detention system reaches full capacity, excess runoff will pond within the most downstream catch basin and will be conveyed through a proposed parkway drain into the right of way. DMA P1 will discharge excess runoff into Colorado Place and DMA P2 will discharge excess runoff into San Juan Drive. Runoff from the site will follow historic drainage patterns to the Pacific Ocean. Per the Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by LGC Geotechnical, Inc dated June 26, 2025, “Four shallow infiltration test wells were installed in Borings I-1 through I-4 to approximate depths of 10 to 15 feet below existing grade. The approximate infiltration boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). Estimation of infiltration rates was performed in general accordance with the “Boring Percolation Test Procedure” guidelines set forth by the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021). The borings for the infiltration tests were excavated using a drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. A 3-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe was placed in the borehole above a thin layer of gravel and the annulus was backfilled with gravel. Infiltration tests were performed using relatively clean water free of particulates, silt, etc. The infiltration wells were pre-soaked during the day of drilling and a 30-minute pre-test was performed during the day of testing. Subsequently, readings were taken a minimum of 6 times or until a “stabilized rate” was established. A “stabilized rate” is when the highest and lowest readings are within 10 percent of each other over three consecutive readings. At the completion of infiltration testing, the pipe was removed, and the holes were backfilled and tamped. Based on the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021), the infiltration rate is calculated by dividing the volume of water discharged by the surface area of the test Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 6 section (including the sidewalls and bottom of the boring) over a specific time period. The infiltration rate is taken as the average of the last three readings during which a “stabilized rate” is achieved. The infiltration rates are provided in Table 1 below: Table 1 Summary of Field Infiltration Testing Infiltration Test Location Approximate Infiltration Test Depth (ft) Infiltration Rate* (inch/hr) I-1 10.0 0.7 I-2 15.0 6.9 I-3 15.0 5.3 I-4 10.0 4.4 *Does Not include required reduction factors for design. “Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing ground surface during our subsurface evaluation. Historic high groundwater is greater than 100 feet below current grade per the Seismic Hazard Report of the Mount Wilson 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, (CDMG, 1998). Groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed development.” The results of the infiltration tests do not include the factor of safety; therefore, a safety factor of 4 was applied to obtain the design infiltration rate within the infiltration system analysis. Refer to Appendix G, Geotechnical Report for additional infiltration information. Refer to Figure 2, BMP Exhibit for additional information. F. LID Project Types, Characteristics, & Activities Per the Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LACDPW), Low Impact Development Standards Manual, dated February 2014, the proposed project is classified as a “Designated Project.” A “Designated Project” is defined by the LACDPW as follows: “Redevelopment projects, which are developments that result in creation or addition or replacement of either: (1) 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface on a site that was previously developed as described in the above bullets; or (2) 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on a site that was previous developed as a single-family home.” G. Pollutant Source Identification and BMP Selection The following is a list of materials to be used in the daily construction activities at the project site, which will potentially contribute to pollutants, other than sediment, to storm water runoff. Control Practices for each activity are identified below: • Vehicle fluids, including oil, grease, petroleum, and coolants from personal vehicles Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 7 • Landscaping materials and wastes (topsoil, plant materials, herbicides, fertilizers, mulch, pesticides) • General trash debris and litter • Pet waste (bacteria/ fecal coliforms) Project proponents shall implement Site Design concepts that achieve each of the following: • Minimize Urban Runoff • Minimize Impervious Footprint • Conserve Natural Areas • Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs) The Best Management Practices (BMPs) that have been selected for implementation on this project are detailed in the following sections. H. Non-Structural BMPs Non-structural BMPs are generally managerial, educational, inspection and/ or maintenance oriented. These items consist of educating employees and occupants, developing, and implementing HOA guidelines, implementing BMPs and enforcing Code requirements. Table-1: Non-Structural Source Control BMPs BMP TECHNIQUE INCLUDED? NOTES YES NO N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants X HOA to comply N2 Activity Restrictions X HOA to comply N3 Common Area Landscape Management X HOA to comply N4 BMP Maintenance X HOA to maintain N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) X HOA to comply N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance X Not Applicable N7 Spill Contingency Plan X Not Applicable N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance X Not Applicable N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance X Not Applicable N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation X Not Applicable N11 Common Area Litter Control X HOA to comply N12 Employee Training X HOA to comply Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 8 BMP TECHNIQUE INCLUDED? NOTES YES NO N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks X Not Applicable N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection X HOA to comply N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots X HOA to comply N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets X Not Applicable Education for Employees and Occupants Practical informational materials will be provided to homeowners, HOA and employees on general good housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of storm water quality. Among other things, these materials will describe the use of chemicals (including household type) that should be limited to the property, with no discharge of specified wastes via hosing or other direct discharge to gutters, catch basins and storm drains. Initially, the Owner will provide these materials. Thereafter, such materials will be available through the HOA education program. This program must be maintained, enforced, and updated periodically by the HOA. Educational materials including, but not limited to, the materials included in the Appendix E of this plan will be made available to the employees and contractors of the HOA. Activity Restrictions Activities on this site will be limited to activities related to residential living. The project’s Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will outline the activities that are restricted on the property. Such activities related to the LID include car washing, car maintenance and disposal of used motor fluids, pet waste cleanup, and trash container areas. Community Car Wash Racks No community car wash rack or area will be provided, therefore, vehicle washing by residents on the property will not be allowed per the CC&Rs. Self-Contained Washing Self-contained washing of vehicles by residents or owners on the property will not be allowed per the CC&Rs. Outdoor Material Storage Areas Outdoor material storage areas refer to storage areas or storage facilities solely for the storage of materials. Improper storage of materials outdoors may provide an opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and grease, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids, and other pollutants to enter the storm water conveyance system. Outdoor Storage by residents or owners on the property will not be allowed per the CC&Rs. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 9 Common Area Landscaped Management Identify on-going landscape maintenance requirements that are consistent with those in the County Water Conservation Resolution (or city equivalent) that include fertilizer and/or pesticide usage consistent with Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers Runoff-Minimizing Landscape Design As part of the design of all common area landscape areas, similar planting material with similar water requirements will be used in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Such common areas will be maintained by the HOA. BMP Maintenance The HOA will implement maintenance of each non-structural BMP and scheduled cleaning and/or maintenance of all structural BMP facilities. Common Area Litter Control The HOA must implement trash management and litter control procedures in common areas aimed at reducing pollution of drainage water. The HOA may contract a landscape maintenance company to provide this service during regularly scheduled maintenance which will consist of litter patrol and noting trash disposal violations and reporting the violations to the HOA for investigation. Employee Training A training program will be established as it would apply to future employees, contractors, and homeowners of the HOA to inform and train in maintenance activities regarding the impact of dumping oil, paints, solvents, or other potentially harmful chemicals into storm drains; the proper use of fertilizers and pesticides in landscaping maintenance practices; and the impacts of littering and improper water disposal. The HOA (or a hired firm) will conduct the training program which will include targeted training sessions with specific construction disciplines (landscaping, concrete finishers, painters, etc.). See Appendix E for examples of educational materials that will be provided to the Employees. The project’s CC&Rs will include provisions for future employee training programs conducted on a yearly basis prior to the rainy season. Drainage Facility Inspection & Maintenance The HOA will be responsible for implementing each of the BMPs detailed in this plan. The HOA will also be responsible for cleaning and maintaining the BMPs on a regular basis. Refer to Appendix C for site specific drainage BMP information. Refer to Appendix F for the Operation and Maintenance Plan during Final Engineering. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 10 Catch Basin Inspection The HOA will maintain the drainage systems, including catch basins and culverts. The HOA is required to have catch basins inspected and, if necessary, cleaned prior to the storm season, no later than October 15th each year or prior to the first 24-hour storm event, whichever occurs first. These duties may be contracted out to the landscape maintenance firm hired by the HOA. Refer to Appendix D for additional inspection Information. Street Sweeping in Private Streets and Parking Lots The HOA shall have all streets and parking lots swept on a weekly basis. This procedure will be intensified around October 15th of each year prior to and throughout rain storm period. I. Structural Source Control BMPs Project proponents shall implement Site Design concepts that achieve each of the following: • Minimize Urban Runoff • Minimize Impervious Footprint • Conserve Natural Areas • Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs) Table-2 and Table-3 identifies the source control and treatment BMPs and how each is implemented to achieve each Site Design concept. BMP fact sheets are provided by the LACDPW Low Impact Development Standards Manual and the California Stormwater Quality Association. Table-2: LACDPW Source Control BMPs BMP TECHNIQUE INCLUDED? BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF METHOD YES NO S-1 Storm Drain Message and Signage X S-2 Outdoor Material Storage Area X Not Applicable S-3 Outdoor Trash Storage and Waste Handling Area X S-4 Outdoor Loading/Unloading Dock Area X No Loading Dock Areas S-5 Outdoor Repair/Maintenance Area X No Maintenance Bays S-6 Outdoor Vehicle/Equipment’s/Accessory Washing Area X No Wash Areas S-7 Fueling Area X No Fueling Areas Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 11 BMP TECHNIQUE INCLUDED? BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF METHOD YES NO S-8 Landscape Irrigation Practices X S-9 Building Materials Selection X S-10 Animal Care and Handling Facilities X No Animal Care Facility S-11 Outdoor Horticulture Areas X Not Applicable Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 12 Table-3: CASQA Source Control BMPs for Design BMP TECHNIQUE INCLUDED? NOTES YES NO SE-7 Street Sweeping and Vacuuming X Pet waste collection stations, HOA SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning X Common Landscape Area Design, HOA SD-11 Roof Runoff Controls X Roof drains will be disconnected from the MS4 SD-12 Efficient Irrigation X Landscape design will implement efficient irrigation SD-13 Storm Drain Signage X Catch basins will be appropriately marked SD-20 Pervious Pavements X Site design does not allow for this BMP. SD-21 Alternative Building Materials X Not Applicable SD-30 Fueling Areas X Not Applicable SD-31 Maintenance Bays & Docks X Not Applicable SD-32 Trash Storage Areas X SD-33 Vehicle Washing Areas X Not Applicable SD-34 Outdoor Material Storage Areas X Not Applicable SD-35 Outdoor Work Areas X Not Applicable SD-36 Outdoor Processing Areas X Not Applicable Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 13 Storm Drain Stenciling/ Signage Phrase "No Dumping – Drains to Ocean" or equally effective phrase to be stenciled on catch basins to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. This stenciling will be inspected and re-stenciled on a periodic basis by the HOA. Refer to Appendix D for stenciling example. Storm Drain Signage Storm Drain Signage will be provided on all proposed on-site catch basins to prevent residence from discarding pollutants to the storm drain system and potentially obstructing the proposed BMP treatment facility. The placard or stencil will indicate the ultimate destination of the runoff entering the device. This stencil shall be always weatherproof and visible. The HOA will be responsible for maintaining the signage after the construction is completed. See Appendix D for an example. Outdoor Trash Storage and Waste Handling Area Proposed trash enclosures will be designed in accordance with all standards set by local building and fire codes, current County ordinances and zoning requirements, as well as the design specifications outlined in the Los Angeles County LID Manual. Trash Storage Areas Proposed trash enclosures will be designed in accordance with all standards set by local building and fire codes, current County ordinances and zoning requirements, as well as the design specifications outlined in the Los Angeles County LID Manual. Landscape & Irrigation System Design As part of the design of all common area landscape irrigation shall employ water conservation principles, including, but not limited to, such provisions as water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for short cycles), etc. will be used. Such common areas will be maintained by the HOA. Efficient Landscape System & Landscape Maintenance Management programs will be designed and established by the HOA, who will maintain the common areas within the project site. These programs will include how to mitigate the potential dangers of fertilizer and pesticide usage (refer to the Maintenance and Frequency Table). Ongoing maintenance will be consistent with the State of California Model- Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Fertilizer and pesticide usage shall be consistent with County Management Guidelines for use of Fertilizers and Pesticides. Building Materials Selection Material selection will minimize the use of copper, galvanized metals and other materials that could add significant amounts of harmful pollutants to stormwater runoff. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 14 Street Sweeping and Vacuuming The HOA shall have all streets and parking lots swept on a weekly basis. This procedure will be intensified around October 15th of each year prior to and throughout rain storm period. Roof Runoff Controls All roof runoff will be collected and directed to splash blocks then onto grass or vegetated swales before discharging to the street or storm drain system. Area drains within the onsite landscaping between buildings will flow to onsite infiltration system where flows will be treated. Efficient Irrigation As part of the design of all common area landscape irrigation shall employ water conservation principals, including, but not limited to, such provisions as water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for short cycles), etc., will be used. Such common areas will be maintained by the HOA. Structural BMPs Structural BMPs shall be installed by the developer, through the construction and development of the project, for instance; landscaping and irrigation systems shall be designed by licensed landscape architects and installed by qualified contractors to specifications and standards of the City of Arcadia. The structural BMPs used for this project are summarized below: Expected pollutants associated with this development include vehicle discharge fluids, landscaping materials and waste, litter, and pet waste. To mitigate these pollutants, the structural best management practices are summarized below. Table-4: Stormwater Quality Control BMPs BMP NAME INCLUDED? IF NOT APPLICABLE, STATE BRIEF REASON YES NO VEG-5 Vegetated Filter Strip X Alternative BMP selected VEG-4 Vegetated Swale X Space not available for BMP MP-40 Media Filter X Alternative BMP selected MP-52 Drain Inserts X Oldcastle FloGard Catch Basin inserts will be utilized on this site. T-1 Sand Filter X Alternative BMP selected T-2 Constructed Wetland X Alternative BMP selected T-3 Extended Detention Basin X Alternative BMP selected T-4 Wet Pond X Alternative BMP selected Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 15 BMP NAME INCLUDED? IF NOT APPLICABLE, STATE BRIEF REASON YES NO T-5 Permeable Pavement with an Underdrain X Alternative BMP selected RET-1 Bioretention X Alternative BMP selected RET-2 Infiltration Basin X Alternative BMP selected RET-3 Infiltration Trench X Proposed Infiltration BMP will be utilized in the proposed development and provide full treatment of the SWQDV. RET-4 Drywell X Alternative BMP selected RET-5 Permeable Pavement without an Underdrain X Alternative BMP selected TC-40 Media Filter X Alternative BMP selected BIO-1 Biofiltration X Alternative BMP selected Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 16 Infiltration Trench System Catch basin inlets with drain inserts are proposed to intercept site generated runoff and convey it to the infiltration trench system. The inlets are designed to intercept the majority of the first flows during a rain event and drain inserts will provide pre-treatment for the runoff prior to infiltration into the underlying soil. The proposed system will detain, treat, and infiltrate the required water quality volume within the target drawdown duration of 48 hours. The treatment capacity of the system is determined by the drawdown duration and the design infiltration rate. The calculation is shown below for reference: Drainage Management Area (DMA) Size (ac) SWQDV (cf)* Detention Capacity (cf) 48-hr Treatment Capacity (cf) P1 2.62 7432.5 7,556 22,360.8 P2 1.08 3063.8 3,094 14,565.6 *Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) HydroCalc Software was utilized to calculate stormwater quality design volume (SWQDV). The governing flowrate per the 85th Percentile storm event was utilized for design. Refer to Appendix A for HydroCalc outputs. The Infiltration system will address the pollutants of concern associated with the development type. Refer to Appendix C for more information on Infiltration Trench System sizing. Treatment Volumes are to be verified with proposed perviousness per final site plan during Final Engineering. J. BMP Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair Inspections will be conducted as follows: • Annually and prior to the start of the rainy season • Every (1) month during rainy season • At any other time(s) or intervals of time specified in the contract documents Repairs and/ or maintenance procedures shall be carried out at the soonest possible time. K. Inspection, Maintenance, and Responsibility for BMPs Table-4 and Table-5 show the lists of the post-construction BMPs (routine non-structural and structural), the required ongoing maintenance, the inspection and maintenance frequency, the inspection criteria, and the entity or party responsible for implementation, maintenance, and/or inspection. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 17 Table-5: Non-Structural BMP Maintenance Responsibility/Frequency Matrix BMP RESPONSIBILITY FREQUENCY Homeowner/ Business owner Education, Activity Restrictions HOA will provide educational materials. Those materials and responsibilities must be passed onto subsequent property owners. Continuous. CC&Rs to be provided to homeowners at the time they purchase the property and updates provided by the HOA as they occur. Common Area Landscape Management HOA will appoint a landscape maintenance contractor Monthly during regular maintenance and use with management guidelines for use of fertilizers and pesticides. Parking Areas and Drive Aisle Management HOA The Drives Aisles are to be swept on a routine scheduled basis to facilitate the pickup of trash and debris (plant or otherwise) and to remove excessive oil, grease and build-up. During sweeping, debris is to be removed from the parking areas and drives and then scrubbed and rinsed. This sweeping schedule will be at a minimum occurrence of once a week and as necessary to rid / reduce active pollutants from the pavement areas. This maintenance requirement will be listed in the Convent, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of this project. These CC&Rs will be recorded to the property at the County Recorder’s Office and be included on the final Title report of these properties. Litter Control by Sweeping HOA Weekly inspection of trash receptacles to ensure that lids are closed and pick up any excess trash on the ground, noting trash disposal violations to the HOA for remediation. Employee Training HOA Monthly for maintenance personnel and employees to include the educational materials contained in the approved LID. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection & Cleaning HOA will appoint a landscape maintenance contractor for common areas and storm drain facilities. Inspect basins once a month. Clean debris and silt in bottom of catch basins as needed. Intensified on or about October 15th each year or prior to the first 24-hour storm event, whichever occurs first. Refer to Appendix E. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 18 Table-6: Structural BMP Maintenance Responsibility/ Frequency Matrix BMP RESPONSIBILITY FREQUENCY Common Area Efficient Irrigation HOA will appoint a landscape contractor after construction Once a week, in conjunction with maintenance activities. Verify that runoff minimizing landscape design continues to function by checking that water sensors are functioning properly, that irrigation heads are adjusted properly to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, and to verify that irrigation timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in accordance with water demands, given time of year, weather and day or night time temperatures. Common Area Runoff Efficient Landscape Design HOA will appoint a landscaping contractor Once a week in conjunction with maintenance activities and prior to finalizing any replanting schemes. Verify that plants continue to be grouped according to similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff. Infiltration Trench HOA Infiltration Trench maintenance will conform to pipe manufacturer’s specifications. Additional information to be provided during final engineering in Appendix C. Drain Inserts HOA Drain inserts maintenance will conform to manufacturer’s specifications. Additional information to be provided during final engineering in Appendix C. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia MW Investment Group Section 400 September 2025 19 L. Operation/Maintenance Funding after Project Completion The post-construction BMPs as described above will be funded and maintained by: Matt Waken 27702 Crown Valley Parkway Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, Ca 92694 (626) 710-6377 Maintenance and requirements of the maintenance for the properties will be listed in the Convent, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of this project and will be the responsibility of the property owner at all times. These CC&Rs will be recorded to the property at the County Recorder’s Office and be included on the Title report of these properties. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Vicinity Map Not to Scale Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Figure 2: BMP Exhibit UP16R UP16R WH WH UP16R UP16R WH T R A S H R E C Y C L E TR A S H RE C Y C L E WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WHWHWHWHWH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH W H W H WH WH WH WHWH WH WH UP16R UP 16R WH WH WH UP 16 R UP 16 R WH UP16R UP16R UP16R UP16R WH WHWHWHWHWH WH STOP 1" = 30' 0 15 30 60 Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Figure 3: Impaired Waters !"^$ %&g( ?l %&l( !"`$!"`$ !"`$ %&o( %&o( ?l ?l ?q ?q ?q %&e( %&e( ?Õ %&q( %&q( %&d( ?»?» ?£ AË ?ò A V AV BV AV FOOT HILL GR A N D AV HY BV BASE LINE RD AV TO W N E BV ST ST ST B V N N RD FELIZ BV AV R D 6T H P Y SAN HY RD RD HY ANGEL E S M T R E D BOX TU J U N G A RD HY BV RD BA R BV BV RD VALLEY BV BV BV MA G N O L I A AV BV DR COLORADO HUNTINGTON RD LIVE ST OAK RD AR R O Y O RD ARROWAV DR FOOTHILL AZU S A BV BV A V ALOSTA MT RD AL A M I T O S A V AV B V B ST ST ST ARTESIA BV NO R W A L K FIRESTONE AT L A N T I C B V BV BV HYLEFFINGW E L L RD BV CO L I M A OF F C U T RD NO R W A L K RD BV AV AV ST CARSON 7TH AT L A N T I C WILLOW BV H Y ST BIG PI N E S HY RD BO B ' S GAP R D V A L Y E R M O RD GL E N D A L E V E R D U G O HUNTI N G T O N MIS S I O N MA I N PE C K GABR I E L BAL D Y CAN Y O N BIG CR E S T ANG E L E S FORE S T ANGE L E S CRES T WILS O N BIG R O C K CREE K BROA D W A Y VALLEYMAIN HA C I E N D A FUL L E R T O N DIA M O N D MISSION G R A N D B R E A C N BRE A CN OCEAN ALA M E D A RO S E M E A D CRY S T A L LA K E CA N Y O N WHITTIE R LAS TUNAS DR GLE N D O R A A V LA K E W O O D BV CO U N T Y SA N BE R N A R D I N O COUNTY OR A N G E RIV E R LOS ANGELES RIVER LO S A N G E L E S S A N GA B R I E L RIV E R SAN GA B R I E L RIVE R W E ST F O R K SAN RIV E RGABRIEL EA S T FO R K G A BRIEL RIVER S A N LEGG LAKE BIG SANTA ANITA RESERVOIR SAWPIT CANYON RESERVOIR COGSWELL RESERVOIR SAN GABRIEL RESERVOIR MORRIS RESERVOIR CRYSTAL LAKE BIG DALTON RESERVOIR SAN DIMAS RESERVOIR SAN ANTONIO RESERVOIR THOMPSON CREEK RESERVOIRLIVE OAK RESERVOIR PUDDINGSTONE RESERVOIR BIG TUJUNGA RESERVOIR WHITTIER NARROWS DAM SANTA FE DAM EATON WASH DAM DEVIL'S GATE DAM & RES CRE E K CREE K MAR S H A L L CAN Y O N CHA N N E L LIV E O A K C Y N . BI G D A L T O N C A N Y O N MULL C H A N N E L GO R D O N C H A N N E L MO R G A N CREEK HA M C A N Y O N C H A N N E L PU D D I N G S T O N E C H A N N E L CHA R T E R O A K W A S H WASH BAKER WASH CRE E K SOU T H S A N J O S E C R E E K C H I N O CHAN N E L A L H A M B R A SAN J O S E CREEK SYCAMORE CANYON AR R O Y O S E C O C R E E K W A S H S A N P A S Q U A L MILL CREEK VERDU G O WASH S Y C A M O R E W A S H DE A D H O R S E C A N Y O N C H A N N E L SYCA M O R E - S C H O L L DIVER S I O N RO Y A L C A N Y O N C H A N N E L REYNOLDS COURT LAT SA N A N T O N I O W A S H WALNU T C R E E K CANYON LITT L E SAN DIMAS DALTO N BIG D A L T O N WA S H SA N A N T O N I O CR E E K TH O M P S O N S A N J O S E C R E E K BEATTY CANYON CHANNEL VA N T A S S E L C A N Y O N CH A N N E L MA D D O C K CH A N N E L SP I N K S CH A N N E L BR A D B U R Y CH A N N E L A R R O Y O S E C O C H A N N E L SCHOLL CHANNEL CHANNEL SYCAMORECANYON CL E M E N T S LA T E R A L CASCADIA LATERAL LE N O R E CH A N N E L CHANNEL BUENA VISTA BUENA VISTA CHANNEL S I E R R A M A D R E W A S H SA W P I T W A S H BR A D B U R Y C H A N N E L CREEK A R C A D I A AR C A D I A E A S T B R A N C H W A S H BA L D W I N A V E . L I M A S T . SA N J O S E PUEN T E CREEK W A S H R U B I O WASH BIG DALTONWASHEAST BRANCH BI G D A L T O N W A S H EN G L E W I L D CH A N N E L HA R R O W C H A N N E L W A S H WASH E A T O N RIO H O N D O C H A N N E L LIV E O A K TH O M P S O N BRAD F O R D D R BIG D A L T O N W A S H WALNUT CHANNEL WALNUT CHANNEL WE S T F O R K MA R S H A L L C A N Y O N EM E R A L D W A S H LIVE OAK CREEK C R E E K D O M I N G U E Z RIO H O N D O VER D E NO R T H F O R K TAC O B I CR E E K COMPTON C O M P T O N C R E E K V E R N O N C H A N N E L BRE A C A N Y O N C H A N N E L C H A N N E L EA S T B R A N C H CH A N N E L LA MIRADA CREEK LA C A N A D A COY O T E CO Y O T E CR E E K COYOTE L O S C E R R I T O S C H A N N E L ATBELL CHANNE L BREA C A N Y O N CHANN E L CAN Y O N WASH WASH AC T O N CA N Y O N SHANNON V A L L E Y CHA N N E L VE R D U G O W A S H GO S S C Y N . IN L E T QU A I L CR E E K CL O U D C R E E K CH A N N E L EA G L E W A R D CH A N N E L CH A N N E L CA N Y O N DU N S M U I R CH A N N E L CA N Y O N CO O K S SHI E L D S C A N Y O N SU N S E T L A T ALTADENA SYSTEM RUBIO RU B I O DI V E R S I O N WA S H GO O S E B E R R Y CR E E K CHANNEL BLA N C H A R D CA N Y O N CH A N N E L WE B B E R CA N Y O N CH A N N E L B U R B A N K E A S T E R N CH A N N E L HI L L C R E S T BR A N D C A N Y O N C H A N N E L ENGLEHEARD CANYON CHANNEL WA S H V E R D U G O PI C K E N S C A N Y O N C H A N N E L HAL L S C A N Y O N C H A N N E L WI N E R Y C A N Y O N C H A N N E L HA Y C A N Y O N C H A N N E L FLIN T C A N Y O N C H A N N E L GO U L D C A N Y O N PA R A D I S E CA N Y O N C H A N N E L CH A N N E L W A S H C A N Y O N ANI T A S A N T A LI T T L E CA N Y O N BA I L E Y SI E R R A M A D R E V I L L A C H A N N E L CA R R I A G E H O U S E CA N Y O N AU B U R N CH A N N E L LA N N A N CH A N N E L CA N Y O N AN I T A SA N T A AR C A D I A LA T E R A L WAS H CRE E K WA S H SA N T A AN I T A CHARTER OAK WASH LONG BEACH LOS ANGELES POMONA PASADENA GLENDORA CARSON WHITTIER AZUSA DOWNEY SAN DIMAS ARCADIA CLAREMONT WEST COVINA COMPTON WALNUT NORWALK CERRITOS DIAMOND BAR LAKEWOOD DUARTE ALHAMBRA PICO RIVERA VERNON MONTEBELLO SOUTH GATE LA MIRADA BELL LYNWOOD BELLFLOWER BALDWIN PARK PARAMOUNT MONTEREY PARK LA HABRA HEIGHTS SAN MARINO GLENDALE MONROVIA INDUSTRY COVINA IRWINDALE LA VERNE COMMERCE EL MONTEROSEMEAD SANTA FE SPRINGS LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE SAN GABRIEL LA PUENTE ARTESIA TEMPLE CITY BRADBURY SOUTH PASADENA SIGNAL HILL CUDAHY SOUTH EL MONTE BELL GARDENS HUNTINGTON PARK MAYWOOD HAWAIIAN GARDENS San Gabriel River Watershed ACTON WATTS NAPLES MAYFAIR VALINDABASSETT VALYERMO FLORENCE ALTADENA LOS ALTOS DOMINGUEZ HOLLYDALE ECHO PARK WILMINGTON LOS NIETOS EAGLE ROCK WALNUT PARK WILLOWBROOK CHARTER OAK BIXBY KNOLLS CITY TERRACE CYPRESS PARK JUNIPER HILLS BELMONT SHORE BOYLE HEIGHTS HIGHLAND PARK MT WASHINGTONGLASSELL\PARK PHILLIPS RANCH MONTEREY HILLS TERMINAL ISLAND AVOCADO HEIGHTS NORWOOD VILLAGE RANCHO DOMINGUEZ NORTH LONG BEACH WOODSIDE VILLAGE EAST LOS ANGELES SOUTH SAN GABRIEL SOUTH SAN JOSE HILLS REF: \\pwgisd02\mpmgis$\MPMGIS\projects\mpm\gismaps\wk_2627\SanGabrielRiver_wtrshed.mxd DATE: 08/21/07 Data contained in this map is produced in whole or part from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works' digital database. 0 1.75 3.50.875 MILES I Mapping & Property Management Division, Mapping & GIS Services Section LEGEND SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED UNINCORPORATED AREA DAM / LAKE / RESERVOIR MAJOR RIVER MAJOR CHANNEL Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Appendix A: Volume and Flowrate Calculations & Hydrologic Report The proposed development was analyzed for the 85th Percentile storm event using the LACDPW HydroCalc software. The governing design storm event is determined to be 85th percentile as it is greater than the 0.75 in storm event in accordance with the LA County BMP Design Manual. Below is a summary of the HydroCalc outputs: 85th Percentile Storm Event 1.00 in DMA 85th Percentile Storm  Volume (cf) Flowrate (cfs) P1 7432.5 0.5225 P2 3063.76 0.2711 Refer to LACDPW HydroCalc Output Data within this Appendix for Volume and Flowrate Calculations. Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/LID/Preliminary/MWIG-010 - DMA P1.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID DMA P1 Area (ac)2.62 Flow Path Length (ft)680.25 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.0105 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in)1.0 Percent Impervious 0.86 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0 Peak Intensity (in/hr)0.2531 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.788 Time of Concentration (min)31.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)0.5225 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)0.5225 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)0.1706 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)7432.5072 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: P:/M/MWIG-010/Admin/Reports/LID/Preliminary/MWIG-010 - DMA P2.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name MWIG-010 Subarea ID DMA P2 Area (ac)1.08 Flow Path Length (ft)257.17 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)0.005 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in)1.0 Percent Impervious 0.86 Soil Type 7 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0 Peak Intensity (in/hr)0.3186 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)0.788 Time of Concentration (min)19.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)0.2711 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)0.2711 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft)0.0703 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft)3063.758 Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Appendix B: Site BMPs TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-43 December 20, 2013 INF-7: Underground Infiltration Underground infiltration is a vault or chamber with an open bottom that used to store runoff and percolate into the subsurface. A number of vendors offer proprietary infiltration products that allow for similar or enhanced rates of infiltration and subsurface storage while offering durable prefrabricated structures. There are many varieties of proprietary infiltration BMPs that can be used for roads and parking lots, parks and open spaces, single and multi-family residential, or mixed-use and commercial uses. Feasibility Screening Considerations x Infiltration bains shall pass infeasible screening criteria to be considered for use. x Underground infiltration galleries pose a potential risk of groundwater contamination; pretreatment should be used. Opportunity Criteria x Soils are adequate for infiltration or can be amended to provide an adequate infiltration rate. x Appropriate for sites with limited surface space. x Can be placed beneath roads, parking lots, parks, and athletic fields. x Potential for groundwater contamination can be mitigated through isolation of pollutant sources, pretreatment of inflow, and/or demonstration of adequate treatment capacity of underlying soils. x Infiltration is into native soil, or depth of engineered fill is ≤ 5 feet from the bottom of the facility to native material and infiltration into fill is approved by a geotechnical professional. x Tributary area land uses include mixed-use and commercial, sngle-family and multi-family, roads and parking lots, and parks and open spaces. High pollutant land uses should not be tributary to infiltration BMPs. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations □ Placement of BMPs should observe geotechnical recommendations with respect to geological hazards (e.g. landslides, liquefaction zones, erosion, etc.) and set-backs (e.g., foundations, utilities, roadways, etc.) □ Minimum separation to mounded seasonally high groundwater of 10 feet shall be observed. □ Minimum pretreatment should be provided upstream of the infiltration facility, and water bypassing pretreatment should not be directed to the facility. □ Underground infiltration should not be used for drainage areas with high sediment production potential unless preceded by full treatment control with a BMP effective for sediment removal. □ Design infiltration rate should be determined as described in Appendix VII. □ Inspection ports or similar design features shall be provided to verify continued system performance and identify need for major maintenance. Also known as: ¾Infiltration vault ¾Recharge vault Underground Infiltration Source: http://www.contech-cpi.com TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-44 December 20, 2013 □ For infiltration facilities beneath roads and parking areas, structural requirements should meet H-20 load requirements. Computing Underground Infiltration Device Size Underground infiltration devices vary by design and by proprietary designs. The sizing method selected for use must be based on the BMP type it most strongly resembles. x For underground infiltration devices with open pore volume (e.g., vaults, crates, pipe sections, etc), sizing will be most similar to infiltration basins. x For underground infiltration devices with pore space (e.g., aggregate reservoirs), sizing will be most similar to permeable pavement. Additional References for Design Guidance x Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Stormwater Technical Manual, Chapter 5: 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 County of Los Angeles E-23 February 2014 RET-3: Infiltration Trench Description An infiltration trench is a narrow trench constructed in naturally pervious soils designed for retaining and infiltrating stormwater runoff into the underlying native soils and groundwater table. Infiltration trenches are typically filled with gravel and sand, although use of manufactured percolation tank modules may be considered in place of gravel fill. Infiltration trenches provide stormwater runoff treatment through a variety of natural mechanisms (i.e., filtration, adsorption, biological degradation) as water flows through the soil profile. Infiltration trenches differ from infiltration basins in that the former are used for small drainage areas and stores stormwater runoff out of sight underground within the void spaces of rocks or stones or percolation tank modules. Infiltration basins are used for larger drainage areas and stormwater is stored within a visible ponded surface. Infiltration vaults and infiltration leach fields are subsurface variations of the infiltration trench concept in which stormwater runoff is distributed to the upper zone of the subsurface gravel bed by means of perforated pipes. A schematic of a typical infiltration trench is presented in Figure E-3. LID Ordinance Requirements Infiltration trenches can be used to meet the on-site retention requirements of the LID Ordinance. Infiltration trenches will prevent pollutants in the SWQDv from being discharged off-site. Advantages · Reduces or eliminates stormwater runoff discharge to receiving water for most storm events · Reduces peak stormwater runoff, which provides erosion control · Provides groundwater recharge · Provides effective treatment through settling and filtering while requiring relatively small space. · Fits in narrow areas and unused areas of a development site. · Is suitable for use when water is not available for irrigation or base flow. Source: Washington County RET-3: Infiltration Trench County of Los Angeles E-24 February 2014 Figure E-3. Infiltration Trench Schematic RET-3: Infiltration Trench County of Los Angeles E-25 February 2014 Disadvantages · Is not appropriate for areas with too low or too high permeability soils · May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations with contaminated soils or where spills may occur because of the potential threat to groundwater contamination · Must be protected from high sediment loads · May result in standing water, which may allow vector breeding · Is not appropriate on fill or sites with steep slopes General Constraints and Implementation Considerations · Infiltration trenches can be integrated into open space buffers and other landscape areas. · The potential for groundwater contamination must be carefully considered,. Infiltration trenches are not suitable for sites that: o Use or store chemicals or hazardous materials, unless they are prevented from entering the trench; or o Un-remediated “brownfield sites” where there is known groundwater or soil contamination. · Infiltration trenches should be sited away from tree drip lines and kept free of vegetation. · If the corrected in-situ infiltration rate exceed 2.4 in/hr, then stormwater runoff may need to be fully-treated with an upstream stormwater quality control measure prior to infiltration to protect groundwater quality. · Infiltration trenches cannot be located on sites with a slope greater than 15 percent. · Pretreatment to remove sediment is required to protect infiltration trench from high sediment loads. · If possible, the entire tributary area of the infiltration trench should be stabilized before construction begins. If this is not possible, all flows should be diverted around the infiltration trench to protect it from sediment loads during construction or the top two inches of soil from the infiltration trench floor should be removed after the site has been stabilized. Excavated material should be stored such that it cannot be washed back into the infiltration trench if a storm occurs during construction. · The equipment used to construct the infiltration trench should have extra wide low-pressure tires. Construction traffic should not enter the infiltration trench because it can compact soil, which reduces infiltration capacity. If heavy equipment is used on the base of the infiltration trench, the infiltrative capacity may be restored by tilling or aerating prior to placing the infiltrative bed. RET-3: Infiltration Trench County of Los Angeles E-26 February 2014 · Clean, washed gravel should be placed in the excavated trench in lifts and lightly compacted with a plate compactor. Use of unwashed gravel can result in clogging. · A geomembrane liner should be installed generously with overlapping seams on sides, bottom, and one foot below the surface of the infiltration trench. · After construction is completed, the entire tributary area of the infiltration trench should be stabilized before allowing stormwater runoff to enter it. · An observation well must be installed to check water levels, detention time, and evidence of clogging. An access road along the entire length of the infiltration trench is required unless it is located along an existing road or parking lot that can be safely used for maintenance access. Design Specifications The following sections provide design specifications for infiltration trenches. Geotechnical Due to the potential to contaminate groundwater, cause slope instability, impact surrounding structures, and potential for insufficient infiltration capacity, an extensive geotechnical site investigation must be conducted during the site planning process to verify site suitability for an infiltration trench. All geotechnical investigations must be performed according to the most recent GMED Policy GS 200.1. Soil infiltration rates and the groundwater table depth must be evaluated to ensure that conditions are satisfactory for proper operation of an infiltration trench. The project applicant must demonstrate through infiltration testing, soil logs, and the written opinion of a licensed civil engineer that sufficiently permeable soils exist on-site to allow the construction of a properly functioning infiltration trench. Infiltration trenches are appropriate for soils with a minimum corrected in-situ infiltration rate of 0.3 in/hr. The geotechnical report must determine if the proposed project site is suitable for an infiltration trench and must recommend a design infiltration rate (see “Design Infiltration Rate” under the “Sizing” section). The geotechnical investigation should be such that a good understanding is gained as to how the stormwater runoff will move through the soil (horizontally or vertically) and if there are any geological conditions that could inhibit the movement of water. Pretreatment Pretreatment is important for all structural stormwater quality control measures, but it is particularly important for retention facilities. Pretreatment refers to design features that provide settling of large particles before stormwater runoff enters a stormwater quality control measure in order to reduce the long-term maintenance burden. Pretreatment should be provided to reduce the sediment load entering an infiltration trench in order to maintain the infiltration rate of the infiltration trench. To ensure that infiltration trenches are effective, the project applicant must incorporate pretreatment devices that provide RET-3: Infiltration Trench County of Los Angeles E-27 February 2014 sediment reduction (e.g., vegetated swales, vegetated filter strips, sedimentation manholes, and proprietary devices). Setbacks Infiltration trenches must be sited following the setbacks from the most recent GMED Policy GS 200.1. Geometry · Infiltration trenches must be designed and constructed to be at least 24 inches wide and 3 to 5 feet deep. · The longitudinal slope of the trench should not exceed three percent. · The filter bed media layers must have the following composition and thickness: o Top layer: 2 inches of pea gravel o Middle layer: 3 to 5 feet of washed 2- to 6-inch gravel; void spaces should be approximately 30 to 40 percent o Bottom layer: 6 inches of sand or geomembrane liner equivalent. Sizing Infiltration trenches are sized a simple sizing method where the SWQDv must be completely infiltrated within 96 hours. Infiltration trenches provide stormwater runoff storage in the voids of the rock fill or percolation tank modules. Step 1: Determine the SWQDv Infiltration trenches must be designed to capture and retain the SWQDv (see Section 6 for SWQDv calculation procedures). Step 2: Determine the design infiltration rate Determine the corrected in-situ infiltration rate (fdesign) of the native soil using the procedures described in the most recent GMED Policy GS 200.1. Step 3: Calculate the surface area Determine the size of the required infiltration surface by assuming the SWQDv will fill the available void spaces of the gravel storage layer. The maximum depth of stormwater runoff that can be infiltrated within the maximum retention time (96 hrs) is calculated using the following equation: = 12 × RET-3: Infiltration Trench County of Los Angeles E-28 February 2014 Where: dmax = Maximum depth of water that can be infiltrated within the maximum retention time [ft]; fdesign = Design infiltration rate [in/hr]; and t = Maximum retention time (max 96 hrs) [hr]. Select the infiltration trench depth (dt) such that: ≤ Where: dt = Depth of infiltration trench [ft]; dmax = Maximum depth of water that can be infiltrated within the maximum retention time [ft]; and nt = Infiltration trench fill porosity. Calculate the infiltrating surface area (bottom of the infiltration trench) required: = × Where: A = Surface area of the bottom of the infiltration trench [ft2]; SWQDv = Stormwater quality design volume [ft3]; dt = Depth of infiltration trench fill [ft]; and nt = Infiltration trench porosity. Flow Entrance and Energy Dissipation Energy dissipation controls, constructed of sound materials such as stones, concrete, or proprietary devices that are rated to withstand the energy of the influent flow, must be installed at the inlet to the infiltration trench. Flow velocity at the inlet must be 4 ft/s or less. Consult with LACDPW for the type and design of energy dissipation structure. Drainage The specifications for designing drainage systems for infiltration trenches are presented below: · The bottom of infiltration trench must be native soil that is over-excavated at least one foot in depth with the soil replaced uniformly without compaction. Amending the excavated soil with two to four inches (~15 to 30 percent) of coarse sand is recommended. RET-3: Infiltration Trench County of Los Angeles E-29 February 2014 · The use of vertical piping, either for distribution or infiltration enhancement, is prohibited. This application may be classified as a Class V Injection Well per 40 CFR Part 146.5(e)(4). · The infiltration capacity of the subsurface layers should be sufficient to ensure a maximum detention time of 96 hours. An observation well must be installed to allow observation of detention time. Hydraulic Restriction Layer The entire infiltrative area, including the side slopes must lined with a geomembrane liner to prevent soil from migrating into the top layer and reducing the infiltration capacity. The specifications of the geomembrane liner are presented in Table E-5. The entire trench area, including the sides, must be lined with a geomembrane liner prior to placing the media bed. Provide generous overlap at the seams. Table E-5. Geomembrane Liner Specifications for Infiltration Trenches Parameter Test Method Specifications Material Nonwoven geomembrane liner Unit weight 8 oz/yd3 (minimum) Filtration rate 0.08 in/sec (minimum) Puncture strength ASTM D-751 (Modified) 125 lbs (minimum) Mullen burst strength ASTM D-751 400 lb/in2 (minimum) Tensile strength AST D-1682 300 lbs (minimum) Equiv. opening size US Standard Sieve No. 80 (minimum) Observation Well The observation well is a vertical section of perforated PVC pipe, four- to six-inch diameter, installed flush with the top of the infiltration trench on a footplate and with a locking, removable cap. The observation well is needed to monitor the infiltration rate in infiltration trench and is useful for marking the location of the infiltration trench. Vegetation · Infiltration trenches must be kept free of vegetation. · Trees and other large vegetation should be planted away from infiltration trenches such that drip lines do not overhang the infiltration area. Restricted Construction Materials Use of pressure-treated wood or galvanized metal at or around an infiltration trench is prohibited. RET-3: Infiltration Trench County of Los Angeles E-30 February 2014 Overflow Device An overflow device must be provided in the event that stormwater runoff overtops the infiltration trench or if the infiltration trench becomes clogged. The overflow device must be able to convey stormwater runoff to a downstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point. Maintenance Access The infiltration trench must be safely accessible during wet and dry weather conditions if it is publicly-maintained. An access road along the entire length of the infiltration trench is required unless the trench is located along an existing road or parking lot that can be safely used for maintenance access. If the infiltration trench becomes plugged and fails, access is needed to excavate the infiltration trench and replace the filter bed media. All dimensions of the infiltration trench should also be increased by two inches to provide a fresh surface for infiltration. To prevent damage and compaction, access must able to accommodate a backhoe working at “arm’s length” from the infiltration trench. Maintenance Requirements Maintenance and regular inspections are important for proper function of infiltration trenches. The following are general maintenance requirements: · Conduct regular inspection and routine maintenance for pretreatment devices. · Inspect infiltration trench and its observation well frequently to ensure that water infiltrates into the subsurface completely within the maximum detention time of 96 hours. If water is present in the observation well more than 96 hours after a major storm, the infiltration trench may be clogged. Maintenance activities triggered by a potentially clogged facility include: o Check for debris/sediment accumulation, rake surface and remove sediment (if any), and evaluate potential sources of sediment and vegetative or other debris (i.e., embankment erosion, channel scour, overhanging trees). If suspected upstream sources are outside of the County's jurisdiction, additional pretreatment (i.e., trash racks, vegetated swales) may be necessary. o Assess the condition of the top aggregate layer for sediment buildup and crusting. Remove the top layer of pea gravel and replace. If slow draining conditions persist, the entire infiltration trench may need to be excavated and replaced. · Eliminate standing water to prevent vector breeding. · Inspect infiltration trenches annually. Remove and dispose of trash and debris as needed, but at least prior to the beginning of the wet season. · Inspect overflow devices for obstructions or debris, which should be removed immediately. Repair or replace damaged pipes upon discovery. RET-3: Infiltration Trench County of Los Angeles E-31 February 2014 A summary of potential problems that may need to be addressed by maintenance activities is presented in Table E-6. The County requires execution of a maintenance agreement to be recorded by the property owner for the on-going maintenance of any privately-maintained stormwater quality control measures. The property owner is responsible for compliance with the maintenance agreement. A sample maintenance agreement is presented in Appendix H. Table E-6. Infiltration Trench Troubleshooting Summary Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Maintenance Required Trash and Debris Trash and debris > 5 ft3/1,000 ft2 Remove and dispose of trash and debris. Contaminants and Pollution Any evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants, or other pollutants Remove any evidence of visual contamination. Erosion/Sediment Accumulation Undercut or eroded areas at inlet structures Repair eroded areas and re- grade if necessary. Accumulation of sediment, debris, and oil/grease in pretreatment devices Remove sediment, debris, and/or oil/grease. Accumulation of sediment, debris, and oil/grease on surface, inlet or overflow structures Remove sediment, debris, and/or oil/grease. Water Drainage Rate Standing water, or by inspection of observation wells Remove the top layer of the infiltration trench bottom and replace if necessary. County of Los Angeles D-1 February 2014 S-1: Storm Drain Message and Signage Purpose Waste material dumped into storm drain inlets can adversely impact surface and ground waters. In fact, any material discharged into the storm drain system has the potential to significantly impact downstream receiving waters. Storm drain messages have become a popular method of alerting and reminding the public about the effects of and the prohibitions against waste disposal into the storm drain system. The signs are typically stenciled or affixed near the storm drain inlet or catch basin. The message simply informs the public that dumping of wastes into storm drain inlets is prohibited and/or that the drain ultimately discharges into receiving waters. General Guidance The signs must be placed so they are easily visible to the public. Be aware that signs placed on sidewalk will be worn by foot traffic. Design Specifications Signs with language and/or graphical icons that prohibit illegal dumping, must be posted at designated public access points along channels and streams within the project area. Consult with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) staff to determine specific signage requirements for channels and streams. Storm drain message markers, placards, concrete stamps, or stenciled language/icons (e.g., “No Dumping – Drains to the Ocean”) are required at all storm drain inlets and catch basins within the project area to discourage illegal or inadvertent dumping. Signs should be placed in clear sight facing anyone approaching the storm drain inlet or catch basin from either side (see Figure D-1 and Figure D-2). LACDPW staff should be contacted to determine specific requirements for types of signs and methods of application. A stencil can be purchased for a nominal fee from LACDPW Building and Safety Office by calling (626) 458-3171. All storm drain inlet and catch basin locations must be identified on the project site map. Maintenance Requirements Legibility and visibility of markers and signs should be maintained (e.g., signs should be repainted or replaced as necessary). If required by LACDPW, the owner/operator or homeowner’s association shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the agency or record a deed restriction upon the property title to maintain the legibility of placards and signs. S-1: Storm Drain Message and Signage County of Los Angeles D-2 February 2014 Figure D-1. Storm Drain Message Location – Curb Type Inlet Figure D-2. Storm Drain Message Location – Catch Basin/Area Type Inlet CONCRETE PERIMETER County of Los Angeles D-19 February 2014 S-8: Landscape Irrigation Practices Purpose Irrigation runoff provides a pathway for pollutants (i.e., nutrients, bacteria, organics, sediment) to enter the storm drain system. By effectively irrigating, less runoff is produced resulting in less potential for pollutants to enter the storm drain system. General Guidance Do not allow irrigation runoff from the landscaped area to drain directly to storm drain system. Minimize use of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides on landscaped areas. Plan sites with sufficient landscaped area and dispersal capacity (e.g., ability to receive irrigation water without generating runoff). Consult a landscape professional regarding appropriate plants, fertilizer, mulching applications, and irrigation requirements (if any) to ensure healthy vegetation growth. Design Specifications Choose plants that minimize the need for fertilizer and pesticides. Group plants with similar water requirements and water accordingly. Use mulch to minimize evaporation and erosion. Include a vegetative boundary around project site to act as a filter. Design the irrigation system to only water areas that need it. Install an approved subsurface drip, pop-up, or other irrigation system.1 The irrigation system should employ effective energy dissipation and uniform flow spreading methods to prevent erosion and facilitate efficient dispersion. Install rain sensors to shut off the irrigation system during and after storm events. Include pressure sensors to shut off flow-through system in case of sudden pressure drop. A sudden pressure drop may indicate a broken irrigation head or water line. If the hydraulic conductivity in the soil is not sufficient for the necessary water application rate, implement soil amendments to avoid potential geotechnical hazards (i.e., liquefaction, landslide, collapsible soils, and expansive soils). 1 If alternative distribution systems (e.g., spray irrigation) are approved, the County will establish guidelines to implement these new systems. S-8: Landscape Irrigation Practices County of Los Angeles D-20 February 2014 For sites located on or within 50 feet of a steep slope (15% or greater), do not irrigate landscape within three days of a storm event to avoid potential geotechnical instability.2 Implement Integrated Pest Management practices. For additional guidelines and requirements, refer to the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. Maintenance Requirements Maintain irrigation areas to remove trash and debris and loose vegetation. Rehabilitate areas of bare soil. If a rain or pressure sensor is installed, it should be checked periodically to ensure proper function. Inspect and maintain irrigation equipment and components to ensure proper functionality. Clean equipment as necessary to prevent algae growth and vector breeding. Maintenance agreements between LACDPW and the owner/operator may be required. Failure to properly maintain building and property may subject the property owner to citation. 2 As determined by the City of Los Angeles, Building and Safety Division County of Los Angeles D-21 February 2014 S-9: Building Materials Selection Purpose Building materials can potentially contribute pollutants of concern to stormwater runoff through leaching. For example, metal buildings, roofing, and fencing materials may be significant sources of metals in stormwater runoff, especially due to acidic precipitation. The use of alternative building materials can reduce pollutant sources in stormwater runoff by eliminating compounds that can leach into stormwater runoff. Alternative building materials may also reduce the need to perform maintenance activities (i.e., painting) that involve pollutants of concern, and may reduce the volume of stormwater runoff. Alternative materials are available to replace lumber and paving. Design Specifications Lumber Decks and other house components constructed using pressure-treated wood that is typically treated using arsenate, copper, and chromium compounds are hazardous to the environment. Pressure-treated wood may be replaced with cement-fiber or vinyl. Roofs, Fencing, and Metals Minimizing the use of copper and galvanized (zinc-coated) metals on buildings and fencing can reduce leaching of these pollutants into stormwater runoff. The following building materials are conventionally made of galvanized metals: Metal roofs; Chain-link fencing and siding; and Metal downspouts, vents, flashing, and trim on roofs. Architectural use of copper for roofs and gutters should be avoided. As an alternative to copper and galvanized materials, coated metal products are available for both roofing and gutter application. Vinyl-coated fencing is an alternative to traditional galvanized chain-link fences. These products eliminate contact of bare metal with precipitation or stormwater runoff, and reduce the potential for stormwater runoff contamination. Roofing materials are also made of recycled rubber and plastic. Green roofs may be an option. Green roofs use vegetation such as grasses and other plants as an exterior surface. The plants reduce the velocity of stormwater runoff and absorb water to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff. One potential problem with using green roofs in the Los Angeles County area is the long, hot and dry summers, which may kill the plants if they are not watered. See the Green Roof Fact Sheet (RET- 7) in Appendix E. S-9: Building Materials Selection County of Los Angeles D-22 February 2014 Pesticides The use of pesticides around foundations can be reduced through the use of alternative barriers. Sand barriers can be applied around foundations to deter termites, as they cannot tunnel through sand. Metal shields also block termites from tunneling. Additionally, diatomaceous earth can be used to repel or kill a wide variety of other pests. Maintenance Requirements The integrity of structural elements that are subject to damage (e.g., signs) must be maintained by the owner/operator as required by local codes and ordinances. Maintenance agreements between LACDPW and the owner/operator may be required. Failure to properly maintain building and property may subject the property owner to citation. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-78 December 20, 2013 PRE-2: Catch Basin Insert Fact Sheet Catch basin inserts are manufactured filters or fabric placed in a drop inlet to remove sediment and debris and may include sorbent media (oil absorbent pouches) to remove floating oils and grease. Catch basin inserts are selected specifically based upon the orientation of the inlet and the expected sediment and debris loading. Opportunity Criteria x Catch basin inserts come in such a wide range of configurations that it is practically impossible to generalize the expected performance. Inserts should mainly be used for catching coarse sediments and floatable trash and are effective as pretreatment in combination with other types of structures that are recognized as water quality treatment BMPs. Trash and large objects can greatly reduce the effectiveness of catch basin inserts with respect to sediment and hydrocarbon capture. x Catch basin inserts are applicable for drainage area that include parking lots, vehicle maintenance areas, and roadways with catch basins that discharge directly to a receiving water. 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 of catch basin inserts. □ Catch basin inserts can be installed with specific media for pollutants of concern. Proprietary Manufacturer / Supplier Websites x Table XIV.2 is a list of manufacturers that provide catch basin inserts. The inclusion of these manufacturers does not represent an endorse of their products. Other devices and manufacturers may be acceptable for pretreatment. Table XIV.2: Proprietary Catch Basin Insert Manufacturer Websites Device Manufacturer Website AbTech Industries Ultra- Urban Filter™ AbTech Industries www.abtechindustries.com Aquashield Aqua- Guardian™ Catch Basin Insert Aquashield™ Inc. www.aquashieldinc.com Bowhead StreamGuard™ Bowhead Environmental & Safety, Inc. http://www.shopbowhead.com/ Contech® Triton Catch Basin Filter™ Contech® Construction Products Inc. www.contech-cpi.com Contech® Triton Curb Inlet Filter™ Contech® Construction Products Inc. www.contech-cpi.com Also known as: ¾Drop Inlet Filters ¾Catch Basin Filters Catch Basin Insert (DrainPac™) TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-79 December 20, 2013 Table XIV.2: Proprietary Catch Basin Insert Manufacturer Websites Device Manufacturer Website Contech® Triton Basin StormFilter™ Contech® Construction Products Inc. www.contech-cpi.com Contech® Curb Inlet StormFilter™ Contech® Construction Products Inc. www.contech-cpi.com Curb Inlet Basket SunTree Technologies Inc. www.suntreetech.com Curb Inlet Grates EcoSense International™ http://www.ecosenseint.com/ DrainPacTM United Storm Water, Inc. http://www.unitedstormwater.com Grate Inlet Skimmer Box SunTree Technologies Inc. www.suntreetech.com KriStar FloGard+PLUS® KriStar Enterprises Inc. www.kristar.com KriStar FloGard® KriStar Enterprises Inc. www.kristar.com KriStar FloGard LoPro Matrix Filter® KriStar Enterprises Inc. www.kristar.com Nyloplast Storm-PURE Catch Basin Insert Nyloplast Engineered Surface Drainage Products www.nyloplast-us.com StormBasin® FabCo® Industries Inc. www.fabco-industries.com Stormdrain Solutions Interceptor FabCo® Industries Inc. www.fabco-industries.com Stormdrain Solutions Inceptor® Stormdrain Solutions www.stormdrains.com StormPod® FabCo® Industries Inc. www.fabco-industries.com Stormwater Filtration Systems EcoSense International™ http://www.ecosenseint.com/ Ultra-CurbGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com Ultra-DrainGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com Ultra-GrateGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com Ultra-GutterGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com Ultra-InletGuard® UltraTech International Inc. www.spillcontainment.com Drain Inserts MP-52 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 3 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Description Drain inserts are manufactured filters or fabric placed in a drop inlet to remove sediment and debris. There are a multitude of inserts of various shapes and configurations, typically falling into one of three different groups: socks, boxes, and trays. The sock consists of a fabric, usually constructed of polypropylene. The fabric may be attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet holds the sock. Socks are meant for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed of plastic or wire mesh. Typically a polypropylene “bag” is placed in the wire mesh box. The bag takes the form of the box. Most box products are one box; that is, the setting area and filtration through media occur in the same box. Some products consist of one or more trays or mesh grates. The trays may hold different types of media. Filtration media vary by manufacturer. Types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbon. California Experience The number of installations is unknown but likely exceeds a thousand. Some users have reported that these systems require considerable maintenance to prevent plugging and bypass. Advantages Does not require additional space as inserts as the drain inlets are already a component of the standard drainage systems. Easy access for inspection and maintenance. As there is no standing water, there is little concern for mosquito breeding. A relatively inexpensive retrofit option. Limitations Performance is likely significantly less than treatment systems that are located at the end of the drainage system such as ponds and vaults. Usually not suitable for large areas or areas with trash or leaves than can plug the insert. Design and Sizing Guidelines Refer to manufacturer’s guidelines. Drain inserts come any many configurations but can be placed into three general groups: socks, boxes, and trays. The sock consists of a fabric, usually constructed of polypropylene. The fabric may be attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet holds the sock. Socks are meant for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed of plastic or wire mesh. Typically a polypropylene “bag” is placed in the wire mesh box. The bag takes the form of the box. Most box products are Design Considerations Use with other BMPs Fit and Seal Capacity within Inlet Targeted Constituents Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease Organics Removal Effectiveness See New Development and Redevelopment Handbook-Section 5. MP-52 Drain Inserts 2 of 3 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com one box; that is, the setting area and filtration through media occurs in the same box. One manufacturer has a double-box. Stormwater enters the first box where setting occurs. The stormwater flows into the second box where the filter media is located. Some products consist of one or more trays or mesh grates. The trays can hold different types of media. Filtration media vary with the manufacturer: types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbon. Construction/Inspection Considerations Be certain that installation is done in a manner that makes certain that the stormwater enters the unit and does not leak around the perimeter. Leakage between the frame of the insert and the frame of the drain inlet can easily occur with vertical (drop) inlets. Performance Few products have performance data collected under field conditions. Siting Criteria It is recommended that inserts be used only for retrofit situations or as pretreatment where other treatment BMPs presented in this section area used. Additional Design Guidelines Follow guidelines provided by individual manufacturers. Maintenance Likely require frequent maintenance, on the order of several times per year. Cost The initial cost of individual inserts ranges from less than $100 to about $2,000. The cost of using multiple units in curb inlet drains varies with the size of the inlet. The low cost of inserts may tend to favor the use of these systems over other, more effective treatment BMPs. However, the low cost of each unit may be offset by the number of units that are required, more frequent maintenance, and the shorter structural life (and therefore replacement). References and Sources of Additional Information Hrachovec, R., and G. Minton, 2001, Field testing of a sock-type catch basin insert, Planet CPR, Seattle, Washington Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee, Evaluation of Commercially-Available Catch Basin Inserts for the Treatment of Stormwater Runoff from Developed Sites, 1995 Larry Walker Associates, June 1998, NDMP Inlet/In-Line Control Measure Study Report Manufacturers literature Santa Monica (City), Santa Monica Bay Municipal Stormwater/Urban Runoff Project - Evaluation of Potential Catch basin Retrofits, Woodward Clyde, September 24, 1998 Drain Inserts MP-52 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 3 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Woodward Clyde, June 11, 1996, Parking Lot Monitoring Report, Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Appendix C: Infiltration Trench Sizing and Draw Down Time Calculations Colorado Connection TR No. 84968 201 Colorado Place Arcadia, Ca Per Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations prepared by LGC Geotechnical, inc. dated June 26, 2025 an infiltration BMP was determined to be feasible. The infiltration rate encountered at 10 feet deep in Testing location I-4 was 4.4 in/hr. After applying a minimum factor of safety of 4, the infiltration rate used for design, Kdesign, was equal to 1.1 inches per hour. The infiltration rate encountered at 15 feet deep in Testing location I-2 was 6.9 in/hr. After applying a minimum factor of safety of 4, the infiltration rate used for design, Kdesign, was equal to 1.7 inches per hour. Refer to Attachment F of this report for infiltration testing information. DMA P1 Area: 2.62 acres Required Treatment Volume: 7432.5 cft Proposed Lineal Feet of 60” HDPE (Perforated): 240 ft Provided Storage Volume: 7,556 cft Installed System Surface Area (3 sides): 5,082 sft Design Infiltration Rate: 1.1 inch/hr 48 hour Infiltrated (Treated) Volume: 22,360.8 cft Drawdown Time of Required DCV: 15.95 hrs DMA P2 Area: 1.08 acres Required Treatment Volume: 3063.7 cft Proposed Lineal Feet of 60” HDPE (Perforated): 100 ft Provided Storage Volume: 3,094 cft Installed System Surface Area (3 sides): 2,142 sft Design Infiltration Rate: 1.7 inch/hr 48 hour Infiltrated (Treated) Volume: 14,565.6 cft Drawdown Time of Required DCV: 10.10 hrs Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Appendix D: EPA Catch Basing Cleaning/ Stencil Examples Sample Stencil 1 Sample Stencil 2 Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Appendix E: General Education Materials Wipe pots, pans, and work areas prior to washing. Do not pour cooking residue directly into the drain. Do not pour waste oil directly into the drain, parking lot or street. Do not wash floor mats out side where water will run off directly into the storm drain. Do not rinse spills into the street. 1 2 2 3 3 4 41Dispose of food waste directly into the trash. Avoid using the garbage disposal. Place greasy food in the trash. Clean mats inside over a utility sink. Use dry clean up for spills. Collect waste oil and store for recycling. THE RIGHT WAY THE WRONG WAY Good Cleaning Practices Managing FATS ,OIL and GREASE POST IN CLEANUP/WORK AREA www.lacsd.org PUBLIC WORKS County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works For more information call (888) CLEAN LA or visit www.888CleanLA.com Are You a Litter B u g Are You a Litter B u g and and DoDo n’t Know It?t Know It? Take our quiz! Have you ever... • Dropped a cigarette b u t t o r t r a s h o n t h e g r o u n d ? • Failed to pick up afte r y o u r d o g w h i l e o u t o n a w a l k ? • Overwatered your la w n a f t e r a p p l y i n g fertilizers/pesticide s ? • Disposed o f used motor oil in th e s t r e e t , gutter or garbage? If you answered yes to any of these acti o n s , t h e n YOU ARE A LITTER B U G ! Each of these behav i o r s c o n t r i b u t e t o s t o r m w a t e r pollution, which con t a m i n a t e s o u r o c e a n a n d waterways, kills mar i n e l i f e a n d c a u s e s b e a c h c l o s u r e s . You can become par t o f t h e solution! To find out how, flip t h i s c a r d over. For more information , c a l l o r v i s i t : Follow these simple steps to prevent stormwater pollution • Put your garbag e w h e r e i t b e l o n g s — i n t h e t r ash can. • Pick up after your d o g w h e n o u t o n a w a l k . • Reduce pesticide a n d f e r t i l i z e r u s e ; d o n ’ t o v e r w a t e r after application or a p p l y i f r a i n i s f o r e c a s t . • Dispose of used mo t o r o i l a t a n o i l r e c y c l i n g c e n t e r or at a free Househ o l d H a z a r d o u s W a s t e / E - W a s t e collection event. A message from the C o u n t y o f L o s A n g e l e s D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s . Printed on rec ycled paper. Follow these simple ste p s t o Follow these simple st e p s t o prevent stormwater p o l l u t i o n : prevent stormwater p o l l u t i o n : DoDon’t Paint the’t Paint the Town Red!Town Red! Storm drains are for rain… they’re not for paint disposal. More than 197,000 times each month, L.A. County residents wash their dirty paint brushes under an outdoor faucet. This dirty rinse water flows into the street, down the storm drain and straight to the ocean — untreated. Remember to clean water-based paint brushes in the sink, rinse oil-based paint brushes with paint thinner, and take old paint and paint-related products to a Household Hazardous Waste/E-Waste collection event. Tips for Paint Clean-Up: L.A. County residen t s c a n h e l p s o l v e t h e s t o r m w a t e r pollution problem b y t a k i n g t h e s e e a s y s t e p s w h e n working with paint a n d p a i n t - r e l a t e d p r o d u c t s … • Never dispose of p a i n t o r p a i n t - r e l a t e d p r o d u c t s i n t h e gutters or storm dr a i n s . T h i s i s c a l l e d i l l e g a l d u m p i n g . Take them to a Hou s e h o l d H a z a r d o u s W a s t e / E - W a s t e collection event. C a l l 1 ( 8 8 8 ) C L E A N L A o r v i s i t www.888CleanLA.c o m t o l o c a t e a n e v e n t n e a r y o u . • Buy only what you n e e d . R e u s e l e f t o v e r p a i n t f o r touch-ups or dona t e i t t o a l o c a l g r a f f i t i a b a t e m e n t program. Recycle o r u s e e x c e s s p a i n t . • Clean water-based p a i n t b r u s h e s i n t h e s i n k . • Oil-based paints sh o u l d b e c l e a n e d w i t h p a i n t t h i n n e r . Filter and reuse pa i n t t h i n n e r . S e t t h e u s e d t h i n n e r aside in a closed j a r t o s e t t l e - o u t p a i n t p a r t i c l e s . • Store paints and pa i n t - r e l a t e d p r o d u c t s i n r i g i d , durable and water t i g h t c o n t a i n e r s w i t h tight-fitting covers . A message from the C o u n t y o f L o s A n g e l e s D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s . Printed on recycled p a per. Storm drains are for rain… they’re not pooper scoopers. L.A. County residents walk a dog without picking up the droppings more than 62,000 times per month. Disease-causing dog waste washes from the ground and streets into storm drains and flows straight to the ocean — untreated. Remember to bring a bag and clean up after your dog. PP ickick UpUp AfterAfter YourYour Pooch!Pooch! Dog owners can hel p s o l v e t h e s t o r m w a t e r p o l l u t i o n problem by taking th e s e e a s y s t e p s … • Clean up after you r d o g e v e r y s i n gle time. • Take advantage o f t h e co mpl imentary waste bag s offered in dispenser s a t l o c a l p a r k s . • Ensure you alway s have extra bags in your car so you are prepared w h e n y o u t r a v e l w i t h y o u r d o g. • Carry extra bags w h en walkin g your dog and mak e them available to o t h e r p e t o w n e r s w h o a r e w i t h o u t . • Teach children ho w t o p r o p e r l y c l e a n u p a f t e r a p et. Encourage them to t h r o w t h e u s e d b a g s i n t h e nearest trash recep t a c l e i f t h e y a r e a w a y f r o m h o m e . • Put a friendly message o n t he bulletin board at the local dog park t o r e m i n d p e t o w n e r s t o c l e a n up after their dogs. • Te ll frien ds and neighbors ab o u t t h e i l l e f f e c t s o f animal waste on the environmen t . E n c o u r a g e them to clean up af t e r t h e i r p e t s a s w e l l . Tips for Dog Owners: Are You a Litter B u g Are You a Litter B u g and and DoDo n’t Know It?t Know It? Take our quiz! Have you ever... • Dropped a cigarette b u t t o r t r a s h o n t h e g r o u n d ? • Failed to pick up afte r y o u r d o g w h i l e o u t o n a w a l k ? • Overwatered your la w n a f t e r a p p l y i n g fertilizers/pesticide s ? • Disposed o f used motor oil in th e s t r e e t , gutter or garbage? If you answered yes to any of these acti o n s , t h e n YOU ARE A LITTER B U G ! Each of these behav i o r s c o n t r i b u t e t o s t o r m w a t e r pollution, which con t a m i n a t e s o u r o c e a n a n d waterways, kills mar i n e l i f e a n d c a u s e s b e a c h c l o s u r e s . You can become par t o f t h e solution! To find out how, flip t h i s c a r d over. For more information , c a l l o r v i s i t : Follow these simple steps to prevent stormwater pollution • Put your garbag e w h e r e i t b e l o n g s — i n t h e t r ash can. • Pick up after your d o g w h e n o u t o n a w a l k . • Reduce pesticide a n d f e r t i l i z e r u s e ; d o n ’ t o v e r w a t e r after application or a p p l y i f r a i n i s f o r e c a s t . • Dispose of used mo t o r o i l a t a n o i l r e c y c l i n g c e n t e r or at a free Househ o l d H a z a r d o u s W a s t e / E - W a s t e collection event. A message from the C o u n t y o f L o s A n g e l e s D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s . Printed on rec ycled paper. Follow these simple ste p s t o Follow these simple st e p s t o prevent stormwater p o l l u t i o n : prevent stormwater p o l l u t i o n : SwimmingPool Tips •Make sure all chemicals are dissipated before draining a pool or spa •Do not drain pools within 5 days of adding chemicals •Never backwash a filter into the street or stormdrain •Cleanup chemical spills with absorbent, don’t wash it down the drain •Dispose of leftover chemicals and paints through a licensed hazardous waste disposal provider Follow these simple steps to prevent stormwater pollution… Stormdrains take runoff directly to creeks and the ocean without treatment. Pool chemicals can harm our natural creeks and waterways. Anything going into our stormdrains that isn’t rainwater contributes to stormwater pollution, which contaminates our creeks and ocean, kills marine life and causes beach closures. ...not pool chemicals Storm Drains arefor Rain... SwimmingPool Tips •Make sure all chemicals are dissipated before draining a pool or spa •Do not drain pools within 5 days of adding chemicals •Never backwash a filter into the street or stormdrain •Cleanup chemical spills with absorbent, don’t wash it down the drain •Dispose of leftover chemicals and paints through a licensed hazardous waste disposal provider Follow these simple steps to prevent stormwater pollution… Printed on recycled paper Stormdrains take runoff directly to the ocean without treatment. Pool chemicals can harm our natural creeks and waterways. Anything going into our stormdrains that isn’t rainwater contributes to stormwater pollution, which contaminates our creeks and ocean, kills marine life and causes beach closures. ...not pool chemicals Storm Drains arefor Rain... AA YardYard is ais a Terrible Terrible ThingThing toto Waste!Waste! Storm drains are for rain…not yard waste. Residential yard waste represents about 13 percent of the total waste generated in L.A. County. Pesticides, fertilizer and yard waste such as leaves and mowed grass wash from the ground and streets into storm drains and flow straight to the ocean — untreated. Remember to use pesticides and fertilizer wisely and pick-up yard waste. Tips For Yard Care: L.A. County resident s c a n h e l p s o l v e t h e s t o r m w a t e r pollution problem by t a k i n g t h e s e e a s y s t e p s … • Do not over-fertili ze and do not use fertilize r o r p e s t i c i d e s near ditches, gutters o r s t o r m d r a i n s . • Do n ot use fertilizer or pe s t i c i d e s b e f o r e a r a i n . • Follow the direction s o n t h e l a b e l c a r e f u l l y . • Use pesticid es sparingly — mor e i s n o t b e t ter. “Spot” apply, rather t h a n “ b l a n k e t ” a p p l y . • When watering your l a w n , u s e t h e l e a s t a m o u n t o f water possible so it d o e s n ’ t r u n i n t o t h e s t r e e t c a r r y i n g pesticides and othe r c h e m i c a l s w i t h i t . • Use non-toxic produ c t s f o r y o u r g a r d e n a n d l a w n whenever possible. • If you must store pe s t i c i d e s o r f e r t i l i z e r , m a k e s u r e they are in a sealed , w a t e r - p r o o f c o n t a i n e r i n a covered area to pre v e n t r u n o f f . • Do n ot blow, sweep, hos e o r r a k e l e a v e s o r o t h e r yard trimmings into t h e s t r e e t , g u t t e r o r s t o r m d r a i n . A message from the C o u n t y o f L o s A n g e l e s D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s . Printed on recycled p a per. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Appendix F: Operation and Maintenance Plan To be provided during final engineering Page 1 of 9 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan Low Impact Development Plan For 201 Colorado Place Arcadia, CA APN: 5775-011-032 Owner/ Developer: MW Investment Group 27702 Crown Valley Parkway Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, Ca 92694 Contact: Matt Waken Homeowner’s Association: To be determined Page 2 of 9 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/ OWNER 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/ OWNER 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/ OWNER 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/ OWNER 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/ OWNER 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 Page 3 of 9 association with the project; measures are taken to comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulation to avoid harm to humans and the environment. No N7. Spill Contingency Plan No N8. Underground Storage Tank Compliance NO N10. Uniform Fire Code Implementation HOA/ OWNER 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/ OWNER 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/ OWNER Yes N12. Employee Training Practical informational materials and/or training are provided to employees at the initial time of hiring by the HOA/ OWNER 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/ OWNER at the initial hiring of the employee. HOA/ OWNER 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/ OWNER 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/ OWNER No N17. Retail Gasoline Outlets Page 4 of 9 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/ OWNER No Design and Construct Outdoor Material Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction 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/ OWNER 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/ OWNER 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 LID & Treatment Control BMPs Yes Treatment Control BMP FloGard Catch Basin Filter See attached for specific BMP detailed information pertaining to operation and maintenance. Inspections/ Cleanings should occur at least three times per year and before the start of the rainy season (October 1st). Refer to manufacturer’s specifications for additional information. HOA/ OWNER 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’ specifications. Yes Treatment Control BMP Underground Detention / Infiltration Trench System Inspections/ Cleanings should occur at least two times per year and before the start of HOA/ OWNER will be required to provide regular Page 5 of 9 See attached for specific BMP detailed information pertaining to operation and maintenance. the rainy season (October 1st). Refer to BMP fact sheet for additional information. inspection, replacement of planting media/ gravel and mow as frequently as needed. Visual inspection required after major rain event to ensure no standing water is present; dewater if standing water is present after 72 hours to prevent mosquito breeding. Page 6 of 9 Required Permits This section must list any permits required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. No permit required at this time. 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 indefinitely and must be made available for review upon request. Notice to Owner: The property is currently owned by SVPP Properties. The Owner will be responsible for the long- term maintenance of the project’s storm water facilities and conformance to this LID 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 LID. Page 7 of 9 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 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#1 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#2 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#3 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#4 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#5 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#6 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#7 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#8 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#9 Page 8 of 9 FloGard Catch Basin Filter – CB#10 Underground Detention / Infiltration Trench System P1 Underground Detention / Infiltration Trench System P2 RECORD OF BMP MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION TRAINING Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Training: (Printed) Signature: Name of Trainee Date Page 9 of 9 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE OF FLO-GARDTM+PLUS CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTERS SCOPE: Federal, State and Local Clean Water Act regulations and those of insurance carriers require that stormwater filtration systems be maintained and serviced on a recurring basis. The intent of the regulations is to ensure that the systems, on a continuing basis, efficiently remove pollutants from stormwater runoff thereby preventing pollution of the nation’s water resources. These Specifications apply to the Flo-GardTM +Plus Catch Basin Insert Filter. RECOMMENDED FREQUENCY OF SERVICE: Drainage Protection Systems (DPS) recommends that installed Flo-GardTM +Plus Catch Basin Insert Filters be serviced on a recurring basis. Ultimately, the frequency depends on the amount of runoff, pollutant loading and interference from debris (leaves, vegetation, cans, paper, etc.); however, it is recommended that each installation be serviced a minimum of three times per year, with a change of filter medium once per year. DPS technicians are available to do an on-site evaluation, upon request. RECOMMENDED TIMING OF SERVICE: DPS guidelines for the timing of service are as follows: 1. For areas with a definite rainy season: Prior to, during and following the rainy season. 2. For areas subject to year-round rainfall: On a recurring basis (at least three times per year). 3. For areas with winter snow and summer rain: Prior to and just after the snow season and during the summer rain season. 4. For installed devices not subject to the elements (washracks, parking garages, etc.): On a recurring basis (no less than three times per year). SERVICE PROCEDURES: 1. The service shall commence with collection and removal of sediment and debris (litter, leaves, papers, cans, etc.) and broom sweeping around the drainage inlet. Accumulated materials shall be placed in a DOT approved container for later disposal. 2. The catch basin shall be visually inspected for defects and possible illegal dumping. If illegal dumping has occurred, the proper authorities and property owner representative shall be notified as soon as practicable. 3. The catch basin grate shall be removed and set to one side. Using an industrial vacuum, the collected materials shall be removed from the liner. (Note: DPS uses a truck-mounted vacuum for servicing Flo-Gard TM +Plus catch basin inserts.) 4. When all of the collected materials have been removed, the filter medium pouches shall be removed by unsnapping the tether from the D-ring and set to one side. The filter liner, gaskets, stainless steel frame and mounting brackets, etc. shall be inspected for continued serviceability. Minor damage or defects found shall be corrected on-the-spot and a notation made on the Maintenance Record. More extensive deficiencies that affect the efficiency of the filter (torn liner, etc.), if approved by the customer representative, will be corrected and an invoice submitted to the representative along with the Maintenance Record. 5. The filter medium pouches shall be inspected for defects and continued serviceability and replaced as necessary and the pouch tethers re-attached to the liner’s D-ring. See below. 6. The grate shall be replaced. EXCHANGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXPOSED FILTER MEDIUM AND COLLECTED DEBRIS The frequency of filter medium pouch exchange will be in accordance with the existing DPS-Customer Maintenance Contract. DPS recommends that the medium be changed at least once per year. During the appropriate service, or if so determined by the service technician during a non-scheduled service, the filter medium pouches will be replaced with new pouches and the exposed pouches placed in the DOT approved container, along with the exposed debris. Once the exposed pouches and debris have been placed in the container, DPS has possession and must dispose of it in accordance with local, state and federal agency requirements. Note: As the generator, the landowner is ultimately responsible for the proper disposal of the exposed filter medium and debris. Because the materials likely contain petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other harmful pollutants, the materials must be treated as an EPA Class 2 Hazardous Waste and properly disposed of. DPS relieves the landowner of the actual disposal task, and provides certification of its completion in accordance with appropriate regulations. DPS also has the capability of servicing all manner of catch basin inserts and catch basins without inserts, underground oil/water separators, stormwater interceptors and other such devices. All DPS personnel are highly qualified technicians and are confined space trained and certified. Call us at (888) 950-8826 for further information and assistance. 05/04/04 MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND REPAIR LOG Site: 18616 Rorimer Street, La Puente Page: of Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: Date: Inspector: Followup: 8601 Mission Drive, Rosemead Inspection and Maintenance Guide FLOGARD+PLUS® CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTER DRAIN A G E P R O TECTION SY S T E M S A division of Oldcastle Precast SCOPE: Federal, State and Local Clean Water Act regulations and those of insurance carriers require that stormwater filtration systems be maintained and serviced on a recurring basis. The intent of the regulations is to ensure that the systems, on a continuing basis, efficiently remove pollutants from stormwater runoff thereby preventing pollution of the nation’s water resources. These specifications apply to the FloGard+Plus® Catch Basin Insert Filter. RECOMMENDED FREQUENCY OF SERVICE: Drainage Protection Systems (DPS) recommends that installed FloGard+Plus Catch Basin Insert Filters be serviced on a recurring basis. Ultimately, the frequency depends on the amount of runoff, pollutant loading and interference from debris (leaves, vegetation, cans, paper, etc.); however, it is recommended that each installation be serviced a minimum of three times per year, with a change of filter medium once per year. DPS technicians are available to do an onsite evaluation, upon request. RECOMMENDED TIMING OF SERVICE: DPS guidelines for the timing of service are as follows: 1.For areas with a definite rainy season: Prior to, during and following the rainy season. 2.For areas subject to year-round rainfall: On a recurring basis (at least three times per year). 3.For areas with winter snow and summer rain: Prior to and just after the snow season and during the summer rain season. 4.For installed devices not subject to the elements (washracks, parking garages, etc.): On a recurring basis (no less than three times per year). SERVICE PROCEDURES: 1.The catch basin grate shall be removed and set to one side. The catch basin shall be visually inspected for defects and possible illegal dumping. If illegal dumping has occurred, the proper authorities and property owner representative shall be notified as soon as practicable. 2.Using an industrial vacuum, the collected materials shall be removed from the liner. (Note: DPS uses a truck-mounted vacuum for servicing FloGard+Plus catch basin inserts.) 3.When all of the collected materials have been removed, the filter medium pouches shall be removed by unsnapping the tether from the D-ring and set to one side. The filter liner, gaskets, stainless steel frame and mounting brackets, etc., shall be inspected for continued serviceability. Minor damage or defects found shall be corrected on-the-spot and a notation made on the Maintenance Record. More extensive deficiencies that affect the efficiency of the filter (torn liner, etc.), if approved by the customer representative, will be corrected and an invoice submitted to the representative along with the Maintenance Record. 4.The filter medium pouches shall be inspected for defects and continued serviceability and replaced as necessary and the pouch tethers re-attached to the liner’s D-ring. See below. 5.The grate shall be replaced. REPLACEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF EXPOSED FILTER MEDIUM AND COLLECTED DEBRIS The frequency of filter medium exchange will be in accordance with the existing DPS-Customer Maintenance Contract. DPS recommends that the medium be changed at least once per year. During the appropriate service, or if so determined by the service technician during a non-scheduled service, the filter medium will be replaced with new material. Once the exposed pouches and debris have been removed, DPS has possession and must dispose of it in accordance with local, state and federal agency requirements. DPS also has the capability of servicing all manner of storm drain filters, catch basin inserts and catch basins without inserts, underground oil/water separators, stormwater interceptors and other such devices. All DPS personnel are highly qualified technicians and are confined space trained and certified. Call us at (888) 950-8826 for further information and assistance. 2 www.oldcastlestormwater.com 800-579-8819 BUILDING STRUCTURES OUR MARKETS TRANSPORTATION WATER ENERGYCOMMUNICATIONS FLOGARD+PLUS® CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTER Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Colorado Connection, Arcadia Appendix G: Geotechnical Investigation 131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com June 26, 2025 Project No. 25041-01 Mr. Matthew J. Waken Crestfield Townhomes, LLC 27702 Crown Valley Parkway, Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations, Proposed Residential Development, Located at 225 Colorado Place (Motel 6) and 201 Colorado Place, Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development, located at 225 Colorado Place (Motel 6) and 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the existing onsite geotechnical conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed residential development. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully Submitted, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. Ryan Douglas, PE, GE 3147 Mason Gonzales, PG 10174 Vice President of Engineering Project Geologist John Navarrete Senior Staff Engineer RLD/JMN/amm Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic copy) Project No. 25041-01 Page i June 26, 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation ............................................................................................... 3 1.4 Field Infiltration Testing ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Regional Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Site-Specific Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions ............................................... 6 2.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Faulting ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement .............................................................................. 9 2.5.2 Lateral Spreading .................................................................................................................... 10 2.6 Oversized Material ................................................................................................................................ 10 2.7 Expansion Potential .............................................................................................................................. 10 3.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 11 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 12 4.1 Site Earthwork ....................................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.1 Site Preparation ....................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction Depths and Limits .......................................................... 13 4.1.3 Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................................... 14 4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation .............................................................. 15 4.1.5 Material for Fill ........................................................................................................................ 15 4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills ................................................................................... 16 4.1.7 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction ................................................. 16 4.1.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence .................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ............................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design Parameters .................................... 18 4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters ............................... 18 4.2.3 Post-Tensioned Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance ............. 18 4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines .......................................................................................... 19 4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance .............................................................................................. 20 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls .............................................................................. 20 4.5 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control ......................................................................... 22 4.6 Subsurface Water Infiltration ........................................................................................................... 23 4.7 Preliminary Asphalt Pavement Sections .................................................................................... 25 4.8 Soil Corrosivity ....................................................................................................................................... 26 4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................... 27 4.10 Geotechnical Plan Review .................................................................................................................. 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d) Project No. 25041-01 Page ii June 26, 2025 4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction ................................................ 28 5.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 29 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES, AND APPENDICES Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 2) Figure 2 – Boring Location Map (Rear of Text) Figure 3 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail (Rear of Text) Tables Table 1 – Summary of Field Infiltration Testing (Page 4) Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters (Page 8) Table 3 – Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Onsite or Imported Sandy Soils (Page 21) Table 4 – Shallow Surface Infiltration - Reduction Factors Applied to Infiltration Rate (Page 24) Table 5 – Preliminary Pavement Sections (Page 25) Table 6 – Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Guidelines for Very Low Expansion Potential (Page 27) Appendices Appendix A – References Appendix B – Boring Logs Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results Appendix D – Infiltration Test Results Appendix E – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Project No. 25041-01 Page 1 June 26, 2025 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development, located at 225 and 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California. Refer to the Site Location Map (Figure 1). The purpose of our study was to provide a geotechnical evaluation relative to the proposed residential development. As part of our scope of work, we have: 1) reviewed available geotechnical information and in-house geologic maps pertinent to the site (Appendix A); 2) performed a subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site consisting of the excavation and sampling of eight small-diameter borings ranging from approximately 10.0 to 50.5 feet below existing ground surface, 3) performed four falling head infiltration tests within the borings; 4) performed laboratory testing of select soil samples obtained during our subsurface evaluation; and 5) prepared this preliminary geotechnical summary report presenting our findings and preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the development of the proposed project. It should be noted that our evaluation and this report only address geotechnical issues associated with the site and do not address any environmental issues. 1.2 Project Description The approximately 3.7-acre site is bound to the north by Barnhart School and west by Colorado Place, to the east by existing residential homes and to the south by San Juan Drive. The site is currently occupied by a Motel 6 on the northern portion and the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association building on the southern portion. The site is bisected by an open U-shaped channel (wash) which runs north to south along the east side of the Motel 6 parcel leading into an underground culvert that spits the Motel 6 parcel and Thoroughbred parcel in the southern portion of the overall site. The exact dimensions and details of the channel and culvert are unknown at this time and the agency that owns the channel and culvert may have specific guidelines for loading and setback from the improvements. The proposed improvements relative to the existing channel and culvert should be further reviewed when grading plans are further developed and the details regarding the channel/culvert are available for review. The proposed development consists of 86 multi-family residential units, internal drive alleys, open space and other associated improvements. Design cut and fill information is not available at this time but is expected to be on the order of less than 2 to 3 feet. The proposed residential development is anticipated to consist of relatively light building loads (column and wall loads maximum of 20 kips and 2 kips per linear foot, respectively). The recommendations given in this report are based upon at-grade structures with estimated structural loads and grading information indicated above. LGC Geotechnical should be provided with any updated project information, plans and/or any structural loads when they become available, in order to either confirm or modify the recommendations provided herein. Site Location FIGURE 1 Site Location Map June 2025 DATE ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE RLD Not to Scale MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6 & 201 Colorado Place) 25041-01 Project No. 25041-01 Page 3 June 26, 2025 1.3 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation A limited subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site was performed by LGC Geotechnical. Our exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling eight small-diameter exploratory hollow-stem borings (HS-1 through HS-4 and I-1 through I-4) for the purpose of obtaining samples for evaluation and laboratory testing of site soils and performing infiltration testing. The borings were drilled by Choice Drilling under subcontract to LGC Geotechnical. The depths of the borings ranged from approximately 10.0 to 50.5 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical representative observed the drilling operations, logged the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. The borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem augers. Bulk samples of the near-surface soils were logged and collected for laboratory testing from select borings. Driven soil samples were collected by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California Drive (MCD) sampler generally obtained at 2.5 and 5-foot vertical increments. The MCD is a split-barrel sampler with a tapered cutting tip and lined with a series of 1-inch-tall brass rings. The SPT sampler (1.4-inch ID) and MCD sampler (2.4-inch ID, 3.0-inch OD) were driven using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches to advance the sampler a total depth of 18 inches or until refusal. The raw blow counts for each 6-inch increment of penetration were recorded on the boring logs. The borings were subsequently backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped and capped with asphalt cold patch. Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time. Infiltration testing was performed within the four borings (I-1 through I-4) to depths of approximately 10 to 15 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical engineer installed standpipes, backfilled the borings with crushed rock and pre-soaked the infiltration holes prior to testing. Infiltration testing was performed per the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021). Standpipes were removed and the locations were subsequently backfilled with native soils at the completion of testing. Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time. The approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are provided on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). The boring logs are provided in Appendix B. 1.4 Field Infiltration Testing Four shallow infiltration test wells were installed in Borings I-1 through I-4 to approximate depths of 10 to 15 feet below existing grade. The approximate infiltration boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). Estimation of infiltration rates was performed in general accordance with the “Boring Percolation Test Procedure” guidelines set forth by the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021). The borings for the infiltration tests were excavated using a drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. A 3-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe was placed in the borehole above a thin layer of gravel and the annulus was backfilled with gravel. Infiltration tests were performed using relatively clean water free of particulates, silt, etc. The infiltration wells were pre-soaked during the day of drilling and a 30-minute pre-test was performed during the day of testing. Subsequently, readings were taken a minimum of 6 times or until a “stabilized rate” was established. A “stabilized rate” is when the highest and lowest readings are within 10 percent of each other over three consecutive readings. At the completion of infiltration testing, the pipe was removed, and the holes were backfilled and tamped. Project No. 25041-01 Page 4 June 26, 2025 Based on the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021), the infiltration rate is calculated by dividing the volume of water discharged by the surface area of the test section (including the sidewalls and bottom of the boring) over a specific time period. The infiltration rate is taken as the average of the last three readings during which a “stabilized rate” is achieved. The infiltration rates are provided in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Summary of Field Infiltration Testing Infiltration Test Location Approximate Infiltration Test Depth (ft) Infiltration Rate* (inch/hr.) I-1 10.0 0.7 I-2 15.0 6.9 I-3 15.0 5.3 I-4 10.0 4.4 *Does Not Include Required Reduction Factors for Design. Please note that the values provided in Table 1 do not include reduction factors associated with the test procedure, site variability, and long-term siltation plugging that are used to calculate the design infiltration rate. Infiltration test data is presented in Appendix D. Refer to Section 4.6 for recommendations regarding infiltration of stormwater. 1.5 Laboratory Testing Representative bulk, grab, and driven (relatively undisturbed) samples were retained for laboratory testing during our field evaluation. Laboratory testing included in-situ moisture content and in-situ dry density, expansion index, fines content, Atterberg limits, consolidation, direct shear, laboratory compaction, and corrosion (sulfate, chloride, pH and minimum resistivity). The following is a summary of the laboratory test results: • Dry density of the samples collected ranged from approximately 99 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 119 pcf, with an average of 110 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from approximately 2 to 14 percent, with an average of approximately 7 percent. • Two Expansion Index (EI) tests was performed. The results indicate an EI value of 1, corresponding to “Very Low” expansion potential. • Three samples were tested for fines content indicating a fines content (passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from 4 to 38 percent. According to the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS), the tested samples are classified as “coarse grained” soil. • Two Atterberg Limit (liquid limit and plastic limit) test was performed. Results indicated a Plasticity Index (PI) range of 4 to 7. • Two consolidation tests were performed. The deformation versus vertical stress plots are provided in Appendix C. Project No. 25041-01 Page 5 June 26, 2025 • Two direct shear test was performed. The plots are provided in Appendix C. • Laboratory compaction of a near-surface bulk sample resulted in a maximum dry density of 130.5 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 8.5 percent. • Corrosion testing indicated soluble sulfate content of less than 0.01 percent, a chloride content ranging from 28 to 29 parts per million (ppm), pH ranging from 7.4 to 7.6 and a minimum resistivity ranging from 13,400 to 15,410 ohm-centimeters. A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Appendix C. The moisture and dry density results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. Project No. 25041-01 Page 6 June 26, 2025 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Regional Geology The site is located south of the foothills below the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern San Gabriel Valley within the transition area of California’s Peninsular and Transverse geomorphic provinces. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges, generally dominated by right lateral strike-slip faulting. The Transverse Ranges are characterized by predominately east-west trending mountain ranges dominated by reverse faulting. The Transverse Ranges geomorphology can be generally be attributed to the effects of the major bend within the northwest trending San Andreas fault and the subsequent north-south compression that results. The San Gabriel Mountain Range rises steeply north of the site and provides the sediment source for the alluvial fan deposits that underlie the area of the subject site (CGS, 2018). The site is within the San Gabriel Valley, west of the Santa Anita Wash (Dibblee, et al, 1998). The subject area is more locally geologically bounded at the north by the Raymond Fault (approximately 700 feet north of the site) and the Sierra Madre Fault Zone (approximately 2 miles north of the site). The Sierra Madre Fault Zone consists of reverse faults dipping to the north. The northeast trending Raymond Fault joins the east west trending Sierra Madre Fault Zone approximately 3 miles to the northeast of the site. The Raymond Fault is a left lateral fault that is generally assumed to be a part of the San Andreas Fault system. 2.2 Site-Specific Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions Based on review of the available geologic map (Dibblee, et al, 1998), the primary geologic unit underlying the site is Quaternary alluvial deposits. The undissected fan is largely described as alluvial gravel, sand, and silt (Dibblee, et al, 1998). The field explorations (borings) indicate the native alluvial soils generally consist of variable amounts of clayey sand, silty sand, and sand ranging from brown to gray, dry to moist, and generally medium dense/medium stiff to very dense/very stiff to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing grade. Potentially up to five feet of undocumented artificial fill may be present across the site but was not differentiated on the boring logs. Deeper amounts of undocumented fill, not encountered in the borings, may exist locally beneath the current building footprints and in various other areas across the site. These materials should be removed to competent native materials prior to placement of compacted fill. It should be noted that borings are only representative of the location and time where/when they are performed and varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the performed location. In addition, subsurface conditions can change over time. The soil descriptions provided above should not be construed to mean that the subsurface profile is uniform, and that soil is homogeneous within the project area. For details on the stratigraphy at the exploration locations, refer to Appendix B. Project No. 25041-01 Page 7 June 26, 2025 2.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing ground surface during our subsurface evaluation. Historic high groundwater is greater than 100 feet below current grade per the Seismic Hazard Report of the Mount Wilson 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, (CDMG, 1998). Groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed development. Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater elevations should be expected over time. In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present due to local seepage caused by irrigation and/or recent precipitation. Local perched groundwater conditions or surface seepage may develop once site development is completed. 2.4 Seismic Design Criteria The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable portions of ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC. Please note that the following seismic parameters are only applicable for code-based acceleration response spectra and are not applicable for where site-specific ground motion procedures are required by ASCE 7-16. Representative site coordinates of latitude 34.143305 degrees north and longitude -118.039915 degrees west were utilized in our analyses. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 2 on the following page. Since site soils are Site Class D, additional adjustments are required to code acceleration response spectrums as outlined below and provided in ASCE 7-16. The structural designer should contact the geotechnical consultant if structural conditions (e.g., number of stories, seismically isolated structures, etc.) require site-specific ground motions. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period (MCE) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 7.05 at a distance of 8.76 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 475-year average return period (Design Earthquake) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.96 at a distance of 13.79 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2014). Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for liquefaction potential. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.958g (SEAOC, 2025). The design PGA is equal to 0.639g (2/3 of PGAM). Project No. 25041-01 Page 8 June 26, 2025 TABLE 2 Seismic Design Parameters Selected Parameters from 2022 CBC, Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads Seismic Design Values Notes/Exceptions Distance to applicable faults classifies the site as a “Near-Fault” site. Section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7 Site Class D* Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 Ss (Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods) 2.000g From SEAOC, 2025 S1 (Risk-Targeted Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods) 0.736g From SEAOC, 2025 Fa (per Table 1613.2.3(1)) 1.000 For Simplified Design Procedure of Section 12.14 of ASCE 7, Fa shall be taken as 1.4 (Section 12.14.8.1) Fv (per Table 1613.2.3(2)) 1.700 Value is only applicable per requirements/exceptions per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7 SMS for Site Class D [Note: SMS = FaSS] 2.000g - SM1 for Site Class D [Note: SM1 = FvS1] 1.251g Value is only applicable per requirements/exceptions per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7 SDS for Site Class D [Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 1.333g - SD1 for Site Class D [Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 0.834g Value is only applicable per requirements/exceptions per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7 CRS (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec) 0.888 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 CR1 (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec) 0.891 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 *Since site soils are Site Class D and S1 is greater than or equal to 0.2, the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken equal to 1.5 times the value calculated in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > Ts, or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL. Refer to ASCE 7-16. 2.5 Faulting Prompted by damaging earthquakes in Northern and Southern California, State legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults have been developed. Their purpose was to prevent the construction of urban developments across the trace of active faults, resulting in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated along the traces of active faults within California. Where developments for human occupation are proposed within these zones, the state requires detailed Project No. 25041-01 Page 9 June 26, 2025 fault evaluations be performed so that engineering geologists can mitigate the hazards associated with active faulting by identifying the location of active faults and allowing for a setback from the zone of previous ground rupture. The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist-Priolo) and no active faults are identified on the site (CGS, 2025). The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction, and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. The closest major active faults that could produce these secondary effects include the Sierra Madre, Raymond, San Andreas, and Puente Hills Faults, among others. A discussion of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections. 2.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose near-surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction, depending on their plasticity and moisture content (Bray & Sancio, 2006). Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry loose sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event. Based on our review of the State of California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (CGS, 2025), the subject site is not within a liquefaction hazard zone. Based on our evaluation, site soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction due to the lack of a static groundwater table within the upper 50 feet and relatively dense on-site soils. However isolated sand layers may be susceptible to dry sand seismic settlement. Seismically induced dry sand settlements were estimated by the procedures outlined by Pradel (Pradel, 1998) and utilizing the design earthquake parameters. Based on the data obtained from our field evaluation, seismic settlement due to dry sands is estimated to be on the order of about 0.5-inches. Differential seismic settlement may be estimated as one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet (e.g., 0.25-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet). Project No. 25041-01 Page 10 June 26, 2025 2.5.2 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet, and very low potential for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low. 2.6 Oversized Material Oversized materials (material larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension) may be encountered during site grading based on our subsurface evaluation. If encountered, recommendations are provided for appropriate handling of oversized materials in Appendix E. 2.7 Expansion Potential Based on the results of our laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have a “Very Low” expansion potential. Final expansion potential of site soils should be determined at the completion of grading. Results of expansion testing at finish grades will be utilized to confirm final foundation design. Project No. 25041-01 Page 11 June 26, 2025 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are implemented. The following is a summary of the primary geotechnical factors that may affect future development of the site: • In general, field explorations (borings) indicate primarily native soils consisting of variable amounts of sandy clay, sandy silt, sand, silty sand and clayey sand, which are gray to brown, dry to moist, and generally loose/medium stiff to very dense, to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing grade. The near-surface loose and compressible soils are not suitable for the planned improvements in their present condition (refer to Section 4.1). • Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface evaluation to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50.5 feet below current grade. Historic high groundwater is greater than 100 feet below current grade (CDMG, 1998). • The subject site is not located within a state of California Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2025). The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life. • Based on our review of the State of California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (CGS, 2025), the subject site is not within a liquefaction hazard zone. The potential for liquefaction is considered very low due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet and very dense on-site soils. However, isolated sand layers may be susceptible to dry sand seismic settlement. Total seismic settlement is estimated to be on the order 0.5-inch. Differential seismic settlement may be estimated as one-half of the total seismic settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet. • Based on the results of preliminary laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have “Very Low” expansion potential. Final design expansion potential must be determined at the completion of grading. • Some of the onsite soils may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to the fines content; therefore, select grading and stockpiling of the onsite sandy soils or import of sandy soils meeting the project requirements should be anticipated by the contractor. • Excavations into the existing site soils should be feasible with heavy construction equipment in good working order. From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils are suitable material for use as fill, provided that they are relatively free from oversized material (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and significant organic material. • Oversized material (material larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension) may be encountered during site grading based on our subsurface evaluation. Project No. 25041-01 Page 12 June 26, 2025 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are to be considered preliminary and should be confirmed upon completion of grading and earthwork operations. In addition, they should be considered minimal from a geotechnical viewpoint, as there may be more restrictive requirements from the architect, structural engineer, building codes, governing agencies, or the owner. It should be noted that the following geotechnical recommendations are intended to provide sufficient information to develop the site in general accordance with the 2022 CBC requirements. With regard to the potential occurrence of potentially catastrophic geotechnical hazards such as fault rupture, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, etc. the following geotechnical recommendations should provide adequate protection for the proposed development to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an “acceptable level.” The “acceptable level” of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project” [Section 3721(a)]. Therefore, repair and remedial work of the proposed improvements may be required after a significant seismic event. With regards to the potential for less significant geologic hazards to the proposed development, the recommendations contained herein are intended as a reasonable protection against the potential damaging effects of geotechnical phenomena such as expansive soils, fill settlement, groundwater seepage, etc. It should be understood, however, that although our recommendations are intended to maintain the structural integrity of the proposed development and structures given the site geotechnical conditions, they cannot preclude the potential for some cosmetic distress or nuisance issues to develop as a result of the site geotechnical conditions. The geotechnical recommendations contained herein must be confirmed to be suitable or modified based on the actual as-graded conditions. 4.1 Site Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of the removal of existing improvements associated with the former land use followed by the required earthwork removals, precise grading, and construction of the proposed new improvements, including the residential structures, subsurface utilities, interior drive alleys, etc. We recommend that earthwork onsite be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, future grading plan review report(s), the 2022 CBC/City of Arcadia grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix E. The following recommendations should be considered preliminary and may be revised within the future grading plan review report or based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading. 4.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered improvements, the areas should be cleared of existing asphalt, surface obstructions, and demolition debris. Project No. 25041-01 Page 13 June 26, 2025 Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend below proposed finish grades, should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Any abandoned sewer or storm drain lines should be completely removed and replaced with properly placed compacted fill. Deeper demolition may be required in order to remove existing foundations. We recommend the trenches associated with demolition which extend below the remedial grading depth be backfilled and properly compacted prior to the demolition contractor leaving the site. If cesspools or septic systems are encountered, they should be removed in their entirety. The resulting excavation should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. As an alternative, cesspools can be backfilled with lean sand-cement slurry. Any encountered wells should be properly abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements. At the conclusion of the clearing operations, a representative of LGC Geotechnical should observe and accept the site prior to further grading. 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction Depths and Limits In order to provide a relatively uniform bearing condition for the planned building structures, upper loose/compressible soils are to be temporarily removed and recompacted as properly compacted fills. Existing undocumented artificial fill within the influence of the proposed structural improvements should be removed to suitable, competent native materials prior to placement of artificial fill to design grades. For preliminary planning purposes, the depth of required removals and recompaction may be estimated as indicated below. It should be noted that updated recommendations may be required based on changes to building layouts and/or grading plan. Buildings: Soils shall be temporarily removed and recompacted to a depth ranging from 5 to 6 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of foundations, whichever is deeper. Refer to the Boring Location Map (Figure 2) for recommended remedial grading depths. Where space is available, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum distance equal to the depth of removal and recompaction below finish grade or 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed building improvements, whichever is larger. Minor Site Structures: For minor site structures such as free-standing walls, retaining walls, etc., temporary removal and recompaction should extend a minimum of 3 feet below existing grade or 2 feet below proposed footings, whichever is greater. Where space is available, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the edges of the proposed minor site structure improvements. Pavement and Hardscape Areas: Within pavement and hardscape areas, temporary removal and recompaction should extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade or 2 feet below the bottom of the pavement section, whichever is deeper. Pavement areas encountering undocumented fill materials may require deeper removal and recompaction and should be determined based on the conditions exposed during grading. In general, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum lateral Project No. 25041-01 Page 14 June 26, 2025 distance of 2 feet beyond the edges of the proposed pavement or hardscape improvements. Local conditions may be encountered during excavation that could require additional over-excavation beyond the above noted minimum in order to obtain an acceptable subgrade. The actual depths and lateral extents of grading will be determined by the geotechnical consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading. Removal areas and areas to be over-excavated should be accurately staked in the field by the Project Surveyor. 4.1.3 Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. Based on our field evaluation, site soils within the upper 5 to 10 feet are anticipated to be OSHA Type “B” soils (refer to the attached boring logs). Sandy soils are present and should be considered susceptible to caving. Soil conditions should be regularly evaluated during construction to verify conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person,” required by OSHA standards, to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination with the geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. Where proposed improvements will be adjacent to property lines, the potential for impacting existing offsite improvements may be reduced by performing “ABC” slot cuts while performing earthwork removal and recompaction. “ABC” slot cuts are defined as excavations perpendicular to sensitive property boundaries that are divided into multiple “slots” of equal width. If slots are labeled A, B, C, A, B, C, etc., then all “A” slots can be excavated at the same time but must be backfilled before all “B” slots can be excavated, etc. Any given slot should be backfilled immediately with properly compacted fill to finish grade prior to excavation of the adjacent two slots. Please note sands susceptible to caving are present at the site. Recommendations for slot cut dimensions should be evaluated during grading. Protection of the existing offsite improvements during grading is the responsibility of the contractor. Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage should be set back from the perimeter of excavations a distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation. Once an excavation has been initiated, it should be backfilled as soon as practical. Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability. Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain. It should be noted that any excavation that extends below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection of an existing foundation will remove existing support of the structure foundation. If requested, temporary shoring parameter will be provided. Project No. 25041-01 Page 15 June 26, 2025 4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation In general, removal bottom areas and any areas to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content), and re-compacted per project recommendations. Removal bottoms, over-excavation bottoms and areas to receive fill should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement. Soil subgrade for planned footings and improvements (e.g., slabs, etc.) should be firm and competent. 4.1.5 Material for Fill From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally considered suitable for use as general compacted fill, provided they are screened of organic materials, construction debris, and oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension). From a geotechnical viewpoint, any required import soils for general fill (i.e., non-retaining wall backfill) should consist of clean, granular soils of “Very Low” expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less based on ASTM D 4829), and generally free of organic materials, construction debris and material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Import for required retaining wall backfill should meet the criteria outlined in the following paragraph. Source samples should be provided to the geotechnical consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of four working days prior to planned importation. Retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1140 (or ASTM D6913/D422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Soils should also be screened of organic materials, construction debris, and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Some of the onsite soils may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to fines content; therefore, select grading and stockpiling of the onsite sandy soils or import of sandy soils meeting the criteria outlined above should be anticipated by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. Aggregate base (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) should conform to the requirements of Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials (except processed miscellaneous base) or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. The placement of demolition materials in compacted fill is acceptable from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the demolition material is broken up into pieces not larger than approximately 2 to 4 inches in maximum dimension, and well blended into fill soils with essentially no resulting voids. Demolition material placed in fills must be free of construction debris (wood, brick, etc.) and reinforcing steel. If asphalt concrete fragments will be incorporated into the demolition materials, approval from an environmental Project No. 25041-01 Page 16 June 26, 2025 viewpoint may be required and is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. From our previous experience, we recommend that asphalt concrete fragments be limited to fill areas within planned streets, alleys or non-structural areas (i.e., not within building pad areas). 4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills Material to be placed as fill should be brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. Soils will generally require additional moisture in order to achieve the required compaction. Drying and/or mixing the very moist soils may also be required prior to reusing the materials in compacted fills. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and with observation and testing performed by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material as previously defined should be removed from site fills. During backfill of excavations, the fill should be properly benched into firm and competent soils of temporary backcut slopes as it is placed in lifts. Aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557 at or slightly above optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content). If gap-graded ¾-inch rock is used for backfill (around storm drain storage chambers, retaining wall backfill, etc.) it will require compaction. Rock shall be placed in thin lifts (typically not exceeding 6 inches) and mechanically compacted with observation by geotechnical consultant. Backfill rock shall meet the requirements of ASTM D2321. Gap-graded rock is required to be entirely wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved alternative) or at the very minimum to be vertically separated from the trench backfill with filter fabric to prevent the migration of fines into the rock backfill. 4.1.7 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction The onsite soils will generally be suitable as trench backfill, provided the soils are screened of rocks and other material greater than 6 inches in diameter, construction debris and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 12 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM Test Method D1557). If trenches are shallow or the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities, sand having a Project No. 25041-01 Page 17 June 26, 2025 sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater (per California Test Method [CTM] 217) may be used to bed and shade the pipes. Sand backfill within the pipe bedding zone may be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamped to ensure adequate compaction. Sand grains should be from a natural source with rounded shape. Manufactured sand from crushed rock or recycled material is not suitable for jetting/flooding as the grains are typically angular in shape and do not densify well enough with these methods. Manufactured sand can be used as shading material when mechanical compaction efforts are used. Subsequent trench backfill should be compacted in uniform thin lifts by mechanical means to at least a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). If any ¾-inch rock is used for backfill, see Section 4.1.6 for filter fabric requirements. Retaining wall backfill should consist of onsite or imported select sandy soils as outlined in preceding Section 4.1.5. The limits of select sandy backfill should extend a minimum ½ the height of the retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater, refer to Figure 3. Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials should not be permitted. In backfill areas where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, typically sand-cement slurry may be substituted for compacted backfill. The slurry should contain about one sack of cement per cubic yard. When set, such a mix typically has the consistency of compacted soil. Sand cement slurry placed near the surface within landscape areas should be evaluated for potential impacts on planned improvements. A representative from LGC Geotechnical should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project recommendations. 4.1.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence Allowance in the earthwork volumes budget should be made for an estimated 5 to 20 percent reduction (shrink) in volume of near-surface (upper approximate 5 feet) soils. It should be stressed that these values are only estimates and that an actual shrinkage factor would be extremely difficult to predetermine. Subsidence, due to earthwork operations, is expected to be on the order of 0.1 feet. These values are estimates only and exclude losses due to removal of vegetation or debris. The effective shrinkage of onsite soils will depend primarily on the type of compaction equipment and method of compaction used onsite by the contractor and accuracy of the topographic survey. Due to the combined variability in topographic surveys, inability to precisely model the removals and variability of on-site near-surface conditions, it is our opinion that the site will not balance at the end of grading. If importing/exporting a large volume of soils is not considered feasible or economical, we recommend a balance area be designated onsite that can fluctuate up or down based on the actual volume of soil. We recommend a “balance” area that can accommodate on the order of 5 percent (plus or minus) of the total grading volume be considered. Project No. 25041-01 Page 18 June 26, 2025 4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Provided that the remedial grading recommendations provided herein are implemented, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the residential structures using a conventional or post-tensioned foundation system designed to resist the impacts of expansive soils. Site soils are anticipated to be “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829) and special design considerations from a geotechnical perspective are not required. The structural designer should use their own judgment in the design of the foundation system. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of grading. Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided in the following sections. Recommended soil bearing and estimated settlement due to structural loads are provided in Section 4.3. The foundation should be designed in consideration of the site seismic settlement as outlined in Section 2.5.1. 4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design Parameters Due to the very low expansion potential of the onsite soils, the foundation/structural engineer may design a conventional foundation system that is tied together based upon the anticipated dead and live loads (wind, seismic) that will be imparted by the structure. The recommendations provided in the “Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance” section may be utilized in the design of a rigid slab-on-grade conventional foundation designed in accordance with Section 1808 of the 2022 C.B.C. 4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters The foundation designer may use a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pounds per square inch per inch of deflection). This value is for a 1-foot by 1-foot square loaded area and should be adjusted by the structural designer for the area of the proposed footing using the following formula: k = 200 x [(B+1)/2B]2 k = modulus of vertical subgrade reaction, pounds per cubic inch (pci) B = foundation width (feet) The moisture content of near surface fill soils should be kept at optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches prior to trenching and concrete placement. 4.2.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance The geotechnical parameters provided herein assume that if the areas adjacent to the foundation are planted and irrigated, these areas will be designed with proper drainage and adequately maintained so that ponding, which causes significant moisture changes below the foundation, does not occur. Our recommendations do not account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Plants should only be provided Project No. 25041-01 Page 19 June 26, 2025 with sufficient irrigation for life and not overwatered to saturate subgrade soils. Sunken planters placed adjacent to the foundation should either be designed with an efficient drainage system or liners to prevent moisture infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even with properly constructed planters. In addition to the factors mentioned above, future owners/property management personnel should be made aware of the potential negative influences of trees and/or other large vegetation. Roots that extend near the vicinity of foundations can cause distress to foundations. Future owners (and the owner’s landscape architect) should not plant trees/large shrubs closer to the foundations than a distance equal to half the mature height of the tree or 20 feet, whichever is more conservative unless specifically provided with root barriers to prevent root growth below the building foundation. It is the owner’s responsibility to perform periodic maintenance during hot and dry periods to ensure that adequate watering has been provided to keep soil from separating or pulling back from the foundation. Future owners and property management personnel should be informed and educated regarding the importance of maintaining a constant level of soil-moisture. The owners should be made aware of the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing potentially expansive soils to become too dry. Expansive soils can undergo shrinkage during drying, and swelling during the rainy winter season, or when irrigation is resumed. This can result in distress to building structures and hardscape improvements. The builder should provide these recommendations to future owners and property management personnel. 4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines The following recommendations are for informational purposes since they are unrelated to the geotechnical performance of the foundation. Some post-construction moisture migration should be expected below the foundation; the foundation engineer must assume soil moisture to be present below the slab. The following recommendations may be superseded by the foundation engineer and/or owner. In general, interior floor slabs with moisture sensitive floor coverings should be underlain by a minimum 10-15 mil thick vapor retarder, which has a water vapor transmission rate (permeance) of less than 0.3 perms, as determined by ASTM E 96, and meets the applicable code requirements (ASTM E 1745). It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisture/vapor retarder systems are properly installed in accordance with the project plans and manufacturer’s specifications, and that the moisture/vapor retarder materials are free of tears and punctures prior to and as a result of concrete placement. Additional moisture reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the performance requirements of future interior floor coverings. The foundation engineer/architect should determine whether the use of a capillary break (sand or gravel layer) in conjunction with the vapor retarder is necessary or Project No. 25041-01 Page 20 June 26, 2025 required by code. Sand layer thickness and location (above and/or below vapor retarder) should also be determined by the foundation engineer/architect. 4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance Provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and minimum embedment of 12 inches below lowest adjacent ground surface. This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of embedment and 150 psf for each additional foot of foundation width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. A post-tensioned mat foundation a minimum of 6 inches below lowest adjacent grade may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,200 psf. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Bearing values indicated are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads). In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity and provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be 1-inch or less. Differential static settlement may be taken as half of the static settlement (i.e., ½-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet). Recommendations for estimated seismic settlement are provided in Section 2.5.1. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with dead-load forces. For slabs constructed over a moisture retarder, the allowable friction coefficient should be provided by the manufacturer. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,500 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against properly compacted fill. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 340 pcf (maximum of 3,400 psf) for short duration seismic loading. This passive pressure is applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions. For a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) downward sloping condition, a reduced passive lateral earth pressure of 100 pcf to a maximum of 1,000 psf may be used. This allowable passive pressure may be increased to 135 pcf to a maximum of 1,350 psf for short duration seismic loading. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively. 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls Lateral earth pressures for approved native sandy or import soils meeting indicated project requirements are provided below. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf per foot of depth (or pcf). These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the retaining wall designer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil over the wall footing. Project No. 25041-01 Page 21 June 26, 2025 The following lateral earth pressures are presented in Table 3 below for approved granular soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve per ASTM D-421/422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Some of the onsite soils may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to fines content; therefore, select grading and stockpiling of the onsite soils or import of soils meeting the criteria outlined above should be anticipated by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. The wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the required select sandy soil backfill criteria. These preliminary findings should be confirmed during grading. TABLE 3 Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Onsite or Imported Sandy Soils Conditions Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf) Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf) Level Backfill 2:1 Sloped Backfill Approved Sandy Soils Approved Sandy Soils Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 70 If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for “active” pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the earth pressure will be higher. This would include 90-degree corners of retaining walls. Such walls should be designed for “at-rest.” The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. To reduce, but not eliminate, saturation of near-surface (upper approximate 1-foot) soils in front of the retaining walls, the perforated subdrain pipe should be located as low as possible behind the retaining wall. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. In general, we do not recommend retaining wall outlet pipes be connected to area drains. If subdrains are connected to area drains, special care and information should be provided to homeowners to maintain these drains. Typical retaining wall drainage is illustrated in Figure 3. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water containing soluble salts migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. Please note that waterproofing and outlet systems are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward Project No. 25041-01 Page 22 June 26, 2025 projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining wall. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, retaining walls adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 80 pounds per square foot (psf) due to normal street vehicle traffic if applicable. Uniform lateral surcharges may be estimated using the applicable coefficient of lateral earth pressure using a rectangular distribution. A factor of 0.45 and 0.3 may be used for at-rest and active conditions, respectively. The retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for any required geotechnical input in estimating any applicable surcharge loads. If retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height are proposed, the retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration of the planned retaining wall structures. Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Section 4.3. Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections. 4.5 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control From a geotechnical perspective, positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or to flow freely down a graded slope. Per section 1804.4 of the 2022 CBC, positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 5 percent for earthen surfaces for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the face of wall. If a distance of 10 feet cannot be achieved, an alternative of a gradient of at least 5 percent to an area drain or swale having a gradient of 2 percent is acceptable. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters are recommended and should reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets. Ultimately surface drainage and code compliance are the purview of the project civil engineer. Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided. Planters adjacent to a building or structure should be avoided wherever possible or be properly designed (e.g., lined with a membrane), to reduce the penetration of water into the adjacent footing subgrades and thereby reduce moisture related damage to the foundation. Planting areas at grade should be provided with appropriate positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above adjacent paved grades to facilitate drainage. Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless provisions for drainage, such as multiple depressed area drains, are constructed. Adequate drainage gradients, devices, and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into the planting areas. Irrigation methods should promote uniformity of moisture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete flatwork. Overwatering and underwatering of landscape areas must be avoided. Project No. 25041-01 Page 23 June 26, 2025 Area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to properly function. Homeowners should also be made aware that excessive irrigation of neighboring properties can cause seepage and moisture conditions on adjacent lots. Homeowners should be furnished with these recommendations communicating the importance of maintaining positive drainage away from structures, towards streets, when they design their improvements. The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradients can create perched water conditions. This may result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance-type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth movements such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a residential structure and associated improvements, moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as possible. Subdrains and v-ditches must be properly maintained, and their outlets kept free draining and clear of any potential obstructions. Routine maintenance should be performed, especially prior to and during the rainy season. Failure to properly maintain these elements may result in slope failures, slumps, excessive erosion, localized saturated zones, nuisance type water issues, etc. Any future trenches excavated on a slope face for utility or irrigation lines and/or for any purpose should be properly backfilled and compacted to the slope face. Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechnical consultant during trench backfill are recommended. A program for the elimination of burrowing animals in both native and graded slope areas must be established and properly maintained to protect slope stability by reducing the potential for surface water to penetrate into the soil. Continuous erosion control, rodent control, and maintenance are essential to the long-term stability of all slopes. 4.6 Subsurface Water Infiltration It should be noted that intentionally infiltrating storm water conflicts with the geotechnical engineering objective of directing surface water away from structures and improvements. The geotechnical stability and integrity of a site is reliant upon appropriately handling surface water. In general, the vast majority of geotechnical distress issues are directly related to improper drainage. Distress in the form of movement of foundations and other improvements could occur as a result of soil saturation and loss of soil support of foundations and pavements, settlement, collapse, internal soil erosion, and/or expansion. Additionally, off-site properties and improvements may be subjected to seepage, springs, instability, movements of foundations or other impacts as a result of water infiltration and migration. Infiltrated water may enter underground utility pipe zones or other highly permeable layers and migrate laterally along these layers, potentially impacting other improvements located far away from the point of infiltration. Any proposed infiltration system should not be located near slopes or settlement sensitive existing/proposed improvements in order to reduce the potential for slope failures and geotechnical distress issues related to infiltration. If water must be infiltrated due to regulatory requirements, we recommend the absolute Project No. 25041-01 Page 24 June 26, 2025 minimum amount of water be infiltrated and that the infiltration areas not be located near settlement-sensitive existing/proposed improvements, basement/retaining walls, or any slopes. As with all systems that are designed to concentrate surface flow and direct the water into the subsurface soils, some minor settlement, nuisance type localized saturation and/or other water related issues should be expected. Due to variability in geologic and hydraulic conductivity characteristics, these effects may be experienced at the onsite location and/or potentially at other locations beyond the physical limits of the subject site. Infiltrated water may enter underground utility pipe zones or flow along heterogeneous soil layers or geologic structure and migrate laterally impacting other improvements which may be located far away or at an elevation much lower than the infiltration source. Recommendations for subsurface water infiltration are provided below. The design infiltration rate is determined by dividing the infiltration rate by total reduction factor. The total reduction factor is calculated from a series of reduction factors, including; test procedure (RFt), site variability (RFv) and long-term siltation plugging and maintenance (RFs) as presented listed in Table 4 below (RFt + RFv + RFs). Based on the Los Angeles County testing guidelines (2021), the reduction factor for long-term siltation plugging and maintenance (RFs) is the purview of the infiltration system designer. TABLE 4 Shallow Surface Infiltration - Reduction Factors Applied to Infiltration Rate Consideration Reduction Factor Test procedure, boring percolation, RFt 1.0 Site variability, number of tests, etc., RFv 1.5 Long-term siltation plugging and maintenance, RFs TBD* Total Reduction Factor, RF = RFt + RFv + RFs TBD* *Reduction Factor for long-term siltation plugging and maintenance to be confirmed by civil engineer Per the requirements of the Los Angeles County testing guidelines (2021), subsurface materials shall have a design infiltration rate equal to or greater than 0.3 inches per hour. The Total Reduction Factor for test procedure, site variability considerations, and long-term siltation plugging and maintenance (RFt, RFv, and RFs) and the design infiltration rate will be determined by the civil engineer. Results of infiltration testing are provided in Appendix D. The following should be considered for the design of any expected infiltration system. • We recommend a minimum setback of 15 feet from the limits of the proposed infiltration system to structural improvements. • We recommend the design of any infiltration system include at least one redundancy or overflow system. It may be prudent to provide an overflow system directly connected to the storm drain system in order to prevent failure of the infiltration system, either as a result of lower than anticipated infiltration and/or very high flow volumes. Project No. 25041-01 Page 25 June 26, 2025 • Water discharge from any infiltration systems should not occur within the zone of influence of foundation footings (column and load bearing wall locations). • An adequate setback distance between any infiltration facility and adjacent property lines should be maintained. • The infiltration values provided are based on clean water and this requires the removal of trash, debris, soil particles, etc., and on-going maintenance. Over time, siltation and plugging may reduce the infiltration rate and subsequent effectiveness of the infiltration system. It should be noted that methods to prevent this shall be the responsibility of the infiltration designer and are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If adequate measures cannot be incorporated into the design and maintenance of the system, then the infiltration rates may need to be further reduced. These and other factors should be considered in selecting a design infiltration rate. • Any designed infiltration system will require routine periodic maintenance. • Contamination and environmental suitability of the site for infiltration was not evaluated by us and should be evaluated by others (environmental consultant). We only addressed the geotechnical issues associated with stormwater infiltration. LGC Geotechnical should be provided with details for any planned required infiltration system early in the design process for geotechnical input. 4.7 Preliminary Asphalt Pavement Sections For the purpose of these preliminary recommendations, we have selected a preliminary design R-value of 40 (assumed) and calculated pavement sections for assumed Traffic Indices (TI) of 5.0 (or less) and 6.0. These recommendations must be confirmed with R-Value testing of representative near-surface soils at the completion of grading and after underground utilities have been installed and backfilled. Final street sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the final design Traffic Index. Determination of the TI is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values. Should the city of Arcadia have more stringent requirements, updated pavement recommendations can be provided. TABLE 5 Preliminary Pavement Sections Assumed Traffic Index 5.0 (or less) 6.0 R -Value Subgrade 40 40 AC Thickness 4.0 inches 4.0 inches Base Thickness 5.0 inches 7.0 inches Due to anticipated construction traffic prior to completion of the project, we recommend that the total thickness (base course and capping course) of AC be placed at essentially the same time. Construction traffic loading on only the base course of the AC will increase the potential for pavement distress. It should be noted that construction traffic such as concrete trucks will Project No. 25041-01 Page 26 June 26, 2025 likely exceed traffic loading after completion of construction. Additionally, earth moving equipment should not be allowed to drive on paved surfaces. The weights of these vehicles far exceed the limits of the pavement and will cause distress, likely requiring the pavement sections to be removed and replaced. The pavement section thicknesses provided above are considered minimum thicknesses. Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur throughout the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement. Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in the previous Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the related sub-sections of this report. Please note that as the geotechnical consultant of record we will only be performing temperature checks of the asphalt and testing the wet density for calculating relative compaction. We recommend obtaining the services of others if material testing and evaluation of the quality of workmanship by the contractor is desired or required by the regulatory agency. 4.8 Soil Corrosivity Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary. Results of the corrosion testing indicated a soluble sulfate content ranging from approximately 8 to 32 parts per million (ppm), chloride content ranging from 28 to 29 ppm, pH value range of 7.4 to 7.6, and minimum resistivity value ranging from 13,400 to 15,410 ohm-cm. Note that based on minimum resistivity the soils are considered moderately corrosive to metallic improvements. If improvements that may be susceptible to corrosion are proposed, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. Based on our laboratory test results of representative site soil samples, onsite soils should be considered as having a severity categorization of “not applicable” and are designated class “S0” per ACI 318, Table 19.3.1.1 with respect to sulfates. Concrete in direct contact with the onsite soils can be designed according to ACI 318, Table 19.3.2.1 using the “S0” sulfate classification. Laboratory testing may need to be performed at the completion of grading by the project corrosion engineer to further evaluate the as-graded soil corrosivity characteristics, including sulfate, chloride, pH, minimum resistivity, etc. and provide design level recommendations. Accordingly, revision of the corrosion potential may be needed, should future test results differ substantially from the conditions reported herein. The client and/or other members of the development team should consider this during the design and planning phase of the project and formulate an appropriate course of action. Project No. 25041-01 Page 27 June 26, 2025 4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Nonstructural concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, patio slabs, etc.) has a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete may be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 6 below. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. TABLE 6 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Guidelines for Very Low Expansion Potential Community Sidewalks (≤4 feet wide) Patios/ Walkways (adjacent to homes or flatwork >4 feet wide) Private Vehicular Driveways City Sidewalk Curb and Gutters Minimum Thickness (in.) 4 (full) 4 (full) 4 (full) City/Agency Standard Presoaking Wet down prior to placing Wet down prior to placing Wet down prior to placing City/Agency Standard Reinforcement  No. 3 at 24 inches on centers No. 3 at 24 inches on centers City/Agency Standard Thickened Edge (in.)   8 x 8 City/Agency Standard Crack Control Joints Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness City/Agency Standard Maximum Joint Spacing 5 feet 6 feet 10 feet or quarter cut whichever is closer City/Agency Standard To reduce the potential for driveways to separate from the garage slab, the builder may elect to install dowels to tie these two elements together. Similarly, future homeowners should consider the use of dowels to connect flatwork to the foundation. Project No. 25041-01 Page 28 June 26, 2025 4.10 Geotechnical Plan Review When available, project plans (grading, foundation, retaining wall, etc.) should be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical in order to verify our geotechnical recommendations are implemented. Updated recommendations and/or additional fieldwork may be necessary. 4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and testing is required per Section 1705 of the 2022 CBC. Geotechnical observation and/or testing should be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages: • During grading (removal bottoms, fill placement, etc.); • During retaining wall backfill and compaction; • During utility trench backfill and compaction; • After presoaking building pads and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and prior to placement of aggregate base or concrete; • Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base; • After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placing reinforcement and/or concrete; and • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report. Project No. 25041-01 Page 29 June 26, 2025 5.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This report is based on data obtained from limited observations of the site, which have been extrapolated to characterize the site. While the scope of services performed is considered suitable to adequately characterize the site geotechnical conditions relative to the proposed development, no practical evaluation can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the anticipated geotechnical conditions in connection with a subject site. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during grading and construction. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the other consultants (at a minimum the civil engineer, structural engineer, landscape architect) and incorporated into their plans. The contractor should properly implement the recommendations during construction and notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe, or unsuitable. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client, any use of or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and modification. LEGEND Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Infiltration Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Estimated Removal and Recompaction Depths, if Feet Approximate Site Limits HS-4 T.D. = 26.5'I-4 T.D. = 5' HS-3 T.D. = 50.5' HS-4 T.D. = 26.5' I-3 T.D. = 15' I-4 T.D. = 15' HS-2 T.D. = 50.5' I-2 T.D. = 15' I-1 T.D. = 10' HS-1 T.D. = 21.5' 6'6' 6' 5' 5' 5' 5' FIGURE 2 Boring Location Map ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE DATE 1" = 60' June 2025 MWIG - Arcadia RLD 25041-01LGC Geotechnical, Inc. 131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200 San Clemente, CA 92672 TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142 4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE PER PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER COMPACTED SAND BACKFILL (EXPANSION INDEX £20, MAXIMUM 35% FINES) NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED PER REPORT MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT FOOTING/WALL PER DESIGN ENGINEER WATER PROOFING PER DESIGN ENGINEER 12" MINIMUM 18" MAXIMUM BACKCUT PER OSHA EXTENT OF REQUIRED IMPORTED SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER WA L L H E I G H T , H NOTE: PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAIN AT BASE OF WALL WILL NOT PREVENT SATURATION OF SOILS BELOW AND / OR IN FRONT OF WALL FIGURE 3 Retaining Wall Backfill Detail June 2025 DATE ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE RLD Not to Scale MWIG -Arcadia 25041-01 Appendix A References Project No. 25041-01 A-1 June 26, 2025 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute, 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2017. ________, 2018, Standard 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Supplement 1, effective: December 12, 2018. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D420 – D5876. Bray, J.D., and Sancio, R. B., 2006, Assessment of Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1165-1177, dated September 2006. California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2022. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2020, Highway Design Manual, Updated March 20, 2020. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Mt. Wilson 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 030, revised January 13, 2006. ________, 1999, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Mt. Wilson Quadrangle, Official Map, scale: 1:24,000, dated March 25, 1999. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, California Geological Survey Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. _______, 2017, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Mount Wilson Quadrangle, dated June 15, 2017. ________, 2018, Special Publication 42: Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Revised 2018. ________, 2025, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation website: CGS Earthquake Zones (ca.gov); retrieved June 24, 2025. County of Los Angeles, 2021, Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration, GS200.1, dated June 30, 2021. Project No. 25041-01 A-2 June 26, 2025 Diblee, et al, 1998, Geologic Map of the Mount Wilson & Azusa Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California, Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-67, Last edited 2010. Historic Aerials, 2025, viewed June 24, 2025, Aerial Maps from 1952 to 2022 https://www.historicaerials.com/. KTGY, 2025, Conceptual Site Plan, Option 5c, Colorado Place, Arcadia, California, dated May 14, 2025. Lew, et al, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Basements, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention Proceedings. Pradel, Daniel, 1998, Procedure to evaluate earthquake-induced settlement in dry sandy soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 124(4), pp. 364-368, dated April and October 1998. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2025, Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved June 24, 2025, from https://seismicmaps.org/ United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update)(v4.2.0), Retrieved June 24, 2025, from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Appendix B Field Exploration Logs THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 480 475 470 465 460 455 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1 4/14/2025 ~484' MSL 8" Truck Mounted Rig 30" 140 pounds Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 2 @ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete / 5" Aggregate Base 118.7 6.8 SC @ 5' - Clayey SAND: brown, slightly moist, loose 112.3 6.7 SM @ 7.5' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense 106.4 2.9 @ 10' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, medium dense 3.2 @ 15' - SAND with Silt: gray, dry, dense 11.9 @ 20' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense B- 1 865 R-1 6813 R-2 111419 R-3 182034 R-4 445 SPT-1 SC/SM SW-SM 113.5 Total Depth = 21.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Backfilled with Cuttings on 4/14/2024 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 485 480 475 470 465 460 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2 ~486' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 2" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base 109.9 6.8 SC/SM @ 5' - Clayey Silty SAND to Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense 110.6 8.0 CL/ML @ 7.5' - Sandy SILT/CLAY: brown, slightly moist, stiff 118.3 7.2 @ 10' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense 2.2 @ 15' - SAND: orangish brown, dry, medium dense @ 20' - No Recovery B- 1 1099 R-1 71015 R-3 556 R-2 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 4611 SPT-1 977 SPT-2 9.9 SC @ 25' - Clayey SAND: brown, moist, medium dense SP SM 50/5"R-3 to SM -#200 -#200 AL MDDSEICR CN Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) DESCRIPTION 60 TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX 55 50 45 40 35 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) De p t h ( f t ) Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N u m b e r Bl o w C o u n t Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) US C S S y m b o l DESCRIPTION Ty p e o f T e s t Date: Project Name: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drilling Company: Type of Rig: Drop: Drive Weight: Hole Diameter: 30 CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 455 450 545 540 535 530 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2 (Cont.) ~486' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 2 of 2 R-6 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 Total Depth = 50.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Caving: Hole Measured Approximately 40' after Removal of the Augers Backfilled with Cuttings on 4/14/2025 104.0 3.8 @ 30' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, dry, very dense 7.2 SM 108.0 3.0 SW-SM 5.2 SM 100.7 4.8 -#200 SM @ 35' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense @ 40' - SAND with Silt: gray, dry, very dense @ 45' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense @ 50' - Silty SAND: pale brown, slightly moist, very dense 4750/5" 7810 SPT-3 121522 SPT-4 343550 R-6 50/3"R-7 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 490 485 480 475 470 465 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3 ~492' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 4" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base 10.6 SC/SM @ 5' - Clayey Silty SAND: olive brown, moist, medium dense 106.2 2.3 SW-SM @ 7.5' - SAND with Silt: grayish brown, dry, very dense 109.7 2.1 @ 10' - SAND with Silt: grayish brown, dry, very dense 3.4 @ 15' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense @ 20' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, very dense B- 1 9109 R-1 3750/5" 143848 R-2 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 (Google Earth) 123334 SPT-1 91010 SPT-2 11.2 SC/SM @ 25' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense SP-SM R-3 AL-#200 203340 SPT-3 SM7.3117.4 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) DESCRIPTION 60 TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX 55 50 45 40 35 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) De p t h ( f t ) Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N u m b e r Bl o w C o u n t Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) US C S S y m b o l DESCRIPTION Ty p e o f T e s t Date: Project Name: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drilling Company: Type of Rig: Drop: Drive Weight: Hole Diameter: 30 CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3 (Cont.) ~492' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 2 of 2 R-4 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 (Google Earth) Total Depth = 50.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Caving: No Caving Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/28/2025 110.8 9.6 @ 30' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, very dense 3.7 SW-SM 105.5 3.7 SM to 3.9 SW-SM SM @ 35' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense @ 40' - Silty SAND to SAND with Silt: pale brown, dry, very dense @ 45' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense @ 50' - NO RECOVERY 3650/5" 284150/5.5" SPT-4 4050/5.5"SPT-5 50/5"R-5 50/5"R-6 SW-SM 460 455 450 445 440 435 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 485 480 475 470 465 460 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4 ~488' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 4" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base 111.8 5.1 SC/SM @ 5' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense 101.8 8.5 SM @ 7.5' - Silty SAND with Gravel: brown, moist, medium dense 107.3 6.4 @ 10' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense 9.3 @ 15' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense @ 20' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense B- 1 182629 R-1 141619 R-2 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 (Google Earth) 212321 SPT-1 243234 6.4 @ 25' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, very dense SC/SMR-3 DS -#200EICR 71013 142124 R-4 R-5 Total Depth = 26.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Caving: No Caving Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/28/2025 116.2 SM7.7 114.5 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-1 Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 2.5" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 10' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 4/14/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Cold Patch On 4/15/2025 ~484' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 764 R-1 355 SPT-1 107.0 6.0 SM to @ 5' - Silty SAND to Sandy CLAY: pale brown, slightly moist, loose/medium stiff 8.1 SC @ 8' - Clayey SAND: brown, moist, medium dense 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 CL 480 475 470 465 460 455 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 480 475 470 465 460 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-2 Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 2.5" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 15' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 4/14/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings On 4/15/2025 ~484' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 344 R-3 7811 SPT-1 3.6 SW-SM @ 13' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, medium dense 108.7 13.3 CL @ 5' - Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, medium stiff 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 455 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-3 Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 15' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 5/28/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings On 5/29/2025 ~488' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 142020 R-1 SPT-1 3.8 SW-SM @ 13' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense 99.3 3.9 SM @ 5' - Silty SAND: brown, dry, dense 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 878 SPT-2 102124 @ 10' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, very moist, medium denseSC/SM14.0 B- 1 485 480 475 470 465 460 (Google Earth) Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-4 Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 15' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 5/28/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings On 5/29/2025 ~487' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 162134 R-1 SPT-1 10.8 SC/SM @ 13' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense 112.5 2.8 SM to @ 5' - Silty SAND to SAND with Silt: pale brown, dry, dense 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 844 SPT-2 12724 @ 10' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, very moist, medium dense17.2 SC/SM SP-SMB- 1 485 480 475 470 465 460 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) Appendix C Laboratory Test Results Project No. 25041-01 C-1 June 2025 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results The laboratory testing program was formulated towards providing data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils with respect to residential construction. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results. Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, Standard ASTM D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch-thick by 4-inch-diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below. Sample Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential* HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 1 Very Low HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 1 Very Low * ASTM D4829 Grain Size Distribution/Fines Content: Representative samples were dried, weighed and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140). Where applicable, the portion retained on the No. 200 sieve and dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D6913 (sieve). Sample Location Description % Passing # 200 Sieve HS-2 @ 15 ft Sand 4 HS-2 @ 25 ft Clayey Sand 38 HS-2 @ 35 ft Silty Sand 29 HS-3 @ 25ft Clayey Silty Sand 37 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft Silty Sand 25 APPENDIX C (Cont’d) Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Project No. 25041-01 C-2 June 2025 Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits (“Atterberg Limits”) were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318 for engineering classification of fine-grained material and presented in the table below: Sample Location Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Plasticity Index (%) USCS Soil Classification HS-2 @ 7.5 feet 23 19 4 CL-ML HS-3 @ 25 feet 24 17 7 CL-ML Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) HS-2 @ 1-5 ft Dark Brown Silty Sand 130.5 8.5 Consolidation: Two consolidation tests were performed per ASTM D2435. A sample (2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height) was placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied. The sample was allowed to consolidate under “double drainage” and total deformation for each loading step was recorded. The percent consolidation for each load step was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The consolidation pressure curves are provided in this Appendix. Direct Shear: Two direct shear tests were performed on a remolded sample and an in-situ sample, which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. The samples were tested under various normal loads using a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus (ASTM D3080). The plot is provided in this Appendix. APPENDIX C (Cont’d) Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Project No. 25041-01 C-3 June 2025 Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below. Sample Location Sulfate Content (ppm) Sulfate Exposure Class * HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 8 S0 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 32 S0 *Based on ACI 318R-14, Table 19.3.1.1 Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method (CTM) 422. The results are presented below. Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 28 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 29 Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below. Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 7.6 15,410 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 7.4 13,400 Project Name:Tested By:GB/JD Date:04/17/25 Project No.:Checked By:J. Ward Date:04/30/25 Boring No.:Depth (ft.): Sample No.:Sample Type: Soil Identification: Sample Diameter (in.):2.415 Sample Thickness (in.):1.000 Weight of Sample + ring (g):191.83 Weight of Ring (g):44.27 Height after consol. (in.):0.9688 Before Test Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g):177.47 Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g):169.32 Weight of Container (g):39.71 Initial Moisture Content (%)6.3 Initial Dry Density (pcf)115.5 Initial Saturation (%):37 Initial Vertical Reading (in.)0.1162 After Test Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g):256.34 Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g):237.37 Weight of Container (g):57.28 Final Moisture Content (%) 13.97 Final Dry Density (pcf):116.6 Final Saturation (%):85 Final Vertical Reading (in.)0.1507 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70 Water Density (pcf):62.43 0.10 0.1165 0.9997 0.00 0.03 0.459 0.03 0.25 0.1190 0.9972 0.05 0.28 0.457 0.23 0.50 0.1209 0.9953 0.12 0.47 0.455 0.35 1.00 0.1247 0.9916 0.21 0.84 0.451 0.63 1.00 0.1250 0.9912 0.21 0.88 0.450 0.67 2.00 0.1286 0.9877 0.31 1.24 0.446 0.92 4.00 0.1346 0.9816 0.41 1.84 0.439 1.43 8.00 0.1437 0.9726 0.52 2.75 0.427 2.23 16.00 0.1603 0.9560 0.64 4.41 0.405 3.77 8.00 0.1589 0.9573 0.59 4.27 0.406 3.68 4.00 0.1573 0.9590 0.53 4.11 0.408 3.58 1.00 0.1531 0.9631 0.39 3.69 0.412 3.30 0.50 0.1507 0.9655 0.33 3.45 0.41 3.120 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION ASTM D 2435 25041-01 Arcadia Deformation % of Sample Thickness Final Reading (in.) PROPERTIES of SOILS Ring Void Ratio Pressure (p) (ksf)Time Dial Rdgs. (in.)Date Apparent Thickness (in.) Load Compliance (%) HS-2 R-2 Square Root of Time Corrected Deforma- tion (%) Olive brown silty sand (SM) Time Readings Elapsed Time (min) 7.5 0.400 0.410 0.420 0.430 0.440 0.450 0.460 0.470 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Vo i d R a t i o Pressure, p (ksf) Inundate with Tap water Consol HS-2, R-2 @ 7.5 Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification: Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft.) Moisture Content (%) ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES of SOILS ASTM D 2435 14.0 116.6HS-2 R-2 6.3 Olive brown silty sand (SM) Project No.: Arcadia 04-25 25041-01 Time Readings 0.414 37 85115.5 Degree of Saturation (%)Dry Density (pcf) 0.460 Void Ratio 7.5 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 0.1 1.0 De f o r m a t i o n D i a l R e a d i n g ( i n . ) Log of Time (min.) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 De f o r m a t i o n ( % ) Pressure, p (ksf) 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 0.0 10.0 Square Root of Time (min.1/2) Inundate with Tap water Project Name:Arcadia Tested By:G. Bathala Date:04/23/25 Project No.:25041-01 Checked By:J. Ward Date:04/30/25 Boring No.:Sample Type:90% Remold Sample No.:Depth (ft.):1-5 Soil Identification: 2.415 2.415 2.415 1.000 1.000 1.000 199.35 196.45 199.23 45.39 42.26 44.97 Before Shearing 218.81 218.81 218.81 207.98 207.98 207.98 77.77 77.77 77.77 0.2626 0.2739 0.0000 0.2713 0.2884 -0.0245 After Shearing 225.12 217.32 209.92 207.21 199.34 192.80 67.40 59.14 52.64 2.70 2.70 2.70 62.43 62.43 62.43 HS-2 Dark brown silty sand (SM) Sample Diameter(in): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): Vertical Rdg.(in): Final Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial Sample Thickness(in.): Weight of Sample + ring(gm): B-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Water Density(pcf): Specific Gravity (Assumed): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Ring(gm): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): DS HS-2, B-1 @ 1-5 Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 04-25 Project No.:25041-01 Sample Type: 90% Remold Dark brown silty sand (SM) 52.7 0.9913 12.8 ArcadiaDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 53.1 0.9755 12.2 1.000 0.912 0.777 0.0033 1.000 2.415 1.000 2.415 2.000 1.625 1.449 0.0033 4.000 3.122 2.804 0.0033 53.0 0.9855 12.8 Soil Identification:8.32 118.4 8.32 118.2 118.4 1.000 2.415 8.32 Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) HS-2 B-1 1-5 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) DS HS-2, B-1 @ 1-5 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Tested By:J. Domingo Date:06/04/25 Project No.:25041-01 Checked By:J. Ward Date:06/12/25 Boring No.:Sample Type:Ring Sample No.:Depth (ft.):7.5 Soil Identification: 2.415 2.415 2.415 1.000 1.000 1.000 175.86 176.56 178.72 45.03 45.39 42.81 Before Shearing 172.82 172.82 172.82 165.19 165.19 165.19 67.11 67.11 67.11 0.2737 0.2863 0.0000 0.2903 0.3168 -0.0573 After Shearing 193.66 199.08 201.22 166.85 174.96 180.45 49.74 56.35 57.05 2.70 2.70 2.70 62.43 62.43 62.43 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Water Density(pcf): Specific Gravity (Assumed): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Ring(gm): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): HS-4 Brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g Sample Diameter(in): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): Vertical Rdg.(in): Final Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial Sample Thickness(in.): Weight of Sample + ring(gm): R-2 DS HS-4, R-2 @ 7.5 Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 104.9 1.000 2.415 7.78 Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) HS-4 R-2 7.5 31.6 0.9695 20.3 Soil Identification:7.78 101.2 7.78 101.0 1.185 0.0033 4.000 2.842 2.836 0.0033 1.000 0.742 0.732 0.0033 1.000 2.415 1.000 2.415 2.000 1.191 31.4 0.9834 22.9 MWIG - ArcadiaDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 34.6 0.9427 16.8 06-25 Project No.:25041-01 Sample Type: Ring Brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) DS HS-4, R-2 @ 7.5 Appendix D Infiltration Test Results Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 10 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 8:39 9:09 30.0 7.02 7.66 0.64 Main Test Data 1 9:10 9:40 30.0 7.00 7.58 0.58 6.63 0.7 2 9:41 10:11 30.0 7.00 7.58 0.58 6.63 0.7 3 10:18 10:48 30.0 7.02 7.61 0.59 6.59 0.7 4 10:50 11:20 30.0 6.98 7.53 0.55 6.67 0.7 5 11:22 11:52 30.0 7.02 7.61 0.59 6.59 0.8 6 11:54 12:24 30.0 6.98 7.52 0.54 6.67 0.7 0.7 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Date:4/15/2025 I-1 Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): *measured at time of test Comments Water remained Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, Dt (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Change in Water Level, DD (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Measured Infiltration Rate Feasibility Factor of Safety Feasibility Infiltration Rate Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 15 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 8:44 9:06 22.0 12.05 15 2.95 Main Test Data 1 9:07 9:17 10.0 11.70 13.83 2.13 7.26 7.4 2 9:20 9:33 13.0 11.95 14.35 2.40 6.74 6.9 3 9:38 9:48 10.0 11.93 13.84 1.91 6.78 7.1 4 9:50 10:00 10.0 11.92 13.88 1.96 6.80 7.2 5 10:03 10:13 10.0 11.94 13.80 1.86 6.76 6.9 6 10:15 10:25 10.0 11.90 13.74 1.84 6.84 6.8 7 10:28 10:38 10.0 11.94 13.77 1.83 6.76 6.8 8 10:41 10:51 10.0 11.93 13.78 1.85 6.78 6.9 9 10:54 11:04 10.0 11.92 13.82 1.90 6.80 7.0 10 11:07 11:17 10.0 11.98 13.81 1.83 6.67 6.9 11 11:20 11:30 10.0 11.92 13.8 1.88 6.80 6.9 12 11:33 11:43 10.0 11.92 13.8 1.88 6.80 6.9 6.9 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Date:4/15/2025 I-2 Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): *measured at time of test Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Comments Water drained after 30 min Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, Dt (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Change in Water Level, DD (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Measured Infiltration Rate Feasibility Factor of Safety Feasibility Infiltration Rate Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 15 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 7:23 7:53 30.0 13.99 14.79 0.8 Main Test Data 1 7:58 8:28 30.0 11.91 14.38 2.47 6.82 3.0 2 8:32 8:42 10.0 11.96 13.59 1.63 6.72 6.1 3 8:45 8:55 10.0 11.95 13.47 1.52 6.74 5.7 4 8:57 9:07 10.0 11.96 13.44 1.48 6.72 5.5 5 9:09 9:19 10.0 11.95 13.49 1.54 6.74 5.7 6 9:22 9:32 10.0 11.96 13.41 1.45 6.72 5.4 7 9:34 9:44 10.0 11.99 13.38 1.39 6.65 5.3 8 9:45 9:55 10.0 11.98 13.44 1.46 6.67 5.5 9 9:58 10:08 10.0 11.95 13.47 1.52 6.74 5.7 10 10:12 10:22 10.0 11.96 13.42 1.46 6.72 5.5 11 10:24 10:34 10.0 11.95 13.40 1.45 6.74 5.4 12 10:36 10:46 10.0 11.91 13.32 1.41 6.82 5.2 13 10:59 11:09 10.0 11.97 13.39 1.42 6.70 5.3 14 11:12 11:22 10.0 11.96 13.37 1.41 6.72 5.3 15 11:24 11:34 10.0 11.97 13.35 1.38 6.70 5.2 16 11:36 11:46 10.0 11.95 13.4 1.45 6.74 5.4 5.3 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Infiltration Rate Factor of Safety Design Infiltration Rate Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Comments Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, ∆t (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Change in Water Level, ∆D (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) *measured at time of test Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): Date:5/29/2025 I-3 Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 15 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 8:07 8:37 30.0 12.15 14.2 2.05 Main Test Data 1 8:39 8:49 10.0 11.44 12.94 1.50 7.81 4.8 2 8:50 9:00 10.0 11.93 13.09 1.16 6.78 4.3 3 9:02 9:12 10.0 11.85 12.92 1.07 6.95 3.9 4 9:14 9:50 36.0 11.95 14.07 2.12 6.74 2.2 5 9:53 10:03 10.0 11.80 12.98 1.18 7.05 4.2 6 10:05 10:15 10.0 11.93 13.00 1.07 6.78 4.0 7 10:18 10:28 10.0 11.98 13.10 1.12 6.67 4.2 8 10:32 10:42 10.0 11.97 13.12 1.15 6.70 4.3 9 11:06 11:16 10.0 11.82 12.82 1.00 7.01 3.6 10 11:18 11:28 10.0 11.95 12.86 0.91 6.74 3.4 11 11:30 11:40 10.0 11.97 12.99 1.02 6.70 3.8 12 11:43 11:53 10.0 11.98 13.04 1.06 6.67 4.0 13 11:57 12:07 10.0 11.93 13.05 1.12 6.78 4.2 14 12:09 12:19 10.0 11.95 13.10 1.15 6.74 4.3 15 12:25 12:35 10.0 11.97 13.18 1.21 6.70 4.5 16 12:38 12:48 10.0 11.95 13.14 1.19 6.74 4.4 4.4 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Infiltration Rate Factor of Safety Design Infiltration Rate Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Comments Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, ∆t (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Change in Water Level, ∆D (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) *measured at time of test Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): Date:5/29/2025 I-4 Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Appendix E General Earthwork & Grading Specifications for Rough Grading General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture- conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1 contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor. 2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 2 2.3 Over-excavation In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 3 3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Layers Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557). 4.3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557. 4.5 Compaction Testing Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 4 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 5 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 6 the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. Appendix F Preliminary Water Systems Analysis PRELIMINARY WATER SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 201 & 225 Colorado Place Arcadia, CA 91007 Prepared For: MW Investment Group, LLC 27702 Crown Valley Parkway, Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Prepared By: 9830 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 T: (949) 916-3800 Contact: Dane McDougall, P.E. September 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & PURPOSE OF STUDY 2.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 3.0 RESULTS 4.0 CONCLUSION APPENDICES A. Vicinity Map B. Fire Flow Test Results C. California Fire Code D. WaterCAD Results E. WaterCAD Exhibits F. Backflow Spec Sheets 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & PURPOSE OF STUDY SITE DESCRIPTION: The total project area consists of approximately 3.7 acres. The proposed project encompasses two addresses, the northern parcel 2.4 acres addressed 225 Colorado Place, Arcadia, CA, and the southern parcel 1.3 acres addressed 201 Colorado Place, Arcadia, CA. The site is currently occupied by an existing structure, which will be taken down. The elevation within the site varies from approximately 482.4’ to 487.7’. The proposed development includes the construction of fourteen (14) buildings consisting of a total of eighty-six (86) units. The proposed 3.7-acre site will include guest parking, sidewalks, open spaces, and associated landscaping. The proposed site will be accessible via two (2) driveway entrances, one along Colorado Place and the other off Santa Rosa Road. Landscaping, including vegetation and trees, will be incorporated in open space areas. Vicinity map of the proposed development can be found in Appendix A. PURPOSE OF STUDY: This study will determine the adequacy of the existing water distribution system to supply the proposed development with adequate domestic water and fire water demands. The hydraulic analysis portion of the study will verify the proposed size of the domestic wa ter and firewater main conveyance pipes. For this water analysis report, assumed domestic and fire water demands have been utilized in our model and are further described in Section 2.0. The project proposes to service the site with water through four (4) point of connections off Colorado Place existing 8” main. The northern and southern portions of the project will have one connection each for domestic and fire water. The proposed water system will provide service to three (3) proposed onsite hydrants. 2.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS & DESIGN CRITERIA HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS: One simulated flow test from a Water Model was performed by City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department on June 18th, 2025. The hydrant’s maximum flow capacity was 3,424.15 gpm at 20 psi, as stated in their fire flow test results. Refer to Appendix B of this report for fire flow test results. A hydraulic model was created in WaterCAD. Pipe lengths, friction factors (proportional to minor losses), and pipe diameters were applied to the pipes or “links” and demands were applied at appropriate nodes or “junctions.” After the model was run, output files were analyzed to confirm that a) correct pipe lengths, diameters, and fittings were applied in the model; b) demands were applied correctly; and c) residual pressures remained above a 20-psi threshold for all fire hydrants and fire & domestic water connection points to the building . This study will analyze the following scenarios: 1. Domestic Daily Demand – Total daily demand at the domestic water building points of connections were used to determine the estimated pressure. 2. Fire Flow Demand – Fire flow demand at our on-site hydrant was analyzed separately to ensure pressures are above the minimum pressure of 20 psi. The results from these scenarios are in the tables and schematic on the following pages within this study. DESIGN CRITERIA: 1. Fire Hydrant Flow Data: City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department performed simulated Fire hydrant flow data. The test report and reference information are included in Appendix B of this report. Hydrant Test #1 Location – 201 Colorado Place (8” Water Main) Static Pressure = 76.62 psi Residual Pressure = 73.35 psi Maximum Flow (calculated at 20 psi) = 3,424.15 gpm 2. Fire Flow Demand: Per the 2022 CA Fire Code Table B105.1(2), based on an assumed square footage of the largest building (~12,825 sf), the required fire flow demand for the fire hydrant is 3,000 gpm at 20 psi residual for 3-hour duration. Due to the buildings being equipped with fire sprinklers per Table 105.1(1) fire flow is reduced by fifty percent which results in a total fire flow demand of 1,500 gpm for 1-hour duration for the proposed site. Refer to Appendix C. 3. Domestic Demand: Due to the early stages of the project a plumbing consultant has not been contracted. Assumed fixtures units and CA Plumbing Code Chart A 103.1(1) were utilized to get a domestic demand for the proposed site. An total of 1938.5 fixture units was assumed for the site and converted into 315 gpm for the domestic demand per CA Plumbing Code Chart 103.1(1). 4. Hazen-William’s factor “C” value for Ductile Iron and Cast-Iron pipe = 120 for PVC pipe = 150. 5. To be conservative water as-builts existing pipe material was chosen to be Ductile Iron. 6. Maximum velocity shall be 15 fps, including fire flow. 7. WaterCAD 10.04 for was utilized for hydraulic calculations. 8. The elevations of the proposed and existing system are based on 1’ contour intervals from aerial photogrammetry flown by C&V Consulting Inc. on March 18th, 2025. 9. Minor losses have been applied to the end of the pipe segment with the fitting within the computer modeled program. Each loss has been applied to each bend as shown on the water system plans and the junction node exhibit as attached . Each loss has discounted head loss at each of these bend locations. Denoted losses at each bend are as stated below. Minor Losses Table: Type Minor Loss 90° Bend 0.80 45° Bend 0.20 22.5° Bend 0.10 11.25° Bend 0.05 Gate Valve (Open) 0.39 Tee - Line flow 0.35 Tee - Branch flow 1.28 3.0 DOMESTIC AND FIRE WATER PIPE SIZING This section provides an analysis of the preliminary flows anticipated to properly size the domestic and fire water pipes for the development. Based on the preliminary analysis, the proposed water pipes were sized accordingly: Domestic Water System: - 4” PVC water main on-site - 3” Water Master Meter - 4” Febco LF866 RPZA or approved equal Fire Water System: - 8” PVC fire main on-site - 8” Febco 856ST DCDA or approved equal All proposed domestic and fire water demands are preliminary and will need to be confirmed and/or updated during final engineering. 4.0 CONCLUSION The preliminary analysis determined that the proposed onsite water system is adequately designed to provide domestic water service and fire flow for proposed onsite fire hydrants within the design criteria of the 2022 CA Fire Code. Appendix A Vicinity Map Appendix B Fire Flow Test Results - PROJECT:DATE: 6/18/2025 LOCATION:MAIN SIZE: TESTED BY:TIME: WATER ATLAS PRESSURE: 76 GAUGE JUCTION # ORIFACE DIAMETER: (in) STATIC PRESSURE: (psi) RESIDUAL PRESSURE: (psi) CALCULATED FLOW (gpm) FLOW @ 20 PSI (gpm) REMARKS: Disclaimer: 500.00 3,424.15 SIMULATED FLOW TEST FROM WATER MODEL. This information is furnished as a courtesy and shall not constitue any obligation on the part of the City of Arcadia to supply water at any specific pressure, or in any specific quantity for domestic or fire protection use. 76.62 73.35 Tiffany Lee FLOW TEST RESULTS FLOW FIRE HYDRANT 408FH005 City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department Hydraulic Flow Test Summary 201 Colorado Pl 201 Colorado Pl 8" CI Appendix C CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Appendix C CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Appendix D WaterCAD Results WaterCAD Results-Northern Domestic Water Only Pipe Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Start Node Stop Node Length (ft) Diameter (in) Hazen-Williams C Material Headloss (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (gpm) P-1 J-30 WM1 5 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.16 5.33 209 P-2 WM1 RP1 17 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.49 5.33 209 P-3 RP1 J-31 69 4.0 150.0 PVC 3.43 5.33 209 P-4 J-31 B2(6 units)24 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.15 1.78 70 P-5 B10(7Units)B2(6 units)23 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.04 1.22 -48 P-6 B1(6Units)B10(7Units)116 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.05 0.56 -22 P-7 J-31 J-6 4 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.30 3.55 139 P-8 J-6 B3(6Units)9 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.02 1.22 48 P-9 B3(6Units)B4(7Units)23 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.01 0.65 26 P-10 J-6 B5(5Units)116 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.88 2.34 92 P-11 B5(5Units)B9(7Units)38 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.16 1.87 73 P-12 B9(7Units)B8(7Units)22 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.04 1.22 48 P-13 B8(7Units)J-29 111 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.05 0.56 22 P-14 B6(3Units)J-29 14 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.28 -11 P-15 J-29 B7(3Units)22 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.28 11 MWIG-010-WSA-P0-01_28Aug25.wtg Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center WaterCAD [24.00.02.20] 9/4/2025 76 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 Page 1 of 6 WaterCAD Results-Northern Domestic Water Only Junction Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Elevation (ft) Demand (gpm) Hydraulic Grade (ft) Pressure (psi) B1(6Units)484.32 22 629.02 63 B2(6 units)485.28 22 629.12 62 B3(6Units)488.27 22 628.95 61 B4(7Units)486.58 26 628.94 62 B5(5Units)486.90 18 628.09 61 B6(3Units)490.40 11 627.82 59 B7(3Units)490.25 11 627.82 60 B8(7Units)487.66 26 627.88 61 B9(7Units)487.60 26 627.92 61 B10(7Units)485.20 26 629.08 62 J-6 485.19 0 628.97 62 J-29 488.70 0 627.83 60 J-30 485.50 0 660.96 76 J-31 485.19 0 629.27 62 J-49 487.70 0 660.96 75 MWIG-010-WSA-P0-01_28Aug25.wtg Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center WaterCAD [24.00.02.20] 9/4/2025 76 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 Page 2 of 6 WaterCAD Results- Southern Domestic Water Only Pipe Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Start Node Stop Node Length (ft) Diameter (in) Hazen-Williams C Material Headloss (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (gpm) P-16 J-1 WM2 5 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.04 2.71 106 P-17 WM2 RP2 17 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.14 2.71 106 P-18 RP2 B13(5Units)9 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.26 2.71 106 P-19 B14(9Units)B13(5Units)39 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.25 2.24 -88 P-20 B12(8Units)B14(9Units)24 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.06 1.40 -55 P-21 B11(7Units)B12(8Units)146 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.10 0.65 -26 Junction Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Elevation (ft) Demand (gpm) Hydraulic Grade (ft) Pressure (psi) B11(7Units)482.50 26 627.29 63 B12(8Units)480.50 29 627.39 64 B13(5Units)480.00 18 627.70 64 B14(9Units)480.39 33 627.45 64 J-1 480.00 0 657.29 77 J-61 481.00 0 657.29 76 MWIG-010-WSA-P0-01_28Aug25.wtg Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center WaterCAD [24.00.02.20] 9/4/2025 76 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 Page 3 of 6 WaterCAD Results- Northern Fire Flow Only (Hydrant 2) Hydrant Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Diameter (Hydrant Lateral) (in) Elevation (ft) Pressure (psi) Demand (gpm) Hydraulic Grade (ft) Hydrant Status Include Hydrant Lateral Loss? H-2 6.0 492.00 48 1,500 602.12 Open True H-1 6.0 488.50 55 0 616.26 Closed True Pipe Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Start Node Stop Node Length (ft) Diameter (in) Hazen-Williams C Material Headloss (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (gpm) F-1 J-39 DCDA 19 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.55 9.57 1,500 F-2 DCDA J-62 43 8.0 150.0 PVC 1.29 9.57 1,500 F-3 J-62 J-40 25 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.75 9.57 1,500 F-4 J-40 J-46 143 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 F-5 J-40 J-41 4 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.11 9.57 1,500 F-6 J-41 J-42 136 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 F-7 J-41 H-1 15 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.44 9.57 1,500 F-8 H-1 J-52 25 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.73 9.57 1,500 F-9 J-52 J-55 71 8.0 150.0 PVC 2.11 9.57 1,500 F-10 J-55 J-54 65 8.0 150.0 PVC 1.94 9.57 1,500 F-11 J-54 J-53 81 8.0 150.0 PVC 2.40 9.57 1,500 F-12 J-53 J-44 41 8.0 150.0 PVC 1.22 9.57 1,500 F-13 J-44 H-2 19 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.56 9.57 1,500 L-1 J-46 B1-FS 26 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-2 J-62 B2-FS 3 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-3 J-42 B3-FS 28 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-4 J-42 B4-FS 31 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-5 J-55 B5-FS 14 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-6 J-53 B6-FS 12 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-7 J-44 B7-FS 12 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-8 J-54 B8-FS 27 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-9 J-52 B9-FS 71 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-10 J-46 B10-FS 23 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 MWIG-010-WSA-P0-01_28Aug25.wtg Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center WaterCAD [24.00.02.20] 9/4/2025 76 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 Page 4 of 6 WaterCAD Results- Northern Fire Flow Only (Hydrant 2) Junction Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Elevation (ft) Demand (gpm) Hydraulic Grade (ft) Pressure (psi) B1-FS 487.90 0 616.81 56 B2-FS 488.70 0 617.56 56 B3-FS 489.50 0 616.70 55 B4-FS 489.75 0 616.70 55 B5-FS 491.70 0 613.42 53 B6-FS 493.40 0 609.08 50 B7-FS 493.25 0 607.86 50 B8-FS 492.00 0 611.48 52 B9-FS 490.60 0 615.53 54 B10-FS 488.50 0 616.81 56 J-39 485.50 0 633.24 64 J-40 485.19 0 616.81 57 J-41 485.19 0 616.70 57 J-42 486.03 0 616.70 57 J-44 489.02 0 607.86 51 J-46 484.32 0 616.81 57 J-49 487.70 0 633.24 63 J-52 485.84 0 615.53 56 J-53 488.56 0 609.08 52 J-54 487.66 0 611.48 54 J-55 486.91 0 613.42 55 J-62 486.68 0 617.56 57 MWIG-010-WSA-P0-01_28Aug25.wtg Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center WaterCAD [24.00.02.20] 9/4/2025 76 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 Page 5 of 6 WaterCAD Results- Southern Fire Water Only (Hydrant 3) Hydrant Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Diameter (Hydrant Lateral) (in) Elevation (ft) Pressure (psi) Demand (gpm) Hydraulic Grade (ft) Hydrant Status Include Hydrant Lateral Loss? H-3 6.0 485.50 51 1,500 604.11 Open True Pipe Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Start Node Stop Node Length (ft) Diameter (in) Hazen-Williams C Material Headloss (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (gpm) F-14 J-32 DCDA-2 19 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.57 9.57 1,500 F-15 DCDA-2 J-58 22 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.65 9.57 1,500 F-16 J-58 J-33 23 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.69 9.57 1,500 F-17 J-33 J-34 76 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 F-18 J-33 H-3 143 8.0 150.0 PVC 4.24 9.57 1,500 F-19 H-3 J-37 152 8.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-11 J-37 B11-FS 10 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-12 J-34 B12-FS 17 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 L-13 J-34 B13-FS 21 4.0 150.0 PVC 0.00 0.00 0 Junction Table - Time: 0.00 hours Label Elevation (ft) Demand (gpm) Hydraulic Grade (ft) Pressure (psi) B11-FS 485.30 0 609.05 54 B12-FS 484.40 0 613.29 56 B13-FS 483.70 0 613.29 56 J-32 480.00 0 629.04 64 J-33 480.39 0 613.29 58 J-34 479.83 0 613.29 58 J-37 481.60 0 609.05 55 J-58 484.30 0 613.99 56 J-61 481.00 0 629.04 64 MWIG-010-WSA-P0-01_28Aug25.wtg Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center WaterCAD [24.00.02.20] 9/4/2025 76 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 Page 6 of 6 Appendix E WaterCAD Exhibits TR A S H RE C Y C L E 64 G 64 G TRASH RECYCLE 64G64G Exis t i n g t r e e t o r e m a i n # 5 Exis t i n g t r e e t o r e m a i n # 4 Exi s t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 2 8 Exi s t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 2 9 Exi s t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 3 0 Exi s t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 3 1 Exis t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 2 9 UP16R UP16R WH WH UP 16 R UP 16 R WH TR A S H RE C Y C L E TRASH RECYCLE WHWHWHWHWHWH WHWHWHWHWHWH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WHWHWHWHWHWH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH UP16R UP16R WH WH WH UP16R UP16R WH UP16R UP16R UP 16 R UP 16 R WH WH WH WH WH WH WH 201 & 225 COLORADO PLACE DOMESTIC WATER EXHIBIT CITY OF ARCADIA0 1" = 60' 30 60 120 TR A S H RE C Y C L E 64 G 64 G TRASH RECYCLE 64G64G Exis t i n g t r e e t o r e m a i n # 5 Exis t i n g t r e e t o r e m a i n # 4 Exi s t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 2 8 Exi s t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 2 9 Exi s t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 3 0 Exis t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 3 1 Exis t i n g t r e e t o rem a i n # 2 9 UP16R UP16R WH WH UP 16 R UP 16 R WH TR A S H RE C Y C L E TRASH RECYCLE WHWHWHWHWHWH WHWHWHWHWHWH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WHWHWHWHWHWH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH UP16R UP16R WH WH WH UP16R UP16R WH UP16R UP16R UP 16 R UP 16 R WH WH WH WH WH WH WH 201 & 225 COLORADO PLACE FIRE WATER EXHIBIT CITY OF ARCADIA0 1" = 60' 30 60 120 Appendix F Backflow Spec Sheets ES-F-856ST MasterSeries® 856ST Double Check Detector Backflow Prevention Assemblies Size: 21⁄2" - 10" (65mm - 250mm) Model 856ST Double Check Detector Assembly The FEBCO MasterSeries 856ST Double Check Detector Assemblies are designed to protect drinking water supplies from dangerous cross-con- nections in accordance with national plumbing codes and water authority requirements for non-health hazard non-potable service applications such as irrigation, fire line, or industrial processing. This Backflow Assembly is primar- ily used for protection of drinking water systems and fire sprinkler systems, where Local Governing Code mandates protection from non-potable quality water being pumped or siphoned back into the potable water system. Features Main Valve: • Inline Serviceable Assembly • No Special Tools Required for Servicing • Captured Modular Spring Assembly • Reversible & Replaceable Discs • Field Replaceable Seats • Ductile Iron Valve Body Design • Stainless Steel Check Components • Winterization feature with disc retainers and valve body drain ports • Clapper Check Assembly • Commonality between 1st & 2nd Check Components • Captured O-ring Design Auxiliary Bypass: • Compact Bypass Design; Remains within Main Valve Assembly Profile • Inline Serviceable 3⁄4" Backflow Assembly • No Special Tools Required for Servicing • Field Replaceable Seats & Discs • Detect Potential Underground Water Leaks • Detect Unauthorized Water Usage Specifications The FEBCO MasterSeries 856ST Double Check Detector Valve Assembly shall be installed on the potable water supply and at each point of cross-connec- tion to protect against possible backpressure and backsiphonage conditions for non-health hazard (i.e., pollutant) applications. The assembly shall consist of a main line valve body composed of two (2) independently acting approved clapper style check modules with replaceable seats and disc rubbers. Servicing of both check modules does not require any special tools and are accessed through independent top entry covers. This assembly shall be fitted with approved UL/FM inlet/outlet resilient seated shutoff valves and contain four (4) properly located resilient seated test cocks as specified by AWWA Standard C510. The auxiliary bypass line contains a 5⁄8"x 3⁄4" (16 x 19mm) Water Meter that complies with ANSI/AWWA Standard C700 coupled with an approved double check assembly (DC) compliant to AWWA Standard C510. The bypass line is designed to detect leaks or unauthorized water usage of the water system while protecting against possible backpressure and back- siphonage conditions for non-health hazard (i.e., pollutant) application. Flow and pressure loss performance parameters shall meet the requirements of AWWA Standard C510. NOTICE The information contained herein is not intended to replace the full prod- uct installation and safety information available or the experience of a trained product installer. You are required to thoroughly read all installation instructions and product safety information before beginning the installa- tion of this product. SPECIFICATION SHEET It is illegal to use this product in any plumbing system providing water for human consumption, such as drinking or dishwashing, in the United States. Before installing standard material product, consult your local water authority, building and plumbing codes. WARNING! FEBCO product specifications in U.S. customary units and metric are approximate and are provided for reference only. For precise measurements, please contact FEBCO Technical Service. FEBCO reserves the right to change or modify product design, construction, specifications, or materials without prior notice and without incurring any obligation to make such changes and modifications on FEBCO products previously or subsequently sold. Job Name –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Contractor –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Job Location ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Approval –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Engineer ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Contractor’s P.O. No. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Approval ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Representative –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Approvals • Approved by the Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research at The University of Southern California (FCCCHR-USC) • ASSE 1048 Listed • **UL Classified (US & Canada) • **FM Approved • IAPMO • AWWA Standard C510 Compliant • End Connections: Compliant to ASME B16.1 Class 125 & AWWA Class D Flange **Assembly configured with UL/FM Approved OS&Y RW Gate Valves. Less gate valve assemblies are not UL/FM approved configurations. Pressure - Temperature Max. Working Pressure: 175 psi (12.1 bar) Min. Working Pressure: 10 psi (0.7 bar) Hydrostatic Test Pressure: 350 psi (24.1 bar) Hydrostatic Safety Pressure: 700 psi (48.3 bar) Temperature Range: 33°F - 140°F (0.5°C- 60°C) Continuous Options - Suffix OSY: UL/FM Approved OS&Y Gate Valves (ANSI/AWWA C515 Compliant) CFM: Totalizing Cubic feet/min 5/8" x 3/4" Water Meter (ANSI/AWWA C700 Compliant) GPM: Totalizing Gallons/min 5/8"x 3/4" Water Meter (ANSI/AWWA C700 Compliant) LG: Less Shutoff valves; This is NOT an APPROVED ASSEMBLY Example Ordering Descriptions: 4" 856ST-OSY-GPM - Valve Assembly fitted with OS&Y Shutoff Valves & Gallon Feet per Minute Water Meter 4" 856ST-OSY-CFM - Valve Assembly fitted with OS&Y Shutoff Valves, Cubic feet per Minute Water Meter Assembly Flow Orientation: • Horizontal & Vertical Up (21⁄2" – 10") - Approved by FCCCHR-USC, ASSE, cULus, FM, IAPMO Materials Below is a general material list of the Model 856ST. All assemblies’ size 21⁄2" through 10" is similar in materials and construction. Please contact your local FEBCO Representative if you require further information. Main Valve Body: Ductile iron Grade 65-45-12 Coating: Fusion epoxy coated internal and external AWWA C550 Shutoff Valves: OS&Y resilient wedge gate valves AWWA C515 (UL/FM) Check Seats: Stainless Steel Disc Holder: Stainless Steel Elastomer Disc Silicone Spring: Stainless Steel Clamp: AWWA C606 (10" Only) Test Cock #1 Test Cock #2 First Spring Assembly First Check Assembly Second Spring Assembly Second Check AssemblyShutoff Vavle #1 Shutoff Valve #2 Test Cock #3 Test Cock #4 Shutoff Valve #1 Shutoff Valve #2 Test Cock #3 Test Cock #4 Test Cock #2Test Cock #1 First Check Assembly First Spring Assembly Second Spring Assembly Second Check Assembly 1048 **** Dimensions & Weights Below are the nominal dimensions and physical weights for the Model 856ST size 21⁄2" through 10". Allowances must be made for normal manufactur- ing tolerances. Please visit our website to download a copy of this product’s installation instructions, or contact your local FEBCO Representative for more information. Model 856ST Assemblies SIZE DIMENSIONS WEIGHT*** A B C E**F G H OSY in. in. mm in. mm in. mm in. mm in. mm in. mm in. mm lbs. kg. 21⁄2 403⁄4 1035 25 1⁄2 648 10 254 163⁄8 416 41⁄2 114 71⁄8 181 13 3⁄8 340 245 111 3 417⁄8 1064 25 5⁄8 651 10 254 22 1⁄7 565 41⁄2 114 73⁄8 187 13 3⁄8 340 271 123 4 461⁄4 1175 28 711 10 1⁄8 257 23 1⁄4 591 51⁄2 140 81⁄8 206 14 356 338 153 6 56 1422 34 3⁄4 883 123⁄4 324 30 1⁄8 765 61⁄2 165 97⁄8 251 15 381 515 234 8 65 1651 41 3⁄4 1061 155⁄8 397 37 3⁄4 959 7 178 11 1⁄8 283 153⁄4 400 826 375 10 725⁄8 1845 46 3⁄8 1178 155⁄8 397 48 1219 9 229 123⁄8 314 153⁄4 400 1234 560 ** Indicates nominal dimensions with OSY Gate Valves (Full Open Position) *** Indicates weight of complete Backflow Assemblies with specified Gate Valves A B C D G F E E** A H G F B C Performance Flow capacity chart identifies valve performance based upon rated water Velocity up to 20fps. • Maximum service flow rate is determined by maximum rated Velocity of 7.5fps. • AWWA Manual M-22 (Appendix C) recommends that the maximum water Velocity in the services be not more than 10fps. • UL flow rate is determined by typically rated Velocity of 15 feet/sec. 21⁄2" 856ST 3" 856ST 4" 856ST 6" 856ST 8" 856ST 10" 856ST psi 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 psi 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 psi 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 psi 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 psi 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 psi 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 gpm 284 568 852 1136 lpm 7.5 14.7 22.0 fps 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 gpm 379 757 1136 1514 lpm 7.5 14.5 22.0 fps 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 gpm 379 1136 1893 2650 lpm 7.5 12.8 19.1 fps 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 gpm 757 2271 3785 5300 lpm 7.5 11.4 17.0 fps 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 gpm 1514 3028 4543 6057 7571 9085 lpm 7.5 10.5 15.3 fps 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 gpm 2271 4543 6814 9085 11356 13627 lpm 7.5 9.4 14.1 fps Service Flow Service Flow Service Flow Service Flow Service Flow Service Flow Rated Flow Rated Flow Rated Flow Rated Flow Rated Flow Rated Flow *UL Rated Flow *UL Rated Flow *UL Rated Flow *UL Rated Flow *UL Rated Flow *UL Rated Flow Capacity PS I D r o p (* F r i c t i o n L o s s ) PS I D r o p (* F r i c t i o n L o s s ) PS I D r o p (* F r i c t i o n L o s s ) PS I D r o p (* F r i c t i o n L o s s ) PS I D r o p (* F r i c t i o n L o s s ) PS I D r o p (* F r i c t i o n L o s s ) ES-F-856ST 1515 © 2015 FEBCO USA: Tel: (800) 767-1234 • Fax: (800) 788-4491 • FEBCOonline.com Canada: Tel: (905) 332-4090 • Fax: (905) 332-7068 • FEBCOonline.ca Latin America: (52) 81-1001-8600 • Fax: (52) 81-8000-7091 • FEBCOonline.com A Watts Water Technologies Company ES-F-LF866 MasterSeries® LF866 Reduced Pressure Zone Detector Backflow Prevention Assemblies (Type-II) Size: 21⁄2" - 10" LEAD FREE* Job Name ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Contractor –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Job Location ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Approval ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Engineer ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Contractor’s P.O. No. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Approval ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Representative –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– FEBCO product specifications in U.S. customary units and metric are approximate and are provided for reference only. For precise measurements, please contact FEBCO Technical Service. FEBCO reserves the right to change or modify product design, construction, specifications, or materials with- out prior notice and without incurring any obligation to make such changes and modifications on FEBCO products previously or subsequently sold. The FEBCO® MasterSeries® LF866 Reduced Pressure Zone Detector Assembly is specifically designed to protect against pos- sible backpressure and backsiphonage conditions for high hazard (that is, toxic) application in accordance with Local Governing Water Utility Codes. This Backflow Assembly is primarily used on potable drinking water systems where Local Governing Codes mandate protection from non-potable quality water being pumped or siphoned back into the potable water system. The ductile iron body is fused with ArmorTek™ coating technology to resist corrosion due to microbial induced corrosion (MIC) or exposed metal substrate. The LF866 features Lead Free construction to comply with low lead installation requirements. The Lead Free Reduced Pressure Zone Detector Assemblies shall comply with state codes and standards, where applicable, requiring reduced lead content. Features Main Valve: • Stainless steel relief valve seat and stainless steel check components for maximum performance and durability • Inline serviceable assembly • No special tools required for servicing • Captured modular spring assembly • Reversible and replaceable discs • Field replaceable seats • Ductile iron valve body design • Utilizes advanced ArmorTek™ coating technology to resist corrosion of internals • Modular and repairable pressure differential relief valve • Clapper check assembly • Captured O-ring design Auxiliary Bypass: • Compact bypass design; remains in main valve assembly profile • Inline serviceable 3⁄4" check assembly • No special tools required for servicing • Field replaceable seat and disc • Detect potential underground water leaks • Detect unauthorized water usage Specification The FEBCO MasterSeries LF866 Reduced Pressure Zone Detector Assembly shall be installed on the potable water supply and at each point of cross-connection to protect against possible backpressure high hazard and backsiphonage conditions for (that is, toxic) applications. The assembly shall consist of a main line valve body composed of two (2) independently acting approved clapper style check modules with replaceable seats and disc rub- bers. Servicing of both check modules does not require any spe- cial tools and are accessed through independent top entry covers. This assembly shall be fitted with approved UL/FM inlet/outlet resilient seated shutoff valves and contain four (4) properly located resilient seated test cocks as specified by AWWA Standard C511. The auxiliary bypass line contains a 5⁄8"x 3⁄4" Water Meter that complies with ANSI/AWWA Standard C700 coupled with an approved check assembly compliant to AWWA Standard C511. The bypass line is designed to detect leaks or unauthorized water usage of the water system while protecting against possible backpressure and backsiphonage conditions in high hazard (i.e., toxic) applications. The valve body shall utilize a coating system with built-in electrochemical corrosion inhibitor and microbial inhibitor. Flow and pressure loss performance parameters shall meet the requirements of AWWA Standard C511. NOTICE Inquire with governing authorities for local installation requirements. Model LF866-OSY NOTICE The information contained herein is not intended to replace the full product installation and safety information available or the experience of a trained product installer. You are required to thoroughly read all installation instructions and product safety information before beginning the installation of this product. Engineering Specification *The wetted surface of this product contacted by consumable water contains less than 0.25% of lead by weight. First Spring Assembly Test Cock #3 Second Check Assembly Second Spring Assembly Test Cock #4 Shutoff Valve #2Shutoff Valve #1 First Check Assembly Test Cock #1 Test Cock #2 Relief Valve Assembly Options - Suffix OSY: UL/FM Approved OS&Y gate valves (ANSI/AWWA C515 Compliant) CFM: Totalizing cubic ft/min 5⁄8" x 3/4" water meter (ANSI/AWWA C700 Compliant) GPM: Totalizing gal/min 5⁄8"x 3/4" water meter (ANSI/AWWA C700 Compliant) LG: Less shutoff valves (This is NOT an APPROVED ASSEMBLY.) Example Ordering Descriptions 4" LF866V-OSY-GPM - Assembly fitted with OS&Y shutoff valves and gallons per minute water meter 4" LF866V-OSY-CFM - Assembly fitted with OS&Y shutoff valves and cubic feet per minute water meter Assembly Flow Orientation Horizontal (21⁄2" – 10") - Approved by FCCCHR-USC, ASSE, cULus, FM, IAPMO Materials All sizes (21/2" – 10") are similar in materials and construction. Contact your local FEBCO representative if you require further information. Main Valve Body: Ductile iron Grade 65-45-12 Relief Valve Body: Ductile iron Grade 65-45-12 Coating: Fusion epoxy coated internal and external AWWA C550-90 Shutoff Valves: OSY resilient wedge gate valve AWWA C515 (UL/FM) Check Seats: Stainless steel Relief Valve Seat: Stainless steel Disc Holder: Stainless steel Elastomer Disc: Silicone Spring: Stainless steel Clamp: AWWA C606 (10" only) Approvals – Standards • Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research at The University of Southern California (FCCCHR-USC) • ASSE 1047 • UL Classified** (US & Canada) • FM Approved** • IAPMO/cUPC **Assembly configured with UL/FM Approved OS&Y RWgate valves. Less gate valve assemblies are not UL/FM approved configurations. Standards • AWWA Standard C511 Compliant • End Connections: Compliant to ASME B16.1 Class 125 & AWWA Class D Flange Pressure - Temperature Max. Working Pressure: 175 psi (12.1 bar) Min. Working Pressure: 20 psi (1.4 bar) Hydrostatic Test Pressure: 350 psi (24.1 bar) Hydrostatic Safety Pressure: 700 psi (48.3 bar) Temperature Range: 33°F – 140°F (0.5°C – 60°C) continuous 1047 ** ** Shutoff Valve #1 Test Cock #3 First Spring Assembly Second Spring Assembly Second Check Assembly First Check Assembly Test Cock #1 Test Cock #2 Relief Valve Assembly Test Cock #4 Shutoff Valve #2 MODEL LF866 ASSEMBLIES SIZE DIMENSIONS WEIGHT** A B C D E*F G H OSY in. in. mm in. mm in. mm in mm in. mm in. mm in. mm in. mm lb kg 21⁄2 403⁄4 1035 25 1⁄2 648 12 1⁄8 308 10 254 16 3⁄8 416 41⁄2 114 71⁄8 181 57⁄8 150 218 99 3 417⁄8 1064 25 5⁄8 651 12 1⁄8 308 10 254 22 1⁄8 565 41⁄2 114 73⁄8 187 61⁄4 159 245 111 4 461⁄4 1175 28 711 12 1⁄2 318 10 1⁄8 257 23 1⁄4 591 51⁄2 140 81⁄8 206 7 178 324 147 6 56 1422 34 3⁄4 883 15 384 11 1⁄8 283 30 1⁄8 765 61⁄2 165 97⁄8 251 9 229 520 236 8 65 1651 41 3⁄4 1061 17 1⁄8 434 12 1⁄4 311 37 3⁄4 959 7 178 11 1⁄8 283 91⁄2 241 835 379 10 72 5⁄8 1845 46 3⁄8 1178 17 1⁄8 434 12 3⁄8 314 48 1219 9 229 12 3⁄8 314 10 1⁄2 267 1240 562 Note: * Indicates nominal dimensions with OSY gate valves (full open position) ** Indicates weight of complete backflow assemblies with specified gate valves The gap drain is not designed to catch the maximum discharge possible from the relief valve. The installation of the FEBCO air gap with the drain line terminating above a floor drain will handle any normal discharge or nuisance spitting through the relief valve. However, floor drain size may need to be designed to prevent water damage caused by a catastrophic failure condition. Do not reduce the size of the drain line from the air gap fitting. A H F D E* B C G F G H C B D E* A Dimensions & Weights Below are the nominal dimensions and physical weights for Series LF866, sizes 21/2" to 10". Allowances must be made for normal manufacturing tolerances. Download installation instructions at watts.com, or contact your local FEBCO representative for more information. ES-F-LF866 2216 ©2022 Watts 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 PSI DROP [*Fricton loss] 2.5" (LF866) 7.5 Service Flow 22.0 *UL Rated Flow 14.7 Rated Flow GPM lpm fps 284 568 852 1136 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 PSI DROP [*Fricton loss] 3" (LF866) 7.5 Service Flow 22.0 *UL Rated Flow 14.5 Rated Flow GPM lpm fps 379 757 1136 1514 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 PSI DROP [*Fricton loss] 4" (LF866) 7.5 Service Flow 19.1 *UL Rated Flow 12.8 Rated Flow GPM lpm fps 379 1136 1893 2650 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 PSI DROP [*Fricton loss] 7.5 17.0 *UL Rated Flow Rated Flow Service Flow 11.4 GPM lpm fps 6" (LF866) 757 2271 3785 5300 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 PSI DROP [*Fricton loss] 8" (LF866) 7.5 Service Flow 15.3 *UL Rated Flow 10.5 Rated Flow GPM lpm fps 1514 3028 6057 7571 4543 9085 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 10" (LF866) 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 PSI DROP [*Fricton loss] 7.5 Service Flow 14.1 *UL Rated Flow 9.4 Rated Flow GPM lpm fps 2271 4543 9085 11356 6814 13627 Performance The flow capacity chart identifies valve performance based upon rated water velocity up to 20fps. • Maximum service flow rate is determined by maximum rated velocity of 7.5fps. • AWWA Manual M-22 (Appendix C) recommends that the maximum water velocity in the services be not more than 10fps. • UL flow rate is determined by typically rated velocity of 15 ft/sec. USA: T: (800) 767-1234 • F: (800) 788-4491 • FEBCOonline.com Canada: T: (888) 208-8927 • F: (905) 481-2316 • FEBCOonline.ca Latin America: T: (52) 55-4122-0138 • FEBCOonline.com WWW.MASTERMETER.COM ENGINEERING CHARTS – OCTAVE ULTRASONIC WATER METER 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 He a d L o s s ( P S I ) Flow Rate (GPM) 94.0% 95.0% 96.0% 97.0% 98.0% 99.0% 100.0% 101.0% 102.0% 103.0% 104.0% 105.0% 106.0% Ac c u r a c y Flow Rate (GPM) 0 100 500 10 3” OCTAVE - HEAD LOSS 3” OCTAVE - ACCURACY CURVE Appendix G Sewer Area Studies SEWER AREA STUDY VTTM 84968 Prepared for MW Investment Group, LLC 27702 Crown Valley Parkway, Ste. D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Contact: Matt Waken Property: 201 Colorado Place Arcadia, CA 91007 APN: 5775-011-032 & 5775-011-031 Prepared by: C&V Consulting, Inc. 9830 Irvine Center Dr. Irvine, CA 92630 Contact: Antonio Ruiz (949) 445 - 1771 Dane P. McDougall R.C.E. 80705 Prepared: January 2026 1/27/2026 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 SITE DESCRIPTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 METHODOLOGY 3 - 4 SEWER PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS 5 - 6 CONCLUSION 7 Appendices A. SEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBIT B. SEWER AREA STUDY TABLE & DEPTH OF FLOW CALCULATIONS C. SEWER ATLAS MAP & SEWER AS-BUILTS D. VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP (VTTM) E. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, SEWER DESIGN GUIDELINES F. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT – WILL SERVE LETTER G. CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING MAP Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 1 INTRODUCTION The following Area Study has been prepared by C&V C Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is approximately 3.7 gross acres as measured to the existfng right-of-way. The proposed development will consist of eighty-six (86) townhome units, with primary access to the project provided by Colorado Place. The site will include private driving aisles, hardscape, parking areas, associated landscaping and the proposed sewer system will be gravity fed. AP Number Size (ac) 5775-011-032 1.3 5775-011-032 2.4 Total Site 3.7 Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 3 METHODOLOGY This study will investfgate the sewerage discharge route from the proposed development to the existfng Sanitatfon District No. 15 Santa Anita Outiall 21” trunk sewer main, located on W. Huntfngton Drive. The subject route of the sewer main will be analyzed by segments based on sewer pipe size, slope and tributary area. Reach #1.1 segment is on Colorado Place, from Arcadia city manhole 507_MH 008 to 507_MH 082 and consists of an existfng 10” VCP sewer main with a slope of 1.12%. This segment includes the northern sectfon of the project site (Area S), and the upstream tributary areas 1A, 1B and 1C. Reach #1.2 segment is on Colorado Place, from Arcadia city manhole 507_MH 082 to 508_MH 001 and consists of an existfng 10” VCP sewer main with a slope of 1.12%. This segment includes the southern sectfon of the project site (Area S), and the upstream tributary areas. Reach #2 segment is on Colorado Place, from Arcadia city manhole 508_MH 001 to 508_MH 002 and consists of an existfng 10” VCP sewer main with a slope of 0.92%. This segment includes areas 2A, 2B, and 2C, in additfon to all the upstream tributary areas. Reach #3 segment is on Colorado Place, from Arcadia city manhole 508_MH 002 to 508_MH 003 and consists of an existfng 12” VCP sewer main with a slope of 0.56%. This segment includes area and all upstream tributary areas. Reach #4 segment is on Colorado Place, from Arcadia city manhole 508_MH 003 to 508_MH 004 and consists of an existfng 12” VCP sewer main with a slope of 0.54%. This segment includes area 4 and all the upstream tributary areas. Reach #5 segment is on Colorado Place and Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 508_MH 004 to 508_MH 012 and consists of an existfng 12” VCP sewer main with a slope of 0.56%. This segment includes area 5 and all the upstream tributary areas. Reach #6 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 508_MH 012 to 508_MH 013 and consists of an existfng 14” HDPE sewer main with a slope of 1.32 %. This segment includes area 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D in additfon to all the upstream tributary areas. Reach # 7 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 508_MH 013 to 508_MH 014 and consists of an existfng 14” HDPE sewer main wit a slope of 1.10 %. This segment includes area 7 in additfon to all the upstream tributary areas of reach #6. Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 4 Reach #8 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 508_MH 014 to 508_MH 015 and consists of an existfng 14” HDPE sewer main with a slope of 1.10 %. This segment contributes no additfonal flow but includes all the upstream tributary areas. Reach #9 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 508_MH 015 to 508_MH 016 and consists of a 2 x 10” siphon with an assumed slope of 1.10 %. This segment contributes no additfonal flow and due to siphons hydraulic behavior differing from the surrounding gravity led mains it has been excluded from the calculatfons . Reach #10 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 508_MH 016 to 408_MH 004 and consists of an existfng 14” HDPE sewer main with a slope of 1.20 %. This segment contributes no additfonal flow but includes all the upstream tributary areas. Reach #11 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 408_MH 004 to 408_MH 002 and consists of an existfng 14” HDPE sewer main with a slope of 1.20 %. This segment includes area s 11A and 11B in and includes all the upstream tributary areas. Reach #12 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 408_MH 002 to 409_MH 004 and consists of an existfng 14” HDPE sewer main with a slope of 1.20 %. This segment includes area 12 in additfon to all the upstream tributary areas. Reach #13 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 409_MH 004 to 409_MH 006 and consists of an existfng 16” HDPE sewer main with a slope of 0.50 %. This segment contributes no additfonal flow but includes all upstream tributary areas. Reach #14 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 409_MH 006 to 409_MH 007 and consists of an existfng 2 x 12” V.C.P siphon. This segment contributes no additfonal flow and due to siphons hydraulic behavior differing from the surrounding gravity led mains it has been excluded from the calculatfons. Reach #15 segment is on Huntfngton Drive, from Arcadia city manhole 409_MH 007 to 409_MH 003 which serves as the point of connectfon to the 21” Santa Anita Outiall Trunk, this segment consists of an existfng 16” HDPE with a slope of 0.20 %. This segment contributes no additfonal flow but includes all upstream tributary areas. Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 5 SEWER PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 6 The downstream tributary areas were calculated by reference scaling City of Arcadia Sewer Atlas Maps and referencing County of Los Angeles Assessor’s map. The zoning coefficients were referencing the LACDPW guidelines and the Zoning Map provided by the City of Arcadia in Appendix G. *Reach #9 and #14 consist of siphons and have been excluded from the calculations due to Mannings equation not being applicable to these segments.* City of Arcadia’s classificatfon of R-1 and R-3 matches the density descriptfons of Los Angeles County Zones R-1 and R-3, so the LACPWD zoning coefficients were applied respectfvely. City of Arcadia’s commercial classificatfons of C-G falls under the commercial LACPWD zoning, so the commercial coefficient was applied to all C-G parcels in the tributary area. Hotels, hospitals, medical buildings, condominiums, and office buildings were taken into consideratfon of separate calculatfons. Per County requirements, sewage flow from the above-mentfoned areas are calculated based on the formulas below. Area Formula Hotels (150 gals)/(# of rooms) Hospitals (Surgical) (500 gals)/(# of beds) Medical buildings (300 gals)/(1000 sq fl gross floor area) Condominiums 0.001 (cfs/unit) Office buildings (200 gals)/(1000 sq fl gross floor area) (Refer to the LACDPW guideline informatfon within Appendix E) Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 7 CONCLUSION The existfng sewer system being analyzed in this area study has a design capacity above the calculated cumulatfve flow. The peak discharge at the downstream end of the sewer system entering the 21” Sanitatfon District No. 15 Santa Anita Outiall Trunk Sewer is calculated to be a rate of 2.4840 cfs representfng approximately 80% cumulatfve flow capacity. Reach #2 has the highest cumulatfve flow percentage of approximately 96%. Therefore, we conclude that the existfng sewer system has adequate capacity for the proposed development. Further confirmatfon of the existfng sewer system’s ability to support the development has been verified by the city of Arcadia. Flow monitoring was conducted at manhole 507_MH_082 and confirmed that the peak flow depth of the existfng 10” V.C.P. on Colorado Place just upstream of reach #1 is 3.94 inches corresponding to a d/D of 0.394. Using a Mannings n value of 0.013 that would correspond to a flow rate of 0.760 cfs representfng approximately 70% capacity of the existfng sewer system. Additfonally, the city of Arcadia has estfmated that the peak flow from San Juan drive was estfmated to be approximately 0.08 cfs. The proposed development is estfmated to add approximately 0.0975 cfs of eftfuent which would put the 10” V.C.P. on Colorado Place corresponding to reach #1.2 at approximately 73% capacity. Refer to Appendix B for calculations and tabulated results. Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 8 Appendix A SEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBIT 1" = 305' S 2A2A 2B 1A 1B 1C 2C 3 4 5 6A 6B 6B6B 6B 6B 6B 6B 6B 6B 6B 6B 6B 6B 6C 6D 11A11B 12 7 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 2B 2B 2B 1C 1C1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C 1C1C 1C 1C 1C 1C Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 9 Appendix B SEWER AREA STUDY TABLE & DEPTH OF FLOW CALCUATIONS TR 949 201 Colorado Place, Arcadia Percentage Full MH #MH #Size (in.) Slope (%)1/2 Full 3/4 Full Cumulative Flow/ Capacity 507_8 507_82 10 1.12 1.088 S(Site N)Proposed Townhomes (2 Bedroom)0.0039 (4 units) (250 gal/day)*2.5 = 2500 gal/day = 0.0039 cfs S(Site N)Proposed Townhomes (3+ Bedroom)0.0615 (53 units)(300 gal/day)* 2.5 = 39750 gal/day = 0.0615 cfs 1A 7.96 C-G - General Commercial Flow monitoring data used 1C 519.10 R-1 - Low Density Residential Flow monitoring data used 1B 1.29 R-3 - High Density Residential 0.7600 Flow monitoring data used 70% Reach #1.2 507_83 508_1 10 0.12 1.088 S(Site S)Proposed Townhomes (2 Bedroom)0.0077 (8 units) (250 gal/day)*2.5 = 2500 gal/day = 0.0077 cfs Colorado Place Site S Proposed Townhomes (3+ Bedroom)0.0244 0.7921 (21 units)(300 gal/day)* 2.5 = 39750 gal/day = 0.0244 cfs 73% 508_1 508_2 10 0.92 0.986 2A 1.73 R-3 - High Density Residential 0.08 cfs from San Juan 2B 103.49 R-1 - Low Density Residential 0.08 cfs from San Juan 2C 0.61 Prop. Hotel (Guest Rooms)0.0528 (91 rooms)(150 gal/day)*2.5 =34125 gal/day = 0.0528 cfs Prop. Hotel (Employee Break Room)0.0013 (1633/1000 sqft)(200 gal/day) *2.5 = 817 gal/day = 0.0013 cfs Prop. Hotel (Laundry Room & Fitness)0.0012 (2 room * 150 gal/day) *2.5 =750 gal/day = 0.0012 cfs Prop. Hotel (Bar)0.0019 (25 occupants) (20 gal/day) *2.5 = 1250 gal/day = 0.0019 cfs Prop. Hotel (Café)0.0135 0.9428 (70 occupants)(50 gal/day) *2.5 = 8750 gal/day = 0.0135 96% Comments Reach #1.1 Colorado Place Site N Sewer Area Study Table - With Proposed Project Street Name Segment Pipe *Capacity (cfs) Calculated Peak Flow (cfs) **Cumulative Calculated Peak Flow (cfs) Tributary Area (Acres)Zone (LA County Factor)Zoning Coefficient Tributary Area # Reach #2 Colorado Place Segment A 1/30/2026 CVC Job No MWIG-010 1 508_2 508_3 12 0.56 1.272 3 Keck Medical Building (A)0.0230 (19,845/1000 sqft)(300 gal/day)*2.5 = 14,884 = 0.6880 cfs Keck Medical Building (B)0.0223 0.9881 (19,231/1000 sqft)(300 gal/day)*2.5 = 14,423 = 78% 508_3 508_4 12 0.54 1.249 4 Prop. Hotel Building C (Guest Rooms)0.0522 (90 rooms)(150 gal/day)*2.5 = 33750 gal/day = 0.0522 cfs Reach #4 Colorado Place Segment C Prop. Hotel Building C (Resturant)0.0534 (276 occupants)(50 gal/day)*2.5 = 34,500 gal/day = 0.0534 cfs Prop. Hotel Building C (Bar)0.0053 1.0991 (69 occupants)(20 gal/day)*2.5 = 3,443 gal/day = 0.0053 cfs 88% 508_4 508_12 12 0.56 1.272 5 Prop. Hotel Building D (Guest Rooms)0.0435 (75 rooms)(150 gal/day)*2.5 =28,125 gal/day = 0.435 cfs Prop. Hotel (Cafe)0.0203 (105 occupants)(50 gal/day)*2.5 = 13,125 gal/day = 0.0203 Prop. Hotel (Spa)0.0188 1.1817 (7466/1000 sqft) (650 gal/day) * 2.5 = 12,132 gal/day = 0.0188 cfs 93% 508_12 508_13 14 1.32 5.539 6A 1.37 C-G - General Commercial 0.015 0.0205 6B 48.99 R-1 - Low Density Residential 0.004 0.1960 6C 2.75 Park 0.001 0.0028 6D 2.75 Hotel (Guest Rooms)0.1352 (233 rooms) (150 gal/day) * 2.5 = 87375 gal/day = 0.1352 cfs Hotel (Conference Rooms)0.0034 (7324/1000 sqft) (120 gal/day)*2.5 = 2197 gal/day = 0.0034 cfs Hotel (Laundry Room & Fitness)0.0012 (2 room * 150 gal/day) *2.5 =750 gal/day = 0.0012 cfs Hotel (Resturant)0.0716 1.6122 (370 occupants)(50 gal/day) *2.5 = 46250 = 0.0176 cfs 29% Reach #5 Colorado Place & Huntington Dr. Reach #6 Huntington Dr. Segment A Reach #3 Colorado Place Segment B 1/30/2026 CVC Job No MWIG-010 2 508_13 508_14 14 1.10 5.055 7 2.95 Prop. Mixed Use (Retail/Commercial) 0.007397 (19123/1000 sqft)(100 gal/day)*2.5 = 4781 = 0.007397 cfs Prop. Mixed Use (Office) 0.009599 (12408/1000 sqft)(200 gal/day) *2.5 = 6204 gal/day = 0.009599 cfs Prop. Mixed Use (Spa) 0.0168 (6665/1000 sqft)(650 gal/day) * 2.5 = 10831 gal/day = 0.0168 cfs Prop. Mixed Use (Condominums) 0.0960 1.7420 (96 units)(0.001 cfs) = 0.096 cfs 34% 508_14 508_15 14 1.10 5.055 0.0000 1.7420 No additional flow 34% 1.7420 Siphon excluded from calculations 508_16 408_4 14 0.12 5.281 0.0000 1.7420 No additional flow 33% 408_4 408_2 14 0.12 5.281 11A 7.73 Recreational 0.001 0.0077 Reach #11 Huntington Dr. & Centennial N 11B 5.71 Office Building 0.0612 1.8109 (79172/1000 sqft)(200 gal/day)*2.5 = 39586 gal/day = 0.0612 cfs 34% 408_2 409_4 14 0.12 5.281 12 16.18 USC Arcadia Hospital 0.6730 2.4840 (348 beds)(500 gal/day)*2.5 = 435000 gal/day = 0.6730 cfs 47% 409_4 409_6 16 0.500 4.902 0.0000 2.4840 No additional flow 51% Reach #13 Huntington Dr. Segment E Reach #10 Huntington Dr. Segment D Reach #12 Huntington Dr. & Centennial S Reach #9 Huntington Dr. Siphon A Reach #8 Huntington Dr. Segment C Reach #7 Huntington Dr. Segment B 1/30/2026 CVC Job No MWIG-010 3 2.4840 Siphon excluded from calculations 409_7 409_3 16 0.200 3.086 0.0000 2.4840 No additional flow 80% Reach #15 Huntington Dr. POC Reach #14 Huntington Dr. Siphon B 1/30/2026 CVC Job No MWIG-010 4 Pipe Diameter 10 in Pipe Diameter 0.833 ft Depth of Flow (50% full)0.417 ft Slope 0.0112 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n)0.013 (unitless) Central Angle 3.142 radians Flow Area 0.273 sf Wetted Perimeter 1.309 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.208 ft Pipe Capacity 1.088 cfs Kutter's Formula Reach 1.1 &1.2 Pipe Capacity Pipe Diameter 10 in Pipe Diameter 0.833 ft Depth of Flow (50% full)0.417 ft Slope 0.0092 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n)0.013 (unitless) Central Angle 3.142 radians Flow Area 0.273 sf Wetted Perimeter 1.309 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.208 ft Pipe Capacity 0.986 cfs Kutter's Formula Reach 2 Pipe Capacity Pipe Diameter 12 in Pipe Diameter 1.000 ft Depth of Flow (50% full)0.500 ft Slope 0.0056 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n)0.013 (unitless) Central Angle 3.142 radians Flow Area 0.393 sf Wetted Perimeter 1.571 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.250 ft Pipe Capacity 1.272 cfs Kutter's Formula Reach 3 & 5 Pipe Capacity Pipe Diameter 12 in Pipe Diameter 1.000 ft Depth of Flow (50% full)0.500 ft Slope 0.0054 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n)0.013 (unitless) Central Angle 3.142 radians Flow Area 0.393 sf Wetted Perimeter 1.571 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.250 ft Pipe Capacity 1.249 cfs Kutter's Formula Reach 4 Pipe Capacity Pipe Diameter 14 in Pipe Diameter 1.167 ft Depth of Flow (75% full)0.875 ft Slope 0.0132 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n)0.013 (unitless) Central Angle 2.094 radians Flow Area 0.860 sf Wetted Perimeter 2.443 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.352 ft Pipe Capacity 5.539 cfs Kutter's Formula Reach 6 Pipe Capacity Pipe Diameter 14 in Pipe Diameter 1.167 ft Depth of Flow (75% full)0.875 ft Slope 0.0110 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n)0.013 (unitless) Central Angle 2.094 radians Flow Area 0.860 sf Wetted Perimeter 2.443 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.352 ft Pipe Capacity 5.055 cfs Kutter's Formula Reach 7 & 8 Pipe Capacity Pipe Diameter 12 in Pipe Diameter 1.000 ft Depth of Flow (75% full)0.750 ft Slope 0.0120 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n)0.013 (unitless) Central Angle 2.094 radians Flow Area 0.632 sf Wetted Perimeter 2.094 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.302 ft Pipe Capacity 3.459 cfs Kutter's Formula Reach 10-12 Pipe Capacity Pipe Diameter 16 in Pipe Diameter 1.333 ft Depth of Flow (75% full)1.000 ft Slope 0.0050 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n)0.013 (unitless) Central Angle 2.094 radians Flow Area 1.123 sf Wetted Perimeter 2.793 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.402 ft Pipe Capacity 4.902 cfs Kutter's Formula Reach 13 Pipe Capacity Pipe Diameter 16 in Pipe Diameter 1.333 ft Depth of Flow (75% full)1.000 ft Slope 0.0020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n)0.013 (unitless) Central Angle 2.094 radians Flow Area 1.123 sf Wetted Perimeter 2.793 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.402 ft Pipe Capacity 3.086 cfs Reach 15 Pipe Capacity Kutter's Formula Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 10 Appendix C SEWER AS-BUILTS & ATLAS MAPS DISCLAIMER: THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (DISTRICTS) PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION “AS IS” FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE DISTRICTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SHOWN OR THE DRAWINGS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. THE DISTRICTS DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY REFLECT ONLY AS-PLANNED LOCATIONS AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATIONS OF AS-BUILT FACILITIES OR SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT FACILITIES. APPROPRIATE FIELD VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' FACILITIES. FACILITIES WITHIN DISTRICTS' PROPERTY ARE NOT SHOWN. ANY PERSON PERFORMING EXCAVATION MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216. NOTE THAT "SUBSURFACE INSTALLATIONS" AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 EXCLUDES NON-PRESSURIZED SEWERS, NON-PRESSURIZED STORM DRAINS, AND OTHER NON-PRESSURIZED DRAIN LINES. ANY PERSON PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS OVER OR BELOW DISTRICTS' FACILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDOVER AGREEMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4.03.0 5.08.0 28. 7 287.5 300.5 6.0 15 . 0 17 . 0 4.5 ' 4.03.0 8'' V C P 12. 0 4 % 8' ' V C P 1 2 . 0 0 % 8'' V C P 9.40 % 8'' V C P 8.2 4 % 8'' V C P 5.8 4 % 8'' V C P 11. 6 4 % 8'' VCP 7.48% 8'' V C P 10.1 6 % 8'' V C P 13. 7 6 % 8'' VCP 11.72% 8'' VCP 10.88% 8 ' ' V C P 1 2 . 0 8 % 8'' VC P 12.6 0 % 8'' VCP 11.08% 0.88%8'' VC P 0.40 % 8'' V C P 5.7 2 % 4.1 2 % 8'' VCP 8 ' ' V C P 1 1 . 9 6 % 8'' VC P 8.438 % 8'' V C P 10 . 1 2 % 8'' V C P 11 . 3 2 % 8'' V C P 18 % 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 0% 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 2 % 8'' VCP 2.84% 3.96% 8 ' ' V C P 1 3 % 8 ' ' V C P 1 2 . 2 0 % 8'' V C P 4.52 % 3.76% 8' ' V C P 9. 5 8 % 8' ' V C P 15 . 2 0 % 8'' V C P 11. 7 2 % 8'' VCP 10.40% 8'' V C P 10.1 6 % 8'' VCP 6.22% 8'' V C P 6.64 % 8'' V C P 3. 6 0 8 % 8'' V C P 9. 2 4 % 8'' V C P 7.7 6 % 8'' V C P 6.5 2 % 8'' V C P 3.9 2 % 8'' V C P 5.5 9 3 % 8'' V C P 3.6 0 % 8'' V C P 7.1 2 % 8' ' V C P 1 1 . 2 0 % 8'' V C P 4.48 % 8'' VC P 2.48% 8'' V C P 11.0 0 % 8'' V C P 14 . 3 2 % 8'' VCP 9.64% 8' ' V C P 1 0 . 1 6 % 8'' V C P 2.60% 8'' VC P 3.36% 8'' VC P 0.68%8 ' ' V C P 0 . 4 0 % 8'' VC P 2.60% 8'' V C P 8. 2 0 % 8'' V C P 0.48 % 8'' V C P 0.4 0 % 8'' V C P 3.2 8 % 7 . 7 5 % 8'' V C P 7. 1 8 % 8'' VCP 1.70% 8'' VCP 1.20% 8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VCP 1.30% 8'' VCP 1.20% 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 3.622% 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP8'' VCP 0.32%8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 1. 1 7 % 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 6 % 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.4% 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 1 7 % 8'' VCP 0.70% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 1. 1 8 % 8'' V C P 1. 1 8 % 10'' VCP0.32% 10'' VCP 0.16% 10'' VCP 0.16% 8' ' V C P 1. 1 7 % 8' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 1 7 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 4 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 1. 1 7 % 8'' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 10'' VCP 0.32% 0. 9 5 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 9 5 % 8' ' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 1.60% 10 ' ' V C P 0. 9 5 % 8'' VCP 1.28% 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 9 5 % 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 9 % 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.50% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 1. 3 2 % 8' ' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40%8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 3 0 % 14'' H D P E 1.10 % 2 x 1 0 ' ' V C P S I P H O N 14' ' H D P E 1.2 0 % 1 0 ' ' V C P 0 . 9 2 % 1 2 ' ' V C P 0. 5 6 % 8'' VCP 0.50% 12' ' V C P 1 2 ' ' V C P 14'' HD P E 1.32% 14'' H D P E 1.10 % 8'' V C P 0. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8' ' V C P 0. 7 0 % 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' V C P 0.5 0 % 8'' VCP 1.20% 8' ' V C P 1. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 0.30% 8'' VC P 1.00% 8'' V C P 1. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 0.30% 8' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.30% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 3 0 % 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP8'' VCP 8'' V C P 1. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 0 . 9 2 % 8' ' V C P 0. 9 2 % 8'' VCP 0% 8' ' V C P 1. 9 0 4 % 8'' VCP 0% 8' ' V C P 0% 8'' VCP 0.4% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8' ' V C P 1 . 5 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 1 . 1 2 % 10'' V C P 10 ' ' V C P 1. 8 5 % 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 3 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 6 0 % 10 ' V C P 1. 5 8 % 8' ' V C P 8'' VC P 8 ' ' V C P 2 x 1 0 ' ' V C P S I P H O N 8 ' ' V C P 8 ' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 0% 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 1 0 ' ' V C P 1 . 1 2 % 8'' V C P 1. 8 % 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 1. 3 % 8'' V C P 1. 5 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40%8'' VCP 0.40% 15 ' ' V C P 0. 7 5 % 15 ' ' V C P 0. 7 5 % 8'' VCP0% 1 5 ' ' V C P R E L I E F S E W E R 8'' VCP 0% 15 ' ' V C P 0. 7 5 % 8' ' V C P 0% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0% 8'' V C P 1. 2 8 % 8'' V C P 1. 3 0 % 8'' VCP 0.64% 8'' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 1. 3 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 2 4 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 6 4 % 8'' VCP 0.44% 10 ' ' V C P 0. 6 4 % 8'' V C P 1. 2 4 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 10 ' ' V C P 1. 0 8 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 8 % 8'' VCP 0.64% 8'' VCP 0.40%10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 8 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 8 % 8'' V C P 1. 1 0 % 8'' VCP 0.4% 10 ' ' V C P 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.4% 8'' VCP 0.4% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 10 ' ' V C P 1. 0 8 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 2 0 % 1 5 ' ' V C P 0 % 15 ' ' V C P 0. 7 5 % 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 5.50% 8'' VCP 0.47% 8'' VCP 0.47% 8'' VCP 0.47% 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40%8'' VCP 0.4% 8'' VCP 0.64% 8'' VCP 0.64% 8'' VCP 1.41% 1 5 ' ' V C P 0 % 1 5 ' ' V C P 12 ' ' V C P S I P H O N 8' ' V C P 0. 4 % 8' ' V C P 1. 5 6 % 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 1.28% 8' ' V C P 1. 2 8 % 24'' VCP 0% 8 ' ' V C P 0 . 4 4 % 2 4 ' ' V C P 0 % 24 ' ' V C P 0%8' ' V C P 0. 4 % 8'' VCP1.60% 8' ' V C P 1. 3 0 % 8'' VCP 3.72% 8'' VCP 1.36% 8'' VCP 0.24% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.36% 8' ' V C P 0. 6 8 % 8'' V C P 0.4 0 % 8' ' V C P 2 . 2 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 0% 24 ' ' V C P 0% 8'' VCP1.60% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 % 8'' V C P3.6% 24 ' ' V C P 0 % 8' ' V C P 2 . 2 % 8'' VC P 3.60% 8' ' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 2. 8 % 8 ' ' V C P 1 . 9 4 % 8'' V C P 2.3 0 % 8'' V C P 0.5 6 % 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40%8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 0.90% 8'' VC P 1.00 % 8'' VC P 0.92 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' V C P 0.60 % 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 2 0 % 8'' V C P 1.2 2 % 8' ' V C P 1 . 3 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 4.20%8'' VCP 3.16% 8'' VCP 1.90% 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VC P 1.80% 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 1.36% 8'' VCP 1.36%8'' VCP 0.60% 8' ' V C P 0. 8 % 8'' VCP 0.60%8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 1.36%8'' VCP 1.36% 8'' VCP 1.36% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 1.57% 8'' V C P 0.4 0 % 8'' V C P 2.70 % 8'' V C P 0.4 0 % 8'' VCP 1.57% 8'' VCP 1.57% 8'' VCP 1.32% 8'' VCP 1.00% 16 ' ' H D P E 0. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00%16 ' ' H D P E 0. 5 0 % 16 ' ' H D P E 0. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 1.14% 16'' HDPE 1.32% 16'' HDPE 0.84% 16'' HDPE 0.85% 16'' HDPE 1.32% 8'' V C P 0. 5 6 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 8 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 2 % 8'' VCP 0.4% 8' ' V C P 1 . 8 0 % 8'' VCP 1.52% 8 ' ' V C P 7 . 4 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 2.7 6 % 8'' VC P 0% 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 2.70% 8'' V C P 0.40 % 1x8'' CONCRE T E S I P H O N 0% 8'' V C P 3.4 0 % 8'' V C P 2.4 0 % 8'' VCP 3.16% 8'' VCP 1.88% 8'' V C P 4. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 2.5 0 % 8' ' V C P 2 . 0 0 % 8'' VCP 4.00% 8'' VCP 3.00% 8'' V C P 2.6 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 5 0 % 8'' V C P 2.5 0 % 8'' VCP 2.3 0 % 8'' VCP 3.40% 8'' V C P 2.5 0 % 8'' VC P 3.00% 8'' V C P 3.00 % 8' ' V C P 5. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 2.43% 8'' V C P 3. 0 8 % 8'' V C P 2.0 4 % 8'' V C P 2.0 4 % 8'' VCP 0% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 2.00% 8'' V C P 1% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 1.40 % 8'' V C P 2.5 6 % 8'' V C P 3. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 2 . 6 % 8' ' V C P 2 . 3 8 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 3.00% 8'' VCP 2.60% 8'' VC P 2.50 % 8'' VCP 2.60% 8'' V C P 2.7 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 2.40% 8'' V C P 2.5 0 % 8'' VCP 2.40% 8'' VCP 2.60% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 0.4 4 % 8'' V C P 3. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 4 . 5 0 % 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VCP 3.40% 8'' VC P 2.80 % 8'' V C P 2.5 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 1.92% 8'' V C P 0..6 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 2.00% 8' ' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 2 0 % 8' ' V C P 2 . 7 2 % 8'' VCP 1.36% 8'' VCP 3.00% 8'' VCP 3.52% 8'' V C P 3.2 0 % 8' ' V C P 3 . 4 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 5 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 3 0 % 8' ' V C P 2 . 3 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 2.00% 8'' VCP 2.10% 8'' V C P 2. 7 % 8'' V C P 2% 8'' V C P 2. 3 0 % 8'' V C P 1.34 % 8'' V C P 0.4 8 % 8'' V C P 0.4 8 % 8' ' V C P 2. 7 4 % 8'' V C P 3. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 1.2 0 %8'' VCP 1.50% 8' ' V C P 3 . 8 3 % 8'' VCP 2.10%8'' VCP 1.56% 8'' V C P 1. 2 4 % 8'' VCP 2.20% 8'' V C P 3. 3 2 % 8'' VCP 0.80% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 7 0 % 8'' V C P 0.64 % 8' ' V C P 1 . 0 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.80% 8' ' V C P 4. 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 4.00% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VCP 2.40% 8'' V C P 3. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 0.30% 8'' VCP 0.30% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 1 0 % 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 0.84% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8' ' V C P 1. 9 3 6 % 8' ' V C P 1. 9 3 6 % 8'' VCP 5.12% 8'' VCP 1.36% 8'' VCP 0.84% 8'' VCP 1.16% 8' ' V C P 1. 4 4 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 8 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 8 % 8' ' V C P 0. 7 1 4 % 8'' VCP 2.20% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8' ' V C P 1. 9 3 6 % 8'' VCP 0.68% 8'' VCP 0.80% 8' ' V C P 1. 9 3 6 % 8' ' V C P 1. 9 3 6 % 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 0.56% 8' ' V C P 0. 6 1 2 % 8' ' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0. 7 1 4 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 2.16% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 1. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 2.0 4 % 8'' V C P 2.0 4 % 8'' V C P 0% 8'' V C P 4. 2 4 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8 ' ' V C P 1 5 . 0 0 % 8'' V C P 10 . 6 0 % 8'' V C P 12.3 2 % 8'' V C P 9. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 9.00 % 8'' V C P 9.1 2 % 8' ' V C P 1 0 . 0 0 % 8'' V C P 8.96 % 8 ' ' V C P 9 . 6 0 % 8'' VCP 9.36% 8'' VCP 11.68% 8'' VCP 9.12% 8 ' ' V C P 1 5 . 2 4 % 8' ' V C P 15 . 8 % 8'' V C P 4. 8 4 % 8'' V C P 8'' VC P 8 ' ' V C P 1 2 . 2 0 % 8'' V C P 6. 0 7 % 8'' V C P 7.9 6 % 8'' V C P 9. 8 4 % 8' ' V C P 6. 0 8 % 8'' V C P 3. 3 2 % 8'' V C P 12.8 4 % 8'' V C P 7. 7 6 % 8'' V C P 5.6 9 % 8'' V C P 9.6 0 % 8'' V C P 5.9 6 % 8'' V C P 8. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 10 . 3 6 % 8'' V C P 13 . 0 8 % 8'' VC P 7.60% 8'' V C P 12. 5 2 % 8'' V C P 5.2 8 % 8'' VC P 7.12% 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' V C P 3. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 6 8 % 8' ' V C P 0% 12 ' ' C O N C R E T E P I P E 1. 9 1 2 % 8 ' ' V C P 3 . 2 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 7 0 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 4 8 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 4 8 % 8' ' V C P 2. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 0%8'' VCP 0% 12 ' ' V C P 2. 0 1 6 % 8' ' V C P 1. 7 0 % 8'' VCP 2.30% 8'' VCP 0.40% 12 ' ' V C P 2. 0 1 6 % 8' ' V C P 0. 6 0 % 12 ' ' V C P 12 ' ' V C P 02 . 0 6 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 0.48% 8'' V C P 1. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 12 ' ' C O N C R E T E P I P E 1. 7 2 % 8' ' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 0.50%8'' VCP 0.50%8'' VCP 0.90% 8'' VCP 0.40%8'' VCP 0.40%8'' VCP 1.50% 8'' V C P 3.2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' V C P 2.2 % 8'' V C P 2.2 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32%8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 1. 8 4 % 8'' V C P 3. 0 % 8'' V C P 2% 8' ' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 2.68% 8'' V C P 3. 6 1 % 8'' V C P 2.0 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 3.00% 8 ' ' V C P 3 . 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 15'' VCP 15'' VCP 0% 8' ' V C P 15 ' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 2. 2 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 1 0 % 8'' V C P 2.4 0 % 8'' V C P 1.0 0 % 8'' VCP 2.50% 8'' V C P 2.5 0 % 8' ' V C P 2% 8'' V C P 2% 8'' V C P 2.8 % 8' ' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 0.843% 8' ' V C P 2. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 1 . 6 4 % 8'' V C P 2. 9 8 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 1. 3 3 % 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 0.70% 8'' VCP 0.40% 10 ' ' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 0.40% 10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 6 2 % 8' ' V C P 1. 5 8 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 8 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP0%8'' VCP0% 8 ' ' V C P 0 . 6 8 % 8'' V C P 0.5 2 % 8'' VCP 0.52% 8' ' V C P 1. 2 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 2 % 8' ' V C P 0 . 4 % 8 ' ' V C P 1 . 6 8 % 8'' VCP 0.44% 8' ' V C P 0. 7 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 7 % 8' ' V C P 1. 2 4 % 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 1.20% 8' ' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 15'' VCP 0.224% 8' ' V C P 1. 2 4 5 % 8'' VCP 0.4% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.24% 16 ' ' V C P 1. 2 4 5 % 15 ' ' V C P 0% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 15'' VCP 0.224% 15'' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0. 5 % 8'' V C P 0.50 % 8'' VCP 2.00% 8'' VCP 2.30% 8'' VCP 2.4% 8 ' ' V C P 1 . 0 0 % 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' V C P 3.0 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 1.0 4 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 3 2 % 10' ' V C P 0.3 2 % 10 ' ' V C P 0.3 2 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 3 2 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 3 2 % 8'' V C P 2. 9 8 % 8'' VCP 1.60%8'' VCP 1.24%8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 1.70% 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 2.00%8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 2.00% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 0% 8'' V C P 0. 5 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 1.50% 8'' VCP 1.51% 10'' VCP 1.72% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 1.64% 8'' VCP 1.72% 8'' V C P 2.00 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 1.80% 8 ' ' V C P 0 . 6 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 3 2 % 8'' V C P 1.4 0 % 8'' VC P 1.78% 8'' VC P 1.64 % 8'' V C P 1.60 % 8' ' V C P 1. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 1.49% 8'' V C P 0. 7 2 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 4 % 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 2 0 % 8'' VCP 2.40% 8'' VCP 3.16% 8'' VCP 4.00% 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 2 % 8'' V C P 0% 24" V C P 0% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 1.20% 8'' V C P 1. 3 0 % 8' ' V C P 1% 8' ' V C P 1% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 2 % 8'' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.56% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 2 2 % 8'' VC P 4.78% 8'' V C P 3. 5 8 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 9 0 % 8'' VCP 1.0% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 4. 9 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 3 . 5 8 % 8'' V C P 2.0 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 8 . 4 8 % 8'' V C P 0.5 8 % 8'' VCP0.89% 8'' VCP 1.25% 8' ' V C P 7. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 1.0 % 8'' VCP 2.00%8'' V C P 1.80 % 8'' VC P 0.40 % 8'' V C P 4. 6 4 % 8'' V C P 4. 3 2 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 8 0 % 8'' VCP 0. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 0% 8'' VCP 1.48% 8'' V C P 8.0 0 % 8'' V C P 4.2 4 % 00 4 _M H 010 _M H _M H 511 511 410 41 0 410 41 0 41 0 41 0 410 410 41 0 41 0 409 40 9 409 409 409 409 40 9 40 9 40 9 021 _M H 01 7 _M H 01 5 _MH 013 _M H 00 6 _MH 004 _M H 00 1 _MH 00 2 _MH 076 05 6 _MH 04 4 _MH 029 _M H 02 8 _MH 02 6 _M H 02 5 _M H 024 _MH 41 1 41 0 51 0 01 2 _M H 009 _M H 00 8 _M H 00 7 _M H 006 _M H 002 _MH 02 8 _MH 02 1 _M H 01 8 _MH 01 4 _MH 03 9 _MH 051 _MH 05 0 _M H 04 9 _M H 04 8 _MH 010 _MH 006 _MH 00 5 _MH 018 _M H 014 _MH 03 2 _M H 033 _M H 030 _M H 02 0 _MH 02 1 _M H 00 4 _MH 00 6 _M H 005 _MH 009 _MH 05 8 034 _M H 01 7 _M H 016 _MH 01 0 _M H 01 8 _MH 01 9 _MH 008 _M H 003 _M H 009 _M H 02 2 _MH 610 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 610 609 60 9 609 60 9 60 9 60 9 609 60 8 608 60 8 60 8 608 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7607 50 6 50 6 50 6 506 50 6 506 50 6 50 5 50 5 50 5 506 50 5 505505 50 5 50 5 40 5 405 405 405 40 5 40 5 405 405 40 5 05 6 _MH 05 7 _M H 05 8 _M H 05 9 _MH 06 0 _MH 065 _MH 06 6 _M H 06 7 _M H 06 8 _M H 06 9 _M H 00 3 _M H 00 2 _MH 010 _M H 00 1 _MH 004 _M H 00 5 _M H 00 6 _MH 007 _M H 008 _M H 007 _MH 00 6 _MH 00 5 _M H 004 _MH 00 3 _MH 20 7 20 7 207 207 207 20 8 20 8 208 208 20 8 211 211 21 1 211 21 1 211 21 1 21 1 210 21 0 210 21 0 21 0 210 20 9 20 9 209 20 9 20 9 20 9 209 209 00 9 _MH 00 5 _M H 00 3 _M H 40 5 305305305305 01 1 _MH 00 8 _M H 00 9 _M H 010 _MH 02 6 _MH 03 9 _M H 04 0 _MH 04 1 _MH 02 3 _M H 00 7 _M H 00 5 _M H 00 4 _M H 00 2 _MH 00 1 _M H 040 _M H 041 _MH 042 _MH 04 4 _MH 045 _M H 043 _MH 046 _MH 04 8 _MH 047 _M H 50 5 50 5 505 50 5 505 023 _MH 40 9 09 4 _MH 610 8' ' V C P 0.24% 0.24% 8' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 10 ' ' V C P 10 ' ' V C P 10 ' ' V C P 8'' VCP 10'' VCP 0.69%10'' VCP 0.70%10'' VCP 0.75%10'' VCP 0.75%10'' VCP 0.75%10'' VCP 0.75%10'' VCP 0.80% 15'' VCP 0.38% 15 ' ' V C P 10 ' ' V C P 1. 0 8 % 8'' VCP 0.6% 8'' V C P 1. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 0. 7 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 7 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 7 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 4 4 % 8'' VCP 0.44% 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 5 6 % 8'' VCP 0.70% 8'' VCP 0.40% 15 ' ' V C P 2. 0 0 8 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 2 9 2 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8' ' V C P 0. 6 % 8'' VCP 0.40%8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.50% A B A N D O N E D 8'' V C P 3. 1 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 4 % 8'' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 0. 8 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 0.88% 8'' VCP 0.70% 8'' V C P 0. 5 % 8'' VCP 2.00% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP.40% 8'' VCP 3.32% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 1.60%8'' VCP 1.50% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 1.00% 15 ' ' V C P 0. 7 5 % 15 ' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 16 ' ' H D P E 0. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 1.72% 8'' VCP 1.60%8'' VCP 1.44%8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.32% 8'' VCP 0.92% 8'' VCP 1.16% 8'' VCP1.40% 8'' VCP1.60% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' V C P 0. 5 2 % 8'' V C P 0. 7 2 % 8' ' V C P 0. 7 2 % 24'' VCP 0.342% 8'' VCP 0.48% 24'' VCP 0.342% 8'' VCP 0.48% 24'' VCP 0.342% 8'' VCP 0.48% 24'' VCP 0.342% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 1. 8 8 % 8' ' V C P 3. 0 4 % 8' ' V C P 0. 8 8 % 8'' VCP 0.64% 8' ' V C P 0. 6 1 2 % 8" V C P 0% 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 1.08%8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 0.9 2 % 8' ' V C P 1. 2 8 % 8'' VCP 1.20% 8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VCP 1.40% 8' ' V C P 0. 7 6 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 6 % 8'' VCP 1.48% 8'' V C P 3. 0 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 0.3 2 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 5 6 % 8'' V C P 2. 0 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 5 6 % 10 ' ' V C P 0. 5 6 % 8'' VCP 1.70% 10 ' ' V C P 0. 5 6 % 8' ' V C P 0 . 5 % RELIEF SEWER 8'' VCP 1.32% 12 ' ' V C P 0. 7 5 % 10'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VCP 1.70% 15 ' ' V C P 0. 7 5 % 8'' VC P 1.24% 8' ' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0% 8'' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0% 8 ' ' V C P 8 ' ' V C P 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 0.24% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VC P 1.80% 14' ' H D P E 1.2 0 % 16'' H D P E 0.5 0 % 16" H D P E 0.5 0 % 8'' V C P 1.30 % 8'' V C P 2 x 1 2 " V C P S I P H O N 8'' VCP 1.40%10'' HDPE 1.5%10'' HDPE 1.20%10'' HDPE 2.16% 10'' HDPE 1.80% 8'' VCP 0.40% 10'' HDPE 1.00% 21'' VCP 0% 007 _M H 00 4 _M H 00 6 _MH 01 3 _M H 00 5 _MH 61 1 611 611 61 0 008 _MH 006 _M H 00 7 _MH 00 5 _MH 00 4 _M H 00 3 _MH 00 2 _MH 001 _M H 00 2 _MH 00 1 _M H 1.52% 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 6. 8 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 1 . 5 6 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 2.20% 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 8' ' V C P 8. 5 6 % 8'' VCP 1.50% 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 3. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 4. 1 0 % 8' ' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 3.20% 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 4. 7 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 4. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 3.04% 8' ' V C P 5 . 2 0 % 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 0.79% 8 ' ' V C P 3. 9 6 % 8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' V C P 1.0 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 1.48% 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 3.20% 8'' V C P 8' ' V C P 8'' V C P 8. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 7 2 % 8' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 1.50% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP3.04% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 2.00% 8'' VC P 8'' V C P 0.40 % 8' ' V C P 4. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 1.88% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VCP 1.70% 8'' VCP 1.44% 8'' VCP 2.88% 8' ' V C P 5. 2 0 % 8'' V C P 4.5 0 % 8'' VCP 0.68% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 8'' V C P 8 ' ' V C P 0 . 4 0 % 8'' V C P 1.0 0 % 8' ' V C P 3. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 0.40% 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 5 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 3. 7 0 % 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 2.40% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 11 . 4 0 % 2. 0 4 % 5. 5 0 % 5. 0 0 % 5. 0 0 % 4. 8 0 % 4. 5 % 5. 8 0 % 2.00 % 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.48% 8' ' V C P 3. 0 1 % 8'' VCP 2.88% 3.00% 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 1.28% 8'' VC P 3.68 % 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 13 . 2 4 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8' ' V C P 8. 9 6 % 8' ' V C P 4. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 6. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 5. 4 6 % 8'' VCP 1.2% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8' ' V C P 4. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 6 . 0 0 % 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 8'' V C P 8. 9 2 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 4. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 2.20% 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 0.60% 8' ' V C P 5. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 3.0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 2.70% 8'' V C P 4.5 0 % 8'' V C P 9.7 6 % 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP8'' VCP 8'' VCP 011 01 2 013 01 4 015 016 01 7 _MH _M H _M H _MH _MH _MH _MH 206 20 6 20 6 20 6 206 206 206 8. 0 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 5 . 0 0 % 8'' V C P 7.32 % 8 ' ' V C P 9 . 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 4.84% 8'' VCP 3.72% 8'' V C P 1. 4 4 % 8' ' V C P 7. 0 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 8 4 % 8'' VC P 10% 8 ' ' V C P 5 . 2 8 % 8' ' V C P 8. 8 8 % 8' ' V C P 9. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 9 2 % 8'' V C P 8. 9 2 % 8' ' V C P 11 . 5 2 % 8' ' V C P 8. 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 7. 2 0 % 8' ' V C P 4. 5 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 0.50% 8' ' V C P 3. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 4. 3 6 % 8' ' V C P 4. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8' ' V C P 2. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 1 2 % 8'' VCP 4.28% 8'' V C P 2.0 4 % 8' ' V C P 4 . 4 0 % 8'' V C P 4.00 % 8'' VCP 1.60% 8' ' V C P 5. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 7. 2 4 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.08% 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 4 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 5. 1 6 % 8' ' V C P 5. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 3 5 % 8 ' ' V C P 9%8'' VCP 0.24% 8'' V C P 6. 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 5. 2 0 % 8'' V C P 6. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 6. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 7. 6 % 8' ' V C P 7. 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 8. 6 1 % 8' ' V C P 9. 5 5 % 8' ' V C P 8. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 1.40% 8' ' V C P 7. 6 4 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 2 . 0 0 % 8'' V C P 4. 2 % 8' ' V C P 4. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 3. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 5 2 % 8'' VCP 0% 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 4. 5 6 % 8'' V C P 2.2 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 8 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 3 2 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 5 % 8'' VCP 3.37% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 % 8'' V C P 2. 2 8 % 8'' VC P 1.48% 8'' VC P 3.56% 8'' V C P 3. 3 7 6 % 8' ' V C P 2. 2 4 % 8' ' V C P 3. 3 3 7 % 8'' V C P 2.7 6 % 8'' VCP 5. 7 2 % 8'' V C P 6.92 % 8'' VCP 0.88% 8'' VCP 3.04% 8'' VCP 3.20% 8'' VCP 2.92% 8'' VCP 7.20% 8'' V C P 6.3 2 % 8'' VCP 4.12% 8' ' V C P 9 . 2 4 % 8'' VCP 9.76% 8' ' V C P 6. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 4.66% 8'' V C P 7.0 4 % 8'' V C P 6.5 6 % 8'' V C P 1.44 % 8' ' V C P 6 . 4 4 % 8' ' V C P 5. 4 8 % 8'' VCP 4.08% 8'' VCP 4.68% 8'' VCP 2.52% 8'' VCP 4.08% 8'' V C P 7.60 % 8'' V C P 2.8 0 % 8' ' V C P 6. 2 % 8 ' ' V C P 8 . 2 0 % 8'' VCP 4.76% 8' ' V C P 8% 8' ' V C P 0%8' ' V C P 7. 6 4 % 8' ' V C P 6. 6 % 8 ' ' V C P 5 . 3 6 % 8'' V C P 3.5 6 % 8' ' V C P 4. 8 8 % 8'' V C P 7. 0 8 % 8' ' V C P 6. 3 2 % 8' ' V C P 4. 5 2 % 8'' V C P 5% 8'' V C P 4.5 6 % 8'' V C P 4.8 0 % 8'' V C P 4. 0 4 % 8'' VCP 0.24% 8'' VC P 3.08% 8'' V C P 4.4 8 % 8'' V C P 3.1 2 % 8' ' V C P 3 . 2 0 % 8' ' V C P 4. 7 9 6 % 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 4 4 % 8'' V C P 5. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 8 % 8' ' V C P 4. 8 0 % 8'' V C P 3. 4 8 % 8'' V C P 4.2 % 8'' V C P 4.8 0 % 8'' V C P 6.5 6 % 8'' V C P 3.5 2 % 8'' V C P 2.2 8 % 8'' V C P 3.0 0 % 8'' V C P 5.0 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 7 2 % 12'' VCP 2.00% 8' ' V C P 3. 2 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 8 4 % 8'' V C P 2. 1 2 % 8'' V C P 3.52 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 12'' VCP 1.23% 12'' VCP 1.51%12'' VCP 1.40%12'' VCP 1.40% 8'' V C P 2. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 8 0 % 8'' V C P 1.6 0 % 8'' V C P 2.2 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00%8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 2 . 8 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 1. 9 0 % 8' ' V C P 3 . 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 0.60% 8' ' V C P 2 . 2 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 2. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 0.84% 8' ' V C P 2. 7 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 0 0 % 8'' V C P 2.0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.00% 12'' VCP 1.16%12'' VCP 1.16%12'' VCP 1.16% 15 ' ' C O N C R E T E P I P E 0% 8'' V C P 3. 8 8 % 8'' VCP 8.16% 8'' V C P 1. 0 8 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 1. 8 6 % 8'' V C P 2. 0 4 % 15 ' ' C O N C R E T E P I P E 0. 9 7 2 % 8'' VCP 0.88% 12 ' ' C O N C R E T E P I P E 2. 1 8 % 8' ' V C P 2. 3 2 % 8'' V C P 1. 7 2 % 12 ' ' C O N C R E T E P I P E 2. 1 8 % 8'' VCP 1.60% 12 ' ' C O N C R E T E P I P E 1. 9 1 2 % 8'' V C P 2. 0 4 % 8'' V C P 1. 6 8 % 12 ' ' C O N C R E T E P I P E 1. 9 1 2 % 8'' VCP 1.80% 8'' V C P 2.1 2 % 8'' V C P 1.32 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 3. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 10.00% 8' ' V C P 8. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 4.80% 8'' V C P 12 . 4 0 % 8'' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 0% 8'' V C P 0% 8'' V C P 14 . 4 0 % 8'' V C P 6.4 9 % 8'' V C P 0% 8' ' V C P 2. 3 1 % 8'' VCP 0.52%8'' VCP0%8'' VCP0.60% 8 ' ' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 8. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 4.16% 8'' V C P 6.3 2 % 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 1.08% 8' ' V C P 4. 6 0 % 10" CONCRETE PIPE10" CONCRETE PIPE 10" CONCRETE PIPE10" CONCRETE PIPE10" CONCRETE PIPE10" CONCRETE PIPE10" CONCRETE PIPE10" CONCRETE PIPE10" CONCRETE PIPE 5 . 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 0.2 0 %16'' H D P E 21 ' ' V C P 12'' VCP 12'' VCP 1.24% 1.244% 21 ' ' V C P 21 ' ' V C P 21 ' ' V C P 15'' VCP 5. 3 8 % 8' ' V C P 8'' V C P 3. 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 8 0 % 8'' V C P 2. 7 0 % 2. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 2. 9 2 % 8'' V C P 2. 0 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 5 8 % 0.224% 2. 4 0 % 1. 1 4 8 % 2. 0 0 % 2. 0 0 % 2. 3 0 % 1. 5 0 % 0.40%0.40% 1. 4 0 % 1. 0 0 % 1.00 % 0.40% 0.80% 0.32% 0.32% 1.2 0 % 0 . 4 8 % 1. 3 2 9 % 1. 3 0 % 0 . 5 0 % 1.6 0 % 0 . 4 0 % 0.40 % 0.80% 1.6 0 % 1. 6 0 % 1. 6 0 % 1. 6 0 % 1. 4 0 % 1. 6 0 % 0.48% 1 . 1 2 % 1.61% 1 . 6 4 % 1 . 0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.60%1.62% 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 0. 6 % 0.58% 8'' VCP 8' ' V C P 4 . 2 4 % 8'' VC P 21 ' ' V C P 0% 14' ' H D P E 1.2 0 % 1 5 ' ' V C P R E L I E F S E W E R 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 1.48% 8'' VCP 1.48% 8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VCP 1.16% 8'' V C P 0. 7 2 % 8'' VCP 0.56% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 0. 6 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 3 2 % 8'' VCP 1.35% 8'' VCP 1.2% 8'' VCP 1.10% 8'' VCP 0.80% 21 ' ' V C P 0. 0 9 8 % 21 ' ' V C P 0. 0 9 8 % 21 ' ' V C P 0. 0 9 8 % 21 ' ' V C P 0. 0 9 8 % 16'' HDPE 1.42% 16'' HDPE 1.42% 16'' HDPE 1.42% 21 ' ' V C P 0. 0 9 8 % 8'' VCP 1.36%8'' VCP 1.36%8'' VCP 1.36% 8'' VCP 0.7%8'' VCP 2.20%8'' VCP 1.08% 8'' V C P 0. 7 2 % 21'' VCP 0% 1 5 ' ' V C P 0 . 3 6 % 1 5 ' ' V C P 1 . 2 4 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.43% 8'' VCP 0.43% 8'' VCP 0.43% 8'' VCP 0.43% 15'' VCP 0.38% 1 2 ' ' V C P 1 . 2 4 % 1 2 ' ' V C P 1 . 2 1 % 8'' VCP 0.56%8'' VCP 0.56% 8'' VCP 1.48%8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' V C P 0. 3 2 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 1 5 ' ' V C P R E L I E F S E W E R 8'' VCP 0.80% 15 ' ' V C P 0. 8 4 9 % 8'' VCP 1.30% 8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VCP 0.84% 8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 1.48% 8'' VCP 1.20% 8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 9. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 7. 7 6 % 0.63%8'' VCP 8.00% 8' ' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 7 9 % 8' ' V C P 0. 8 1 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 6 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 7 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 8 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 6 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 7 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 7 % 8' ' V C P 2. 1 3 % 2.60%1.50% 1.00%1.80%1.60%2.50% 8'' VCP 1.20% 8'' VCP 1.88% 8'' VCP 1.12% 1.50%1.20%1.50% 1.20%1.20%1.20% 1.20%8'' VCP 0.80%8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 1.00%8'' VCP 1.00%0.80%0.80% 8' ' V C P 2. 3 6 % 0.44%8'' VCP 0.60%8'' VCP 0.70%0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40%8'' VCP 0.46%8'' VCP 0.46% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 0.70%0.70% 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 6' ' V C P 2. 0 0 % 0.32%0.32% 0.32% 0 . 5 0 % 06 7 _M H 607 04 9 _MH 40 5 050 _M H 405 051 _M H 40 5 057 _MH 505 056 _MH 505 058 _M H 50 5 059 _M H 50 5 06 0 _M H 50 5 06 1 _MH 50 5 06 2 _MH 50 5 06 3 _MH 505 064 _M H 50 5 15'' VCP 15'' VCP 15'' VCP 15'' VCP 15'' VCP 15'' VCP 15'' VCP 15'' VCP 15'' VCP 8'' VC P 8'' VCP 2.00% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8' ' V C P 8. 7 2 % 8'' VCP 2.71% 8'' V C P 4. 9 0 % 8'' V C P 3. 6 8 % 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 3.52% 8'' VCP 1.28% 8' ' V C P 4 . 7 0 % 8' ' V C P 6 . 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 3. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 1.50% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' V C P 5. 7 6 % 8'' VCP 2.24% 8'' VCP 0.50% 8'' VCP 1.50% 8' ' V C P 2 . 6 5 % 8'' V C P 4. 1 2 % 8'' V C P 5.4 0 % 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' V C P 3.4 8 % 8'' VCP 2.04% 8'' V C P 4. 3 2 % 8'' V C P 10 . 1 2 % 8' ' V C P 5. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 4 . 2 0 % 8'' VCP 2.76% 8'' V C P 1. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 0.50% 2 x 8'' SIPHON VCP 8'' V C P 3. 7 2 % 8'' VCP 1.0 % 8'' V C P 0%8'' VCP 1.43% 8'' VC P 2.48 % 8'' VCP 2.08% 8'' VCP 1.80% 8 ' ' V C P 7 . 0 % 8'' V C P 4. 6 4 % 8'' VCP 1.52% 8' ' V C P 4 . 5 0 % 8'' V C P 0.89 % 8'' VCP 1.27% 8'' VCP 1.20% 8'' V C P 1. 0 % 8'' VCP 3.2% 8'' V C P 5. 7 6 % 8'' VCP 2.00% 8' ' V C P 4. 9 0 % 8'' V C P 2.7 8 % 8'' VCP 4.44% 8'' V C P 4. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 4. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 2.04% 8' ' V C P 4. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 4.80 % 8'' VCP 2.76% 8' ' V C P 3. 7 2 % 8 ' ' V C P 5 . 0 0 % 8'' VCP 2.76% 8'' VCP 2.00% 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 4.20% 8'' VCP 2.68% 8'' VCP 0.83% 8' ' V C P 9 . 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 6. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 4. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 3. 8 4 % 8' ' V C P 2. 0 8 % 8' ' V C P 2. 5 0 % 3.60%3.60% 8'' V C P 0.6 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 3. 8 % 8 ' ' V C P 3 . 2 0 % 2.00% 10" CONCRETE PIPE 2.00%2.00%3.60% 8'' V C P 0.80 % 8' ' V C P 4 . 4 0 % 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 2.00% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 4.50% 8'' VCP 2.70% 8'' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 2. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 2.90% 8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VCP 2.00%8'' VCP 3.00% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8' ' V C P 2. 0 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 0 % 8' ' V C P 4 . 4 8 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 4 8 % 8' ' V C P 4 . 2 0 % 8'' V C P 1.76 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 4 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 4. 3 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 2 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 4. 4 0 % 3.40%3.40%3.0%3.60% 8' ' V C P 3. 7 0 % 8' ' V C P 3. 5 0 % 8' ' V C P 4. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 1.0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 4. 4 8 % 8'' VCP 2.00% 8'' VCP 2.40% 8' ' V C P 1. 5 0 % 8'' VCP 1.36% 10'' VCP 0.60% 10'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 1.48%8'' VCP 1.24% 8'' VCP 1.24% 8' ' V C P 3. 2 0 % 8'' V C P 1.00 % 8' ' V C P 5. 1 6 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 1.24% 8'' VCP 1.24% 8'' VCP 2.00%8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' V C P 0. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 1.60% 8'' V C P 5. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 8. 5 6 % 8' ' V C P 3. 1 6 % 8'' VCP 1.48% 8'' VCP 3. 1 2 % 8'' VCP 1.48% 8'' VCP 1.84% 8'' V C P 1.0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.80% 8' ' V C P 3 . 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 3 . 7 0 % 8'' VCP 1.24% 8' ' V C P 4 . 2 0 % 8'' VCP 1.32% 8'' V C P 2.2 2 % 8'' VC P 2.60% 8'' V C P 2. 6 8 % 8'' VCP 3.16% 8 ' ' V C P 3 . 3 0 % 8'' VCP 1.20% 8'' VCP 1.36%8'' VCP 1.40%8'' VCP 1.40% 8'' VC P 1.40% 8'' VCP 1.20% 8'' V C P 3.6 0 % 8'' V C P 3. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 0.40 % 8' ' V C P 3. 6 4 % 8'' V C P 3. 6 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 3 . 9 0 % 8'' VC P 0.82 % 8' ' V C P 0 . 8 2 % 8'' VC P 0.40% 8'' VC P 0.40% 8'' V C P 0.4 0 % 8'' V C P 0.40 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VC P 0.40% 8' ' V C P 3 . 9 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 3 . 7 6 % 8'' VCP 3.00% 8' ' V C P 2. 3 6 % 8' ' V C P 4. 6 4 % 8'' V C P 5. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 9 6 % 8'' VCP 2.00% 8'' V C P 0.8 0 % 8'' VCP 1.24% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 4. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 3 . 2 0 % 8'' VCP 1.24% 8' ' V C P 3. 8 0 % 8' ' V C P 0. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 3.00% 8' ' V C P 2 . 6 4 % 8'' V C P 3. 5 2 % 8'' VCP 0.48% 8'' VC P 0.48% 8 ' ' V C P 4 . 7 0 % 8'' VCP 0.48% 8 ' ' V C P 3 . 2 3 % 8'' VCP 0.48% 8 ' ' V C P 2 . 6 0 % 8'' VCP 0.48% 8'' VCP 1.36% 8'' VCP 2.84% 8'' VCP 1.12% 8'' VCP 0.68% 8'' VCP 1.96% 8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' V C P 0.4 8 % 8'' VCP 0.94%8'' V C P 1.64 5 % 8'' V C P 3. 8 8 % 8'' V C P 12. 5 2 % 8'' V C P 12.3 2 % 8'' V C P 2.80 % 8'' V C P 5.00 % 8' ' V C P 9. 6 0 % 8'' V C P 4.00 % 8'' ste e l 2.00% 8' ' V C P 5. 6 0 % 8'' VCP 1.08% 8 ' ' V C P 5 . 4 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 0 % 8 ' ' V C P 0 % 8'' VCP 0% 8 ' ' V C P 3 . 8 8 % 3.88% 8'' VC P 1.0% 8 ' ' V C P 0 % 8'' VCP 8 ' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 1.00% 8' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 9 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 9 % 8'' VCP 1.00% 8' ' V C P 1. 4 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 9 % 8'' VCP 1.00%8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' V C P 0. 7 6 % 8'' V C P 1. 0 8 % 8'' V C P 1. 7 5 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 8 % 8' ' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 8 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 1.16% 8'' VCP 1.16% 8' ' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8'' VCP 0.31% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 10'' VCP 10'' VCP 10 ' ' V C P 0.3 2 % 8'' V C P 0. 5 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 9 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 1. 4 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 1. 2 9 % 8'' V C P 1. 4 0 % 10 ' ' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 1. 3 2 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 1. 3 2 % 8'' V C P 1. 3 2 % 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.60% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.32% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 2 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 4 4 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 9 9 2 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.64% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.60% 8'' VCP 0.80% 8'' VCP 1.00% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 3 4 4 % 8'' V C P 1. 4 0 7 % 8'' V C P 1. 1 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 1 5 % 8'' VCP 0.70%8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 0.32% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 0 % 8'' VCP 0.84% 8'' VCP 0.32% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 0 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 0 % 8'' VCP 0.70% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 1.00% 8'' VCP 0.32% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 0 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 3 4 4 % 8'' VCP 1.00%8'' VCP 0.40% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 3 4 4 % 8'' V C P 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.4% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 0. 3 2 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 1. 2 8 % 8' ' V C P 0. 7 2 % 8'' VCP 0.44% 8'' VCP 0.64% 8'' VCP 0.32% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 0 4 8 % 8' ' V C P 1. 4 0 % 8'' V C P 1. 1 0 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 0.40% 8' ' V C P 1. 9 2 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 8 % 8' ' V C P 1. 1 6 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 8 % 8'' V C P 1. 9 2 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 1. 1 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 0 4 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 8 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8' ' V C P 0. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' V C P 1. 4 4 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 8 % 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 0. 8 0 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 0.32%1. 7 0 % 0% 1. 3 6 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 8 % 8'' VCP 0.64% 8' ' V C P 1. 9 6 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 0% 0% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 0 4 8 % 8'' VCP 0.32% 8'' VCP 1.76% 8'' V C P 0. 3 6 % 8' ' V C P 1. 8 8 % 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 8 % 8'' V C P 1. 2 8 % 1. 3 6 % 8'' V C P 1. 2 8 % 8' ' V C P 0. 6 8 % 8'' VCP 0.40% 8'' VCP 2.08% 15 ' ' V C P 1. 1 6 % 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 1. 8 8 % 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 8' ' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 1. 0 0 % 8' ' V C P 1. 4 % 410 410 41 0 _ M H 0 0 3 40 9 06 6 _MH 02 0 _M H 00 7 _MH 03 8 _MH 026 _MH 028 _M H 50 8 508 50 8 406 03 1 _M H 60 8 019 _M H 50 4 504 50 4 50 3 50 3 50 3 009 _MH 007 _M H 603 60 3 01 6 _MH 008 _M H 004 _M H 00 4 _MH 022 _MH 01 9 _M H 00 6 _MH 00 8 _M H 60 7 50 6 _MH 0 2 3 019 _M H 028 _M H 02 6 _M H 028 _M H 02 5 _M H 31 1 31 0 31 0 310 210 209 309 309 309 309 30 9 30 8 30 8 20 8 307 307 305 30 5 30 5 30 6 04 8 _MH 010 _M H 60 5 60 5 02 9 _MH 02 8 _MH 02 1 _M H 00 6 _MH 00 4 _M H _MH 0 1 1 _MH 0 0 9 308 _ M H 0 0 4 008 _M H 03 4 _M H 033 _M H 61 0 037 _MH 006 _MH 05 0 _MH 02 8 _M H 03 0 _MH 02 8 03 2 _MH _MH 206 205 AL L E Y AL L E Y AL L E Y ( V A C A T E D B Y C I T Y ) SEWER EASEMENT ALLEY ED I S O N E A S E M E N T 12 1 12 1 11 6 11 6 11 6 5 . 2 % 4. 1 6 % 1.48% 1.0% 1. 0 % 9. 1 6 % 0.5% 2 . 0 0 % 1. 5 % 0. 4 % 2. 4 6 % 1.8 0 % 8' ' V C P 9. 8 % 8'' VCP 9.04% 8'' V C P 10 . 5 % 8 ' ' V C P 1 1 . 5 % 8. 6 % 1 1 . 5 % 9 . 2 % 8. 8 % 7.6% 1.6%0.28% 8'' V C P 2.00% 8'' VCP 4.6% 0.4% 0.4%8' ' V C P 0. 4 % 5. 5 2 % 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 5. 6 0 % 0.40%1.80% 4. 5 0 % 2. 4 3 % 15% 1.0% 4. 2 % 2. 8 % 1.7% 2.3% 3.4 % 2. 7 % 3 . 0 % 2.8 0 % 3. 8 0 % 2. 7 0 % 1.7 2 % 3. 2 0 % 3. 6 % 6. 0 % 2. 0 % 8'' VC P 11.56 % 8'' V C P 0.5 % 8 ' ' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8' ' V C P 8'' VCP 8'' V C P 8'' V C P 8' ' V C P 7. 6 4 % 1.4 8 %2.06% 5.05% 8' ' V C P 0.5 % 0.5%0.5% 3. 5 6 % 1.96% 0. 8 6 % 0.9 8 % 0.5 % 3.17% 0.5 % 0.5 % 4 . 4 % 8' ' V C P 70.52 % 3%1.5 6 % 0 . 4 % 4. 9 6 % 2.0% 0.56% 2.343% 1. 2 0 % 4 . 6 4 % 0. 8 8 % 4. 2 8 % 6% 4 . 8 % 1.0% 0. 5 % 0.5% 0. 4 0 % 1 % 8. 9 6 % 2. 4 0 % 7. 4 % 4. 5 0 % 0. 9 7 2 % 1. 7 8 % 3. 6 1 % 8' ' V C P 2. 4 % 1. 5 % 1. 6 % 2. 2 % 0 . 5 6 % 0. 5 4 % 1. 2 8 % 8 . 8 4 % 3.84% 4. 8 9 % 0. 7 % 0. 9 % 0. 9 % 0.40% 0. 2 8 % 1. 0 7 % 1. 1 7 % 0.32%0.32% 0.5%0.5% 1% 41 0 _ M H 0 5 2 15'' VCP 0.8% 15'' VCP 0.8% 15'' VCP 0.9%12'' VCP 1.5%12'' VCP2% 12'' VCP 2% 12'' VCP1.5%12'' VCP 1.5% 12'' VCP 1.5%12'' VCP 1.6% 12'' VCP 2% 33856609 2009 3385 6 6 0 9 2009 1. 2 0 % 8'' VCP 8'' D I CL A S S 5 2 PR E T E C T O 40 1 LI N N I N G 004 _M H 00 2 _M H 003 _MH 001 _MH 02 0 _MH 06 4 _MH06 3 _MH 06 5 _M H 066 _MH 04 3 _MH 05 1 _M H 042 _M H 04 1 _M H 01 7 _MH 04 0 _M H 048 _M H 052 _MH 050 _MH 04 9 _M H 01 8 _MH 05 4 04 4 _MH 087 _MH 088 _MH04 7 _M H 04 5 _MH 71 1 71 1 _M H 00 2 _MH 00 3 _MH 017 _MH 01 8 _M H 01 9 _MH 02 0 _MH 02 1 _M H 02 2 _MH 04 2 _M H 01 1 _MH 01 2 _MH 013 _M H _MH 043 _M H _M H _MH _MH _M H _M H 038 _M H 03 9 _MH 03 7 _MH 036 _MH 03 5 _MH 03 4 _M H 03 3 _M H 039 _M H 041 _MH _M H _M H 0 2 2 511 51 1 510 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 510 510 51 0 51 0 510 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 510 51 0 51 0 510 510 510 510510 510 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 510 510510 50 8 508 50 8 508 50 8 508 50 8 50 9 50 9 50 9 50 9 509 50 9 50 9 509 50 9 509 509 509 50 9 509 50 9 50 9 50 9 509 509 41 0 410 41 0 41 0 41 0 41 0 41 0 41 0 410 41 0 41 0 410 41 0 41 0 410 410 41 0 410 41 0 41 0 410 410 41 0 40 9 409 40 9 409 40 9 409 409 40 9 40 9 409 40 9 40 9 40 8 40 8 31 0 310 310 31 0 310 31 0 31 0 310 310 31 0 31 0 310 31 0 31 0 30 9 309 30930 930 9 309 30 9 308 30 8 308 30 8 00 9 _M H 00 8 _MH 00 7 _M H 006 _MH 005 _MH 02 1 _MH 004 _M H 003 _M H 002 _MH 00 1 _MH 06 7 _M H 08 9 _MH 065 _M H 06 0 _MH 08 0 _MH 08 1 _M H 082 _M H 06 9 _M H 083 _M H 08 4 _M H 07 2 _MH 08 5 _MH 08 6 _M H 075 _MH 07 8 _MH 06 4 _M H 07 9 _M H 077 _M H 074 _M H 076 _MH062 _M H 06 3 _MH 04 1 _MH 061 _MH 03 7 _MH 073 _M H 05 8 _MH 05 7 _MH 055 _M H 054 _MH 07 1 _MH 05 9 _MH 056 _MH 070 _M H 06 8 _MH 09 0 _MH 053 _MH 052 _MH 09 1 _MH 051 _MH 02 9 030 031 03 3 _M H 03 4 _MH 036 _M H 038 _MH 039 _M H 043 _MH 04 2 _M H 040 _MH 05 6 _M H 05 8 _MH 055 _M H 05 7 _MH 054 _M H 053 _MH 05 2 _M H 051 _M H 049 _M H 048 _M H 04 7 _MH 045 _MH 04 4 _MH 04 3 _MH 03 7 _MH 03 6 _M H 04 6 _MH 03 8 _M H 03 9 _M H 05 0 _M H 04 2 _MH 04 1 _MH 04 0 _MH 05 9 _M H 03 4 03 5 051 _MH 04 0 _M H 039 _M H 03 8 _MH 04 7 _MH 050 _M H 049 _M H 04 8 _MH _M H 00 8 _M H 00 7 _M H 02 4 _M H 01 1 _M H 02 7 _MH 02 6 _MH 02 5 _MH 023 _M H 02 8 _MH 02 9 _M H 03 0 _M H 03 1 _M H 03 3 _MH 032 _M H 034 _M H 03 5 _MH 03 6 _MH 03 9 _M H 03 8 _M H 03 7 _M H 01 9 _M H 018 _M H 01 6 _M H 014 _MH 022 _MH 01 2 _MH 00 5 _MH 00 3 _MH _M H _MH _M H 025 _M H 02 8 _M H 02 7 _MH 033 _MH 032 _MH 029 _MH 03 0 _M H 031 _M H 041 _M H 04 0 _M H 03 5 _MH 034 _M H 03 6 _MH 03 9 _MH 03 7 _M H 03 8 _M H 018 _M H 01 9 _MH 02 0 _M H 021 _MH 02 4 _M H 02 3 _M H 02 6 _M H 01 7 _M H 014 _MH 02 2 _MH 015 _M H 01 2 _M H 013 _M H 01 6 _MH 01 0 _MH 01 1 _M H 00 9 _M H 00 5 _M H 006 _M H 008 _M H 00 7 _MH 002 _MH 004 _M H 00 3 _M H 083 _M H 03 0 _M H 024 _MH 03 1 _MH 03 3 _M H 032 _MH 039 _M H 040 _M H 041 _M H 03 4 _M H 046 _MH 04 5 _MH 02 3 _MH 047 _M H 080 _MH 029 _M H 03 8 _MH 03 7 _MH 03 6 _MH 035 _MH 042 _M H 043 _M H 04 4 _M H 00 8 _MH 08 2 _M H 01 5 _MH 01 4 _M H 02 1 _MH 00 7 _M H 02 6 _MH 02 8 _MH 00 2 _M H 00 3 _M H 01 1 _M H 025 _M H 01 8 _M H 02 7 _M H 01 9 _M H 01 2 _MH 013 _MH 020 _M H 00 5 _MH 004 _M H 00 1 _MH 00 9 _MH 022 _MH 01 6 _M H 01 7 _M H 01 0 _MH 06 8 _MH 06 9 _M H 07 0 _M H 07 2 _M H 07 3 _MH 071 _MH 06 6 _M H 065 _MH 067 _MH 06 3 _M H 06 2 _MH 06 1 _MH 06 0 _MH 064 _MH 05 8 _M H 05 9 _MH 08 1 _M H 07 9 _M H 04 8 _M H 049 _M H 05 0 _M H 05 1 _M H 053 _M H 077 _MH 05 2 _M H 056 _MH 054 _M H 055 _M H 07 8 _M H 05 7 _M H 006 _MH 00 2 _MH 005 _MH 00 4 _MH 009 _M H 01 0 _M H 008 _MH 04 1 _M H 05 3 _MH 05 2 _M H 05 1 _M H 058 _M H 05 5 _M H 05 4 _M H 050 _M H 027 _M H 04 9 _MH 04 6 _M H 04 8 _MH 022 _M H 01 8 _MH 02 1 _MH 02 0 _MH 01 7 _M H 01 9 _M H 01 6 _M H 04 3 _M H 03 3 _M H 03 2 _M H 031 _M H 04 2 _MH 040 _M H 039 _M H 038 _M H 012 _M H 01 1 _MH 037 _M H 03 6 _MH 03 0 _M H 03 5 _MH 034 _M H 01 5 _M H 01 4 _M H 027 _M H 03 7 _M H 029 _M H 02 3 _MH 02 2 _MH 02 1 _MH 02 0 _MH 024 _MH 036 _MH 03 3 _MH 03 4 _M H 035 _M H 009 _M H 008 _M H 00 6 _MH 005 _M H 00 7 _M H 018 _M H 01 9 _MH 02 5 _M H 01 3 _MH 01 2 _M H 00 3 _MH 41 1 41 1 411 41 1 411 41 1 41 1 41 1 41 1 41 0 41 0 410 41 0 41 0 41 0 410 41 0 41 0 410 41 0 31 1 311 311311311 31 1 31 0 310 31 0 311 61 1 610 61 0 012 _MH 71 1 711 710 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1 611 61 1 611 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1 61 1 611 611 61 0 61 0 61 0 508 50 8 50 8 508 508 50 8 508 508 50 8 508 50 8 508 508 50 8 50 8 50 8 508 50 8 50 8 50 8 508 50 8 508 50 8 50 8 50 8 508 508 508 40 7 407 40 7 40 7 40 7 40 7 40 7 40 7 40 7 40 7 40 7 407 40 7 40 7 40 7 40 7 407 407 40 7 40 7 40 7 407 407 40 7 40 7 40 7 40 7 40 6 406 40 6 40 6 40 6 406 406 406 40 6 406 40 6 406 406 40 6 406 40 6 40 6 40 6 406 40 6 406 40 6 40 6 406 406 406 40 6 40 6 406 406 406 40 6 40 6 40 6 40 6 407 406 406 40 6 40 6 40 6 40 6 407 40 7 40 7 407 40 7 40 6 40 6 40 6 406 40 6 406 406 406 40 6 40 6 406 40 6 40 6 406 40 6 40 6 406 406 406 40640 6 406 40 6 406 40 6 406 40 6 40 6 406 40 6 40 6 40 6 30 7 30 7 30 7 307 028 02 7 02 6 _MH 058 _MH 03 7 _M H 05 7 _M H 05 6 _MH 05 5 _M H 03 6 _M H 03 5 _M H 034 _M H 053 _M H 03 3 _MH 03 2 _M H 02 5 _MH 06 0 _M H 05 2 _MH 02 9 _M H 03 0 _MH 04 6 _MH 058 _MH 046 _M H 05 1 _M H 06 3 _M H 05 9 _M H 06 2 _M H 061 _MH 06 0 _M H 041 _M H 040 _M H 05 7 _M H 045 _MH 050 _MH 05 5 _MH 056 _MH 05 4 _M H 05 3 _M H 05 2 _MH 04 9 _M H 04 8 _M H 04 7 044 _MH043 _MH 04 2 _MH _M H 04 4 _MH 045 _MH 04 6 _M H 047 _M H 048 _MH 05 2 _M H 053 _MH05 1 _MH 050 _MH 058 _M H 05 7 _M H 056 _MH 05 5 _MH 063 _M H 062 _MH 06 1 _MH 060 _MH 06 5 _MH 06 6 _MH 06 7 _M H 06 8 _MH 07 3 _MH 074 _MH 07 2 _M H 07 1 _M H070 _M H 06 9 06 4 05 9 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 608 608 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 607 60 7 60 7 607 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 607 607 60 7 60 7 607 607 607 607 607 606 60 6 606 606 606 60 6 606 606 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6606606 606 606606 60 6 606 606 606 60 6 60 6 60 6 606 60 660 6 60 6 _MH _MH _MH 02 9 030 031 03 2 03 3 _MH _MH 04 5 610 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 610 61 0 610 01 0 _MH 003 _MH 00 4 _MH 005 _MH 02 0 _MH 021 _M H 02 2 _M H 023 _M H 09 2 _M H 02 5 _M H 02 4 _MH 03 2 _MH 03 5 _MH 026 _MH 02 8 _MH 02 7 _M H 048 _M H 01 1 _M H 018 _MH 017 _M H 01 6 _M H 01 5 _MH 014 _M H 00 1 _MH 019 _MH 009 _MH _M H _M H 008 _M H _M H _MH 01 2 _MH _MH 01 6 _MH 01 9 _MH 02 6 _MH 02 4 _M H 02 2 _M H 023 _MH 02 5 _MH 027 _MH 02 0 _M H 01 7 _M H 015 _MH 01 3 _M H 01 1 _MH 00 7 _M H 00 8 _MH 01 8 _MH 00 1 _M H 00 2 _MH 602 602 60 2 602 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2 602 60 4 60 4 604 604 604 60 4 604 60 4 60 4 604 60 4 604 60 4 604 60 4 60 4 60 4 604 60 3 603 60 3 603 603 60 3 603 60 3 603 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3 603 603 60 3 60 3 603 603 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3 603 603603 60 3 60 3 60 3 603 60 3 60 3 60 3 60 3 603 60 3 60 3 60 3 504 504 504 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 50 4 504 504 504 504 50 4 50 4 50 4 504 50 4 50 4 50 4 504 50 4 504 50 4 50 4 50 4 504 50 4 504 50 4 50 4 50 4 504 504 504 50 4 504 50 4 504 504 504 504 504 50 4 50 4 50 4 504 50 4 50 4 504 504 504 504 50 4 504 50 4 50 4 50 4 504 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 503 50 3 50 3 503 50 3 50 3 503 503 503 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 503 50 3 50 3 50 3 503 503 50 3 503 503 50 3 503 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 50 3 503 503 50 3 50 3 50 3 503 50 3 503 50 2 502 05 2 _MH 05 1 _M H 049 _MH 02 4 _M H 02 3 _MH 02 2 _MH 00 6 _M H 01 5 _MH 01 1 _MH 010 _MH 602 602 60 2 60 4 604 60 4 60 3 603 60 3 00 1 _MH 02 2 _MH _MH 006 _MH 00 1 _MH 002 _MH 00 3 _MH 036 _M H 00 4 _MH 05 2 _M H 056 _MH 055 _M H 054 _MH 05 3 _MH 04 7 _M H 046 _MH 04 5 _M H 044 _MH 043 _M H 04 2 _M H 041 _MH 04 0 _M H 039 _M H 03 8 _M H 03 7 _MH 036 _MH 02 8 _MH 027 02 6 _MH 025 _MH03 5 _M H 02 4 _M H02 3 _MH 02 2 _M H 034 _M H 02 1 _MH 02 0 _MH 01 9 _MH 03 1 _MH 032 _M H 03 0 _M H 029 _M H 03 3 _M H 01 8 _MH 01 7 _MH 01 5 _MH 014 _M H 01 3 _MH 012 _M H 01 0 _M H 00 9 _M H 007 _MH 006 _MH 005 _MH 00 3 _M H 00 1 _M H 00 2 _M H 06 5 _M H 06 4 _MH 06 3 _MH 062 _M H 061 _M H 060 _M H 059 _MH 05 8 _M H 06 6 _MH 05 6 _M H 05 5 _M H 05 4 _MH05 3 _MH 04 9 _M H 04 8 _MH 047 _MH 046 _M H 04 5 _MH 04 4 _MH 03 9 _MH038 _MH037 _M H 036 _MH 03 5 _M H 03 4 _M H 03 3 _M H 03 2 _M H 031 _M H 030 _MH 027 _MH 02 6 _MH 02 5 _MH 02 4 _M H 023 _MH 02 2 _M H 021 _MH 02 0 _M H 01 9 _MH 01 8 _M H 01 7 _MH 01 6 _MH 01 5 _MH 014 _M H 013 _M H 012 _M H 011 _M H 010 _M H 009 _MH 008 _M H 00 7 _M H 006 _MH 00 5 _MH 003 _MH 00 2 _MH 001 _M H 01 1 _MH 406 406 40 6 40 6 40 6 061 _M H 001 _M H 002 _M H 00 3 _MH 00 4 _MH _M H 054 _M H 01 6 _MH 04 4 _MH 01 2 _M H 01 1 _MH 01 3 _MH 01 7 _M H 01 5 _M H 01 0 _M H 030 _MH 029 _M H 027 _MH 032 _M H 031 _M H 019 _M H 02 0 _M H 02 4 _M H 023 _MH 02 2 _MH 03 6 _M H 03 4 _M H 04 1 _M H 04 4 _M H 046 _MH 048 _M H 04 9 _M H 05 0 _MH 021 _MH 039 _M H 05 1 _M H 040 _M H 028 _MH 053 _MH 05 2 _MH 00 8 _MH 00 7 _MH 03 3 _MH 00 6 _MH 04 3 _MH 045 _M H 03 7 _M H 04 7 _MH 03 8 _MH 035 _MH 04 2 _MH 00 1 _MH 003 _M H 00 4 _M H 00 2 _M H 01 3 _M H 01 2 _MH 01 1 _M H 010 _M H 00 9 _M H 016 01 8 _MH 00 5 _MH 01 4 _MH 01 7 015 _MH 02 6 _M H 02 5 _MH 03 0 _MH 03 1 _MH 03 2 _M H 03 9 _MH 04 0 _M H 016 _MH 015 _MH 011 _M H 015 _MH 010 _M H 00 9 _M H 00 8 _MH 014 _M H 01 3 _M H 017 _M H 012 _M H 01 6 _MH 00 5 _MH 006 _M H 007 _M H 01 9 _M H 018 _M H 00 1 _M H 002 _MH 003 _M H 00 4 _MH 02 6 _M H 027 _MH 02 5 _M H 028 _MH 03 5 _MH 036 _M H 03 7 _M H 03 9 _MH 03 1 _MH 023 _M H 024 _MH 02 9 _MH 018 _M H 014 _M H 01 5 _MH 01 6 _M H 01 7 _MH 001 _MH 00 2 _MH 00 7 _M H 00 8 _MH 03 8 _MH 040 _MH 04 1 04 4 045 04 6 04 7 048 01 1 _M H 01 2 _M H 01 3 _M H 01 4 _MH 01 5 _M H 020 _MH 021 _MH 00 4 _MH 00 5 _M H 00 7 _M H 00 2 _MH 00 1 _M H 001 _MH 00 2 _MH 03 6 _MH 03 8 _M H 03 7 _MH 03 5 _MH 03 4 _MH 03 3 _MH032 _M H 03 1 _M H 024 _MH 02 3 _MH 04 0 _MH 02 2 _MH 02 1 _MH 04 2 _MH 04 3 02 5 _MH 026 04 0 _MH 039 _MH 03 8 _MH 037 _M H 036 _MH 03 5 _M H 03 4 _MH 028 _M H 027 _MH 029 _M H 026 _M H 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 610 610 610 61 0610 61 0 61 0 610 61 0 61 0 61 0 610 610 61 0610 61 0 610 610 61 0 61 0 610 61 0 61 0 61 0 60 9 609 60 9 609 60 9 60 9 609 60 9 60 9 609 609 609 60 9 609 60 9 60 9 60 9 609 60 9 60 9 60 9 60 9 60 9 60 9 60 8 60 9 60 9 609 60 9 608 60 8 608 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 608 51 0 51 0 510 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 510 51 0 51 0 51 0 51 0 510 00 2 _MH 00 1 _M H 011 _M H 01 0 _M H 01 4 _M H 00 4 _MH 006 _MH 01 1 _M H 03 2 _M H 03 1 _MH 03 0 _MH 029 _MH 028 _M H 026 _M H 02 5 _MH 02 4 _M H 023 _MH 02 7 _M H 00 8 _M H 009 _MH 00 5 _M H004 _M H 00 3 _M H 002 _MH 001 _MH 007 _M H 010 _M H 01 2 _M H 02 1 _MH 022 _MH 01 9 _M H 033 _M H 02 0 _M H 05 9 _M H 05 8 _MH 05 6 _MH 060 _MH 06 3 _M H 06 2 _MH 06 1 _MH 048 _MH 047 _MH 04 6 _M H 04 5 _MH 04 4 _M H 043 _MH 04 2 _MH 051 _MH 053 _M H 052 _M H 049 _M H 05 0 _MH 05 4 _M H 05 5 _MH 05 7 _M H 064 _MH 06 5 _M H 06 6 _M H 06 7 _MH 06 8 _MH 069 _M H 070 _MH 07 3 _M H 071 _MH 07 5 _MH 07 4 _M H 07 6 _MH 07 2 _M H 01 8 _MH 079 _MH 08 0 _MH 077 _M H 07 8 _M H 08 1 _M H 082 _MH 01 5 _M H 016 _M H 01 7 _MH 014 _MH01 3 _MH 00 5 _M H 00 2 _MH 004 _MH 003 _M H 01 0 _M H 011 _MH 013 _MH 02 5 026 _MH 02 7 _MH 030 _M H 02 4 _MH 023 _MH 02 9 _M H 028 _MH 00 7 _M H 01 6 _MH 01 7 _M H 03 5 _MH 03 6 _M H 03 2 _MH 03 1 _MH 009 _MH 03 3 _M H 014 _MH 01 5 _MH 083 _M H 03 7 _MH 038 _M H 03 9 _MH 04 1 _M H 04 0 _M H 034 _M H 02 5 _M H 02 6 _MH 02 7 _MH 02 4 _MH 02 3 _M H 608 60 8 60 8 608 60 8 60 8 608 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8608 60 8 60 8 608 608 60 8 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7607 607 60 7 607 607 60 7 607 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 607 60 7 607 607 60 7 607 607 60 7607 60 7 60 7 60 7 60 7 607 607 60 7 607 60 7 606 606 606 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 606 606 606 606 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 606 606 60 6 606 60 6 606 60660 6 60 6 606606 606 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 606 60 6 60 6 606 60 6 60 6606 60 6 60 6 60 6 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 507 50 7 50 7 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 507 507 50 7 507 507 507 50 7 50 7 507 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 50 7 507 50 7 50 7 507 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 507 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 507 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 50 7 507 50 7 507 50 7 50 6 50 6 50 6 506 50 6 506 506 506 50 6 50 6 50 6 50 6 50 6 506 50 6 50 6 50 6 506 506 50 6 506 50 6 50 6 506 50 6 50 6 50 6 50 6 50 6 50 6 506 50 6 506506 506 50 6 50 6 506 50 6 506 50 6 50 6 506 505 505 50 5 50550 5 505 505 505 50 5 505 505 50 5 50 5 505 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5505 50 5 50 5 50 5 60 4 60 4 50 4 50 4 604 504 50 4 50 4 50 4 405 40 5 40 5 40 5 405 405 405 40 5 405 40 5 405 405 40 5 405 406 40 5 405 406 406 406 40 5 40 5 40 5 405 40 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 405 40 5 07 5 _M H 08 1 05 6 _MH 05 3 _M H 05 4 _M H 02 0 _M H 019 _MH 021 _MH 022 _M H 024 _M H 02 3 _M H 025 _MH 02 8 _MH 027 _MH 02 6 _MH 02 9 _MH 03 0 _M H 03 1 _MH032 _MH 033 _M H 03 4 _MH 03 5 051 _M H 050 02 8 _MH 02 7 _M H 026 _M H 02 5 _M H 60 6 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 5 605 60 5 605 60 5 605 605 605 605 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 4 60 4 60 4 60 4 024 _MH 00 5 _M H 00 4 _M H 00 3 _MH 00 2 _MH00 1 _M H 06 2 _M H 01 7 _M H 01 8 _MH 01 9 _MH 016 _MH 00 9 _M H 011 _M H 01 2 _MH 01 3 _MH 01 4 _M H 01 5 _M H 00 8 _M H 008 _MH 03 0 _M H 01 8 _M H 01 7 _MH 01 6 _MH 01 5 _MH014 _MH 01 3 _MH 02 0 _M H 029 _M H 02 7 _M H 025 _MH 012 _M H 009 _M H 01 1 _M H 010 _M H 00 5 _MH 00 6 _MH 00 7 _MH 004 _M H 00 3 _M H 00 2 _MH00 1 _MH 02 6 _M H 027 _M H 034 _M H 033 _M H 03 2 _MH 025 _MH 02 4 _MH 02 3 _MH022 _M H 020 _MH 02 1 _M H 03 1 _M H 01 9 _M H 018 _MH 01 7 _M H016 _MH 02 9 _MH 03 0 _M H 01 1 _MH 012 _M H 01 0 _M H009 _MH 015 _MH 01 4 _MH 013 _M H 002 _MH001 _M H 06 9 _M H 056 _M H 051 _M H 05 0 _M H 049 _MH 04 8 _M H 05 2 _MH 05 3 _M H 05 4 _MH 05 5 _MH 05 7 _M H 05 8 _M H 064 _M H 068 _M H 02 9 _M H 02 7 _MH 02 8 _M H 063 _MH 06 2 _M H 05 9 _MH 060 _M H 061 _M H 02 6 _MH 024 _M H 07 2 _M H 01 3 _MH 07 1 _MH 07 0 _M H 011 _M H _M H 062 _MH 05 9 _MH 04 0 _M H 04 1 _M H 03 6 _MH 035 _M H 311 31 1 31 1 311 31 1 31 1 31 1 211 21 1 21 1 211 21 1 21 1 21 1 21 1 21 1 211 21 1 310 310 310 31 0 31 0 310 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 0 310 31 0 31 0 310 31 0 31 0 310 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 0 21 0 21 0 21 0 21 0 21 0 210 21 0 21 0 21 0 21 0 21 0 21 0 210 210 210 21 0 21 0 210 210 21 0 21 0 210 210 21 0 210 21 0 21 0 209 20 9 209 209 20 9 20 9 209 20 9 20 9 20 9 209 20 9 20 9 20 9 20 9 20 9 209 209 20 9 209 20 9 20 9 209 20 9 20 9 209 20 9 20 9 20 9 209 209 20 9 20 9 20 9 20 9 20 9 209 20 9 209 20 9 20 9 20 9 20 9 209 20 9 20 9 209 20 9 20 9 209 309 30 9 30 9 309 30 9 30 9 309 30 9 30 9 30 9 309 30 9 309 309 30 9 30 9 30 9 30 9 309 30 9 30 9 30 9 309 30 9 30 9 30 9 309 309 308 30 8 308 30830 8 308 30 8 30 8 30 8 30 8 30 8 30 8 30 8 308 20 8 208 20 8 208 20 8 20 8 20 8208 20 8 20 8 20 8 20 8 20 8 208 20 8 20 8 20 8 208208 20 8 208 20 8 20 8 208 20 8 20 8 20 8 20 8 208 208208 20 8 208 20 8 208 20 8 20820 8 208208 307 307 30 7 307 30 7 307 30 7 30 730 7 30 7 30 7 307 30 7 307 30 7 30 7 30 7 30 7 30 7 307 307 30 7 307 30 7 307 30 7 307 307 30 7 30 6 30 6 306 306 30 6 306 30 6 30 6 20 7 207 20 7 20 7 20 7 207 207 207 207 20 7 20 7207 20 7 207 20 7 20 7 20 7 207 207 207207 20 7207 20 7 20 7 20 720720 7 20 7 207 207 207 20 7 20 7 20 7 20 7207 20 720 7 207 20 7 20 7 20 7 20 7 207 207 20 7 20 7 207 20 7 20 7 207207 207 207 20 8 208 20 8 20 8 208 208 20 8 20 8 20 8 20 8208 20 8 20 8 20 8 20 8 209 20 9 20 9 20 9 20 9 20920 9 209 20 9 20 9 209 20 9 209 20 9 208 208 208 20 8 208 20 8 _M H _MH _MH _MH _MH _M H 054 049 04 3 60 8 02 1 _MH 04 2 _M H 04 1_MH 043 _M H 00 7 _MH 024 _M H 020 _M H 01 9 _M H 02 3 _M H 02 2 _M H 008 _M H 006 _MH 004 _MH 00 2 _M H 00 1 _M H 06 6 _M H 04 2 _MH009 _MH 01 0 405 40 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 405 305 305 30 5 305 305 30 5 305 30 5 305 30 5 30 5 305 30 5 30 5 30 5 305 30 5 305 305 305 30 5 30 5 30 5 305 30 5 30 5 30 5 30 5 30 5 305 30 5305 30 5 30 5 30 5 30 5 305 30 5 305 30 5 30 5 30 5 30 5 305 305 305 305 30 5 306 30 6 30 6 30 6 306 30 6 306 30 6 30 6 30 6 30 6 30 6 306 30 6 306 30 6 30 6 306 30 6 306 306 30 6 306 306 30 6306 306 30 6 306 306 30 6 30 6 306 30 6 30 6 306 30 6 30 6 306 30 6 30 6 306 30 6 30 6 30 6 30 6 30 6 306 30 6 30 630 6 30 6 306 30 6 30 6 305 _MH _M H 00 1 _M H 00 1 _MH 04 5 _M H 047 _M H01 3 _M H 037 _MH 036 _MH 03 8 _MH 039 _MH 04 0 _MH 049 _MH 041 _M H 04 2 _M H 04 3 _MH 04 4 _MH 045 _MH 046 _M H 047 _MH 018 _M H 012 _M H 017 _M H 01 6 _MH 01 5 _M H 014 _M H 013 _MH 01 1 _MH 009 _M H 007 _MH 00 8 _MH 00 6 _M H 005 _MH 00 3 _MH 004 _M H 00 2 _M H 00 1 _M H 020 _MH 044 _MH 05 5 _MH 05 4 _MH 053 _M H 05 2 _MH 04 5 _MH 04 6 _MH 04 3 _MH 04 2 _M H 04 7 _M H 04 8 _MH 04 9 _MH 025 _M H 02 4 _M H 03 5 _M H 050 _M H 03 6 _MH 037 _M H 03 8 _M H 05 1 _MH 03 4 _M H 03 3 _M H 032 _M H 031 _MH 03 0 _M H 029 _MH 02 8 _M H 01 9 _MH 01 8 _MH 017 _M H 02 7 _MH 02 3 _MH 02 2 _MH021 _MH 01 3 _M H 012 _M H 01 6 _M H 01 5 _M H 014 _MH 006 _MH 003 _MH 021 _M H 019 _M H 01 0 _MH 039 _M H 02 0 _M H 06 5 _M H 05 2 _M H 05 3 _MH 05 4 _M H 01 2 _M H 01 0 _MH 01 1 _M H 009 _M H 015 _MH 01 6 _MH 017 _MH 008 _MH 007 _M H 00 6 _MH 005 _M H 01 2 _MH 013 _MH 01 4 _MH 019 _M H 01 8 _M H 01 8 _M H 03 7 _M H 03 8 _MH 01 9 _M H 020 _MH 02 1 _MH 03 5 _M H 03 4 _MH 024 _MH 028 _MH 020 _M H 02 3 _MH 02 2 _MH 029 _M H 032 _M H 033 _M H 030 _M H 03 1 _M H 02 6 _M H 02 5 _MH 021 _M H 60 6 506 50 6 50 6 506 605 60560 560 5 605 60 5 60 5 60 5 605 60 5 60 5 60 5 60 5 605 605 60 5 60 5 60 5 605 605 60 5 605 605 60 5 60 5 60 5 605 605 60 5 60 5 605 605 50 5 50 5 505 505 50 5 50 5 50 5 505 50 5 50 5 50 5505 505 505 505 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 02 4 _M H 40 9 093 _M H 61 0 06 2 _MH 60 8 05 9 _MH 60 8 063 _M H 60 8 06 4 _M H 608 065 _M H 60 8 07 5 _MH 20 9 07 6 _MH 20 9 059 _M H 50 6 060 _M H 50 6 06 1 _M H 506 06 2 _M H 506 06 3 _M H 50 6 064 _MH 506 06 5 _MH 506 06 6 _M H 50 6 05 7 _MH 306 02 7 _M H 40 5 101 _M H 40 4 055 _MH 60 5 05 2 _MH 60 5 004 _M H 40 8 00 3 _M H 40 8 017 _MH 508 06 7 _M H 30 6 06 9 _MH 30 6 06 8 _MH 30 6 070 _MH 306 07 1 _MH 30 6 07 2 _M H 30 6 073 _M H 30 6 074 _MH 306 075 _M H 30 6 08 2 _M H 30 6 084 _M H 30 6 083 _MH 30 6 08 1 _MH 306 08 0 _M H 30 6 079 _M H 30 6 07 8 _MH 306 07 7 _M H 306 07 6 _M H 30 6 00 1 _M H 01 3 _M H 011 _MH 01 0 _M H 005 _M H 04 6 _M H 05 0 _MH 04 9 _M H 00 4 _M H 01 4 _M H 01 5 _M H 03 1 _MH 03 0 _MH 028 _MH 021 _MH 02 2 _MH 023 _MH 00 3 01 3 _M H 049 _M H 05 0 _M H 03 5 _MH 03 4 _M H 033 _M H 03 6 _MH 03 2 _MH 027 _M H 026 _M H 02 5 _MH 02 4 _MH 01 9 _MH 01 8 _MH 017 _M H 020 _MH 01 6 _M H 071 _MH 07 2 _M H 05 5 _M H 056 _MH 05 7 _MH 05 4 _MH 61 1 61 1 611 611 611 61 0 610610 51 1 511 51 1511 51 1 511 511 511 51 1 51 1 511 51 1 511 511511 51 1 51 1 51 1 51 1 51 1 511 51 1 51 1 51 1 51 1 511 51 1 510510 51 0 510 01 0 _MH 01 2 _M H 06 5 _M H 066 _M H 023 _M H 02 2 _MH 021 _MH 020 _M H 01 9 _MH 03 4 _M H 03 3 _M H 03 2 _M H 03 0 _MH 01 4 _M H 07 3 _MH 06 7 _MH 07 4 _M H 01 5 _MH 016 _M H 018 _M H 01 7 _MH _MH 027 _M H 03 0 _M H 03 1 _M H 03 2 _MH 03 3 _MH 02 4 _MH 02 3 _MH 020 _MH 012 _MH 01 1 _MH 01 0 _M H 009 _MH 00 8 _M H 014 _M H 015 _M H 01 3 _M H 01 6 _MH 01 9 _MH 018 _MH 01 7 _MH 02 2 _M H 00 7 _MH 00 5 _M H 003 _M H 002 _MH 001 _M H 025 _MH 024 _M H 02 3 _MH 30 8 _ M H 0 2 2 308 _ M H 0 2 1 _M H 0 2 0 30 8 _ M H 0 1 9 _M H 0 1 8 308 _ M H 0 1 7 _M H 0 1 6 _MH 0 1 5 _MH 0 1 4 _MH 0 1 3 012 _MH _M H 0 1 0 _MH 0 0 8 _MH 0 0 7 _MH 0 0 6 308 _ M H 0 0 5 30 8 _ M H 0 0 3 30 8 _ M H 0 0 2 308 _ M H 0 0 1 039 _M H 03 8 _MH 034 _M H 03 3 _M H 03 2 _M H 04 3 _M H 04 2 _MH 030 _MH 031 _M H 06 4 _MH 02 9 _MH 02 8 _M H 02 7 _M H 046 _MH 045 _M H 044 _M H 03 7 _M H 025 _M H 023 _MH 020 _MH 01 9 _M H 01 8 _M H 017 _M H 01 6 _MH 02 1 _M H 01 5 _MH _MH 0 1 4 01 3 _MH 01 1 _M H 012 _MH 010 _MH 00 9 _MH 02 4 _MH 00 7 _M H 006 _MH 00 5 _M H 004 _MH 00 3 _MH 00 2 _MH 00 1 _MH 030 _MH 03 5 _MH 03 2 _MH 021 _M H 022 _M H 028 _M H 029 _MH 019 _MH 02 0 _MH 031 _M H 018 _MH 01 7 _M H 016 _MH 015 _MH 01 1 _M H 010 _M H 009 _MH 00 8 _M H 00 7 _M H 006 _MH 00 5 _MH 01 4 _MH 01 3 _M H 012 _MH 004 _M H 003 _MH 00 2 _MH 001 _MH 05 2 _M H 05 1 _MH 05 0 _M H 043 _MH 04 2 _MH 040 _MH 029 _M H 02 8 _MH 055 _M H 054 _MH 05 3 _M H 05 2 _MH 05 1 _MH 05 0 _MH 04 9 _M H 04 7 _MH 04 6 _M H 048 _M H 045 _MH 04 4 _M H 04 3 _MH 041 _M H 042 _M H 04 0 _M H 039 _MH 03 8 _MH 03 7 _M H 036 _MH 03 4 _MH 03 3 _MH 03 2 _M H 03 5 _MH 03 1 _M H 029 _MH 02 8 _M H 027 _M H 03 0 _M H 02 6 _MH 02 5 _M H 02 4 _M H 02 3 _M H 02 2 _M H 02 1 _M H 02 0 _MH 019 _MH 01 8 _M H 01 7 _MH 01 6 _MH 015 _MH 014 _M H 01 3 _MH 01 2 _M H 01 1 _MH 010 _MH 00 9 _MH 00 8 _MH 00 7 _M H 00 6 _M H 00 5 _MH 004 _MH 00 3 _MH 002 _MH 00 1 _MH 063 _M H 061 _MH 060 _M H 057 _M H 05 8 _MH 05 2 _M H 05 3 _M H 054 _M H 05 5 _M H 056 _M H 05 1 _MH 050 _M H 04 9 _MH 048 _MH 04 7 _MH 045 _MH 04 6 _MH 047 _M H 042 _M H 041 _M H 04 0 _M H 039 _M H 04 4 _M H 043 _M H 03 5 _M H 03 6 _MH 038 _MH 03 7 _MH 03 1 710 710 710 71 0 710 710 71 0 71 0 71 0 710 610 61 0 61 0 610 610 61 0 61 0 610 61 0 61 0 610 610 61 0 61 0 61 0 610 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 610610 610 610 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 610 610 61 0 610 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 60 9 609609 60 9 60 9 609 609 60 9 609 60 9 609 60 9 60 9609 609 60 9 609 60 9 60 9 60 9 609 60 9 60 9 60 9 60 8 60 8 60 8 60 8 60860 8 60 8 60 8 60 8608 _M H _MH _MH 001 00 9 _MH 00 8 _MH 01 0 _MH 00 7 _MH 00 6 _M H 005 _M H 00 4 _M H 601 _ M H 0 0 1 60 1 _ M H 0 0 2 60 1 _ M H 0 0 3 601 _ M H 0 0 6 601 _ M H 0 0 5 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2 602 602 602 60 2 60 2 60 2 602 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2 602 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2 60 2 00 1 _M H 04 8 _MH 03 8 _M H 03 9 _MH 04 0 _M H 04 2 _M H 041 _MH 04 7 _M H 03 6 _M H 04 4 _M H 037 _MH 04 3 _M H 03 2 _M H 031 _MH 03 4 _MH 033 _M H 026 _M H 02 7 _MH 025 _MH 02 4 _M H 02 3 _MH 02 8 _M H 02 9 _M H 03 0 _MH 601 _ M H 0 1 0 60 1 _ M H 0 0 7 601 _ M H 0 0 4 70 1 602 602 60 2 60 2 602 60 2 602 60 2 602 60 2 60 2 602 602 60 2 60 2 60 2 602 60 2 602 60 2 60 2 602 602 60 3 05 0 _MH 05 4 _MH 058 _MH 05 9 _M H 05 5 _MH 021 _M H 02 2 _MH 05 6 _MH 00 3 _M H 01 3 _M H 014 _MH 01 0 _MH 01 5 _MH 01 1 _M H 01 6 _M H 017 _MH 01 8 _M H 009 _M H 00 5 _M H 012 _M H 008 _MH 004 _M H 007 _MH 003 _M H 002 _MH 00 6 _MH 00 1 _M H 03 2 _M H 033 _MH 03 4 _MH 03 8 _M H 039 _MH 04 0 _MH 04 7 _M H 046 _M H 02 6 _MH 02 5 _M H 02 7 _M H 028 _MH 02 9 _MH 03 1 _M H 03 0 _M H 041 _MH 03 5 _MH 037 _MH 03 6 _M H 04 2 _MH 043 _MH 04 4 _MH 04 5 _M H 02 3 _MH 02 4 _MH 02 2 _MH 02 1 _MH 017 _MH 00 2 _MH 001 _M H 02 0 _M H 019 _M H 01 8 _M H 01 6 _MH 014 _M H 01 3 _MH 01 2 _MH 008 _MH 005 _M H 00 4 _M H 003 _M H 01 3 _M H 03 6 _MH 00 9 _M H 03 8 _M H 03 5 _MH 03 4 _MH 032 _M H 00 8 _M H 00 7 _MH01 1 _M H 01 2 _MH 00 1 _M H 00 2 _M H 00 3 _M H 03 1 _M H 004 _M H 01 4 _MH 005 _M H 015 _M H 01 6 _M H 01 7 _MH 019 _M H 01 8 _M H 06 1 _MH057 _M H048 _M H 04 6 _M H 04 5 _MH 04 3 _MH 04 4 _M H 056 _M H 06 0 _M H 055 _M H 04 2 _M H 04 1 _MH 040 _MH021 _MH 02 2 _MH 02 0 _MH 023 _MH 024 _MH 02 6 _MH 025 _MH 04 7 _MH 04 9 _MH 059 _MH 058 _M H 06 2 _M H 06 8 _MH 06 9 _M H 03 3 _M H 06 6 _M H 06 7 _M H 064 _MH 06 3 _M H 051 _M H 030 _M H 02 9 _M H 028 _M H 02 7 _MH 02 2 _MH 05 1 _M H 047 _M H 050 _MH 046 _MH 04 9 _M H 04 5 _MH 04 8 _MH 00 1 _M H 037 _M H 03 8 _MH 03 9 _M H 041 _MH 04 3 _MH 04 0 _M H 04 2 _M H 044 _M H 00 4 _M H 01 4 _M H 02 0 _M H 02 1 _M H 02 3 _M H 017 _M H 025 _M H 024 _M H 02 6 _MH 009 _M H 010 _M H 027 _MH 02 9 _MH 03 6 _MH 035 _M H 03 4 _M H 03 3 _MH 032 _M H 03 1 _MH 05 3 _M H 00 2 _MH 00 3 _MH 05 2 _MH 01 2 _MH 013 _MH 01 5 _M H 00 5 _MH 00 6 _M H 01 6 _M H 01 1 _M H 00 7 _M H 00 1 00 3 002 00 4 008 00 7 005 00 6 009 010 01 1 01 2 01 3 01 4 01 5 016 017 01 8 020 02 1 022 023 024 02 5 02 6 027 02 9 03 0 03 1 032 03 3 03 4 03 5 03 6 03 7 03 8 03 9 040 041 04 2 043 04 4 045 046 04 7 00 1 00 2 00 3 00 4 005 006 00 7 008 00 9 01 8 01 9 02 0 02 1 02 2 023 024 025 02 6 027 02 8 02 9 03 0 031 033 034 03 5 03 6 037 03 8 03 9 04 0 04 1 042 04 3 044 04 5 04 6 047 04 8 049 05 0 05 1 052 053 05 4 055 05 6 05 8 05 9 06 0 06 1 06 2 06 3 06 4 06 5 066 067 068 05 7 _MH _MH _M H _M H _M H _M H _M H _M H _M H _M H _M H _M H _MH _MH _MH_MH _MH _M H _MH _MH _MH _M H _M H _M H _M H _M H _M H _MH _MH _MH _MH _M H _MH _MH _M H _MH_MH _MH _MH _MH _M H _MH_MH _MH_M H _MH _MH_MH _MH _MH _M H _MH _MH _M H _M H _MH_MH _M H _MH _M H _MH _M H _MH _MH _M H _M H _MH _MH _MH _MH _MH _MH _M H _MH _M H _M H _MH _M H _MH _MH _MH _M H _M H _MH_MH _MH _MH_MH _MH _MH _MH _M H _M H _M H _MH _M H _MH _MH _MH _M H _M H _MH _MH _MH 206 20 6 20 6 20 6 206 20 6 20 6 206 206 206 206206 20 6 206 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 206 20 6 206 20 6 206 20 6 206 20 6 20 6 206 20 6 206 20 6 206 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 206 206 20 6 20 6206 20 6206 206 206206 206 206 206206 20 6 20 6 20 6 206 20 6 206 205 20 5 205 20 5 205 20 5 20 5 20 5 205 20 5 205 20 5 205 20 5 205 20 5 20 5 205 205 20 5 205 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 205 205 205205 20 5 20 5 205 20 5 205 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 205 20 5 205 205 205 00 3 _M H 50 6 06 4 _MH 607 607_MH 065 60 6 _MH 080 079 _M H 60 6 60 6 _MH 07 7 60 6 _MH 60 6 _M H 076 208 _MH 02 6022 _MH 208 07 8 068 _MH 607 _M H 01 5 60 1 016 _MH 601 _ M H 0 2 0 601 _ M H 0 2 1 601 _ M H 0 2 2 60 1 _ M H 0 1 9 601 _ M H 0 1 8 60 1 _ M H 0 1 7 601 _ M H 0 1 4 60 1 _ M H 0 1 3 601 _ M H 0 1 2 601 _ M H 0 1 1 601 _ M H 0 0 9 60 1 _ M H 0 0 8 60 1 05 3 _MH 05 7 _MH 019 _M H 02 0 _M H 002 _M H 00 1 _M H 03 5 _MH 01 2 _MH 01 1 _MH 01 3 _M H 014 _M H 01 5 _MH 04 6 _MH 016 _M H 017 _M H 018 _MH 04 5 _M H 06 7 _MH 50 6 060 _M H 60 9 31 0 _ M H 0 4 4 310 _ M H 0 4 5 31 0 _ M H 0 4 6 31 0 _ M H 0 4 7 310 _ M H 0 4 8 31 0 _ M H 0 4 9 310 _ M H 0 5 0 310 _ M H 0 5 1 41 0 _ M H 0 4 9 410 _ M H 0 5 0 410 _ M H 0 5 1 51 0 M H 0 5 9 608 _ M H 0 6 6 30 8 _ M H 0 3 0 8'' V C P 40 9 M H 0 2 5 076 _M H 07 5 _M H 074 _M H 057 _M H 056 _MH 607 50 7507507 50 6 50 6 03 0 _M H 031 _MH 03 3 _MH 032 _MH 03 9 _M H 04 0 _M H 04 1 _MH034 _M H 046 _M H 04 5 _M H 04 7 _M H 035 _MH 04 2 _MH 07 1 _MH 06 6 _MH 065 _MH 067 _MH 06 3 _M H 062 _M H 061 _MH 060 _MH 06 4 _MH 05 8 _MH 059 _M H 07 9 _M H 048 _M H 04 9 _M H 05 0 _M H 05 1 _MH 05 3 _M H 077 _MH 05 2 _MH 056 _M H 05 4 _MH 05 5 _M H 07 8 _M H 05 7 _MH 053 _MH 60 7 507 50 7 50 7 507 507 507 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 507 50 7 50 7 507 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 507 507 507 507 50 7 50 7 50 7 507 50 7 507 506 Co u n t y S e w e r M a i n 30 7 _MH 16" H D P E 0.5 0 % _M H 507 _M H 507 04 9 A _M H 507 LEGEND CITY SEWER MAIN COUNTY SEWER MAIN CITY BOUNDARY T: \ P D G \ 2 0 1 8 P R O J E C T S \ 1 8 1 9 S O O - H O T E L \ 0 4 - D R A W I N G S \ 0 1 - D E S I G N \ 0 1 - A R C H I T E C T U R A L \ 0 1 - P L A N O P T I O N S \ 2 0 1 8 - 1 2 - 1 0 \ 1 8 1 9 - G 0 . 0 . D W G XR E F S I N C L U D E D : 1 8 1 9 - x B D R [ . \ 1 8 1 9 - x B D R . d w g ] , , , , , , , , PL O T T E D : La y o u t : No v e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 1 9 DR A W I N G F I L E : cad file: drawing no: plot date: job#: 1819-G0.0.dwg Nov 25, 2019 issue date: Nov 25, 2019 drawn by: PA C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P E X P R E S S L Y R E S E R V E S A L L C O M M O N L A W C O P Y R I G H T A N D P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S I N T H E S E P L A N S . T H E S E P L A N S A R E N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C H A N G E D O R C O P I E D I N A N Y F O R M O R M A N N E R W H A T S O E V E R N O R A R E T H E Y T O B E A S S I G N E D T O A N Y T H I R D P A R T Y W I T H O U T F I R S T O B T A I N I N G T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N A N D C O N S E N T F R O M P A C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P . PA C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P E X P R E S S L Y R E S E R V E S A L L C O M M O N L A W C O P Y R I G H T A N D P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S I N T H E S E P L A N S . T H E S E P L A N S A R E N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C H A N G E D O R C O P I E D I N A N Y F O R M O R M A N N E R W H A T S O E V E R N O R A R E T H E Y T O B E A S S I G N E D T O A N Y T H I R D P A R T Y W I T H O U T F I R S T O B T A I N I N G T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N A N D C O N S E N T F R O M P A C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P . PA C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P E X P R E S S L Y R E S E R V E S A L L C O M M O N L A W C O P Y R I G H T A N D P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S I N T H E S E P L A N S . T H E S E P L A N S A R E N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C H A N G E D O R C O P I E D I N A N Y F O R M O R M A N N E R W H A T S O E V E R N O R A R E T H E Y T O B E A S S I G N E D T O A N Y T H I R D P A R T Y W I T H O U T F I R S T O B T A I N I N G T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N A N D C O N S E N T F R O M P A C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P . PA C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P E X P R E S S L Y R E S E R V E S A L L C O M M O N L A W C O P Y R I G H T A N D P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S I N T H E S E P L A N S . T H E S E P L A N S A R E N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C H A N G E D O R C O P I E D I N A N Y F O R M O R M A N N E R W H A T S O E V E R N O R A R E T H E Y T O B E A S S I G N E D T O A N Y T H I R D P A R T Y W I T H O U T F I R S T O B T A I N I N G T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N A N D C O N S E N T F R O M P A C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P . PR O J E C T : SH E E T T I T L E : CO R P O R A T E H E A D Q U A R T E R S 15 0 E L C A M I N O R E A L , 1 1 2 TU S T I N , C A 9 2 7 8 0 71 4 - 8 3 2 - 5 1 0 0 DE N V E R M E T R O O F F I C E 16 7 1 0 E . P R E N T I C E C I R . CE N T E N N I A L , C O 8 0 0 1 5 71 4 - 4 5 8 - 5 9 3 0 Ar c h i t e c t u r e ww w . p d g - a r c h . c o m In t e r i o r s Pl a n n i n g PDG HO T E L A T H U N T I N G T O N C E N T E R VG P R O P E R T Y I N V E S T M E N T S , L L C 12 5 W . H U N T I N G T O N D R I V E - B L D G S C & D AR C A D I A , C A 9 1 0 0 6 1819SOO VICINITY MAP FOR JOB NO.: HOTEL AT HUNTINGTON CENTER VG PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC 125 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE - BUILDING C & D ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 1819SOO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW & VARIANCE APPLICATION SHEET INDEX A0.0 REFERENCE SITE PLAN AD0.1 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN A0.1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN 4A2.1 BUILDING C - FIRST FLOOR PLAN 4A3.1 BUILDING C - ROOF PLAN SITE DATA 4A2.2 BUILDING C - SECOND FLOOR PLAN REV.ARCHITECTURAL 4A5.1 BUILDING C - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - COLOR 5A2.1 BUILDING D - FIRST FLOOR PLAN 4A2.0 BUILDING C - BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 5A2.2 BUILDING D - SECOND FLOOR PLAN 5A3.1 BUILDING D - ROOF PLAN 5A5.1 BUILDING D - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - COLOR 5A2.4 BUILDING D - FOURTH FLOOR PLAN C-1.0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN REV.CIVIL LEGAL DESCRIPTION REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 0NE: (5775-015-024,025 & 026) 125 HUNTINGTON DR. PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN UPON PARCEL MAP NO. 12826, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 129 PAGE 35 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY AS SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 12826 WAS CORRECTED BY CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 28, 1980 AS DOCUMENT NO. 80-1203029 OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL INCLUDED WI`THIN THE LINES OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA, RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 26, 1979 AS DOCUMENT NO. 79-1326058 OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 1.ALL STRUCTURES SHALL BE FULLY SPRINKLERED. CLASS 1 STANDPIPES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL STAIRWELLS/STAIRWAYS UP TO THE ROOF LEVEL. 2.THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY MONITORED. INTERIOR NOTIFICATION DEVICES SHALL BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT ALL STRUCTURES. 3.KNOX BOXES WITH KEYS FOR ACCESS TO RESTRICTED AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL STRUCTURES. 4.ADDITIONAL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE FRONT OF BUILDING 2 AND ADJACENT TO THE ENTRANCE DRIVE ON SAN JUAN DRIVE. PLEASE COORDINATE WITH THE CITY'S FIRE MARSHAL, MARK KRIKORIAN AT (626) 574-5106. 5.ALL STRUCTURES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH MINIMUM 2A:10BC FIRE EXTINGUISHERS. ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM ANY EXISTING STREET, PROPOSED STREET, OR PORTION OF ANY STREET OF PROPOSED STREET LYING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID LAND WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE PASS WITH A CONVEYANCE OF SAID LAND AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE AND POLITICAL RECORDED MAY 31, 1978 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 78-582148 OFFICIAL RECORDS. First American Title REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL TWO: (5775-015-027) 161 COLORADO PLACE LOT 1 OF TRACT 62234, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 1345 PAGES 92 AND 93 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. First American Title FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES REV.TITLE G0.0 TITLE SHEET & SITE DATA G2.1 BUILDINGS PERSPECTIVES G1.1 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS G0.1 CODE ANALYSIS - BUILDING C & D ABBREVIATIONS MTD. FNDN.FOUNDATION MOUNTED FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PANEL HOSE BIBBH.B. DISPENSER/DISPOSAL DWR.DRAWER E.J. E.G. EA. E. (E) EXPANSION JOINT EXISTING GRADE EAST/ENAMEL EACH EXISTING DISP. DWG. D.S.P. D.S. DR. DO. DN. DIM. DIAG. DIA. DF D.F. DET. DRY STANDPIPE DOWNSPOUT DITTO/REPEAT DRAWING DOOR DOWN DIMENSION DIAGONAL DIAMETER DOUGLAS FIR DRINKING FOUNTAIN DETAIL INVERT INTERIOR INSULATION INCANDESCENT INV. INT. INSL. INCND. IN.INCH HEATING, VENT, AIR COND. HIGH POINT HORIZONTAL HOLLOW METAL HEIGHT HARDWARE HARDWOOD HEADER HOLLOW CORE INSIDE DIAMETER/DIM.I.D. HVAC. HR. H.P. HORIZ. H.M. HOUR HGT. HDWR. HDWD. HDR. HD. H.C. HEAD CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CLG. JOIST OR CONTROL JT. CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE COMPO. CONTR. CONSTR. CORR. CYL. DEPT. DBL. C.T. CSK. C.R.B. CONT. CONN. CONC. CORRIDOR CYLINDER CERAMIC TILE COUNTERSUNK CRUSHER RUN BASE DEPARTMENT DOUBLE COMPOSITION CONTRACTOR CONTINUOUS CONSTRUCTION CONNECTION CONCRETE CLO. COL. C.M.U. CLR. CLG. C.J. C.I. C.B. C.F.M. CER. CEM. CAB. B.W. CAST IRON CLOSET COLUMN CLEAR CEILING CATCH BASIN BOTH WAYS CERAMIC CEMENT CABINET HANDICAPPED GYSUM BOARD GYPSUM GLUE LAMINATED BEAM GALVANIZED IRON GENERAL GRAB BAR GALVANIZED IRON GUAGE/GAGE GLASS HC. GYP. BD. GYP. GR. GLU-LAM GL. G.I. GEN. G.B. GALV. GA. FOOTING FOOT OR FEET FULL SIZE/FINISH SURFACE FACE OF STUDS FACE OF "GFRC" PANEL FACE OF MASONRY FACE OF ALUMINUM FACE OF FINISH FACE OF CONCRETE FUTURE FURRING F.R.P. FUT. FURR. FTG. FT. F.S. F.O.S. F.O.P. F.O.M. F.O.A. F.O.F. F.O.C. PLUMB.PLUMBING REINFORCED CLAY PIPER.C.P. REFRIGERATOR REFERENCE RECEPTACLE RECESSED/RECEIVING ROOF DRAIN REV. REFR. REF. RECPT. REC. R.D. REVERSE QUARRY TILE RETURN AIR RISER/RADIUS PREFABRICATED PRESSED METAL RAD. R.A. R. Q.T. PT. RADIUS POINT PREFAB. PR. P/P PNL. P.M. PLWD. PUSH-PULL PAIR PANEL PLYWOOD OUTSIDE DIAMETER/DIMENSION ORDINANCE PLASTIC LAMINATE PRESSURE INDICATOR VALVE PLAS. P. LAM. PL. OZ. PTN. P.I.V. PLASTER PLATE OUNCE PARTITION O.H. OED. OPP. OPNG. OFF. O'FLOW O.D. OVERHEAD OPPOSITE OPENING OFFICE OVERFLOW ON CENTER OVERALL/OUTSIDE AIR NOT IN CONTRACT NATURAL GRADE NOT TO SCALE NUMBERNO. O/ O.C. OBS. O.A. N.T.S. NOM. OVER OBSCURE NOMINAL MULLION NAT. N.I.C. NT. GR. MUL. (N) NATURAL NEW FINISH FLOOR/FACTORY FINISH ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ADJUSTABLE/ADJACENT ASPHALTIC CONCRETE BM. B/S BOT. B.M. BLK. BLDG. BLKG. AC.T. BITUM. BD. ASSY. ASPH. ARCH. BOTH SIDES BENCHMARK BLOCKING BEAM BOTTOM BLOCK BUILDING ACOUSTICAL TILE BITUMINOUS ASSEMBLY ARCHITECTURAL BOARD ASPHALT APPROX. ACOUS. AGGR. ANOD. ALUM. A.F.F. ADJ. A/C A.C. A.B. # " ' APPROXIMATE ANODIZED ALUMINUM AGGREGATE ACOUSTICAL AIR CONDITIONING ANCHOR BOLT POUND OR NUMBER INCH OR REPEAT FOOT FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FLOOR DRAIN FLUORESCENT FLOOR FLASHING FLOW LINE FLOOR JOIST FIXTURE FIRE HOSE CABINET FLAT HEAD/FIRE HYDRANT FINISH GRADE/FIXED GLASS F.L. F.J. FIX. FLUOR. FLR. FLASH. FIN. F.H.C. F.H. F.G. F.F. F.E.C. F.D. FINISH EACH SIDE WQUIPMENT FLAT BAR FACTORY FIRE ALARM EXTERIOR EXPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING EXHAUST ELECTRIC WATER COOLER EACH WAY EXST. EXT. EXPO. EXP. F.B. FAC. F.A. EXH. E.W.C. E.W. E.S. EQPT. EQ.EQUAL PLATE OR PROPERTY LINE 0 @ & LP CL AT OR ABOUT DIAMETER CENTER LINE AND ANGLE EDGE OF SLAB ENCLOSURE EMERGENCY ELEVATOR/ELEVATION ELECTRICAL ELEVATION E.O.S. ENCL. EMER. ELEV. ELEC. EL. REDWOOD ROUGH OPENING SEMI-GLOSS ENAMEL SQUARE FOOT SERVICE/SERVING SECTION SCHEDULE SOLID CORE SOUTH/SPANDREL STATION SERVICE SINK STAINLESS STEEL SQUARE SPECIFICATION SLIDING SIMILAR SHEATHING SHEET SL. MASONRY OPENING METAL LATH AND PLASTER MISCELLANEOUS MINIMUM/MINUTE MANUFACTURER MECHANICAL MACHINE BOLT M.L.& PL. MANHOLE MISC. M.O. MIN. MH. MFR. MEZZANINE METAL MEMBRANE MEDIUM MAXIMUM MED. MET. MEMB. MEZZ. MECH. M.B. MAX. STA. S/S SPEC. S.S. SQ. LABORATORY LIGHT WEIGHT LONG LEG VERTICAL LONG LEG HORIZONTAL MACHINE MEN MATERIAL LIGHT LOW POINT MAT. MACH. M. LT. WT. LT. L.P. LAMINATE LINEAL FEET POUND LAVATORY LB. LLV. LLH. L.F. LAV. LAM. LAB. SHT. SIM. SHTG. SERV. S.G.E. S.F. S. SECT. SCHED. S.C. RWD. R.O. RESILIENT REQUIRED REINFORCED REGISTER/REGULAR ROOM ROUND HEAD KNOCK-DOWN KITCHEN JOIST JOINT JANITOR JST. KIT. K.D. JT. JAN. REQ. RESIL. RM. R.H. REINF. REG. GRADE WATER CLOSET WAINSCOT WITH WEST/WOMEN WELDED WIRE WEIGHT WOOD SCREW WATER WATERPROOF WITHOUT WROUGHT IRON WATER HEATER WOOD VINYL WALL VENT THRU VERIFY ON JOB VERTICAL GRAIN VESTIBULE VERTICAL W.S. W.W.M. WT. W.R. W/O WP. W.C. W.I. W.H. WD. WSCT. W/ W. V.O.J. V.W.C. V.T.R. V.G. VEST. VERT. VENTILATOR VENEER VINYL COMP. VINYL URINAL UNLESS NOTED UNFINISHED UNDERWRITER'S UNIFORM THRESHOLD THICK TONGUE & TEXTURED TERRAZZO TEMPERED / TELEPHONE TOP OF CURB TOP OF BEAM TRANSFORMER TYPICAL TOP OF WALL TELEVISION TOP OF STEEL TOP OF TOILET TOP OF LEDGER T.V. V. VENT. VEN. V.C.T. URN. U.N.O. UNFIN. U.B.C. U.L. TRNSF. TYP. T.W. TOIL. T.P. T.S. THRSH. THK. T.L. TEMP. TERR. T&G TEXT. TEL. T.C. T.B. TREAD/TEMP. SYMMETRICAL SUSPENDED STRUCTURAL STORAGE STEEL STANDARD SKYLIGHT STL. SKLT. SYM. T. SUSP. STRUCT. STOR. STD. OR CONCRETE TEMPORARY GROOVE PARAPET OTHERWISE LAB BUILDING CODE COVERING TILE MESH RESISTANT ROOF G1.0 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS 4A2.3 BUILDING C - THIRD FLOOR PLAN G0.0 TI T L E S H E E T & S I T E D A T A 5A2.3 BUILDING D - THIRD FLOOR PLAN 5A2.5 BUILDING D - FIFTH FLOOR PLAN 1.ZONING: C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH DOWNTOWN OVERLAY 2.BLDG HEIGHT PERMITTED:48 FT (DOWNTOWN OVERLAY ZONE) ASKING FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE OF 64'-0" 3.BLDG HEIGHT PROVIDED:EXISTING BLDG. 1 PARKING GARAGE: 23'-8 1/2" ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE WITH PORTIONS AS HIGH AS 42'-2 1/2" ABOVE GRADE EXISTING BLDG. A: 44'-11 1/2" ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE EXISTING BLDG. B: 44'-11 1/2" ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE REMODELED BLDG. C: 44'-7 1/2" ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE NEW BLDG. D: ±63'-10" ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE 4.NO. OF STORIES PROVIDED:EXISTING BLDG. 1 PARKING GARAGE: 3 STORIES + BASEMENT EXISTING BLDG. A: 3 STORIES + BASEMENT EXISTING BLDG. B: 3 STORIES + BASEMENT REMODELED BLDG. C: 3 STORIES + BASEMENT NEW BLDG. D: 4 & 5 STORIES 5.SITE AREA: GROSS AREA: 200,144 SQ. FT. = 4.59 ACRES 125 W HUNTINGTON DR. 6.EXISTING BUILDING AREA PARKING GARAGE EXISTING BASEMENT 57,517 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING 1 1ST FLOOR 38,778 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING 1 2ND FLOOR 38,778 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING 1 3RD FLOOR 28,043 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING 1 TOTAL 163,116 SQ. FT. BUILDING A EXISTING BUILDING A 1ST FLOOR 6,855 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING A 2ND FLOOR 6,358 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING A 3RD FLOOR 6,632 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING A TOTAL 19,845 SQ. FT. BUILDING B EXISTING BUILDING B 1ST FLOOR 6,657 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING B 2ND FLOOR 6,137 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING B 3RD FLOOR 6,437 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING B TOTAL 19,231 SQ. FT. BUILDING C - MAIN HOTEL REMODELED BUILDING C BASEMENT 2,726 SQ. FT. REMODELED BUILDING C 1ST FLOOR 24,664 SQ. FT. REMODELED BUILDING C 2ND FLOOR 24,870 SQ. FT. REMODELED BUILDING C 3RD FLOOR 24,494 SQ. FT. REMODELED BUILDING C TOTAL 76,754 SQ. FT. (REMODELED EXISTING BUILDING, NEW USE AND CONSTRUCTION) 7.PROPOSED BUILDING D AREA BUILDING D - HOTEL ANNEX BUILDING D 1ST FLOOR 14,414 SQ. FT. BUILDING D 2ND FLOOR 13,124 SQ. FT. BUILDING D 3RD FLOOR 12,836 SQ. FT. BUILDING D 4TH FLOOR 12,849 SQ. FT. BUILDING D 5TH FLOOR 8,315 SQ.FT. BUILDING D TOTAL 61,538 SQ. FT. 8.F.A.R PERMITTED: 1.0 (DOWNTOWN OVERLAY ZONE) (ZONING SEC. 9102.05.030 TABLE 2-11) F.A.R PROVIDED TOTAL = BLDG. AREA / SITE AREA = F.A.R. (ZONING SEC. 9103.01.030, A) 177,368 SQ.FT / 200,144 SQ.FT = 0.89 < 1.0 9.EXISTING LANDSCAPE UNDER PREVIOUS APPROVED PLANS COMPLETED. 10.NEW MODIFICATION OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE:12,775 SQ. FT. 11.PARKING REQUIRED (ZONING SEC. 9103.07.060, C, TABLES 3-5 &, 3-6) A.EXISTING BUILDING A 19,845 SQ.FT.MEDICAL OFFICE 1/200 = 99 B.EXISTING BUILDING B 19,231 SQ.FT.MEDICAL OFFICE 1/200 = 96 C.REMODELED BUILDING C 90 ROOMS GUESTROOM 1.2 = 108 4,146 SQ.FT.RESTAURANT 1/200 = 21 1,033 SQ.FT.BAR 1/100 = 11 D.BUILDING D 75 ROOMS GUESTROOM 1.2 = 90 7,466 SQ.FT.SPA 1/200 = 38 1,568 SQ.FT.CAFE 1/200 = 8 TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 471 12.ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED (CBC 11B-208.2 TABLE 11B-208.2) A.BUILDING A MEDICAL OFFICE 4 B.BUILDING B MEDICAL OFFICE 5 C.HOTEL & RESTAURANT 5 D.HOTEL & SPA 5 TOTAL 19 13.1 VAN PER 8 ACCESSIBLE STALLS (CBC 11B-208.2.4) VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED 3 PROVIDED 4 14.PARKING PROVIDED A.WEST SIDE SURFACE PARKING 24 SPACES B.PARKING STRUCTURE BASEMENT 114 SPACES PARKING STRUCTURE 1ST FLOOR 80 SPACES PARKING STRUCTURE 2ND FLOOR 88 SPACES PARKING STRUCTURE 3RD FLOOR 105 SPACES C.EAST SIDE SURFACE PARKING 71 SPACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED (482 - 4 LOADING) = 478 STALLS *COMMERCIAL LOADING ZONE STALLS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM CALCULATION 15.PROVIDED PARKING BREAKDOWN DEMO EXISTING NEW TOTAL LOADING ZONES 10'X25'( 4 )1 3 4 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS ( 2 )2 2 4 ACCESSIBLE CAR STALLS ( 5 )14 5 19 9'X20' CAR STALLS ( 105 )451 15 455 482 STALLS *REQUIRED PARKING - 471 STALLS *PROVIDED PARKING -478 STALLS 7 STALLS EXCESS 16.BIKE RACK A.BIKE PARKING REQUIRED PER GREEN BUILDING: 5% OF 471 = 24 BIKES B.BIKE PARKING PROVIDED:= 30 BIKES 17.BIKE LOCKERS A.BIKE LOCKERS REQUIRED PER GREEN BUILDING: 5% OF 471 = 24 BIKE LOCKERS B.BIKE LOCKERS PROVIDED:= 24 BIKE LOCKERS 18.FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES A.FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED: 8% X 471 = 38 CARS B.FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLE PARKING PROVIDED:= 38 CARS 19.FUTURE ELECTRIC VEHICLES A.FUTURE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED: 6% X 253 = 15 CARS B.FUTURE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE PARKING PROVIDED:= 15 CARS **EXISTING BUILDINGS A & B PARKING STALLS REQUIRED 196 STALLS - REQUIRED 438 TOTAL STALLS = 253 REQUIRED STALLS FOR BUILDINGS C & D. WE CALCULATED FUTURE ELECTRIC VEHICLE BASED ON BUILDINGS C & D PARKING REQUIREMENT. C.FUTURE CHARGING STATIONS QUALIFY AS DESIGNATED PARKING FOR FUEL EFFICIENT CLEAN AIR VEHICLES. 5A6.1 BUILDING D - BUILDING SECTION & HEIGHT CALCULATION REV.LANDSCAPE L 1.01 PRELIMINARY PLAN C-2.0 SECTIONS C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E C L E A N A I R V E C H I C L E VAN P O O L CAR P O O L CAR P O O L CAR P O O L CAR P O O L VAN P O O L O P E N A I R V E N T U P D N N O P A R K I N G N O P A R K I N G OPEN A I R V E N T U G P S X F M R LOADINGLOADINGLOADING FUTU R E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTUR E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTUR E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTU R E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTU R E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTU R E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTURE VEHICLE CHARGING FUTURE VEHICLE CHARGING FUTURE VEHICLE CHARGING FUTURE VEHICLE CHARGING FUTU R E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTU R E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTUR E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTU R E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G FUTUR E VEHIC L E CHAR G I N G S A N J U A N D R . S A N R A F A E L R O A D S A N T A C R U Z R O A D H U N T I N G T O N D R . C O L O R A D O P L A C E S A N M I G U E L D R ST O P ST O P STO P STO P STO P STO P LEF T TUR N ONL Y ST O P ST O P LOAD I N G SERVICE YARD NO PARKING BUILDING D NEW 3-STORY BUILDING BUILDING 'C' EXISTING 3-STORY BUILDING TO BE RENOVATED EXISTING RESIDENTIAL POOL EQPMT. ROOM 340 S.F. BUILDING 'A' (EXISTING) BUILDING 'B' (EXISTING) EXISTING PARKING GARAGE FUTURE VEHICLE CHARGING 4 YD TRASH 4 YD TRASH 4 YD TRASH 4 YD RECYCLE 4 YD RECYCLE 4 YD RECYCLE 3 YD GREEN 2 YD FOOD EXISTING RESTAURANT EXISTING PARKING ENTRY RAMP EXISTING ENTRY DRIVE EXISTING ENTRY DRIVE EXISTING PARKING 77 ' - 1 1 " 16'-6 1 / 2 " T: \ P D G \ 2 0 1 8 P R O J E C T S \ 1 8 1 9 S O O - H O T E L \ 0 4 - D R A W I N G S \ 0 1 - D E S I G N \ 0 1 - A R C H I T E C T U R A L \ 0 1 - P L A N O P T I O N S \ 2 0 1 8 - 1 2 - 1 0 \ 1 8 1 9 - A 0 . 0 - S I T E _ P L A N . D W G XR E F S I N C L U D E D : 1 5 2 4 - x S i t e [ . \ 1 8 1 9 - x S i t e . d w g ] 1 5 2 4 - x B D R [ . \ 1 8 1 9 - x B D R . d w g ] , , , , , , , , PL O T T E D : La y o u t : No v e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 1 9 DR A W I N G F I L E : cad file: drawing no: plot date: job#: 1819-A0.0-Site_Plan.dwg Nov 25, 2019 issue date: Nov 25, 2019 drawn by: PA C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P E X P R E S S L Y R E S E R V E S A L L C O M M O N L A W C O P Y R I G H T A N D P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S I N T H E S E P L A N S . T H E S E P L A N S A R E N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C H A N G E D O R C O P I E D I N A N Y F O R M O R M A N N E R W H A T S O E V E R N O R A R E T H E Y T O B E A S S I G N E D T O A N Y T H I R D P A R T Y W I T H O U T F I R S T O B T A I N I N G T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N A N D C O N S E N T F R O M P A C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P . PA C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P E X P R E S S L Y R E S E R V E S A L L C O M M O N L A W C O P Y R I G H T A N D P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S I N T H E S E P L A N S . T H E S E P L A N S A R E N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C H A N G E D O R C O P I E D I N A N Y F O R M O R M A N N E R W H A T S O E V E R N O R A R E T H E Y T O B E A S S I G N E D T O A N Y T H I R D P A R T Y W I T H O U T F I R S T O B T A I N I N G T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N A N D C O N S E N T F R O M P A C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P . PA C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P E X P R E S S L Y R E S E R V E S A L L C O M M O N L A W C O P Y R I G H T A N D P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S I N T H E S E P L A N S . T H E S E P L A N S A R E N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C H A N G E D O R C O P I E D I N A N Y F O R M O R M A N N E R W H A T S O E V E R N O R A R E T H E Y T O B E A S S I G N E D T O A N Y T H I R D P A R T Y W I T H O U T F I R S T O B T A I N I N G T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N A N D C O N S E N T F R O M P A C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P . PA C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P E X P R E S S L Y R E S E R V E S A L L C O M M O N L A W C O P Y R I G H T A N D P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S I N T H E S E P L A N S . T H E S E P L A N S A R E N O T T O B E R E P R O D U C E D , C H A N G E D O R C O P I E D I N A N Y F O R M O R M A N N E R W H A T S O E V E R N O R A R E T H E Y T O B E A S S I G N E D T O A N Y T H I R D P A R T Y W I T H O U T F I R S T O B T A I N I N G T H E E X P R E S S W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N A N D C O N S E N T F R O M P A C I F I C D E S I G N G R O U P . PR O J E C T : SH E E T T I T L E : CO R P O R A T E H E A D Q U A R T E R S 15 0 E L C A M I N O R E A L , 1 1 2 TU S T I N , C A 9 2 7 8 0 71 4 - 8 3 2 - 5 1 0 0 DE N V E R M E T R O O F F I C E 16 7 1 0 E . P R E N T I C E C I R . CE N T E N N I A L , C O 8 0 0 1 5 71 4 - 4 5 8 - 5 9 3 0 Ar c h i t e c t u r e ww w . p d g - a r c h . c o m In t e r i o r s Pl a n n i n g PDG HO T E L A T H U N T I N G T O N C E N T E R VG P R O P E R T Y I N V E S T M E N T S , L L C 12 5 W . H U N T I N G T O N D R I V E - B L D G S C & D AR C A D I A , C A 9 1 0 0 6 1819SOOREFERENCE SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 40' - 0" 0 20 40 80 NORTH A0.0 SI T E P L A N 1 SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN ARCADIA, CA Rev. 2 - 05/03/2018Rev. 1 - 04/17/201804/07/2018 SHEET INDEXPROJECT SUMMARY THE PROPOSED WORK ARE PHASES I AND II OF THE FORMER SANTA ANITA INN SITE LOCATED IN ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA. THE NORTHEAST HALF OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STAR LE MERIDIEN HOTEL BY MARRIOTT. PHASE II WILL BE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, OFFICE, LUXURY RESIDENTIAL AND PODIUM PARKING. PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 TOTAL SITE AREA AND FLOOR AREA RATIO: SITE AREA: 6.15 ACRES FAR: MAX FAR 1.0 PHASE 1 LE MERIDIEN HOTEL BY MARRIOTT BUILDING AREA 155,143 SF PUBLIC AREAS 20,620 227 GUESTROOMS 80,000 BACK OF HOUSE 54,523 PARKING PROVIDED: 227 PARKING PHASE 2 MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA 180,441 SF RETAIL/COMMERCIAL 19,123 SF OFFICE 12,408 SF SPA 6,665 SF RESIDENTIAL (96 UNITS) 139,368 RESIDENTIAL LOBBY AND AMENITIES 2,877 SF PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 REQUIRED PARKING RETAIL/COMMERCIAL/SPA (5/1000SF) 129 OFFICE (4/1000SF) 50 HOTEL (1/GUESTROOM) 227 96 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (1.5/UNIT +1/3UNITS) 176 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 582 PARKING PROVIDED ON GRADE HOTEL PARKING: 82 LEVEL B1 RETAIL PARKING 119 LEVEL P1 HOTEL AND OFFICE PARKING 212 LEVEL P2 RESIDENTIAL PARKING 182 TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 595 LIST OF PROFESSIONALS CLIENT: CHATEAU GROUP USA 119 LA PORTE STREET ARCADIA, CA 91006 ARCHITECT: ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 N ORANGE STREET,ORANGE, CA 92866 SURVEYOR: TRITECH ASSOCIATED, INC SUBDIVISION SURVEY ENGINEERING DESIGN 135 NORTH SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775 CIVIL: TRITECH ASSOCIATED, INC SUBDIVISION SURVEY ENGINEERING DESIGN 135 NORTH SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775 LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 N ORANGE STREET,ORANGE, CA 92866 ENVIRONMENTAL: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1500 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 200, RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 CODE AND PLANNING INFORMATION PARCEL ADDRESS: 130 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE, ARCADIA 91007 PARCEL AIN NO.: 5775-024-014 EXISTING USE: R-1 HOTEL & C2 & C PROPOSED USE: R-1 HOTEL, B OFFICE, R-3 MU RES & M RETAIL/COMMERCIAL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES BUILDING: 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) ELECTRICAL: 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) MECHANICAL: 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) PLUMBING: 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) ACCESSIBILITY: MORE STRINGENT OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE OR APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW ENERGY: 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC) AND LOCAL ORDINANCE 2 SPECIFIC PLAN 10 SITE PHOTOS 11 VICINITY MAP & SITE MAP 12 SITE SURVEY 13 EXISTING SITE PLAN 14 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 15 OVERALL SITE PLAN PHASE 1 - HOTEL 16 SITE PLAN & PROJ. SUMMARY 17 FIRE TRUCK ACCESS ROUTE 18 GROUND FLOOR PLAN 19 MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN 20 FLOOR PLANS 23 ROOF PLAN 24 ELEVATIONS 26 COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD 27 SECTIONS 28 RENDERING PHASE 2 - MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL 29 SITE PLAN & PROJ. SUMMARY 30 FLOOR PLANS 33 ELEVATIONS 35 COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD 36 SECTIONS 37 RENDERING LANDSCAPE 38 TREE SURVEY 39 PHASE 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 43 PHASE 2 LANDSCAPE PLAN 47 OPTION B STREETSCAPE 48 VEHICULAR VISIBILITY EXHIBIT 18 SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN ARCADIA, CA Rev. 2 - 05/03/2018Rev. 1 - 04/17/201804/07/2018 GROUND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 0 6’12’32’ 19 SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN ARCADIA, CA Rev. 2 - 05/03/2018Rev. 1 - 04/17/201804/07/2018 MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 0 6’12’32’ 20 SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN ARCADIA, CA Rev. 2 - 05/03/2018Rev. 1 - 04/17/201804/07/2018 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 0 6’12’32’ 21 SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN ARCADIA, CA Rev. 2 - 05/03/2018Rev. 1 - 04/17/201804/07/2018 LEVELS 3, 4 & 5 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 0 6’12’32’ 22 SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN ARCADIA, CA Rev. 2 - 05/03/2018Rev. 1 - 04/17/201804/07/2018 LEVEL 6 & ROOF DECK FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 0 6’12’32’ 30 SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN ARCADIA, CA Rev. 2 - 05/03/2018Rev. 1 - 04/17/201804/07/2018 FLOOR PLANSLEVEL B1 -7’-0” LEVEL L1 +0’-0” SCALE: 0 60’120’ 31 SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN ARCADIA, CA Rev. 2 - 05/03/2018Rev. 1 - 04/17/201804/07/2018 SCALE: 0 60’120’ FLOOR PLANSLEVEL P1 +8’-0” LEVEL P2/L2 +18’-0” 32 SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN ARCADIA, CA Rev. 2 - 05/03/2018Rev. 1 - 04/17/201804/07/2018 SCALE: 0 60’120’ FLOOR PLANSLEVELS L3-L8 Chapter 2 Tempo by Hilton Hotel Project City of Arcadia Addendum to the Hotel Indigo Project IS/MND October 2024 Page 9 Chapter 2 Tempo by Hilton Hotel Project City of Arcadia Addendum to the Hotel Indigo Project IS/MND October 2024 Page 7 2.3 General Plan Designation and Zoning According to Arcadia General Plan, Chapter 2: Land Use and Community Design Element, the Revised Project Site is designated as Commercial (C). This Commercial designation is intended to encourage a strong pedestrian-oriented environment that provides a variety of retail and service uses, restaurants, and neighborhood-serving commercial uses that complement development in the Downtown Mixed-Use areas.3 According to the City’s Zoning Map, the Revised Project Site is zoned General Commercial (C-G) with a Downtown Overlay.4 The C-G zone is intended to provide areas for the development of retail and service uses, offices, restaurants, public uses, and similar and compatible uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted under the C-G zone and the Downtown Overlay zone is 1.0 for new development, and the maximum height permitted for new buildings is 48 feet. An additional 10 feet may be allowed for exterior stairways and other access features such as stairwells or elevators for access to the roof, and other rooftop appurtenances. 2.4 Project Characteristics The Revised Project would consist of the improvements proposed by the Tempo Project, along with the previously Approved Project described in the Indigo IS/MND, which includes the redevelopment of the Parsons building for hotel uses and the construction of a new hotel annex building. The Tempo Project would develop a four-story hotel building with approximately 47,140 square feet of gross floor area on APN 5775-015-011; refer to Figure 3, Site Plan and Figure 4, Conceptual Rendering. The new hotel building would have a maximum height of 48 feet, excluding rooftop appurtenances, and would consist of a basement level and four above-ground levels containing a total of 93 rooms and ancillary hotel uses. The basement level would primarily contain back-of-house uses for hotel operations, including an electric room, a mechanical room, a laundry room, offices, storage rooms, an employee breakroom, restrooms, and a fitness room for guest use. Level 1 would contain 13 hotel rooms, a kitchen, café, bar, lobby, meeting area, office, restrooms, and an outdoor patio. Levels 2, 3, and 4 would each contain 26 hotel rooms, and the roof level would contain an outdoor paved patio, solar panels, and mechanical areas. The Tempo Project would utilize the existing parking structure located on the Original Project Site to provide parking for hotel employees, guests, and visitors. As shown in Figure 3, the Tempo Project would also reconfigure the existing surface parking lot located to the east of the proposed hotel building on the Original Project Site to provide 18 surface parking spaces, including three electric vehicle charging spaces (reduced by 6 spaces from the existing 24 spaces), a trash enclosure, and a connection to the new surface parking area along the south side of the proposed hotel building. The new surface parking area would provide 6 parking spaces, including 4 accessible parking spaces. In addition, the Tempo Project would develop a drop-off area with 3 City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan, Chapter 2: Land Use and Community Design Element, February 2024. 4 City of Arcadia, City of Arcadia Zoning Map, Updated February 2024. Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 11 Appendix D VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP (VTTM) Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 12 Appendix E LACDPW SEWER DESIGN GUIDELINES Occupancy Abbreviation *Average daily flow Apartment Buildings: Bachelor or Single dwelling units Apt 150 gal/D.U. 1 bedroom dwelling units Apt 200 gal/D.U. 2 bedroom dwelling units Apt 250 gal/D.U. 3 bedroom or more dwelling units Apt 300 gal/D.U. Auditoriums, churches, etc.Aud 5 gal/seat Automobile parking P 25 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Bars, cocktails lounges, etc.Bar 20 gal/seat Commercial Shops & Stores CS 100 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Hospitals (surgical)HS 500 gal/bed Hospitals (convalescent)HC 85 gal/bed Hotels H 150 gal/room Medical Buildings MB 300 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Motels MB 150 gal/unit Office Buildings Off 200 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Restaurants, cafeterias, etc.R 50 gal/seat Schools: Elementary or Jr. High S 10 gal/student High Schools HS 15 gal/student Universities or Colleges U 20 gal/student College Dormitories CD 85 gal/student Zone Coefficient (cfs/Acre) Agriculture ----------------------------------0.001 Residential*: R-1 --------------------------------------------0.004 R-2 --------------------------------------------0.008 R-3 --------------------------------------------0.012 R-4 -------------------------------------------- 0.016* Commercial: C-1 through C-4 ---------------------------- 0.015* Heavy Industrial: M-1 through M-4 -------------------------- 0.021* exceed the coefficients shown * Use 0.001 (cfs/unit) for condominiums only Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies *Multiply the average daily flow by 2.5 to obtain the peak flow Zoning Coefficients * Individual building, commercial or industrial plant capacities shall be the determining factor when they Line FACILITY DESCRIPTION PROPOSED SGF IN GPD BOD SS No.(mg/l) (mg/l) 1 Acupuncture Office/Clinic 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 2 Arcade - Video Games 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 3 Auditorium (a) 3/Seat 265 275 4 Auto Parking (a) 20/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 5 Auto Mfg., Service Maintenance (b) Actual 1,260 1,165 6 Bakery 280/1,000 Gr SF 3,020 2,540 7 Bank: Headquarters 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 8 Bank: Branch 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 9 Ballroom 350/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 10 Banquet Room 350/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 11 Bar: Cocktail, Fixed Set (a) (c) 15/Seat 265 275 12 Bar: Juice, No Baking Facilities (d) 720/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 13 Bar: Juice, with Baking Facilities (d) 720/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 14 Bar: Cocktail, Public Table Area (c) 720/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 15 Barber Shop 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 16 Barber Shop (s) 15/Stall 265 275 17 Beauty Parlor 425/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 18 Beauty Parlor (s) 50/Stall 265 275 19 Bldg. Const/Field Office (e) 120/Office 265 275 20 Bowling Alley: Alley, Lanes & Lobby Area 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 21 Bowling Facility: Arcade/Bar/Restaurant/Dancing Total Average Average 22 Cafeteria: Fixed Seat 30/Seat 1,000 600 23 Car Wash: Automatic (b) Actual 265 285 24 Car Wash: Coin Operated Bays (b) Actual 265 285 25 Car Wash: Hand Wash (b) Actual 265 285 26 Car Wash: Counter & Sales Area 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 27 Chapel: Fixed Seat 3/Seat 265 275 28 Chiropractic Office 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 29 Church: Fixed Seat 3/Seat 265 275 30 Church School: Day Care/Elem 9/Occupant 265 275 31 Church School: One Day Use (s) 9/Occupant 265 275 32 Cocktail Lounge: Fixed Seat (f) 15/Seat 265 275 33 Coffee House: No Food Preparation (d) 720/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 34 Coffee House: Pastry Baking Only (d) 720/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 35 Coffee House: Serves Prepared Food (d) 25/Seat 1,000 600 36 Cold Storage: No Sales (g) 30/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 37 Cold Storage: Retail Sales (g) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 38 Comfort Station: Public 80/Fixture 265 275 39 Commercial Use (a) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE SEWAGE GENERATION FACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 Page 1 Line FACILITY DESCRIPTION PROPOSED SGF IN GPD BOD SS No.(mg/l) (mg/l) SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE SEWAGE GENERATION FACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 40 Community Center 3/Occupant 265 275 41 Conference Room of Office Bldg. 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 42 Counseling Center (h) 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 43 Credit Union 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 44 Dairy Average Flow 1,510 325 45 Dairy: Barn Average Flow 1,510 325 46 Dairy: Retail Area 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 47 Dancing Area (of Bars or Nightclub) (c) 350/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 48 Dance Studio (i) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 49 Dental Office/Clinic 250/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 50 Doughnut Shop 280/1,000 Gr SF 1,000 600 51 Drug Rehabilitation Center (h) 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 52 Equipment Booth 30/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 53 Film Processing (Retail) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 54 Film Processing (Industrial) Actual 265 275 55 Food Processing Plant (b) Actual 2,210 1,450 56 Gas Station: Self Service 100/W.C. 265 275 57 Gas Station: Four Bays Max 430/Station 1,950 1,175 58 Golf Course Facility: Lobby/Office/Restaurant/Bar Total 700 450 59 Gymnasium: Basketball, Volleyball (k) 200/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 60 Hanger (Aircraft) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 61 Health Club/Spa (k) 650/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 62 Homeless Shelter 70/Bed 265 275 63 Hospital 70/Bed 820 1,230 64 Hospital: Convalescent (a) 70/Bed 265 275 65 Hospital: Animal 300/1,000 Gr SF 820 1,230 66 Hospital: Psychiatric 70/Bed 265 275 67 Hospital: Surgical (a) 360/Bed 265 275 68 Hotel: Use Guest Rooms Only (a) 120/Room 265 275 69 Jail 85/Inmate 265 275 70 Kennel: Dog Kennel/Open 100/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 71 Laboratory: Commercial 250/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 72 Laboratory: Industrial Actual 265 275 73 Laundromat 185/Machine 550 370 74 Library: Public Area 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 75 Library: Stacks, Storage 30/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 76 Lobby of Retail Area (l) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 77 Lodge Hall 3/Seat 265 275 78 Lounge (l) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 Page 2 Line FACILITY DESCRIPTION PROPOSED SGF IN GPD BOD SS No.(mg/l) (mg/l) SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE SEWAGE GENERATION FACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 79 Machine Shop (No Industrial Waste Permit Required) (b) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 80 Machine Shop (Industrial) Actual 265 275 81 Mfg or Industrial Facility (No IW Permit Required) (b) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 82 Mfg or Industrial Facility (Industrial) Actual 265 275 83 Massage Parlor 250/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 84 Medical Building (a) 225/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 85 Medical: Lab in Hospital 250/1,000 Gr SF 340 275 86 Medical Office/Clinic 250/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 87 Mini-Mall (No Food) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 88 Mortuary: Chapel 3/Seat 265 275 89 Mortuary: Embalming 300/1,000 Gr SF 800 800 90 Mortuary: Living Area 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 91 Motel: Use Guest Room Only (a) 120/Room 265 275 92 Museum: All Area 30/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 93 Museum: Office Over 15% 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 94 Museum: Sales Area 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 95 Office Building (a) 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 96 Office Bldg w/Cooling Tower 170/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 97 Plating Plant (No IW Permit Required) (b) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 98 Plating Plant (Industrial) (b) Actual 265 275 99 Pool Hall (No Alcohol) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 100 Post Office: Full Service (m) 120/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 101 Post Office: Private Mail Box Rental 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 102 Prisons 175/Inmate 265 275 103 Residential Dorm: College or Residential (n) 70/Student 265 275 104 Residential: Boarding House 70/Bed 265 275 105 Residential: Apt - Bachelor (a) 75/DU 265 275 106 Residential: Apt - 1 BDR (a) (o) 110/DU 265 275 107 Residential: Apt - 2 BDR (a) (o) 150/DU 265 275 108 Residential: Apt - 3 BDR (a) (o) 190/DU 265 275 109 Residential: Apt - >3 BDR (o) 40/BDR 265 275 110 Residential: Condo - 1 BDR (o) 110/DU 265 275 111 Residential: Condo - 2 BDR (o) 150/DU 265 275 112 Residential: Condo - 3 BDR (o) 190/DU 265 275 113 Residential: Condo - >3 BDR (o) 40/BDR 265 275 114 Residential: Duplex/Townhouse - 1 BR (o) 110/DU 265 275 115 Residential: Duplex/Townhouse - 2 BR (o) 150/DU 265 275 116 Residential: Duplex/Townhouse - 3 BR (o) 190/DU 265 275 117 Residential: Duplex/Townhouse - >3 BR (o) 40/BDR 265 275 Page 3 Line FACILITY DESCRIPTION PROPOSED SGF IN GPD BOD SS No.(mg/l) (mg/l) SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE SEWAGE GENERATION FACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 118 Residential: SFD - 1 BR (o) 140/DU 265 275 119 Residential: SFD - 2 BR (o) 185/DU 265 275 120 Residential: SFD - 3 BR (o) 230/DU 265 275 121 Residential: SFD - >3 BR (o) 45/BDR 265 275 122 Residential Room Addition: Bedroom (o) 45/BDR 265 275 123 Residential Room Conversion: Into a Bedroom (o) 45/BDR 265 275 124 Residential: Mobile Home Same as Apt 265 275 125 Residential: Artist (2/3 Area) 75/DU 265 275 126 Residential: Artist Residence 75/DU 265 275 127 Residential: Guest Home w/ Kitchen Same as Apt 265 275 128 Residential: Guest Home w/o Kitchen 45/BDR 265 275 129 Rest Home 70/Bed 555 490 130 Restaurant: Drive-In 50/Stall 1000 600 131 Restaurant: Drive-In Seating Area 25/Seat 1000 600 132 Restaurant: Fast Food Indoor Seat 25/Seat 1000 600 133 Restaurant: Fast Food Outdoor Seat 25/Seat 1000 600 134 Restaurant: Full Service Indoor Seat (a) 30/Seat 1000 600 135 Restaurant: Full Service Outdoor Seat 30/Seat 1000 600 136 Restaurant: Take Out 300/1,000 Gr SF 1000 600 137 Retail Area (greater than 100,000 SF) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 138 Retail Area (less than 100,000 SF) 25/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 139 Rifle Range: Shooting Stalls/Lanes, Lobby 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 140 Rifle Range Facility: Bar/Restaurant Total Average Average 141 School: Arts/Dancing/Music (i) 11/Student 265 275 142 School: Elementary/Jr. High (a) (p) 9/Student 265 275 143 School: High School (a) (p) 11/Student 265 275 144 School: Kindergarten (s) 9/Student 265 275 145 School: Martial Arts (i) 9/Student 265 275 146 School: Nursery-Day Care (p) 9/Child 265 275 147 School: Special Class (p) 9/Student 265 275 148 School: Trade or Vocational (p) 11/Student 265 275 149 School: Training (p) 11/Student 265 275 150 School: University/College (a) (p) 16/Student 265 275 151 School: Dormitory (a) (n) 70/Student 265 275 152 School: Stadium, Pavilion 3/Seat 265 275 153 Spa/Jacuzzi (Commercial with backwash filters) Total 265 275 154 Storage: Building/Warehouse 30/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 155 Storage: Self-Storage Bldg 30/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 156 Store: Ice Cream/Yogurt 25/1,000 Gr SF 1000 600 Page 4 Line FACILITY DESCRIPTION PROPOSED SGF IN GPD BOD SS No.(mg/l) (mg/l) SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE SEWAGE GENERATION FACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 157 Store: Retail (l) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 158 Studio: Film/TV - Audience Viewing Room (q) 3/Seat 265 275 159 Studio: Film/TV - Regular Use Indoor Filming Area (q) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 160 Studio: Film/TV - Ind. Use Film Process/Machine Shop (q) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 161 Studio: Film/TV - Ind. Use Film Process/Machine Shop Total 265 275 162 Studio: Recording 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 163 Swimming Pool (Commercial with backwash filters) Total 265 275 164 Tanning Salon: Independent, No Shower (r) 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 165 Tanning Salon: Within a Health Spa/Club 640/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 166 Theater: Drive-In 6/Vehicle 265 275 167 Theater: Live/Music/Opera 3/Seat 265 275 168 Theater: Cinema 3/Seat 265 275 169 Tract: Commercial/Residential 1/Acre 265 275 170 Trailer: Const/Field Office (e) 120/Office 265 275 171 Veterinary Clinic/Office 250/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 172 Warehouse 30/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 173 Warehouse w/ Office Total 265 275 174 Waste Dump: Recreational 400/Station 2650 2750 175 Wine Tasting Room: Kitchen 200/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 176 Wine Tasting Room: All Area 50/1,000 Gr SF 265 275 Page 5 (GR.SQ.FT.) = Gross Square Feet: area included within the exterior of the surrounding walls of a building excluding court. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 Line FACILITY DESCRIPTION FEE RATE No. 1 Acupuncture Office/Clinic $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 2 Arcade - Video Games $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 3 Auditorium (a) $12/SEAT 4 Auto Parking (a) $83/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 5 Auto Mfg., Service Maintenance (b) Actual 6 Bakery $2956/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 7 Bank: Headquarters $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 8 Bank: Branch $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 9 Ballroom $1445/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 10 Banquet Room $1445/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 11 Bar: Cocktail, Fixed Seat (a) (c) $62/SEAT 12 Bar: Juice, No Baking Facilities (d) $2973/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 13 Bar: Juice, with Baking Facilities (d) $2973/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 14 Bar: Cocktail, Public Table Area (c) $2973/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 15 Barber Shop $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 16 Barber Shop (s) $62/STALL. 17 Beauty Parlor $1755/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 18 Beauty Parlor (s) $206/STALL. 19 Bldg. Const/Field Office (e) $495/OFFICE 20 Bowling Alley: Alley, Lanes & Lobby Area $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 21 Bowling Facility: Arcade/Bar/Restaurant/Dancing Total 22 Cafeteria: Fixed Seat $165/SEAT 23 Car Wash: Automatic (b) Actual 24 Car Wash: Coin Operated Bays (b) Actual 25 Car Wash: Hand Wash (b) Actual 26 Car Wash: Counter & Sales Area $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 27 Chapel: Fixed Seat $12/SEAT 28 Chiropractic Office $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 29 Church: Fixed Seat $12/SEAT 30 Church School: Day Care/Elem $37/OCCUPANT 31 Church School: One Day Use (s) $37/OCCUPANT 32 Cocktail Lounge: Fixed Seat (f) $62/SEAT 33 Coffee House: No Food Preparation (d) $2973/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 34 Coffee House: Pastry Baking Only (d) $2973/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 35 Coffee House: Serves Prepared Food (d) $138/SEAT 36 Cold Storage: No Sales (g) $124/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 37 Cold Storage: Retail Sales (g) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE GUIDE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES Page 1 (GR.SQ.FT.) = Gross Square Feet: area included within the exterior of the surrounding walls of a building excluding court. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE GUIDE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES 38 Comfort Station: Public $330/FIXTURE 39 Commercial Use (a) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 40 Community Center $12/OCCUPANT 41 Conference Room of Office Bldg. $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 42 Counseling Center (h) $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 43 Credit Union $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 44 Dairy Average Flow 45 Dairy: Barn Average Flow 46 Dairy: Retail Area $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 47 Dancing Area (of Bars or Nightclub) (c) $1445/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 48 Dance Studio (i) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 49 Dental Office/Clinic $1032/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 50 Doughnut Shop $1540/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 51 Drug Rehabilitation Center (h) $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 52 Equipment Booth $124/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 53 Film Processing (Retail) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 54 Film Processing (Industrial) Actual 55 Food Processing Plant (b) Actual 56 Gas Station: Self Service $413/W.C. 57 Gas Station: Four Bays Max $3211/STATION 58 Golf Course Facility: Lobby/Office/Restaurant/Bar Total 59 Gymnasium: Basketball, Volleyball (k) $826/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 60 Hanger (Aircraft) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 61 Health Club/Spa (k) $2684/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 62 Homeless Shelter $289/BED 63 Hospital $422/BED 64 Hospital: Convalescent (a) $289/BED 65 Hospital: Animal $1811/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 66 Hospital: Psychiatric $289/BED 67 Hospital: Surgical (a) $1486/BED 68 Hotel: Use Guest Rooms Only (a) $495/ROOM 69 Jail $351/INMATE 70 Kennel: Dog Kennel/Open $413/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 71 Laboratory: Commercial $1032/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 72 Laboratory: Industrial Actual 73 Laundromat $855/MACHINE 74 Library: Public Area $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 75 Library: Stacks, Storage $124/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 76 Lobby of Retail Area (l) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. Page 2 (GR.SQ.FT.) = Gross Square Feet: area included within the exterior of the surrounding walls of a building excluding court. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE GUIDE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES 77 Lodge Hall $12/SEAT 78 Lounge (l) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 79 Machine Shop (No Industrial Waste Permit Required) (b) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 80 Machine Shop (Industrial) Actual 81 Mfg or Industrial Facility (No IW Permit Required) (b) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 82 Mfg or Industrial Facility (Industrial) Actual 83 Massage Parlor $1032/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 84 Medical Building (a) $929/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 85 Medical: Lab in Hospital $1057/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 86 Medical Office/Clinic $1032/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 87 Mini-Mall (No Food) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 88 Mortuary: Chapel $12/SEAT 89 Mortuary: Embalming $1644/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 90 Mortuary: Living Area $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 91 Motel: Use Guest Room Only (a) $495/ROOM 92 Museum: All Area $124/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 93 Museum: Office Over 15% $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 94 Museum: Sales Area $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 95 Office Building (a) $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 96 Office Bldg w/Cooling Tower $702/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 97 Plating Plant (No IW Permit Required) (b) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 98 Plating Plant (Industrial) (b) Actual 99 Pool Hall (No Alcohol) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 100 Post Office: Full Service (m) $495/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 101 Post Office: Private Mail Box Rental $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 102 Prisons $722/INMATE 103 Residential Dorm: College or Residential (n) $289/STUDENT 104 Residential: Boarding House $289/BED 105 Residential: Apt - Bachelor (a) $310/DU 106 Residential: Apt - 1 BDR (a) (o) $454/DU 107 Residential: Apt - 2 BDR (a) (o) $619/DU 108 Residential: Apt - 3 BDR (a) (o) $784/DU 109 Residential: Apt - >3 BDR (o) $165 PER ADDITIONAL BEDROOM 110 Residential: Condo - 1 BDR (o) $454/DU 111 Residential: Condo - 2 BDR (o) $619/DU 112 Residential: Condo - 3 BDR (o) $784/DU 113 Residential: Condo - >3 BDR (o) $165 PER ADDITIONAL BEDROOM 114 Residential: Duplex/Townhouse - 1 BR (o) $454/DU 115 Residential: Duplex/Townhouse - 2 BR (o) $619/DU Page 3 (GR.SQ.FT.) = Gross Square Feet: area included within the exterior of the surrounding walls of a building excluding court. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE GUIDE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES 116 Residential: Duplex/Townhouse - 3 BR (o) $784/DU 117 Residential: Duplex/Townhouse - >3 BR (o) $165 PER ADDITIONAL BEDROOM 118 Residential: SFD - 1 BR (o) $578/DU 119 Residential: SFD - 2 BR (o) $764/DU 120 Residential: SFD - 3 BR (o) $950/DU 121 Residential: SFD - >3 BR (o) $186/BDR 122 Residential Room Addition: Bedroom (o) $186/BDR 123 Residential Room Conversion: Into a Bedroom (o) $186/BDR 124 Residential: Mobile Home Same as Apt 125 Residential: Artist (2/3 Area) $310/DU 126 Residential: Artist Residence $310/DU 127 Residential: Guest Home w/ Kitchen Same as Apt 128 Residential: Guest Home w/o Kitchen $186/BDR 129 Rest Home $334/BED 130 Restaurant: Drive-In $275/STALL 131 Restaurant: Drive-In Seating Area $138/SEAT 132 Restaurant: Fast Food Indoor Seat $138/SEAT 133 Restaurant: Fast Food Outdoor Seat $138/SEAT 134 Restaurant: Full Service Indoor Seat (a) $165/SEAT 135 Restaurant: Full Service Outdoor Seat $165/SEAT 136 Restaurant: Take Out $1650/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 137 Retail Area (greater than 100,000 SF) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 138 Retail Area (less than 100,000 SF) $103/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 139 Rifle Range: Shooting Stalls/Lanes, Lobby $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 140 Rifle Range Facility: Bar/Restaurant Total 141 School: Arts/Dancing/Music (i) $45/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 142 School: Elementary/Jr. High (a) (p) $37/STUDENT 143 School: High School (a) (p) $45/STUDENT 144 School: Kindergarten (s) $37/STUDENT 145 School: Martial Arts (i) $37/STUDENT 146 School: Nursery-Day Care (p) $37/CHILD 147 School: Special Class (p) $37/STUDENT 148 School: Trade or Vocational (p) $45/STUDENT 149 School: Training (p) $45/STUDENT 150 School: University/College (a) (p) $66/STUDENT 151 School: Dormitory (a) (n) $289/STUDENT 152 School: Stadium, Pavilion $12/SEAT 153 Spa/Jacuzzi (Commercial with backwash filters)Total 154 Storage: Building/Warehouse $124/1000 GR.SQ.FT. Page 4 (GR.SQ.FT.) = Gross Square Feet: area included within the exterior of the surrounding walls of a building excluding court. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2012 SEWERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE GUIDE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES 155 Storage: Self-Storage Bldg $124/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 156 Store: Ice Cream/Yogurt $138/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 157 Store: Retail (l) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 158 Studio: Film/TV - Audience Viewing Room (q) $12/SEAT 159 Studio: Film/TV - Regular Use Indoor Filming Area (q) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 160 Studio: Film/TV - Ind. Use Film Process/Machine Shop (q) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 161 Studio: Film/TV - Ind. Use Film Process/Machine Shop Total 162 Studio: Recording $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 163 Swimming Pool (Commercial with backwash filters) Total 164 Tanning Salon: Independent, No Shower (r) $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 165 Tanning Salon: Within a Health Spa/Club $2642/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 166 Theater: Drive-In $25/VEHICLE 167 Theater: Live/Music/Opera $12/SEAT 168 Theater: Cinema $12/SEAT 169 Tract: Commercial/Residential $4/ACRE 170 Trailer: Const/Field Office (e) $495/OFFICE 171 Veterinary Clinic/Office $1032/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 172 Warehouse $124/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 173 Warehouse w/ Office Total 174 Waste Dump: Recreational $4130/STATION 175 Wine Tasting Room: Kitchen $826/1000 GR.SQ.FT. 176 Wine Tasting Room: All Area $206/1000 GR.SQ.FT. Page 5 Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 13 Appendix F LACSD – WILL SERVE LETTER DOC 7528081.D15 July 1, 2025 Ref. DOC 7527114 VIA EMAIL lrunyan@cvc-inc.net Ms. Lauren Runyan C & V Consulting Inc. 9830 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Dear Ms. Runyan: Will Serve Letter for 201 Colorado Place The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received your will serve letter request for the subject project located in the City of Arcadia on June 23, 2025. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundary of District No. 15. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Santa Anita Outfall Trunk Sewer, located in West Huntington Drive east of Holly Avenue. The Districts’ 21-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 2 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 0.5 mgd when last measured in 2020. 2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) located adjacent to the City of Industry, which has a capacity of 100 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 62.6 mgd. All biosolids and wastewater flows that exceed the capacity of the San Jose Creek WRP are diverted to and treated at the A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility (formerly known as the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant) in the City of Carson. 3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project, described in the application as 86 attached residential units, is 9,698 gallons per day, after all structures on the project site are demolished. For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater Program and Permits and select Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link. 4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-programs-permits/wastewater-revenue-program/revenue- program-rates. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at connectionfee@lacsd.org or (562) 908-4288, extension 2727. Ms. Lauren Runyan 2 July 1, 2025 DOC 7528081.D15 5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise the applicant that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the applicant of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts’ facilities. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (562) 908-4288, extension 2708, or at shirlywang@lacsd.org. Very truly yours, Shirly Wang Annexation and Will Serve Desk Coordinator Property Management Section SW:sw Sewer Area Study Arcadia, VTTM 84968 14 Appendix G CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING MAP Disclaimer: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.6 © City of Arcadia WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 0 Miles0.6 0.28 Legend 1: City of Arcadia Reported on 07/29/2025 04:18 PM 18,056 Notes This map was automatically generated using Geocortex Essentials. Addresses City Boundary Arcadia City Boundary Sphere of Influence Zoning Label Downtown Mixed Use Overlay Downtown Overlay Downtown Parking Overlay Parking Overlay Racetrack Event Overlay Residential Flex Overlay Special Height Overlay H Four stories or forty-five feet (H-4) Five stories or fifty-five feet (H-5) Six stories or sixty-five feet (H-6) Seven stories or seventy-five feet (H-7) Eight stories or ninety-five feet (H-8) Zoning R-O (22,000) R-O (15,000) R-O (30,000) Residential Mountainous (R-M) Low Density Residential (R-O) R-1 (15,000) R-1 (12,500) R-1 (7,500) Low Density Residential (R-1) Medium Density Residential (R-2) High Density Residential (R-3) Restricted High Density Residential (R-3-R) Central Business District (CBD) General Commercial (C-G) Appendix H Historic Resources Assessment 4/7/25 (P:\2025\20252274-201 Colorado Pl\Memo-201 Colorado Pl.docx) CARLSBAD CLOVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California 92507 951.781.9310 www.lsa.net MEMORANDUM DATE: April 7, 2025 TO: Mathew Waken, MW Investment Group LLC FROM: Casey Tibbet, M.A., Associate Cultural Resources Manager/Architectural Historian SUBJECT: Historic Resources Evaluation – Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object (BSO) Form for 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California (LSA Project Number 20252274) LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) completed a historical evaluation of the property at 201 Colorado Place (Assessor Identification Number 5775-011-032) in the City of Arcadia. In support of this effort, LSA conducted research and an intensive-level field survey. The evaluation was documented on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record) and 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms and the property was identified on a DPR Location Map. As a result of LSA’s evaluation of this property, it was determined that the 1956 Ranch style office building does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria or designation under the local ordinance. In summary, the building has served as the offices for the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association (CTBA) for its entire history. Although the CTBA is an important part of the support system for the Thoroughbred industry in California, research did not identify the CTBA as responsible for any innovations or advancements to the industry or the sport of horseracing. Similarly, no associations with historically important people or master architects or builders were found. Despite two additions, the building retains a high degree of architectural integrity but does not rise to a level above the ordinary and is not iconic. For these reasons, the property at 201 Colorado Place does not qualify as a “historical resource” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, for purposes of this project, the City may make a finding of “no impact” regarding built environment historical resources. The owner is, however, encouraged to offer intact original features such as the wood-framed windows, bricks, and possibly interior features to architectural salvage companies prior to demolition. Attachment: DPR Forms DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 8 Resource Name or #: 201 Colorado Place P1. Other Identifier: California Thoroughbred Breeders Association *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County: Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Wilson CA Date: 1988 T1N; R 11W; S.B.B.M. c. Address: 201 Colorado Place City: Arcadia Zip: 91007 d. UTM: Zone: 11; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN: 5775-011-032 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This one-story Ranch style office building is situated on the north corner of Colorado Place and San Juan Drive in a mixed-use area that includes commercial properties along Colorado Place to the north and south, Santa Anita Park (racetrack) to the west, and a residential neighborhood to the east. The building is irregular in plan and rests on a raised foundation. It is surmounted by a moderately-pitched, cross-hipped roof sheathed with architectural shingles and has moderate eaves, a brick chimney, and a cupola with a horse-themed weathervane. The exterior walls are clad with board-and-batten siding. Fenestration consists of wood-framed, multi-paned, double-hung windows many of which are flanked by decorative wood shutters. According to building permits, a 1,640 square-foot office addition was built in 1963, and a 1,500 square-foot office addition was built in 1976 (City of Arcadia var.). The west-facing, articulated, asymmetrical façade has 12 3-over-4 windows and 3 3-over-3 windows, a recessed wood and glass door flanked by sidelights, and a partial-width porch beneath an extended eave supported by 7 wood posts. The south elevation, which based on its gable-on-hip roof form and size appears to be the 1963 addition, has three windows and a door accessed by concrete steps. The east elevation is largely screened from view by vegetation, but the south end of the elevation is likely the 1976 addition. This elevation has at least seven windows, a brick chimney, and a patio area enclosed by a brick wall. The north elevation has six windows and two doors, both of which are topped by fabric awnings. A paved parking lot is north of the building. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (Original uses) HP6-1-3 story commercial property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) Façade, view east (3/21/25) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both 1956 (Building permit) *P7. Owner and Address: California Thoroughbred Breeders Association 201 Colorado Place Arcadia, CA 91007 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Casey Tibbet, M.A. LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92507 *P9. Date Recorded: March 21, 2025 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive-level CEQA compliance *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") None. *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) See Continuation Sheet DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 8 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 201 Colorado Place B1. Historic Name: California Thoroughbred Breeders Association B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Office B4. Present Use: Office *B5. Architectural Style: Ranch *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) According to Doug Burge, CTBA President, the building was originally a house that was gifted to the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association (Burge 2025). However, this was not substantiated by either building permits or aerial photographs which show no buildings on the property in 1954 (NETRonline 1954). Instead, it appears it was purposefully designed with residential elements, including a front lawn, a fireplace, and a private outdoor patio area. The following permits were found for this property (City of Arcadia var.): 1956 – Permit issued to owner California Thoroughbred Breeders Association for a new office and library. Contractor is listed as Shepard & Morgan. 1958 – Permit issued to owner California Thoroughbred Breeders Association for a new electric sign. 1963 – Permit issued to owner California Thoroughbred Breeders Association for a 1,640 square-foot office addition with exterior wood walls and a wood shake roof. Architect is listed as Nickman & Chow. Contractor is listed as Thomas Cos(?) Inc. 1965 – Permit issued to owner California Thoroughbred Association for new heat and air conditioning system in an existing building. 1976 – Permit issued to owner California Thoroughbred Breeders Association for a 1,500 square-foot office addition. Architect is listed as Wilke. Contractor is listed as McGoldrick Construction Company. Permit also issued for a curb break and driveway approach. 1987 – Permit issued to owner California Thoroughbred Association to remove the shake roof and sheath a portion of the roof (115 square-feet) with concrete tile. 1999 – Permit issued to owner California Thoroughbred for an alarm system. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: Nickman & Chow (1963 addition) b. Builder: Shepard & Morgan (original building) *B10. Significance: Theme: Area: Period of Significance: Property Type: Commercial property Applicable Criteria: NA (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This 1956 Ranch style office building does not meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or for designation under the city’s local ordinance. It is not a “historical resource” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Historic Context: Originally owned by the San Gabriel Mission and then a part of Rancho Santa Anita, the land that includes present-day Arcadia was deeded to Scottish immigrant Hugo Reid in 1839 (City of Arcadia 2012). Reid was the first to make a modern impact on the land, raising cattle and building the first structure (City of Arcadia 2012). After a succession of owners, in 1875 Elias J. “Lucky” Baldwin purchased the land, along with much of the surrounding area and named it Arcadia (Ibid.). Residential development from 1875 to 1909 is one of the first important themes in the City’s history (Architectural Resources Group 2016).See Continuation Sheet B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See Continuation Sheet B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Casey Tibbet, M.A., LSA Associates, Inc., 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, CA 92507 *Date of Evaluation: April 2025 (This space reserved for official comments.) (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) Refer to Location Map DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 3 of 8 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 201 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: April 2025 X Continuation Update P5a. Photo (continued from page 1) South elevation, view north (3/21/25). Based on the gable-on-hip roof form and the size (approximately 1,600 square-feet), this part of the building appears to be the 1963 addition. South end of the east elevation, view west (3/21/25). This appears to be the 1976 addition based on its size and configuration. North end of east elevation, view west (3/21/25). Note the brick wall around the patio (far left) and the brick chimney flanked by windows. North elevation, view south (3/21/25). *B10. Significance: (continued from page 2) Baldwin owned stock in the Santa Fe Railroad (ATSF) and got their mainline routed through his holdings in 1885, making it practical for him to subdivide part of his land into a town site. By 1887, Baldwin was actively attempting to draw residents to the area, but sales were slow. The densest development occurred in the core of the town around the intersection of 1st Avenue and Santa Clara Street, where the ATSF and the Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) intersected (Architectural Resources Group 2016:33). The term “dense” is used loosely as the 1908 Sanborn maps show only one or two residences per block (Ibid.). (see Continuation Sheet) DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 4 of 8 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 201 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: April 2025 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 3) Residential development in this part of town was on small lots, while development further south was on multi-acre parcels (ibid.). As late as 1903, when a census was taken to ascertain the population of the proposed City of Arcadia, the area only had 642 residents, and many lived and worked on the Baldwin Ranch or were temporary residents working for the railroads (Ibid.). Regardless, with a booming economy increasingly based on entertainment, sporting, hospitality, and gambling, Arcadia was incorporated in 1903, with Baldwin as its first mayor (City of Arcadia 2012). Moving into the 1910s, Arcadia’s growth remained slow and steady (Architectural Resources Group 2016). However, the city began shifting away from “its sporting days to more respectable pursuits, as it outlawed liquor licensing in 1912 and embarked on a series of civic improvements” (Architectural Resources Group 2016:44). By 1915, electric streetlights had been installed in some areas and streets were graded and oiled (Ibid.). Residential development in the 1910s saw the subdivision of larger parcels into smaller ones (2.5 to 5 acres) that attracted a wider variety of buyers who were interested in a more suburban lifestyle with room for some agricultural pursuits (Architectural Resources Group 2016:49). Most of the 1910s subdivisions followed a grid pattern with graded and sometimes paved roads without curbs or sidewalks (Architectural Resources Group 2016). After World War I, the region thrived and the 1920s were a transformative period in Arcadia’s development (Ibid.). Residential subdivision accelerated with tracts designed in grid patterns like those of the 1910s, but with smaller lots (Architectural Resources Group 2016:36). Single-family residential construction dominated the period (Ibid.). Most of these were modest in size and the earliest were constructed in the Craftsman style, with Period Revival styles becoming dominant in the mid-1920s and into the 1930s (Ibid.). These smaller lot subdivisions were located closer to the original town center, Pacific Electric lines, and the commercial district at Huntington and First, while the larger multi-acre lots were in what was then the southern part of town (Ibid.). The 1936 to 1945 period was characterized nationally by massive unemployment and economic uncertainty, but Arcadia was one of the few places that did not experience a near cessation of construction (Architectural Resources Group 2016:65). The major factors for this were Anita Baldwin selling off the remaining approximately 1,300 acres of the Baldwin Ranch; establishment of military facilities and the related increase in demand for commercial businesses; and construction of a County park, which was a large Works Progress Administration (WPA) project (Ibid.). The Baldwin acreage was parceled out into a number of residential subdivisions that jumpstarted construction between 1936 and 1941 (Ibid.). With the end of World War II (WWII) and the return of thousands of veterans, Arcadia and the greater Los Angeles area saw an enormous explosion in the development of affordable housing. Much of this development took the architectural vocabulary of the pre- war years and combined it into simplified styles suitable for mass developments and small-scale apartments (City of Los Angeles 2011). Development during the 1945-1970 period transformed the city from semi-rural to suburban earning it the nickname a “Community of Homes” (Architectural Resources Group 2016). Commercial development also soared during this period generally following “previously-established patterns of development along the city’s major pre-war thoroughfares, such as 1st Avenue, Huntington Drive, Foothill Boulevard [Route 66], and Baldwin Avenue, as well as along newer, auto-centered corridors such as Live Oak Avenue” (Architectural Resources Group 2016:96). Early in this period vacant lots in the business districts (Huntington Drive/1st Avenue and Baldwin Avenue/Duarte Road) were filled and the commercial corridors expanded, with Foothill Boulevard seeing its densest development during this time (Architectural Resources Group 2016). As commercial development became increasingly auto-oriented, new buildings reflected Modern styles and signage became more eye- catching (Ibid.). By the late 1950s and early 1960s, the city’s commercial development was quite diverse, including specialized consulting services, financial institutions, offices, and manufacturing companies (Ibid.). People/Businesses Associated with this Property. This office building was constructed in 1956 by Shepard & Morgan for the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association (CTBA) (City of Arcadia var). CTBA is still located in this building. In 1963, a 1,640 square-foot office addition designed by Nickman & Chow was constructed (Ibid.). According to an advertisement, Shepard & Morgan started business as realtors and builders in 1936 (Pasadena Star-News 1946). As early as 1945, they were based at 2300 Huntington Drive in San Marino (Pasadena Star-News 1945). The Streamline Moderne building they reportedly constructed for their offices at 2300 Huntington Drive in 1947, is extant but altered (Architectural Resources Group 2019). Thousands of real estate advertisements were found for Shepard & Morgan from 1945 through 1989 (Pasadena Star-News 1945; Monrovia News-Post 1989). While the company appears to have been prolific, no indication was found that they made any meaningful or impactful contributions to the fields of construction or real estate. Nickman and Chow, consisting of principals A. Arthur Nickman and Howard T. Chow, were the architects of record for the first office addition in 1963 (Ancestry.com var.; City of Arcadia var.; Daily News-Post 1969a). Nickman (1898-1989) was born in Calumet, Michigan and later lived and worked in Illinois before moving to California around 1951 (Ancestry.com var.). In 1952, he and his wife Sue were living in Alhambra and Nickman was listed as the resident architect for the new Statler Center, later known as the Wilshire Grand Hotel, (no longer extant) at 930 Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles (Los Angeles Times 1951; Vaught 2012). At the time, Nickman worked for Holabird & Root & Burgee based in Chicago (Los Angeles Times 1951). In 1953, Nickman was issued permits for a residence at 474 Harvard Drive in Arcadia (no longer extant; Daily News-Post 1953). Soon thereafter, he and his wife moved into a new home at 400 Harvard Drive (extant) (Ancestry.com var.). In 1955, while part of D. W. Carlson & Associates, (see Continuation Sheet) DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 5 of 8 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 201 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: April 2025 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 4) Nickman was listed as the supervising consultant for an expansion at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles (Los Angeles Times 1955).Just two years later (1957), A.A. Nickman & Associates was handling improvements to the Cocoanut Grove supper club at the Ambassador Hotel (Los Angeles Mirror 1957). In 1958, Nickman & Chow was formed (Bowker 1970). Tsing-Tai (Howard) Chow (1923-1977), was born in China, received a degree in architecture from the University of Southern California in 1949 followed by a Master’s degree in 1951, and became a naturalized United States citizen in 1959 (Ancestry.com var.; Bowker 1970). He married Irmgard Klee, a German immigrant, in 1955 in Los Angeles; the couple had three children (Eva, Iris, and Kenneth) and lived in Altadena and Pasadena (Ibid.). In 1968, Mr. Chow was “awarded a special trophy by the Southern California Edison Co. for excellence in electrical design for his planning and design of the A. S. Schulman Electric Company”, a Mid-Century Modern building at 4690 Worth Street in Los Angeles (extant) (Los Angeles Times 1968). That same year, a retirement complex he designed with “Oriental décor” and an “Oriental-type arched entry way” at 15152 Victory Boulevard in Van Nuys (extant) was completed (Los Angeles Evening Citizen News 1968; The Van Nuys News 1968). From 1958 to 1967, he was a principal in Nickman & Chow (Bowker 1970). In 1967, he organized Howard T. Chow & Associates based in Los Angeles (Bowker 1970). Aside from the subject building, research only identified one other building designed by Nickman & Chow: the 1959, 70-unit Westwood Garcin apartment hotel at 10833 Lindbrook Avenue in Westwood (not extant) (Los Angeles Times 1959). There is no indication that either architect was considered a master in their field. In 1933, legalized betting resumed in California with the passing of the Woolwine-Maloney Bill (Roberts, Taylor, and Weatherly 2015). This brought horse racing back to California full force, with the first meet held at the San Joaquin County Fair in Stockton in 1933 (California Thoroughbred Breeders Association 2025). Soon after, races were held at Santa Anita and other California locations (Ibid.). The CTBA was founded in 1937 in Arcadia as a nonprofit California corporation (California Thoroughbred Breeders Association 2025). According to their website, their primary goal is “the advancement of Thoroughbred breeding and racing in California” (Ibid.). In general, breeder associations maintain official breed line records, set breed standards and guidelines, support educational programs for better breeding practices, represent breeder interests, organize events and competitions, and foster industry growth and improved horse welfare. The “CTBA also administers California’s lucrative incentive awards program” totaling nearly $10 million in 2024 and conducts the Northern California Thoroughbred yearlings auction each year (Ibid.). In 1956, the CTBA moved to its current location at 201 Colorado Place across the street from Santa Anita Park (City of Arcadia var.). In 1969, a promotional article was published about the CTBA’s library. According to the article, “the Carleton F. Burke Memorial Library is one of the largest libraries in the nation dedicated solely to the study of horses” and a place where one “could find the breeding genecology of more than one million Thoroughbreds of all of the Thoroughbred breeders in American and British history” (Daily News-Post 1969b). The library was closed to the public in 2019 and most of the collection has been or is in the process of being relocated to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona) (Burge 2025). Horse racing plays a major role in the state’s economy, contributing billions of dollars a year to the state’s gross domestic product (Bloodhorse 2024). While the CTBA is an important part of the bureaucracy that supports California’s Thoroughbred industry, it does not appear to be responsible for any critical innovations or advancements in the industry or the sport of horse racing. Significance Evaluation. In compliance with CEQA, this property is being evaluated under the California Register criteria and the City of Arcadia criteria for Landmarks (Chapter 1, Section 9103.17.060 of the City’s Municipal Code). The California Register criteria and 1-4 of the local criteria are identical, however, in addition to meeting one of the first four criteria, the local criteria also requires that the property either be listed in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register (criterion 5) or be an iconic property (criterion 6). Because of this additional requirement, the local criteria is more restrictive than the California Register criteria. Therefore, it is possible for a resource to meet the California Register criteria, but not the local criteria. Criterion 1 - Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The CTBA was founded in Arcadia in 1937 and moved to a new building at 201 Colorado Place in 1956. Therefore, the Colorado Place building is associated with horseracing and the post-WWII construction boom, both of which are significant themes in the history of California, the Southern California region, and Arcadia. While the CTBA is an important part of the bureaucracy that supports California’s Thoroughbred industry, no evidence was found to suggest that the organization was responsible for any critical innovations or advancements in the industry or the sport of horse racing. For that reason, the building is not significant for its association with the CTBA or horseracing. This building was constructed during the period of postwar growth and expansion that played a profound role in shaping the built environment and character of Arcadia (Architectural Resources Group 2016:85). Although it is an office building, the scale and massing are residential in character. Therefore, it does not conform to the standard postwar pattern of commercial development which was typically flush with the sidewalk and featured prominent signage. However, it has a large parking lot, signage, and is used as an office so it does not conform to the typical residential design parameters either. For these reasons, it is not a representative example of a postwar commercial building. It is not significant under this criterion. See Continuation Sheet DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 6 of 8 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 201 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: April 2025 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 5) Criterion 2 - Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. Until recently, the property housed the Carleton F. Burke Memorial Library, which was “one of the most extensive collections of equine literature found anywhere” (California Thoroughbred Breeders Association 2025). Some of Mr. Burke’s accomplishments include being “the first chairman of the California Horse Racing Board, director of racing at Santa Anita, and a secretary-treasurer of the CTBA” (ibid.). He died in 1962 and the following year the library was named for him (Ibid.). Research found no indication that he had a leadership role in establishing or expanding the library and no associations with any other historically important people were found for the building. It is not significant under this criterion. Criterion 3 - Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. This office building has a residential character that embodies several characteristics of the Ranch style such as its low, horizontal massing, board-and-batten siding, wood-framed windows, and recessed front porch. However, this is an exceedingly common style in Arcadia and the greater region. This building does not express the aesthetic ideals or design concepts of the style more fully than other Ranch style buildings in the area. No evidence was found that it is the work of master architects or builders. It is not significant under this criterion. Criterion 4 - Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. This office building was built in 1956 using common materials and construction practices. It does not have the potential to yield information important to the history or prehistory of the local area, California, or the nation. In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the local criteria requires that one of the following criteria be met. Local Criterion 5 – Is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources. The online National Register database (current through 2012) and the National Register weekly lists from 2013 through the present, were searched, but no listings for this property were found (National Park Service n.d.a and n.d.b). In addition, a variety of sources were consulted including the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), the 2016 Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report, and the Los Angeles Conservancy website to determine whether this property is listed in or is eligible for listing in either the National Register or California Register (California Office of Historic Preservation 2021). No listing for this property was found. Local Criterion 6 – Is an iconic property. According to the City’s ordinance, iconic means a property that “exhibits the City’s unique character, history, or identity and/or has been visited and photographed so often by residents and visitors to the city that it has become inextricably associated with Arcadia” (9103.17.160 Definitions). An online search of images associated with the CTBA did not result in any photographs of the subject property. Instead, images of horses, logos, and other aspects of horse racing and the people involved with horse racing were found. An online image search using the property address returned only two photographs of the building. Based on this, it does not appear to be an iconic building in Arcadia. It is not significant under this criterion. *B12. References: (continued from page 2) Ancestry.com Var. A variety of records were accessed online in March 2025 at: http://home.ancestry.com/. These include city directories, voter registration records, and United States Census Data. Architectural Resources Group 2016 “City of Arcadia Citywide Historic Context Statement.” Accessed online at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city- departments/development-services/historic-preservation 2019 “City of San Marino Citywide Historic Context Statement – Draft.” Accessed online in March 2025 at: https://cms9files.revize.com/cityofsanmarino/planning/Historic%20Survey/San%20Marino%20Historic%20Context%20Statem ent%20Draft%204.1.19.pdf Bloodhorse 2024 CA Horse Industry Sees Economic Growth Since 2018. Edited Press Release from California Horse Power Coalition. Accessed online in March 2025 at: https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/275060/ca-horse-industry-sees- economic-growth-since-2018#:~:text=Racing%20continues%20to%20be%20the,other%20state%20in%20the%20nation. See Continuation Sheet DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 7 of 8 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 201 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: April 2025 X Continuation Update *B12. References: (continued from page 6) Bowker, R. R. 1970 1970 American Architects Directory. Accessed online in March 2025 at: https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/pages/20873518/1970+American+Architects+Directory Burge, Doug 2025 Personal communication with Mr. Burge at 201 Colorado Place on March 21, 2025. California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2021 Built Environment Resource Directory for Los Angeles County. Accessed online in March 2025 at: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338 City of Arcadia Var. Building permits for 201 Colorado Place. Accessed online in March 2025 at: https://laserfiche.arcadiaca.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=537578&cr=1 2012 History of Arcadia. http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/home/index. asp?page=1102 City of Los Angeles 2011 Jefferson Park HPOZ Preservation Plan, City of Los Angeles. On file at the City of Los Angeles. Daily News-Post 1953 Arcadia Building Permits Slump. September 18, page 4. 1955 Hotel Advancing Big Improvement Program. July 24, page 110. 1969a Legal-Public Notice. Notice of Marshal’s Sale. August 22, page 13. 1969b Arcadia & adjacent cities Real Estate New Listings Twice Weekly. September 17, page 25. Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor n.d. Property information accessed online in March 2025 at: https://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/m/ Los Angeles Evening Citizen 1968 Retirement Complex Completed. June 28, page 11. Los Angeles Mirror 1957 Cocoanut Grove Gets $500,000 Overhaul Job. April 11, page 43. Los Angeles Times 1951 Statler Center Pushing Up Into City’s Skyline. August 6, page 19. 1959 Photograph caption “Planned”. July 19, page 112. 1968 Trophy Awarded. July 21, page J-16. Monrovia News-Post 1989 Real estate advertisements. December 10, page 24. National Park Service n.d.a National Register Database and Research. Accessed online in March 2025 at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm n.d.b Weekly Lists Previous Years. Accessed online in March 2025 at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-lists-previous-years.htm Pasadena Star-News 1945 Advertisement, Houses for Sale. March 3, page 15. 1946 Advertisement, Houses for Sale. August 11, page 37. Roberts, Paul, Isabelle Taylor, and Laurence Weatherly 2015 Looking back: The lost tracks of the San Francisco Bay Area. Accessed online in March 2025 at: https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/2108/looking-back-lost-tracks-san-francisco-bay-area/ The Van Nuys News 1968 Opening Scheduled Today for Retirement Residence. June 16, page 36. Vaught, Steve 2012 So Long Statler – A Cheerless End for L.A.’s Atomic Age Hotel. Accessed online in March 2025 at: https://paradiseleased.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/so-long-statler-a-cheerless-end-for-l-a-s-atomic-age-hotel/ 11/7/25 P:\2025\20252629-225 Colorado Pl\Memo-225 Colorado Pl.docx) CARLSBAD CLOVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California 92507 951.781.9310 www.lsa.net MEMORANDUM DATE: November 7, 2025 TO: Matt Waken, MW Investments, LLC FROM: Casey Tibbet, M.A., Associate Cultural Resources Manager/Architectural Historian SUBJECT: Historic Resources Evaluation – Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object (BSO) Form for 225 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California (LSA Project Number 20252629) LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) completed a historical evaluation of the property at 225 Colorado Place (Assessor Identification Number 5775-011-031) in the City of Arcadia. In support of this effort, LSA conducted research and an intensive-level field survey. The evaluation was documented on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record) and 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms and the property was identified on a DPR Location Map. As a result of LSA’s evaluation of this property, it was determined that the altered 1963 Motel 6 does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria or designation under the local ordinance. In summary, the motel was built on Route 66 in 1963, but no evidence was found that its marketing specifically targeted Route 66 travelers. Although it is associated with the theme Postwar Commercial Development, 1946-1970, it is not one of the associated property types identified by the citywide historic context statement. It is associated with William Becker and Paul Greene who specialized in low-cost housing developments and pioneered the Motel 6 formula, but the original Motel 6 is extant in Santa Barbara and has a stronger association with Becker and Greene than the numerous subsequent motels they built. The motel has sustained extensive alterations including removal of the original brick siding and rock roof, replacement of the original pole sign, and interior and exterior Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance improvements to the buildings, pool, and site. Although two vintage postcards of the motel were found, there is no indication that the property is iconic or particularly representative of Arcadia. For these reasons, the property at 225 Colorado Place does not qualify as a “historical resource” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, for purposes of this project, the City may make a finding of “no impact” regarding built environment historical resources. Attachment: DPR Forms DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 10 Resource Name or #: 225 Colorado Place P1. Other Identifier: Motel 6 *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County: Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Wilson CA Date: 1988 T1N; R 11W; Section: 28; S.B.B.M. c. Address: 225 Colorado Place City: Arcadia Zip: 91007 d. UTM: Zone: 11; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN: 5775-011 -031 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This two-story motel is on the east side of Colorado Place, which became part of Route 66 in the 1930s, and across the street from Santa Anita Park. Other surrounding properties include an elementary school to the north, a residential neighborhood to the east, and a commercial property to the south. The motel consists of two buildings attached by a breezeway and arranged in roughly an L shape. There is a swimming pool south of the buildings and parking on all sides of the buildings. There is a non- original, freestanding sign with a brick base in a landscaped planter adjacent to the southern driveway. Both buildings are rectangular in plan and have low-pitched, gable-on-hip roofs sheathed with composition shingles. Wide eaves shelter the continuous second-floor balconies that wrap completely around both buildings. The exterior walls are covered with stucco. Fenestration consists of iodized aluminum-framed, sliding windows with wall-mounted air conditioning units beneath each window. Doors appear to be paneled metal. The front building is oriented northwest/southeast and faces Colorado Place. The southwest-facing, nearly symmetrical façade features eight brick columns spanned by metal balustrades that support the balcony and the eave over the balcony. There are exterior stairs recessed under the balcony on the north and south ends of the building. On the south end of this building there are five brick columns, arranged in two pairs and a single, supporting the wide eave and balcony, a small vinyl-framed sliding window, and a window with a metal shelf under it. The brick columns are not original. The north end of this building has one-story stucco columns that support the balcony and a breezeway that connects to the other building. The northeast (rear) elevation has no columns supporting the cantilevered balcony or the wide eave. The check-in office is at the southeast end of this elevation and has metal-framed glass windows and a door. (See Continuation Sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (Original uses) HP5-Hotel *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) Overview of property from the street, showing the front building, view north (10/17/25). *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both 1963 (Building permit) *P7. Owner and Address: SKK Arcadia Holding LLc Mike Kalthia 445 Hotel Cir S San Diego, CA 92108 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Casey Tibbet, M.A. LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92507 *P9. Date Recorded: October 17, 2025 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive-level CEQA compliance *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") None. *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) See Continuation Sheet DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 10 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 225 Colorado Place B1. Historic Name: Motel 6 B2. Common Name: Motel 6 B3. Original Use: Motel B4. Present Use: Motel *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 1963 – Permit issued to Motel 6 to build a new 86-unit, two-story motel with stucco and masonry exterior walls and a rock roof. Architect/contractor is listed as Paul A. Greene Co. Permit issued for a 48 square-foot ground sign. 1978 – Permit issued for a 45 square-foot pole sign. 1987 – Permit issued to re-roof 163 square-feet. 1992 – Permits issued to “retrofit motel”. This appears to be related to ADA compliance throughout the buildings, including replacement of fixtures, five handicapped accessible restrooms, and “wiring remodel”. 1993 – Permits issued for ADA compliance involving a combination of sidewalk, curb, and gutter, remodel the pool, construct a new garden wall at the pool, reface pole sign and wall sign, add 24 feet of masonry wall, install fire sprinklers and alarm. 1995 – Permit issued for an illuminated awning/Welcome sign above the office. 2002 – Permit to re-roof over existing roof with 30-year dimensional shingle (175 square-feet). 2007 – Permits issued for accessibility improvements and minor repairs from car damage. 2008 – Permit issued to repair employee break room. 2014 – Permit issued for a new “Welcome” bar over office. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: parking lot and swimming pool B9a. Architect: Paul A. Greene Co. b. Builder: Paul A. Greene Co. *B10. Significance: Theme: Not Applicable (NA) Area: NA Period of Significance: NA Property Type: NA Applicable Criteria: NA (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This 1963 motel does not meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or designation under the local ordinance. It is not a “historical resource” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Historic Context: Originally owned by the San Gabriel Mission and then a part of Rancho Santa Anita, the land that includes present-day Arcadia was deeded to Scottish immigrant Hugo Reid in 1839 (City of Arcadia 2012). Reid was the first to make a modern impact on the land, raising cattle and building the first structure (City of Arcadia 2012). After a succession of owners, in 1875 Elias J. “Lucky” Baldwin purchased the land, along with much of the surrounding area and named it Arcadia (Ibid.). Residential development from 1875 to 1909 is one of the first important themes in the City’s history (Architectural Resources Group 2016).See Continuation Sheet B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: Architectural Resources Group 2016 “City of Arcadia Citywide Historic Context Statement.” Accessed online at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city- departments/development-services/historic-preservation See Continuation Sheet B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Casey Tibbet, M.A., LSA Associates, Inc., 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, CA 92507 *Date of Evaluation: November 2025 (This space reserved for official comments.) (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) Refer to Location Map DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 3 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 225 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: November 2025 X Continuation Update *P3a. Description: (continued from page 1) The rear building is oriented northeast/southwest and is barely visible from the street. This building has cantilevered balconies on the northwest and southeast elevations. On the northeast and southwest elevations there are five one-story stucco columns, arranged in two pairs and a single, that support the balcony. The property is well maintained and appears to be in good condition. P5a. Photo (continued from page 1) Façade, front building, view northeast (10/17/25). The pool is in the gated area on the far right side of the photo. Façade of the front building and the northwest elevation of rear building, view east (10/17/25). Northwest elevation of rear building and north elevation of front building (far right), view south-southeast (10/17/25). See Continuation Sheet DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 4 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 225 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: November 2025 X Continuation Update P5a. Photo (continued from page 3) Northeast and southeast elevations of the rear building and northeast (rear) elevation of the front building, view south-southwest (10/17/25). Southwest and southeast elevations of the front building, view west (10/17/25). The gated pool area is at the far left of this photo. See Continuation Sheet DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 5 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 225 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: November 2025 X Continuation Update P5a. Photo (continued from page 4) Undated postcard of Route 66 at 225 Colorado Place in Arcadia (Hippostcard 2025a). Postcard post marked 1977. Note brick exterior walls, original pole sign, and lack of fencing around the pool area. Printed information on the back of the postcard notes the motel is across the street from Santa Anita Race Track (Hippostcard 2025b). *B10. Significance: (continued from page 2) In 1885, the main line of the Santa Fe Railroad, in which Baldwin was a stockholder, was opened through Baldwin’s property, making it practical to subdivide part of the land into a town site. By 1887, Baldwin was actively attempting to draw residents to the area, but sales were slow. The densest development occurred in the core of the town around the intersection of 1st Avenue and Santa Clara Street, where the ATSF and Southern Pacific railroads intersected (Architectural Resources Group 2016:33). The term “dense” is used loosely as the 1908 Sanborn maps show only one or two residences per block (Ibid.). Residential development in this part of town was on small lots, while development further south was on multi-acre parcels (Ibid.). As late as 1903, (see Continuation Sheet) DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 6 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 225 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: November 2025 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 2) when a census was taken to ascertain the population of the proposed City of Arcadia, the area only had 642 residents and many lived and worked on the Baldwin Ranch or were temporary residents working for the railroads (Ibid.). Regardless, with a booming economy increasingly based on entertainment, sporting, hospitality, and gambling, Arcadia was incorporated in 1903, with Baldwin as its first mayor (City of Arcadia 2012). Moving into the 1910s, Arcadia’s growth remained slow and steady (Architectural Resources Group 2016). However, the city began shifting away from “its sporting days to more respectable pursuits, as it outlawed liquor licensing in 1912 and embarked on a series of civic improvements” (Architectural Resources Group 2016:44). By 1915, electric streetlights had been installed in some areas and streets were graded and oiled (Ibid.). Residential development in the 1910s saw the subdivision of larger parcels into smaller ones (2.5 to 5 acres) that attracted a wider variety of buyers who were interested in a more suburban lifestyle with room for some agricultural pursuits (Architectural Resources Group 2016:49). Most of the 1910s subdivisions followed a grid pattern with graded and sometimes paved roads without curbs or sidewalks (Architectural Resources Group 2016). After World War I, the region thrived and the 1920s were a transformative period in Arcadia’s development (Ibid.). Residential subdivision accelerated with tracts designed in grid patterns like those of the 1910s, but with smaller lots (Architectural Resources Group 2016:36). Single-family residential construction dominated the period (Ibid.). Most of these were modest in size and the earliest were constructed in the Craftsman style, with Period Revival styles becoming dominant in the mid-1920s and into the 1930s (Ibid.). These smaller lot subdivisions were located closer to the original town center, Pacific Electric lines, and the commercial district at Huntington and First, while the larger multi-acre lots were in what was then the southern part of town (Ibid.). The 1936 to 1945 period was characterized nationally by massive unemployment and economic uncertainty, but Arcadia was one of the few places that did not experience a near cessation of construction (Architectural Resources Group 2016:65). The major factors for this were Anita Baldwin selling off the remaining approximately 1,300 acres of the Baldwin Ranch; establishment of military facilities and the related increase in demand for commercial businesses; and construction of a County park, which was a large Works Progress Administration (WPA) project (Ibid.). The Baldwin acreage was parceled out into a number of residential subdivisions that jumpstarted construction between 1936 and 1941 (Ibid.). With the end of World War II (WWII) and the return of thousands of veterans, Arcadia and the greater Los Angeles area saw an enormous explosion in the development of affordable housing. Much of this development took the architectural vocabulary of the pre- war years and combined it into simplified styles suitable for mass developments and small-scale apartments (City of Los Angeles 2011). Development during the 1945-1970 period transformed the city from semi-rural to suburban earning it the nickname a “Community of Homes” (Architectural Resources Group 2016). Commercial development also soared during this period generally following “previously-established patterns of development along the city’s major pre-war thoroughfares, such as 1st Avenue, Huntington Drive, Foothill Boulevard [Route 66], and Baldwin Avenue, as well as along newer, auto-centered corridors such as Live Oak Avenue” (Architectural Resources Group 2016:96). Early in this period vacant lots in the business districts (Huntington Drive/1st Avenue and Baldwin Avenue/Duarte Road) were filled and the commercial corridors expanded, with Foothill Boulevard seeing its densest development during this time (Architectural Resources Group 2016). As commercial development became increasingly auto-oriented, new buildings reflected Modern styles and signage became more eye- catching (Ibid.). By the late 1950s and early 1960s, the city’s commercial development was quite diverse, including specialized consulting services, financial institutions, offices, and manufacturing companies (Ibid.). Route 66. In the early 1930s, Route 66 was re-routed along Colorado Place and Colorado Street to connect the Arcadia segments of Route 66 on Huntington Drive and Foothill Boulevard (The Route-66 2014-2025). This was the Route 66 alignment from 1934 to 1974 through Arcadia (Ibid.). As might be expected, there were numerous Route 66-related businesses, such as restaurants, motels, and service stations, along this part of Route 66, but few have survived. Two survivors on Huntington Drive, southeast of the subject property, are Denny’s Windmill Restaurant and Rod’s Grill. Noteworthy establishments along the Colorado Place/Colorado Street segment of Route 66 are listed in the table below (Ibid.). Although Motel 6 was built in 1963 on Route 66, it is not identified as a Route 66-associated property by either the Citywide Historic Context Statement or various Route 66 online sources. There is no indication that marketing for this Motel 6 specifically targeted Route 66 travelers. Name Address Year Built Extant/Not Extant The Westerner motel and restaurant 161 Colorado Place Circa 1948 Not extant Frontier Motel 275 Colorado Place Circa 1963 Extant (converted to apartment) Frontier Drive-In 250 W. Colorado 1953 Not extant Motel 6. Motel 6 was formed in 1962 by two Santa Barbara contractors, William Becker and Paul Greene, who specialized in low-cost housing projects (Encyclopedia.com 2019). Becker and Greene enjoyed road trips and identified (see Continuation Sheet) DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 7 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 225 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: November 2025 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 6) an unmet need: “consistently affordable, clean and comfortable lodging” (Wallis 2022). Approaching the problem from a contractor’s perspective instead of from the hospitality perspective, the duo spent two years developing a model that would allow them to charge $6.00 a night (Encyclopedia.com; Wallis 2022). To accomplish this, they reduced costs wherever possible. Some of their unique ideas included eliminating dining facilities, building the beds flush with the floor and using rounded corners in the showers to reduce cleaning time, replacing glass cups with Styrofoam, using wash and wear sheets, eliminating dressers, and installing coin operated black and white television sets (Encyclopedia.com 2019). Advertising relied exclusively on billboards (Ibid.)The first Motel 6 was built in Santa Barbara in 1962 at 443 Corona Del Mar and established a pattern that was almost immediately successful (Wallis 2022). Built the following year, the Arcadia Motel 6 is similar to the original in Santa Barbara, which also has two, two-story buildings connected by a breezeway, a gable-on-hip roof, and a continuous balcony with exterior stairs. The original building’s support columns are slender, with some extending to the eaves and others only supporting the balcony. “Four years after the first Motel 6 opened, there were 26 motels in operation, each built for 50 percent of the construction costs other motel properties required. The company generated more than $4 million in sales in 1966 and earned more than $750,000, double the figures recorded the previous year” (Encyclopedia.com 2019). Motel 6 expanded into Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, and Iowa, targeting communities with a population of at least 50,000 (Ibid.). Through the 1960s, the chain’s successes grew and in 1967 Newsweek interview, Becker stated that he and Greene were “sort of mavericks in this business” (Ibid.). The company was acquired by City Investing Company, which allowed it to expand at a robust pace (Ibid.). In the 1970s, the budget motel sector, which in 1972 accounted for about 3 percent of the hotel industry’s aggregate revenue, became more competitive as larger hotel brands attempted to offer budget-friendly options (Encyclopedia.com 2019). Motel 6 had 110 motels in 30 states with plans to build 570 more by the end of the 1970s, but those plans collapsed along with the economy (Ibid.). In 1985, the company only had 378 properties in operation; that year they were bought by an investor group led by Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Company (KKR) for $881 million (Ibid.). Due to more competition, in the 1980s the occupancy rate also consistently shrunk (Ibid.). To combat this, KKR began adding amenities originally eschewed by Becker and Greene such as installing telephones and color television sets and establishing a major marketing campaign (Ibid.). In 1986, Motel 6’s radio advertising campaign featured National Public Radio announcer Tom Bodett’s signature tag line “We’ll leave the light on for you” (Ibid.). Success was nearly immediate. Motel 6 expanded from 401 motels in 39 states in 1986 to 554 motels in 42 states by 1990 (Encyclopedia.com 2019). That same year, it was sold again, this time to a French conglomerate for $1.3 billion (Ibid.). In 1992, Motel 6 broadcast its first television commercials (Ibid.). In 1993, the company lost $40 million in part due to a highly publicized rape case that occurred at a Texas Motel 6 (Ibid.). This created a public perception that Motel 6 was not safe, and the company sold off about 100 locations and increased security at its other motels (Ibid.). In 1996, after launching a franchising campaign and dumping $600 million into modern upgrades like interior corridors, data ports, a computerized front desk, swimming pools, and improved security, the company was once again profitable (Ibid.). In 2000, Motel 6 expanded internationally and in 2011, its 1,000th property opened (Wallis 2022). A new era of transformation began in 2012 when Blackstone acquired the chain (Ibid.). In 2022, Motel 6 was “the last remaining scaled and privately owned hotel brand in the economy space, with more than 1,400 franchise-owned properties across the 49 U.S. states and six Canadian provinces, serving more than five million guests annually. Two in five of these guests are repeat guests” (Ibid.). Santa Barbara Motel 6 at 443 Corona Del Mar (Google 2025). See Continuation Sheet DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 8 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 225 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: November 2025 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 7) Postwar Commercial Development, 1946-1970. Postwar Commercial Development, 1946-1970 has been identified as an important theme in the history of Arcadia (Architectural Resources Group 2016). Postwar commercial properties are relatively common in Arcadia, therefore eligible examples will typically need to convey a particularly important association with patterns of postwar development and history (Architectural Resources Group 2016:98). Property types associated with this theme include restaurants/walk up food stands, bowling alleys, and historic districts (Ibid.). The citywide survey did not identify this Motel 6 as potentially significant individually or as part of a potential historic district. Significance Evaluation. In compliance with CEQA, this property is being evaluated under the California Register criteria and the City of Arcadia criteria for Landmarks (Chapter 1, Section 9103.17.060 of the City’s Municipal Code). The California Register criteria and 1-4 of the local criteria are identical, however, in addition to meeting one of the first four criteria, the local criteria also requires that the property either be listed in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register (criterion 5) or be an iconic property (criterion 6). Because of this additional requirement, the local criteria is more restrictive than the California Register criteria. Therefore, it is possible for a resource to meet the California Register criteria, but not the local criteria. Criterion 1 - Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. This motel is associated with Route 66 and the theme Postwar Commercial Development, 1946-1970. According to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) for U.S. Highway 66 in California (1926-1974), properties may be eligible for listing in the National Register for their association with Commerce, Social History, or Recreation and the development and history of Route 66. This Motel 6 was built in 1963 on Route 66 but was not related to the development of Route 66. As stated in the MPDF, in the Los Angeles basin “it is necessary to establish that a business was providing its goods and services in direct response to the through-traveler” (Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2011:F-91). More specifically, there needs to be documentation “linking the property to efforts to provide travel accommodations specifically to tourists along the route” (Ibid.). In this case, no evidence was found that marketing for this Motel 6 was geared specifically toward Route 66 travelers. It is not significant for its association with Route 66. According to the citywide historic context statement, commercial properties associated with Postwar Commercial Development, 1946- 1970, reflect Arcadia’s rapid growth during this period and an auto-centric development pattern. Because these resources are so common, property types associated with this theme are identified as restaurants/walk up food stands, bowling alleys, and historic districts. Motel 6 does reflect the auto-centric postwar development pattern but is not one of the important property types identified by the historic context statement. On its own, it does not reflect this theme. It is not significant under these criteria. Criterion 2 - Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. Based on the research discussed above, the motel is associated with William Becker and Paul Greene who devised the Motel 6 formula and were responsible for its early success. These Santa Barbara-based contractors, who specialized in low-cost housing, are essentially responsible for establishing the budget motel sector and making it profitable. By approaching their goal of charging $6 a night from a building perspective, they identified numerous ways to reduce costs without sacrificing quality, cleanliness, or security. However, the pair’s original Motel 6, in Santa Barbara, is extant and is more strongly associated with them than the numerous others that were built later. For this reason, this Motel 6 is not significant under these criteria. Criterion 3 - Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. This Motel 6 does not embody the characteristics of a specific architectural style. It has been extensively altered including construction of interior and exterior ADA-compliance improvements, replacement of the brick exterior with stucco, wrapping the support columns with brick, and replacement of the original rock roof and pole sign. These changes have compromised its architectural integrity. It does not possess high artistic values. Although William Becker and Paul Greene were innovators in the budget motel sector, no evidence was found that they are master architects or builders. The motel is not significant under these criteria. Criterion 4 - Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. This motel was built in 19 63 using common materials and construction practices. It does not have the potential to yield information important to the history or prehistory of the local area, California, or the nation. See Continuation Sheet DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 9 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 225 Colorado Place *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: November 2025 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 8) In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the local criteria require that one of the following criteria be met. Local Criterion 5 – Is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources. The online National Register database (current through 2012) and the National Register weekly lists from 2013 through the present, were searched, but no listings for this property were found (National Park Service n.d.a and n.d.b). In addition, a variety of sources were consulted including the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), the 2016 Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report, and the Los Angeles Conservancy website to determine whether this property is listed in or is eligible for listing in either the National Register or California Register (California Office of Historic Preservation 2021). No listing for this property was found. Local Criterion 6 – Is an iconic property. According to the City’s ordinance, iconic means a property that “exhibits the City’s unique character, history, or identity and/or has been visited and photographed so often by residents and visitors to the city that it has become inextricably associated with Arcadia” (9103.17.160 Definitions). Although this motel was built on Route 66 in 1963, no evidence was found that its marketing targeted Route 66 travelers or that Route 66 enthusiasts associate it with Route 66. It has not been extensively photographed . It is not iconic and is not significant under this criterion. *B12. References: (continued from page 2) California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2021 Built Environment Resource Directory for Los Angeles County. Accessed online in November 2025 at: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338 City of Arcadia Var. Building permits for 225 Colorado Place. Accessed online in October 2025 at: https://laserfiche.arcadiaca.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=537578&cr=1 2012 History of Arcadia. http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/home/index. asp?page=1102 City of Los Angeles 2011 Jefferson Park HPOZ Preservation Plan, City of Los Angeles. On file at the City of Los Angeles. Encyclopedia.com 2019 Motel 6. Accessed online in November 2025 at: https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/motel- 6 Google 2025 Street view photographs of Motel 6 at 443 Corona Del Mar in Santa Barbara, California. April. Hippostcard 2025a c1950s Motel 6 225 Colorado Place Arcadia California. Accessed online in November 2025 at: https://www.hippostcard.com/listing/c1950s-motel-6-225-colorado-place-arcadia-california-ca-cars-vintage- postcard/45965035 2025b Arcadia, California Motel 6 Roadside Los Angeles County 1977 Vintage Postcard. Accessed online in November 2025 at: https://www.hippostcard.com/listing/arcadia-california-motel-6-roadside-los-angeles-county-1977-vintage-postcard/44121840 Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor n.d. Property information accessed online in October 2025 at: https://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/m/ Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2011 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form for U.S. Highway 66 in California. On file at LSA. National Park Service n.d.a National Register Database and Research. Accessed online in November 2025 at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm n.d.b Weekly Lists Previous Years. Accessed online in November 2025 at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-lists-previous-years.htm The Route-66 2014-2025 Arcadia California. Accessed online in November 2025 at: https://www.theroute-66.com/arcadia-ca.html#later Wallis, Greg 2022 Motel 6 “leaves light on” for 60 years. Hotel Business, September 2022. Accessed online in November 2025 at: https://togo.hotelbusiness.com/article/motel-6-leaves-light-on-for-60-years/ Appendix I Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com June 26, 2025 Project No. 25041-01 Mr. Matthew J. Waken Crestfield Townhomes, LLC 27702 Crown Valley Parkway, Suite D-4-197 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations, Proposed Residential Development, Located at 225 Colorado Place (Motel 6) and 201 Colorado Place, Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development, located at 225 Colorado Place (Motel 6) and 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the existing onsite geotechnical conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed residential development. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully Submitted, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. Ryan Douglas, PE, GE 3147 Mason Gonzales, PG 10174 Vice President of Engineering Project Geologist John Navarrete Senior Staff Engineer RLD/JMN/amm Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic copy) Project No. 25041-01 Page i June 26, 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation ............................................................................................... 3 1.4 Field Infiltration Testing ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Regional Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Site-Specific Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions ............................................... 6 2.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Faulting ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement .............................................................................. 9 2.5.2 Lateral Spreading .................................................................................................................... 10 2.6 Oversized Material ................................................................................................................................ 10 2.7 Expansion Potential .............................................................................................................................. 10 3.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 11 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 12 4.1 Site Earthwork ....................................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.1 Site Preparation ....................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction Depths and Limits .......................................................... 13 4.1.3 Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................................... 14 4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation .............................................................. 15 4.1.5 Material for Fill ........................................................................................................................ 15 4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills ................................................................................... 16 4.1.7 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction ................................................. 16 4.1.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence .................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ............................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design Parameters .................................... 18 4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters ............................... 18 4.2.3 Post-Tensioned Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance ............. 18 4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines .......................................................................................... 19 4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance .............................................................................................. 20 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls .............................................................................. 20 4.5 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control ......................................................................... 22 4.6 Subsurface Water Infiltration ........................................................................................................... 23 4.7 Preliminary Asphalt Pavement Sections .................................................................................... 25 4.8 Soil Corrosivity ....................................................................................................................................... 26 4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................... 27 4.10 Geotechnical Plan Review .................................................................................................................. 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d) Project No. 25041-01 Page ii June 26, 2025 4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction ................................................ 28 5.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 29 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES, AND APPENDICES Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 2) Figure 2 – Boring Location Map (Rear of Text) Figure 3 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail (Rear of Text) Tables Table 1 – Summary of Field Infiltration Testing (Page 4) Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters (Page 8) Table 3 – Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Onsite or Imported Sandy Soils (Page 21) Table 4 – Shallow Surface Infiltration - Reduction Factors Applied to Infiltration Rate (Page 24) Table 5 – Preliminary Pavement Sections (Page 25) Table 6 – Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Guidelines for Very Low Expansion Potential (Page 27) Appendices Appendix A – References Appendix B – Boring Logs Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results Appendix D – Infiltration Test Results Appendix E – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Project No. 25041-01 Page 1 June 26, 2025 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development, located at 225 and 201 Colorado Place in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California. Refer to the Site Location Map (Figure 1). The purpose of our study was to provide a geotechnical evaluation relative to the proposed residential development. As part of our scope of work, we have: 1) reviewed available geotechnical information and in-house geologic maps pertinent to the site (Appendix A); 2) performed a subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site consisting of the excavation and sampling of eight small-diameter borings ranging from approximately 10.0 to 50.5 feet below existing ground surface, 3) performed four falling head infiltration tests within the borings; 4) performed laboratory testing of select soil samples obtained during our subsurface evaluation; and 5) prepared this preliminary geotechnical summary report presenting our findings and preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the development of the proposed project. It should be noted that our evaluation and this report only address geotechnical issues associated with the site and do not address any environmental issues. 1.2 Project Description The approximately 3.7-acre site is bound to the north by Barnhart School and west by Colorado Place, to the east by existing residential homes and to the south by San Juan Drive. The site is currently occupied by a Motel 6 on the northern portion and the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association building on the southern portion. The site is bisected by an open U-shaped channel (wash) which runs north to south along the east side of the Motel 6 parcel leading into an underground culvert that spits the Motel 6 parcel and Thoroughbred parcel in the southern portion of the overall site. The exact dimensions and details of the channel and culvert are unknown at this time and the agency that owns the channel and culvert may have specific guidelines for loading and setback from the improvements. The proposed improvements relative to the existing channel and culvert should be further reviewed when grading plans are further developed and the details regarding the channel/culvert are available for review. The proposed development consists of 86 multi-family residential units, internal drive alleys, open space and other associated improvements. Design cut and fill information is not available at this time but is expected to be on the order of less than 2 to 3 feet. The proposed residential development is anticipated to consist of relatively light building loads (column and wall loads maximum of 20 kips and 2 kips per linear foot, respectively). The recommendations given in this report are based upon at-grade structures with estimated structural loads and grading information indicated above. LGC Geotechnical should be provided with any updated project information, plans and/or any structural loads when they become available, in order to either confirm or modify the recommendations provided herein. Site Location FIGURE 1 Site Location Map June 2025 DATE ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE RLD Not to Scale MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6 & 201 Colorado Place) 25041-01 Project No. 25041-01 Page 3 June 26, 2025 1.3 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation A limited subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site was performed by LGC Geotechnical. Our exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling eight small-diameter exploratory hollow-stem borings (HS-1 through HS-4 and I-1 through I-4) for the purpose of obtaining samples for evaluation and laboratory testing of site soils and performing infiltration testing. The borings were drilled by Choice Drilling under subcontract to LGC Geotechnical. The depths of the borings ranged from approximately 10.0 to 50.5 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical representative observed the drilling operations, logged the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. The borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem augers. Bulk samples of the near-surface soils were logged and collected for laboratory testing from select borings. Driven soil samples were collected by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California Drive (MCD) sampler generally obtained at 2.5 and 5-foot vertical increments. The MCD is a split-barrel sampler with a tapered cutting tip and lined with a series of 1-inch-tall brass rings. The SPT sampler (1.4-inch ID) and MCD sampler (2.4-inch ID, 3.0-inch OD) were driven using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches to advance the sampler a total depth of 18 inches or until refusal. The raw blow counts for each 6-inch increment of penetration were recorded on the boring logs. The borings were subsequently backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped and capped with asphalt cold patch. Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time. Infiltration testing was performed within the four borings (I-1 through I-4) to depths of approximately 10 to 15 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical engineer installed standpipes, backfilled the borings with crushed rock and pre-soaked the infiltration holes prior to testing. Infiltration testing was performed per the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021). Standpipes were removed and the locations were subsequently backfilled with native soils at the completion of testing. Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time. The approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are provided on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). The boring logs are provided in Appendix B. 1.4 Field Infiltration Testing Four shallow infiltration test wells were installed in Borings I-1 through I-4 to approximate depths of 10 to 15 feet below existing grade. The approximate infiltration boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). Estimation of infiltration rates was performed in general accordance with the “Boring Percolation Test Procedure” guidelines set forth by the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021). The borings for the infiltration tests were excavated using a drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. A 3-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe was placed in the borehole above a thin layer of gravel and the annulus was backfilled with gravel. Infiltration tests were performed using relatively clean water free of particulates, silt, etc. The infiltration wells were pre-soaked during the day of drilling and a 30-minute pre-test was performed during the day of testing. Subsequently, readings were taken a minimum of 6 times or until a “stabilized rate” was established. A “stabilized rate” is when the highest and lowest readings are within 10 percent of each other over three consecutive readings. At the completion of infiltration testing, the pipe was removed, and the holes were backfilled and tamped. Project No. 25041-01 Page 4 June 26, 2025 Based on the County of Los Angeles testing guidelines (2021), the infiltration rate is calculated by dividing the volume of water discharged by the surface area of the test section (including the sidewalls and bottom of the boring) over a specific time period. The infiltration rate is taken as the average of the last three readings during which a “stabilized rate” is achieved. The infiltration rates are provided in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Summary of Field Infiltration Testing Infiltration Test Location Approximate Infiltration Test Depth (ft) Infiltration Rate* (inch/hr.) I-1 10.0 0.7 I-2 15.0 6.9 I-3 15.0 5.3 I-4 10.0 4.4 *Does Not Include Required Reduction Factors for Design. Please note that the values provided in Table 1 do not include reduction factors associated with the test procedure, site variability, and long-term siltation plugging that are used to calculate the design infiltration rate. Infiltration test data is presented in Appendix D. Refer to Section 4.6 for recommendations regarding infiltration of stormwater. 1.5 Laboratory Testing Representative bulk, grab, and driven (relatively undisturbed) samples were retained for laboratory testing during our field evaluation. Laboratory testing included in-situ moisture content and in-situ dry density, expansion index, fines content, Atterberg limits, consolidation, direct shear, laboratory compaction, and corrosion (sulfate, chloride, pH and minimum resistivity). The following is a summary of the laboratory test results: • Dry density of the samples collected ranged from approximately 99 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 119 pcf, with an average of 110 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from approximately 2 to 14 percent, with an average of approximately 7 percent. • Two Expansion Index (EI) tests was performed. The results indicate an EI value of 1, corresponding to “Very Low” expansion potential. • Three samples were tested for fines content indicating a fines content (passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from 4 to 38 percent. According to the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS), the tested samples are classified as “coarse grained” soil. • Two Atterberg Limit (liquid limit and plastic limit) test was performed. Results indicated a Plasticity Index (PI) range of 4 to 7. • Two consolidation tests were performed. The deformation versus vertical stress plots are provided in Appendix C. Project No. 25041-01 Page 5 June 26, 2025 • Two direct shear test was performed. The plots are provided in Appendix C. • Laboratory compaction of a near-surface bulk sample resulted in a maximum dry density of 130.5 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 8.5 percent. • Corrosion testing indicated soluble sulfate content of less than 0.01 percent, a chloride content ranging from 28 to 29 parts per million (ppm), pH ranging from 7.4 to 7.6 and a minimum resistivity ranging from 13,400 to 15,410 ohm-centimeters. A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Appendix C. The moisture and dry density results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. Project No. 25041-01 Page 6 June 26, 2025 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Regional Geology The site is located south of the foothills below the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern San Gabriel Valley within the transition area of California’s Peninsular and Transverse geomorphic provinces. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges, generally dominated by right lateral strike-slip faulting. The Transverse Ranges are characterized by predominately east-west trending mountain ranges dominated by reverse faulting. The Transverse Ranges geomorphology can be generally be attributed to the effects of the major bend within the northwest trending San Andreas fault and the subsequent north-south compression that results. The San Gabriel Mountain Range rises steeply north of the site and provides the sediment source for the alluvial fan deposits that underlie the area of the subject site (CGS, 2018). The site is within the San Gabriel Valley, west of the Santa Anita Wash (Dibblee, et al, 1998). The subject area is more locally geologically bounded at the north by the Raymond Fault (approximately 700 feet north of the site) and the Sierra Madre Fault Zone (approximately 2 miles north of the site). The Sierra Madre Fault Zone consists of reverse faults dipping to the north. The northeast trending Raymond Fault joins the east west trending Sierra Madre Fault Zone approximately 3 miles to the northeast of the site. The Raymond Fault is a left lateral fault that is generally assumed to be a part of the San Andreas Fault system. 2.2 Site-Specific Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions Based on review of the available geologic map (Dibblee, et al, 1998), the primary geologic unit underlying the site is Quaternary alluvial deposits. The undissected fan is largely described as alluvial gravel, sand, and silt (Dibblee, et al, 1998). The field explorations (borings) indicate the native alluvial soils generally consist of variable amounts of clayey sand, silty sand, and sand ranging from brown to gray, dry to moist, and generally medium dense/medium stiff to very dense/very stiff to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing grade. Potentially up to five feet of undocumented artificial fill may be present across the site but was not differentiated on the boring logs. Deeper amounts of undocumented fill, not encountered in the borings, may exist locally beneath the current building footprints and in various other areas across the site. These materials should be removed to competent native materials prior to placement of compacted fill. It should be noted that borings are only representative of the location and time where/when they are performed and varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the performed location. In addition, subsurface conditions can change over time. The soil descriptions provided above should not be construed to mean that the subsurface profile is uniform, and that soil is homogeneous within the project area. For details on the stratigraphy at the exploration locations, refer to Appendix B. Project No. 25041-01 Page 7 June 26, 2025 2.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing ground surface during our subsurface evaluation. Historic high groundwater is greater than 100 feet below current grade per the Seismic Hazard Report of the Mount Wilson 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, (CDMG, 1998). Groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed development. Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater elevations should be expected over time. In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present due to local seepage caused by irrigation and/or recent precipitation. Local perched groundwater conditions or surface seepage may develop once site development is completed. 2.4 Seismic Design Criteria The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable portions of ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC. Please note that the following seismic parameters are only applicable for code-based acceleration response spectra and are not applicable for where site-specific ground motion procedures are required by ASCE 7-16. Representative site coordinates of latitude 34.143305 degrees north and longitude -118.039915 degrees west were utilized in our analyses. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 2 on the following page. Since site soils are Site Class D, additional adjustments are required to code acceleration response spectrums as outlined below and provided in ASCE 7-16. The structural designer should contact the geotechnical consultant if structural conditions (e.g., number of stories, seismically isolated structures, etc.) require site-specific ground motions. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period (MCE) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 7.05 at a distance of 8.76 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 475-year average return period (Design Earthquake) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.96 at a distance of 13.79 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2014). Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for liquefaction potential. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.958g (SEAOC, 2025). The design PGA is equal to 0.639g (2/3 of PGAM). Project No. 25041-01 Page 8 June 26, 2025 TABLE 2 Seismic Design Parameters Selected Parameters from 2022 CBC, Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads Seismic Design Values Notes/Exceptions Distance to applicable faults classifies the site as a “Near-Fault” site. Section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7 Site Class D* Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 Ss (Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods) 2.000g From SEAOC, 2025 S1 (Risk-Targeted Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods) 0.736g From SEAOC, 2025 Fa (per Table 1613.2.3(1)) 1.000 For Simplified Design Procedure of Section 12.14 of ASCE 7, Fa shall be taken as 1.4 (Section 12.14.8.1) Fv (per Table 1613.2.3(2)) 1.700 Value is only applicable per requirements/exceptions per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7 SMS for Site Class D [Note: SMS = FaSS] 2.000g - SM1 for Site Class D [Note: SM1 = FvS1] 1.251g Value is only applicable per requirements/exceptions per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7 SDS for Site Class D [Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 1.333g - SD1 for Site Class D [Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 0.834g Value is only applicable per requirements/exceptions per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7 CRS (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec) 0.888 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 CR1 (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec) 0.891 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 *Since site soils are Site Class D and S1 is greater than or equal to 0.2, the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken equal to 1.5 times the value calculated in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > Ts, or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL. Refer to ASCE 7-16. 2.5 Faulting Prompted by damaging earthquakes in Northern and Southern California, State legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults have been developed. Their purpose was to prevent the construction of urban developments across the trace of active faults, resulting in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated along the traces of active faults within California. Where developments for human occupation are proposed within these zones, the state requires detailed Project No. 25041-01 Page 9 June 26, 2025 fault evaluations be performed so that engineering geologists can mitigate the hazards associated with active faulting by identifying the location of active faults and allowing for a setback from the zone of previous ground rupture. The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist-Priolo) and no active faults are identified on the site (CGS, 2025). The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction, and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. The closest major active faults that could produce these secondary effects include the Sierra Madre, Raymond, San Andreas, and Puente Hills Faults, among others. A discussion of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections. 2.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose near-surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction, depending on their plasticity and moisture content (Bray & Sancio, 2006). Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry loose sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event. Based on our review of the State of California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (CGS, 2025), the subject site is not within a liquefaction hazard zone. Based on our evaluation, site soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction due to the lack of a static groundwater table within the upper 50 feet and relatively dense on-site soils. However isolated sand layers may be susceptible to dry sand seismic settlement. Seismically induced dry sand settlements were estimated by the procedures outlined by Pradel (Pradel, 1998) and utilizing the design earthquake parameters. Based on the data obtained from our field evaluation, seismic settlement due to dry sands is estimated to be on the order of about 0.5-inches. Differential seismic settlement may be estimated as one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet (e.g., 0.25-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet). Project No. 25041-01 Page 10 June 26, 2025 2.5.2 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet, and very low potential for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low. 2.6 Oversized Material Oversized materials (material larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension) may be encountered during site grading based on our subsurface evaluation. If encountered, recommendations are provided for appropriate handling of oversized materials in Appendix E. 2.7 Expansion Potential Based on the results of our laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have a “Very Low” expansion potential. Final expansion potential of site soils should be determined at the completion of grading. Results of expansion testing at finish grades will be utilized to confirm final foundation design. Project No. 25041-01 Page 11 June 26, 2025 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are implemented. The following is a summary of the primary geotechnical factors that may affect future development of the site: • In general, field explorations (borings) indicate primarily native soils consisting of variable amounts of sandy clay, sandy silt, sand, silty sand and clayey sand, which are gray to brown, dry to moist, and generally loose/medium stiff to very dense, to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing grade. The near-surface loose and compressible soils are not suitable for the planned improvements in their present condition (refer to Section 4.1). • Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface evaluation to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50.5 feet below current grade. Historic high groundwater is greater than 100 feet below current grade (CDMG, 1998). • The subject site is not located within a state of California Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2025). The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life. • Based on our review of the State of California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (CGS, 2025), the subject site is not within a liquefaction hazard zone. The potential for liquefaction is considered very low due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet and very dense on-site soils. However, isolated sand layers may be susceptible to dry sand seismic settlement. Total seismic settlement is estimated to be on the order 0.5-inch. Differential seismic settlement may be estimated as one-half of the total seismic settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet. • Based on the results of preliminary laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have “Very Low” expansion potential. Final design expansion potential must be determined at the completion of grading. • Some of the onsite soils may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to the fines content; therefore, select grading and stockpiling of the onsite sandy soils or import of sandy soils meeting the project requirements should be anticipated by the contractor. • Excavations into the existing site soils should be feasible with heavy construction equipment in good working order. From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils are suitable material for use as fill, provided that they are relatively free from oversized material (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and significant organic material. • Oversized material (material larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension) may be encountered during site grading based on our subsurface evaluation. Project No. 25041-01 Page 12 June 26, 2025 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are to be considered preliminary and should be confirmed upon completion of grading and earthwork operations. In addition, they should be considered minimal from a geotechnical viewpoint, as there may be more restrictive requirements from the architect, structural engineer, building codes, governing agencies, or the owner. It should be noted that the following geotechnical recommendations are intended to provide sufficient information to develop the site in general accordance with the 2022 CBC requirements. With regard to the potential occurrence of potentially catastrophic geotechnical hazards such as fault rupture, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, etc. the following geotechnical recommendations should provide adequate protection for the proposed development to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an “acceptable level.” The “acceptable level” of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project” [Section 3721(a)]. Therefore, repair and remedial work of the proposed improvements may be required after a significant seismic event. With regards to the potential for less significant geologic hazards to the proposed development, the recommendations contained herein are intended as a reasonable protection against the potential damaging effects of geotechnical phenomena such as expansive soils, fill settlement, groundwater seepage, etc. It should be understood, however, that although our recommendations are intended to maintain the structural integrity of the proposed development and structures given the site geotechnical conditions, they cannot preclude the potential for some cosmetic distress or nuisance issues to develop as a result of the site geotechnical conditions. The geotechnical recommendations contained herein must be confirmed to be suitable or modified based on the actual as-graded conditions. 4.1 Site Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of the removal of existing improvements associated with the former land use followed by the required earthwork removals, precise grading, and construction of the proposed new improvements, including the residential structures, subsurface utilities, interior drive alleys, etc. We recommend that earthwork onsite be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, future grading plan review report(s), the 2022 CBC/City of Arcadia grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix E. The following recommendations should be considered preliminary and may be revised within the future grading plan review report or based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading. 4.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered improvements, the areas should be cleared of existing asphalt, surface obstructions, and demolition debris. Project No. 25041-01 Page 13 June 26, 2025 Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend below proposed finish grades, should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Any abandoned sewer or storm drain lines should be completely removed and replaced with properly placed compacted fill. Deeper demolition may be required in order to remove existing foundations. We recommend the trenches associated with demolition which extend below the remedial grading depth be backfilled and properly compacted prior to the demolition contractor leaving the site. If cesspools or septic systems are encountered, they should be removed in their entirety. The resulting excavation should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. As an alternative, cesspools can be backfilled with lean sand-cement slurry. Any encountered wells should be properly abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements. At the conclusion of the clearing operations, a representative of LGC Geotechnical should observe and accept the site prior to further grading. 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction Depths and Limits In order to provide a relatively uniform bearing condition for the planned building structures, upper loose/compressible soils are to be temporarily removed and recompacted as properly compacted fills. Existing undocumented artificial fill within the influence of the proposed structural improvements should be removed to suitable, competent native materials prior to placement of artificial fill to design grades. For preliminary planning purposes, the depth of required removals and recompaction may be estimated as indicated below. It should be noted that updated recommendations may be required based on changes to building layouts and/or grading plan. Buildings: Soils shall be temporarily removed and recompacted to a depth ranging from 5 to 6 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of foundations, whichever is deeper. Refer to the Boring Location Map (Figure 2) for recommended remedial grading depths. Where space is available, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum distance equal to the depth of removal and recompaction below finish grade or 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed building improvements, whichever is larger. Minor Site Structures: For minor site structures such as free-standing walls, retaining walls, etc., temporary removal and recompaction should extend a minimum of 3 feet below existing grade or 2 feet below proposed footings, whichever is greater. Where space is available, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the edges of the proposed minor site structure improvements. Pavement and Hardscape Areas: Within pavement and hardscape areas, temporary removal and recompaction should extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade or 2 feet below the bottom of the pavement section, whichever is deeper. Pavement areas encountering undocumented fill materials may require deeper removal and recompaction and should be determined based on the conditions exposed during grading. In general, the envelope for removal and recompaction should extend laterally a minimum lateral Project No. 25041-01 Page 14 June 26, 2025 distance of 2 feet beyond the edges of the proposed pavement or hardscape improvements. Local conditions may be encountered during excavation that could require additional over-excavation beyond the above noted minimum in order to obtain an acceptable subgrade. The actual depths and lateral extents of grading will be determined by the geotechnical consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading. Removal areas and areas to be over-excavated should be accurately staked in the field by the Project Surveyor. 4.1.3 Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. Based on our field evaluation, site soils within the upper 5 to 10 feet are anticipated to be OSHA Type “B” soils (refer to the attached boring logs). Sandy soils are present and should be considered susceptible to caving. Soil conditions should be regularly evaluated during construction to verify conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person,” required by OSHA standards, to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination with the geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. Where proposed improvements will be adjacent to property lines, the potential for impacting existing offsite improvements may be reduced by performing “ABC” slot cuts while performing earthwork removal and recompaction. “ABC” slot cuts are defined as excavations perpendicular to sensitive property boundaries that are divided into multiple “slots” of equal width. If slots are labeled A, B, C, A, B, C, etc., then all “A” slots can be excavated at the same time but must be backfilled before all “B” slots can be excavated, etc. Any given slot should be backfilled immediately with properly compacted fill to finish grade prior to excavation of the adjacent two slots. Please note sands susceptible to caving are present at the site. Recommendations for slot cut dimensions should be evaluated during grading. Protection of the existing offsite improvements during grading is the responsibility of the contractor. Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage should be set back from the perimeter of excavations a distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation. Once an excavation has been initiated, it should be backfilled as soon as practical. Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability. Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain. It should be noted that any excavation that extends below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection of an existing foundation will remove existing support of the structure foundation. If requested, temporary shoring parameter will be provided. Project No. 25041-01 Page 15 June 26, 2025 4.1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation In general, removal bottom areas and any areas to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content), and re-compacted per project recommendations. Removal bottoms, over-excavation bottoms and areas to receive fill should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement. Soil subgrade for planned footings and improvements (e.g., slabs, etc.) should be firm and competent. 4.1.5 Material for Fill From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally considered suitable for use as general compacted fill, provided they are screened of organic materials, construction debris, and oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension). From a geotechnical viewpoint, any required import soils for general fill (i.e., non-retaining wall backfill) should consist of clean, granular soils of “Very Low” expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less based on ASTM D 4829), and generally free of organic materials, construction debris and material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Import for required retaining wall backfill should meet the criteria outlined in the following paragraph. Source samples should be provided to the geotechnical consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of four working days prior to planned importation. Retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1140 (or ASTM D6913/D422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Soils should also be screened of organic materials, construction debris, and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Some of the onsite soils may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to fines content; therefore, select grading and stockpiling of the onsite sandy soils or import of sandy soils meeting the criteria outlined above should be anticipated by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. Aggregate base (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) should conform to the requirements of Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials (except processed miscellaneous base) or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. The placement of demolition materials in compacted fill is acceptable from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the demolition material is broken up into pieces not larger than approximately 2 to 4 inches in maximum dimension, and well blended into fill soils with essentially no resulting voids. Demolition material placed in fills must be free of construction debris (wood, brick, etc.) and reinforcing steel. If asphalt concrete fragments will be incorporated into the demolition materials, approval from an environmental Project No. 25041-01 Page 16 June 26, 2025 viewpoint may be required and is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. From our previous experience, we recommend that asphalt concrete fragments be limited to fill areas within planned streets, alleys or non-structural areas (i.e., not within building pad areas). 4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills Material to be placed as fill should be brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. Soils will generally require additional moisture in order to achieve the required compaction. Drying and/or mixing the very moist soils may also be required prior to reusing the materials in compacted fills. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and with observation and testing performed by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material as previously defined should be removed from site fills. During backfill of excavations, the fill should be properly benched into firm and competent soils of temporary backcut slopes as it is placed in lifts. Aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557 at or slightly above optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content). If gap-graded ¾-inch rock is used for backfill (around storm drain storage chambers, retaining wall backfill, etc.) it will require compaction. Rock shall be placed in thin lifts (typically not exceeding 6 inches) and mechanically compacted with observation by geotechnical consultant. Backfill rock shall meet the requirements of ASTM D2321. Gap-graded rock is required to be entirely wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved alternative) or at the very minimum to be vertically separated from the trench backfill with filter fabric to prevent the migration of fines into the rock backfill. 4.1.7 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction The onsite soils will generally be suitable as trench backfill, provided the soils are screened of rocks and other material greater than 6 inches in diameter, construction debris and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 12 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM Test Method D1557). If trenches are shallow or the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities, sand having a Project No. 25041-01 Page 17 June 26, 2025 sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater (per California Test Method [CTM] 217) may be used to bed and shade the pipes. Sand backfill within the pipe bedding zone may be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamped to ensure adequate compaction. Sand grains should be from a natural source with rounded shape. Manufactured sand from crushed rock or recycled material is not suitable for jetting/flooding as the grains are typically angular in shape and do not densify well enough with these methods. Manufactured sand can be used as shading material when mechanical compaction efforts are used. Subsequent trench backfill should be compacted in uniform thin lifts by mechanical means to at least a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). If any ¾-inch rock is used for backfill, see Section 4.1.6 for filter fabric requirements. Retaining wall backfill should consist of onsite or imported select sandy soils as outlined in preceding Section 4.1.5. The limits of select sandy backfill should extend a minimum ½ the height of the retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater, refer to Figure 3. Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials should not be permitted. In backfill areas where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, typically sand-cement slurry may be substituted for compacted backfill. The slurry should contain about one sack of cement per cubic yard. When set, such a mix typically has the consistency of compacted soil. Sand cement slurry placed near the surface within landscape areas should be evaluated for potential impacts on planned improvements. A representative from LGC Geotechnical should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project recommendations. 4.1.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence Allowance in the earthwork volumes budget should be made for an estimated 5 to 20 percent reduction (shrink) in volume of near-surface (upper approximate 5 feet) soils. It should be stressed that these values are only estimates and that an actual shrinkage factor would be extremely difficult to predetermine. Subsidence, due to earthwork operations, is expected to be on the order of 0.1 feet. These values are estimates only and exclude losses due to removal of vegetation or debris. The effective shrinkage of onsite soils will depend primarily on the type of compaction equipment and method of compaction used onsite by the contractor and accuracy of the topographic survey. Due to the combined variability in topographic surveys, inability to precisely model the removals and variability of on-site near-surface conditions, it is our opinion that the site will not balance at the end of grading. If importing/exporting a large volume of soils is not considered feasible or economical, we recommend a balance area be designated onsite that can fluctuate up or down based on the actual volume of soil. We recommend a “balance” area that can accommodate on the order of 5 percent (plus or minus) of the total grading volume be considered. Project No. 25041-01 Page 18 June 26, 2025 4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Provided that the remedial grading recommendations provided herein are implemented, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the residential structures using a conventional or post-tensioned foundation system designed to resist the impacts of expansive soils. Site soils are anticipated to be “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829) and special design considerations from a geotechnical perspective are not required. The structural designer should use their own judgment in the design of the foundation system. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of grading. Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided in the following sections. Recommended soil bearing and estimated settlement due to structural loads are provided in Section 4.3. The foundation should be designed in consideration of the site seismic settlement as outlined in Section 2.5.1. 4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design Parameters Due to the very low expansion potential of the onsite soils, the foundation/structural engineer may design a conventional foundation system that is tied together based upon the anticipated dead and live loads (wind, seismic) that will be imparted by the structure. The recommendations provided in the “Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance” section may be utilized in the design of a rigid slab-on-grade conventional foundation designed in accordance with Section 1808 of the 2022 C.B.C. 4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters The foundation designer may use a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pounds per square inch per inch of deflection). This value is for a 1-foot by 1-foot square loaded area and should be adjusted by the structural designer for the area of the proposed footing using the following formula: k = 200 x [(B+1)/2B]2 k = modulus of vertical subgrade reaction, pounds per cubic inch (pci) B = foundation width (feet) The moisture content of near surface fill soils should be kept at optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches prior to trenching and concrete placement. 4.2.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance The geotechnical parameters provided herein assume that if the areas adjacent to the foundation are planted and irrigated, these areas will be designed with proper drainage and adequately maintained so that ponding, which causes significant moisture changes below the foundation, does not occur. Our recommendations do not account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Plants should only be provided Project No. 25041-01 Page 19 June 26, 2025 with sufficient irrigation for life and not overwatered to saturate subgrade soils. Sunken planters placed adjacent to the foundation should either be designed with an efficient drainage system or liners to prevent moisture infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even with properly constructed planters. In addition to the factors mentioned above, future owners/property management personnel should be made aware of the potential negative influences of trees and/or other large vegetation. Roots that extend near the vicinity of foundations can cause distress to foundations. Future owners (and the owner’s landscape architect) should not plant trees/large shrubs closer to the foundations than a distance equal to half the mature height of the tree or 20 feet, whichever is more conservative unless specifically provided with root barriers to prevent root growth below the building foundation. It is the owner’s responsibility to perform periodic maintenance during hot and dry periods to ensure that adequate watering has been provided to keep soil from separating or pulling back from the foundation. Future owners and property management personnel should be informed and educated regarding the importance of maintaining a constant level of soil-moisture. The owners should be made aware of the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing potentially expansive soils to become too dry. Expansive soils can undergo shrinkage during drying, and swelling during the rainy winter season, or when irrigation is resumed. This can result in distress to building structures and hardscape improvements. The builder should provide these recommendations to future owners and property management personnel. 4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines The following recommendations are for informational purposes since they are unrelated to the geotechnical performance of the foundation. Some post-construction moisture migration should be expected below the foundation; the foundation engineer must assume soil moisture to be present below the slab. The following recommendations may be superseded by the foundation engineer and/or owner. In general, interior floor slabs with moisture sensitive floor coverings should be underlain by a minimum 10-15 mil thick vapor retarder, which has a water vapor transmission rate (permeance) of less than 0.3 perms, as determined by ASTM E 96, and meets the applicable code requirements (ASTM E 1745). It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisture/vapor retarder systems are properly installed in accordance with the project plans and manufacturer’s specifications, and that the moisture/vapor retarder materials are free of tears and punctures prior to and as a result of concrete placement. Additional moisture reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the performance requirements of future interior floor coverings. The foundation engineer/architect should determine whether the use of a capillary break (sand or gravel layer) in conjunction with the vapor retarder is necessary or Project No. 25041-01 Page 20 June 26, 2025 required by code. Sand layer thickness and location (above and/or below vapor retarder) should also be determined by the foundation engineer/architect. 4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance Provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and minimum embedment of 12 inches below lowest adjacent ground surface. This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of embedment and 150 psf for each additional foot of foundation width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. A post-tensioned mat foundation a minimum of 6 inches below lowest adjacent grade may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,200 psf. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Bearing values indicated are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads). In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity and provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be 1-inch or less. Differential static settlement may be taken as half of the static settlement (i.e., ½-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet). Recommendations for estimated seismic settlement are provided in Section 2.5.1. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with dead-load forces. For slabs constructed over a moisture retarder, the allowable friction coefficient should be provided by the manufacturer. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,500 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against properly compacted fill. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 340 pcf (maximum of 3,400 psf) for short duration seismic loading. This passive pressure is applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions. For a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) downward sloping condition, a reduced passive lateral earth pressure of 100 pcf to a maximum of 1,000 psf may be used. This allowable passive pressure may be increased to 135 pcf to a maximum of 1,350 psf for short duration seismic loading. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively. 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls Lateral earth pressures for approved native sandy or import soils meeting indicated project requirements are provided below. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf per foot of depth (or pcf). These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the retaining wall designer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil over the wall footing. Project No. 25041-01 Page 21 June 26, 2025 The following lateral earth pressures are presented in Table 3 below for approved granular soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve per ASTM D-421/422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Some of the onsite soils may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to fines content; therefore, select grading and stockpiling of the onsite soils or import of soils meeting the criteria outlined above should be anticipated by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. The wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the required select sandy soil backfill criteria. These preliminary findings should be confirmed during grading. TABLE 3 Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Onsite or Imported Sandy Soils Conditions Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf) Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf) Level Backfill 2:1 Sloped Backfill Approved Sandy Soils Approved Sandy Soils Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 70 If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for “active” pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the earth pressure will be higher. This would include 90-degree corners of retaining walls. Such walls should be designed for “at-rest.” The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. To reduce, but not eliminate, saturation of near-surface (upper approximate 1-foot) soils in front of the retaining walls, the perforated subdrain pipe should be located as low as possible behind the retaining wall. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. In general, we do not recommend retaining wall outlet pipes be connected to area drains. If subdrains are connected to area drains, special care and information should be provided to homeowners to maintain these drains. Typical retaining wall drainage is illustrated in Figure 3. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water containing soluble salts migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. Please note that waterproofing and outlet systems are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward Project No. 25041-01 Page 22 June 26, 2025 projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining wall. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, retaining walls adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 80 pounds per square foot (psf) due to normal street vehicle traffic if applicable. Uniform lateral surcharges may be estimated using the applicable coefficient of lateral earth pressure using a rectangular distribution. A factor of 0.45 and 0.3 may be used for at-rest and active conditions, respectively. The retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for any required geotechnical input in estimating any applicable surcharge loads. If retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height are proposed, the retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration of the planned retaining wall structures. Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Section 4.3. Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections. 4.5 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control From a geotechnical perspective, positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or to flow freely down a graded slope. Per section 1804.4 of the 2022 CBC, positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 5 percent for earthen surfaces for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the face of wall. If a distance of 10 feet cannot be achieved, an alternative of a gradient of at least 5 percent to an area drain or swale having a gradient of 2 percent is acceptable. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters are recommended and should reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets. Ultimately surface drainage and code compliance are the purview of the project civil engineer. Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided. Planters adjacent to a building or structure should be avoided wherever possible or be properly designed (e.g., lined with a membrane), to reduce the penetration of water into the adjacent footing subgrades and thereby reduce moisture related damage to the foundation. Planting areas at grade should be provided with appropriate positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above adjacent paved grades to facilitate drainage. Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless provisions for drainage, such as multiple depressed area drains, are constructed. Adequate drainage gradients, devices, and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into the planting areas. Irrigation methods should promote uniformity of moisture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete flatwork. Overwatering and underwatering of landscape areas must be avoided. Project No. 25041-01 Page 23 June 26, 2025 Area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to properly function. Homeowners should also be made aware that excessive irrigation of neighboring properties can cause seepage and moisture conditions on adjacent lots. Homeowners should be furnished with these recommendations communicating the importance of maintaining positive drainage away from structures, towards streets, when they design their improvements. The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradients can create perched water conditions. This may result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance-type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth movements such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a residential structure and associated improvements, moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as possible. Subdrains and v-ditches must be properly maintained, and their outlets kept free draining and clear of any potential obstructions. Routine maintenance should be performed, especially prior to and during the rainy season. Failure to properly maintain these elements may result in slope failures, slumps, excessive erosion, localized saturated zones, nuisance type water issues, etc. Any future trenches excavated on a slope face for utility or irrigation lines and/or for any purpose should be properly backfilled and compacted to the slope face. Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechnical consultant during trench backfill are recommended. A program for the elimination of burrowing animals in both native and graded slope areas must be established and properly maintained to protect slope stability by reducing the potential for surface water to penetrate into the soil. Continuous erosion control, rodent control, and maintenance are essential to the long-term stability of all slopes. 4.6 Subsurface Water Infiltration It should be noted that intentionally infiltrating storm water conflicts with the geotechnical engineering objective of directing surface water away from structures and improvements. The geotechnical stability and integrity of a site is reliant upon appropriately handling surface water. In general, the vast majority of geotechnical distress issues are directly related to improper drainage. Distress in the form of movement of foundations and other improvements could occur as a result of soil saturation and loss of soil support of foundations and pavements, settlement, collapse, internal soil erosion, and/or expansion. Additionally, off-site properties and improvements may be subjected to seepage, springs, instability, movements of foundations or other impacts as a result of water infiltration and migration. Infiltrated water may enter underground utility pipe zones or other highly permeable layers and migrate laterally along these layers, potentially impacting other improvements located far away from the point of infiltration. Any proposed infiltration system should not be located near slopes or settlement sensitive existing/proposed improvements in order to reduce the potential for slope failures and geotechnical distress issues related to infiltration. If water must be infiltrated due to regulatory requirements, we recommend the absolute Project No. 25041-01 Page 24 June 26, 2025 minimum amount of water be infiltrated and that the infiltration areas not be located near settlement-sensitive existing/proposed improvements, basement/retaining walls, or any slopes. As with all systems that are designed to concentrate surface flow and direct the water into the subsurface soils, some minor settlement, nuisance type localized saturation and/or other water related issues should be expected. Due to variability in geologic and hydraulic conductivity characteristics, these effects may be experienced at the onsite location and/or potentially at other locations beyond the physical limits of the subject site. Infiltrated water may enter underground utility pipe zones or flow along heterogeneous soil layers or geologic structure and migrate laterally impacting other improvements which may be located far away or at an elevation much lower than the infiltration source. Recommendations for subsurface water infiltration are provided below. The design infiltration rate is determined by dividing the infiltration rate by total reduction factor. The total reduction factor is calculated from a series of reduction factors, including; test procedure (RFt), site variability (RFv) and long-term siltation plugging and maintenance (RFs) as presented listed in Table 4 below (RFt + RFv + RFs). Based on the Los Angeles County testing guidelines (2021), the reduction factor for long-term siltation plugging and maintenance (RFs) is the purview of the infiltration system designer. TABLE 4 Shallow Surface Infiltration - Reduction Factors Applied to Infiltration Rate Consideration Reduction Factor Test procedure, boring percolation, RFt 1.0 Site variability, number of tests, etc., RFv 1.5 Long-term siltation plugging and maintenance, RFs TBD* Total Reduction Factor, RF = RFt + RFv + RFs TBD* *Reduction Factor for long-term siltation plugging and maintenance to be confirmed by civil engineer Per the requirements of the Los Angeles County testing guidelines (2021), subsurface materials shall have a design infiltration rate equal to or greater than 0.3 inches per hour. The Total Reduction Factor for test procedure, site variability considerations, and long-term siltation plugging and maintenance (RFt, RFv, and RFs) and the design infiltration rate will be determined by the civil engineer. Results of infiltration testing are provided in Appendix D. The following should be considered for the design of any expected infiltration system. • We recommend a minimum setback of 15 feet from the limits of the proposed infiltration system to structural improvements. • We recommend the design of any infiltration system include at least one redundancy or overflow system. It may be prudent to provide an overflow system directly connected to the storm drain system in order to prevent failure of the infiltration system, either as a result of lower than anticipated infiltration and/or very high flow volumes. Project No. 25041-01 Page 25 June 26, 2025 • Water discharge from any infiltration systems should not occur within the zone of influence of foundation footings (column and load bearing wall locations). • An adequate setback distance between any infiltration facility and adjacent property lines should be maintained. • The infiltration values provided are based on clean water and this requires the removal of trash, debris, soil particles, etc., and on-going maintenance. Over time, siltation and plugging may reduce the infiltration rate and subsequent effectiveness of the infiltration system. It should be noted that methods to prevent this shall be the responsibility of the infiltration designer and are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If adequate measures cannot be incorporated into the design and maintenance of the system, then the infiltration rates may need to be further reduced. These and other factors should be considered in selecting a design infiltration rate. • Any designed infiltration system will require routine periodic maintenance. • Contamination and environmental suitability of the site for infiltration was not evaluated by us and should be evaluated by others (environmental consultant). We only addressed the geotechnical issues associated with stormwater infiltration. LGC Geotechnical should be provided with details for any planned required infiltration system early in the design process for geotechnical input. 4.7 Preliminary Asphalt Pavement Sections For the purpose of these preliminary recommendations, we have selected a preliminary design R-value of 40 (assumed) and calculated pavement sections for assumed Traffic Indices (TI) of 5.0 (or less) and 6.0. These recommendations must be confirmed with R-Value testing of representative near-surface soils at the completion of grading and after underground utilities have been installed and backfilled. Final street sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the final design Traffic Index. Determination of the TI is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values. Should the city of Arcadia have more stringent requirements, updated pavement recommendations can be provided. TABLE 5 Preliminary Pavement Sections Assumed Traffic Index 5.0 (or less) 6.0 R -Value Subgrade 40 40 AC Thickness 4.0 inches 4.0 inches Base Thickness 5.0 inches 7.0 inches Due to anticipated construction traffic prior to completion of the project, we recommend that the total thickness (base course and capping course) of AC be placed at essentially the same time. Construction traffic loading on only the base course of the AC will increase the potential for pavement distress. It should be noted that construction traffic such as concrete trucks will Project No. 25041-01 Page 26 June 26, 2025 likely exceed traffic loading after completion of construction. Additionally, earth moving equipment should not be allowed to drive on paved surfaces. The weights of these vehicles far exceed the limits of the pavement and will cause distress, likely requiring the pavement sections to be removed and replaced. The pavement section thicknesses provided above are considered minimum thicknesses. Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur throughout the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement. Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in the previous Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the related sub-sections of this report. Please note that as the geotechnical consultant of record we will only be performing temperature checks of the asphalt and testing the wet density for calculating relative compaction. We recommend obtaining the services of others if material testing and evaluation of the quality of workmanship by the contractor is desired or required by the regulatory agency. 4.8 Soil Corrosivity Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary. Results of the corrosion testing indicated a soluble sulfate content ranging from approximately 8 to 32 parts per million (ppm), chloride content ranging from 28 to 29 ppm, pH value range of 7.4 to 7.6, and minimum resistivity value ranging from 13,400 to 15,410 ohm-cm. Note that based on minimum resistivity the soils are considered moderately corrosive to metallic improvements. If improvements that may be susceptible to corrosion are proposed, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. Based on our laboratory test results of representative site soil samples, onsite soils should be considered as having a severity categorization of “not applicable” and are designated class “S0” per ACI 318, Table 19.3.1.1 with respect to sulfates. Concrete in direct contact with the onsite soils can be designed according to ACI 318, Table 19.3.2.1 using the “S0” sulfate classification. Laboratory testing may need to be performed at the completion of grading by the project corrosion engineer to further evaluate the as-graded soil corrosivity characteristics, including sulfate, chloride, pH, minimum resistivity, etc. and provide design level recommendations. Accordingly, revision of the corrosion potential may be needed, should future test results differ substantially from the conditions reported herein. The client and/or other members of the development team should consider this during the design and planning phase of the project and formulate an appropriate course of action. Project No. 25041-01 Page 27 June 26, 2025 4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Nonstructural concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, patio slabs, etc.) has a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete may be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 6 below. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. TABLE 6 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Guidelines for Very Low Expansion Potential Community Sidewalks (≤4 feet wide) Patios/ Walkways (adjacent to homes or flatwork >4 feet wide) Private Vehicular Driveways City Sidewalk Curb and Gutters Minimum Thickness (in.) 4 (full) 4 (full) 4 (full) City/Agency Standard Presoaking Wet down prior to placing Wet down prior to placing Wet down prior to placing City/Agency Standard Reinforcement  No. 3 at 24 inches on centers No. 3 at 24 inches on centers City/Agency Standard Thickened Edge (in.)   8 x 8 City/Agency Standard Crack Control Joints Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness City/Agency Standard Maximum Joint Spacing 5 feet 6 feet 10 feet or quarter cut whichever is closer City/Agency Standard To reduce the potential for driveways to separate from the garage slab, the builder may elect to install dowels to tie these two elements together. Similarly, future homeowners should consider the use of dowels to connect flatwork to the foundation. Project No. 25041-01 Page 28 June 26, 2025 4.10 Geotechnical Plan Review When available, project plans (grading, foundation, retaining wall, etc.) should be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical in order to verify our geotechnical recommendations are implemented. Updated recommendations and/or additional fieldwork may be necessary. 4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and testing is required per Section 1705 of the 2022 CBC. Geotechnical observation and/or testing should be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages: • During grading (removal bottoms, fill placement, etc.); • During retaining wall backfill and compaction; • During utility trench backfill and compaction; • After presoaking building pads and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and prior to placement of aggregate base or concrete; • Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base; • After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placing reinforcement and/or concrete; and • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report. Project No. 25041-01 Page 29 June 26, 2025 5.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This report is based on data obtained from limited observations of the site, which have been extrapolated to characterize the site. While the scope of services performed is considered suitable to adequately characterize the site geotechnical conditions relative to the proposed development, no practical evaluation can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the anticipated geotechnical conditions in connection with a subject site. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during grading and construction. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the other consultants (at a minimum the civil engineer, structural engineer, landscape architect) and incorporated into their plans. The contractor should properly implement the recommendations during construction and notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe, or unsuitable. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client, any use of or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and modification. LEGEND Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Infiltration Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Estimated Removal and Recompaction Depths, if Feet Approximate Site Limits HS-4 T.D. = 26.5'I-4 T.D. = 5' HS-3 T.D. = 50.5' HS-4 T.D. = 26.5' I-3 T.D. = 15' I-4 T.D. = 15' HS-2 T.D. = 50.5' I-2 T.D. = 15' I-1 T.D. = 10' HS-1 T.D. = 21.5' 6'6' 6' 5' 5' 5' 5' FIGURE 2 Boring Location Map ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE DATE 1" = 60' June 2025 MWIG - Arcadia RLD 25041-01LGC Geotechnical, Inc. 131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200 San Clemente, CA 92672 TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142 4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE PER PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER COMPACTED SAND BACKFILL (EXPANSION INDEX £20, MAXIMUM 35% FINES) NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED PER REPORT MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT FOOTING/WALL PER DESIGN ENGINEER WATER PROOFING PER DESIGN ENGINEER 12" MINIMUM 18" MAXIMUM BACKCUT PER OSHA EXTENT OF REQUIRED IMPORTED SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER WA L L H E I G H T , H NOTE: PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAIN AT BASE OF WALL WILL NOT PREVENT SATURATION OF SOILS BELOW AND / OR IN FRONT OF WALL FIGURE 3 Retaining Wall Backfill Detail June 2025 DATE ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE RLD Not to Scale MWIG -Arcadia 25041-01 Appendix A References Project No. 25041-01 A-1 June 26, 2025 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute, 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2017. ________, 2018, Standard 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Supplement 1, effective: December 12, 2018. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D420 – D5876. Bray, J.D., and Sancio, R. B., 2006, Assessment of Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1165-1177, dated September 2006. California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2022. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2020, Highway Design Manual, Updated March 20, 2020. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Mt. Wilson 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 030, revised January 13, 2006. ________, 1999, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Mt. Wilson Quadrangle, Official Map, scale: 1:24,000, dated March 25, 1999. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, California Geological Survey Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. _______, 2017, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Mount Wilson Quadrangle, dated June 15, 2017. ________, 2018, Special Publication 42: Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Revised 2018. ________, 2025, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation website: CGS Earthquake Zones (ca.gov); retrieved June 24, 2025. County of Los Angeles, 2021, Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration, GS200.1, dated June 30, 2021. Project No. 25041-01 A-2 June 26, 2025 Diblee, et al, 1998, Geologic Map of the Mount Wilson & Azusa Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California, Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-67, Last edited 2010. Historic Aerials, 2025, viewed June 24, 2025, Aerial Maps from 1952 to 2022 https://www.historicaerials.com/. KTGY, 2025, Conceptual Site Plan, Option 5c, Colorado Place, Arcadia, California, dated May 14, 2025. Lew, et al, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Basements, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention Proceedings. Pradel, Daniel, 1998, Procedure to evaluate earthquake-induced settlement in dry sandy soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 124(4), pp. 364-368, dated April and October 1998. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2025, Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved June 24, 2025, from https://seismicmaps.org/ United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update)(v4.2.0), Retrieved June 24, 2025, from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Appendix B Field Exploration Logs THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 480 475 470 465 460 455 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1 4/14/2025 ~484' MSL 8" Truck Mounted Rig 30" 140 pounds Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 2 @ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete / 5" Aggregate Base 118.7 6.8 SC @ 5' - Clayey SAND: brown, slightly moist, loose 112.3 6.7 SM @ 7.5' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense 106.4 2.9 @ 10' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, medium dense 3.2 @ 15' - SAND with Silt: gray, dry, dense 11.9 @ 20' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense B- 1 865 R-1 6813 R-2 111419 R-3 182034 R-4 445 SPT-1 SC/SM SW-SM 113.5 Total Depth = 21.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Backfilled with Cuttings on 4/14/2024 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 485 480 475 470 465 460 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2 ~486' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 2" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base 109.9 6.8 SC/SM @ 5' - Clayey Silty SAND to Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense 110.6 8.0 CL/ML @ 7.5' - Sandy SILT/CLAY: brown, slightly moist, stiff 118.3 7.2 @ 10' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense 2.2 @ 15' - SAND: orangish brown, dry, medium dense @ 20' - No Recovery B- 1 1099 R-1 71015 R-3 556 R-2 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 4611 SPT-1 977 SPT-2 9.9 SC @ 25' - Clayey SAND: brown, moist, medium dense SP SM 50/5"R-3 to SM -#200 -#200 AL MDDSEICR CN Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) DESCRIPTION 60 TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX 55 50 45 40 35 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) De p t h ( f t ) Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N u m b e r Bl o w C o u n t Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) US C S S y m b o l DESCRIPTION Ty p e o f T e s t Date: Project Name: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drilling Company: Type of Rig: Drop: Drive Weight: Hole Diameter: 30 CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 455 450 545 540 535 530 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2 (Cont.) ~486' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 2 of 2 R-6 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 Total Depth = 50.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Caving: Hole Measured Approximately 40' after Removal of the Augers Backfilled with Cuttings on 4/14/2025 104.0 3.8 @ 30' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, dry, very dense 7.2 SM 108.0 3.0 SW-SM 5.2 SM 100.7 4.8 -#200 SM @ 35' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense @ 40' - SAND with Silt: gray, dry, very dense @ 45' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense @ 50' - Silty SAND: pale brown, slightly moist, very dense 4750/5" 7810 SPT-3 121522 SPT-4 343550 R-6 50/3"R-7 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 490 485 480 475 470 465 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3 ~492' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 4" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base 10.6 SC/SM @ 5' - Clayey Silty SAND: olive brown, moist, medium dense 106.2 2.3 SW-SM @ 7.5' - SAND with Silt: grayish brown, dry, very dense 109.7 2.1 @ 10' - SAND with Silt: grayish brown, dry, very dense 3.4 @ 15' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense @ 20' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, very dense B- 1 9109 R-1 3750/5" 143848 R-2 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 (Google Earth) 123334 SPT-1 91010 SPT-2 11.2 SC/SM @ 25' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense SP-SM R-3 AL-#200 203340 SPT-3 SM7.3117.4 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) DESCRIPTION 60 TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX 55 50 45 40 35 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) De p t h ( f t ) Gr a p h i c L o g Sa m p l e N u m b e r Bl o w C o u n t Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) US C S S y m b o l DESCRIPTION Ty p e o f T e s t Date: Project Name: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drilling Company: Type of Rig: Drop: Drive Weight: Hole Diameter: 30 CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3 (Cont.) ~492' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 2 of 2 R-4 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 (Google Earth) Total Depth = 50.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Caving: No Caving Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/28/2025 110.8 9.6 @ 30' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, very dense 3.7 SW-SM 105.5 3.7 SM to 3.9 SW-SM SM @ 35' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense @ 40' - Silty SAND to SAND with Silt: pale brown, dry, very dense @ 45' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense @ 50' - NO RECOVERY 3650/5" 284150/5.5" SPT-4 4050/5.5"SPT-5 50/5"R-5 50/5"R-6 SW-SM 460 455 450 445 440 435 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 485 480 475 470 465 460 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4 ~488' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 4" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base 111.8 5.1 SC/SM @ 5' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense 101.8 8.5 SM @ 7.5' - Silty SAND with Gravel: brown, moist, medium dense 107.3 6.4 @ 10' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense 9.3 @ 15' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense @ 20' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense B- 1 182629 R-1 141619 R-2 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 (Google Earth) 212321 SPT-1 243234 6.4 @ 25' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, very dense SC/SMR-3 DS -#200EICR 71013 142124 R-4 R-5 Total Depth = 26.5' Groundwater Not Encountered Caving: No Caving Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/28/2025 116.2 SM7.7 114.5 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-1 Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 2.5" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 10' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 4/14/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Cold Patch On 4/15/2025 ~484' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 764 R-1 355 SPT-1 107.0 6.0 SM to @ 5' - Silty SAND to Sandy CLAY: pale brown, slightly moist, loose/medium stiff 8.1 SC @ 8' - Clayey SAND: brown, moist, medium dense 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 CL 480 475 470 465 460 455 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: 480 475 470 465 460 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-2 Logged By JMN Sampled By JMN Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 2.5" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 15' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 4/14/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings On 4/15/2025 ~484' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 344 R-3 7811 SPT-1 3.6 SW-SM @ 13' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, medium dense 108.7 13.3 CL @ 5' - Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, medium stiff 4/14/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (201 Colorado Pl) 25041-01 455 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-3 Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 15' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 5/28/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings On 5/29/2025 ~488' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 142020 R-1 SPT-1 3.8 SW-SM @ 13' - SAND with Silt: brown, dry, very dense 99.3 3.9 SM @ 5' - Silty SAND: brown, dry, dense 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 878 SPT-2 102124 @ 10' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, very moist, medium denseSC/SM14.0 B- 1 485 480 475 470 465 460 (Google Earth) Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE -#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY SIEVE ANALYSIS SIEVE AND HYDROMETER EXPANSION INDEX TEST TYPES: DS MD SA S&H EI SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ty p e o f T e s t DESCRIPTIONUS C S S y m b o l Mo i s t u r e ( % ) Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Bl o w C o u n t Sa m p l e N u m b e r Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( f t ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Hole Diameter: Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Drop: Type of Rig: Project Number: Elevation of Top of Hole:Drive Weight: Drilling Company: Project Name: Date: Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-4 Logged By JJV Sampled By JJV Checked By RLD Page 1 of 1 @ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete / No Aggregate Base Total Depth = 15' Groundwater not Encountered 3" Perforated Pipe with Filter Sock Installed Surrounded by Gravel, and Presoaked on 5/28/2025 Backfilled with Cuttings On 5/29/2025 ~487' MSL 8"30" 140 pounds 162134 R-1 SPT-1 10.8 SC/SM @ 13' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense 112.5 2.8 SM to @ 5' - Silty SAND to SAND with Silt: pale brown, dry, dense 5/28/2025 Truck Mounted Rig Choice Drilling MWIG - Arcadia (Motel 6) 25041-01 844 SPT-2 12724 @ 10' - Clayey Silty SAND: brown, very moist, medium dense17.2 SC/SM SP-SMB- 1 485 480 475 470 465 460 Quaternary Alluvial Deposits (Qa) Appendix C Laboratory Test Results Project No. 25041-01 C-1 June 2025 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results The laboratory testing program was formulated towards providing data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils with respect to residential construction. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results. Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, Standard ASTM D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch-thick by 4-inch-diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below. Sample Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential* HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 1 Very Low HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 1 Very Low * ASTM D4829 Grain Size Distribution/Fines Content: Representative samples were dried, weighed and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140). Where applicable, the portion retained on the No. 200 sieve and dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D6913 (sieve). Sample Location Description % Passing # 200 Sieve HS-2 @ 15 ft Sand 4 HS-2 @ 25 ft Clayey Sand 38 HS-2 @ 35 ft Silty Sand 29 HS-3 @ 25ft Clayey Silty Sand 37 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft Silty Sand 25 APPENDIX C (Cont’d) Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Project No. 25041-01 C-2 June 2025 Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits (“Atterberg Limits”) were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318 for engineering classification of fine-grained material and presented in the table below: Sample Location Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Plasticity Index (%) USCS Soil Classification HS-2 @ 7.5 feet 23 19 4 CL-ML HS-3 @ 25 feet 24 17 7 CL-ML Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) HS-2 @ 1-5 ft Dark Brown Silty Sand 130.5 8.5 Consolidation: Two consolidation tests were performed per ASTM D2435. A sample (2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height) was placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied. The sample was allowed to consolidate under “double drainage” and total deformation for each loading step was recorded. The percent consolidation for each load step was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The consolidation pressure curves are provided in this Appendix. Direct Shear: Two direct shear tests were performed on a remolded sample and an in-situ sample, which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. The samples were tested under various normal loads using a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus (ASTM D3080). The plot is provided in this Appendix. APPENDIX C (Cont’d) Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Project No. 25041-01 C-3 June 2025 Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below. Sample Location Sulfate Content (ppm) Sulfate Exposure Class * HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 8 S0 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 32 S0 *Based on ACI 318R-14, Table 19.3.1.1 Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method (CTM) 422. The results are presented below. Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 28 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 29 Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below. Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 7.6 15,410 HS-4 @ 1-5 ft 7.4 13,400 Project Name:Tested By:GB/JD Date:04/17/25 Project No.:Checked By:J. Ward Date:04/30/25 Boring No.:Depth (ft.): Sample No.:Sample Type: Soil Identification: Sample Diameter (in.):2.415 Sample Thickness (in.):1.000 Weight of Sample + ring (g):191.83 Weight of Ring (g):44.27 Height after consol. (in.):0.9688 Before Test Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g):177.47 Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g):169.32 Weight of Container (g):39.71 Initial Moisture Content (%)6.3 Initial Dry Density (pcf)115.5 Initial Saturation (%):37 Initial Vertical Reading (in.)0.1162 After Test Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g):256.34 Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g):237.37 Weight of Container (g):57.28 Final Moisture Content (%) 13.97 Final Dry Density (pcf):116.6 Final Saturation (%):85 Final Vertical Reading (in.)0.1507 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70 Water Density (pcf):62.43 0.10 0.1165 0.9997 0.00 0.03 0.459 0.03 0.25 0.1190 0.9972 0.05 0.28 0.457 0.23 0.50 0.1209 0.9953 0.12 0.47 0.455 0.35 1.00 0.1247 0.9916 0.21 0.84 0.451 0.63 1.00 0.1250 0.9912 0.21 0.88 0.450 0.67 2.00 0.1286 0.9877 0.31 1.24 0.446 0.92 4.00 0.1346 0.9816 0.41 1.84 0.439 1.43 8.00 0.1437 0.9726 0.52 2.75 0.427 2.23 16.00 0.1603 0.9560 0.64 4.41 0.405 3.77 8.00 0.1589 0.9573 0.59 4.27 0.406 3.68 4.00 0.1573 0.9590 0.53 4.11 0.408 3.58 1.00 0.1531 0.9631 0.39 3.69 0.412 3.30 0.50 0.1507 0.9655 0.33 3.45 0.41 3.120 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION ASTM D 2435 25041-01 Arcadia Deformation % of Sample Thickness Final Reading (in.) PROPERTIES of SOILS Ring Void Ratio Pressure (p) (ksf)Time Dial Rdgs. (in.)Date Apparent Thickness (in.) Load Compliance (%) HS-2 R-2 Square Root of Time Corrected Deforma- tion (%) Olive brown silty sand (SM) Time Readings Elapsed Time (min) 7.5 0.400 0.410 0.420 0.430 0.440 0.450 0.460 0.470 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Vo i d R a t i o Pressure, p (ksf) Inundate with Tap water Consol HS-2, R-2 @ 7.5 Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification: Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft.) Moisture Content (%) ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES of SOILS ASTM D 2435 14.0 116.6HS-2 R-2 6.3 Olive brown silty sand (SM) Project No.: Arcadia 04-25 25041-01 Time Readings 0.414 37 85115.5 Degree of Saturation (%)Dry Density (pcf) 0.460 Void Ratio 7.5 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 0.1 1.0 De f o r m a t i o n D i a l R e a d i n g ( i n . ) Log of Time (min.) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 De f o r m a t i o n ( % ) Pressure, p (ksf) 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 0.0 10.0 Square Root of Time (min.1/2) Inundate with Tap water Project Name:Arcadia Tested By:G. Bathala Date:04/23/25 Project No.:25041-01 Checked By:J. Ward Date:04/30/25 Boring No.:Sample Type:90% Remold Sample No.:Depth (ft.):1-5 Soil Identification: 2.415 2.415 2.415 1.000 1.000 1.000 199.35 196.45 199.23 45.39 42.26 44.97 Before Shearing 218.81 218.81 218.81 207.98 207.98 207.98 77.77 77.77 77.77 0.2626 0.2739 0.0000 0.2713 0.2884 -0.0245 After Shearing 225.12 217.32 209.92 207.21 199.34 192.80 67.40 59.14 52.64 2.70 2.70 2.70 62.43 62.43 62.43 HS-2 Dark brown silty sand (SM) Sample Diameter(in): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): Vertical Rdg.(in): Final Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial Sample Thickness(in.): Weight of Sample + ring(gm): B-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Water Density(pcf): Specific Gravity (Assumed): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Ring(gm): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): DS HS-2, B-1 @ 1-5 Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 04-25 Project No.:25041-01 Sample Type: 90% Remold Dark brown silty sand (SM) 52.7 0.9913 12.8 ArcadiaDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 53.1 0.9755 12.2 1.000 0.912 0.777 0.0033 1.000 2.415 1.000 2.415 2.000 1.625 1.449 0.0033 4.000 3.122 2.804 0.0033 53.0 0.9855 12.8 Soil Identification:8.32 118.4 8.32 118.2 118.4 1.000 2.415 8.32 Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) HS-2 B-1 1-5 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) DS HS-2, B-1 @ 1-5 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Tested By:J. Domingo Date:06/04/25 Project No.:25041-01 Checked By:J. Ward Date:06/12/25 Boring No.:Sample Type:Ring Sample No.:Depth (ft.):7.5 Soil Identification: 2.415 2.415 2.415 1.000 1.000 1.000 175.86 176.56 178.72 45.03 45.39 42.81 Before Shearing 172.82 172.82 172.82 165.19 165.19 165.19 67.11 67.11 67.11 0.2737 0.2863 0.0000 0.2903 0.3168 -0.0573 After Shearing 193.66 199.08 201.22 166.85 174.96 180.45 49.74 56.35 57.05 2.70 2.70 2.70 62.43 62.43 62.43 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Water Density(pcf): Specific Gravity (Assumed): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Ring(gm): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): HS-4 Brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g Sample Diameter(in): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): Vertical Rdg.(in): Final Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial Sample Thickness(in.): Weight of Sample + ring(gm): R-2 DS HS-4, R-2 @ 7.5 Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 104.9 1.000 2.415 7.78 Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) HS-4 R-2 7.5 31.6 0.9695 20.3 Soil Identification:7.78 101.2 7.78 101.0 1.185 0.0033 4.000 2.842 2.836 0.0033 1.000 0.742 0.732 0.0033 1.000 2.415 1.000 2.415 2.000 1.191 31.4 0.9834 22.9 MWIG - ArcadiaDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 34.6 0.9427 16.8 06-25 Project No.:25041-01 Sample Type: Ring Brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) DS HS-4, R-2 @ 7.5 Appendix D Infiltration Test Results Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 10 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 8:39 9:09 30.0 7.02 7.66 0.64 Main Test Data 1 9:10 9:40 30.0 7.00 7.58 0.58 6.63 0.7 2 9:41 10:11 30.0 7.00 7.58 0.58 6.63 0.7 3 10:18 10:48 30.0 7.02 7.61 0.59 6.59 0.7 4 10:50 11:20 30.0 6.98 7.53 0.55 6.67 0.7 5 11:22 11:52 30.0 7.02 7.61 0.59 6.59 0.8 6 11:54 12:24 30.0 6.98 7.52 0.54 6.67 0.7 0.7 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Date:4/15/2025 I-1 Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): *measured at time of test Comments Water remained Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, Dt (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Change in Water Level, DD (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Measured Infiltration Rate Feasibility Factor of Safety Feasibility Infiltration Rate Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 15 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 8:44 9:06 22.0 12.05 15 2.95 Main Test Data 1 9:07 9:17 10.0 11.70 13.83 2.13 7.26 7.4 2 9:20 9:33 13.0 11.95 14.35 2.40 6.74 6.9 3 9:38 9:48 10.0 11.93 13.84 1.91 6.78 7.1 4 9:50 10:00 10.0 11.92 13.88 1.96 6.80 7.2 5 10:03 10:13 10.0 11.94 13.80 1.86 6.76 6.9 6 10:15 10:25 10.0 11.90 13.74 1.84 6.84 6.8 7 10:28 10:38 10.0 11.94 13.77 1.83 6.76 6.8 8 10:41 10:51 10.0 11.93 13.78 1.85 6.78 6.9 9 10:54 11:04 10.0 11.92 13.82 1.90 6.80 7.0 10 11:07 11:17 10.0 11.98 13.81 1.83 6.67 6.9 11 11:20 11:30 10.0 11.92 13.8 1.88 6.80 6.9 12 11:33 11:43 10.0 11.92 13.8 1.88 6.80 6.9 6.9 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Date:4/15/2025 I-2 Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): *measured at time of test Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Comments Water drained after 30 min Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, Dt (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Change in Water Level, DD (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Measured Infiltration Rate Feasibility Factor of Safety Feasibility Infiltration Rate Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 15 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 7:23 7:53 30.0 13.99 14.79 0.8 Main Test Data 1 7:58 8:28 30.0 11.91 14.38 2.47 6.82 3.0 2 8:32 8:42 10.0 11.96 13.59 1.63 6.72 6.1 3 8:45 8:55 10.0 11.95 13.47 1.52 6.74 5.7 4 8:57 9:07 10.0 11.96 13.44 1.48 6.72 5.5 5 9:09 9:19 10.0 11.95 13.49 1.54 6.74 5.7 6 9:22 9:32 10.0 11.96 13.41 1.45 6.72 5.4 7 9:34 9:44 10.0 11.99 13.38 1.39 6.65 5.3 8 9:45 9:55 10.0 11.98 13.44 1.46 6.67 5.5 9 9:58 10:08 10.0 11.95 13.47 1.52 6.74 5.7 10 10:12 10:22 10.0 11.96 13.42 1.46 6.72 5.5 11 10:24 10:34 10.0 11.95 13.40 1.45 6.74 5.4 12 10:36 10:46 10.0 11.91 13.32 1.41 6.82 5.2 13 10:59 11:09 10.0 11.97 13.39 1.42 6.70 5.3 14 11:12 11:22 10.0 11.96 13.37 1.41 6.72 5.3 15 11:24 11:34 10.0 11.97 13.35 1.38 6.70 5.2 16 11:36 11:46 10.0 11.95 13.4 1.45 6.74 5.4 5.3 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Infiltration Rate Factor of Safety Design Infiltration Rate Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Comments Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, ∆t (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Change in Water Level, ∆D (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) *measured at time of test Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): Date:5/29/2025 I-3 Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Location: Test hole dimensions (if circular) 15 8 3 Pre-Soak /Pre-Test No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (feet) Final Depth to Water (feet) Total Change in Water Level (feet) Pre-Test 8:07 8:37 30.0 12.15 14.2 2.05 Main Test Data 1 8:39 8:49 10.0 11.44 12.94 1.50 7.81 4.8 2 8:50 9:00 10.0 11.93 13.09 1.16 6.78 4.3 3 9:02 9:12 10.0 11.85 12.92 1.07 6.95 3.9 4 9:14 9:50 36.0 11.95 14.07 2.12 6.74 2.2 5 9:53 10:03 10.0 11.80 12.98 1.18 7.05 4.2 6 10:05 10:15 10.0 11.93 13.00 1.07 6.78 4.0 7 10:18 10:28 10.0 11.98 13.10 1.12 6.67 4.2 8 10:32 10:42 10.0 11.97 13.12 1.15 6.70 4.3 9 11:06 11:16 10.0 11.82 12.82 1.00 7.01 3.6 10 11:18 11:28 10.0 11.95 12.86 0.91 6.74 3.4 11 11:30 11:40 10.0 11.97 12.99 1.02 6.70 3.8 12 11:43 11:53 10.0 11.98 13.04 1.06 6.67 4.0 13 11:57 12:07 10.0 11.93 13.05 1.12 6.78 4.2 14 12:09 12:19 10.0 11.95 13.10 1.15 6.74 4.3 15 12:25 12:35 10.0 11.97 13.18 1.21 6.70 4.5 16 12:38 12:48 10.0 11.95 13.14 1.19 6.74 4.4 4.4 TBD TBD Sketch:Notes: Raw Percolation Rate (in/hr) Infiltration Rate Factor of Safety Design Infiltration Rate Based on Guidelines from: LA County dated 06/2021 Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/22/2023 Comments Trial No.Start Time (24:HR) Stop Time (24:HR) Time Interval, ∆t (min) Initial Depth to Water, Do (feet) Final Depth to Water, Df (feet) Change in Water Level, ∆D (feet) Surface Area of Test Section (feet ^2) *measured at time of test Boring Depth (feet)*:Pit Depth (feet): Boring Diameter (inches):Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): Date:5/29/2025 I-4 Test pit dimensions (if rectangular) Infiltration Test Data Sheet LGC Geotechnical, Inc 131 Calle Iglesia Suite A, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141 Project Name:MWIG - Arcadia Project Number:25041-01 Appendix E General Earthwork & Grading Specifications for Rough Grading General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture- conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1 contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor. 2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 2 2.3 Over-excavation In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 3 3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Layers Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557). 4.3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557. 4.5 Compaction Testing Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 4 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 5 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 6 the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.