The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAccept Faithful Performance Bond No. 6531070 and Labor and M i Shari L. Freidenrich, CPA,CCMT,CPFA,CPFIM P.O.Box 190 City Treasurer Huntington Beach,CA 92648-0190 www.surfcity-hb.org city.treasurer@surfcity-hb.org io9 , ` Phone: (714)536-5200 Fax: (714) 374-1603 Office of the City Treasurer Accounts Receivable, Cashiering, Collections, Disbursements, Investments CERTIFIED MAIL April 17, 2009 Safeco Insurance Company P.O.Box 34670 Seattle, WA 98124-1670 To Whom it May Concern: This is to inform you the City of Huntington Beach City Council approved the release of the following bond on 4/6/2009: Performance&Labor No. 631070 Material Bond No. 631070 We are releasing these bonds and have enclosed it for your files. We have also enclosed a copy of the City Council Action approving the release of the above-referenced bonds. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact me at(714) 536-5200. Sincerely, pp Shari L. Freidenrich, CPA,CCMT, CFMA, CPFIM City Treasurer Enclosures cc: Cindy A. Thibodaux,Risk Services Coordinator Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Risk Management Dept.Bldg.C-8 2455 Paces Ferry Rd. Atlanta, GA 30339 Terri Elliott,Principal Civil Engineer(no attachments) Joan.Flynn,=City"Clef k(rid"attachments) Joyce Zacks, Deputy City Treasurer(no attachments) Charter Mission: Ensure safe and timely receipt, deposit, collection, investment and disbursement of public funds. 0 w j, City of Huntington Beach -n ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Phone 536-5271 Fax 374-1540 March 27, 2006 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES FROM: RON SANTOS—ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PROPOSED DOME DEPOT Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Lead Agency (in this case, the City of Huntington Beach) to provide a notice of availability of a draft Negative Declarations for public review. The following information regarding the characteristics of the project and the availability of the associated environmental documentation is provided pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(c). Proposed project location and characteristics (§15087(c)(1)) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No.04-10,in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 04-56, analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposal to demolish an existing 125,487 sq.ft.commercial building(including an attached 8,500 s.f.garden center)formerly occupied by K-Mart,and replace it with a new 130,536 sq. ft.commercial building(Home Depot), including an attached 25,000 sq. ft. garden center, new parking lot paving, landscaping and other associated site improvements. Location: 19101 Magnolia Street, Huntington Beach(southwest of the Magnolia Street/Garfield Avenue intersection) Start and end dates of the public comment period (§ 15087(c)(2)) The public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is March 30,2006 to May 1, 2006. Comments should be addressed to: Ron Santos, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 WENVIRONM\NOA LTR 4 Dates,times, and places of currently scheduled public meetings (§15087(c)(3)) Subsequent to the comment period,public hearings will be scheduled before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission. No specific hearing dates have been established at this time. Significant environmental effects anticipated to result from the proposed project(§15087(c)(4)) The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that implementation of the proposed project would result in the following significant or potentially significant impacts: Potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level in the following issue areas: ■ GEOLOGY AND SOILS: The subject site is located in an area of high to very high potential for liquefaction according to the General Plan(1996). The significant potential for liquefaction is also identified in a geotechnical engineering investigation, prepared by The Twining Laboratories, Inc., (Nov. 2004). The study concludes that mitigation is necessary in order to reduce seismic liquefaction risk to acceptable levels. The study also indicated that near surface soils had moisture contents predominantly above the optimum, and therefore that aeration, chemical treatment, or other means of stabilization will be required to compact the bottom of excavations, and to place and compact fills; ■ TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: The project is not expected to result in any significant adverse traffic impacts,provided however that medians or other traffic design features may be needed to reinforce turn restrictions at specific driveways; and • NOISE: The noise producing components of the project identified as potentially significant consist of on-site truck movements,parking lot activities,mechanical equipment,construction, off-site traffic, lumber off-loading activities (including forklift usage),trash collection, garden center area noise sources and loading dock activities. Address(es) where copies of the D-MND and all documents cited therein are available for public review (§15087(c)(5)) Copies of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No.04-10 and supporting documents are available for review at the following locations: City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Central Library Planning Department 7111 Talbert Avenue 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 GAENVIRONM\NOA LTR 21E 41 I. PROJECT TITLE: HOME DEPOT Concurrent Entitlements: Conditional Use Permit No. 04-56 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Ron Santos—Associate Planner Phone: (714) 536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: 19 101 Magnolia Street, Huntington Beach(southwest comer of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue) 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Scott A. Mornmer Consulting 4630 W. Jacquelyin Avenue, Suite 119 Fresno, CA 93722 Contact Person: Scott Mommer Telephone No: (559)276-2790 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CG-F I (Commercial General—0.35 max. FAR) 6. ZONING: CG(Commercial General) 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Existing Conditions The subject property consists of a single 499,377 s.f. parcel with street frontage along Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue, existing four-lane arterial roadways. The project site is currently developed with a 125,487 s.f. commercial building, including an 8,500 s.f., fenced outdoor "garden center", pro- posed to be demolished. The existing building had been occupied for retail use(principally K-Mart) since its construction in 1970, until October 2004, when the building was vacated. The building is situated at a 60 ft. setback from the westerly property line and a 75 ft. setback from the southerly prop- erty line. The building's storefront is oriented toward Magnolia Street and loading areas are located to GAENVIROWCHECKLST Page 1 the rear(west side)of the building. Approximately 637 parking spaces exist on site,with the principal parking fields located north and east of the building and limited parking to the south and west. In addition, a 2,994 freestanding fast-food/drive-through restaurant building, constructed in 2000, ex- ists on the site. The restaurant is located east of the former K-Mart building,along the Magnolia Street frontage. The site contains 55 mature trees,and is otherwise minimally landscaped(is non-conforming to City standards). Proposed Proiect The proposed project consists of construction of a 130,536 square-foot, tilt-up concrete, home im- provement store,including a 25,000 sq. ft. garden center,on-site landscaping,paving, 585 parking spaces and associated infrastructure and site improvements. The approximate maximum height of the proposed building is 44 feet, 6-inches. The proposal includes an enclosed loading dock and a cus- tomer pick-up canopy. Access to the site is proposed via three driveways along Magnolia Street and two driveways along Garfield Avenue, at locations consistent with the location of existing driveways. An alternative access design discussed in Sections I(Land Use and Planning)and VI(Transporta- tion/Traffic)considers the possible consolidation of pairs of driveways which serve respectively the subject property and the parcel to the north, and the subject property and the parcel to the south; result- ing in the elimination of one or two driveways along Magnolia Street. 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: A small (7,911 s.f.)commercial building exists adjacent to the subject property, on a separate parcel at the southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue. The building is currently vacant, hav- ing been occupied most recently by a video rental business. Single-family dwellings exist to the north, across Garfield Avenue in the City of Fountain Valley, and contiguously to the west. Gas stations ex- ist on the northwest, northeast and southeast corners of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue. Devel- oped commercial parcels, a multi-family residential project and single-family dwellings exist to the east, across Magnolia Street. A developed commercial parcel with reciprocal access to the project site exists to the south, along with a linear City park/SCE right of way beyond. 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: N/A 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) (i.e. permits, financing approval, or participating agreement): N/A Page 2 y�T ZY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems 0 Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact"on the environment,but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has ❑ been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Ron Santos Associate Planner Printed Name Title Page 3 ATTAcHmeff brine 2_ 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer. is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVIII,"Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code of Regulations, but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval-The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project,some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information,a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No.4. SAMPLE QUESTION. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) El 11 El 19 Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Page 4 ATTACTMENT No . N W+E S NOT TO SCALE n o CO m � � g L(66)99 S Z —(219)556 J j L. f-(125)239 157(94)J '-1 t F- � 510(641)--► o o v 104(98) r rn v` Q co J m O Z U Q <---(397)864 —(340)800 GARFIELD AVE. 710(788) 705(778) 50(48) N 100 5) u !nn IT ID 'o, cc m ES 10(10) t m L9 O 7 �� M PROJECT m 78(69} t In um 0 SITE N c �D- it m_v L(14)16 -I j L.► r-(13)8 70(44)4 �1 t r 0(0) 67(24) N rn o m �N Q HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L (A.M3P.M. PEAK HOUR �I AssociAnD FIGURE Q TRANseoRTAnoN EXISTING + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SHARED ACCESS AT HYDE PARK DR ENGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach gg e�om� /ems 1p As Tran En Traffir anri(':rn.l�•:....c•�r,f.._anat'iG �t3 ! 3 �� Bi..l6Gf��I�� .�>� ..•�•>..'ty)"'1:�' SPortdtlOn 8in¢Pf5 N F W+ E S NOT TO SCALE F 94 35 t r N 33 0 J O Z Q ---111 ---o GARFIELD AVE. 50--- 10 -1 f 75CD --I t o � 20 PROJECT N d 94-}~I t 162—� *HYDE L SITE In 40 . LEGEND ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L (A.M.W.M. PEAK HOUR 4 ASSOCIATED FIGURE �12 TRANSPORTATION - PROJECT SATURDAY DRIVEWAY VOLUMES J:— ENGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beacht"' 's`.� �} (��Associated Transpottalion Engineers Traffic and Circulation Studv-604136 N W+E S NOT TO SCALE o L 102 co co 10 w 363 —{ 1 L. j 144 98—} '� I r 459--► M M 97� n J 0 Z V Q GARFIELD AVE. i PROJECT SITE 1/ HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L — (A-MJP.M. PEAK HOUR AssocIATED FIGUREC3 TRANSPORTATION EXISTING SATURDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES - ENGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach n C, r soitel T�n� wE e Traffic and Circulation Study-#04136 ATT URACh y pgn F l ta MnS N W E S NOT TO SCALE .D L 102 w n ro co •--363 J I L. r-238 133-? -1 t I- - 492--► N t-, CO N - M rn 97-1 ro Q J 0 Z (D Q 680 •-569 GARFIELD AVE. 704 664 75 O 50 L 0 M O M 20—'t '^N� PR JECT ry 94 162 o n N O SITE M O'O N.- 1/40 t HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECION L — (A.M.W.M. PEAK HOUR F ASSOCIATED FIGURE C14 s TRANSPORTATION EXISTING + PROJECT SATURDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES I ENGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Reach Associated Transportation Engittt m Traffic and Circulation Studv-"136 - h 1 N W+E S NOT TO SCALE m t 105 m m —374 J 1 L. F148 101-t '1 t F- c~n 473 tm rn In 100-1 ^ Q O Z U Q GARFIELD AVE. i PROJECT SITE HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L — (A.M.W M. PEAK HOUR AssoctATED FIGURE C 5 TRANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE SATURDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES _ E NGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beads sociated Transporlatan Engitttxrs Traffic and circulation Study-#04136 A _ III krr Lu%`� hotnmlwr to xnc N W+E S NOT TO SCALE l L 105 � 374 . 242 136f � IF - 506— ID m 100 oo JQO XX Z (D Q �--698 —587 GARFIELD AVE. 724— 684 75—1 0 50 u°Di 0 M e! 1 O C 20 PROJECT o N m ¢ 94 'I t 162 0 N SITE N'- 1% t HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L (A.M.W.M. PEAK HOUR ASSOCIATED FIGURE 16 TRANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE + PROJECT SATURDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES E NGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach i 'f (�� Associated Ttansporwion Engineers Traffic and Circulation Studv-#04136 ! . a. M ,i .—i n�o.". " — Date of Observations: September 29,2005 School Pedestrian Volumes 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Observation Period * =e. '�* �� 7:30-8:00 am 1 4 01 01 41 0 1 8:00-8:30am 51 2 51 01 11 2 0 Total 61 6 51 01 51 2 1 2.20-2:50 pm 01 6 01 91 21 81 0 2:50-3:20pm 2 7 0 91 01 21 0 Total 21 131 0 181 21 101 0 Adult Pedestrian Volumes 1 2 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 Observation Period "�% � I 7:30-8:00am 0 0 01 01 0. 0 8:00-8:30am 3i 11 3 1 01 01 1 Total 3 1 F 31 1 01 01 1 2:20-2:50pm 2 0 2 6 1 1 0 2:50-3:20 pm 1 OI 1 11 01 OI 0 Total 31 01 31 71 1 11 0 :ied l rfwr,,,., cc Old K-Mart cc p l AsscicmTm FIGURE TRANSPORTATION PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES IffF E NGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach Associated Transportation Engineers 1raffic and Circulation Study-404136 December 14,2I05 So��M 4tai1- i 3 1� t C C�j Al d t —1 a -r s np D r � � v ry- Gz i 'S ALL TRAFFIC RESOURCES 5312 W.AVE L-14 QUARTZ HILL,CA 93536 File Name :GOLDEN WEST&SW DRIVEWAY (661)718-8226 (661)303-1664 Site Code :07130501 Start Date :07/13/2005 Page No :1 Groups Primed-Unshifted GOLDEN WEST ST SOUTHWEST DRIVEWAY GOLDEN WEST ST APARTMENTS ENTRANCE From North From East From South From West Start Tone I Right T'hnr Lett Pens R' hr Thru Left Peds Riaht Tfw Left Pads R'ht TMu Leff Pods ML Total Factor 1.0 SA 1.0 U, 1_0 1.0 1.0 t0 1.0 1.0 1-0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1A 1.0 07:00 AAA 1 163 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 174 0 0 0 0 5 0 344 07:15 AM 1 209 0 D 2 0 1 0 0 227 0 0 4 0 8 0 452 07:30 AM 1 227 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 234 1 0 2 0 8 0 475 07:45 AM 1 259 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 285 0 0 5 0 4 0 558 Total 4 858 0 01 4 0 3 0 2 921 1 01 11 0 25 0 1829 08:00 AM 5 287 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 239 1 0 4 0 7 0 546 08:15 AM 2 244 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 264 1 0 5 0 4 0 522 08:30 AM 3 233 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 244 0 0 2 0 5 0 493 08:45 AM 1 227 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 291 0 0 7 0 3 0 536 Total 11 991 3 01 10 0 3 01 2 1038 2 0 18 0 19 0 E 2097 04:00 PM 1 310 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 330 10 0' 1 0 1 0 661 04:15 PM 4 275 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 283 1 0 0 0 3 0 577 04:30 PM 4 306 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 374 2 0 0 0 4 0 695 04:45 PM 4 317 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 317 2 01 0 0 1 0 644 Total 13 1208 0 01 13 0 3 0 11 1304 15 01 1 0 9 0 2577 05:00 PM 6 327 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 388 3 0 0 0 4 0 729 05:15 PM 8 301 2 0 1 0 0 0 2_- 337 8 0 3 0 4 0 666 05:30 PM 6 308 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 329 4 0 0 0 4 0 656 05:45 PM 2 261 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 331 2 0 0 0 0 0 602 Total 22 1197 3 0 8 0 1 0 5 1385 17 0 3 .0 12 0 2653 Grand Total 50 4254 6 0 35 0 10 01 20 4648 35 0 33 0 65 0 9156 Apprch% 1.2 98.7 0.1 0.0 77.8 0,0 22.2 0.0! 0.4 98.8 0.7 0.0 337 0.0 66.3 0.0 Total% 0.5 46.5 0.1 0.01 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.01 0.2 50.8 0.4 0.0` 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0, ATTACHMENT 1` ALL TRAFFIC RESOURCES 5312 W.AVE 1-44 QUARTZ HILL,CA 93636 File Name :GOLDEN WEST&NW DRIVEWAY (661)718-8226 (661)303-1584 Site code :0713M2 Start Date :07/13/2005 Page No :1 Groups Printed Unshifted GOLDEN WEST ST NORTHWEST DRIVEWAY GOLDEN WEST ST From North From East From South From West Sted Time Rfoht ThN Left Peds R' M Thm Left Peds R ht Thtu Left Peds Riaht ThU Left Peds InL Total Factor 1.0 t.0 1.0 1.0 to 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.D 1.0 1A 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 0 157 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 178 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 07:15 AM 0 212 D 0 11 0 0 0 6 244 D Q 0 0 0 0 473 07:30 AM 0 227 0 0 10 0 0 0 16 236 0 0 0 0 0 0 489 07:45 AM 0 254 0 0 12 0 0 0 19 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 585 Total 0 850 0 01 43 0 0 01 46 958 0 01 0 0 0 01 1897 08:00 AM 0 286 0 0 25 0 0 0 13 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 574 08:15 AM 0 250 0 0 14 0 0 0 10 267 0 0 0 0 0 0 541 08:30 AM 0 233 0 0 16 0 0 0 17 257 0 0 0 0 0 0 523 08:45 AM 0 239 0 0 25 0 0 0 15 289 0 0 0 0 0 0 568 Total 0 1008 0 0 i 80 0 0 0 55 1063 0 0 0 0 0 0 2206 04:00 PM 0 319 0 0 36 0 0 0 14 332 0 0 0 0 0 0 701' 04:15 PM 0 284 0 0 23 0 0 0 18 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 621 04:30 PM 0 319 0 0 27 0 0 0 18 381 0 0 0 0 0 0 745 04:45 PM 0 320 0 0 25 0 0 0 12 320 0 0 0 0 0 0 677 Total 0 1242 0 0 111 0 0 0 62 1329 0 0 0 0 0 0 2744 05:00 PM 0 330 0 0 30 0 0 0 19 393 0 0 0 0 0 0 772 05:15 PM 0 306 0 0 22 0 0 0 23 335 0 0 0 0 0 0 686 15:30 PM 0 316 0 0 32 0 0 0 12 340 0 0 0 0 0 0 700 J5:45 PM 0 276 0 0 27 0 0 0 21 342 0 0 0 0 0 0 666 Total 0 179R 0 0 111 0 0 01 75 1410 0 01 0 0 0 0 2824 Grand Total 0 4328 0 01 345 0 0 0 238 4760 0 Q 0 0 0 0 9671 Apprch% 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 I 1 MI. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.0 0.0 Total% 0.0 44.8 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 49.2 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hT�fi NO 1101n C- 4el �V� ALL TRAFFIC RESOURCES 5312 W.AVE L44 QUARTZ BILL.CA 93536 File Name :WARNER&NW DRIVEWAY (661)718-8226 1(661)383-1564 Site Code :07130503 Start Date :07/14/2005 Page No :1 Groups Printed-Unshifted WARNER AVE NORTHWEST DRIVEWAY WARNER AVE From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thm LBtt Peels Rioht Thru Lett Peels Ri ht Thru Left Peds Ri ht Thru Lett Peels Int.Total Factor 1.0 I 1.0 t.0 1.0 1.0 t.0 t.D 1.0 1.0. t.0 1.D 1.0 1-0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 0 5 0 0 0 18 346 0 0 506 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 9 0 0 0 14 435 0 0 628 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 6 0 0 0 19 383 0 0 569 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 210 0 0 5 0 0 0 27 450 0 0 692 Total 0 0 0 01 0 678 0 01 25 0 0 0 78 1614 0 0 2395 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 174 0 0 8 0 0 0 19 387 0 0 588 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 163 0 0 11 0 0 0 20 400 0 0 594 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 13 0 0 0 24 336 0 0 573 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 221 0 0 18 0 0 0 31 401 0 0 671 Total 0 0 0 0 0 758 0 0 50 0 0 01 94 1524 0 0 2426 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 346 0 0 16 0 0 0 24 318 0 0 704 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 16 0 0 0 24 281 0 0 683 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 379 0 0 21 0 0 0 34 306 0 0 740 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 377 0 0 12 0 0 0 25 346 0 0 760 Total 0 0 0 0 0 1464 0 0 65 0 0 0 107 1251 0 0 2887 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 412 0 0 l 17 0 0 0 27 418 0 0 874 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 407 0 0 17 0 0 0 29 385 0 0 838 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 402 0 0 11 0 0 0 18 369 0 0 800 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 383 0 0 19 0 0 0 33 287 0 0 722 Total 0 0 0 0 0 1604 0 01 64 0 0 0 107 1459 0 0 3234 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 4504 0 0 204 0 0 0 386 5848 0 01 10942 Apprch % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 93.6 0.0 0.01 Total % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 53.4 0.0 0.0 ALL TRAFFIC RESOURCES 6312W.AVE L-14 QUARTZ HILL,CA 93636 File Name :HOME DEPOT&WARNER (661)71M226 (661)303-1564 Site Code :07130504 Start Date :0711412005 Page No :1 Groups Printed-Unshaw HOME DEPOT WARNER AVE HOME DEPOT WARNER AVE From North From,East From South From West Start Time Riohl Tltnr Lett Peds Right ThN Left UTURN Itt Ttw Leff Pads Riots Thra Left Peds mi.TotaI Factor 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.0. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1_D 1.0 1.01 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 5 0 10 0 4 135 19 0 8 1 4 0 1 340 5 0 532 07:15 AM 5 2 17 0 12 156 39 13 7 0 6 0 1 422 2 0 662 07:30 AM 6 0 10 0 1 142 25 4 11 0 9 0 2 368 3 0 581 07:45 AM 0 3 9 0 4 192 20 0 14 0 10' 0 5 437 10 0 704 Total 16 5 46 0 21 625 103 171 40 1 29 0 9 1567 20 01 2499 08:00 AM 1 0 9 0 8 163 28 0 17 0 8 0 4 376 6 0 620 08:15 AM 3 2 6 0 4 150 26 1 25 1 5 0 0 381 11 0 615 08:30 AM 9 0 8 0 5 174 33 0 19 1 14 0 2 327 7 0 599 08:45 AM 9 2 9 0 5 205 33 0 21 1 11 0 4 391 9 0 700 Total 22 4 32 0 22 692 120 1 82 3 38 0 10 1475 33 0 2534 04:00 PM 26 1 29 0 24 278 39 1 18 2 7 0 2 276 29 0 732 04:15 PM 27 2 32 0 32 319 21 1 26 1 10 0 3 284 14 0 772 04:30 PM 27 1 ' 19 0 21 317 22 0 11 2 12 0 2 260 22 0 716 04:45 PM 20 0 24 0 14 325 20 0 17 1 7 0 0 361 17 0 806 Total 100 4 104 0 91 1239 102 2 72 6 36 01 7 1181 82 01 3026 05:00 PM 26 2 43 0 16 301 30 0 16 0 10 0 2 337 24 0 807 05:15 PM 20 2 27 0 26 332 15 0 18 2 12 0 0 376 19 0 849 05:30 PM 28 0 38 0 21 335 24 0 16 1 8 0 1 372 22 0 866 05:45 PM 22 0 32 0 23 383 24 0 13 1 6 0 0 292 23 0 809 Total 96 4 140 0 86 1351 93 0 63 4 36 0 3 1367 88 01 3331 Grand Total 234 17 322 01 220 3907 418 20 257 14 139 0 29 5590 223 01 11390 Apprch% 40.8 3.0 56.2 0.0 4.8 85.6 9.2 0.4E 62.7 3.4 33.9 0.0 0.5 95.7 3.8 0.0 Total Die 2.1 0.1 2.8 0.0 1.9 34.3 3.7 0.2 2.3 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.3 49.1 2.0 0.0 1, ATTACHMENT . 2 >c, /7 WILTEE Phone:(626)564-1944 Far(626) 564-0969 DRIVEWAY COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT- ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS PROJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH HOME DEPOT TRAFFIC COUNTS DATE: SATURDAY,JULY 9TH,2005 PERIOD: 10:00 AM TO 2:00 PM LOCATION: N/S GOLDWEST STREET ENV DRIVEWAY I &2 DRIVEWAY#1 DRIVEWAY#2 15 MIN COUNTS 15 MIN COUNTS ;pl 7 4 37 --38 -m 2 5 25 42 3 6 44 46 6 4 38 42 6 6 32 46 nl.m 6 4 39 55 5 6 23 46 2 2 1A2Dk3 s =mot 29 57 7 4 21 64 2 7 32 46 1 3 6 25 46 36 43 A2-- .-,'A)D 1 3 1 :- 4 2 131b 34 39 20 44 3 3 3 5 32 32 0 6 5 28 44 HOUR TOTALS HOUR TOTALS 18 19 - 144 168 0 lt�- ----r r* 17 21 _5 139 176 Aw 21 20 153 189 ------------ 32 23 20 189 19 18 123 204 16 222 n",4 42,1 20 11 TT. -3U" 16 19 105 213 14 19 107 213 13 20 114 199 127 174 A23"130 11 14 115 172 r-12:45?145 11 13 122 158 M00 16 15 114 159 -A-T .1 A NQ, ael a.�� LT Phone:(626)564-1944 Fax:(626)564-0969 DRIVEWAY COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS PROJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH HOME DEPOT TRAFFIC COUNTS DATE: SATURDAY,JULY 9TH,2005 PERIOD: 10:00 AM TO 2:00 PM LOCATION: N/S DRIVEWAY 3 EAN WARNER AVENUE DRIVEWAY 3 15 MIN COUNTS PEF3Tt3D - - - f` _z4 36 46 56 27 a l - Oa i 48 25 52 20 50 39 52 35 45 33 1 f5 F3Q= 47 30 1230 124 40 26 1245='10©'- ='; 47 31 1BD 11 - 63 32 39 39 43 33 40 32 HOUR TOTALS 206 ill 202 119 li1D2Eln"'-;-_ix 205 130 1= 198 143 195 134 183 125 1:2DD 11A 179 120 197 119 123Ei 1311.:' .i -"> 189 128 192 135 1"OAO' 185 136 AT WILTEC Phone:(626)564-1944 Fax:(626)564-0969. DRIVEWAY COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS PROJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH HOME DEPOT TRAFFIC COU14TS DATE: SATURDAY,JULY 9TH,2005 PERIOD: 10:00 AM TO 2:00 PM LOCATION: NIS DRIVEWAY 4 ENV WARNER AVENUE DRIVEWAY#4 T 36 8 1 22 13 7 4 47 3 20 'K9 KL,,,rptj1 !A1 0 z 51 12 2 41 Mw� • 37 17 2 34 2 �fJ 3 1 45 12 1 30 f1lilil-Ul"6nZIR IJA8;11, i4, ri.r 4 3 52 12 2 53 21 4 1 44 0 30 25 1 30 04. 2 3 60 N;111'1'1� m 2 5 31 2 58 _�%�7� 2 25 43 10 22 3 2 43 8 2 30 15 5 37 3 3 v, 47 14 4 4 2 30 7 31 4 32 Y`,4'41,,WV 3 38 ........... -Y,k— HOUR TOTAL$ w, 10 mp so 8 117 12 8 ISO 5 125 54 9 7 185 53 7 158 0 13 6 178 62 5 147 Qe 4 143 1v 1 70 t%1X'1"v-1i1, fy 13 8 201 187 12 12 76 5 171 7 230, 16 10 178 4 5 143 IS 11 177 135 10 147 142 51 10 16 20 8 171 41 9 135 1, -44 A,,Is 9 158 -:,�".0 t- ,, 45 11 157 18 14 146 47 14 167 47 12 160 J 6 18 1 172 •' 1 sF�� i�..-��"��.--a-�'�-ct.rsm'r„ �•�.ry ,.� .�a-r,c^s��FR��4.::' ,.r^'�'t_ ,_..i..;�'a:>+ur' RA l. ,.,.:r...,.G.•s..,.:�..,.,...;.:.a s e? = „'`"v II-1RM �HOUR TOTALS £'77—z'--, r 27-1 ,a :�f t.. �✓ �4 .a� '3�,p.:. � 3ea�`"� F. `fps.a T�i—v�'�s��". � y�r�'c�s:_..f�'�`-r�'��'�`��i-. T $ i :'y � r'i . �d"`s�'I f 1 & .r r� f � .m�,..•'��.4 a a x �.. �fu.�.%�.:'• � :HOUR • �..•.b� �Y 4%`c4�'�'�i�'4 -3� ,�l�.a...:.... ."_�. �$� ..�F."t.�.°�S` .��T..'� �-��iar�...;� f �� 4 s� • �.�w •....,—e-'.�1'a;.hNE''a�zs�:�w`t�a:��Y5l ifa�.:...... .1�. .�. ter: a :€, rE, ..7-int �7,7- HOUR TOTALS Pg as �:L� v5� •�h a.''i7i5 � x4a `��.�y$2� }�. l � :.ff'�'�" I.hzcs��E.'�..�.'-j'e .� i..i 4 y's€ Y yl sL�Z," �-ti�."jr v9 tlC,..:,.....✓i sGc_a.Li',�a�.43sj;a�s`.yi'.Z�'I. of_ t .vr��.aw3-..a - «.f"':_-1,L^ys::� HOUR TOTALS r-V - - .� • N W a ;.a. u. ''` z._. �)rN :.r 6:.''z,..,.,.�•`.�msa xv_rir i' MLM, 4 �a � '' .,.-'�--m.� 't •.�.-,�._.. s_; --�- 7, ,:rr ^z--•-ram. �. __.,..1...".�'-.ti � "�` x�e'-`�`--' -�=�:.�.�rs_.�•_,- _ .a:.;s,��_�� -�'`•^�t-�..t r ri $g_.�ti'�.�,.:,=:v...,...�. HOUR TOTALS „—,.a . am•._`yr ?,., =z G - Tx^x,""^"""."F' 7-'�"--s .^^..-r ��r.'^^--�-^2-e7r-�-"--_- ---`�-..�..-$„ AST� �O�I "� ""Y' S,.3s_.z .•�::...�. 'v �.. y � �� c i.r�_ 5 .N"�`S`" y:r `:. -:aa,<5; ,ors." as'r,uy�.;,f., �.,.iY 4;.;,•_. _�_ .,ts�„ z, ri s •`'v.s:.,.�.t�''= • • R. � a�aa �®air w - aa�7-, Y �• arl • • Lila] I F1.� €a:J I ii'�.�� a r s ate :s.+ '�'��'s"':,,i` � �` ..r• �a ;�.F +hHd:.-� e--,&� Y ,�., { .' .,a,�,< ^tom F .3z'—" �?' ".�"-.€"T" ..�^"c,:.,._"'� �..-�— -�'*"—^'r,-yr „�,� �"3~'•t' � ��.. '-'*�e F .,�.� �..�-�i■��a� _ 4 s; mar .� �— : � aaaa� yaa, aaa �- �.f. ='�; _ _�'.« es3a=aa�`.5 ��..',�..,,a.e."F' -;vim "..` F13 €'.:rfi r-ftt �,•`-_s'k}37�4 .r. �.� :HOUR • An71 F uYt' gg It ,M-P, f 5 � f'1�!�r - s.F-.7 ;=.,'7;.X.�_�&:�_��A�I,:�`..,.�. .,�?� _..o-3,E;;a'nY-;�s4t�"`�. `� �'�.�z.�sA:'.�'`9�i 4-.�..��wf....✓�ae�..,.a.2u A -. ; �HOUR TOTALS '�'�`a•-"'��"-,�"Y' a _f``' ''�.""" ..�"'<�.' �.d" ns' tt p77p ' ,f 4 E "�� IF� •C.� ' .YSvuuf. 4 -r'J�� .,l.�rim��.lvt- S �4I3s�`^`��6��va,._ssc.;�.�..�aale�� 1 � rs�..»�'adi�®[•. �1 3 G 'A a,l?' �^ r ,3L �©4a�m5v ;. k,9fyxb:sar`u=:°$ ®cr�". a'�+�.NE- fy as HOURTOTALS .. —•«>'_s'a-_'� e:;-"�"' r f _ —^--->� -^s'o-.,�`---��-'---•-ems ..c� _ ..G.,..t.:,is a'"�'•u=�,� .,..sue.:_.,- i c� .:- }. .-F� 2 ..�.-,_.•-&^^-®�f'^ .'1 3®� ...-tea oaf..,Pr.. rs:...�.m...w..... a.� .,.sS !HOUR • MyF�_ '� a : i • 1• ' •� 1 1 • • 1 1 • 1 1 • . 1 1 ' '�"9��Z'r I �" .>i, �f'c"'�>�,..,�,s� mo^q,q„'.s-"�cc--.�. ^..-t---^'�+' _+;os^--•�T�• �-:ax-^-+-s+�.r-cr�s f . MF �f ....... [HOUR • ME ML MEMO -:�,ye�. I-�.1 = _4 -eat-• 3't f s1 .ly. � - EI 1G �� L�J^w4 I 3 I Tt 3y �`4., (, '� ;�' r L '9�•`� .. ,i' i '"�r`.'x't`y�r'-i f :z �s�1.C.-i^n`��`-`,• • i`a t C�,.�.11'it�1�3:"3d�=.�Si :�ui��.,s_ '��}$,tcb__=<�-.a. ��. I 1 �`.c;;.�•ti+��°,:-,.i. �+_.�:-.u;�.oF.. � �1.-, i C F - •. 1 11 • 11 - ��'§c *�5 •-c":^� �'�'--3-- ?.ram., .r--^r^ i ^` 71, .� �! ._..u.��1r- ..._.b .._d..�,e.....,�._x.,.i.�c•,a3v:��..s_,_...�....:.....�yccs..v..._:..:....i.�x.�..+. n�•i +� 'kk;:...} .,li-. ``'" F� c z M123— :HOURTOTALS - 77-'+' IlL EEC Fj r _ _a zap I �t �*.ti 1 i iY � 1 '� >%1 .� L�`'S'-1 i f s t-. ,.✓ j. -dz i '. t _-:F^�'m�" � 'I'z'.—sy.' -ram.---•-r"- rv3 (G e1 z r k a };, �a a© 'HOUR • EliN ig •/ 1 11 i 11 €'O.;�� ^s ._��* n � ----r —•� •.—r � .-."^s°^��.-u�e^-man a�� ■ j 7.7 2.7 Em MOUR TOTALS El i r y. 7,17,., IR jz f3 HOUR TOTALS 77F.T s } E-1 I,S aaf ®a r-�,�. �f ��■�� _ .�®ate 4 REMI, WILT E C Phone:(626)564-1944 Fax:(626)564-0969 DRIVEWAY COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS PROJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH TRAFFIC COUNTS DATE: SATURDAY,OCTOBER 8TH,2005 PERIOD: 10:00 AM TO 2:00 PM LOCATION: NIS MAGNOLIA STREET ENV DRIVEWAY#5(GATED APARTMENT DRIVEWAY) 0 1 9 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 6 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 3 1 '1 2 1 0 HOUR TOTALS 4 2 20 2 5 3 11 2 4 2 9 2 3 2 9 3 3 6 4 2 2 5 4 2 2 7 8 2 3 7 8 1 2 3 9 0 2 4 9 1 3 2 5 1 6 3 5 2 6 5 4 2 • •' 1• f '/ • •: it i:... ;—��i�� .�::�`'w�..:� ��',r,u:� �r I � [--1 ..,,�.�1 �,,,.,i,�>.J• � ,-r 4'e�? ,�^ ..:°t....�, f Ea ;HOURTOTALS .��..k l� •;>, � � z:�.:r#.:.Lsla}�.�C...'' ��`T` � L z ��" �.t�.t "� G. y ,,,,_,W *_ -a Eta 3 iJ.y.e -d a�� : J FIDCITY DE HUNTINGTON BEACH •Z000 Main Street P . O . Box 190 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 FAX COVER SHEET ®ATE: /Z f Z®la$ TO: FAX: e' ,05)i0Z-85a°, FROM: �;/f �f PHONE: C?14)5.35-54XI FAX: 714-374-1573 RE: c.-JL-- Dam NA.4' Number of pages including cover sheet: E. Message (J'eSftsbrJc . �r�� Qo►'tVSL t m Q_tTEPAPLATEIFAK—G OVER.DOC City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Department 1211012004 Traffic Collislon History Report Page 1 Midblock Collisions A terial: MAGNOLIA STREET Limit 1: GARFIELD AVE14UE Limit 2: HYDE PARK DRIVE Date Range Reported: 12M/2001 - 12/10/2004 d 4 Report No. Date Disl/Dir Location Type of Collision Motor Veh. DOT1 MPC 1 DOT2 MPC 2 PCF Inj IUd Time Involved With 2002-07215 4180/02 162' IJAG14OLIA Broadside Other Motor East Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto R/VV Violation 2 0 15:14 North of STREETIHYDE PARK Vehicle Straight DRIVE 2002-07840 5110/02 585' MAGNOLIA Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped in Road Unsafe Speed 4 0 '17:21 South of STREETIGARFIELD Vehicle Straight AVENUE 2002.13587 8!13/02 387' MAGNOLIA Broadside Other Motor East Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto RMr Violation 0 0 15:40 South of STREET/GARFIELD Vehicle Straight AVENUE 2002-18192 10/24/02 377' MAGNOLIA Broadside Other Motor East Entering Tralfic South Proceeding Auto R(W Violation 1 0 '13:28 North of STREET/HYDE PARK Vehicle Straight DRIVE 2002-19074 11I7/02 300' MAGNOLIA Broadside Other Motor East Entering Tralfic North Making Left Turn Auto RMI Violation 0 0 11:55 South of STREET/GARFIELD Vehicle AVENUE 2003.00415 117103 420' MAGNOLIA Hit Ob)eci Fixed Object East Proceeding Other Than Driver 1 0 15:32 South of STREETIGARFIELD Straight AVENUE 2003.02276 2/4/03 120' IOAGNOUA Rear-End Other Motor South Backing South Stopped In Road Unsafe Starting or 0 0 12:23 South of STREETIGARFIELD Vehicle Backing AVENUE 2003.08221 5/7/03 212' MAGNOLIA Reaj-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Slowing/Stopping Following Too 3 0 0893 South of STREETIGARFIELD Vehicle Straight Closely AVENUE 43-08223 517/03 171' MAGNOLIA Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Slopped in Road Unsafe Starting or 0 0 08:40 South of STREET/GARFIELD Vehicle Straight Backing AVENUE 3.10712 603/03 175' MAGNOLIA Rear-End Other Molor North Proceeding North Stopped In Road Driving Under 2 0 21:03 South of STREETIGARFIELD Vehicle Straight influence AVENUE -1`1046 6119/03 100' MAGNOLIA Broadside Other Motor North Making U Turn North Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0 10:54 North of STREETIHYDE PARK Vehicle Straight DRIVE C`J '1t City of Huntington ®each Traffic Engineering Department 1 211 0/2 0 0 4 Traffic Collision History Report Page 2 Midblock Collisions Arterial: MAGNOLIA STREET Limit 1: GARFIELD AVENUE Limit 2: HYDE PARK DRIVE Date Range Reported: 12/1/2001 - 12110/2004 Motor Veh. Report No. Dale DisUDir Location Type of Collision Involved With QQT1 MPC 1 DOT2 MPG 2 PCF Inj Kld Time '2004-09766 612104 415' MAGNOLIA Broadside Other Motor East Making Lefl Turn South Proce-eding Unknown 1 0 10:41 North of sTREETIRYDE PARK Vehicle Slraighl DRIVE 2004-12430 7/9/04 150, MAGNOLIA Rsar-End Other Motor East Making Left Turn North Stopped In Road Unsafe Speed 0 0 17:49 South o1 STREET/GARFIELD Vehicle AVENUE 2 B f F�— City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Department 1 v1 o/2ooa Traffic Collision History Report 12 e 3 Midblock Collisions g Arterial; MAGNOLIA STREET Limit 1; GARFIELD AVENUE Limit 2; HYDE PARK DRIVE Date Range Reported: 12/1/2001 - 12/1012004 Motor Veh. to Report No. Date Dist/Dir Location Type of Collision Involved With DOT1 MPC 1 DOT2 MPC 2 PCF In) Kid Time Total Number of Collisions; 13 Segment Length: 0.18 miles(970') SetWags Used For Query Parameter Setting LbxA 1 Do Not Include Lntersection Related Limit 2 Do Not Include Lntersection Related latermediate Intersections Do Not Include Latersection Related 1 City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Department Midblock Collision [diagram MAGNOLIA STREET Segment Length:970' Limit 1: GARFIELD AVENUE Limit 2: HYDE PARK DRIVE S ..—�•� N Date Flange: 1211l2001 To: 12/10/2004 MAGNOLIA STREET HYDE PARK G RFIELD DRIVE AVENUE 1lnlzorz J07'S U?h of 2/4t0�5 WV2074 GhRFI AVENUE 1228 10:41 A'RI EL A of 415'Noth o1 GARFiELD AVENUE KYDE PARK DRIVE �J a I T:AA 15!1'South of G4RFIEL0 AVENUE Ia24r2J[Q ,/71ZO.ti ,� 0SX21^021 I so 15; 811J+2�02 15:14 JTT'14*M vl 426 Soulh d 15:40 '.7120J0 16Z'Iforth HYDE PARK DRIVE GA '1E�D AVENUE 85T SMAh d CN:<D HYDE PP DRIVE "7 GARFIE VEIME 1� ANF LO A= GFt;"TE AVENUE 6113Z0�3 21:03 175'Umth o1 GJARFIELD AVENUE 5r1a'2ao2 5;712033 fillW2033 17 21 Cd:85 IO:SG GA Southd GA nE o1 ICo'North of GF�RFIEtD AVENUE GARFIEID AVENUE HYDE PARK DRIVE Number of Collisions Legend Pedestrian Right Turn - 6 Property Damage Only o" Moving Vehicle �ett Turn (� Fixed Object 7 Injury Collisions "4—i Stopped Vehicle Bicycle ®.. .�> Backing Vehicle �— �'1p y Q Fatal .Collisions Sideswipe �_,Y Elan Ott Road �� DUI 13 Total Collisions _Day injury Movement Unknown Ntght Fatal tV c� MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-6 Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 4 of 4) WARRANT 6- Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES Q NO ❑ (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) . MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED >3W m(100D ft) N m, S m, E M W m Yes Q No[] On one way isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adpcent signals are so far apart that necessary piatooning and speed control would be tosL On 2-way streets where ad ac�rtt signals do rat provide necessary piatooning and speed control proposed signals could consft te-a progressive signal system. ❑ Q- W4RRA1 T 1-Crash-Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) REQUIREMENTS WARRANT J. FULFILLED -One Warrant Warrant A.-Minimum Vehicular Volume 80% OR Warrant -Interruption of Continuous Traffic Yes No❑ Signal Witt Not Seriously Disrupt Progressive Traffic Flow ❑ Adequate Trial of Less Restrictive Remedies Has Failed to ReduceAecident Frequency Q Acc.Wllhin a 12 Month Period Susceptible for Corr.&involving Injury or;--$6D0 Damage MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 or More Q WARRANT 8-Roadway tktvuork SATISFIED .YES ❑ NO ❑ (All marts Must Be Satisfied) MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES-ALLAPPROACHES REQUIREMENTS ✓ FULFILLED Dur_ing'iypical Weekday peak Hour Veh/Hr 1CWVehJHr --------- --------- OR During Each of Any 5 Hrs.of a Sal and/or Snit VehlHr Yes Q No® CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. Hwy,System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic Rur;f'or -------------------- ———— ---- Suburban Highway Outside Of,Entering or Traversing a City ——— ——— Appears as Major Raft on-an Offal Plan — —Any Major Route Characteristics Met.Both Streets ❑ ❑ The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarfly justification for a signal. Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for rat-of-way assignment must be shown. May 20,2004 ATTACHMM NO. , ? 2 MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-8 Table 4G901. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Average Traffic Estftrrate Form) (Based on Estimated average Mly Traffic-See Note) URBAN_.-_-'__.--- RURAL.YGS........... Minjmurn Requirements EADT 1A-Minimum Vehicular Traffic Vehicles Per Day Vehides Per Day Satisfied ma's Not Satisbed on Major Street on Higher-Voiume' (Total of Both Approaches) Minor StreetApproach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approacfi (One Direction Only) f+ Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural than Rural 1...............».... ......... 1........... 8,000 2,400 1 �- 2 or 1►nore... ��e � �. ».»»I.�: '»x�»' "..._� ssoa_ C� 2,400 2 or More-..-. 2 or More—___...- 9,6D0 6,720 3,200 I._.......»._.....»».........__ 2 or More._»..»._.. ...._ 8,000 6,6D0 3=0 2,240 18-Interruption of Continuos Traffic Vehicles Per Day Vehicles Per Day on Higher-Volume on Major Street Minor Street Approach Satisfies! GS Not Saiisfred (Total of Both Approaches} (One Direction Only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street .Urban Rural Urban Rural G -- ..... d_ ___ 12p00 -840D '1=0 am 2 or Ahore.� o� 3».. /�7_sr� 14,400 1,200 2:or More..................... 2 or More»»_.»..._.......» 14,400 D 1AW 1,- 1_...............»............._ 2 or Mom...... 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 1A&B-Combinations 8ahsfied t-5 Not Satisfied 2 Warrant; 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied but following warrants Wiled WgYa or r►wre..».»... Note:To be used.**far NEW IN I ERSMT1t3rifS or other loomlons-where it is not reasonable to count actual tradrrc voturnes. May 20,2004 , e2 M-LJTCJ 2003 Caiifarnia Supplement Page 4G3 Figure 4C-101. Thi frc Signal Warrants WmrY,sheet(Sheet 9 of4) CALC DATE -DIST CO RTE }GPM / CHK DATE Major St c rto i s S4.rz G f Critic al Approach Speed lac M lAnar St Crffical Approach Speed kn is Critical speed of trajor streat ttaitra>64 km/h(40 mph)_...:..._.... 1 RURAL(Rj In butt up area of isoL-ded community of<10,OOD p.pu tbn._--❑ ❑ URBAK(U) WARRANT I -Eight HourVentcular Volume Condition A-Minimum Vehicle Volume 1tIEDs'k SAnsFim YES �6 NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80%SATISFIED YES ❑ NO.❑ (BOW.SHOWN IN BRACKET$ U 4RU R �'�� 12 or More U � 0 , �ti D ry 0 0,;,D, .� t o �) 4wl '. tilt uL'rj L1iY c31N t3{.l. l41V 17fL r?5t H19hWpq PMahes ISO 5 2m too t t; !;I tt.� "hwrStteet {32� Ems. (#J2) liS Condition S-Interruption of Continuous Traffic IG(rie SATISFIED YES ['�NO ❑ EV/6 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (BD%SHOWN IN BRACKETS U R U R p r _ APPROACH :1 2 or More °gatJ N °� aJ.�faur BotfiApd�s LANES 7bD 5lS 90U 11 l'wS 't, '!7� ( Idialor l et tsoo) (420 ) 'q � 3� Iiq'I 710 r t 75 (80) ( �.►� t3� Combination of Conditions A&S SATISFIED YES j ' NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT � �l FULFIEI TWO WARRANTS 1.-MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED8D% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC- Yes No ❑ May 20,2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection Magnolia St✓Main Analyst Darryl Nelson Driveway Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 81212005 Analysis Year Cumulative+Prof. Analysis Time Period P.M. Peak Hour Conditions Project Description Home Depot Store-#04136 East/West Street: Project Main Drivewa North/South Street: Magnolia Street Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street - Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 93 1117 0 0 1136 79 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 a95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 97 1175 0 0 1195 83 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — edian Type Two Way Lett Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T . TR [Molume stream Si nal 0 0inor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 0 0 0 60 0 78 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 63 0 82 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes . 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration I i I L R Delay, Queue Len th,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R (vph) 97 63 82 (m)(vph) 550 221 424 lc 0.18 0.29 0.19 5% queue length 0.64 . 1.13 0.71 ontrol Delay 12.9 27.7 15.5 OS B D C proach Delay — — 20.8 pproach LOS — — C �.le•!/!' •\Tl.......„e,..+..0/')!1„„,70/�f/�Qs+:«,,...\.3«.•t....«1T ,.....i0/ lf1f..u__�-lT_�_\._'11_^/A �_� �niT winnn� Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection Magnolia SUMain Analyst Danyl Nelson Driveway Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 8/2/2005 alysis Year Cumulative +Proj. Analysis Time Period A.M. Peak Hour Conditions Project Description Home De of Store-#04136 Veajor ttWest Street: Proect Main Drivewa orth/South Street: Ma nolia Street rsection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 h icle Volumes and Adjustments s Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 105 1046 0 0 806 71 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 a95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 110 1101 0 0 848 1 74 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Two Way Leff Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 onfiguration L T T TR -Upstream Signal 0 0 Mor Street Westbound Eastbound roclume vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 . L T R L T R 0 0 0 45 0 69 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 . 0 0 47 0 72 Rercent.Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 onfiguration I I L R Belay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R (vph) 110 47 72 . . C(m)(vph) 749 300 553 lc 0.15 0.16 0.13 5%queue length 0.51 0.55 0.45 Control Delay 10.6 19.2 12.5 LOS B . C B pproach Delay — — 15.1 pproach LOS — — C XUACHMEW NO. . Z!;7 �� ..�rn.�n. +.oinn,. .toinn�e.+:�,.,.�a..e1..,.«tr ,,,...�oi�nce++�-.....�•re...-a.,r►1_�n...... 17/1 AI MAC Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY [General Information Site Information Intersection Magnolia St./Main alyst Darryl Nelson Driveway Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 8/2/2005 Existing +Project Analysis Time Period P.M. Peak Hour alysis Year Conditions Project Description Horne De of Store-#04136 East/West Street: Pro ect Main Drivewa orth/South Street: Magnolia Street Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street - Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 93 1096 0 0 1114 79 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 97 1153 0 0 1172 83 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 60 0 78 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 a95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 63 0 1 82 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 10 J 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage' 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Delay,Queue Len th,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement. 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R (vph) 97 _ 83 82 (m)(vph) 561 227 431 lc 0.17 0.28 0.19 . 5%queue length 0.62 1.09 0.69 ontrol Delay 12.8 26.8 15.3 LOS B D C proach Delay — — 2Q.3 proach LOS — — C A'i 6 A T 471n•/1('•\Tl'.m.....o�.MO/_71Y,.-..i0/. 1/1Q..+ti-.....t.1....t,...�1T ..�..i°/ lAf*_ai,.,._\T_�_t--nt_ir�_--_ �rr� •tnnn� Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General information Site information Intersection Magnolia St✓Main alyst Daryl Nelson Driveway Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 81212005 Analysis Year Existing+Project Analysis Time Period A.M. Peak Hour Conditions Neor 'ect Description Home Depot Store-#04136 t/Wesf Street: Project Main Drivewa North/South Street: Ma nolla Street rsection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : a25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments Street - Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R, Volume 105 1026 0 0 790 71 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 110 1080 0 1 0 831 . 74 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 — — edian Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 45 0 69 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 47 1 0 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ercent Grade(%) 0 0 lared Approach N N torage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 1 0 1 onfrguration t L R Dela Queue Len th;and Level of Service proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 :10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R (vph) 110 47 72 (m)(vph) 760 305 560 I/c 0.14 0.15 0.13 5%a queue length 0.50. 0.54 0.44 ontrol Delay 10.5 18.9 12.4 LOS B C B Nproach Delay — — 15.0 proach LOS — — B ATTACMW . - O. 1-1- _ur tT_ _______n no ,_I--"\T 17/1 AMAAr, Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia St./Hyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 8/2/2005 Analysis Year Cumulative+Proj. Analysis Time Period P.M. Peak Hour Conditions Project Description Home De of Store-#04136 w/left-turn restriction kEast'/West Street: Hyde Park Drive orth/South Street: Magnolia Street rsection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25 hicle Volumes anti Adjustments or Street Northbound Southbound Movement - 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 142 1067 20 18 1123 38 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 149 1 1123 1 21 18 1182 40 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 [Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 E0MEi figuration LT TR LT TR tream Signal 0 0 or Street, Westbound Eastbound ement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 8 1 16 70 0 67 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF a95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 1 16 73 0 70 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 onfiguration LT- R LTR - Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach N13 SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (vph) 149 18 9 16 143 (m)(vph) 578 618 21 468 41 /c 0.26 0.03 0.43 0.03 3.49 [proach %queue length 1.02 0.09 1.23 0.11 16.08 ntrol Delay 13.4 11.0 270.5 13.0 1324 S B B F BF proach Delay — — 105.7 1324 LOS — — F F Rights Reserved ATTACHMENT Lt__Il!'_\r�____--_ ___�_ninn___�ni nnc•_a..'_ _ -\� - - - - -•r - - _ ninnr. .. - •m • ..• i.. ....� ........- Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General information Site Information Analyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia St./Hyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 8/2/2005 Analysis Year Cumulative +Prof. Analysis Time Period A.M. Peak Hour Conditions Project Descri tion Home De of Store-#04136 w/left turn restriction East/West Street: H de Park Drive orth/South Street: Magnolia Street Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : a25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments a or Street Northbound Southbound Movement - 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 124 1015 11 14 848 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF a95 a95 Q95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 130 1068 11 14 892 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 roclume nor Street Westbound Eastbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 .12 L T R L T R 13 0 14 44 0 '24 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF a95 0.95 a95 a95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 0 14 46 to 25 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0J 0 Percent Grade(%) i0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized4 0 0 apes 0 1 1 0 11 1 0 onfiguration LT F R LTR ela Queue Length,and Level of Service proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (vph) 130 14 13 14 71 (m)(vph) 759 654 42 491 72 /c 0.17 0.02 a 31 a m 0.99 5%queue length a62 a07 1.04 0.09 5.10 Control Delay 10.7 10.6 125.3 12.5 200.9 OS B B F B F proach Delay — — 66.8 200.9 pproach LOS — — F F Rights Reserved ATTA ] NO. . 2 fyr"% I IIIA 'film Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia St/Hyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 8/2/2005 Existing+Project Analysis Year Conditions Analysis Time Period P.M. Peak Hour Project Descri tion Home De of Store-#04136 w/lett-turn restriction East/West Street: H de Park Drive orth/South Street: Ma nolia Street Vln2trsection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25 hicle Volumes anti Adjustments - or Street Northbound Southbound Movement - 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 142 1046 20 18 1103 38 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow_Rate, HFR 149 1101 21 18 1161 40 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 onfrgurabon LT TR LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 VMinor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 8 1 16 70 0 67 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 1 16 73 0 1 70 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage - 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay, Queue Len th,and Level of Service proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (vph) 149 18 9 16 143 C (m)(vph) 588 630 22 476 43 /c 0.25 0.03 0.41 0.03 3.33 5%queue length 1.00 0.09 1.20 0.10 15.88 Control Delay 13.2 10.9 254.3 12.8 1244 OS B B F B F Npproach proach Delay — — 99.8 1244 LOS — — F F Rights Reserved ATTACHMEW W, 1 Two-Way Stop Control Pagel of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information —Site Information Analyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia SfJHyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 8/2(2005 Analysis Year Existing +Project Analysis Time Period A.M. Peak Hour Conditions Project Descri tion Home De of Store-#04136 wAeft-turn restriction E astlWest Street: Hyde Park Drive North/South Street: Magnolia Street tersection Orientation: North-South [StudyPeriod hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R - L T R Volume 124 995 11 14 838 15 Feak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 130 1 1047 11 14 882 1 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Ponfiguration LT TR LT TR stream Si nal 0 0 nor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 13 0 14 44 0 24 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 13 0 114 46 0 25 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT T R LTR eIaX, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound . Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (vph) 130 14 13 14 71 (m) (vph) 765 666 43 499 75 Ic 0.17 0.02 0.30 0.03 0.95 5% queue length 0.61 0.06 1.02 0.69 4.92 ontrol Delay 10.7 10.5 121.6 12.4 184.5 LOS B B F B F proach Delay — — 65.0 184.5 pproach LOS — — F F Rights Reserved ATT ai,.Iir.�r►,.,,.,.,..ew.-..oi�n....aoi�nCe++:.,,.�\.i,.o1�..�.1T �i..�10/_7nCn4+:rr�a\Torn+1»7bSZ ++r++� t�it�ei�nnc Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY [General Information Site Information alyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia St./Hyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 8/2/2005 Cumulative +Proj.Analysis Year Conditions Analysis Time Period P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Home De of Store-#04136 East/West Street: Hyde Park Drive. --North/south Street: Magnolia Street Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement - 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 29 1180 20 18. 1163 28 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 1242 21 18 1 1224 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 D 0 2 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR lJ stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound. ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 8 0 16 14 0 27 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 16 14 0 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 onfiguration _LL___l R LTR Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service tApproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR .(vph) 30 18 8 16 42 r C(m)(vph) 562 557 34 428 90 /c 0.05 0.03 0.24 0.04 0.47 5%queue length 0.17 0.10 0.75 0.12 1.97 ontrol Delay 11.8 11.7 140.9 13.7 76.0 V S B B F B F proach Delay — — 56.1 76.0 60 proach LOS — — F F Rights Reserved ATTA �. ,. i w. �te.i/r+.�r�,.,.:....e..,,oi ten,,,-aoi�nvas+:r.,...�a,.e�..r.�T,.,,,,toir►no ..�:_ _,tm 1..'fl—C/1 s.—� 1-t 11 A/1MC Two-Way Stop Control Pagel of 2 . TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information lAnalyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia St✓Hyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 8/2/2005 Analysis Year Cumulative+Prof. Analysis Time Period A.M. Peak Hour Conditions V ect Descri tion Home De of Store-#04136 t/West Street: H de Park Drive North/South Street: Ma nolia Street rOrientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Northbound Southbound Movement - 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 4 1135 11 14 871 0 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 a95 a95 a95 0.95 leak-Hour Flow Rate, HFR 4 1194 11 14 916 0 nt Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — n Type Undivided annelized 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 uration LT TR LT TR am Signal 0 0 Street Westbound Eastbound ment 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R e 13 0 14 2 0 D. Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 '0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 0 14 2 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Vanes rage 0 0 Channefized 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 figuration LT R LTR ff Delp ,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1' 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (v ph) 4 14 13 14 2 2(m)(vph) 753 586 61 448 75 icC0.01 0.02 0.21 0.03 0.03 5 6 queue length 0.02 0.07 0.72 0.10 0.08 ontrol Delay 9.8 11.3 79.3 13.3 54.3 LOS A B F B F proach Delay — — 45.1 54.3 proach LOS — -- E F Rights Reserved ATTACMeNt Ri yjfa� qA ' t)i,A»nnc Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY [General Information I Site Information alyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia St✓Hyde Park Dr- gency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 61212005 Analysis Year Cumulative Conditions Analysis Time Period P.M. Peak Hour Project Descri tion Home Depot Store-#04136 EasttWest Street: tLyde Park Drive North/South Street: Magnolia Street Intersection Orientation: North-South tudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad`ustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 - L T R L T R Volume 29 1067 20 18 1035 28 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 1123 21 1 18 1089 9 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 -0 Median Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Fonfiguration LT _ TR LT TR tream Si nal 0 0 or Street Westbound Eastbound ement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 8 0 16 14 0 27 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 1 16 14 0 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ercent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N torage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Eoproach nes 0 1 1 0 1 0 nfiguration LT R LTR la Queue Len th,and Level of Service NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (vph) 30 18 8 16 42 (m)(vph) 632 618 48 468 124 /c 0.05 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.34 5%queue.length 0.15 0.09 0.54 0.11 1.36 Control Delay 11.0 11.0 94.4. 13.0 48.2 LOS B B F B E kpproach proach Delay — — 40.1 48.2 LOS — — E E Rights Reserved Copyright®2003 University of Florida,AM Rights Reserved Version 4.Id ATTACHMEW NO. files //C' \TlnrrTmPntco/7(lanrio/7OCPttinoc\rineicnn\T nra}ol7tiCPttinac\Tam»\n7lydU tmn 19/1 AP)A S Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY [General Information Site Information alyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia SUHyde Park Dr. Agency/Co- ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 81212005 Analysis Year Cumulative Conditions Analysis Time Period A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Home Depot Store-#04136 VeEa t/West Street: H de Park Drive orth/South Street: Ma nolia Sfreef rsection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 hicle Volumes and Ad 'ustexttents Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 4 1015 11 14 769 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PH 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 1068 1 11 14 809 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12- L T R L T R Volume 13 0 14 2 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95.. Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 0 14 2 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized .0 0 [a;n-es 0 1 1 D 1 0 uration LT R LTR Queue Len th,and Level of Service ach NB SB Westbound Eastbound 1 4 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 Configuration LT LT LT . R LTR ) 4 14 13 14 2 (vph) 825 654 82 491 101 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.02 5%queue-length 0.01 0.07 0.53 0.09 0.06 Control Delay 9.4 10.6 57.0 12.5 474 LOS A B F B E proach Delay - - 34.0 41.4 pproach LOS - - D E Rights Reserved Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Veerrsio�n 4.Id . .. '-•r �' ••"' •� "•' ^ •^•^^^ ••• + • r __1n�/�nn_iaL___\T_-___\__nt_Af a..__. 1^11 A1l1/AAf Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia St./Hyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 8/2/2005 Existing +Project Analysis Year Conditions Analysis Time Period P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Home De of Store-#04136 East/West Street: Hyde Park Drive North/South Street: Magnolia Street tMehicle ection Orientation: North-South [StudyPeriod hrs : 0.25 Volumes and Ad'ustments Street Northbound Southbound Movement - 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 29 1159 20 18 1143 28 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95— Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 1220 21 18 1203 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — _ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 onfiguration LT TR LT TR U stream Signal 0 p Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement _ 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 8 0 16 14 0 27 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 16 14 0 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 _ 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Dela Queue Length and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (vph) 30 18 8 16 42 (m)(vph) 573 568 36 436 95 /c 0.05 0.03 0.22 0.04 0.44 5% queue length 0.17 0.10 0.71' 0.11 1.86 ontrol Delay 11.6 11.5 131.6 13.6 70.0 LOS B B F B F proach Delay — — 5z9 70.0 pproach LOS — — F F Rights Reserved TT . 't NU. 2 .�.� ..�..,.- Two-Way Stop Control Page I of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia StJHyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 81212005 Analysis Year Existing+Project Analysis Time Period A.M.Peak Hour Conditions Project Descri tion Home Depot Store-#04136 East/West Street: Hyde Park Drive North/South Street: Magnolia Street Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement - 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 4 1115 11 14 856 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 1173 11 14 901 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 1 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 13 0 14 2 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 a95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 0 14 2 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N torage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 bDela 0 1 1 0 1 0 uration LT R LTR Queue Length, and Level of Service ach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (vph) 4 14 13 14 2 (m)(vph) 763 597 64 454 79 /c 0.01 a02 0.20 0.03 0.03 5%queue length 0.02 0.07 0.69 0.10 0.08 Control Delay 9.7 11.2 75.1 13.2 51.8 LOS A B F B F Approach Delay — — 43.0 51.8 proach LOS — — E F Rights Reserved �+ iii^ar ni�n- 1n�nAf'\_.,•��_l1__1___\T ___lAI/1A[1_L,:�_—\T_�_�\__i11_AA a�__ 1^11 Alft^^r Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Darryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia SLIHyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 81212005 Analysis Year Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Home De of Store-#04136 East/West Street: H de Park Drive orth/South Street: Ma nolia Street Intersection Orientation: North-South [Study Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 29 1046 20 18 1015 28 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 1101 21 18 1068 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 FConfiguration LT TR LT TR tream Si nal 0 0 or Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 8 0 16 14 0 27 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 16 14 1 0 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 . 1 0 Configuration LT .R I LTR Delay, Queue Length,and Level.of Service: proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (vph) 3.0 18 8 16 42 C(m)(vph) 644 630 51 476 130 lc 0.05 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.32 5%queue-length 0.15 0.09 0.51 0.10 1.28 Control Delay 10.9 10.9 88.3 12.8 45.4 OS B B F B E pproach Delay - - 38.0 45.4 proach LOS -- - E E Rights Reserved Copyright®2W3 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d A v o rr__ir_ r____��_rann__aninno .�. ..�a._ t___�T _..toi�nc+ .+a:...-,.�•r...._�..�t,�r ..... 1 11/1 A11MC Eli, Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ,Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City erk'- 6ignature Council Meeting Date: 4/6/2009 Departme4lD Number: PW 09-11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COU IL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, CITY ADMINISTR 1� ' PREPARED BY: TRAVIS K. HOPKINS, PE, DIRECTO F P LIC WORAK SUBJECT: Approve the Release of Securities for Home Depot and Accept the Public Improvements Fst-t,-,nt of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The Home Depot, located at 19101 Magnolia Street (southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue), has completed all required public improvements and is eligible to receive a release of securities pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Funding Source: No funds required for this action. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Accept the improvements constructed for public use located at 19101 Magnolia Street (southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue); 2. Release the Faithful Performance Bond No. 6531070 and Labor and Material Bond No. 6531070 pursuant to California Government Code Section No. 66499.7(a); 3. Instruct the City Clerk to notify the developer, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., c/o Richard Greene, Real Estate Manager, of this action; 4. Instruct the City Treasurer to notify the surety, Safeco Insurance Company of America, of this action; and 5. Instruct the City Clerk to record the "Acceptance of Public Improvements" with the Orange County Recorder. Alternative Action(s): Deny the recommended action. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/6/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 09-11 Analysis: On July 11, 2006, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 04-10 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-56 authorizing the construction of a 99,000 square-foot home improvement store, an attached 25,000 square-foot garden center, 550 parking spaces, paving, landscaping, associated infrastructure and public improvements. The developer, Home Depot, has completed the required public improvements, and is requesting acceptance of the work and release of the aforementioned securities, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.7(a). Public improvements constructed consist of curb and gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, traffic signal and median improvements within the public right-of-way along project's frontages at Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue. The City Engineer has determined that the improvements have been constructed in substantial compliance with the approved plans and specifications, and recommends acceptance of the improvements. Project data Developer: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., c/o Jeff Hardman, Real Estate Manager 19101 Magnolia Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92646, (714) 940-3662 Engineer: Lars Andersen and Associates, Inc., 4630 West Jacquelyn Avenue, Suite 119, Fresno, CA 93722 Surety: Safeco Insurance Company of America, Safeco Insurance Company of America, P O Box 34670, Seattle, WA 98124-1670, (206) 473-3788 Location: 19101 Magnolia Street (west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) Zone: CG (Commercial General) No. of Acres: 11.6 acres No. of Lots: 1 numbered and 0 lettered Public Works Commission Action: Not required. Strategic Plan Goal: 1-1 - Improve the City's plan for funding and completing infrastructure needs, and develop strategies for resolving crucial infrastructure problems to preserve the physical foundation of the community and enable the community's value to grow. L-5 - Improve the efficiency of the development review process. Environmental Status: The recommended action is a ministerial act, and is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15268(b). Attachment(s): CityGlerkSr Nurn'ber No. ® - • • 1. Acceptance of Public Improvements Form 2. Location Ma -2- 3/19/2009 9:55 AM ATTACHMENT # 1 Recording requested by, and when recorded return to: Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk-Recorder Office of the City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � 11 I10 1 1II 11II 11 III II11 1 1 BI 1 1II1O 1 1I N 6.00 P.O.Box 190—2000 Main Street 2009000189405 08:47am 04/17/09 Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 100 5 A04 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (Space above this line for Recorder's use only) ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 255.22) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on March 11, 2009, the City Engineer considered the development improvements described below, and found them to have been completed satisfactorily and accepted, as limited by Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 255.22(A), the improvements for public use. Public improvements constructed consist of curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, traffic signal and median improvements within the public right-of-way along project's frontages at Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue. The Foregoing instrument is the City Clerk's Original Document Reflecting City Council Action Taken at April 6, '09 City Council Meeting Submitted for Recordation by the Orange County Recorder. Attest April 07, 20 09 AwLaft City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk ofh e City Council Of the City of Huntington Beach,California By �puty i CITY F HUNTINGTON BEACH i NS daaum®nt Is solely for the oflaciai businaas of ft CRY of Hundngton � Beach,as corftmpisted under Coventnaent Cods tic.6103 and b : City gineer should b a recorded free of charge. /�'" � L J �M 42L . City Attorney Duo z toloq ATTACHMENT #2 ELLIS AVE cn GARFIELD AJE � Y � O N 0 af SITE Q 0° 0 z c� Q LOCATION MAP RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public works SUBJECT: Approve the Release of Securities for Home Depot and Accept the Public Improvements COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 6, 2009 RCA A`�Te4CH9VIIVT Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Not Ap licable ❑ Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ Signed in full by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Bonds (If applicable) ttt A ed El Nopucable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Applicable No Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not A licable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable ,, EXPLANATION FOR:MISSING ATTACHMENTS` REVIE9IVED ", RE INEp "FOR ADEDr Administrative Staff ) ' Deputy City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION>FOFt RETURN;OF ITEM: s RCA Author: J. McDonald City of Huntington Beach s 2000 Main Street o Huntington Beach, CA 92648 9�. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK April 7, 2009 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Richard Greene, Real Estate Manager 19101 Magnolia Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dear Mr. Greene: Re: Release of the Securities for Home Depot Located at 19101 Magnolia Street— [Acceptance of Public Improvements] Please be advised that on Monday, April 6, 2009, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach took the following action: Accepted public improvements and approved the release of securities for the Home Depot, located at 19101 Magnolia Street(southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue.) 1) Accepted the improvements constructed for public use located at 19101 Magnolia Street (southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue); and, 2) Release the Faithful Performance Bond No. 6531070 and Labor and Material Bond No. 6531070 pursuant to California Government Code Section No. 66499.7(a); and 3) Instructed the City Clerk to notify the developer, Home Depot, of this action, and the City Treasurer to notify the surety, Safeco Insurance Company of America of this action; and, 4) Instructed the City Clerk to record the Acceptance of Public Improvements with the Orange County Recorder. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn, CMC City Clerk JF: pe Sister s trioa�ae�'aPnbl"�'ai°aWe, New Zealand 1 Telephone: 714-536-5227 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regula El - tion of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Sources: 1,2, 4, 14) Discussion: The subject property is designated for commercial use(s)and development, including but not lim- ited to retail uses,by the Huntington Beach General Plan and Huntington Beach Zoning& Subdivision Ordi- nance(HBZSO). The proposed commercial development is consistent with the General Plan and zoning des- ignations. Moreover,the project complies with the maximum floor area ratio established by General Plan and applicable land use and development standards of the HBZSO, including minimum building setbacks,parking and landscape requirements and maximum building height,with the exception of the width of a portion of the required landscape planter along one(Garfield Avenue) street frontage,which the applicant has agreed to ad- dress as a condition of approval. No variance(s)to applicable development standards are requested. The pro- ject site is not within the boundaries of any specific plan nor subject to provisions of the City's Local Coastal Program,as the property is not located within the coastal zone boundaries. The project,as proposed, does not fully comply with General Plan policies to limit driveway access points and to require driveways be located to ensure the smooth and efficient flow of vehicles and minimize potential points of vehicular/pedestrian conflicts. Specifically,the project presents an opportunity to eliminate two driveways along Magnolia Street serving(respectively)the commercial parcel to the north of the subject prop- erty and the commercial parcel to the south of the subject property. This would be achieved by providing for reciprocal access(where none currently exists)between the two properties(i.e.,the project site and the parcel to the north)in the case of the former, and a shared driveway(i.e.,combining two adjacent driveways into one)in the case of the latter. The project proposes,as required by Code,a reciprocal access driveway with the parcel to the north,which will provide for the closure of one of the aforementioned driveways(north of the project site)along Magnolia Street. The project does not propose to combine the subject property's southerly driveway with the northerly driveway of the property to the south into a single driveway serving both proper- ties thereby meeting the objectives of the General Plan. The City's Public Works Department has determined that this represents a less than significant impact,based in part on the lack of objective impact criteria. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natu- ❑ ❑ 19 ral community conservation plan?(Sources: 1,2, 14) Discussion: The project is proposed in an urbanized area on a previously developed commercial lot. The pro- ject will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan of the City of Huntington Beach, as there are no such plans adopted for the area. c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1,4) Q Discussion: The proposed development will occur on a previously developed parcel with direct access to an existing public street. No public access ways through the subject property exist. No new roadways,road widening, rail lines, bridges or other off-site improvements with the potential to physically divide an estab- lished community are proposed or required. Page 5 n (� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly El El ❑X ❑ (e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1,4,8) Discussion: The proposed project will result in a net increase of approximately 5,049 square feet of new com- mercial area. The project is not expected to have a significant effect on the projected population of the City and would not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. For over 30 years,the City of Huntington Beach has designated the project site for commercial development. Substantial improve- ment of the deteriorating property could potentially induce additional growth in the area,although growth be- yond the scope of development specified in the General Plan is not anticipated. The proposed project is not anticipated to create a substantial number of new jobs, since the proposed retail commercial use will replace a recently closed retail commercial use occupying a building which is approximately only 5,649 sq.ft. smaller. Therefore,the demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed building on the subject site will not induce substantial population growth in the area. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1,4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the con 11 El El 19 - struction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1,4) Discussion: b)—c)The project site is currently developed with a vacant commercial building. The proposed project provides for demolition of the existing building and associated site improvements and construction of a new commercial building. No residential uses or structures exist on the project site. Therefore,the proposed project will not displace existing housing or inhabitants. III.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ef- fects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the El Q most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources: 6, 13, 15) Discussion: The project site is not known to be traversed by an active fault and is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault is the Newport-Inglewood fault located ap- proximately 1.6 miles southwest of the project site. Due to the distance of the nearest mapped fault from the site,no impacts are anticipated related to the potential for fault rupture. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources:1, 13, 15,23) El ❑ a Discussion: The project site is located in a seismically active region of Southern California. Therefore,the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures built in Huntington Beach are required to comply with standards set forth in the California Building Code(CBC)and standard City codes,policies and procedures which require submittal of a detailed soils analysis prepared by a Licensed Page 6 AnAcHm . � 2= . Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact Soils Engineer. The required soils analysis must include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of mate- rials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations,retaining walls, streets,utilities,and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof, and a report prepared by an engineering geologist indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in com- pliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural mem- bers to withstand anticipated g-factors must be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of build- ing permits. Conformance with CBC requirements and standard City code requirements will ensure potential impacts from seismic ground shaking are less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? Q (Sources: 1, 15) Discussion: The subject site is located in an area of high to very high potential for liquefaction according to the General Plan(1996). The significant potential for liquefaction is also identified in a geotechnical engi- neering investigation,prepared by The Twining Laboratories,Inc.,(Nov.2004). The study concludes that mitigation is necessary in order to reduce seismic liquefaction risk to acceptable levels. The study's recom- mended mitigation measures include the following: a New foundations should be supported on at least two feet of engineered fill to reduce the anticipated static settlements to one inch total and '/2 inch in 50 feet differential. ® The proposed structure should be designed to tolerate the combined total and differential settlements pre- sented in the Twining report, either by structural mitigation or ground modification. Options for structural mitigation include deep foundations,mat foundations,quasi-rigid foundations,etc. Op- tions for ground modification include"stone"columns,compaction grouting,etc. The project proposes ground modification, which is characterized in the submitted geotechnical study as typically generating less noise and vibration impacts to surrounding properties. (Refer to Section X—Noise, for discussion of this is- sue). Based on the geotechnical study and addendums,the City recommends that the second mitigation meas- ure be limited to only allow ground modification. iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1, 15) El El 19 Discussion: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,the site is not in an area susceptible to slope instability. The project is proposed on a flat parcel of land and no slopes or other landforms susceptible to landslide exist in the vicinity of the property. Moreover,California Division of Mines and Geology has not mapped any earthquake-induced landslides at,or in the vicinity of,the site which would be indicative of the potential for slope instability at or in the vicinity of the site. b) Result in substantial soil erosion,loss of topsoil,or changes in El nX topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grad- ing,or fill? (Sources: 1, 15) Discussion: The project and vicinity are urbanized and have relatively flat topography. The project site has, been previously graded and developed with structures,parking surfaces,walkways and landscaped areas. Al- though the proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils during construction activities,erosion will be minimized by compliance with standard City requirements for submittal of an erosion control plan prior to issuance of building permits, for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. Implementation of the proposed project would not require significant alteration of the existing topography of the project site. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the project site due to previous grading,excavation,or place- ment of fill materials,these conditions would be remedied pursuant to the recommendations in the required geo- technical study for the project site. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be Page 7 TT Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and poten- tially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsi- dence,liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1, 15,23) Discussion: Subsidence is large-scale settlement of the ground surface generally caused by withdrawal of groundwater or oil in sufficient quantities such that the surrounding ground surface sinks over a broad area. Based on acquired data and analysis by Twining Laboratories, Inc,the groundwater table at the site is at depths between 9 and 18 feet below ground surface. Withdrawal of groundwater,oil,or other mineral re- sources would not occur as part of the proposed project and,therefore, subsidence is not anticipated to occur. The study also indicated that near surface soils had moisture contents predominantly above the optimum,and therefore that aeration,chemical treatment,or other means of stabilization will be required to compact the bot- tom of excavations,and to place and compact fills. Based on analysis by Twining Laboratories,Inc., (Nov., 2004),the soil conditions of primary geotechnical concern are 1)potentially loose,compressible and collapsi- ble silty sand and poorly graded sandy soils near the anticipated foundation depths,2)varied subgrade condi- tions near the anticipated foundation depths, 3) loose soils generated as a result of the removal of the existing building and improvements,4)high potential for subgrade instability due to high soil moisture contents,and 5) the potential for liquefaction and seismic settlements which exceed the Home Depot Design Criteria. The study provides recommendations to address these concerns. (Refer to Responses III.a)i)through iv)and III b) for discussion). Adherence to the design recommendations of the geotechnical study,as required by the City and the recommended mitigation measures, will ensure that no or less-than-significant geology-related impacts will occur. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the El El 11 a Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1, 15) Discussion: The project site is located in an area of low expansive soil conditions(Figure EH-12, City of Huntington Beach General Plan). No impacts are anticipated. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources: 1, 15) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department has determined that the public sewer system can accommodate the proposed development. No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal sys- tems are necessary. IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge re- 9 El quirements? (Sources: 1, 14,23) Discussion: Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements will be addressed in the project design and development phase pursuant to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)and Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP), prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)regulations and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The SWPPP and WQMP will establish Best Management Practices(BMPs)for construction and post-construction operation of the facility, including source,site and treatment controls to be Page 8 O, -� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact installed and maintained at the site. The WQMP and SWPPP are standard requirements for development in the City of Huntington Beach, and with implementation,will ensure compliance with water quality standards and water discharge requirements. Less than significant impacts would result. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sub- stantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 1,21,22,23) Discussion: The Huntington Beach Public Works Department prepared a Master Plan for the City's water system in 2000. The Master Plan addresses water supply issues within the City and pertinent surrounding ar- eas. The Utilities Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the project plans and did not iden- tify any concerns regarding impacts to ground water supplies due to the nature of the proposed uses. The pro- ject would not result in an increase in water consumption not previously planned for in the Master Plan and, therefore, does not present a significant impact to water supplies. In addition,the project is subject to compli- ance with the City's Water Ordinance, including the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements,as well as Title 24 conservation measures such as low flow fixtures,which ensure water consumption is minimized. The esti- mated water demand for the proposed project can be accommodated by the City's water service capacity and does not represent a significant impact. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or El ❑X area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 0El area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ca- El El 0 pacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources:4, 14,23) Discussion: (c-e)The proposed development will provide for the replacement of an existing commercial use which is comparable and only negligibly smaller than the proposed commercial use. The site is currently non- conforming with respect to on-site landscaping. The project proposes landscaping of approximately 11%of the site,which represents an increase in the site's percentage of pervious surfaces relative to the existing condi- tions and therefore is expected to have a less than significant impact on existing storm drain facilities. The site currently drains via sheet flow to existing storm drain facilities in the public right-of-way. The conceptual drainage plan provides for drainage to be surface channeled to on-site inlets and conveyed via underground drainage pipes(18 inches in diameter)to existing storm drain facilities in the Magnolia Street right-of-way. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the project plans and does not anticipate the need for any on- site attenuation or upgrades to downstream facilities. No significant increase in the number of people em- Page 9 ATTACHLENT W. =J_,, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact ployed at the site,nor any other change in operations which would significantly increase the amount of waste- water or solid waste previously generated at the site, is planned or anticipated. The developer shall be re- quired to submit a hydrology and hydraulic study for both on-site and off-site facilities and a project WQMP for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The studies and the proposed drainage improve- ments shall include on-site,privately maintained clarifiers or other devices to control the quality of run-off wa- ter from the development per City standard requirements. The project site is not traversed by any stream or river. Although the existing and future drainage pattern is expected to be altered during the construction phase, erosion and siltation during construction will be minimized to a less than significant level by employing Best Management Practices(BMPs)for erosion control,pursuant to a City approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)and Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP). Required SWPPP, WQMP and hydrology and hydraulic studies,to be submitted in accordance with City of Huntington Beach standard devel- opment requirements,will identify BMPs for ensuring no significant impact associated with polluted runoff. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion: See discussion under Section IV(a). g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped ❑ ❑ ❑ on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 4,7) Discussion: The proposed project consists entirely of commercial uses. No housing is proposed. The subject site is designated as Flood Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM),which is not subject to Federal Flood Development restrictions. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 7) Discussion: The proposed project site is designated as Flood Zone X in the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), which is not subject to Federal Flood Development restrictions. The project site is not situated within the I00-year flood hazard area as mapped in the FIRM. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 7) Discussion: The project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. In addition,the site is not in the im- mediate vicinity of a levee or a dam. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources: 1, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9, 15) Discussion: Potential tsunami hazard is considered to be very unlikely for areas more than one mile from the coast. The project site is situated approximately 3 miles from the shoreline. The project site is also not lo- cated near any inland water bodies;therefore,no tsunami or seiche impact is expected to occur. k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activi- ties? Discussion: See discussion under Section IV(a)and IV(e). ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? Discussion: See discussion under Section IV(a)and IV(e). Page 10 ATTACHMM N , 2 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance(including washing),waste handling,hazardous materials handling or storage,delivery ar- eas,loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (Sources:23) Discussion: In accordance with standard City of Huntington Beach development requirements,hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on-site and off-site facilities, Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP)and Water Quality Management Plans(WQMP)conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)requirements,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer,shall be submit- ted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Specific requirements and measures to be in- corporated into the required studies and plans are identified in Attachment No.4,City Policies, Standard Plans, and Code Requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning&Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code. Refer to response in Section IV(a)for further discussion. n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Discussion: See discussion under Section IV(a)and W(e). ❑ ❑ ® ❑ o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Discussion: See discussion under Section W(e). p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the pro El El El 0 - ject site or surrounding areas? Discussion: See discussion under Section IV(e). V. AIR QUALITY. The city has identified the significance crite- ria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations. Would the pro- ject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentra- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ tions? c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ Q ❑ quality plan? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any cri- teria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment ❑ Q ❑ under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality stan- Page 11 TT lam' N.00. 2.11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact dard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 8, 16,21,23) Discussion: a)—e)Short-term: The construction of the project may result in a short-term air pollutant emis- sions from the following activities: the commute of workers to and from the project site;demolition of the ex- isting structure on the site,grading activities including the transport of any necessary soil import and/or ex- port,delivery and hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project site; fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; and dust generating activities from soil disturbance. The submitted air quality study assumes 1,056 truck(round)trips occurring over a 3 week period for import of fill/base material under the structure and removal of excess soil from the site,and based on this assumption, concludes no sig- nificant short-term air quality impacts. An Earthwork Report prepared by Lars Anderson and Associates(Jan. 2006)calculated the total(round)trips needed to remove and bring in material to the site as 910. Therefore, the air quality study provides a conservative estimate of associated truck trips. Based on the submitted air quality study and with the implementation of standard conditions of approval which include,but are not lim- ited to: frequent watering of the site to prevent dust movement,spreading soil binders,wind barriers along the perimeter of the site,street sweeping as necessary,washing trucks that leave the site, use of low sulfur fuel, and discontinuing construction on days where there is a second stage smog alert,no significant impacts are an- ticipated. Lon,-term: The submitted air quality study also analyzes long term air quality impacts associated with the project. Sources of pollutants identified in the study include emissions from vehicle trips, diesel powered trucks accessing the receiving docks at the rear of the store,the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating and landscape activities. The study concludes that pollutant concentrations would remain below state/federal standards,that project traffic would not cause a violation of either ambient air quality standard, nor contribute substantially to an existing violation,and that the impact of the project on local carbon monox- ide concentrations is considered to be less than significant. The study identifies the existing residential prop- erties adjacent to the site as sensitive receptors, but concludes that because of the relatively low level of truck activity(12-18 diesel truck trips assumed),the lack of extended truck idling on the project site and the prevail- ing westerly winds that carry pollutants away from sensitive receptors,the project would have a less than sig- nificant impact on Toxic Air Contaminant concentrations. The study also states that no objectionable odors are expected as a result of either construction or operation of the proposed project and recommends that all construction contracts require that contractors comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). Compliance with Rule 403 is a standard City of Huntington Beach requirement. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to El El 11 the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e.g., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections? (Sources: 1,4,9, 10, 17) Discussion: The scope and study area for the traffic analysis was established in consultation with Department of Public Works staff. In considering the scope and study area, staff identified the area in which potential traf- fic impacts might be reasonably expected based on the project proposed and standard methodologies for evaluating potential traffic impacts. Staff concluded that potential traffic impacts were not expected to extend significantly beyond the boundaries of the project site since the incremental difference between trip generation by a retail site versus a home improvement store were relatively small. Minor changes in traffic patterns and small changes in traffic may occur outside of the study area. However,these changes were not considered to be potentially significant since they were not likely to result in the need for additional traffic control devices Page 12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact (e.g.traffic signals)or modifications at other major intersections. The analysis considered potential impacts at the traffic signal controlled intersection of Magnolia/Garfield and project access points. The intersection of Magnolia/Hyde Park was included in the study due to potential impacts associated with an alternative access plan. Based on the traffic impact study prepared for the proposed project,the project is projected to generate 7,521 average weekday daily trips, 556 weekday A.M. peak hour trips,and 602 P.M.weekday peak hour trips. The K-Mart store previously operating at the project site was projected to have generated 7,090 average daily trips, 106 A.M. peak hour and 640 P.M. peak hour trips. Accordingly,a net increase of 431 average daily trips and 450 A.M. peak hour trips,and a net decrease of 38 P.M. peak hour trips is anticipated. The study concludes that the Garfield Ave./Magnolia St. intersection would operate at LOS "C"or better based on the cumulative (2%growth over one year,to account for other unrelated development)plus project conditions,(currently LOS B), and that the Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersection would operate at LOS F(currently LOS E). The project is also projected to generate a total of 9,833 trips and 1,180 peak hour trips on Saturday,re- sulting in a net trip increase of 823 Saturday trips and a net decrease of 221 Saturday peak hour trips. The study concludes that the Garfield Ave./Magnolia St. intersection would operate at LOS "C" or better during the Saturday peak hour, based on the cumulative plus project conditions(currently LOS A),and that the Mag- nolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersection would operate at LOS F(currently LOS E). The City of Huntington Beach does not have an adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersec- tions and current traffic engineering methodologies do not provide an effective basis for objectively analyzing overall impacts, short of warranting a traffic signal. The methodology applied to the intersection operational analysis estimates the potential increase in average delay experienced by stop controlled traffic on the minor streets (in this case, traffic exiting Hyde Park and the commercial driveway west of the intersection)and left turns from the major street(northbound and southbound left turns from Magnolia Street). Analyses indicate that the minor street traffic would experience significant increases in average delay with the proposed project traffic. However,while these individual movements would experience increased delays,the study concludes that these increases are insignificant. The primary rationale behind this conclusion is that a relatively small proportion of the overall intersection traffic would experience these increased delays(approximately 2%of the total traffic). The submitted traffic impact study for the proposed project considers two access design scenarios. The De- partment of Public Works has reviewed the submitted study and determined that the proposed site plan for the project is not expected to result in any significant adverse traffic impacts, provided however that medians or other traffic design features may be needed to reinforce turn restrictions at specific driveways under both ac- cess design scenarios. However,the proposed site plan does not fully address the General Plan goal to mini- mize driveways along arterials by seeking to consolidate access points when/where feasible. As described on page 2,the alternative access design addresses the General Plan goal of driveway consolidation. However, under the alternative access design(shared driveway),the project impacts at the intersection of Magnolia Street and Hyde Park Drive are considered significant unless mitigated. This conclusion is supported by the fact that with the alternative access design,traffic signal warrants are satisfied. This also supports the recom- mended mitigation measure requiring installation of a traffic with this access alternative. With this alterna- tive,medians would also be needed to reinforce turn restrictions at specific driveways. The potential locations for the medians are at the northernmost driveway on Magnolia St., between the former Blockbuster site and the existing Taco Bell,adjacent to the northbound left turn pocket approaching the intersection and at the southernmost driveway on Magnolia St.,adjacent to the southbound left turn pocket approaching Hyde Park, and extending to the northerly edge of the driveway. The feasibility of this alternative has not been fully de- termined at this time, pending participation of the adjacent property owner. The traffic study fully analyzes the potential impacts of either of the two alternatives and identifies feasible measures as needed to fully miti- gate the project's impacts. Page 13 TT 1 2.1 3 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,9, 10, 17) (Discussion: The project traffic analysis evaluates potential individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed project and supports the conclusion that significant adverse level of service impacts are not expected to result. (See Section VI(a)for additional discussion). c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an in El 9 - crease in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 11) Discussion: Although the City is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos,the project site is not located within 2 miles of any known public or private airstrip. The proposed project does not propose any structures with heights that would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. No impact would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., El 11 sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: 1,4,9, 17) Discussion: The project traffic study identifies one design feature under the combined access alternative that may result in hazards unless mitigated. The combined access driveway on Magnolia St.at Hyde Park would require traffic signal control as a mitigation measure to address potential operational/right-of-way issues at the intersection. The traffic signal would fully mitigate all impacts associated with the design feature. The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department conducted a pedestrian survey along Magnolia St. and Garfield Ave., adjacent to the project frontage on Thursday, September 29, 2005. The survey data was collected between the hours of 7:30-8:30 A.M.and 2:20-3:20 P.M. Adjacent to the project along Magnolia St.,the peak pedestrian volume of 25 occurred during the P.M.peak hour period. Along Garfield Avenue the peak pedestrian volume of 9 occurred during the A.M.peak hour period. During the PM peak hour observa- tion period, 13 pedestrians were observed cutting through the property. The proposed project is not expected to generate any significant increase in pedestrian traffic on the public street system. Morning peak hour ve- hicular traffic is expected to increase. As a result of the increase in morning peak hour vehicular traffic,po- tential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts at the project driveways and at the intersection of Magnolia/Hyde Park may be expected to increase. The potential increase in conflicts is considered less than significant and may be off- set by the anticipated driveway consolidation(along Magnolia Street,northern most driveway of project site and adjacent driveway at parcel to the north). This conclusion is subjective based on professional opinion rather than supported by quantitative analysis techniques. Standard traffic engineering methodologies do not provide such a quantitative analysis. Additional driveway consolidation that would occur under the alternative access design would further minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts by concentrating traffic movements at the intersection and providing a traffic signal to assign vehicle and pedestrian right-of-way. A painted-stripe pe- destrian crosswalk exists at the Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersection. This crosswalk experiences some school-related as well as non-school related pedestrian traffic. Pedestrian counts performed by Public Works Department staff at this crosswalk on Thursday, September 29,2005 (see Associated Transportation Engineers traffic analysis), indicate a total of 5 school-aged pedestrians and zero adults 7:30 a.m.—8:30 a.m.; and 2 school-aged pedestrians and 1 adult 2:20 p.m.—3:20 p.m. (The traffic analysis also provides counts for pedestrian traffic along both of the project site's street frontages and for pedestrian cross-traffic through the project site). The traffic collision history report included in the traffic analysis, which encompasses Garfield Page 14 ATTACHMENT �J Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact Ave. from Lindsay Lane east to the Magnolia Ave. intersection,and Magnolia Ave. from Hyde Park Drive north to the Garfield Ave. intersection, indicates no pedestrian related incidents within the date range of De- cember 1,2001 to December 10, 2004. No significant impacts are anticipated. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1,4) Discussion: The proposed site plan has been reviewed by the Departments of Fire and Public Works for con- formance with City requirements for emergency access. The projects proposed driveway access and on-site circulation has been found to be consistent with City standards for emergency access and circulation. No im- pacts are anticipated. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources:2,4) Discussion: The proposed project complies with all applicable parking requirements of the HBZSO. No vari- ances to parking standards are proposed or required,and no unique circumstances exist which would suggest that the minimum parking standards applicable to the project are inadequate. Accordingly,no parking related impacts are anticipated. g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative trans- portation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources:1,2) Discussion: The project is subject to compliance with HBZSO Sec.230.36—Transportation Demand Man- agement,the purpose of which is to mitigate the impacts that development projects may have on transportation mobility,congestion and air quality, and to promote transportation demand management strategies. In addi- tion,the project will provide bicycle racks on site, in accordance with the requirements of HBZSO Sec. 231.20—Bicycle Parking. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through El 19 habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,9) Discussion: The project site and all surrounding properties are currently developed with commercial and resi- dential land uses, zoned accordingly. The project site does not support any unique, sensitive,or endangered species and is not shown in the General Plan as a generalized habitat area;therefore,no impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ other sensitive natural community identified in local or re- gional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California De- partment of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,9) Discussion: The project site is currently developed with commercial buildings. The project site does not con- tain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regula- tions, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not result in any loss to endangered or sensitive animal or bird species and does not conflict with any habitat con- servation plans. Page 15 ATTACHMMT NO, Z, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wet El El El 19 - lands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(in- cluding,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources: 1,9, 15) Discussion: The project does not contain any wetlands;therefore,no impacts are anticipated. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resi- dent or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1,9) Discussion: The project area is surrounded by residential and commercial development. The site does not support any fish or wildlife and should not interfere with the movement of any fish or wildlife species nor im- pede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting bio- ❑ El ❑ ❑ logical resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordi- nance? (Sources: 1,2,9, 18,23) Discussion: An arborist's report has been completed for the project site which identifies trees on the site,de- scribes the size and condition of each tree and the feasibility of retention or relocation of trees. According to the report,the site contains 55 trees which may be considered mature and which would be impacted by con- struction. The report indicates that,due to the condition of the trees, it would be infeasible to attempt salvag- ing any of the existing trees. Construction of the project will be subject to standard City requirements for the submittal of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with current code requirements and the replacement of existing mature healthy trees to be removed at a 2:1 ratio(or equivalent: e.g., upsizing of trees). The arbor- ist's report indicates that,of the 55 trees on site,6 were rated average and 18 were rated below average. The remaining 31 were rated as poor or extremely poor condition. Accordingly,two for one replacement of a minimum of 24 existing trees(for a total of 48)would be required to meet the City standard. In addition to re- placement trees,the project would be required to provide approximately 85 trees on site in accordance with standard Huntington Beach Zoning&Subdivision requirements. No other significant biological resources ex- ist on the site and no significant impacts will result. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conserva- tion Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other ap 0 El El 19 - proved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources:l„9) Discussion: As discussed above,the project site is presently developed and is located in a commercial dis- trict. It does not support any unique or endangered plant or animal species and is not a part of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan;therefore,no impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated. Vill. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1,9) Discussion: The proposed commercial development will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated as a known mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan. No impacts are anticipated. Page 16 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral El 9 resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,spe- cific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: 1,9) Discussion: The project site is not designated as an important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan or any other land use plan. Development of the project is not anticipated to have any impact on any min- eral resource recovery.No impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El El 9 11 through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources:5,20) Discussion: No significant change to the prior operations with respect to the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials is anticipated in conjunction with the proposed project. The proposed retail commer- cial use will not provide for on-site fuel dispensing,underground or outdoor storage of hazardous materials. Paints,solvents and other materials commonly associated with home improvement/hardware stores will be stored in limited quantities in approved,above-ground, indoor storage containers and in compliance with ap- plicable codes. All hazardous materials use and storage practices are subject to review by the Departments of Building& Safety and Fire in conjunction with standard building permit and certificate of occupancy inspec- tion processes. Proposed construction and operation would comply with CaIOSHA(California Occupational Safety and Health Administration)requirements, the Hazardous Materials Management Act(HMMA),and other State and local requirements. Compliance with local, State,and Federal regulations would minimize risks associated with accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El El 19 through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? Discussion: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Asbestos Sampling report was prepared for the project site(Environ, September 2004). The report indicates that the site is listed on the following: RCRIS (Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System)database as a Small Quantity Generator of hazard- ous waste; California Underground Storage Tank and Historic UST databases; and HAZNET. The study identifies observed on-site hazardous materials which include propane cylinders and tanks,janitorial chemi- cals,the possible presence of underground storage tanks, potential mold, polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs)(in fluorescent light ballasts), potential mercury containing equipment(fluorescent light bulbs),heating/cooling systems(refrigerant), floor drains and interior sumps, stained pavement, exposed exterior chemical or waste storage,(wooden pallets,car batteries, computer monitors, etc.,hydraulic lift equipment and associated pits in the former auto service bays,and storm drains. In addition,the report indicates that the building existing at the project site contains asbestos materials. Asbestos removal must be removed from the building by a licensed abatement contractor in accordance with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Removal of light ballasts, fluorescent lamps, and thermostat switches are also subject to local, state and federal hazardous material disposal laws and regulations. A Fire Department Permit is also required prior to the re- moval of asbestos or other hazardous materials. All necessary soil remediation must occur in accordance with Fire Department and County of Orange Health Department regulations, including submittal of a soil remedia- tion plan for review and approval by the Fire Department. An abandoned onsite oil well is subject to applica- ble Department of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources and Fire Department requirements. With compliance Page 17 ATTACHMENT 4 a 2` ( Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor-. Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact with State and local requirements, no significant impacts are required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely haz- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ardous material,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1,20) Discussion: The Samuel E.Talbert middle school is located approximately 560 ft southeast of the project site. Pursuant to standard City protocol,the school district will be provided the opportunity to comment and advise of any concerns. (Refer to item IX(a)and(b), above for additional discussion). d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 12) Discussion: The site is not listed on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. No impacts are anticipated. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where II ❑ ❑ 19 such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 11) Discussion: Although the City is located within the Planning Area for the Joint Force Training Center, Los Alamitos,the project site is not located within the height restricted boundaries identified in the Airport Envi- rons Land Use Plan or within two miles of any known public or private airstrip. The proposed project does not propose any structures with heights that would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. No im- pacts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 11) Discussion: The project site is not located near any private airstrips. No impacts are anticipated. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The project has been reviewed by the Fire Department and Police Department and is designed to be in compliance with fire access and circulation requirements. The project site is not a component of any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan,nor will the proposed development of the site interfere or conflict with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. No impacts are anticipated to any emergency response or evacuation plans. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands ❑ ❑ are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are inter- mixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The project is located in an urbanized area and is not near any wild lands. No impacts are antici- pated. Page 18 No. —t t Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess ❑ ® ❑ ❑ of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordi- nance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1, 14, 19) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground- ❑ ❑ a - ❑ borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ project? (Sources: 14, 15, 19,21) Discussion: a)—d) Based on a noise study prepared by Bollard and Brennan,the noise producing compo- nents of the project identified as potentially significant consist of on-site truck movements, parking lot activi- ties, mechanical equipment,construction,off-site traffic, lumber off-loading activities(including forklift us- age),trash collection, garden center area noise sources, and loading dock activities. The study assumes daily truck activity to be conservatively 10-15 light duty or semi trailer trucks per day for delivery of materials and up to 5 such events in a given hour and 2-3 flatbed trucks for lumber delivery per day. The study concludes that truck traffic pass-by noise levels will comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance exterior and interior noise standards during both daytime(7:00 a.m.— 10:00 p.m.)and nighttime(10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m.)hours at the commercial uses to the south. However,the City's exterior nighttime noise level standards would be exceeded at the residences to the west during nighttime truck passages. As a result,nighttime truck passages behind the store should be prohibited. The study also concludes that: loading dock activities may ex- ceed City standards during nighttime hours,and therefore should be limited to daytime hours; and that me- chanical equipment noise will comply with the City's noise ordinance(assuming rooftop parapets are in place). The study also concludes that parking lot noise would comply with daytime noise standards but could exceed nighttime noise standards. The study recommends a mitigation measure requiring construction of an 8-ft.tall wall along the westerly property and concludes no significant parking lot noise impacts would result with im- plementation of the recommended mitigation measure. The study indicates that all trash compaction and re- moval will occur inside the proposed enclosed loading dock,and will comply with applicable noise ordi- nances. The analysis of the anticipated garden center noise states that no impacts are anticipated provided that any speakers used face down and into the Garden Center and away from the nearest residences to the west. The study concludes that noise generated at the building material storage and will call area will exceed night- time noise standards and that mitigation is warranted. Ground borne vibration and noise is also anticipated to be generated during the construction phase. Adden- dums to the submitted noise and geotechnical studies dated January 23,2006,(Twinning Laboratories; Bollard Acoustical Consultants)provide a detailed description of the compaction grouting and stone column methods of ground improvement and a comparison of associated noise and vibration impacts. The addendum docu- ments conclude that there is unlikely to be a substantial acoustic difference between the two methods and that while ground vibrations associated with compaction grouting are generally less than with the stone column method,given the distance of the work area from the property line,the perceptible vibration levels of the stone column method may not be greater than that of the compaction grouting method at the adjacent properties. The noise study's analysis of construction activities notes that construction activities are short-term and ex- empt from City of Huntington Beach noise standards,and recommends that all equipment be equipped with Page 19 ATTACHMM No. 2.r9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact factory installed matching mufflers in good working order and the that construction activities be restricted to daytime hours. The use of mufflers and restriction of construction to daytime hours are standard/code re- quirements of the City of Huntington Beach. Finally,the study concludes that cumulative noise exposure from all represented noises sources would comply with the City of Huntington Beach daytime standards,but would exceed nighttime standards. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise lev- els? (Sources:9, 11) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach is included in the Planning Area for the Joint Forces Training Center in Los Alamitos. However,the site is located a considerable distance from the Training Center,such that the project would not be impacted by flight activity and noise generation from the Center. No impacts are anticipated. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to excessive noise levels? (Sources:9, 11) Discussion: The project site is not located near any private airstrips. No impacts are anticipated. XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other per- formance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police Protection? (Sources: 1,9) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Discussion: a)-b) The proposed project has been reviewed by Huntington Beach Fire Department and Police Department staff. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Bushard Fire Station and within two miles from the Main Police Station. Estimated emergency first response times are within the 80 percent/5 minute response time objective established in the City's Growth Management Element. Estimated emergency first response times from the Police Main St. Station are within acceptable service levels. The proposed de- velopment can be adequately served by existing Fire and Police protection service levels. The proposed de- velopment is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use designation and maximum floor area ratio. Accordingly,the project would not result in unanticipated impacts to public services. Because the site is cur- rently developed,the City already provides service,thus no significant increase in service demand is expected. c) Schools? (Sources: 1,9) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion: The proposed project will provide for operation of a commercial use in replacement of an exist- ing,negligibly smaller,commercial use on the same site. No significant increase in the number of persons employed at the site is anticipated. The applicant will also be required to pay school district fees for the net increase in the floor area proposed. Based on the negligible increase of employees and the requirement for Page 20 . -�,.2G Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact payment of school fees, less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Parks? Refer to discussion under Section XV. e) Other public facilities or governmental services? (Source: 1,9) (Discussion: The project has been reviewed by the various City Departments, including Building and Safety, Community Services,Fire,Planning, Police and Public Works, for compliance with all applicable City codes. With implementation of recommended conditions of approval, and compliance with City specifications,no significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewa- ElQ ter treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drain El - age facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construc- tion of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project El 0 from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or ex- panded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider El El 19 11 which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ca- pacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations El El 19 related to solid waste? h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Page 21 � ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact Management Practice(BMP),(e.g.water quality treatment ba- sin,constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources: 1,4,9) Discussion: a)-h) The proposed development will provide for the replacement of an existing commercial use which is comparable and only negligibly smaller than the proposed commercial use. The site is currently non- conforming with respect to on-site landscaping. The proposed project will reduce the percentage of impervi- ous surfaces on the site and therefore is expected to have a less than significant impact on existing storm drain facilities. The site currently drains via sheet flow to existing storm drain facilities in the public right-of-way. The conceptual drainage plan provides for drainage to be surface channeled to on-site inlets and conveyed via underground drainage pipes(18 inches in diameter)to existing storm drain facilities in the Magnolia Street right-of-way. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the project plans and does not anticipate the need for any on-site attenuation or upgrades to downstream facilities. No significant increase in the number of peo- ple employed at the site,nor any other change in operations which would significantly increase the amount of wastewater or solid waste previously generated at the site, is planned or anticipated. The developer shall be required to submit a hydrology and hydraulic study for both on-site and off-site facilities and a project WQMP for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The studies and the proposed drainage improve- ments shall include on-site,privately maintained clarifiers or other devices to control the quality of run-off wa- ter from the development. All utility connections to the project site will be in accordance with applicable City standards. Solid waste collection service for the City of Huntington Beach is provided by Rainbow Disposal, under an exclusive long-term contract with the City. Collected solid waste is transported to a transfer station where the solid waste is sorted and processed through a Materials Recovery Facility where recyclable materi- als are removed. The remaining solid waste is transferred to the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in.the City of Irvine. The landfill has a remaining capacity in excess of 30 years based on the present solid waste generation rates,and the projecVs net increase of approximately 5,000 square feet of new commercial floor area is not expected to generate a substantial amount of daily waste products in the long term nor as a result of construction. Accordingly,the project is not anticipated to noticeably impact the capacity of existing landfills that will serve the use. The project is subject to compliance with all federal, state,and local statutes and regu- lations related to solid waste and not exceptions to those standards are proposed. The 2000 City of Hunting- ton Beach Water Master Plan analyzes demands and anticipated impacts of future developments based on the Land Use Element designations. The proposed project is consistent with the corresponding General Plan Land Use designation. No significant impacts are anticipated. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The proposed project site is not situated adjacent to or in the vicinity of any scenic vista desig- nated by the City or the State. As a result, no impacts are expected. b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not lim- 0 0 ited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The site is not adjacent to a state scenic highway, nor are there any significant trees, rock out- croppings,or historic buildings in the vicinity of the subject site. No impacts will result. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1,4) The proposed development will replace a decaying building constructed in 1970 on a site with non-conforming landscaping and substandard parking lot pavement. The proposed building features quality building materials and contemporary architecture. Proposed on-site landscaping exceeds the minimum site percentage required Page 22 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact by the HBZSO. Any healthy,mature trees to be removed must be replaced, in accordance with standard City requirements,on a two for one basis and provided in addition to current tree requirements of the HBZSO. The project substantially conforms with the City's Urban Design Guidelines for Big Box Retail and has been reviewed by the Design Review Board(DRB),which is charged with reviewing projects for consistency with community design standards and objectives and making recommendations to ensure the project features a high quality design,the use of quality building materials and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The DRB recommended approval of the project,with conditions of approval to enhance the projects aesthet- ics. The project also proposes incorporation of a public art element. No significant impacts are anticipated. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: El 19 El 4) Discussion: The proposed project provides for redevelopment of a site which is presently developed with an existing retail store. The proposed building and parking areas will be configured/oriented very similar to the existing development. Therefore, light sources at the project site will be generally consistent with the manner in which the site has been lit for approximately 30 years. The project plans include a conceptual site lighting plan demonstrating that the project will be in compliance with City codes requiring that lighting be shielded and directed so as to prevent glare and spillage onto adjacent residential properties. Lighting will be included throughout the project in a manner which is typical of commercial shopping centers.Proposed lighting in- cludes(12)20-ft.tall light poles spaced approximately 60 feet apart along the rear(westerly)property line,at an approximate setback of nine ft.from the residential property line,and 40 ft.tall light poles distributed throughout other areas of the parking lot. Existing site lighting includes unshielded wall mounted light fix- tures(9)at the rear of the former K-Mart building,oriented to the west(toward residential properties),and light poles distributed throughout the parking lot north, south and east of the building. The proposed building features minimal glazing and therefore is not expected to be a significant source of reflective glare. No sig- nificant impacts are anticipated. XI<V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a his- Q torical resource as defined in 515064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 815064.5? ElQ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological re- source or site unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of El 1:1 El 19 formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1,9, 15) Discussion: a)—d) The project is not located in the vicinity of any known archeological, historic or other cultural resource. No impacts are anticipated. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, El FRI El community and regional parks or other recreational facilities Page 23 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources: 1,4,23) Discussion: a)—c) The proposed retail store will replace an existing retail building supply store and result in a net increase in floor area of approximately 5,000 sq-ft. The project site is located in close proximity to an ex- isting public park(Langenbeck Park),and therefore it is anticipated that the project may generate use of the park by those employed at the project site during work breaks and by day workers who may congregate in the park for the purpose of seeking employment from construction contractors who visit the proposed building supply store. However,the impacts on park facilities is anticipated to be less than significant since the pro- posed retail use will replace an existing use which is only negligibly smaller,and therefore is not expected to employ a significantly greater number of persons than previously employed at the site. Moreover,the use of the park by employees of the proposed project and day laborers is anticipated to be of short duration. Langen- beck Park does not provide playing fields/courts or other active recreational amenities which may be utilized and therefore impacted,with the exception of picnic tables which are located a distance of approximately.of 1,200 feet from the nearest parking area. Consequently,there is no expectation that the existing picnic tables would be utilized extensively by day laborers intent on attracting employers. The Community Services De- partment has been consulted and has advised that Langenbeck Park is generally underutilized and that no sig- nificant impact on park facilities is anticipated. The project will be subject to payment of park and recreation fees in compliance with the HBZSO,which are intended to offset the anticipated demand for recreational fa- cilities associated with new commercial development to a less than significant Ievel. XVI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant envi- ronmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agri- cultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)pre- pared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pre- pared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pro- gram of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a William EJ El - son Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farm- land,to non-agricultural use? Page 24 ATTACHUM �'�� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than Significant gation Incor- Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact porated Impact No Impact )[Discussion: a)—c) The project site does not serve as farmland and is not identified as farmland on the City's Important Farmlands map. The project will not impact property that was used for agriculture in the past,nor could the subject site be potentially utilized for agricultural purposes in the future based on its current com- mercial zoning designation and use. No impacts are anticipated XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The proposed project is not situated within or in the vicinity of a wildlife resource habitat. As ana- lyzed in this initial study,the project is located in areas previously developed that do not support any unique, sensi- tive,or endangered species. No impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources:1-23) Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan designation for the subject property.No impacts beyond those anticipated in the General Plan PEIR—which considers the poten- tial cumulative impacts of projects anticipated under the current General Plan Land Use designations,are ex- pected. The project floor area ratio is lower than permitted under the CG-F1 General Plan Land Use Designation and no variances to City standards are requested. The project is proposed in a developed urbanized area with lim- ited development potential. Consequently,no significant cumulative impact resulting from the proposed project when viewed in connection with probable future projects is anticipated. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause sub- stantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indi- rectly? (Sources: 1-23) Discussion: As discussed above in Sections I through XVI, standard conditions of approval and mitigation meas- ures relative to geology, noise and traffic shall be implemented in order to reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. Page 25 I��- XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis: Reference# Document'Title Available for Review at: I City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordi- nance 3 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1 4 Reduced Site Plan See Attachment 92 5 Project Narrative See Attachment 93 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3`d Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(February 18,2004) 8 CEQA Air Quality Handbook South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) 9 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook " 10 Trip Generation Handbook, 61h Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers 11 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos(Oct. 17, 2002) 12 California State Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List " 13 California State Seismic Hazard Zones Map " 14 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code GAENVIROWCHECKLST Page 26 ®yQq_y 15 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation(Twinning Laborato- ries,Inc.)—Nov.23,2004. Addendum—Jan 12, 2005; Jan.23, 2005 16 Air Quality Impact Analysis(Donald Ballanti)— " Dec. 2005 Addendum—Jan. 12, 2005 17 Revised Traffic Analysis(Associated Transportation Engi- neers) -Dec. 14, 2005 18 Trees on the Home Depot Site(Alden Kelley) " Jan. 2005 19 Environmental Noise Assessment(Bollard and Brennan)— " Revised December 15,2005. Addendums(2)—Jan. 12,2006; Jan. 19,2006;Jan.23,2006 20 Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and Asbestos Sam- pling at Selected Project Kellogg Retail Store Sites (ENVIRON International Corporation)—Sept. 2004. Supplement Asbestos Survey Results for the Building Lo- cated at 19101 Magnolia Street, Huntington Beach—Paca- cea, Inc.—Dec. 28,2004 21 Earthwork Report Proposed Home Depot " Lars Anderson&Associates, Inc.—Jan. 2006 22 Huntington Beach Water Master Plan 23 City of Huntington Beach Code Requirements, Standard Plans and Polices Page 27 g � - T1a1 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Summary of Litigation Measures Description of Impact Mitistation Measure GEOLOGY AND (1) New foundations should be supported on at least 2 ft. of engineered fill to reduce the SOILS anticipated static settlements to one in. total and %Z in. in 50 ft. differential. (2) The proposed structure shall be designed to tolerate the combined total and differen- tial settlements presented in the Twinning Laboratories report(Nov. 2004)by ground modification in accordance with the recommendations of a licensed soils engineer and the requirements of the Department of Building& Safety. (3) The final design recommendations of the geological/seismic analysis approved by the City shall be implemented. TRANSPORTATION/ (1) Medians or other driveway design features approved by the Department of Public TRAFFIC Works shall be constructed to restrict left-turns at driveways along Magnolia St. The potential locations for the medians or other driveway design features restricting left turns are at the northernmost driveway on Magnolia St.,between the former Block- buster site and the existing Taco Bell, adjacent to the northbound left turn pocket ap- proaching the intersection; and at the southernmost driveway on Magnolia St.,adja- cent to the southbound left turn pocket approaching Hyde Park Dr., and possibly ex- tending to the northerly edge of the driveway. This mitigation measure is applicable to the proposed access plan and the alternative access plan. (2) In the event that the site plan is amended to provide for a combined/shared access driveway serving the subject property and the commercial property to the south, a traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Magnolia St. and Hyde Park Dr. This mitigation measure shall apply in combination with Transportation/Traffic mitigation measure#1. NOISE (1) At the property line along the west side of the project site, either; a. the existing 6-ft. tall property line noise wall shall be increased in height from 6 ft. to 8 ft.; or b. a new 8 ft. tall wall shall be constructed in front of the existing 6-ft. wall;or c. the existing 6-ft. noise wall shall be removed and a new 8 ft. tall wail shall be constructed along the property line. (2) The rooftop parapet shall be of sufficient height to block line of site between rooftop HVAC equipment and the residences located immediately west of the project site. (3) Any garden center P/A system shall be designed and tested so as to not exceed the City of Huntington Beach noise standards at any location within the adjacent proper- ties. (4) All truck movements and unloading in areas on the west and south side of the store, including the loading dock, shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (5) Activities at the will-call area and building materials storage areas shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Attachment No. 4-Page 1 ATTACHMM . 2.2 The Home Depot City of Huntington Beach, CA APR 2 �� Project Description of ent;ngton aeach (Revised 3/29/05) General Information The Home Depot proposes to construct a new store(the"Store')within the existing Kmart shopping center located at the southwest comer of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue in Huntington Beach, California.. The Store,which will.replace the existing Kmart structure,will be comprised of an approximately 102,102 square foot building with adjacent Garden Center measuring approximately 24,772 square feet. The Kmart shopping center is now being used in conjunction with the Taco Bell of approximately 2,994 square feet. The Home Depot is applying for a Conditional Use Permit. With the approval of this application,the Home Depot will be permitted to demolish the existing Kmart, construct a new Home Depot,and reconfigure the parking field. Proposed Uses The proposed use is for the retail sales of building supplies,lumber,hardware,and associated items such as appliances,barbeques,pool accessories,home furnishings,patio furniture and materials associated with home maintenance and repair. The project includes an outdoor garden center/nursery for retail sales of plant and nursery items. The proposed use will also include incidental activities such as the rental of tools and equipment for construction and gardening and home improvement projects. Two flat bed trucks for use by customers will be stored outside the store in designated parking stalls. Other items to be temporarily stored outdoors prior to pick up will be pallets located in the"Pallet Enclosure';baled cardboard and recyclable materials inside the receiving area. Store Operations The proposed Store will employ approximately 200 employees during three daily shifts. Approximately 30 percent of these employees will be transferred from other local facilities in order to train new employees and manage the Store. The Store's hours of operation will vary during the week but will generally range from 5:30 AM to 11:00 PM,with the option of remaining open for business between the hours of 7:00 AM—7:00 PM Monday thru Friday. Typical daily deliveries normally include 2-3 flatbed trucks of lumber along with 10-15 light duty or semi trucks for delivery of other building materials and home improvement products. Delivery appointments will normally be scheduled for late afternoon and the morning hours. The company will receive deliveries 24 hours per day. The potential exists for some lumber,merchandise,plant materials,and"will ca11"orders to be temporarily stored at the side of the building. Some plant materials may be temporarily displayed outside, adjacent to the Garden Center. Baled cardboard and recyclable materials may be temporarily stored outdoors,within the receiving area. Refuse will be processed in a compactor unit located within the dock area at the rear of the building,and a satellite dish for communication will be installed on the roof/parapet system. ' fi a '' U'x City of Fountain Valley _.._.._..-..-..-..-.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..-..-.._.._.._.._.._..-.._..-------------•---..-.._..-..---------.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.--------.._.._. a ��111 e r. 0) n3 Urescent Dr. hors Dr.Moorpark r 19101 Magnolia St. STREET NAMES ti Map produced by information contained in the City of CITYBOUNDARY Huntington Beach Information Services Department Geographic Information System.Information warranted for City use only.Huntington Beach does not guarantee its HARBOR completeness or accuracy. Map Produced on 1/3012006 BUILDINGS r e PARKS J s �? PIER 0 320 640 rt PARCELS One inch equals 320 feet , r i 1 _ , _2 SCOTT A.MOMMER CONSULTING LAND DEVELOPMENT 411IM E9 NYe®lMNM oxNRLme4nNN).M" eNmreNNPw b. ' T6it93eNM 4MNWMYD°tl100YY Iry % LOCATION MAP oxnroroND cl�y1HIRE n® D r 6:®1 E ME , `° imatem *1 91 1 MAGNOLIA 6T. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926 ' 20NIND cuasrRxATroN wmnP w°aaw°PNNNNay • TYPE Dr t NP1RucnDN nn arlNwaa+Nw , PROJECT NOTES ' rNNR mruwNa O<P W OM°ew r°txrro IM}411 N YYR N1II11�41f Y bLLCMW a a W L 0(eibifi0 ' 4TRN1U°Wt O4L•.RYOWifY MNCS1M14 • xeeNRWp:e NroRt°V(ARPxr Or/MN°YPteoMl OTM IeR�N4PRwrWmNLMw�meWl6Wal�lU RWPV/xRW Oelroexterwrx.ull°PYN xA7wy ZONING MATRIX SHEET INDEX ePIRApNplr WYYxE4 YY NIDmN1MMR0r euwa+ PEaNEe � SHEETNO. OEECRIPTION •vrR uR�Pmm�aiiwwriwn°wmw. •— 1 COVER SHEET 2 CONCEPTUAL SITS PLAN araNvunroncxeanewwP°termEruuun,rR 3 CONCEPTUALLANOSGPE PLAN uenmewRverrxwapc°xrunP. A CONCEPTUAL GRADING S DMINAOEPLAN e.nroNwN.w*NxN+ea.un.uxvmroxmx S CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN ewwwo,Drtr ernuewNn S CONCEPTUAL SITE LIGHTING PUN ammv er NuxnrmoxrwweNuiraow 1 STfa UONTINO DETNLB xom Rroxnee�uwi viioieoMne o S CONCEPTUAL SIGHT UNEI ROOF&SECTIONS PLAN S ALTA 9URVEY.BOUNDARY t BASEMENTS aLLLNrolemeuWLN11rNOH0rxar.0 11 ALTA SURVEY-IMPROVEMENT B UTILITY PLAT Nrn eunana rotaMwmex er.wvroe°m,or 11 ALTA SURVEY•TOPOGRAPHIC PLAT 17 ELEVATIONS pvPaNeeri�waimP 13 SIGNAGE PLANS 1Nawrtrp mwrvRuwuYn RmrrtrEPm^K 14 81GNAGE PLANS 1B CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PUN " ° r.....� x tE TRUCK TMCHWOPLW � � eMWMe POVMRNiI1PNRe00M 0°e�xPPesweerme eaart MpwN rr�.r.�MO�Rv.xW MMNNi� W3•k _ MVITiseRiNNx,as THE HOME DEPOT �c..l HUNTINOTCN BEACH,CA "4 W101 wGNOW B7REtT �xia tW xeMtaNrPl MaIDMANM QxmM �'ty� MNrMMTMYYPBI tINDe� ' 0 1 9P p r7a G<a.m SAWN 1 OF IS W • '— + I j I 1 SCOTTA.MOMMER CONSULTING I �Yo asvao aeavlraa '7 I � I II ®avlYowYas.mnm rrmwlaw mn I V j I O I I. i f6t®OA1 MAaaA°O Y00�11AMgRlKt°Y l ji LOCATION MAPn•r»eew° I j I III ee r k j L O t 1 IW i G 7 * 3J ^ \ ---- fi l 1, 4 RY°e•r � uwn geO61•t ~��(j N„°'M°neN°m�irv.*ls��i°nj y � O I ' Jlj wr I I I rc' I PRWECT INFORMATION °�'I' .gyp• .,..�aa ' + I ?A U. I ®9NOINMNO esNM,t aln OA t �apea+wernaaNar .le,. � .w.r ' I ' j°y° • 1 • ' I II �° iRrr•e�aeY uwa as • ��' +t i Propos®d I I Proposed Ovtdoo q " go cvor4fon Gontor 1 ataevlY°en amw r ® wr�j I L y Yr C a' w I I OIIM1DIIa ae°� iM.na°,e CGLINT eNYNMey ,� °mw,, � I _ I'J q• ,t I I warm ® , 1 11iN1140rAro•,m• mer•eu ••>a �I1 .M,r ,.a,r I I +x I I , :'N�� --W.e°e (Ip12 E 4M '•t' (1 zw r OarmarFaeo a, '1---tw--- 14 t a' rwum:°.°ewee � • k 11 er —�--w I 1TY1NINeY1•aotr:mme° aeraar +m,Yvs••euw,exlax aawl e p i l " L t I y • e l I I .rt,e•m ewwme �' 1 I I 1 , x •0 1 y I y�• k° I I I a.Iwr.•..a n,°wm uY,amu.eu 4 t •em »>ffiI x� tl +1 tl � Y�a 0�, 1 �, �� i Y ,w r y 1 I II II mNew(�r19:RM.TON �j a S F r8 • � I I ,•j1B 1 = R b• , ,° V � 1 II Cusr:xa ao�•,vw.e•vumre 1® � � I �� I� , yk a� I it s , y I--� f i I «ernr•�e,nao�oA N a>a � xyR •� I :8 I ^ I I � r 1' w w w 1 „eea°om„m�� tl I �j i I 0�(IeN euYYwn. r e. 1 n• °� Ivy Ir t 11 4 It :• PRQJ rNOM �a ® :�'r 1 I i I s R O) (� �0} 1 I I � Oeaw„awmneelw.mr.arm:•,r 1 Q a it t t I I � I 1 D Y-' I I 'I' mw,e•aroa,re•wnw•N•m it, ° ..�. 1 !•t tlt 1 .°,.u,: k y 1 :.i '.m ¢° ® I I I I , 1 k I a°°rw,awm°eY•vmr eema THE HOMEDEPOT HUNTINOTON BEACH CA _ _ - - - - - - - - _IVIAGNOL4A-STREET - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IW reM•elleeiq ew°tl 1 7 \�t- I ° le >0 •1 10 110 w I Conceptual Site Flan (— �, ;IFS' SAWN N _ 20F16 SCOTT A.MOMMER CONSULTING Mb M vueNre MED ' rmamiman+aew.om�o rrmowAw on+ co 'II to asab KaGomaf amY�/AyN.p®my LOCATION MAPtwtmswo yfi(: I 0 ' I I I f I I I I PROJECT INFORMATION I ena.w,w I I I .neeiavoa nm. I— I ro a t, I ' n,�y,�µon rdd06if •�.H r�.'s;'e'� ,��.. SnrAy�{JGFur ' TKO RtaTV��LIm/+r tMV V. � �� MrgfttxRun,wuw, i � I I aumnmmnornex wwtlu ��II tanoenwMe.e r I N� wavwrruwnr»no mu m•wn I i I 1 II e0mN0oWWLM1W aln®••wN. , 'm � I w.. \ I r I m mw�uowrnrmram� 9neo I TOtKTNOwLL.noriom V/eY IQ9 � � I ' EF� ow.wr mewau.wr.mw. ��w��srw.� }f. 1TM wp•Rxnanmi ��.��-�--`.W Nr1w.M..�M Mr1 -�..+..�— �--...--_—� �—. -ter..�.�. • -'�-I�� - - - - - - --- - -MAGNOWA-ST-REEf - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - _ O�u1easm�ua•eweuarmn ww+.n»..—iww.'."r.+� ... 'vw�'-.2r..q""'.w�.�"""+"�`.'..:.r' .»»...".. ,��'�w'i""»' br""...w....r► miawn�wwaom�owrrw...mn O 'er...;�G.":+�.:�. ,,,,, .�•..:TVw"—.r»+.;.� y�'S`L'. "�"/ ''�rY.='S�Jw" ww..•�s.:wrs G.... - p.m+ouarFwt.wnrucwo ate amm ?2."�•••'Yx,:3G"••,•• k� a�nen.w i..roaww+a wwrwwi hma �. z:. ;: -a •,.� THE HOME DEPOT "= »---^�•,M M �- r-•.- ^-»»--- �. ."" HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA --__ ,.� � GaTNatTwV�ml wmaw wur a.wr Conceptual Landscape Plan SAWN 3� rig i—'I r SCOTrA.MaOMM COULT NSINO L I n ( �� ,,,��. II, " I I ,�a�®z�w_Wz rmuw+mas LOCATION MAPZu mmm a.w a lin Aft v�P•w.nm�p P._ YY—�nP_,_nP�IV,"j•uP�•�•'N"sNm—rY s�._nY^,.rus—. VWN pOCYO 11 � u�f.ne�TR �s a, h�:.O,.'i I �,I ', rii 1I I a PROJECT INFORMATION Upow1 G li � •i I � I I ..P.wr. rpmm rr aawra MO I I I ;9!��i Y� 1 .w. nnram,"wnae,uvm, W I I 4i) I �•.— p s can urns 1 ,��, .aei� artml m°Amml a _ 4, GARpE�-C6WTER I I ar �.nr a,r m+wvw n.1a.° I I I•! " 't1 �. r.wn a.rr mm 16} •1, I i•I ��.� ua�°...enla m.,.e.11m 1 I W I w,vmm°eeXA am Pa° I w I 1 „I `-.i oun+m WAX en. na."u —m I == pm�we�A�I,Y,a, y'e'�b.t?;at I-,- ip�•.et. �, / — I �•p •;+, ,i:J qi:V• ..H ` iia la'•e..imr M 4f ft. VZ'.'Jz.,�.'2�J I I , •I oa+mnumlo""or...nonr�oow I ' i I prm".ommaAwrmuna,�. • I , ,• , I I I p"wNo rAW,Ilwn mmrw„nna fit I I 1 Y .'•..� , aaem c"10111[wwN°lal«m,°la I f � B ' „r M, I I 0 rmram"YImtR mN,e ttmelm RbM1 a. � I � 11 � � ,.P •a. I i. I I p Ymwo e.eeA°eaw11 re mn.w,we ti 1 ' ® i t I PNmIm ml°R1{rl.No 1�'a P P � I � ....+a• ?^n r yr' °i __ �� • I I I p wmr.o ar,ws a nclmla PNNSQTN�7F9 110 w�,Ixeu 4• , L a"uM°w4 �°d'�' ' a � � , ; � ' ,•1 l / au I"r wrn Howe eiwnmo nel mma i • 4i ' I � ! r at •�•—. —J ' � Q� . gl I f I uusnw,m a.e wnle wn a amm'w'1�m ref. rllset�mle,ms eaw�,sspm s.ouwo pure I ,,a � ` 1 t _I�—` . •' I Ml urx�w°Ce�WAw aw�me,W�i,6Pgtltm •1 � � � I I � w ��, M I I 4�MmNVNMOCt�"'eWIP"6 YAI��NAIY ,,�i• /'_a. ° M w. 1 '� "r MK•`mYelA ' • �� ,• LI WI °MNrKIMWM1eNmr00.° (�_ � .t --^--------- ...- '?I�t '�; i ,� � � �• . ._I . ere emw ��,. Me111mI,YM®IiYNI �IOIYIJI y sl:t' _ — ,••_, ,R�"�-- .. r IW' �t.r.MM"Wx.M Mws r- 7 - - - - - ��- -._. FidA�CfA STET = -•-y1 - - -. T~I •y`a HUNETINQTON BEDAECH,CAe ---a le+o+wraowsraeet � rwxnaooeremewrea A,me '' rmm.m --•�'r�' � -- • — � � a¢rwwereulua m+ar •�1I "� --ISi ®� e —� 1'p a 1 I a, 91 L, 4i 4t�_ l " UMI ]0 10 1i0 ' Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan SAWN 4OF18 L L L Ix SCOTTk MOMMER.CONSULT7NG j ILI LL . w-1 I ti 1-12 LOCATION MAP o-.. 'd CD7 ER 90� n x.-bye, I I „I I I,••a r I I �._•. '•I-i•�. I I• ..—i �I I �-�I�k /'! F AM E3 PROJECT INFORMATION OUTDOOR r GARDEN CENTER 1; r 1 r,-r..° ; i i'I I1'�"- ;l ; II ' w"� ":�"" 4 '7 =:7- NO=ANO SnOOLS, N"q. T W44F t M VI PROACTNOT98 I f11 ry, r .. ...... ... THE HOME DEPOT HUN71NGTON SEACK CA L........ . ....m 13711111 .1 1 1"1 rTlifl Conceptual Utility Plan, SAM-N 5 OF 18 II��I �•+ w au qe as m a u �y m m •p se w ee hf•�b oE]w u u e a •�ns m a� ao�u w m a of aEEo'Qm pa dS'o.o ao ns m pb4etii'a�'ao m a qtl m oa '8 os m m m e m m a u SCOTT A MOMML°R CONSULTING a on R• w a a�I�a) m t u u a J ) ♦ ai Y ar m WID06YB.OlifO m•Er•cmwlwa.pearo wsp alJaoa,»a m w 6I ,4 I .) L 711 ) a� A n •. ] i I i J 6 ] J 1 ♦ If t r l t• I I I 1 I L d ai a♦ as �Efi►Ti IaalE)1•®YIO//IQAUYLONi16a1 /\.•¢ p • 11 It ♦ Y I 1t u y a. a• U y i♦ u s, L a1 fA ti,a) 1♦ y Lf 1! L L) y y lI al Lt 11 ].1 y It It 11 L) IS le LI y U y It y y S• at ai 2. A at}f 11 Li ,J ItY ,.1 I. I. U a• y tl L.y y y y y ap It IS It ).1 fi 17 13 11 III ]J It I.1 1.1 IJ LI 34 y y LI y AtLGCATION MAPulrttolr}IE u if y y 1♦ L! Se y a. . fJ y LI L at q'n�jQ ,A IJ 1.) t! IJ 1i 1J 1, L7 Ali u pp u u u a 7�'- I' 8CtL6 r)•a7 a a Im 1 a♦ y u a/ a eJ aA ! pt �.q a u Y u yq'$��a u u •X '.'4'�y+�5 t, t.l i u , u 8 ' 2►u u name u ,i mu I. IJ u I♦ I 1 LI 31 A i! u I u Y nl �I j l • f l • ',1 Y W yi}}Y a,gitGe Li 1 I p♦ 3 m al gy,. u 1 1 11 u ♦.) u u t y y I a♦ •♦ p i _ ® >i.J u • u It a♦ Q . / Ira 41 i ii u f'f . u. 4r u I y It 1' ea g'�ya1 ya®h. L• I• l •I 40 4t he 1 y 3ff m ®, w CC �u ugh. y s♦ he y I w!-I I 1 I' 4 „wd y� t �ML. ,��. :r' .r'; I':y'�:,Y'ij 4�t".r••ff nr•iy e�.5','.i;'N`I;' JIM i'•I.Jt ].ti;u an (� .'1•' y LI u�RI u�.. Lf y Eu y m'a v u u•' y�!1_S.I'S y,�.y, ,;.1 s y y a et u u .,) u it u ,.p L, L! y at IJ u •• m �,.I 3, y+ap ip ]a•�]f 1i\�4t y ♦J 43 I$i/ It IA M y 4! La .J h♦ at y i♦ y 4f •.) yIJ Y il1U` ,pt ., of m 1., Lf 4«.J 4♦ .a 4l.♦ h`�+M, 41 M N 47 11 .1 1 M 1. 11 40�4,) 4. to s) a i• I. i ♦ 1 . LI -_,y y i I1 w i ♦♦ 1w�•��/ t�61 4.�;a1•ap L LI 31 -Ity Isy Y M y Is IsNye U R. •iy �1 i �f1 ♦A 1/'0.Ih �� y w1 ]�' N+Lj �fy i a 4a Lt ,,7 IJ LI 'f 61 eAau w� u It , u L1tf 4tty Iy • i t u s♦ to +at t L♦ ♦ jj++ I j gy♦pl y a�ia1 t iJ a L 1Q i1 m 1 1 l♦� 4j I} 11 B It 16 La N i A hl jJ 0 IJ � LO if L3 t I Y $®a, w Diu ,J I 1 u u e U u y N N ♦Ih. 4i j T 1 a 1, to y 3 1 at y • u 3f }e 1, Y ,. 1.. Il a IJ,.1 y. 11 61 1 I I 7 I YIIv F1 y®iy u I LI U 41 'm m t w u I Im I.li �f t1 B. E if 1; if Ite I,t a if i a It . IA 1• .11 J 1. 1 • 1, It#.I ai el�•Y • u 1. i ♦ y it 1, 11 y it 1i1 ,1. IJ Be 11 b1 1. V IA .! 11 , ,) •.1 u I ,I y \h 1 Ea, Is 1 {-11 u I" sit fit t/ IA I,1 ,. 1. IA 47 1 IA IJ .•i! t. 1-pyp, �N� 4P'°a1 Y�r-1i61 a ,J ,J ly 1) u at y iJ i7 ♦ILI flu I .I 1.1 u j u L, Le Le IJ .I It e ,LW a, wL.p-k! to I i♦ if u i Ll y lil 'LI »LI xl 1 • i6�}I )+TI 1�t • sf'La Lt Y i�it 14 i i m It u y 11 it 1. i, 4, 1, l o iae J to a♦ }e-a• y is a1 if It L1 I. 1 !1 a, a 1y). 11 I 1n.nun_u,er[I[hnaM at y®Iu ,J L, 1, ..e ., It y .) m '♦., .•im i . y ..I wf" ET iu U. 9 1 I 1 WIiN01n Cn etla,rtml.a,mw 4 a, 6f sj14 1 u a, •A 41 11 i N1 B a ap .1 ih1 1 6e Le 7. u 41 al.,J] u - Q tl•1 p, Rr ia. • I. ,A 1 1 a7 1if >].} Ir L�aJI t , •lha I.r It 1,1 U 41 ® ♦I •.1• I I I I I I 0.t al=, 1 al m 4t1"4 Y w It y y y L iru y 1 1 1 l fly 1.7 IA i`-♦,h7 LI G♦ I.jg1101' latlpll {arrY Y R a a 1 4/ �31..tt 1 3 �I 4 4 4♦ .1 a�OI.7 la }Y RI m Ip♦ 6 y _ - - ------ . "R, h1 i 1 )dd \ ••• `.- e } y L, • 0- PROJBCt NO1'a8 1�m al ql`^'R y Y V L1 }I y y St y i♦ u 11 u I., 1. U y a] It La w u u u ,J 1.1 y I. i. y U 11 si Y L, Lt y Is y y 11 Is Is .4 4y u RI m Y a• m ey-xl.-ti J4 ,L Wi•"4--u .I,t. LL1.-- ,-W-M 1- ,Yu-'Y.• 'ts ,T u�1'�13�I�u u t - � - •� 5 __._._.-_._,_..- ------- fNOL-tA-B�fiEEF- - - - - - - - ---I---_-....,._. _.,_._._..^ ^ _ �` _ UM a .__.....,-----•-"--•--t-----..-..-.,-----------f--..-.---•_•__..7.........-.......... "Alm ]]7lifi Y�iws"ml.w�ialw ti.wt m X,a„•.1,a•E.YN.M THE HOME DEPOT slwnsnee 1.� WMINAIg6 Eo.+IxYu HU"NOTON BEACH,CA - yarn wialatuaTW 8 p,t °"""^ nE1le,aenmRroa,IRUE1 a.mge aF)masplltN®r maa. ' IY,w wW u-•i MM.�'' h n.�i.W.•MI, tY{B MI ' 3 4....1.ia•..,a M wY1.. .wY•sN••.v Q , ».•_..� '�,,° /M e.. ®lI I I I � � � )f0 .N Conceptual Site lighting Plan SAM-N 6 of 16 W - o2 Oil WZ3 —y Z co ®a J •.en'.i i i.t4 i N - 6 !d t i li i lu t i } 1 , pf►!u tue t it t 3HURI-ti•il. 1 ii i�iilifl lls !t' ► ! {�WHO =8 �f�•�1 i t l;iiitt ,tU 3 , }.i3S'!t!!!>�= �� I F 1N �t��{�ti�tit►ltltin II I�� , �� •u►► , $ illil;i�yul ls, t_I iui tllitl ,t ---- a ,lit 1'•1.�{i lil t - t ' 1 i�il'rills�i{ ti I r ; {►di It t 1. �� ! } 3 �c #~ �e � d itlt,lt ' t t I1 iI,, 1 I ,i,►„ �N is i •�� [ �Ilittl�nitttt)i, l-� � t .�....... 1• � vJ 1 i M1,11104111 !1 i {, n HIdollRi!1�{ill fUu fill ' ig�Nt i v lU�Nt„t fl I ( qj iil t will l�ti; t !t S ntFttit,tl �tl�dilfY� l r {i, C ►milt I1ll1l"�•t ' , '( 1'I m Iifi .0 .t�djtlttllli�l�f�,lt,u�ld, t ►�►., t------ tk!;�� t ._ '� li ►,.,stun � , ill !� 1 _ ii 1 lil i tit tt} 13 ri t i',iE �O � 1; �t ,,{�µ,ittl{{a � rti` !!V►�aelS�tu � �i�? ' �. i xtl 1 ({d lye ty� tiLJLJ 10 1 I'it i u►tyi�ll} oil! pt; !. ► I{Dll16n�lyltn �1 �1� qf. lt''jfl�![4 l' 1�: l ntt t 11i iltt t oil! j C t 1 t(`1 j ntent t R 1 oil�l'Ulh t''1 �F{ ((ffo,�nt t aE t� �to lei}t,}l 1 �git d�}t�I �tlJn, ,f t P--�- 9 �B AffACHMMW . ' I BCOTTA MOMMER CONSULTING /(�� t ,menxeu xJW.w[,e 19IJIM.W tlID / 0 I I I ta�m>vam wJ>.n.ma y LOCATION MAPi�j ownoJwa e o m m 8 •- q o 0 o q o o I �� I i 4 II C - „` IT•' —. it it It ,t ,t ,I t a , t f t ,t It ;t it t II II tt it is#IJt 11111�- I .11 I ------ ------------------ --,-- -.- zP sonwR e.Jmmvrlew if �, avrwl ae ma.naewumw I npf,nl,Y m .Wil 10N N,P aaa SECTION A-A r p�mnnaveuuwan suac,P n 70'-0" JroV.-- raaecrnorea ,• -r-tr SfCT10N 8-8 stux,t•u 301-0• 1� Iwrxpenawm.VlJwsaaRo J1�IJP1�tWYrR00mMa1Jtq •MtYM� JW.YA,JtI-O, bf-JYU .t'a�hr..-- .tJ^0�+ IWam�nKo4we Wm�rl�rA SECTION C-C SECTION D—D THE HOME DEPOT aceu,t•_3a-o• scaw r e 30W HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA +gat y42wsyw „4tI0W000trNmMniP a.mu Conceptual Line of Sight / Roof & Section Plan SAM-N 8OF10 W lion �arr°otularnr0°r�s) ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY 6 �T Ph d?fYmtiE0L1Y"�.wr.....:m,......m•r...,. um m I r.m.mrr Q'�16W .9»e.n.•mr wmr v... �^_��rr•.•.w I �43L C�YL6d1 d'a95L f..r a..r I I Q ooewmrmw iwrm �er.e� 1 i •... .�....w:w. I. m W"SC7?SlrAr,.,re.m<r.M... I I , ' r.♦m,.m.w.wr.. ' •`m'°""`•w'� / I I 1 I I I I I I I I 01 4 I ytl,_• I —pwrJdZ.fxa:S6S ♦'>PFSYY'AS'9C1Saw.rr..mmmrrm♦ �•'---T--�—� —_ — -- �_ — a—. '�-"- I arm•rm.. ' moe°"..•"0'..wrt'..ra""e..i'd�'M1.Ea ( N, I m`w'♦io°".o.'°.o°' ®wlO3".LS^,FiYim'"m�Rd:wCSLTs 7• f I aIX--r.A�.SY�J64" :"SAS rmw.w. I Ir 1 ... ..� . r.q rmrmrm.rm.rr.e..�......... I � I I � ew.r�a.r.�m..•m , ....� ,I n�r ry�mv I uaur* 1�a. C 1 ® . ll;°.�'.9CL6 I 0. p`� H O• 1 � I � � rv.r,rra °...°rw>.owwrw,n ®is m '9..:♦,.r""`rv`, r I y P �'a c E 4 I ...s.♦m°.w ...w ww.. LX. C„�gm.,+wr. G'�ua,.r.�• ® r�•'•"�Qaw3"..'w 9:w.br.:"WI♦r I �N . .�. ,�e..w e I CS9.i$Si�iE.�.�".:wr....w,..e. � 0•k �� i I� j .� 1G •'i�•JRd'!�DTii�'�' i � C4_..,11.1: C� � � R�2 � � 1 umes ----) ♦ —^_ -------- Mt. — — _�_� � ' .L—__— w�.J.�LR♦APb:or.,r....... ' �,� .o,°89rwLi�'�S'At�'�,'99.Yr7'4ST --..—{-----_-- w^"_"• _ _amp_ ♦ I � ifr�.V9r".W1PL9,::@'14.�.wli'i'.5�:3'��Y xS°i'Ar9�P�9'J�iArv�..e.r. �— ----- --�.__—_�. ��x � ra.rmr♦srrsr.rrmr.rmrrw.w•.. -- _ I a .,e..rmp ran n.°wr°r,o gI 3 i I�ACD01i1t! A�R I ..'w"w'ARS�71 " '.. ww.+ 1 1 w wwn.m m rw.r g� . f O a.f .av • . 'r'•4 R,i.2'.�r w row+,v � eamnrr r+nrw•6•, 9FB'�16L3',.;L�m"4.T."irrgamnMrewwv � ♦ •Im.m..m m.Nw mY rID mlmW 6DU MYAND;AfiOAWG USCOE A1TAlAC9M 6UNV�1' � r�cw Von N� OIOf mcr .m rwtrww it n. r uw ron rmart omw.r mrxr PNGRffi@fG ru �r.S rwr arw u. m a.aw r+w.s.. ammo ru W I Wem wa 61QR7OP3 � 'ti� � I�� inn '!'i I, �� 1 � t'1► �� # � Eh i mill \ IF � I' Ti �r'v�.�'V.�A�AVA•s� � \yAv�� IE( i I u i - E. `I�pYr'A��r�■ 'W�nll■i�E➢��:W_aLLW�R�Sa 1 'E' _ 1` �'��r'��Illii'I111'1(is�r'►r;';,�_�,c.�,�1111��11L�•. ,+ .��! ��l'lllt7l'111 '1!illil'111'i1f11. �� - ��l■ �' 11 Nit !/!/!;�� i it;j�,%;! i„'.,',%j/,�; i `�'■ "�',, I �r- u�i7 �J o _,- Will ` �, i is- L I iD ��► O ��®O �(!t c3� O © �cS�Es E}� �� ® © Ew�� 4C cTv � �� -��,� rci uaa ua-. �ra� ,1 • ua<I, usr uan,�rl iarr . ..ucr, L', ��•c.r u �� ir1�r a �IIrlliifiiYlYlY -� ��Icc '��ii'i'11 'R�i� �� 1 �' 1 �� ►�yl;. o a��` �� 1 r `. . ua„ cao..a. A u n o r, us, o� _a _.r�'E, Ewe•uac' a neu �. o a o a �� O a !1 © a' r o o � a Ei �«'�• e, n f' ,. '� ....- .. �....�at.d e_,,.,-:��i ..IE MI?.:,..,.. .,_r , ,�.1 . �� •'IMF ��1� ....�: - ,� _ 4�• 1 a 1• -• Cty \17• - �,dI1 1.�.■ ��•t �!, fJ Ei� ,�•, r*vD �-,, raft \rD, r.c•i.n., 1�1 Ef i'•.: it! •••a� .t.,il:L•ll�� 'Y=/ u .:a, ao�� uao ccn ca:• uau uon ua, ca•, .rn. .:� , r � VMr saw- ire.: law- o n unl +Du p�i�1��f1II y��f��■�1�I''��U�.r..��!'*71 o m ,• riv ,i�u u.ai riD\ can ,�z, uae� _ a a !fl�1�� a ,. , E,11 a I��II�IIiYiiYYYgYYYYYIU�fI �, ; �- .,i U�, r. �� ''R• rr3. �'t �f1 _E.� d -_ L' �. _C.' 'i 1. • J .� -u1 l••.-�• ua 1 • . • .s, •E a• K..,1�: • i i tr.n\ • a.I•• • • • •_ -1• • . •♦ •• _n:/R• • •l • m. _ i t 11 p • C 1 K ■I hON M fC"T 7 � R �3 rs: ty �+wilYrt t Eve w� � r>�'��,"':� taN,�. ..7� � -..,...�.�...�.. ..�.1[ _ ._.._ s �.- _ -- �u,,� •i a u �7 v [[ � .:,:, r",0 1 _.�''n 4 C i�'r t t�"'i�.'•�• __-...._. ... ._.•.- ....,. '. "'y�w�-.."r:, r ,F ..-"�-• yS - 1, `I - f' _, -'?'� � �f of ,t {, xr�f•mcrtulc�,•[6,+lrtvu.nm rN7nx. ur�<n mros;{~'� � x,�r � S'�k'.;`ffs` �t .9 � t _ 13i � �I}�+�I �� Ir_.:Wit."f[��{`• t ,� d • T J IIIII �[8 ,.?t_ 4 � y =III ;4;�i.w.v� ��„ 'rl :0_7�[�- C"RI�L_..��::t'� - ]•��t♦��M[let �1 L_..li"'•�l^=77L.3:_T'T:f!!• '��G7�OI� •-,_-�rt-f _ - C "K T{[>•!l��L��F [tC^l:][C"T R-1�![C'TR-.'^i7 ne �1�� 351[i'^t•1T'1][i��[i'[R�[TI[i;.•:I�LR=-IJR��rJ H ..,; relr.-lll��[. ,.A1 ...fl�l�1�l��R .5r_-�1�[�[��._�_�f�n.:<n�n�e.a•[..e.nn�� 4 ons nt HOME EP ,[ <, „,.,, Il�lr� �. -q y-tr,>•r -,auy.a��_�tl...��rrsf..•[� - � C. l'—nfv[e. � y�[r♦e♦rT��+:fe..::am�n�`�rn[rc•.�cw� li; ..... (_ fC'.'�CTf'+T�!'-.�^'13e•C'_.��C3�Il!! f"^'1'tlP'if^'67iTT.TL:.�"'"G�I—.J/�CIe� .•� 1.".N -.�_LAC��C''-�i+Tdn='i,[rT][C.:'lntf�-tfl[c^rFt ,�•�: � ... �_.`. ._......r vrac�.�.r.r�r .,-[r•[t�r,e_et�l�[�![[�� .. _.[..xar..an.nw�w�� .aa_�.r��.�e•a_! %\ • SCOTTA.MOMMER CONSULTING twoomopmewswea ®ImYYmMAlM.—V xwxoxiQx — rolYlspe pewplwi opuwpwxeYmlmx LOCATION MAP wnwm Q+ s p -•'••-'� �1 maYQpmQmxp�WppxYl® N f N f �'�IKptl�YwlpYxQ �x.'mWxwONppY0Y4 M •I '31 xp1®IWpOmpxYVO-R ' •�_•0' Wa111®1QI1m WxYpwimxnmpmmpf Qxpi0690YQYYQaAYC I YpmwQIW waxxYemswlmrtmni OOQ16 Ymxmlxamps w I pppx6 YYIp�WWYw YpOIwwOQY®l�N wrtl®Q16OxYY1®N IIRrtiQ I! ��QQpwiw®lQ 1pO1w�QYYOrt@!i ri f r Q1 W rmuxpYsiaQx vi ` T °j-_ 'W w 51 rr � pypoQmp°p°a'Qmue N ••�� ®Q�wmmoxiY�x�mx�iem �_�• �.Qu�Qla�mpFm° ® Gelm �Pas"°pimw ma `Q® r --m Q)wammoxrmenmsux ' iM artppwl AO[RCI LY.FYBxq I ®YI�Q=+Y�artQQ9miosQY �wxnuYummwaYrwmw WpxmiYaxoYme FQYFAom MCD Fp aFI0OW1 Suva 911 M� Y Q�Ym0�01iTp1®OMxYQwOmIxM � V' 1 �0• '' • � rx iil Q¢�oe Q�m�uxQx'�°aw Qp�imnQ�s°anwmn ReY Q) �wae�uine�rieN L w®QQY11irtYYrt Ili®aQY11W>mrQIWOYN RY.�rII1x11QY®®xwOp6p1YANOwIo I pirlflp Pl xppYLiOYxpQK i P•YOOQQY '4 .; l 1 • Q �.PL�J�I�'sw� IImQ7 CQF arort $ I mxpYnumaYx ayryq r 4 •'�"- wc�nwwr... -- M ON$WkAFt'L �+- meow ..�..-.. >•rn�m i i mueiffi�www"mi°°l°emoi'Y°p. - �� . I wQWSQwma Q �1 a Lj Y�Ot� lmpxpplwaO�iN rt01(9 Quart uaF � ` I .sRYI } I' IIW® ,wi W � PRaJ[O7 NO16i R � i• Ii _ i i �� ➢7fQIROR apwvYwwixwmxaxpe . l m�ri wuiww arts pbm w - �- - •---•-}-- •:� = �p�owxxxQr YQWW .• YYOMa-OI'YQxmIY1Q ®nQxpp .L NURS RY QpwmoQppQwaux.xrlo --_. ...... mmmw+w MWQ +— x�<Q�.Q"em el®p� ll cortcnniu x,lY.�aw Mao maF QQm.ua I ®a SITE PLAN THE HOME DEPOT YQ.a -c mKta- ""¢' ®�, ^ 'HUNTINf3TONBEACH,CA II�QIa) (iw ,� _ I . YY�lwlmpeYNp n h 1\V\ It EPM SAM-N 140P1B SCOTT A.MOWER CONSUI TINO oev¢ov srxvsm ' o�mxeunasw.xmn nasvuaw ' foYoasaY AYomNsO vaY�mgvpxoasimY IACATION MAPon"—c ' a R PROJECT INFORMATION � tadwaaAxxmanou oonnei u Ao�wmYYNn.A ' ]ypxorcaxxtx=' miaarxaxta,m I C1U YAT S43 bU I pAn UT cENvrir[a. I X 7- 7 T T- IN 41Y� xuu' wAxa wn uie\ ti a - d j 01YWIWIWMM.ONI160N anu ' ' aMirn�iv.mnaaimxnx wmnieuw HUNI GTON BE HOME ACH,CA %,m U40msrrSer ,MINda00PIFf410MIYiN Conceptual Floor Plan SAWN 15 OF 16 1 fill -- � ores .t='� I • it i , / . ` | r�� Page I of 12 CITY POLICIES, STANDARD PLANS, AND CODE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING & SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND MUNICIPAL CODE HOME DEPOT— 19101 MAGNOLIA STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-56: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations approved by the City Council, Planning Commission and/or Zoning Administrator shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. Parking lot striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to, back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public right-of-ways. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. c. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a minimum of15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing proposed screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). d. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally integrated with.the design of the building, non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. e, Energy saving lamps shall be used for all outdoor lighting. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent properties. The type and location of all exterior lighting shall be on the site plan and elevations. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. Asbestos "Remediation Action Plan" and Abatement is required. Existing former K-Mart building is known to have contained asbestos. Provide a Fire Department approved Remediation Action $ �� 2 V� t; Page 2 of 12 Plan (RAP) based on clean-up requirements. Upon remediation action plan approval, a rough grading permit may be issued. (FD) f. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. g. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. (PW) h. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Director of Building and Safety. (B&S) i. "Phase 1 Environmental Study" is required per City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards. Records indicate that an underground waste oil tank was removed from the former Auto Center Repair Garage in 1990, an abandoned oil well is located on the proposed construction property, asbestos is present in the building, and a former gas station was located on the north/east corner of the site. (FD) 3. Prior to submittal of a grading plan for permits, the following shall be completed: a. A truck tracking exhibit that illustrates a WB-50 delivery truck entering the site, maneuvering into and away from all loading areas and loading docks, and egressing the site must be provided. The trucks may not encroach into the opposing lanes of on-site traffic and must remain within the turning lanes. (ZSO 231.04) (PW) b. A final hydrology and hydraulic study for the runoff from this project and its impact to the existing downstream storm drainage system shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. This project shall be responsible for mitigating the increased storm water runoff from this property based on the net difference between a pre-1986 previously developed condition and the proposed developed condition for 10, 25 and 100-year storms under current County and City criteria. In addition, this study shall include 24-hour peak back-to-back 100-year storms for onsite detention analysis. Possible mitigation measures to manage increased storm water runoff may include on-site attenuation and/or construction of downstream drainage improvements (per the adopted Public Works Department 2005 Drainage Study). The study and the proposed drainage improvements shall include on-site, privately maintained clarifiers or other devices to control the quality of run-off water from the development. The study shall also justify final pad elevations on the site in conformance with the latest FEMA requirements. (ZSO 255.04) (PW) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: - a. A Precise Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Final grades and elevations on the grading plans shall not vary by more than 1-foot from the grades and elevations on the approved site plan, unless otherwise required by these development requirements and/or conditions of approval, and as directed by the Department of Public Works. (MC 17.05/ZSO 255.04A) The following improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) i. A new sewer lateral, serving the subject project, shall be installed connecting to the main sewer line in Garfield Avenue. (ZSO 255.04D) ii. The existing, onsite sanitary sewer pipeline, serving 19101 and 19131 Magnolia Street shall be abandoned and terminated at the south project property line, upstream of the sewer lateral connection for 19171 Magnolia Street. At the point of aforementioned termination, a sewer cleanout shall be installed, per Public Works Standard No. 508, to allow service on the remaining sewer pipeline serving 19171 Magnolia Street. (ZSO 255.04D) ATTACKVW NO. , Page 3 of 12 iii. Drainage from the proposed truck loading wells shall be directed through a clarifier (or other BMP) and into the project's sanitary sewer rather than the storm drain system. iv. The existing on-site public water pipeline shall be abandoned and removed per Water Standards (including removal of existing water services, meters, backflow protection devices and water appurtenances). v. A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The domestic water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. (ZSO 255.04E) vi. A separate irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water standards. The irrigation water service shall be a minimum of 1-inch in size. (ZSO 255.04E) vii. Separate'backflow protection devices shall be installed per Water standards for domestic, irrigation, and fire water services. (ZSO 255.04E, Resolution 5921 and Title 17) viii.The on-site fire water system, including fire hydrants and fire sprinklers, required by the Fire Department shall be served from a separate, dedicated, private fire service pipeline, with an appropriate backflow protection device required at each point of connection to the City's water system. (ZSO 255.12A) ix. Provide 3 section views (drawn to scale) between the subject property and the adjoining residential properties to the west. b. In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. "Best Management Practices" shall be identified and incorporated into the design. Pollution control facilities shall be designed to handle runoff from an 8e percentile storm event. (PW) c. The Property Owner shall quitclaim the existing water line easement dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. (PW) d. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Total existing mature trees 55, Total replacement trees @ 36" box required 110(ZSO 232.04) All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible. (DAMP) (ZSO 232.04B) The Water Ordinance#14.52, the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (MC 14.52) (PW) e. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) f. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (Resolution 4545) (PW) ATTACHMENT NO. Page 4 of 12 g. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (DAMP) (PW) h. A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction_ (DAMP) (PW) i. The applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. (DAMP) (PW) j. A Project WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include the following: (PW) i. Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable) ii. Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas iii. Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP iv. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP v. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs vi. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs vii. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs viii. Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs ix. Upon approval of the WQMP, three signed copies and an electronic copy on CD (.pdf or .doc format) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. k. All public improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor and Material and Monument Bonds) shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. The securities shall not be released until all required improvements as shown on the approved plans are completed and approved by the Public Works Department. The engineer shalt submit cost estimates for determining the aforementioned bond amounts. (PW) 1. Proof of a private storm drain easement, to allow the subject property's proposed 18-inch storm drain pipeline to cross the property at 19171 Magnolia Street and access the public storm drain pipeline at the southerly border of this property, shall be provided to Public Works. (PW) m. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05/ZSO 255.04A) The following improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) Page 5 of 12 i) Existing curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue frontages shall be removed and replaced with new curb, gutter and sidewalk, per City Standard Plan Nos. 202 and 207. (ZSO 255.04A) ii) The existing driveway approaches on Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue shall be removed and replaced with ADA compliant driveway approaches per City Standard Plan No. 211. The street lights, fire hydrants, above ground utility facilities and -other appurtenances that are relocated due to the reconstructed driveways shall be a minimum of five feet from the driveways per the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan 211. The widths and radii of the revised driveways will be dependent on the truck tracking exhibit. (ZSO 255.04A) iii) Raised, landscaped medians shall be designed on Magnolia Street from the intersection with Garfield Avenue to Hyde Park Drive. The following left turn inbound accesses shall be provided on Magnolia Street: Home Depot center driveway; 19126 Magnolia Street (medical offices); and 19132 Magnolia Street (apartments) driveways. Left turn outbound movements shall be prohibited throughout the length of the median island. The results of the Traffic Impact Analysis may require additional turning restrictions. (ZSO 255) iv) Street pavement for the southerly half of Garfield Avenue and the westerly half Magnolia Street (from the existing street centerlines) along the subject property frontages. (ZSO 255.04A) n. A detailed soils and geological/seismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, overexcavation, engineered fill, dewatering, settlement, protection of adjacent structures, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (MC 17.05.150) (PW) o. if soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and identify wind barriers around remediation equipment. (MC 17.05.150/FD Spec. 431-92) (PW) p. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, City contact(Construction Manager(714) 536-5431) regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) q. At least 30 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule. (PW) r. The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route plan with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material is required. The haul route plan shall include an estimate of the number of required truck trips, identify the proposed truck haul routes, specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and include methods to mitigate construction-related Page 6 of 12 impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for review and approval to the Department of Public Works. (PW) s. A grading/erosion control plan shall be completed and must abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control; and provide a plan to the Department of Public Works indicating such compliance. t. The Fire Department must be notified of who will be the environmental site auditor supervising testing operations during soil import. The selected environmental firm shall be responsible for obtaining Fire Department approval for their testing plan. (FD) u. Soil Testing is required. Based on site characteristics, suspected soil contamination, proximity to a producing/abandoned oil well, or Phase 1,11, or III Site Audit, soil testing is required. Soil testing plan must be approved by the Fire Department. (See City Specification#429, section 3.4 and City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards). (FD) v. Soil Remediation Action Plan. If contamination is identified, provide a Fire Department approved Remediation Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in Huntington Beach City Specification#431-92, Soil Cleanup Standard. (FD) w. Soil Clean-Up is required. All soils shall conform to City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards, and testing results must be submitted, and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. (FD) x. Blockwall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property line wall. If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall construct a six (6') foot(eight(8) foot)tall wall located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum separation from the property line. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property. Any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common walls shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval and code requirements identified herein, shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) c. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a Licensed Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (B&S) d. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. ATTACHMENT , �� Page 7 of 12 Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (D&S) 6. Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit: a. Traffic Control Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer, shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Huntington Beach Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. (Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines) 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued. b. Final design elevations of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the (preliminary grading plan) by more than one (l)foot. (PW) c. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement(s), between the subject site and adjacent southerly and northerly_properties. The location and width of the accessway shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal driveway. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. d. A Parking Management Plan, approved by the property owner, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. Said plan shall depict designated (employee/customers/ carpooling) parking space locations. e. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. DOGGR Construction Site Review".is required.A California Division of Oil, Gas &Geothermal Resources (DOGGR—714-816-6847), Construction Site Plan Review is required for this project and must be on-file with the Fire Department prior to building plan approval. (FD) g. Abandoned Oil Wells shall be abandoned to California Division of Oil, Gas& Geothermal Resources standards and conform to City Specification#422, Oil Well Abandonment. (FD) h. Abandoned Oil Well History Disposition Report is required. A California licensed third-party petroleum engineer or geologist compiles a disposition report for submittal to the Fire Department — Development Section. (See City Specification#429, section 3.2) Must be on-file with the Fire Department prior to building plan approval. (FD) i. City Consultant -Oil Well History Review" is required. The city consultant reviews the submitted OIL WELL HISTORY DISPOSITION REPORT for completeness,-well integrity, and ATTACHMW NO. 2 . Page 8 of 12 recommended safety measures. (See City Specification#429, section 3.3) Must be on-file with the Fire Department prior to building plan approval. (FD) j. Methane Safety Measures are required per City Specification#429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. Methane safety measures shall be detailed on a separate sheet titled "METHANE PLAN" and three sets of plans submitted for Fire Department approval. (FD) k. Proof of OCHCA Site Closure or Corrective Action Plan is required. Removal of flammable or combustible liquid underground storage tanks (UST) requires the applicant to submit one of the following to the Huntington Beach Fire Department: (FD) ® An approved Orange County Health Care Agency UST Site Closure Letter, or ® Provide an Orange County Health Care Agency UST Corrective Action Plan. I. Commercial Automatic Fire Sprinkler System. Shop drawings (three sets) for an automatic sprinkler system shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department as separate plans for permits and approved by the Fire Department. The system shall provide water flow, tamper and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, and 24-hour central station monitoring. The approximate location of the Fire Sprinkler system controls shall be noted on the plans (FD) m. Class 111 Wet Standpipe System is required. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) n. GIS Mapping Information shall be provided to the City's GIS Department. For specific requirements, contact the GIS Department at (714) 374-1560. (FD) o. Shop drawings for fire hydrants shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Drawings shall indicate hydrant locations and Fire Department connections, in compliance with City Specification#407— "Standard for Location and Spacing of Fire Hydrants". The Fire Department and the Public Works Department Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be installed before combustible construction begins. (FD) p. Shop drawings for a fire alarm system shall be submitted to the Building &Safety Department as separate plans for permits and approved by the Fire Department. The system shall provide for the following: (FD) a) manual pulls; b) water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection; c) 24 hour supervision; and d) voice communication. q. All applicable Building &Safety, Public Works and Fire Department fees shall be paid. r. Traffic impact fees for non-residential developments shall be paid at a rate of$140 per net new added daily trip: The total trips and fee will be determined upon acceptance of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The rate is subject to an annual adjustment. (MC 17.65) (PW) s. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid. t. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department. (This fee pertains to projects with a mitigated negative declaration or an EIR. The fee is $285 for a mitigated negative declaration and 10% of EIR cost for EIR's). u. All new commercial and industrial development and all new residential development not covered by Chapter 254 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, except for mobile home parks, shall pay a park fee, pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.20— c �. m ¢ Cr ll l�rk.y .x "- �� =,C �?�� 5T a Page 9 of 12 Payment of Park Fee. The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution (City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule). 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. _(PM b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the"Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) k. All construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion. (DAMP) 1. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. m. Use low sulfur(0.5%)fuel by weight for construction equipment_ n. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. o. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. p. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. q. Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards. (FD) r. Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification #426, Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) s. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. t. All Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with ATTACHM y W. 2 � Page 10 of 12 , e" construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday-Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 9. The structure(s) cannot be occupied (issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy), the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. All improvements must be completed in accordance with approved plans, except as provided for by conditions of approval. b. Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. (PW) c. Demonstrate all drainage courses, pipes, gutters, basins, etc. are clean and properly constructed. (PW) d. Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. (PW) e. Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers. (PW) f. Existing curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project street frontage must be removed and replaced. Existing street tree(s) shall be inspected by the City of Huntington Beach, Park, Trees and Landscape Inspector during removal of concrete and prior to replacement thereof. Tree replacement or root/tree protection, will be specified upon the inspection of the root system. (PW) g. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) h. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64) (PW) i. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout in accordance with approved plans. (FD) j. Fire Department Connections (FDC) to the automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be located to the front of the building within 150 feet of a properly rated fire hydrant. (FD) k. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Public Works Department Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. I. Address numbers shall be installed on structures to comply with Fire Department City Specification No. 428. Number sets are required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) m. Fire Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with City Specification# 401,Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access. Reference compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access in the plan notes. Provide.a Fire Apparatus Turn Overlay. (FD) n. Fire Lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification #415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties. The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs, both in location and length of run. The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted. (FD) o. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Fire Department City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. (FD) f r Page I I of 12 p. The project shall comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and Fire Department City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD) q. Fire Extinguishers shall be installed and located in all areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards found in City Specification#424. The minimum required dry chemical fire extinguisher size is 2A 10BC and shall be installed within 75 feet travel distance to all portions of the building. Extinguishers are required to be serviced or replaced annually. (FD) r. A fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. (FD) s. Exit Signs And Exit Path Markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (FD) t. Main Secured Building Entries shall utilize a KNOXO Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates&Buildings. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at (714) 536-5411 for information. (FD) u. Secured Automated Vehicle Entries shall utilize KNOXO activated access switches, and comply with City Specification#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates& Buildings. (FD) v. Secured Non-Automated Vehicle Entries shall utilize KNOX® padlock, and comply with City Specfcation#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates&Buildings. (FD) w. Fire Sprinkler System Controls access shall be provided, utilizing a KNOX@ Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates &Buildings. The approximate location of the system controls shall be noted on the plans. (FD) x. Rack Storage. For Fire Department approval, separate plans (three sets) shall be submitted to the Building Department for permits and Fire Department permits and approval. (FD) y. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. z. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be verified by the Planning Department. aa.All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. bb.A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department. 10.The use shall comply with the following: a. There shall be no outside storage or display except as approved by the City of Huntington Beach. b. All work shall be conducted wholly within the building except as otherwise approved. 11.The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent ATTACHMM W. 2 AY < Page 12 of 12 of the City Council/ Planning Commission's/Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 12. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 13.Approved entitlements shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed. 14.Approved entitlements shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 15. The final approving body (City Council/ Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator) reserves the right to revoke approved entitlements pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions of approval, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 16.The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building & Safety Department and Fire Department, as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 17. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction,shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 18.The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the final action. 19.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the final approving body (City Council/Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator. 20.All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Planning Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. 21.An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 22.The project shall comply with all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) ATE W. 2 9 RECEIVED APR 2 0 2005 City of Huntington Beach TREES ON THE HOME DEPOT HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE January 2005 Consulting Arborist's Report Prepared for Art Lucas Scott A. Mommer Consulting Prepared by Alden Kelley Consulting Arborist 1 CONTENTS ProjectElements........................................................................................... 1 Description of Trees..................................................................................... 2 TreeLocations............................................................................................ 10 Table 1. Summary of Tree Characteristics.......................:........................ 11 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................... 13 Consultant Qualifications; Fee Schedule ATTACHMM NO. 2 PROJECT ELEMENTS Report date: 3 January 2005 Site study date: 1 January 2005 Subject: Arborist's report on trees on redevelopment site at Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue, Huntington Beach. Client: Art Lucas Scott A. Mommer Consulting 4630 W. Jacquelyn Avenue, Suite 119 Fresno, CA 93722 Office: 559/276-2790; Mobile: 559/978-7060; Fax: 559/276-0850 Email: smommer@larsandersen.com Objectives: 1. Identify trees on site. 2. Indicate size and condition of each tree. 3. Note feasibility of retention or relocation of trees. - - . 2 DESCRIPTION OF TREES The site contained 55 trees in the designated development area: Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Carrotwood) 14 Malaleuca quinquenervia (Paperback) 29 Phoenix dactylifera (Date palm) 2 Pinus canariensis (Canary Island pine) 2 Washingtonia robusta(Mexican fan palm) 8 Tree locations are indicated by numbers affixed to a copy of the ALTA survey emailed to me. The numbers on the survey map correspond to those identifying the trees in Table 1. The health assessment of each tree was given as a percentage (condition rating, Table 1). The ratings denote the following descriptives: 90— 100% excellent condition 75 — 85% superior condition 60—70% average condition 45— 55% below average condition 30—40% poor condition 15 —25% extremely poor condition 0 — 10% dead or dying Most of the subject trees were in poor condition (30 — 40%). Two (nos. 12 and 22) were rated extremely poor (25%). Four were judged to be in poor -2- ATTAcaw No. 2 .6 3 condition, at 30% or 35% (nos. 11, 13, 16 and 40). Eighteen were rated below average, at 45-55% (nos., 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 24, 26, 27, 31, 321 51, 52, 53 and 54). Only six were classed as average, at 60 — 65% (nos. 83, 19, 20, 21, 42 and 55). The generally poor condition of the trees was due to misdesign and substandard pruning. All of the trees were of species which require far more soil surface and soil volume than had. been provided. Almost all of the specimens had been subjected to repeated radical pruning ("topping"). The resulting tree and hardscape conditions had produced specimens which could not reasonably be retained in situ or successfully relocated. It would not be feasible to attempt salvaging any of the 55 subject trees. The following photographs show typical examples Publication:Orange County Register;Date:Oct. 6. 2005;Section:Front Page:Page: 7 Focus ( SCIENCE Cancer threat from ports reaches far inland New study finds diesel emissions at L.A.-area cargo sites are spreading out farther from coast THE ASSOCIATED PRESS lirrgel�s #leatttt;`.'gs =-�a�;r; Pert of tonq Be ch 6€ i=�e,�:�Sh: Thy Re+�rs�er LOS ANGELES Diesel emissions from the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports are increasing cancer risks miles inland, according to a new study. The study by the California Air Resources Board concluded air pollution from the ports creates a possible risk of 50 additional cancer cases per 1 million people within 15 miles of the ports. About 2 million people live in the area. For the 53,000 residents closest to the ports,the risk leaps to 500 cases per 1 million people, according to a draft of the study, which is the first thorough examination of the cancer risk from diesel fumes generated at the ports. "I'm not aware of any other assessment on emissions and risks from the ports that have been done in so much detail,"said Jean Ospital, health effects officer at the South Coast Air Quality Management District,the area's air quality regulator. Ospital said it's surprising that port pollution seeps so far inland. The draft version of the study was done to help the air board as it reviews proposed rules for limiting ship and cargo equipment pollution. Both ports have launched emission reduction programs. The study concluded that the two ports emitted 1,760 tons of diesel pollution in 2002. Researchers compared that figure to air dispersion models and the standard cancer potency of diesel to come up with the increased risk assessment for the area surrounding the ports. "What they're essentially saying is this is the estimate of risk based on a person being exposed ATTACHMM NO Publication: Orange County Register;Date:Oct.6,2005;Section:Front Page:Page: 7 to that amount of pollution for their entire life,"said Dr. Dean Baker,director of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and professor of medicine at UC Irvine. About 250,000 in 1 million Californians will get cancer from any cause, studies have shown. The main risk from diesel emissions is lung cancer,which is usually fatal, said Jerry Martin, an Air Resources Board spokesman. Diesel pollution from the ports also causes 29 premature deaths of people ages 30 and older, 750 asthma attacks,6,600 lost workdays, according to the study. Activity at the two ports is expected to triple by 2020. Register staff writer Blythe Bernhard contributed to this report. Tuesday,November 29, 2005 OCTA moves along on shift from diesel Millions allocated to run buses on compressed natural gas. By JIM RADCLIFFE THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER ORANGE—Diesel-belching buses are on the way out in Orange County. The Orange County Transportation Authority,which runs the area's public bus system handling 68 million fares annually, is converting its fleet to alternative fuels to cut pollution. On Monday, the agency authorized almost$20 million to retool its Santa Ana refueling station to handle compressed natural gas. Earlier, the OCTA ordered 50 compressed natural gas buses for about $21 million. The South Coast Air Quality Management District,the regional air-quality authority, is forcing public transit systems to make the move. Q. Are these the first low-emission buses OCTA will operate? A.No. Five years ago, OCTA began replacing diesel buses with liquefied natural gas buses. It now has 232. Q. How many buses does the OCTA have? A. More than 600, with 560 being the 40-foot coaches you see most often. Q.Why switch to compressed natural gas now? A. Ryan Erickson, an OCTA manager, said CNG buses are more common in the industry. So it's easier to find qualified mechanics and parts. Q.Are the emissions from liquefied natural gas and CNG about the same? A.Yes. Q.Which is more expensive, diesel or CNG? A. A CNG 40-footer, at about$400,000, costs about $40,000 more initially. But at current prices, it costs about 65 cents per mile to cover diesel costs compared with 41 cents for compressed natural gas. Q. Is CNG the future for public buses? ATTACHWW r W. 2 A. Perhaps. Agencies could decide at some point that another alternative to diesel makes more sense. Q. What kind of mileage do these buses get per gallon? A.Nearly four miles per gallon for diesel and about 25 percent less for CNG. Q. How does CNG work? A. It will arrive via pipeline into the OCTA's base on MacArthur Boulevard in Santa Ana near Harbor Boulevard;the neighbors are commercial properties. The CNG will run through a compressor that converts it from 100 to 3,600 pounds per square inch so more of it can be dispensed into the bus. The bus will have seven tanks on its roof so it can carry 22,000 cubic feet. Q. Is it safe? A. Erickson says it is as safe as diesel as long as qualified workers are handling it. Q. Is this the same fuel that is causing the big controversy in bong Beach? A.No. A proposal for the Port of Long Beach calls for an 80 million-gallon storage facility for liquefied natural gas. Backers say it is safe; opponents fear it could be a terrorist target. In 1998,there was concern that the OCTA's LNG tanks near the Garden Grove (22) Freeway in Garden Grove were vulnerable to such things as gunshots, so the tanks were buried. At the Santa Ana facility,there might be enough CNG onsite at one time to fill one bus. No one opposed the OCTA's plans at Monday's meeting. ATTACKW 9ffn 2 s EPA AND AQMD ADDRESS AIR POLLUTION IMPACT ON CHILDREN BY RETROFITTING AND REPLACING HUNDREDS OF DIESEL SCHOOL BUSES Nov.30,2004 Fifth Grade Science Students Tour Air Quality Lab and Learn Importance of Clean Air School Buses DIAMOND BAR—Addressing recent health studies showing that children likely suffer permanent health damage from air pollution,representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Coast Air Quality Management District detailed plans today to replace and retrofit hundreds of dirty diesel school buses across Southern California. Plans were shared with a class of fifth-grade students from Plasencia Math/Science Magnet School in Echo Park. Students traveled from their school to AQMD headquarters on a compressed natural gas(CNG)bus to tour the agency's state-of-the-art laboratory and hydrogen fueling station. During the tour, students learned about the magnitude of the region's air quality problem and explored forward-thinking solutions to air pollution control. Angelica Roque, the 17-year old president of El Segundo-based Tree Musketeers, encouraged the students to take a leadership role in environmental issues. "Children should be seen and heard,"she said. Eight-year-old Jonah Ramirez of San Bernardino—representing the American Lung Association of the Inland Counties—spoke of the effects of air pollution on his asthma. "Diesel particulate pollution from school buses has serious health impacts, especially for children," said Bea LaPisto-Kirtley, an AQMD Governing Board member and school administrator. "We are determined to replace each and every one of these dirty diesel school buses with cleaner technology." "EPA studies show that diesel exhaust can cause lung damage,respiratory problems, worsen asthma, and may even cause cancer. By working together to reduce children's exposure to diesel pollution now, the EPA and the AQMD are ensuring that future generations become healthier adults," said Wayne Nastri,Regional Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in San Francisco. The AQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study(MATES II), completed in 2000, showed that approximately 70 percent of the cancer risk from air toxics in the South Coast Air Basin is due to diesel particulate. CNG-powered buses have less smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions than new diesel buses and equivalent or lower toxic emissions. ATTACH . 2 J ,r AQMD's Governing Board awarded funding this month for 70 new CNG school buses, 830 retrofit devices that will reduce particulate emissions from existing diesel school buses and CNG fueling infrastructure. The awards were funded with$11.5 million from the AQMD Chairman's School Bus Initiative and $2 million from the state's Lower Emission School Bus program. The EPA contributed $495,000 for the purchase of new CNG school buses as well as retrofit devices for existing school buses through its Clean School Bus USA program, which seeks to reduce both children's exposure to diesel exhaust and the amount of air pollution created by diesel school buses. Clean School Bus USA brings together partners from business, education,transportation, and public health organizations to work toward these goals. "Thanks to the AQMD Board's long-standing commitment to clean up diesel-powered school buses, Southern California now has the largest fleet of clean school buses in the state,"LaPisto-Kirtley said. Since 2000,the AQMD has approved more than $55 million for 271 new CNG buses, 86 new lower-emitting diesel buses, 2,102 particulate retrofit traps and 49 diesel oxidation catalysts. Particulate traps reduce particulate emissions by about 85 percent, but are only available for post-1994 model year buses. Diesel oxidation catalysts are available for 1991-1993 model year buses and can reduce about 25 percent of particulate emissions and hydrocarbon emissions. AQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and major portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. mil► Ili ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION III 100 N. Hope Avenue,Suite 4,.Santa Barbara,CA 93110 • (805)687-4418 • FAX(805)682-8509 Richard L. Pool,P.E_ Scott A.Schell,AICP December 14, 2005 04136R06.LTR Scott Mommer Lars Andersen and Associates 4630 West Jacquelyn Avenue, Suite 1119 Fresno, CA 93722-6405 REVISED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THE HOME DEPOT STORE, HUNTINGTON REACH, CALIFORNIA This revised traffic analysis evaluates the development of a 130,536 square foot Home Depot Store on the site that was occupied by a 126,560 square foot Kmart Store until October 2004. The project site is located in the southwest quadrant of the Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street intersection in the City of Huntington Beach.The scope and focus of the study was developed in consultation with the Huntington Beach Public Works Department. It was determined that the critical issues to be addressed in this traffic analysis are project impacts to the Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street and Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersections, site access and accident rates on the adjacent street system. Project Weekday Trip Generation. The project site plan is illustrated on Figure 1. Table 1 summarizes the average daily, A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project. The trip generation rates are based on traffic counts collected by ATE on July 14, 2005 for the Home Depot Store located at Golden West Street and Warner Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. The trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation (ITE),Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition for Home Improvement Superstores such as a Home Depot were determined to be lower than those based.on the driveway counts collected at the existing store in the City of Huntington Beach. The average daily, A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation estimates for the previous Kmart Store are based on rates published in the Institute of Transportation (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. ATTACHMM , Engineering . Planning . Parking . Signal Systems . Impact Reports . Bikeways . Transit Mr. Scott Mommer Page 2 December 14, 2005 Table 1 Project Weekday Trip Generation Da ly A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Tri In out Rate Trips In Out Home Improvement Store 130,536sq.ft_ 57.62 7,521 4.26 556 300 256 4.61 602 283 319 Kmart Store 126,560 sq.ft. 56.02 7,090 0.84 106 72 34 5.06 640 320 320 The project is projected to generate 7,521 average daily, 556 A.M. and 602 P.M. peak hour trips as shown on Table 1. The previous Kmart Store was projected to have generated 7,090 average daily, 106 A.M. and 640 P.M. peak hour trips based on ITE rates. The proposed Home Depot project would result in a net trip increase of 431 average daily and 450 A.M. peak hour trips and a net decrease of 38 P.M. peak hour trips as illustrated on Table 1. Trip Distribution and Assignment. The trip distribution percentages for the Home Depot project are listed in Table 2. The project trip distribution and assignment are illustrated on Figure 2. The trip distribution and assignment in Table 2 is reflective of the current project's site plan and proposed full access as illustrated in Figure 1. Modifications to the projects's site access and trip assignment is discussed in the site access and circulation section. Table 2 Project Weekday Trip Distribution/Assignment Trips Route Origin/Destination Percent ADT A.M. Peak flour P.M. Peak Hour Magnolia Street North of Garfield Ave. 25% 1,880 139 151 South of Garfield Ave. 40% 3,008 222 241 Garfield Avenue East of Magnolia St. 15% 1029 84 90 West of Magnolia St. 20% 1,504 111 120 Based On the project trip distribution, project trips were assigned to the adjacent street system as presented in Table 2. Mr. Scott Mommer Page 3 December 14, 2005 Existing + Project Conditions The Kmart store building on the subject property is currently vacant. The Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street intersection operates at LOS "B" during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours periods under existing conditions. The existing (Year 2004) peak one hour period traffic volumes between 7:00 - 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 - 6:00 P.M. for the Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street intersection are shown on Figure 3. These volumes were collected in November of 2004 by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE). In determining the operational characteristics of intersections, Levels of Service (LOS) "A" through "F" are applied,with LOS "A" indicating uncongested free flow conditions and LOS "F" indicating congested forced flow conditions. Existing levels of service for the study-area intersections were calculated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)methodology for signalized intersections. Worksheets illustrating the level of service calculations are attached for reference. The existing level of service for the Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street intersection is listed on Table 3. The Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street intersection would continue to operate at LOS "B" during the A.M. and the P.M. peak hour periods for existing + project conditions. The delayed side street movements at the unsignalized Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersection would operate in the LOS "E"- "F" range with the addition of project traffic. The existing + project traffic volumes as shown on Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 4. Table 3 Existing + Project Intersection Levels of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Existing + Existing Existing + Project Existing Project Intersection V/C LOS Vic LOS V/c LOS Vic LOS Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive northbound left: 9.3 sec. LOS A 9.7 sec. LOS A 10.9 sec. LOS A 11.6 sec. LOS B southbound left: 10.5 sec. LOS B 11.2 sec. LOS B 10.9 sec. LOS B 11.5 sec. LOS B westbound approach: 32.5 sec. LOS D 43.0 sec. LOS E 38.0 sec. LOS E 52.9 sec. LOS F tbound approach: 39.6 sec. LOS E 51.8 sec. LOS F 45.4 sec. LOS E 70.0 sec. LOS F E.—'rfiP1d Cumulative + Project Conditions The following section presents the cumulative traffic conditions in thevicinity of the proposed Home Depot store. The cumulative conditions were assessed applying a 2 percent growth factor to the existing traffic volumes projected to the opening day of the Home Depot Store (1Year) to account for traffic generated by background development. The cumulative and cumulative + project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. Mr. Scott Mommer Page 4 December 14, 2005 Table 4 Cumulative + Project Intersection Levels of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Cumulative + Cumulative + Cumulative Project Cumulative Project Intersection V/C I LOS WC LOS WC LOS V/C LOS Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive northbound left: 9.4 sec. LOS A 9.8 sec. LOS A 11.0 sec. LOS B 11.8 sec. LOS B southbound left: 10.6 sec. LOS B 11.3 sec. LOS B 11.0 sec. LOS B 11.7 sec. LOS B westbound approach: 34.0 sec. LOS D 45.1 sec. LOS E 40.1 sec. LOS E 56.1 sec. LOS F eastbound approach: 41.4 sec. LOS E 54.3 sec. LOS F 48.2 sec. LOS E 76.0 sec. LOS F The Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street intersection would operate at LOS "C"or betterduring the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods with the addition of project traffic as shown in Table 4. The delayed side street movements at the Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive unsignalized intersection would operate in the LOS "E"-"F" range with project traffic. Site Access and Circulation Access to the project as shown on the project site plan will be provided by three driveways on Magnolia Street and two driveways on Garfield Avenue as shown in Figure 1. Two driveways on Magnolia Street will allow for both inbound and outbound left and right-turns. Driveways on the east side of Magnolia Street provide similar inbound and outbound access for the adjacent land uses. The southernmost driveway is restricted to right-turn only. The westerly driveway on Garfield Avenue is right-turn only. The easterly driveway on Garfield Avenue will be restricted to right-turns in and right and left-turns outbound. Project driveways will be designed as street approaches. The maximum northbound left-turn queues . entering the project at the main project driveway would be less than 50 feet based the attached level of service worksheets. The existing continuous left-turn lane on Magnolia Street would be adequate to accommodate project left turns and traffic attracted to the land uses on the east side of Magnolia Street. Given the forecast weekday and Saturday volumes at the project driveways, the throats lengths shown on the project site plan are adequate prevent on-site vehicular queue conflicts. The proposed Home Depot site access is sufficient and adequately serves the project. Continued use of the center left turn lane will provide adequate access to the project and the land-uses on the east side of Magnolia Street. The project frontages on Garfield Avenue and Magnolia Street are fully improved and other than the changing of the driveways no additional improvements are proposed. The ADA pedestrian connection north of the main driveway will be extended to Magnolia Street. It appears that the ADA walk from the Taco Bell area is connected to Magnolia Street through the Taco Bell site. The 6 foot wide area adjacent to the driveways can be utilized as pedestrian walks. ATTACHMM , - Mr. Scott Mommer Page 5 December 14, 2005 The truck path is illustrated in Figure 8. The project's final site plan is to be reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. Left-turns (inbound and outbound) on Magnolia Street are currently allowed. ATE evaluated the following restricted left-turn access scenario for the project. 1. Project inbound and outbound left-turns are made at the Magnolia Street/Hyde Park intersection with joint access between the adjacent commercial properties. The final driveway design and joint access agreement to be determined at a later date. Scenario 1. Project left-turns are made at the Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersection. In general restricting project left-turns on Magnolia Street as suggested by City staff, would result in a redistribution of the project driveway traffic as shown on Figure 9. This scenario would require a shared access agreement between the project and the adjacent property to the south.The existing + project and cumulative + project traffic volumes with the left-turn restriction are illustrated on Figures 10 and 11. The delayed side street movements at the unsignalized Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersection would operate at LOS "F"under existing + project and cumulative + project conditions. Overall intersection operations at Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street are not significantly affected by the redistribution of project traffic. Restricting project-left-turns on Magnolia Street with a raised median effects the site access patterns of the existing land uses on the eastside of Magnolia Street. Additional U-turns at the Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street and Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersections would be created.The U-turns would be attributable to the redistribution of driveway traffic from existing land-uses on the eastside of Magnolia Street. Based on driveway counts, the increase in U-turns at the two intersections during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods would be less than 50 vehicles per hour. A signal warrant analysis was prepared for the Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersection based on the Caltrans eight hour rural signal warrant,average daily traffic volume warrant and crash warrant.The cumulative + project traffic volumes with the project's left-turns restricted on Magnolia Street and shared access, at the Magnolia Street/Hyde Park Drive intersection would satisfy both the eight hour volume warrant and the ADT volume warrant. Based on the reported accident records the crash warrant is not satisfied. Though there were 6 broadside accidents reported along Magnolia Street, there was only one broadside reported in the last 12 month period from which the data was received. To satisfy the crash warrant 5 or more broadside accidents within a 12 month period is needed. ATTACH Mr. Scott Mommer Page 6 December 14,2005 Accident Summary An issue raised by City of Huntington Beach staff was accidents on Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue in the project vicinity. ATE staff reviewed City accident records for Magnolia Street from Garfield Avenue to the Hyde Park Drive and Garfield Avenue from Magnolia Street to Newland Street for the three year period December 2001 to December 2004. Accident data is attached for City staff to review. Only 1 of the 36 reported accidents occurred after the Kmart Store was closed. There were 30 accidents with injuries,6 property damage only and no fatalities. Of the total, 32 accidents involved 2 or more vehicles and 3 were single vehicle events and 1 was an accident involving a bicycle.The primary collision factors listed were unsafe speed, improper turning,right-of-way violations,followingto close and driving under the influence. There were 13 accidents that occurred on Magnolia Street between Garfield Avenue and Hyde Park Drive,21 at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Magnolia Street and 2 on Garfield Avenue between Magnolia Street and Newland Street. The accidents along Magnolia Street between Garfield Avenue and Hyde Park Drive would not be correctable by a signalized intersection. As part of ATE's analysis of the accidents records we looked at the accident rate for the three areas. The actual rates were consistent with the statewide expected rate for similar types of facility based upon the 2002 Collision Data on California State Highways, a Caltrans publication. The trip generation comparison between the Home Depot Store and the Kmart Store indicates that the traffic volumes will be very similar,thus ATE has concluded that there would not be a significant increase in the accident rate when the project is operational. Pedestrian Summary The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department conducted a pedestrian survey along Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue adjacent to the project frontage. The survey data was collected between the hours of 7:30-8:30 A.M. and 2:20-3:20 P.M. Adjacent to the project along Magnolia Street,the peak pedestrian volume of 25 occurred duringthe P.M.peak hour period.Along Garfield Avenue the peak the peak pedestrian volume of 9 occurred during the A.M_peak hour period. During the P.M.peak hour observation period, 13 pedestrians were observed cutting through the property. The pedestrian survey data and diagram is attached. Project Saturday Trip Generation For the purpose of estimating the number of trips which would be generated by the Home Depot Store on a Saturday, rates developed from driveway counts collected by ATE on July 9,2005 at the Home Depot Store located at Golden West Street and Warner Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. The estimated Saturday and peak hour trips are summarized and compared in Table 5. of Hunflrom Bead, JAN-, 7 2 ATTACKMEW NO2-76_ Mr. Scott Mommer Page 7 December 14, 2005 Table 5 Project Saturday Trip Generation Saturday Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Home Improvement Store 130,536 sq.ft. 75.33 9,833 9.04 1,180 625 555 Kmart Store 1 126,560 sq.ft. 71.19 9,010 7.58 1 959 489 470 Net Trij2 Generation Change: 1 +823 +221 +136 +85 The Home Depot store would generate a total of 9,833 Saturday trips and 1,180 peak hour trips as shown in Table 5. The previous Kmart Store is projected to generate 9,010 Saturday trips and 959 Saturday peak hour trips based on ITE rates. The proposed Home Depot project would result in a net trip increase of 823 Saturday trips and a-net increase of 221 Saturday peak hour trips as illustrated on Table 5. Since Saturday trips traditionally occur outside the peak periods of the adjacent roadways and study-area intersections, the project would not have a significant impact to the study-area facilities. Project Saturday traffic volumes were assigned to the adjacent street network as illustrated on Figure 11. The Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street intersection currently operates at LOS "A" during the Saturday peak hour period with the volumes illustrated on Figure 12. The Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street intersection would operate at LOS "C" during the peak hour period for existing Saturday + project conditions. The level of service for existing Saturday + project traffic volumes are shown on Table 6 and illustrated in Figure 13. Table 6 Existing Saturday + Project Intersection Levels of Service Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS Cumulative Saturday + Project Conditions The following section presents the cumulative Saturday traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed Home Depot store. The cumulative conditions were assessed applying a 2 percent growth factor to the existing traffic volumes projected to the opening day of the Home Depot Store (1 Year) to account for traffic generated by background development. The cumulative and cumulative Saturday + project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 14 and 15. . Mr. Scott Mommer Page 8 December 14, 2005 Table 7 Cumulative Saturday + Project Intersection Levels of Service Peak Hour Cumulative Cumulative + Project Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS The Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street intersection would operate at LOS "C" or better during the Saturday peak hour period with the addition of project traffic as shown in Table 7. Associated Transportation Engineers By: Richard L. Pool, P.E. President Attachments: Figures 1 through 16 Exhibit "B" Pedestrian Volumes and Diagram Existing Home Depot Traffic Counts Eastside Driveway Counts Accident History Intersection LOS Worksheets Caltrans Signal Warrants W. ._? _ .. . ...� �IiL'�1 �_.._�..�_:��r,rrrrrt��rrr�irinrrrrrrrrrW■ s'.t■�Errrrrtrirrrrtrrrrrtrrrtrrrr■��rirrf�rtrr�r'�: LOADING PAD-� wr�w�W i O N W E S NOT TO SCALE 25% j (45)42 30(24)-t t r 18t18)---► o 0 7 N O O Q N M _ _I O Z -20% Q GARFIELD AVE. 15% PROJECT SITE co 0 t 0 N M .1/ HYDE PARK DR_ LEGEND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 40% SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L (A.M.)P.M. PEAK FLOUR ASSOCIATED FIGURE 2 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ENGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach Traffic and Circulation Study-#04136 _ �'�' so_t_iatedTrmtsponati�nEngineers N W+E S NOT TO SCALE 0 00 co o t(66)99 `*n Z ---(219)556 J ! L. r(80)186 114(58)J `j t F- N 482(617)— o o 104(98)-1 Q m u1 _ 00 J r, O Z U Q GARFIELD AVE. i PROJECT SITE N ,v t(14)16 C ---(0)1 -..I j L. --(13)8 14(2)-J `1 t F- 0(0) v o� 27(0)-1 Ina,o �D N cD O 1/ HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L .--_ (A.M.)P.M. PEAK HOUR ASSOCIATED FIGURE 3 TRANsPoRTATIoN EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENGINEERS Traffic aepCt,Ci rculation tStud A04136 ATTA9'%UIkfiC&ff kin ted 7ransp�Itat� Eng"meers N W E S NOT TO SCALE o co �•, L(66)99 ° +-(219)556 J L. f-(125)239 144(82)-1 `I t F- 532(635)— g g 104(98)-j o n _ m`° J 0 Z v Q --(391)864 --(340)800 GARFI.ELD AVE. 710(788)— 705(778) 50(48)-1 ,; 10(15) ct N •O`7 N C'1 ( { t 10(10)—t N o PROJECT 60(45) t 78(69) o N o SITE o N In v (14}76 o co= (0)1 .._I a L. �-(13)8 N C^ 140-1 ' t r 0(0)--- L 27(0)-1 N N Ol 40(24) HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L a.. (A.M.)P.M. PEAK HOUR Assocwm FIGURE Q TRANSPORTATION EXISTING + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 ENGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach Traffic and Circulation Study-#04136 ated Transportation Engirteecs N W+E S NOT TO SCALE rn� O co m m L(67)101 N Ch N ^° —(223)567 J L► r-(82)190 116(59)-f `l S F-' 492(629)— a 106(100) o C t N c0 Q � CD J oo 0 Z U GARFIELD AVE. i PROJECT SITE F� N t (14)16 --(0)1 L► r-(13)8 14(2)-� 1 0(0)--► 27(0) t� aD O 1/ HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND SIGNALIZED ® INTERSECTION L (A.M.W.M. PEAK HOUR ASSOCIATED FIGURE C-5 TRANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES IOF ENGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach [�'�}�y� _. w[ed Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study-#04136 TTA II'1<f i l 2 k ,,_, December 14,2005 N W+E S NOT TO SCALE rn m N (67)101 g S°' (223)567 I L,. j-(127)232 146(83)j --I ( F- 543(647)-► R.n n, 106(100)-� 4 N co Q J O Z v Q ---(396)880 —(347)816 GARFIELD AVE. 724(803) 719(793) 50(48) Gn 1005) ^F �{N Ic N M ( t 10(10)-4 -o o ID o, PROJECT o C s 60(45) -1 t 78(69) o SITE `, �m c`Ov n -(14)16 o Co (0)1 ! L_ ;—(13)8 /0� 4 14(2)J `1 I r G 0(0)-> v G `a 27(0)-1 m�' N^ O 40(2 O 4 O k 1/�4) s " HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND ® SIGNALVED INTERSECTION L ' (A.M.)P.M. PEAK HOUR F 1� AssocrATED FIGURE-6 TRANSPORTATION CUMULATIVE + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES E NGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach p� �so g� g s ted rt�ion Traffic and Circulation Study-#04t36 A Ar Y1 k""f41T r) (� p y�1E s N W+E S NOT TO SCALE (45)42 30(24) t r t N O O Q ut r•l _ J Z U Q t51)64 ---(0)0 12 GARFIELD AVE. 1005) r 5(5) -� r 50(48)—� n 100 5)—� r N Lc ( � t 100 0) 00 N lD o,O PROJECT t\ N 60(45)—f t 78(69) SITE v _ [+t N Co N t+t O an a O t 4 /)-1 N HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND SIGNALIZED ® INTERSECTION L (A.M.)P.M. PEAK HOUR F I ASSOCIATED FIGURE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 41� E NGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach /� soctated Transporta6m Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study-504136 6f� A . December 14,2005 - - I _. .',..�� .. ►Si� ►/ f T � ICI _�"�.� :.�- �—..��...�.�7��rr�� \��N� �r��rr�rr�r��l•��r��r�rrr�r^�% low so ru so IN AP CI MPACTOR ON ose GC CONC, ■■ rr -r - HOME' rr.. .. . Ov rrr�enJ: CenterL ri■riYr �tl _ I 1■ _ a 1 IN I IN �c oy 99 ILA 71, TRANSPORTATION TRUCK ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ENGINEERS I t --- �rt�■�111�.�1�i+ '.�7r�1:�■■��1/-Il�l.1/III�I.�t�t.._..� .� ��,.�� b E�� .. i■r■■ �� IMF ---- �� --- ; ; N W+E S NOT TO SCALE *—(0)0 NQ .JC)Z --( GARFIELD AVE. 100 5) /5(5) 50(48) 10(15) u v�o N 10(10) t N 'o in o, O PROJECT N 78(69) t N V SITE O co 7- w HYDE PARK DR. 56(42) 40(24)—� LEGEND ® SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L — (A.M.)P.M. PEAK HOUR Q� ASSOCIATED PROJECT DRIVEWAY VOLUMES FIGURE 9 TRANSPORTATION WITH SHARED ACCESS AT HYDE PARK DR ENGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach A % /],.• . Trainpotution ur% & Traffic and Circulation Study-A04136 i� A f1LdFRAt:QAl!rp �/ t w N W+E S NOT TO SCALE rnrn o Co ul � �ry t_(67)101 S E' --(223)567 -.J I I► �-(127)232 159(95)J -1 t F- 520(653)— N Pit: N 106(100)-1 c n°v vMn Co Ln J O Z U Q --(398)880 •-(347)816 GARFIELD AVE. 724(803)-- 719(793) 50(48)-i Cr; 1( 15) �;r 15!n v�D N M 10(10) t n 0 rn PROJECT 78(69) t in n 0 SITE 7- "z t—(14116 to v v 1-(13)8 70(44)-t --I t F' 0(0)--• v 67(24) C2 o 0 �V�N vn O HYDE PARK DR. LEGEND SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION L . (A.M.)P.M. PEAK HOUR t A5socwm CUMULATIVE + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE TRANSPORTATION WITH SHARED ACCESS AT HYDE PARK DR 1 ENGINEERS Home Depot,Huntington Beach `j`°'§� � Associated T t:anspottaC ton Engitteets Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Daryl Nelson Intersection Magnolia St/Hyde Park Dr. Agency/Co. ATE Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 81212005 Analysis Year Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Home De of Store-#04136 East/West Street: H de Park Drive North/South Street: Ma nolia Street Intersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25 eh�cle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 4 995 11 14 754 0 eak-Hour Factor, PHF a95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 4 1047 11 14 793 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — Median Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 an es D 2 D 0 2 0 onfiguration LT TR LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 13 0 14 2 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 0 14 2 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0. Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LT R LTR (vph) 4 14 13 14 2 (m)(vph) 637 666 86 499 106 /c 0.00. 0.02 0.15 0.03 0.02 5%queue-length 0.01 0.06 0.51 0.09 0.06 ontrol Delay 9.3 10.5 54.2 12.4 39.6 LOS A B F B E ppproach Delay — — 32.539.6 proach LOS — — D E Rights Reserved Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id A-ffA+ , 2 � __un.�r� ..., . +,ot�n,_,aoi�ncot+»ne\�1rc+1�n»\T nralo/7(1C's>t+inoc\Tame\�i71r�Q trnn 11/id/7/UK HOME DEPOT PROJECT-04136 REFERENCE#03 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: OCTOBER 2005 TIME PERIOD: SATURDAYPEAK HOUR NIS STREET: MAGNOLIA STREET ENV STREET: GARFIELD AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING 2005 121 789 139 89 640 85 96 469 97 144 363 102 (8) PROJECT 0 104 50 0 156 0 35 33 0 94 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS 125 792 143 92 669 88 101 473 100 148 374 105 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WESTBOUND EXISTING GEOMETRICS L T TR L TTR L TTR L TTR TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1: EXISTING 2004(A) SCENARIO 2- EXISTING+PROJECT(A+B) SCENARIO 3: CUMULATIVE SCENARIO 4: CUMULATIVE+PROJECT(C+B) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF CAPACITY SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/Q RATIOS MENTS LANES 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1600 121 121 125 125 0.076 0.076 0.078 0.078 NBT 2 3200 769 373 792 896 0284 ' 0.332 0292 ' 0.340 NBR 0 0 139 180 143 193 - - - SBL 1 1600 89 89 92 92 0.056 ' 0.056 0.068 ' (I'm SBT 2 3206 640 796 659 815 02M 0249 0206 0255 SBR 1 1600 85 86 86 88 0.053 0.063 OJ)56 0.055 EBL 1 1600 98 133 101 136 0.061 0.083 0.063 0.0W EBT 2 3200 469 492" 473 506 0.174 0.184 • GA79 0.189 ' EBR 0 0 97 97 100 100 - - - - WBL 1 1600 144 238 148 242 0.090 • 0.149 • OA93 ' 0.151 WBT .2 3200 363 363 374 374 0.146 0.145 0.150 0.150 WBR 0 0 102 102 105 106 - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.60 0.72 0.82 0.74 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A C B C (VOTES: Primed: mum t 1 HOME DEPOT PROJECT-04136 REFERENCE#01 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: NOVEMBER 2004 TIME PERIOD: P.M.PEAK HOUR N/S STREET: MAGNOLIA STREET EJW STREET: GARFIELD AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTHBOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WESTBOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) OUSTING 2004 437 786 135 93 804 101 114 482 104 186 556 99 (B) PROJECT 0 50 30 0 71 0 30 18 0 42 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS 140 802 138 95 820 109 116 492 106 190 667 101 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WESTBOUND EXISTING GEOMETRICS L T TR L TTR L TTR L TTR TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1: EXISTING 2004(A) SCENARIO 2: EXISTING+PROJECT(A+B) SCENARIO 3: CUMULATIVE SCENARIO 4: CUMULATIVE+PROJECT(C+B) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF CAPACITY SCENARIO VOLLWES SCENARIO VtC RATIOS MENTS LANES 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 1600 137 137 140 140 0.086 0.086 0.088 0.088 NBT 2 3200 786 836 802 852 0288 • 0.313 0294 0.319 NBR 0 0 135 165 138 168 - - - - SBL 1 16M 93 93 95 95 0056 - 0A58 0059 0.059 SBT 2 3200 804 875 820 891 0261 0273 0256 0278 SBR 1 1600 107 107 109 109 0-067 0.067 0.068 0,068 EBL 1 1600 114 144 116 146 0.071 0.090 0.073 0.091 EBT 2 3200 482 500 492 510 0.183 - 0.189 0.187 0.193 EBR 0 0 104 104 106 106 - - - - WBL 1 1600 186 228 190 232 0.116 • OA43 0,119 0.145 WBT 2 3200 566 556 567 567 0206 0205 0209 0209 WBR O 0 99 99 101 101 - - - - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTY,¢AT10N: 0.65 0_70 0Ji6 0.72 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B B C NOTES: Printed: 1?um PT, �A I :, , �_ _•.d HOME DEPOT PROJECT-04136 REFERENCE#01 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET COUNT DATE: NOVEMBER 2004 TIME PERIOD: AJM.PEAK HOUR N/SSTREET- MAGNOLIASTREET ENV STREET: GARFIELD AVENUE CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EASTBOUND, WEST BOUND VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) EXISTING 2004 80 712 170 90 587 41 68 617 98 80 219 66 (8) PROJECT 0 40 20 0 75 0 24 18 0 45 0 0 (C) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS 82 736 173 92 599 42 59 629 100 82 223 67 GEOMETRICS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST SOUND WEST BOUND EXISTING GEOMETRICS L T TR L TTR L T TR L T TR TRAFFIC SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1: EXISTING 2004(A) SCENARIO 2: EXISTING+PROJECT(A+B) SCENARIO 3: CUMULATIVE SCENARIO 4: CUMULATIVE+PROJECT(C+B) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS MOVE- #OF CAPACITY SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS - MENTS LANES 1 2 3 .4 1 2 3 4 NBL 1 16W 80 80 82 82 0.050 o ow 0.051 0-051 NBT 2 3200 712 762 735 T75 0276 0294 ' 0284 0.303 NBR O 0 170 190 173 193 - - - - SBL 1 1600 90 90 92 92 0.056 0.056 ' 0.058 0.058 . SBT 2 3200 687 662 599 674 0.183 0207 0.187 0211 SBR 1 1600 41 41 42 42 0.026 0.026 0-026 0-026 EBL 1 1600 58 82 59 83 0.036 oD51 0-037 0.052 EBT 2 3200 617 636 629 647 0.223 ' 0.229 0228 0-233 EBR 6 0 98 98 100 too - - - - WBL 1 1600 80 125 82 127 0.050 ' 0.078 ' 0.051 0-079 WBT 2 3200 219 210 223 223 0.089 0.089 0.091 0.091 WBR 0 0 66 66 67 67 - - - - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIUZATIOW 0 81 9.86 0.62 0." SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE 8 B B B NOTES: Printed: 1214m TT 1 n a f . ` City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Department Traffic Collision History Report 1 2/1 012 0 0 4 Midblock Collisions Page 2 Arterial: GARFIELD AVENUE Limit 1: NEWLAND STREET Limit 2: MAGNOLIA STREET Date Range Reported: 1211/2O01 - 12/10/2004 Motor Veh. 4 ft neport No, Date DIsVDir Location Type of Collision Involved With DOT1 MPC 1 •DOT2 MPC 2 PCF Inj Kid Time Total Number of Collisions; 2 Segment Length: 0.50 miles (2,645') Settuigs Used For Query r, Parameter Set tin Limit 1 Do Not Include Intersection Related Lwd(2 Do Not Include Intersection Related Imtermediate Intersections Do Not Include Intersection Related a� r Color Legend a Highest Degree of Injury Medium Blue=Fatal Purple=SeTere LRIw3- Grccu-Other N'isihle Injure Teal= Complaint of Pain Dark Blue=Property Damp OnI}r Settings Used For Query Parameter Setfui Limit I Do Not Include Intersection Related Limit 2 Do Not Include Intersection Related Intermediate Intersections Do Not Include Intersection Related t City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Department Midblock Collision Diagram GARFIELD AVENUE Segment Length:778' Llmlt 1: LINDSAY LANE(N) Limll 2: MAGNOLIA STREET W -----�� E Dale Range: 1211/2001 To: 1211012004 GARFIELD AVENUE NDSAY LANE MAGNOLIA LI LI STREET �2rno�a Io:4o fie'6eS1 of LINDSAY ViNE(N) Number of.Colfie(ons Legend Right Turn j Pedestrian 1 Property Damage Only -4. Moving Vehicle Lefurn t T Fixed Object Q Injury Collisions Stopped Vehicle Bicycle Q Fetal Collisions Backing Vehicle - p DUI Sideswipe Total Collisions "q --'� Ran Road Day 0 Injury Movement 0 Unknown _Night 0 Fatal City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Department 1VIO004 Traffic Collision History Report Page 1 Midbloek Collisions Page 1 Arterial: GARFIELD AVENUE LImIt 1: NEWLAND STREET Lift}It 2; MAGNOLIA STREET Date Flange Reported; 12/1/2001 - 12J10/2004 Motor Veh, Report No. Date Olst/Dir Location Type of Collision Involved With DOTi MPC 1 DOT2 MPC 2 PCF Inj Kid Time 2003.02759 2111/03 90' GARFIELD Hit object Fixed Object South (Making Lett Turn Driving Under 0 0 20A0 East of AVENUE/NEWLAND Influence STREET 2003.03759 2127103 78' GARFIELD Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Proceeding Unsafe Speed 0 0 10:40 East of AVE14UE/LINDSAY LAIJE Vehicle Straight Straight (14) 'V v �v Color Legend - Highest Degree of Injury Medium Blue=Fatal Purple=Severe Injury Greta=Other Visibis Injury Teat=Complaint of Pain Dark BIue=Property Dams;a Only Settings Used For Query Parameter Setting Street Name Garfield Avenue Cross Street Magnolia Street Starting Date 121U2001 Ending Date 12/10/2004 Intersection Intersection Related r. 1 Collision Diagram Horizontal Street: GARFIELD AVENUE From: 12M/2001 TO; 12M012004 Vertical Street: MAGNOUA$TREET Date Prepared: 12/10/2004 Una spo N WITIN I IN= trslm Un-J Spd to RrW Sig:lSi MW033 FolVclaao `.l BMW 1TJ2102 A1110 FVW Wrong Side WSW `^1 9112/03 Unsl Spd y112l03 3/3t/02 811i1W 4111/0`' 1225/02 Auw DLn 7Qn27/D9 Unknown Aulo R1W Auto PJw 1VM-3 Odx bnpiop Drvp Urt--r Spd rP1Y1o4 Lfnq Spd t 711 12/12/01 10130/02 2115104 Und S Un:1 Spd thu-I Spd Foftj& , 6 Number of Collisions Legend � Right Turn h pedestrian -�}— Moving Vehicle LT Fixed Object 12 Property Damage Only Stopped Vehicle ® � Left Turn 9 Injury Collisions Backing Vehicle •. ---- Sideswipe O Fatal Collisions Pan Ott Road -1 DUI 21 Total Collisions Movement �11" Day 0 injury Unknown -de Night (g Fatal TT . .. I< V.O. 2'!L( City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Department Traffic Collision History Report 1211012004 Page 3 Location: Garfield Avenue/Magnolia Street Date Range Reported: 12/112001 - 12/10/2004 Report No. Date Time Dist, Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct, of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF In). KII Collision involved Willi Travel 1 Prec, Coll, 1 Travel 2 Prec, Coll, 2 Total Number of Collisions: 21 $ettlugs Used For Query Parameter Setflux Street Name Garfield Avenue Cross Street Magnolia Street Startling Date IVI/2001 Ending Date 12/10/20D4 Intersection intersection Related i r � e a City of i-lunting. Beach 'traffic Engineering Department Traffic Collision History Report 12110/2004 Page 2 Location: Garfield Avenue /Magnolia Street Date Range Reported: 12/112001 - 12/1012004 Report No. Date Time Dist, Dir. Type of Motor Veh, Direct,of, Movement Direct, of Movement PCF Inj. Kil Gollision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Call, 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll, 2 2DD4- 2J15/04 17:05 141 South Rear-End Non-Collision North Proceeding North SlowinglSloppi Following Too 1 0 maaR Straight ng Closely 2004- 4/27/04 16:14 200 South Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Proceeding Unsafe Speed 0 0 n741 n Vehicle Straight Straight 2004- 819104 22:32 40 North Rear-End Other Motor South Slowing/Sloppi South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 1 ar,4R Vehicle ng Road 2004- 8117/04 09:38 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor South Making Lett North Proceeding Unknown 0 0 1.Rn:A;l Vehicle Turn Straight 2004- 9/17104 21:34 80 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West SlowinglSloppi Unsafe Speed 0 0 171Ps Vehicle Straight ng . 2004- 10/27,104 20:30 0 In W. Sideswipe Other Motor East Making U Turn East Stopped In Other Improper 0 0 in7PA Vehicle Road Driving de City of Huntington Beach Ti,affic Engineering Department Traffic Collision History Report 1 2/1 0120 0 4 Page 1 Location: Gnrileld Avenue(Magnolia Street Date flange reported: 12/1/2001 - 12/10/2004 Type of Motor Veh. Direct, of Movement Direct. of Movement Report No. Date Time Dist, Dir, Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec, Coll.1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll, 2 PCF Ini. 0 2001- 12/12JOl 09:57 69 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Slopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 917ns Vehicle Straight Road 2002- 3131/02 14:55 0 In Ini, Broadside Other Motor East Proceeding North Proceeding Driving Under 6 0 n.r;7An Vehicle Straight Straight Influence 2002- 4/11/02 11:18 0 In Int, Broadside Other Motor South Making Left North Proceeding Auto RNJ 1 0 nsna; Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 2002- 916102 14:56 0 in int. Broadside Other Motor South Making Left North Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 1K1RR Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 2002- 10/30/02 20:13 70 South Rear-End Other ivSotor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 2 0 1RFna Vehicle Straight Road 2002- 1 i18102 13:16 0 in Ini, Broadside Other Motor North Making Leff South Proceeding Auto RM' 0 0 1 a 1 aR Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 2002- 1212/02 07:20 0 In Int. Broadside Bicycle North Entering East Making Right Wrong Side of 1 0 ,;n;an Traffic Turn Road 2002- 12/25102 19:32 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor South Making Lett North Proceeding Auto RMl 0 0 vta:rR Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 2003- 316/03 16:00 0 In Ini. Broadside Other Motor East Making Right East Making Right Unknown 0 0 n49419 Vehicle Turn Turn 2003- 3112103 iS:41 30 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 naR11 Vehicle Straight Road 2003- 7/10103 14:40 150 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Slopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 194Rp Vehicle Straight Road 2003- 7/30/03 17:59 34 West Rear-End Other Motor East Making Right East SlowingrStoppi Following Too 0 0 1SAR1 Vehicle Tum ng closely 2003• 8/5/03 00:13 0 In Intl Broadside Other Motor South Proceeding West Proceeding Traffic Signals 0 0 1 AIPA Vehicle Straight Straight and Signs 2003• 6112/03 12:37 0 In int. Broadside Other Motor North Entering East Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 14779 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation ' 2003• 1216103 14:30 100 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsele Speed 2 0 �7�a� Vehicle Straight Road Color Legend - Highest Degree of Injury Medium Ulue=Fatal Purple=serene wun. Grc,-en= Other Visible I ijury Tunl = Cuviplalnt at Pain Dark Blue=Property Damage Only Settings Used For Query Parameter settitt Liutit 1 Do Not Include Intersection Related Infant 2 Do Not Ioctude Intersection Related Intermediate Intersections Do Not Include Intersection Related r N� Donald Ballanti Certified Consulting Meteorologist 1424 Scott Street El Cerrito, CA 94530 (510) 234-6087 Fax: (510) 232-7752 January 12, 2005 Art Lucas Scott Mommer Consulting 4630 W. Jacqueline Avenue, Suite 119 Fresno, CA. 93722 Subject: Clarification Regarding Construction Impacts, Proposed Huntington Beach Home Deport Dear Mr. Lucas: The purpose of this letter is to clarify assumptions made regarding construction activity in the URBEMIS-2002 modeling I performed for the subject project which formed the basis for my air quality report(Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Proposed Home Depot Store, City of Huntington Beach", dated December 2005). My analysis assumed that during site grading a total of 1056 truck trips would be needed to haul soil and other materials to/from the site. I used the default truck capacity of 20 cubic yards per truck. It is my understanding that 20-yard capacity trucks actually cant' 15 cubic yards of material per load, but this fact doesn't alter the air quality analysis. The factor that determined emissions is the number of truck trips rather than the amount of material. The Earthwork Report prepared by Lars Andersen and Associates calculated the total trips needed to remove and bring in material to the site as 910 (850 import trips and 60 export trips). The air quality analysis is therefore conservative (i.e., over-predicts impacts) with respect to diesel truck emissions during site grading. To allow for unforeseen situations, it was agreed upon by all consultants to utilize the conservative truck trip assumption of 1056 trips. Air Pollution Meteorology s Dispersion Modeling •ChrnatologiQ *nWgton Beach JAN 17 2006 ATTACMEW NO. s P Art Lucas January 12, 2006 Page 2 My report (using the assumed 1056 truck trips during site grading) concluded that, based on South Coast Air (duality Management District thresholds of significance, the project would have no significant adverse air quality impacts. It is clear that the same conclusion would be made if 910 truck trips were assumed during site grading. Donald Ballanti Certified Consulting Meteorologist 2 W - Donald Ballanti Certified Consulting Meteorologist 1424 Scott Street El Cerrito, CA 94530 (510) 234-6087 Fax: (510) 232-7752 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED HOME DEPOT STORE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Prepared for: Scott Mommer Consulting 4630 W. Jacquelyn Avenue, Suite 119 Fresno, CA. 93722 December 2005 Air Pollution Meteorology a Dispersion Modeling *Climatological Analysis ty of Hurdr&n 9680h DEC:-15?A05 ATTAChtwriv I ivve 2 INTRODUCTION The Home Depot proposes to construct a new store within the existing Kmart shopping center located at the southwest corner or Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue in Huntington Beach, California. The project would require the demolition of the existing Kmart structure and construction of a new structure of approximately 105,536 sq. ft. with an adjacent Garden Center measuring approximately 25,000 sq. ft. This report describes the impacts of the proposed Home Depot store in Huntington Beach, California on local and regional air quality. This report was prepared using the air quality impact assessment recommendations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.' In keeping with these recommendations, this report describes existing air quality, construction-related impacts, new' directrndirect emissions associated with the project (and the impacts of these emissions on the local and regional scale) and mitigation measures warranted to reduce or eliminate any identified significant impacts. EXISTING CONDITIONS Air Pollution Climatology The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, a 6,600 square-mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The distinctive climate of this area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographical location. Regional meteorology is largely dominated by a persistent high-pressure area, which commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean. Seasonal variations in the strength and.position of this pressure cell cause changes in the weather pattems of the area. Local climatic conditions are characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall,. moderate daytime on-shore breezes, and moderate humidity. The area has a characteristic diurnal variation in wind, with an on-shore (westerly) flow in the daytime and a weak offshore land breeze at night. This normal wind pattern is occasionally interrupted by winter storms and strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds. The South Coast Air Basin is an area of high air pollution potential, particularly from June through September. The poor ventilation characteristics of the area, attributable to light winds and shallow vertical mixing depths, frequently results in elevated air pollution levels. Pollutant concentrations in the Basin vary with location, season, and time of day. Ozone concentrations for example tend to be lower along the coast higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Basin and adjacent desert. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 2ATT f A NO, Ambient Air Quality Standards Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 1 for criteria pollutants relevant to this project. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and Particulate Matter(PM2.5 and PM1o). In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination. Ambient Air Quality The SCAQMD monitors air quality throughout the Basin at various monitoring stations. The project site is located within Source Receptor Area Number 18 (North Coastal Orange County), which is served by the Costa Mesa air monitoring station, located at 2850 Mesa Verde Drive East, in the City of Costa Mesa. Pollutants monitored at this station include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. The nearest particulate air monitoring station is located at 1610 South Harbor Boulevard, in the City of Anaheim. The most. recent monitoring data for these stations, shown in Table 2, indicate that the state 1-hour ozone standard and PM10 standard are exceeded in the project vicinity. The federal PM2.5 standard is also exceeded. No other exceedances of Federal or State standards were recorded in the period 2002-2004. Attainment Status and Regional Air Quality Plans Federal and state air quality laws require identification of areas not meeting the ambient air quality standards. These areas must develop regional air quality plans to eventually attain the standards. Orange County is considered a non-attainment area for the state/federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide PM10 and PM2.5- 3 ATTACWW o1._Ifj TABLE 'I FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS t,.. :. ,.t...w ,� :... .x.,.,.. .....,. ..� .. ., o, „,,,o.�t..c'ciX,.. .:..n...,...,«;,i: �„JK:"� `�-' s.,5"t.., ...lv;"�'S"$•lu^'�- - irl'^e.�,. v;: ash L j,�1\t�1 'F�F'': :'�1:� .:T,,.-M w,. ,� Ct},...�ii �'YP4. .\o.v' �� ,.,.J �:'k'.:y4•so: 4�_ ::ll:. Yl�S•e �'SZ",.l,� :<.>. ,Fr-'.:, „�,i° ;�„� :��31. F'�*,'.rry nII<<� - �il..t:..�lo},� ?E'a vE. Si• _ ti.rY Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm 8-Hour 0.08 pprn 0.07 pprn Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 1-Hour 35.0 p m 20.0 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm -- 1-Hour -- 0.25 pprn Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm -- 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm 1-Hour -- 0.25pprn PMio Annual 50 ug/m 20 ug/m 24=Hour 150 u /m3 50 u /m3 PM2.5 Annual 15 ug/m 12 ug/m 24-Hour 65 u /m3 -- Lead 30-Day Avg. -- 1.5 ug/m 3-Month Av 1.5 u /m3 -- ppm = parts per million ug/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter 4 ATTACMEW . 6 TABLE 2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AT COSTA MESA AND ANAHEIM MONITORING SITES w6io 1w, Ozone 1-Hour State 0 4 2 1-Hour Federal 0 0 0 8-Hour Federal 0 1 1 Carbon 8-Hour State/Fed. 0 0 0 Monoxide 1-Hour State 0 0 0 PM10 24-Hour State 5 6 3 24-Hour Federal 0 0 0 PM2.5 24-Hour Federal 1 3 0 Nitrogen 1-Hour State 0 0 0 Dioxide Sulfur 24-Hour Federal 0 0 0 Dioxide 24-Hour State 1 0 1 0 1 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM), (MLw.arb.ca.gov/adam/), 2005. ATTA(MMEW W). The South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board adopted the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on August 1, 2003. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM,o), replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future,and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the South Coast Air Basin has met since 1992. The 2003 AQMP also addresses several state and federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air quality modeling tools. The 2003 AQMP is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to the Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. Sensitive Receptors "Sensitive receptors" are defined as facilities where sensitive population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors to the site are residences just north of the project site. Thresholds of Significance CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3. In addition, a significant impact would occur if local CO emissions resulting from vehicular emissions associated with the proposed project were to cause an exceedance of the I-hour or 8-hour California Ambient Air Quality Standard of 20 ppm or 9.0 ppm, respectively, at any sensitive receptor location. If baseline conditions already exceed the CAAQS at a sensitive receptor location, then the SCAQMD considers an increase of more than 1.0 ppm or 0.45 ppm for the 1-hour or 8-hour averaging period, respectively, significant. 6 t f _: D TABLE 3 SCAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Carbon Monoxide 550 550 Nitrogen Oxides 100 55 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 75 55 Particulate Matter (PM,o) 150 150 Sulfur Oxides 150 150 7 PROJECT IMPACTS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, Appendix G, provides 5 Initial Study/Negative Declaration questions to be answered during the environmental review for a project. Appendix G further states that "where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations." The following is a discussion of each of the five questions utilizing the significance thresholds of the SCAQMD as previously described. Would the project: A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The South Coast Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook establishes the following criteria to determine project consistency with.the AQMP: 1. Will the project result in any of the following: -An increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; or -Cause or contribute to new air quality violations; or -Delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP? 2. Will the project exceed the assumptions utilized in preparing the AQMP? Project impacts, as described in response to questions B and C below, do not exceed the above thresholds. The proposed project is a re-use of an existing site that previously developed as a retail center. The daily trip generation from previous uses was slightly lower, in terms of daily trip generation, than the proposed project. The project would not require a re-zoning or land use redesignation for the parcel, so project trip generation would not exceed the assumptions utilized in the AQMP, and the project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. B. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? A screening procedure for estimating carbon monoxide concentrations was applied to signalized intersections under existing and future traffic conditions. The screening procedure contained in Transportation. Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol was SATTACHMM NO- 212 utilized.2 The screening procedure is intended to allow the prediction of conservative estimates of carbon monoxide concentrations without having to run computational models such as EMFAC and CALINE4. The methodology uses estimates of the contributions to carbon monoxide concentrations for a "base case" characterized by a specific intersection configuration, meteorology, traffic volume and indicators of intersection performance. A series of correction factors are then applied to adjust the initial estimates of carbon monoxide concentrations for the specific conditions of the intersection under study. Correction factors are provided by a series of tables. The following assumptions were made as input to the screening procedure as appropriate for a project in Orange County and based on project surroundings: Geographical Location: Coastal Average Cruise Speed: 35 MPH (away from intersections) Analysis Year: 2004 Percentage of Vehicle Operating in Cold Start Mode: 30 percent Distance to Closet Receptor: 20 feet (7 meters) The screening procedure provides a worst-case estimate of 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations of carbon monoxide generated by vehicles impacting an intersection. The other contribution to the total concentration is the background level attributed to more distant traffic. The 8-hour background level was assumed to be 5.9 parts per million, which was the highest measured concentration of carbon monoxide measured at the Costa Mesa monitoring site during the period 2002-2004.3 The analysis was conducted for the Magnolia Street/Garfield Avenue intersection which is adjacent the project and the intersection most impacted by the addition of project traffic. The resulting predicted worst-case carbon monoxide concentration for existing conditions and future conditions with project are shown in Table 4. The concentrations in Table 4 are for worst-case locations under theoretical worst-case meteorological conditions. Concentrations at greater distances from the roadway would be substantially lower. As shown in Table 4 existing concentrations meet the state/federal ambient air quality standards. The addition of project traffic would increase concentrations by up to 0.15 PPM, and concentrations remain below state/federal standards. As project traffic would not cause a violation of either ambient air quality standard, nor contribute substantially 'Garza, Vincente J.; Peter Granly; Daniel Sperling. 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon monoxide Protocol. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Report UCD-ITS-RR-97-21. ' California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2005. (http: //www.arb.ca.gov./adam/cgi-bin/adamtop/d2wstart) 9 A. . . , A TABLE 4 PREDICTED WORST-CASE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS NEAR THE MAGNOLIAIGARFIELD INTERSECTION -<9.aFl�'Rk i`WZ. M p . " <<L YiY"e - _•!KR'.` ✓�4'i. .� t ��y'..3... .S ,.F�\..,nik1A'y:;•<r.._ `{:t%'- ::t.<. ..:SiL°:`'i°5\4:1 • .NCF, i\,sn,'i'«Sv-. liT{Y.hv-.:,l:yi�.v,:.s ..}... sl b - - , .a, .:7`:, .f.'c'' x',t;:f p, :.fiFi; ';9,` 's�,rry.R:v; •'��:•. iww.,S:<i:,.zr.., :.4... ...+:..tier+,,=,:,,.;s' ;;:,s ,-`{,> ,..e,.:3e..�..: ,,;, $.�t:�ti'ri< !', .,4t' '.s.,:.1h^'-;,,..;••.,.s;N'• scn;'i�:,: '�tr,. w.>f'i. =n^t?1tt%-n4 Nan...AY;`•r k':'�,k ;'T3 :...3:a- sli;-.- .w:u` ..x'. 'i:�"-�..�'dy, ,>i, s, xt.,. -�i FP.' ,i<Inr'.�:.,��" ,�f:.s..•,a�:, .\a :Y��:u,. .vi>. rHv?.z. .,`,`\`9.,v.f."`:�;a:r. .<t.w�:£ -.:c•.'.s.... < ,f..,a� +.'a,.:a 'z. 4„ r�, h!i.:., � ,.�`,,. .''t.. , ...10. M�e- - t: �'ii�,::..,-> :.,�F,.c .f. ,�.'.:•, y:a:t. y{ ,.�3:�..'�,,k�•.r..atE..^.`^"\' •'t .47 t'!`:T .\w ,,NN"ii.,,.x_.:�;.. `i;;1(voy��.i51.:.....x ',r,n:,^.{ ;.'i.... 'v:�k^n .S`,nt'r3 vl`: Yi?Ikjt::?y a„ a., � <Wh .' x 2 :h.a.Y'd.a:•i..;ct;'A`:'<i3::r:`_ :Ah;+'Y:e:v,! y;; .^,P,n�' - � ,c ".J'S;'^!'•a'-L``:>"uz< ,;.Y'' ` .ye.. �.t,2.Y ,_i....l.:c-p.•w. - '.� i p r,:);,.,\':�4„rgk;"��' �'i'�^n�e'ih _ -,4� U ::?t,S.M a:.v""•. wa ..,J;; p,� Z4-. — 12.9813.12 7.87 to an existing violation, the impact of the project on local carbon monoxide concentrations is considered to be less-than-significant C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The project would contribute to cumulative regional air quality impacts during both construction and operation. Construction impacts would be from a variety of sources and would include dust from construction activities. Operational impacts would be due to vehicle trips attracted to the project site and area sources such as combustion of natural gas for heating. Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions from the following activities: the commute of workers to and from the project site; demolition of the existing structure on the site, delivery and hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project site; fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; 'and dust generating activities from soil disturbance. Maximum daily construction emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS-2002 program. Table 5 shows the maximum daily emissions for demolition, site grading and building construction phases of construction. Demolition of existing structures was assumed by require 2 bulldozers, 2 loaders, 1 watering truck and on-highway trucks (20 cubic yard capacity) to haul away debris. Site grading was assumed to be accomplished with 2 graders, 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes and 1 watering truck for dust control. During site grading, it was assumed base material that would underlay the building would be brought to the site by truck and excess soil would be removed from the site. Total truck trips needed to bring base material to the site or remove excess soil from the site were estimated at 1,056 trips. Site grading was assumed to occur over a 3 week period after demolition was completed. 10 . Building construction was assumed to require 3 concrete/industrial saws, 3 forklifts, a crane and 2 unspecified "other' pieces of diesel powered equipment. Paving was assumed to require 1 grader, 1 paver and 1 roller (compactor). All on-site equipment was assumed to be operated 8 hours per day. URBEMIS-2002 further calculated emissions from architectural coatings, paving off- gassing and worker trips. The default architectural coatings emission factor were reduced 40% to account for recently amended SCAQMD Rule 1113 that limits VOC emissions from architectural coatings. URBEMIS-2002 defaults for paving off-gassing and worker trips were utilized. The program estimated that construction worker commute trips would average about 43 per day over the course of construction. The URBEMIS-2002 output is included in the Appendix. Construction activity in the South Coast Air Basin is subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities but sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources). The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits a construction site from causing an incremental PMIo concentration impact at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PMIo high-volume sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PMJo sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately documented. SCAQMD Rule 403 further requires those engaged in hauling operations to take actions necessary to prevent or remove (within one hour) the track-out of bulk material onto public paved roadways. As shown in Table 5 daily construction emissions are below the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds. Construction impacts would therefore be less-than-significant. Regional Impacts The project would be an indirect source of air pollutants, in that it would attract and cause an increase in vehicle trips in the region. The project would also be an area source of emissions, primarily from the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating and landscaping activities. Table 6 shows the new auto and area source emissions of regional pollutants that would result from the proposed project, based upon output from the URBEMIS-2002 computer program. Also shown are the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Project-related emissions are below the thresholds of significance, so project impacts on regional air quality would be less-than- significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 11 AA NO. . TABLE 5 PREDICTED MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS, IN POUNDS PER DAY •ctat i$;O Demolition 7.38 65.83 53.77 13.40 0.40 Site Grading 9.99 82.65 75.93 31.73 0.50 Building 66.61 82.68 91.32 3.60 0.04 Construction SCAQMD 75.00 100.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 Threshold ROC = Reactive Organic Compounds NOX = Nitrogen Oxides CO = Carbon Monoxide PM10 = Particulate Matter, 10 microns S02= Sulfur Dioxide TABLE 6 PROJECT AUTO AND AREA-SOURCE EMISSIONS(POUNDS PER DAY) aw\� 1. a �� 'rn4,. -i.,.- `'�°•'r'r ��. cz i.a _ a, Vehicles 491 u44.07 469.04 35.28 0.39 Area 2.05 1.27 1.84 0.00 0.00 sources Total 45.96 45.34 470.88 35.28 0.39 SCAQMD 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 Threshold 12 On site stationary sources of pollutants at the project site would be limited to heating equipment powered by natural gas. As a indirect source, the project would attract vehicle trips that would primarily generate emissions off-site and not affect nearby sensitive receptors. The proposed project would result in a small increase in diesel powered trucks accessing the receiving docks at the rear of the Home Depot store. There are sensitive receptors directly to the west of the receiving areas. In 1998 the California Air Resources Board identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines (CARB 2000). High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truckstops) were identified as having the highest associated risk. The greatest diesel particulate risks from new development are generally associated with stationary diesel engines and locations where diesel engines are allowed to idle for extended periods. SCAMQD guidelines for diesel risk assessments identify situations requiring analysis as being locations with extended truck idling (truck stops, warehouse/distribution centers, transit centers), ship hotelling at ports and train idling).4 The project would attract up to 12-18 diesel truck trips to the two truck loading areas at the rear of the buidling. Because of this relatively low level of truck activity, lack of extended truck idling on the project site and the prevailing westerly winds that carry pollutants away from senstive receptors the project would have a less-than-significant impact on Toxic Air Contaminant concentrations. E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project will be subject to compliance with SCAQMD's Rule 402, which regulates nuisance with regard to air quality. The rule states that "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 cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. " No objectionable odors are expected as a result of either construction or operation of the proposed project. Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes. Odors are also associated with such uses as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. As the proposed project is unrelated to these types of uses, no impacts are anticipated. 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003. Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report evaluated the proposed project with respect to the questions regarding impact significance contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, Appendix G. As directed under CEQA, the analysis used the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district (in this case the South Coast Air Quality Management District). Impacts analyzed included construction-related impacts, new direct/indirect emissions associated with the project and the impacts of these emissions on the local and regional scale. No significant adverse air quality impacts were identified. It is recommended that all construction contracts require that contractors comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). SCAQMD Rule 403 established general .and specific requirements for all construction sites and prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction such that visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line. SCAQMD Rule 403 further requires those engaged in hauling operations to take actions necessary to prevent or remove (within one hour) the track-out of bulk material onto public paved roadways. 14 T ' NO. Appendix: URBEMIS2002 Output 15 Al �� 2• �� Page: 1 12/15/2005 1:06 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7\Projects2k2\huntingtonhd.urb Project Name: Huntington Home Depot Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Suzmer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2006 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 66.61 82.68 91.32 0.50 32.34 3.60 28.74 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2007 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 4.46 25.55 34.56 0.00 0.87 0.86 0.01 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 P1410 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 2.05 1.27 1.84 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 43.91 44.07 469.04 0.39 35.28 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 45.96 45.33 470.88 0.39 35.28 16 +-^ 4 ^ ,, a Page: 2 12/15/2005 1:06 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7\Projects2k2\huntingtonhd.urb Project Name: Huntington Home Depot Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: June, 2006 Construction Duration: 8.6 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 11.46 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 2.86 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi-Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 130536 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 10.92 - 10.92 Off-Road Diesel 6.07 43.40 46.98 - 1.84 1.84 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.23 22.31 4.58 0.40 0.63 0.53 0.10 Worker Trips 0.08 0.12 2.21 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 7.38 65.83 53.77 0.40 13.40 2.37 11.03 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 28.60 - 28.60 off-Road Diesel 8.42 54.83 69.79 - 2.33 2.33 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.53 27.80 5.71 0.50 0.79 0.66 0.13 Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 9.99 82.65 75.93 0.50 31.73 2.99 28.74 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 11.19 82.38 84.94 - 3.60 3.60 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.27 0.15 3.19 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 54.88 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.27 0.15 3.19 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 66.61 82.68 91.32 0.00 3.68 3.60 0.08 Max lbs/day all phases 66.61 82.68 91.32 0.50 32.34 3.60 28.74 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum Ibs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.36 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 4.00 24.09 33.99 - 0.83 0.83 0.00 Asphalt On=Road Diesel 0.07 1.44 0.28 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 4.46 25.55 34.56 0.00 0.87 0.86 0.01 17 ATTACWW �c . Max lbs/day all phases 4.46 25.55 34.56 0.00 0.87 0.86 0.01 18 A-ffACHMM INO. Page: 3 12/15/2005 1:06 PM Phase I - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Jun '06 Phase 1 Duration: 1.0 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet) : 776000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet) : 25996 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 962 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jul 106 Phase 2 Duration: 0.8 months on-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1200 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Off Highway Trucks 417 0.490 8.0 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Jul 106 Phase 3 Duration: 6.8 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Jul 106 SubPhase Building Duration: 4.3 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 3 Concrete/Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 1 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 _ 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 3 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Nov '06 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2.0 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: .Jan '07 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 1.5 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 19 Page: 4 2/15/2005 1:06 PM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM1O' Natural Gas 0.09 1.26 1.06 0 0.00 Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.12 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - Architectural Coatings 1.83 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 2.05 1.27 1.84 0.00 0.00 20 Page: 5 12/15/2005 1:06 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Home improvement supersto 43.91 44.07 469.04 0.39 35.28 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 43.91 44.07 469.04 0.39 35.28 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Home improvement supersto 57.62 trips/1000 sq. ft. 130.54 7,521.48 Sum of Total Trips 7,521.48 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 23,212.76 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.60 2.20 97.30 0.50 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 1.20 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 0.00 91.70 8.30 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Home improvement superstore 2.0 1.0 97.0 21 _ a OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 9TIO Letter from Allen Matkins (Environmental Attorney) Copy of Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Asbestos Sampling Report City of Huntington Beach JAN 17 2006 ATTAcwxw w. ,.2, L26, Allen Matkins www. aIlenmatkins. com Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP Attorneys at Law 1900 Main Street,5i°Floor I Irvine,CA 92614-7321 Telephone:949.553.13131 Facsimile:949.553.8354 Pamela L.Andes E-mail:pandes@allenmatkins.com File Number:H4190-005/OC764817.01 January 13.2006 Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Ron Santos Re: Home Depot Dear Mr. Santos: I am enclosing another copy for your reference of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Asbestos Sampling report prepared by ENVIRON dated September 2004 that Home Depot commissioned in connection with its acquisition of the leasehold interest in the former K-Mart store. I am also enclosing a copy of a Supplemental Asbestos Survey prepared by Panacea,Inc.dated December 28. 2004 that Home Depot subsequently commissioned on this facility. In connection with Home Depot's redevelopment activities at the Property,Home Depot will be addressing the environmental issues as follows: 1. Asbestos Containing Materials: The asbestos containing materials will be abated from the Building. Home Depot will engage a licensed abatement contractor to undertake this work in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District regulations and guidelines. 2. L_i Ballasts,Fluorescent L4Ws and Thermostat Switches: The light ballasts, fluorescent lamps and thermostat switches will be removed from the Building and disposed of properly. 3. Former Auto Center Repair Garage: A soil management plan will be implemented in connection with redevelopment activities, and the former automotive repair facility will be inspected and sampled to assess potential contamination as these improvements are demolished. Appropriate samples will be collected and analyzed. Soil containing chemicals of concern in excess of the Huntington Beach Fire Department("HBFD")cleanup standards will be removed from the Property and disposed or recycled properly offsite. Home Depot's environmental consultant will prepare a City of Hurthon Bear. Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City 1 San Francisco I Del Mar Heights JAN 17 2006 N . 1—P]j Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP Attorney~at taw Planning Department January 13,2006 Page 2 plan outlining the sampling and disposal protocols for submittal to the HBFD for approval prior to. beginning demolition- 4- Methane Mitigation District: Home Depot's consultant has reviewed a map of the Methane Mitigation Districts provided by the HBFD and has determined that the Property is not within a delineated methane area specified on the map. 5_ Abandoned Onsite Well: The Department of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources ("DOGGR")has been contacted regarding the onsite abandoned oil well. Home Depot's representatives have:been orally informed, and await written confirmation,that DOGGR has no records for the onsite well. Home Depot will complete the DOGGR Construction Site Plan Review and prepare an Oil Well History Disposition Report,which will be submitted to the HBFD. The oil well will be uncovered and tested for leakage by DOGGR personnel. Horne Depot will cause to be prepared,prior to uncovering the well,a plan that outlines the steps to be taken,the sampling and testing protocols to be implemented and the offsite disposal locations to be used for any impacted soil. The plan will include visual and olfactory screening by Home Depot's consultant during well excavation activities; and segregation and sampling of any soils suspected of containing petroleum hydrocarbons. If th--well is not Ieaking, a vent cone will be installed. If the well is leaking, it will be reabandoned to current DOGGR standards. 6. Forn t_er Adjacent Gas Station Site: The former Mobil station is not on the Home Depot site. Based on discussions with the HBFD,Home Depot will not be required to investigate the offsite Mobil gas station release issue. We trust the foregoing provides the information you need for completing the environmental portions of the Miti,;ated Negative Declaration. If you require any further information,please contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Pamela L.Andes PLA Enclosures cc: Mr. Scott Mommer Michael A.Alvarado,Esq. R. Michael Joyce,Esq. ATT ACHM W y PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT PRASE I ENVIRONMENTAL. SITE ASSESSMENTS' AND ASBESTOS SAMPLING AT SELECTED PROJECT KELLOGG RETAIL STORE SITES Prepared for Allen Matkins Leck Gamble &Mallory LLP Irvine, California On Behalf of Home Depot USA, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia Prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation Atlanta, Georgia September 2004 City of Huntngton Be JAN 17.2 09 @j N � , L 0 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT CONTENTS Page I. PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 II. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS II-1 V. HUN INGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA V-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS -u- E N V I R O N A . :,4 . PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT APPENDICES Appendix A Environmental Database Reports and Historical Documentation Appendix B Limited Asbestos Survey Report Appendix C Selected Site Photographs Appendix D Site Plans and Selected File Review Information TABLE OF CONTENTS -iii- E N V I R�O N� AffACHMW . `� PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Introduction ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) was retained by Allen Matlans Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP (AMLGM) on'behalf of Home Depot USA, Inc. to conduct a limited environmental review and asbestos sampling program at twelve K-Mart Corporation retail stores in Arizona and California in anticipation of a potential property acquisition/lease and facility redevelopment. A summary description of the facilities reviewed is presented in Table 1- 1-TABLE I-1 K-Mart Corporation Retail Store Locations Reviewed by ENVIRON Store Number Facility Location Facility Size(sf) _Type of Operation' 4424 Huntington Beach,California 120,786 Traditional 'Traditional operations refer to the company's original-style general merchandise retail outlets. Big K-Marts,which are larger in size,focus on three distinct businesses—home fashions,children's apparel and consumables(including an expanded food area known as the'Pantry"). Super Centers are a combination of full-service grocery and general merchandise stores. B. Objectives ENVIRON conducted Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that meets the substantive requirements of the ASTM International's Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments_ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, subject to the exceptions described in'Section E. E-1527-00(the"ASTM Standard',identifying"recognized environmental conditions" (RECs), which are defined in the ASTM Standard as: "The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the PROJECT OVERVIEW I-1 ENVIRON 2 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products.even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not represent a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental conditions." The term "historical recognized environmental condition" (HREC)is based on the definition in the ASTM Standard that refers to an environmental condition in the past that would have been considered a REC, but has been satisfactorily remediated or addressed in such a manner that it is not considered to be a current REC. Because ENVIRON was not provided with potential corroborating environmental documentation, certain HRECs may be classified as "environmental conditions"in this review. In addition to identifying environmental conditions,ENVIRON was asked to identify and assess potential risks and financial exposure associated with both current site conditions and possible building decommissioning/renovation requirements, and to collect samples of building materials known or presumed to contain asbestos (a"non-scope consideration,"as defined in the ASTM standard). Other non-scope considerations(e.g.,radon,lead-based paint, lead in drinking water,w—e,lands, cultural and historic resources;industrial hy�ene,health arid safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality,and high voltage power lines) were not addressed. C. Scope of Work This environmental assessment included the following components: • A visit to the twelve K-Mart facilities by ENVIRON personnel between April 21,2004 and April 30, 2004(see Table I-2). Due to confidentiality constraints,ENVIRON was provided limited access to facility personnel_ To the extent possible, each site visit comprised an after-hours visual inspection of customer areas, employee-only access areas, the building roof, and exterior areas. Subsequent to the completion of the site visit to the Eureka facility, ENVIRON was requested by counsel to-discontinue further analysis/review. • A review of files at local agencies (e.g.,Health Department,Fire Department, and Building Department)for the purpose of identifying.b(or obtaining more information regarding) recognized environmental conditions associated with each K-Mart site. PROJECT OVERVIEW I-2 ENVIRON ATTACHMEW NO. 21�3 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT ® A review of federal and state environmental database records prepared by Environmental Data Resources,Inc. (EDR)for each K-Mart site, as well as properties adjacent to or in the vicinity.of the subject sites. EDR conducted its search for the standard environmental record sources and the minimum search distances, as specified by the ASTM Standard_ Because the environmental databases themselves are sometimes not updated by the specific regulatory agencies for periods up to one year or more (depending on the database and the state),the database search conducted herein will not necessarily list an environmental investigation or listing that has been initiated subsequent to the last update. Copies of the database reports for the K Mart sites are included in Appendix A. The EDR database searches contained a number of unmapped sites. Although ENVIRON briefly reviewed the list of unmapped sites for properties observed during the site visits to be nearby or adjacent to the subject site, it was beyond the scope of this review to Iocate the unmapped sites identified by EDR.. a A.review of readily available standard historical sources, as defined in the ASTM Standard, including topographic maps, aerial photographs, abstracts of City Directory information, and fire insurance maps,provided by EDR. A-description of the available historical information is provided in Table I-3. Copies of the historical documentation for the K-Mart sites are included in Appendix A. ® A review of flood zone,wetlands and water supply well information, as provided in the EDR reports_ ® A review of publicly available regulatory information in the USEPA's Envirofacts and ECHO databases regarding each site. ® A review of United States Geologic Survey(USGS)7.5-minute topographic maps for the subject sites. D. Limited Asbestos Survey and Sampling Collection of samples from presumed asbestos-containing building materials was accomplished during the after-hours site visits. ENVIRON contracted with asbestos contractors with appropriate local and state licenses to assist in the identification of presumed asbestos- containing materials and the collection of representative samples. Within the time constraints imposed,ENVIRON collected samples from floor covering and underlying mastics,ceiling coverings, accessible insulated pipe chases,areas above suspended ceiling and utility closets; three PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-3 ENVIRON Q ATTACHMEW NO PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT representative samples were typically collected from each suspect-homogeneous material. Sampling was not performed in areas that were not readily accessible(i.e., areas where destructive measures must be used to gain access or confined space entry areas as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Samples also were not collected from roofing materials and other exterior building materials (e.g.,roof flashing)that would compromise the physical integrity of these materials; such materials were classified as"presumed asbestos-containing." Analysis of asbestos samples for each suspect homogeneous material was conducted using Polarized Light Microscopy(PLM)via the"positive stop"method,which is consistent with asbestos regulations recently updated by OSHA. Samples were analyzed by laboratories accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), and a participant in the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), as administered by the National Institute of, Standards and Technology(MIST). A summary of the analytical data for the samples collected is presented in Section F in the individual site chapters. Copies of the asbestos survey reports and accompanying data are provided in Appendix B. E. .Limitations and Exceptions ENVIRON did not make any exceptions to, or deletions from,either ASTM Practice E_1.527- 00 or standard due diligence practices by engineering professionals during this assessment, except_as noted herein: ® Visits were conducted after typical customer business hours and access was generally limited to not more than four hours. Due to poor ambient light conditions at some facilities during the night hours, visual assessments of portions of exterior areas were restricted. ® Due to confidentiality constraints,ENVIRON's scope was not to include direct contact with store personnel knowledgeable of site conditions, operations and practices during or after the site visits. In some instances,the corporate K-Mart representative on-site during each site visit invited facility personnel to be present and answer a limited series of questions from ENVIRON. No post-audit follow-up opportunities were afforded. O The absence of facility personnel during site visits occasionally precluded inspectiop of certain interior areas(e.g.,office spaces)with key-access restrictions. For security reasons, complete access to certain interior areas, such as the pharmacies, typically was not possible. PROJECT OVERVIEW I-4 ENVIRON g Z, 19S, PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT • Due to low-light and/or safety considerations, comprehensive walking tours of roof areas were not conducted at some locations. ENVIRON was neither provided nor made aware of documentation related to on-site soil or ground water conditions at the sites (e.g., historical site characterization studies or closure documentation for underground storage tanks or infrastructure associated with former automotive care operations), building materials used in facility construction, or facility renovation or maintenance activities. ® Detailed property diagrams and plats indicating property ownership were generally not available for review prior to site assessment activities. In addition,ENVIRON was not provided and did not review chain-of-title documentation or metes and bounds surveys. F. Disclaimer This environmental review has been prepared exclusively for use by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LL P and Home Depot USA,Inc., and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without ENVIRON's express written permission. The findings presented in this report represent ENVIRON's best professional judgment based upon the information available and conditions existing as of the date of the review. In performing its assignment, ENVIRON must rely Won-gublicl-y-available information,information-provided by the client, and information provided by third parties. Accordingly,the conclusions in this report are valid only to the extent that the information provided to ENVIRON was accurate and complete. This review is not intended as a substitute for legal advice,nor is it an exhaustive review of site conditions. ENVIRON makes no representations or warranties express or implied, about the condition of the sites. ENVIRON's scope of work for this assignment did not include collecting samples of environmental media, other than presumed asbestos-containing materials. As such,this review cannot rule out the existence of latent conditions, and is intended,consistent with normal standards of practice and care, to assist the client in identifying the risks of such conditions. Following this Project Overview(Chapter 1),ENVIRON's Summary of Conclusions is presented in Chapter IL Chapters M through XIV summarize ENVIRON's site-specific findings for the twelve facilities visited. PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-5 ENVIRON PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT TABLE I-2 K-Mart Corporation Facilities and Site Visit Information Facility Address ENVIRON Personnel Asbestos Contractor Date of Facility Visit 19101 Magnolia Street April 27 and 28, Huntington Beach,California Melida Escalante-Henricks Panacea Environmental. 2004 PROJECT OVERVIEW I-6 E N V I R O N PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT TABLE I-3 Historical Sources Reviewed Facility Historical Sources Reviewed' Topos Aerials City Directories Sanborn Huntington Beach,Califomia N/C 1 Historical-sourses reviewed fir the€awes;designated by-a 'wers-provided by EDR. Topos=topographic maps;Aerials=aerial photographs;City Directories=abstracts of city directory information; Sanboms=fire insurance ma s;N/C=resource not readily available;NR=not reviewed at request of counsel PROJECT OVERVIEW I-7 E N V I R O N e : , PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT H. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. Introduction ENVIRON was retained by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP on behalf of Home Depot USA,Inc.to conduct Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and limited asbestos sampling programs at certain K-Mart Corporation retail stores ("K-Mart"or the"Company")in California and Arizona in anticipation of a potential property acquisition/lease and facility redevelopment. The purpose of ENVIRON's review was to identify"recognized environmental conditions" (RECs), as defined in the ASTM Standard, to identify and assess potential risks and financial exposure associated with both current site conditions and possible building decommissioningtrenovation, and to assist in the identification and collection of building materials known or presumed to contain asbestos. This Chapter presents a summary of ENVIRON's major conclusions. Refer to Chapters III through XIV for more detailed information. E. Overall Conclusions Based on its review,ENVIRON provides-the genefal ce-nelusions cited below about site- conditions: 1 • The K-Mart stores visited appear to have been constructed between the 1960s and the early 1980s. Several of the older facilities appear to have had interior renovations, although the extent of facility upgrades and the dates of such renovations are not known with certainty. • Each of the facilities visited historically had an automotive care center operation and at least one underground storage tank(UST);many also had hydraulic lifts. • Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were identified in each of the eleven stores considered. The majority of the ACM (mainly floor tile and underlying mastic and ceiling tiles)was determined to be non-friable and in good condition. Some friable materials were identified(e.g., drywall with joint compound, insulated pipe joints),which were characterized by qualified technicians as being in good condition in each instance. 1 At the request of counsel,a report for the Eureka facility was not prepared. The analysis herein excludes consideration of the Eureka Iocation. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS H-1 ENVIRON ATT , . I�� PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT ® Nominal staining was observed on surfaced.areas within and particularly outside of most K- Mart stores. Exterior staining appeared to be related to drips and spills of oil onto asphalt pavement in customer parking and truck unloading areas, as well as certain store-related sales areas (e.g., garden centers) and facility maintenance operations. ENVIRON does not believe that the staining observed represents a REC, as defined in Section B of Chapter I. As noted in Chapter I, the site visits-*ere made during night hours, such that some exterior areas had difficult physical or visual accessibility. • Several of the facilities operate garden centers. While"agricultural"chemicals (e.g'., fertilizers, herbicides,pesticides) may be employed to promote growth of retail plants, ENVIRON believes that limited quantities are used. While such chemicals might be entrained within water used to hydrate plants or wash down exterior surfaces,the quantities present are unlikely to represent a significant environmental concern,particularly in light of the fact that the materials in question are intended to be applied to ground surfaces. C. Recognized Environmental Conditions Based on ENVIRON's review,the basic consumer retail operations at each of the K-Mart stores, featuring the sale of general household merchandise and grocery items,require a minimal use of hazardous chemicals,have a low potential for adverse environmental impact and, therefore,have a low Uth`hood of scrutiny by environmental regulatory agencies or for incurring significant environmental liabilities or compliance costs. Nevertheless,there are certain operations,materials, or environmental conditions that are or could represent potential RECs or HRECs, as defined in Section B of Chapter I. The potential RECs and HRECs include former operation of automotive care centers,former operation of USTs, and asbestos-containing building materials. In addition, other issues of concern include the presence of gasoline service stations on adjacent properties and the current or former presence of dry cleaning facilities on adjacent properties. A summary of these potential RECs/HRECs and other issues of potential concern is presented in Table II 1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS II-2 ENVIRON TT . .19G PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT TABLE II-1 Potential RECs/HRECs Issues of Concern at the K-Mart Facilities Visited Potential REC/HREC Issues of Concern Facility" Former Auto Confirmed Off-site Gas IOff-site Care Former USTs ACM Station Dry Cleaning Huntington Beach,California Notes_ '- IRON-wnducte&a review of theEureka-facgity;but did,not complet€its analysis at-dw-request-of counsel. Automotive care operations have been discontinued at the eleven facilities. Based on ENVIRON's experience at similar facilities, operations conducted at these locations would have mainly been associated with routine preventative vehicle maintenance activities. The primary constituents of potential environmental concern are petroleum compounds(oils, greases and lubricants),antifreeze, and possibly PCBs(as a potential constituent in hydraulic oils used in car lifts). Based on ENVIRON's observations, several of the locations had hydraulic lifts to elevate vehicles. ENVIRON was unable to confirm whether chlorinated solvents might have been used in parts washer systems,but database records regarding waste management activities did not indicate the generation of spent chlorinated wastes. Further investigation may be warranted at some locations to characterize environmental conditions and/or impacts,if any,caused by these former automotive care operations. Future decommissioning/renovation activities associated with the former automotive care operations may require notification to regulatory authorities. Each of the facilities historically had a UST, typically for the storage of waste oil that would have been generated from automotive care operations conducted on-site, as well as from off-site SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS II-3 E N V I R O N ATTACHAAM MMM -1--ft PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT activities by"do-it-yourselfers" at some locations. At most sites,the location of the USTs was not readily discernible, although rectangular patched areas of asphalt or concrete at some locations were suggestive of former USTs. If closure of a previously unclosed UST is sought by The Home Depot, notification of the appropriate regulatory authorities may be in order. Because ENVIRON was not provided with site plats or chain-of-title documentation prior to the site assessment, the actual extent of property owned/leased for the K-Mart facilities was not known at the time of the site reconnaissance. The presence of certain off-site facilities, such as gasoline service stations or dry cleaners (of which ENVIRON has been informed by AMLGM to not be part of the sites),while not operated by K-Mart,may represent a potential liability to K-Mart if it is considered the owner/operator of the land on which these"off-site"facilities operate. Thus, ENVIRON has conservatively considered these off-site facilities in this analysis. While the operators of such facilities should be financially liable for soil or ground water contamination attributable to these operations, further investigations (e.g.,Phase H investigations)maybe warranted at those sites where K-Mart might reasonably be considered a potentially responsible parry or in a future legal action. D. Management of wilding Materials Based on the original construction dates for most of the K-Mart facilities, certain building materials could require special management due to possible environmental concerns, including light ballasts or certain types of electrical or hydraulic equipment(can contain polychlorinated biphenyls);.fluorescent light bulbs and thermostats(can contain traces of mercury); drywall,floor tile and associated mastic, ceiling tile and insulating materials (possible mold growth and/or asbestos); and heating,venting and air conditioning(HVAQ units,refrigerators/coolers and freezers (can contain ozone-depleting refrigerants). There are presently no environmental requirements or regulatory conditions that would mandate that these building materials be removed under existing operating conditions,although special.handling or disposal may be required when they are removed from service. In the absence of building decommissioning/renovation activities,the majority of these materials could be left in place for the duration of their useful service life with normal service and maintenance. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS II-4 ENVIRON ATTACHMMT C t PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT V. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA A. Introduction K-Mart Corporation (K-Mart) owns and operates a general merchandise retail store located at 19101 Magnolia Street in Huntington Beach, Orange County, California(the"facility" or the site'). Melida Escalante-Henricks of ENVIRON visited the facility on April 27 and 28, 2004, along with Hsin Chou and Steven Modtland of Panacea, Inc. A review of files available at local agencies was conducted, and ENVIRON reviewed federal and state environmental regulatory agency databases, as provided by EDR on April 23,2004 (Section D). Historical and physical setting information (e.g., aerial photographs,topographic maps, abstracts of city directories)was also obtained from EDR. B. General Site Setting and History The site is comprised of an approximately 120,710 square foot building that houses retail areas, a cafe, a photo enlargement booth(printer type), a fenced garden center, and a former Penske automotive care center currently used-as storage area, as well as areas dedicated to offices, an employee break room, and merchandise storage(Appendix D-V). The portion of the store used for general retail-is one story,while the portion used-for warehouse and office space is two stories. The facility is located within a large shopping center complex of unknown acreage, and is surrounded to the sides and front of the building by an asphalt-paved parking area. At the time of ENVIRON's site visit,the parking area was observed to be in fair condition; however,the entire parking lot area could not be closely inspected due to poor lighting conditions. The K-Mart facility is located in an area characterized primarily by residential and commercial development. The shopping center is bordered by Garfield Street and Magnolia Street to the north and east,respectively,beyond which are residences. The shopping center is bordered by residences to the west, and to the south by commercial stores(nail care salon,driving school,liquor store,restaurants). A Blockbuster video store is located to the northeast portion of the shopping center. A Taco Bell fast food restaurant is located adjacent to Magnolia Street and the front parking area entrance of the store. ENVIRON also observed three gas stations at the comer of Garfield Street and Magnolia Street(within approximately 200 feet north and northeast of the store). According to the EDR report, elevation at the site is approximately twelve feet above mean sea level. The topography of the site is relatively flat, although the surface of the parking lot area Iocated to the northern portion of the building slightly slopes to the north, towards Garfield Street. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V-1 ENVIRON ATTACHMENT NO 2. 193 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT The surrounding topography slopes toward the Pacific Ocean, located approximately 3.5 miles south of the site. Surface drainage flows toward storm drains located in the parking lot. These storm drains likely discharge to the Pacific Ocean via the municipal storm sewer system. Based on information provided to ENVIRON,a portion of the current structure was used-as an automotive service center until about ten to twelve years ago. Facility personnel informed ENVIRON that this area of the building had three hydraulic lifts, which were noted during the site visit. Facility personnel also reported that there might have been an oil/grease release from the auto service center when it was operating ten to twelve years ago, although they were not aware if the release reached a storm drain. There is the potential that the oil release may have entered the two sewer drains adjacent to the former auto service center. At the time of the site visit, although lighting was not sufficient to inspect the area in detail and miscellaneous materials were stored mi this area,ENVIRON observed evidence of nominal historic staining on the concrete floor(i.e.,two separate areas comprising less than ten square feet total). Based on a review of available historical sources, the site was developed sometime between 1968 and 1977. No visible changes are depicted in the exterior building structure since it is first depicted a 1977 aerial photograph reviewed. Prior to construction of the current facility, the site had been undeveloped land_ G Description of Operations Operations conducted at the facility consist of general merchandise retail(e.g., clothing, paper products, small appliances,toys, sporting equipment). The facility also maintains a small customer cafeteria and a garden center. The cafeteria is centrally-located within the inside of the store. The garden center,located on the northern side of the store,houses a 100-pound propane tank v and five 20-pound propane tanks, and sells plants,gardening supplies,tools, and gardening chemicals/plant food,which are stored in labeled, closed containers on shelving. At the time of the site visit,the area appeared to be well-maintained, although some white powder was observed on the concrete floor under the shelves storing fertilizers. Along the western side of the store are offices and warehouse space. Additional merchandise is stored inside the warehouse along with returned merchandise, store cleaning supplies, and several closed containers of what appeared to be paint. An automotive service center operation was discontinued about ten to twelve years ago and is currently used as a storage area. The facility's SIC code appears to be either 5311 (Department Stores) or 5399 (Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores). HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA, V-2 ENVIRON PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT D. Database Review for the Site and Surrounding Properties ENVIRON reviewed the results of the state and federal environmental database searches performed by EDR(see Appendix A). ENVIRON also conducted a search for the site in the USEPA's Envirofacts and ECHO databases. The facility is listed on the following databases, as summarized below: The facility is listed on the RCRIS database as a Small Quantity Generator(SQG) of hazardous waste. No other substantive information related to this listing is provided in the EDR report. The facility is listed in the California Underground Storage Tank(CA UST)and Historic UST(MST UST) databases. The CA UST listing indicates that the site is an active UST location (UST#U003779338). The HIST UST database listing indicates that one tank is associated with the site, although the facility status is not reported. Further discussion of the status of the UST(which indicates that the tank was removed)is presented in Section E. The facility is listed on the HAZNET database. According to information contained in the HAZNET listing, hazardous wastes generated at the site include unspecified organic liquid mixtures and unspecified solvent mixture waste(these were likely associated with the former Penske operation). Facility personnel were not aware of current hazardous waste generation. The facility is listed on the Los Angeles County Street Number List a MS)3 database identifying the facility as having a removed permit(permit#174). The type of removal permit is not specified in the EDR report. In addition,a listing for Penske Auto Center#4424 was found on the HAZNET database. According to information contained in this HAZNET listing,wastes generated at the former Penske Auto Center site included unspecified organic liquid mixtures and oil/water separation sludge, - which is consistent with the HAZNET report for the K-Mart facility. ENVIRON also reviewed listings associated with off-site facilities included in the EDR report within applicable ASTM search radii. Several of these listings (e.g., hazardous waste generators,registered underground storage tank sites,historic underground storage tanks),by themselves,are not necessarily indicative of an environmental concern. Several properties appear on databases indicative of potential environmental concern (e.g.,LUST). However, other than the 3 HMS database is taken from Department of Public Works records,which list Industrial Waste and UST sites. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V-3 - ENVIRON AnAcww . 2 , Lq PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT properties listed below,none appear to be located adjacent to or upgradient of the site,4 or they have been issued regulatory closure approval, and are, therefore,not considered to pose a significant environmental concern to the site. ® A Mobil service station "#I8-G6G", located within one-eighth mile north of the site, is listed in the State LUST,LUST Region 8,LUST Region OR,HAZNET, and CORTESE databases. The LUST databases indicate that gasoline was released in 1982. According to the listing,the property was tested for MTBE, which was detected in ground water at a maximum concentration of 1,200 parts per billion (ppb). The State LUST and LUST Region 8 databases indicate that remedial action is underway. Because the listings indicate impact to ground water and the presence of MTBE, and given the proximity of the service station to the facility and the fact that it is possibly upgradient, it is possible that this reported release could have impacted soil and/or ground water underlying the site. a A Shell Oil service station, located within one-quarter mile northeast of the site, is listed in the State LUST,LUST Region 8,LUST Region OR, CORTESE,RCRIS,and FINDS databases. The LUST databases indicate that gasoline was released.in both 1986 and in 1999. According to the listings, the property was tested for MTBE in 1999,which was detected in ground water and soil at maximum concentrations of 46,000 ppb and 6.9 parts per million(ppm),respectively. The State LUST and LUST Region 8 databases list both cases as"closed"in 1997 and 2003, respectively. Due to the potential presence of MTBE and given the proximity of the service station to the facility, it is possible that this reported release could have impacted soil and/or ground water underlying the site. • A TOSCO service station"76 Station#5274,"located within one-quarter mile northeast of the site,is listed in the State LUST,LUST Region 8,LUST Region OR,UST HIST,RCRIS- SQG,FINDS, UST Orange County,HAZNET,and CORTESE databases. The LUST databases indicate that gasoline was released in 1989. According to the listings,the property was tested for MTBE in 1998,which was detected in ground water and_Soil at maximum concentrations of 24,000 ppb and 0.41 ppm,respectively. The LUST databases do not report the case close date. Due to the potential presence of MTBE and given the proximity of the service station to the facility,it is possible that this reported release could have impacted soil and/or ground water underlying the site- 4 There are limitations to this interpretation(e.g.,shallow ground water where a steep gradient may allow further downgradient migration;a flat gradient may allow spreading both up and downgradient;the type of hazardous material released where miscible material may migrate further more readily;and other geologic and bydrogeologic conditions). HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V-4 E N V I R O N 2 ATT ` 10 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT • A Thrifty Oil service station "#384,"located within one-quarter mile north of the site, is listed in the LUST, CORTESE and HAZNET databases. However,the EDR report does not provide additional information related to these listings. Due to the potential release of oil to ground water and/or soil and the potential presence of MTBE, and given the proximity of the service station to the facility, it is possible that a gasoline release could have impacted soil and/or ground water underlying the site. EDR identified a number of properties that could not be mapped-due to inadequate address information. While it was beyond the scope of this review to locate each.of the unmapped properties identified by EDR,ENVIRON reviewed the list of unmapped(or"orphan")properties included in the database report and verified that none were adjacent to the site. E. File Review Findings and Results ENVIRON contacted and/or conducted file reviews at the following agencies for the purpose of identifying recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property: - City of Huntington Beach Fire Department - City of Huntington Beach Building Department - City of Huntington Beach Planning Department - County of Orange Health Care Agency To the extent available for review,ENVIRON also reviewed historical documents(e.g., aerial photographs, topographic maps,fire insurance maps) at local agencies or through public sources. In general,these sources confirm the development of the site and surrounding properties for retail and commercial purposes,as described above. In addition,based on the information obtained from the file review efforts,no new substantive information pertaining to recognized environmental conditions for the site or adjoining properties was identified, except as noted below: ® The County of Orange Health Care Agency files contained a record from 1990 stating that, with regard to a tank removal at the site in 1988 (likely a 1,000-gallon waste oil UST), its position is that no significant soil contamination has occurred at the site(Appendix D-V). F. General Findings During the site visit,ENVIRON observed both the interior of the buildings and the exterior portions of the site, to the extent observable and accessible, to evaluate if environmental conditions, as defined in Chapter I, are present. The entire interior and the majority of the exterior of the property were walked, including an observation of the building roof. The intent of ENVIRON's HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V-S ENVIRON ATTACHMM . PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT limited visual survey was to identify indicators of potential sources/areas of environmental concern in order to obtain a representative understanding of site conditions. Consistent with the ASTM Standard,ENVIRON also made observations concerning each of the interior and exterior issues specified in Section 8.4.2 through 8.4.4 of the ASTM Standard. However,it should be noted that the site visit was conducted at night and poor outdoor lighting impacted ENVIRON's ability to conduct a detailed observation of outdoor conditions, including the parking lot, exterior areas of the building, and roof. The presence or absence of each issue of environmental interest or concern is noted in Table V-1. Only those areas of environmental interest or concern that were observed to be present at the property are discussed further in the text below. TABLE V-1 Summary of Site Reconnaissance Observations Issue Observation Containers of hazardous substances or petroleum products(non-retail sale) Present Unidentified containers suspected of containing hazardous substances or petroleum Absent products Chemical use on-site(non-janitorial) Present Storage tanks Underground storage tanks(e.g.,fill ports,vent pipes,dispensing units) Previously Present Aboveground storage tanks Present Potential mold precursors on interior floors,walls or ceilings(e.g.,water Present dams elstainin ,discolored building material surfaces) Stains or corrosion on interior floors,walls or ceilings(except for staining from water) Absent Polychlorinated bipbenyls(PCBs) alZn-ia 9q Pt&SCv f Electrical equipment interior(e.g.,capacitors,ligbt ballasts) Present ElecffcaI equipment eztenbi(e.g.,transformers) Present Hydraulic equipment on-site(e.g.,elevators,truck dock lifts) Present Potential mercury-containing equipment(e. .,thermostats,switches,fluorescent bulbs) Potentially Present Heating/coolie stems(possible Freons or other refrigerants) Present Floor drains and interior sumps Present Stained pavement(vehicle oil drips,1&-ddng hydraulic equipment) Present - Stained soil or stressed vegetation Absent Exposed exterior chemical or waste storage areas Present- On-site solid waste disposal(mounds or depressions suggesting disposal,debris piles, Absent areas apparently filled or graded by non-natural causes) Visible surface subsidence or soil erosion Absent Wells Absent Natural surface water bodies Absent Pits,ponds,lagoons,standing surface water or sumps Present Septic systems or cesspools Absent Odors(strong,pungent or noxious)indoor or exterior Absent Storm drains I Present Off-site discharges of wastewater,storm water or other liquids(compressor condensate Present or boiler blowdown)into a drain,retention nd,ditch or stream 1. Containers of Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products.(non-retail sale): Inside the warehouse area,ENVIRON observed storage of propane cylinders, which are used to power the HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V=6 ENVIRON ATTAcmiENT e _L U9 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT forklift and/or the sweeper machines. Additionally,ENVIRON observed approximately 30 one- gallon and smaller paint and cleaning containers, and two helium cylinders in various areas in the back of the store. No evidence of a spill or release was observed. 2. Chemical use on-site(non-janitorial): Inside the warehouse area,ENVIRON observed storage of propane cylinders, as described above. It is possible that garden personnel periodically apply pesticides, herbicides and/or insecticides to plants in the garden center, as these chemicals are sold in the store and are readily available. ENVIRON did not observe direct evidence of the use of garden-related chemicals for such purposes. 3. Underground Storage Tanks (USTs): According to the EDR report, the site is listed in the UST HIST and the State UST databases. Facility personnel reported that there are no USTs currently on-site, and ENVIRON did not observe infrastructure typical of USTs (e.g., fill ports, vent pipes or dispensing equipment). Although poor lighting conditions existed,ENVIRON noted a patched area on the paved surface outside the back wall of the building that may be indicative of a former UST. The possible presence of a previous UST is addressed in Section D, and its potential removal is described in Section E. 4. Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs): ENVIRON observed one fixed 100-pound propane tank (AST),five 20-pound propane tanks located in the garden center and one LPG cylinder exchange on a locked shelf located outside of the garden area with approximately 36 small tanks. The tanks appear to be in good condition. No visible stains were noted in the areas surrounding the tanks. 5. Potential Mold Precursors on Interior Floors,Walls or Ceilings: Water staining was observed at several locations inside the_store, generally on the ceilings and at the ceiling/wall interface. Approximately four areas were observed with water damage in the ceilings located in the storage areas in the back of the store during the site visit. An area in the central portion of the warehouse that seemed to be used to wash mops was observed as having standing water near a floor drain. Based on ENVIRON's observations, the presence of mold inside the building cannot be ruled out. Therefore,if the facility is to remain in its current condition, a survey for mold should be considered to assess the potential for mold impact at the facility. 6. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): ENVIRON observed approximately 2,000 fluorescent light bulbs and light fixtures (one light bulb per light fixture)inside the store. -Based on the suspected age of the building,the ballasts associated with these light fixtures might contain PCBs, and would require appropriate management should the lighting system be renovated/upgraded. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V-7 ENVIRON PRIMEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT One pad-mounted transformer was observed outside the western building wall in the back of the . store where material is being stored outdoors. However, due to the poor ambient lighting, an assessment regarding potential staining associated with the transformer could not be made. Given the suspected age of the building, the transformer could contain PCB-bearing fluid. It is unclear whether the transformer is owned by the facility or by the local utility. In addition,ENVIRON noted three hydraulic lifts and four drains in the former auto service center area. 7. Potential Mercury-containing Equipment: There are approximately 2,000 fluorescent light bulbs in use in the store, as described above. These bulbs may contain a small quantity of mercury. Should these bulbs require replacement,they should be properly managed in order to avoid breakage that might release mercury. 8. Heating/Cooling Systems: ENVIRON identified an HVAC unit during the site visit located on the second floor near the roof access. Information regarding the type and quantity of refrigerant present was not readily available. Due to low visibility conditions during the site visit, the number and condition of the cooling units could not readily be assessed. 9. Floor Drains and Interior Sumps: ENVIRON noted several floor drains in the store, including one drain located in the warehouse area that receives wash water for mops (standing water was observed near this floor drain). During the site visit,ENVIRON also observed four drains, apparently sealed,located in the former auto service center. The floor area within the former auto service center area could not be closely inspected because it is currently used as a warehouse. Facility personnel were not aware of discharge locations for these drains (i.e.,to a pit/sump, oil/water separator,or directly to the municipal sewer). 10.Stained Pavement (vehicle oil drips,lealdng hydraulic equipment): ENVIRON noted localized areas of exterior stained pavement around most of the frequently used parking spaces in the parking lot, as well as oil/grease staining on the concrete floor in the room formerly used as auto service center and in the adjacent room. These rooms are currently being used as storage areas and,therefore,could not be inspected completely for staining because stored materials covered the floor. However,ENVIRON noted three hydraulic lifts and four drains in the former auto service center area. 11.Exposed Exterior Chemical or Waste Storage Areas: ENVIRON observed wooden pallets, car batteries, computer monitors, cardboard boxes, and sealed cans of paint being stored HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V-8 ENVIRON ATTA T .Z() PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT outdoors, in the back of the store. However, due to the poor ambient lighting, an assessment regarding potential staining associated with the exposed materials could not be made. 12. Pits,Ponds,Lagoons,Standing Surface Water or Sumps: At the time of the site visit, ENVIRON observed hydraulic lift equipment components and associated pits in the former auto service center area, two adjacent square manholes located outside of the former auto service center entrance, and three grease traps located outside the store that appear to be connected to the cafe inside the store. 13. Storm Drains: Surface drainage flows toward drains located in the parking lot that discharge to at least two storm drains in the parking Iot(the exact number of storm drains could not be determined at night). 14. Off-site Discharges of Wastewater,Storm Water or Other Liquids: Off-site discharges of wastewater were not observed at the site. Off-site discharges of storm water are discussed above. G. Results of Limited Asbestos Survey and Sampling The asbestos survey for this site included collection of 34 samples of representative building materials from sixteen homogenous areas, as summarized in Table V-2. Based on PLM analysis, eleven of these homogenous areas contained asbestos. Because roofing materials were not sampled during this review, they are conservatively characterized as PACM_ The detailed ACM analytical report is presented in Appendix B. TABLE V-2 Results of Limited ACM Sam lin Material Description Number of Asbestos Approximate Samples Confirmed.' Quantity Floor file and black mastic, I'xl',off-white,with green specks. Included entire showroom and various areas throughout this building. 3 Yes Floor file and black mastic, i'xF,off-white,with green and light 2 Yes brown specks Floor tile and black mastic, l'x1',light brown,with brown specks 1 Yes —76,000 SF Floor file and black mastic,1'xI',off-white,with black specks I Yes Floor tile and black mastic,1'xl',black,with off-white specks 1 Yes Floor tile and black mastic, 1'xl',off-white,with light gray specks 1 Yes Floor file and black mastic, 1'xl',off-white,with brown specks 1 Yes Floor file and yellow mastic, 1'xl',off-white,with green and light 1 No None brown specks Floor file and yellow mastic, 1'xl',off-white,with black specks I No None Joint compound,off-white 7 Yes —19,500 SF Pipe insulation,elbow,2"OD,off-white 3 Yes <50 joints HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALWORNIA V-9 E N V I R O N PRIVII,EGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT TABLE V-2 Results of Limited ACM Sam ling Material Description Number of Asbestos Approximate Samples Confirmed? Quanti Cove base and brown-mastic,3",some gray,some dark brown 2 Yes <1,500 LF Ceiling tile and brown mastic, Vxl',white,with tan matrix,random 3 Yes -3,600 SF dots Ceiling tile,2'x4',white,with light gray matrix,textured I No -None Wallboard(drywall),white I No None Exterior stucco wall,off-white 5 No None Roofing materials 0 Presumed -96,000 SF Notes: LF=Linear feet;SF=Square feet Areas estimated by Panacea,Inc. Panacea,Inc. concluded that the majority of materials were non-friable and in good condition. The joint compound was classified as friable and in good condition. Although the joint compound contained greater than one percent asbestos (specifically, chrysotile),the wall system composite material of which it is a part is considered to be less than one percent chrysotile. As such,the joint compound is technically not considered an ACM by USEPA,but the facility must still comply with more stringent California OSHA regulations,which characterize trace quantities (i.e.,between 0.1% and I%, "asbestos-containing construction material"per regulatory definition) as ACM. Similarly,the pipe insulation joints are also considered to be friable ACM and in good condition. H. Recommendations ENVIRON has the following recommendations to address potential issues identified during this assessment. • Former USTs. Based on the EDR report,the site is listed in the CA UST and HLST UST databases. Based on information provided by the County Health Agency,however,it seems unlikely that the previous waste oil UST at the site adversely impacted environmental media at the site(although confirmatory data was not available). • Mold Precursors. Limited evidence of potential indicators of the presence of mold(e.g., near the drain inside the warehouse area used for mop washing and in the observed ceiling areas with water staining)were observed during ENVIRON's site visit. If the facility is to remain in its current condition, a survey for mold should be considered to assess the potential for mold impact at the facility. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V-10 E N V I R O N Pale PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT • Proper Handling of Potential PCB-containing Materials. Based on the suspected age of the building, the ballasts associated with fluorescent light fixtures might contain PCBs, and would require appropriate management should the lighting system be renovated/upgraded. • Proper Handling of Potential Mercury-containing Materials. Fluorescent light bulbs within the facility could contain a small quantity of mercury and should be properly managed in order to avoid breakage. • Heating/Cooling Systems Maintenance and Refrigerant Handling. The HVAC systems should be inspected to determine the refrigerant type and managed appropriately in future repair, upgrading or decommissioning. • Surficial Staining. ENVIRON noted localized areas of exterior stained pavement around most of the frequently used parking spaces in the parking lot,as well as oil/grease staining on the concrete floor in the room formerly used as auto service center and in the room adjacent. The presence of staining co-located with the former automotive center is cause for increased scrutiny and, therefore, further investigation may be warranted in these areas to assess whether this staining is associated with adverse impacts to environmental media at the site. • Exposed exterior materials and waste storage areas. ENVIRON observed wooden pallets,car batteries, computer monitors,cardboard boxes, and lidded cans of paint being stored outdoors, in the back of the store. These wastes should be discarded appropriately and the area inspected for evidence of spills or releases. • Sumps/Traps. ENVIRON observed lift equipment components and associated pits in the former auto service center area, two drains and two adjacent square manholes located outside of the former auto service center entrance, and three grease traps located outside the store that appear to be connected to the caf6 inside the store. Further investigation of the lift equipment components, pits, drains,manholes, and grease traps for presence of oil and its potential impact to the area surrounding each piece of equipment may be warranted. I. Conclusions Based on ENVIRON's review, several de minimis conditions were identified that may warrant further investigation,including the former UST, and the floor staining,lift components, drains and Sumps/traps associated with the former automotive service center. While nominal quantities of gardening-related constituents may be washed into on-site storm water management HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V-1 I ENVIRON T f HMW W. �Z. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK PRODUCT systems,the likelihood of significant on-site impacts would be considered low. ENVIRON's review of available database information did not indicate the presence of known areas of contamination on the property or evidence of adverse regulatory involvement with respect to soil and/or ground water conditions. However, several properties in the vicinity appear on databases indicative of potential environmental releases (e.g.,LUST, Cortese). Current operations were observed to be generally low-impact, with minimal use of chemicals. ENVIRON noted housekeeping at the facility to be generally good. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA V-12 E N V I R O N A T PANACEA , INC . WIN i47430 Fgmthm9fe LAMOOb� F. . 41WWI December 28, 2004 Ms.Tatyana Litovsky, Esq. Via Email Allen Matkins Leck Gamble &Mallory LLP 1900 Main Street, 5�h Floor Irvine, CA 92614 SUBJECT: Supplement Asbestos Survey Results for the Building Located at 19101 Magnolia Street, Huntington Beach, California Dear Ms. Litovsky: In response to your request and authorization, Panacea, Inc. (Panacea) personnel conducted a supplement survey at the above-referenced building. This supplemental survey.was conducted based on the previous survey report prepared by Panacea (Panacea, 2004). The results from previous survey were incorporated and updated as necessary in the attached Asbestos Survey Summary Table, Figure 1, and Figure 2. The objective, guidelines_ and terminology, and limitations from the previous survey report remained unchanged;therefore, not reiterated herein. Please accept this letter, attached-table, and figures as the survey report for this building. The table and figures will be incorporated into an Asbestos Statement of Work for bidding and abatement purposes. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (714) 228-1286. Very truly yours, PANACEA, INC. M Hsin H. Chou, CIH, REA, CAC Certification No. 92-0389 REFERENCE: Panacea, Inc. (Panacea), 2004. Final — Asbestos Survey for Kellogg-Huntington Beach Building, Huntington Beach, California. Panacea Project No. C04-465 — Huntington Beach, May 1, 2004. ATTACHMENTS: - Asbestos Survey Summary Table - Figures 1 and 2 - Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody Records Project No. C04-496C Page 1 of 1 ATTACMEW , 2 ' ® , Ao MEMEM 19101-B-001 FT=3%CH, Floor tile and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, --76;000 SF Included various areas throughout Unit#2. Nonfriable and in good condition.Several Px P FTs MAS=7%CH Px1',off-white,with green Room#2 were reported to contain asbestos in mastic only,For Priority No, specks estimation and future removal purposes,they were 4 included in the estimated quantity. 19101-13-002 NOT ANALYZED Floor tile and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-001. Nonfriable and in good condition.Sample not analyzed 1'x 1',off-white,with green Room#I because similar homogeneous samples reported Priority No, specks positive. 4 1 9 1 01-13-003 NOT ANALYZED Floor tile and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-001. Nonfriable and in good condition.Sample not analyzed 1'x I',off-white,with green Room#I because similar homogeneous samples reported Priority No, specks positive. 4 19101-B-004 FT=ND, Floor tile and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-001. Nonfriable and in good condition. MAS=10%CH Pxl',off-white,with green Room#1 Priority No, and light brown specks 4 19101-B-005 ND Floor tile and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, t'xl',off-white,with green Room#1 Priority No, and light brown specks 19101-B-006 ND Floor tile and yellow Ground floor,Unit#2, mastic, t'xl',off-white, Room#I Priority No. with green and light brown specks 19101-B-007 FT=2%CH, Floor the and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-13-001. Nonfriable and in good condition. MAS=5%CH 1'x 1',light brown,with Room#I Priority No. brown specks 4 19101-13-008 ND Floor tile and yellow Ground floor,Unit#2, mastic, 1'xP,off-white, Room#1 Priority No. with black specks 19101-B-009 FT=ND,MAS=S% Floor tile and black*mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-001. Nonfriable and in good condition, CH 1'xl',off-white,witi'black Room#1 Priority No. specks 4 ' " e o 0 0 ® 0 0, ®• D 00� MA TA r- 19101-B-010 FT=ND,MAS=5% Floor the and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-001. Nonfriable and in good condition. CH 1'xl',black,with off-white Room#1 Priority No. specks 4 19101-B-011 FT=ND, Floor tile and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-001. Nonfriable and in good condition. MAS=10%CH Pxl',off-white,with light Room#1 Priority No. gray specks 4 19101-B-012 FT=ND, Floor tile and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-001. Nonfriable and in good condition. MAS=10%CH I'xl',off-white,with Room#1 Priority No. brown specks 4 19101-B-013 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, —97,500 SF Included JC on wall and/or ceiling systems Friable and in good condition.JC>= 1%CH(or<1% COMP=<I%CH Room#2,behind light throughout Unit#2.Actual surface areas CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<1% Priority No. switch may be 2 to 5 times the floor area. CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. 19101-B-014 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-13-013. Friable and in good condition.JC>=1%CH(or<1% COMP=<1%CH Room#16,behind light CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<1% Priority No, switch CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. 19101-B-015 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-013. Friable and in good condition.JC>= I%CH(or<1% COMP=<1%CH Room#22 CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<1% Priority No, CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. 19101-13-016 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, outside Room#29 Priority No. 19101-B-017 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-013. Friable and in good condition.JC>=1%CH(or<1% COMP=<1%CH Room#40 CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<I% Priority No, CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. & 19101-B-018 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, >r- Room#42 Priority No, o • 049' ptillo ' 0 0 0 . VeCeMberlo Z00A ASBESTOS SUMMARY 19101-B-019 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, outside Room#54 Priority No. 19101-B-020 5%CH Pipe insulation,elbow,2" Mezzanine floor,Unit <100 joints Included pipe joints(elbows,tees,valves, Friable and in good condition. OD,off-white #2,above Room#6 ends,etc.)throughout various areas of this Priority No. building.Assumed<100 joints in this 3 building. 19101-B-021 NOT ANALYZED Pipe insulation,elbow,2" Mezzanine floor,Unit 0 included in 19101-B-020. Friable and in good condition.Sample not analyzed OD,off-white #2,above Room#14 because similar homogeneous samples reported Priority No. positive. 3 19101-B-022 NOT ANALYZED Pipe insulation,elbow,2" Mezzanine floor,Unit 0 Included in 19101-B-020. Friable and in good condition.Sample not analyzed OD,off-white #2,above Room#39 because similar homogeneous samples reported Priority No. positive. 3 19101-B-023 ND Wallboard(drywall),white Ground floor,Unit#2, Room#22 Priority No. 19101-B-024 ND Ceiling tile,2'x4',white, Ground floor,Unit#2, with light gray matrix, Room#1 Priority No. textured 19101-B-025 ND Exterior stucco wall,off- Ground floor, white northeastern portion,on .� Priority No. column 19101-B-026 ND Exterior stucco wall,off- Ground floor,eastern white. portion,on column Priority No, 19101-B-027 ND Exterior stucco wall,off- Ground floor,eastern white portion,on column Priority No, ASBESTOS SURZVEY SUMMARYTABLE' ..........W 19101-B-028 ND Exterior stucco wall,off- Ground floor, white southeastern portion,on Priority No. column 19101-B-029 ND Exterior stucco wall,off- Ground floor, white southeastern portion,on Priority No. column 19101-B-030 CB=ND, Cove base and brown Ground floor,Unit#2, <2,000 LF Included various types of cove base Nonfriable and in good condition.Not considered as MAS=<I%AN mastic,3",gray Room#10 throughout this building. ACM under EPA and Cal-OSHA regulations. Priority No, However,must comply with notification requirements 5 as ACCM. 19101-13-031 CB=ND, Cove base and brown Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-030. Nonfriable and in good condition,Not considered as MAS=<1%AN mastic,3",dark brown Room#32 ACM under EPA and Cal-OSHA regulations. Priority No, However,must comply with notification requirements 5 as ACCM. 19101-B-032 CT=ND, Ceiling tile and brown Ground floor,Unit#2, —3,900 SF Included various areas throughout Unit#2. Nonfriable and in good condition.Not considered as MAS=<I%AN mastic, 1'x 1',white,with Room#7 See Figure 1. ACM under EPA and Cal-OSHA regulations, Priority No, tan matrix,random dots However,must comply with notification requirements 5 as ACCM. 19101-B-033 CT=ND, Ceiling tile and brown Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-032. Nonfriable and in good condition.Not considered as MAS=<1%AN mastic, 1'xl',white,with Room#16 ACM under EPA and Cal-OSHA regulations. Priority No. tan matrix,random dots However,must comply with notification requirements 5 as ACCM. 19101-B-034 CT=ND, Ceiling tile and brown Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19.101-B-032. Nonfriable and in good condition.Not considered as 'N MAS=<I%AN mastic, 1'xl',white,with Room#48 ACM under EPA and Cal-OSHA regulations, Priority No. tan matrix,random dots However,must comply with notification requirements <;e 5 as ACCM. ' 19101-B-035 ND Rolled-on roofing material, Roof#1 _ horizontal surface,light. Priority No. gray,black matrix ,, , 19101-13-036 ND Rolled-on roofing material, Roof#I horizontal surface,light -; '- Priority No, gray,black matrix • - • 1� "� � e t a . s •- 1 tl ASS A• TABLE 19101-B-037 ND Rolled-on roofing material, Roof#1 horizontal surface,light Priority No, gray,black matrix 19101-B-038 ND Rolled-on roofing material, Roof#I vertical surface,light gray, Priority No. black matrix 19101-B-039 ND Rolled-on roofing material, Roof#I vertical surface,light gray, Priority No. black matrix 19101-B-040 ND Rolled-on roofing material, Roof#2 horizontal surface,light Priority No. gray,black matrix 19101-B-041 ND Plastic roof cement(roof Roof#1 mastic)and silver paint Priority No, sealant,black 19101-B-042 ND Plastic roof cement(roof Roof#1 mastic)and silver paint Priority No. sealant,black 19101-B-043 FM=ND, Flooring material and Mezzanine floor,Unit --50 SF Included mastic associated with flooring Nonfriable and in good condition.Not considered as MAS=<I%AN brown mastic,dark brown, #2,outside Room#57, material on stair steps outside Room#57. ACM under EPA and Cal-OSHA regulations. Priority No. with off-white streaks on stair step However,must comply with notification requirements 5 as ACCM. 19101-B-044 CB=ND, Cove base and brown Mezzanine floor,Unit 0 Included in 19101-13-030. Nonfriable and in good condition.Not considered as MAS=<1%AN mastic,6",dark brown, #2,outside Room#57, ACM under EPA and Cal-OSHA regulations. Priority No. with off-white streaks on stair tread However,must comply with notification requirements 5 as ACCM. 19101-B-045 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Mezzanine floor,Unit 0 Included in 19101-B-013. Friable and in good condition.JC x 1%CH(or<1% COMPxI%CH #2,Room#57,behind CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<1% Priority No. light switch CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. ASRESTOSA. e llzag 19101-B-046 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, outside Room#55 Priority No. 19101-B-047 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-013. Friable and in good condition.JC>= 1%CH(or<1% COMP=<I%CH Room#34 CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<I% Priority No. CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. 19101-13-048 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, Room#28 Priority No, 19101-B-049 JC-5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-013. Friable and in good condition.JC>=1%CH(or<1% COMP=<I%CH Room#31 CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<1% Priority No. CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. 19101-B-050 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-013, Friable and in good condition.JC>=1%CH(or<1% COMP-1%CH Room#I CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<I% Priority No. CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. 19101-B-051 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, outside Room#1 A Priority No. 19101-B-052 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-013. Friable and in good condition.JC>=1%CH(or<1% COMP=<I%CH outside Room#52 CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<1% Priority No. CH, Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. 19101-B-053 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-13-013. Friable and in good condition,JC>=1%CH(or<1% COMP=<1%CH Room#50,on ceiling CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<1% Priority No. CH, Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. 19101-B-054 JC=5%CH, Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#2, 0 Included in 19101-B-013, Friable and in good condition.JC>= 1%CH(or<1% COMP-<I%CH outside Room#40 CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<I% Priority No. CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. N Project0 14496 • • . • 1 0 . !' 1 2604 AS's Et ® +R + ® 19101-B-055 ND Linoleum and yellow Ground floor,Unit#2, mastic,off-white Room#38 Priority No. 19101-13-056, FT=ND,MAS=2% Floor tile and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#1, —19,500 SF Included Rooms#59,#61,#63,#64,#67, Nonfriable and in good condition.For estimation and CH I'xl',off-white,with light Room#59 and#68 of Unit#1. future removal purposes,FT was included in the Priority No, gray specks estimated quantity. 4 19101-B-057 ND Ceiling tile,2'x4',off- Ground floor,Unit#1, white,light gray matrix, Room#59 Priority No, smooth texture 19101-B-058 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#1, Room#59 Priority No. 19101-B-059 ND Ceiling tile,2'x4',white, Ground floor,Unit#l, light gray matrix,random Room#59 Priority No. crevices and holes 19101-B-060 ND Ceiling tile,TO',white, Ground floor,Unit#1, light gray matrix,smooth Room#59 Priority No. texture 19101•B-061 ND Floor tile and black mastic, Ground floor,Unit#I, 1'xl',off-white,with light Room#59 Priority No. gray specks 19101-B-062 ND Ceiling tile,2'x4',white, Ground floor,Unit#1, light gray matrix,random Room#59 Priority No. crevices and holes 19101-B-063 ND Joint compound,oft-white Ground floor,Unit#1, Room#68 Priority No. N • e o 14 . •o • 0 1 ®• e• 0 01� ABBEST, ® � ' 19101-B-064 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#1, Room#64 Priority No. 19101-B-065 ND Wallboard(drywall),white Mezzanine floor,Unit #1,Room#73 Priority No, 19101-B-066 ND Floor tile and black mastic Ground floor,Unit#1, and floor leveling Room#63 Priority No. compound,off-white,with light gray specks 19101-B-067 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#1, Room#61,behind outlet Priority No, 19101-B-068 ND Joint compound,off-white Ground floor,Unit#1, Room#67 Priority No. 19101-B-069 LN Linoleum and black Mezzanine floor,Unit —180 SF Included Rooms#70 and#71 of Unit#1. Nonfriable and in good condition. BACKING=70% mastic,off-white,orange #1,Room#70 Priority No. CH, square pattern 4 MAS=ASSUMED+ 19101-B-070 FT-2%CH, Floor tile and black mastic, Mezzanine floor,Unit —180 SF Included Rooms#69 and#72 of Unit#1. Nonfriable and in good condition. MAS=10%CH VxP,off-white,with green #1,Room#72 Priority No. specks 4 19101-B-071 CB=ND, Cove base and brown Mezzanine floor,Unit 0 Included in 19101-B-030, Nonfriable and in good condition.Not considered as MAS=<I%AN mastic,3",dark brown #1,Room#72 ACM under EPA and Cal-OSHA regulations. Priority No, However,must comply with notification requirements 5 as ACCM, 19101-B-072 ND Joint.compound,off-white Mezzanine floor,Unit #1,Room#70,behind Priority No. light switch a ® SURVEY SUMMARYa m OEM= I 19101-B-073 JC=3%CH, Joint compound,off-white Mezzanine floor,Unit —800 SF Included JC on wall and/or ceiling systems Friable and in good condition.JC>= I%CH(or<I% COMP=<I%CH #1,Room#73 throughout mezzanine of Unit#l.Actual CH),but as a wall system composite,assumed<1% Priority No. surface areas may be 2 to 5 times the floor CH. Not considered as ACM under EPA,but must 4 area, comply with Cal-OSHA regulations as ACM. 19101-B-074 ND Finish coat,off-white Ground floor, southwestern portion, Priority No. south wall 19101-B-075 ND Finish coat,off-white Ground floor, southwestern portion, Priority No. west wall 19101-B-076 ND Built-up roofing material, Roof#3 horizontal surface with Priority No. deck insulation,black matrix 19101-B-077 ND Built-up roofing material, Roof#3 horizontal surface with Priority No. deck insulation,black matrix 19101-B-078 ND Built-up roofing material, ,Roof#3 horizontal surface with Priority No. deck insulation,black matrix 19101-B-079 ND Rolled-on roofing material, Roof#3 vertical surface,light gray, Priority No. black matrix 19101-B-080 ND HVAC duct sealant Roof#3 material,beige Priority No. 19101-B-081 ND Finish coat,off-white Ground floor, northeastern portion,east Priority No. wall 0 v • 14 of 1Thursday,, I)• o• 0 014 • e • • ' • 'm 19101-B-082 ND Finish coat,off-white REM northeastern portion, Priority No, north wall 19101-B-083 ND Finish coat,off-white Ground floor,northern portion,north wall Priority No. NOTES (where applicable): 1. This summary table is intended to be used with the figures prepared by Panacea, Inc. Please refer to the figures for the room or area designations. 2. Estimated area covered and removal costs are intended for discussion and management purposes only.Actual square footage and removal costs may vary. Other asbestos-containing materials (ACMs)may be present in inaccessible areas of the building. 3. CH=chrysotile;AM=amosite; CR=crocidolite;AN=anthophyllite;TR=tremolite;AC=actinolite; ND = none detected; <1% =trace amount of asbestos. 4. HVAC=heating,ventilation,and air conditioning unit; FP=floor plan; OD=outside diameter; LF=linear feet; SF=square feet; approximately; 'W'= less than;">"=greater than; OH=overhang;TEM=transmission electron microscopy;"+"=positive,"x"=times. 5. FM=flooring material; FT=floor tile; MAS=mastic;LN= linoleum;CB=cove base;CBM =cove base and mastic;SP=silver paint sealant; DS =duct sealant; RM=roofing material; PRC=plastic roof cement; FLC=floor leveling compound; CT=ceiling tile. 6. JC=asbestos concentration for joint compound; COMP=assumed asbestos concentrations for the composited system (walls and/or ceiling)consisting of wallboard (drywall)and joint compound, Estimated area covered for joint compound and other wall material is based on the floor area.Actual square footage of the composite wall and/or ceiling system can vary from 2 to 5 times the floor area. 7. ACCM= asbestos-containing construction material. 8. EPA=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Cal-OSHA= California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. �N N A SPECIAL NOTES; 1,<100 asbestos-containing pipe Joints were assumed to be present LEGEND(Where Applicable) throughout various areas of this building,Pipe Joints included elbows, 0 Bulk Semple Laatlan(N/p111a( lees,valves,ends,etc, Is Bulk'%Sa Location(PosOn. 2,Brown cove base mastic observed throughout this building contains out Sample Lsadin(PpeIIM, <t°//asbestos. ■ >1%Awestoi) Semple Not M"O Because A 'a, Homppenem Sample Was ReWed m WBrown mastic associated with flooring material �FaAebesles(Pa""'Blpe In this 8fe8 contain>�%asbestos. M Melzs*r Sample 1ppatton m MFII.WINE ,,, Mn VAh Aebelles•Conte4,lnp.W# J Cpmpwldht%Mbnlpel.Aee 3 ra /n 171 � "— L-��-� Conpske WUICIPdnpSyMvm,Ab all eu M Aslumed b CpnWn 41%Asbestos. JJJJ/J///JJ/r/JJr ,j( 1 Ne FkfaTIlvMBbpkMestle>1X Mr? M 11 M> Aasebce3c3 Abtel i) —" �r/J/ / ell // , J lk Ont/(>I%Atbehnl ,�Jr/r//rr PW&/ck Mask[Assumed PosM.) ell/,r,//Jrr,,r//rr////// J,,,r/r/r/rrr,Jrr,rr// /rr �1 ev I Bman Mnik(</%AebeeM) Amdatld Wdh W conlq TSe ri,J/oJ,J/JJrJ rJV J,rr rr� rr pi n� (Han Mted) rr,//rrrr//rrr/rrrr/rr/r♦rr r rr//rJ JJ/r/Jrrr Jrrr JrrrrrJ r.J,J/,////r GENERAL NOTES ir„/,/,r/rr/Jrr J,rr/r/,/r/ n 1.MkgBan we epppgmpb.No eceM J//,rrr Jr//J/rrrr rJ rrrrrJrr 2 But map obbkredfmnprop"menapemeri 3.Roan numbers or emt deeVaM Me i ♦/Jr JI r JJJr J/rrlrrrr/rrrJ iir//r/rJJ/rJ/JJJ/r/r/r/J/r xbMnrly aeelBn3d kfdban3kn Wryoler ,r rrr,/rrrrr/JJrrrrrr/Jrr, r ,JJJrrr/rr//r/rr/JJ/r//J/ /rrr Jr rrr///Jrr//,r J,/,///r w Jri JJ/J/Jrr Jr//Jr/r/r.J./r/ 1,SBmpbmwn ery are Vir"M(eg..%W*mmo Jrr/rr////r/rarr//r lawaftwn/J/,r//r/J,r/ W1Is WA f (BLOO ND.}B-00lbihalenadb8lJ. S.011w ssbeWs-em"melerleb may to iiiiiii Ur iii 1 plevent In In"Nuft sell of the buldklp. I i IIJJr Ir///rJ////rr/r.aJ male i/iJiirrr rJrr//rrr/J S,MuMple WM allalbatee•lanl mpW*may be planK 4`P1:k PANACEA, INC. UNIT.#1 ®-�-� - UNIT#2 -� !!?s3t EnNronmentat Services SULX Smou LOCATIONS FLOOR PLAN 19101 MAONOUA STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA • PROJECT NO, CD4.4*C I FIGURE t A SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY.REVBION NO,1 \V S� N A LEGEND(Where Applicable) 0 Bulk Simple Lowden(Ntptlhvl natty wvn eN ,°„ eoorn xn � MI � NI 0 a0011 Y GENERAL NOTES 0 1.All lomoone ale approximate.140 scale xntn or dhesmlon a hnplled, xe 0 2.one map O*Inw Iron properly menpenwd. NI m 3.Roan number;or arse detlpnelbnt ere eIbRmrdy osvV d for dbantlen papa ro D asap 0 /,Semple ratmom we sWened M pnphle en all VjWw sample numb A m m m t0 [BLtOO N0,"I IIIlhMened ro Bl} er S,Other nbettotmdNnblp malelleb may be present In InaaeNbte areas of the bulldN. NO ACM DETECTED ON THE ROOF AND EXTERIOR OF THIS BUILDING S,MUNDle layendeabetloetanlahkp Wng metedale may be present nFCii PANACEA, INC. Env/ronmental Services BULK BAMPLE LOCATIONS ROOF AND EKTERKM PLAN 19101 MAGNOLIA STREET HUNTNGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA � -�PlT=- 004490C FIGURELEMENTAL SURVEY-REVISION NO.1 Forensic Analytical Fing Report Bulky Asbestos Analysis (EPA Method 600/R 93-116,Visual Area Fstimation) Panacea Inc. Client ID: 5572 W.Hsin Chou Report Number: B060465 Date Received: 04/29/04 14700 Firestone Blvd,Ste 1 I 8 Date Analyzed: 04/29/04 La Mirada,CA 90639 Date Printed: 04/30/04 First Reported: 04/30/04 Job ID/Site: C04-465,Kellog Buildings FASI Job ID: 5572-461 Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Number Type Layer Type Layer Type Layer 19101-13-1 50215693 Layer.Off-White Tile Cbrysotile 3 % Layer.Black Mastic Chrysotile 7% Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(3%) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-2 50215694 Comment: Sample not analyzed due to prior positive result in series. Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-3 50215695 Comment: Sample not analyzed due to prior positive result in series. Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-4 50215696 Layer:Off-White Tile ND Layer; Gold Mastic ND Layer. Black Mastic Chrysotile 10% Total Composite Values ofFbrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) Celluiose.(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-5 50215697 Layer:Off-White Tile ND Layer.Black Mastic ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 C- ATTACHMMT W. IQ9 2959 Pacific Commerce Drive,Rancho Dominguez,California 90221-5729 Telephone:31W63-2374 BBV813-9417 fax:MW63-8684 Forensic Analytical Fines Report Bulk Asbestos Analysis (EPA Method 600/R-93-1 I6,Visual Area Estimation) Panacea Inc. Client ID: 5572 Mr.Hsin Chou Report Number: B060465 Date Received: 04/29/04 14700 Firestone Blvd,Ste 118 Date Analyzed: 04/29/04 La Mirada,CA 90638 Date Printed: 04/30/04 First Reported: 04/30/04. Job ID/Site: C04-465;Kellog Buildings FASI Job ID: 5572-461 Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Number Type Layer Type Layer Type Layer 19101-B-6 50215698 Layer. Off-White Tile ND Layer. Gold Mastic ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-7 50215699 Layer: Off-White Tile Chrysotile 2% Layer Black Mastic Chrysotile 5% Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos{2%) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-8 50215700 Layer: Off-White Tile ND Layer. Gold Mastic ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-9 50215701 Layer. Off-White Tile ND Layer. Gold Mastic ND Layer. Black Mastic Chrysotile 5% Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/2712004 ATTACHMEW . 2959 Pacific Commerce Drive,Rancho Dominguez,California 40221-5724 Telephone:310/763-2374 888/813-9417 fax:310/763-8684 2 of 9 Finis Deport Forensic Analytical "ulk Asbestos Analysis (EPA Method 600/R-93-116,Visual Area Estimation) Panacea Inc. Client ID: 5572 Mr.Hsin Chou Report Number: B060465 Date Received: 04/29/04 14700 Firestone Blvd,Ste 118 Date Analyzed: 04/29/04 La Mirada,CA 90638 Date Printed: 04/30/04 First Reported: 04/30/04 Job ID/Site: C04-465,Kellog Buildings FASI.Lob ID: 5572-461 Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in . Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Number Type Layer Type Layer Type Layer 19101-B-10 50215702 Layer.Black Tile ND Layer. Gold Mastic ND Layer.Black Mastic Chrysotile 5% Total-Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 101-B-11 50215703 Layer.Off-White Tile ND Layer.Gold Mastic ND Layer.Black Mastic Chrysotile 10% Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-13-12 50215704 Layer:Off-White Tile ND Layer_Gold Mastic ND Layer.Black Mastic Chrysotile 10% Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-R-13 50215705 Layer. Off-White Skimcoat/Joint Compound Chrysotile 5% Layer. Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(5%) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 17 A WENT W .TTM- 3 Of 9 2959 Pacific Commerce Drive,Rancho Dominguez,California 90221-5729 Telephone_310/763-2374 888/813-9417 Fax:3101763-8684 Final Report Forensic Analytical Bulk Asbestos Analysis (EPA Method 600/R-93-116,Visual Area Estimation) Panacea Inc. Client 1D: 5572 Mr.Hsin Chou Report Number: B060465 Date Received: 04l29l04 14700 Firestone Blvd,Ste 118 Date Analyzed: 04/29/04 La Mirada,CA 90638 Date Printed: 04/30/04 First Reported: 04/30/04 Job ID/Site: C04-465,Kellog Buildings FAST Job ID: 5572-461 Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Number Type Layer Type Layer Type Layer 19101-B-14 50215706 Layer:Off-White Sldmcoat/Joint Compound Chrysotile 5% Layer:Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(5%) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-15 50215707 Layer: Off-White Skimcoat/Joint Compound Chrysotile 5%. Layer.Brown Mastic Anthophyllite Trace Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(5%) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-16 50215708 Layer:Off-White Skimcoat/Joint Compound ND Layer.Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-17 50215709 Layer:Off-White Skimcoat/Joint Compound Chrysotile 5% Layer.Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(5%) Cellulose('race) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 e 2959 Pacific Commerce Drive,Rancho Dominguez,California 90221-5729 Telephone:310/763-2374 888/813-9417 Fax:370l763-8684 4 of 9 Forensic Analytical final Report Bulk Asbestos Analysis (EPA Method 600/R-93-116,Visual Area Estimation) Panacea Inc. Client ID: 5572 Mr.Hsin Chou Report Number: B060465 Date Received: 04/29/04 14700 Firestone Blvd,Ste 118 Date Analyzed: 04/29/04 La Mirada,CA 90638 Date Printed: 04/30/04 First Reported: 04/30/04 Job ID/Site: C04-465,Kellog Buildings FASI Job ID: 5572-461 Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Number Type Layer Type Layer Type Layer 19101-B-18 50215710 Layer. Off-White Skimcoat/Joint Compound ND Layer.Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Comment Collected on 04/27/2004 1101-B-19 50215711 Layer:Off-White Slamcoat/Joint Compound ND Layer.Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-20 50215712 . Layer.Beige Semi-Fibrous Material Chrysotile 5% Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(5%) Cellulose(2%) Fibrous Glass(20%) Comment Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-21 50215713 Comment: Sample not analyzed due to prior positive result in series. Collected on 04/27/2004 19I01-B-22 50215714 Comment: Sample not analyzed due to prior positive result in series. Collected on 04/27/2004 ATTACH% Low 2959 Pacific Commerce Drive,Rancho Dominguez,California 90221-5729 Telephone:310/763-2374 8881813-9417 Fax:310/763-86M 5 of 9 Forensic Analytical Final Report Bulk Asbestos Analysis (EPA Method 600/R-93-116,Visual Area Estimation) Panacea Inc. Client ID: 5572 Mr.Hsin Chou Report Number: B060465 Date Received: 04/29/04 14700 Firestone Blvd,Ste 118 Date Analyzed: 0429/04 La Mirada,CA 90638 Date Printed: 04/30/04 First Reported: 04/30/04 Job ID/Site: C04-465,Kellog Buildings FASI Job ID: 5572-461 Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Number Type Layer Type Layer Type Layer 19101-B-23 50215715 Layer: White Drywall ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(2°lo) Fibrous Glass(5%) Comment: Collected on 0427/2004 19101-B-24 50215716 Layer.Beige Fibrous Material ND Layer.Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(45) Fibrous Glass(35%) Comment: Collected on 0427/2004 19101-B-25 50215717 Layer.Grey Plaster ND Layer.White Coating ND Layer.Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Fibrous Glass(2%) Wollastonite(2%) Comment: Collected on 04/272004 19101-B-26 50215718 Layer.Grey Plaster ND Layer.White Coating ND Layer:Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Fibrous Glass(2%) Wollastonite(Trace) Comment: Collected on 0427/2004 ATTAcmEw . 2959 Pacific Commerce Drive,Rancho Dominguez,California 90221-5729 Telephone:310/763-2374 888/813-9417 Fax:310/763-8684 6 of 9 Final Report Forensic Analytical 4P Bulk Asbestos Analysis (EPA Method 600/R-93-116,Visual Area Estimation) Panacea Inc. Client ID: 5572 Mr.Hsin Chou Report Number: B060465 Date Received: 04/29/04 14700 Firestone Blvd,Ste 118 Date Analyzed: 04/29/04 La Mirada,CA 90638 Date Printed: 04/30/04 First Reported: 04/30/04 Job ID/Site: C04-465,Kellog Buildings FASI Yob ID: 5572-461 Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Number Type Layer Type Layer Type Layer 19101-B-27 50215719 Layer. Grey Plaster ND Layer.White Coating ND Layer.Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Fibrous GIass(2%) Wollastonite(2%) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 .01-B-28 50215720 Layer.Grey Plaster ND Layer.White Coating ND Layer.Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Fibrous Glass(2%) Wollastonite(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-29 50215721 Layer_Grey Plaster ND Layer_White Coating ND Layer:Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(ND) Cellulose(Trace) Fibrous Glass(2%) Wollastonite(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-30 50215722 Layer. Grey Non-Fibrous Material ND Layer:Beige Mastic ND Layer.Brown Mastic Anthophyllite Trace Layer. Paint ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) '.ellulose('Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 ATTACHMEW NO. 2-2Pz 7 7 0r9 2959 Pacific Commerce Drive;Rancho Dominguez,California 90221-5729 Telephone:3101763-2374 88MI3-9417 Fax:310/763-8684 Forensic Analytical &dal Report M - Bulk Asbestos Analysis (EPA Method 600/R-93-116,Visual Area Estimation) Panacea Inc. Client ID: 5572 Mr.Hsin Chou Report Number: B060465 Date Received: 04/29/04 14700 Firestone Blvd,Ste 118 Date Analyzed: 04/29/04 La Mirada,CA 90638 Date Printed: 04/30/04 First Reported: 04/30/04 Job ID/Site: C04-465,KelIog Buildings FASI Job ID: 5572-461 Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Number Type Layer Type Layer Type Layer 19101=B-31 50215723 Layer.Brown Non-Fibrous Material ND Layer.Brown Mastic Anthophyllite Trace Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) Cellulose(Trace) Talc(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-32 50215724 Layer.Tan Fibrous Material ND Layer.Paint ND Layer.Brown Mastic Anthophyllite Trace Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) Cellulose(M Vu) Talc(Trace) Comment:-Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-33 50215725 Layer.Tan Fibrous Material ND Layer.Paint- ND Layer.Brown Mastic Anthophyllite Trace Layer.Tan Mastic ND Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) Cellulose(85%) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 19101-B-34 50215726 Layer.Tan Fibrous Material ND Layer.Paint ND Layer: Brown Mastic Anthophyllite Trace Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components: Asbestos(Trace) Cellulose(75%) Talc(Trace) Comment: Collected on 04/27/2004 2959 Pacific Commerce Drive,Rancho Dominguez,California 90221-5729 Telephone:310/763-2374 8881813-9417 Fax:310/763-8684 8 Of 9 onForensic Analytical Final Report ulk Asbestos Analysis (EPA Method 600/R-93-116,Visual Area Estimation) Panacea Inc. Client ID: 5572 Mr.Hsin Chou Report Number: B060465 Date Received: 04/29/04 14700 Firestone Blvd,Ste 118 Date Analyzed: 04/29/04 La Mirada,CA 90638 Date Printed: 04/30/04 First Reported: 04/30/04 Job ID/Site: C04-465,Kellog Buildings FAST Job ID: 5572-461 Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Number Type Layer Type Layer Type Layer Steven Takahashi,Laboratory Supervisor,Rancho Dominguez Laboratory Note:Limit of Quantification MOQ)=I%.Trace'denotes the presence of asbestos below the LOQ.ND'=None Detected'. �alytical results and reports are generated by Forensic Analytical at the request of and for the exclusive use of the person or entity(client)named on such report.Results, rts or copies of same will not be released by Forensic Analytical to any third party without prior written request from client-This report applies only to the sample(s) Md.Supporting laboratory documentation is available upon request.This report must not be reproduced except in full,unless approved by Forensic Analytical.The client is solely responsible for the use and interpretation of test results and reports requested from Forensic Analytical.This report must not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US.Government.Forensic Analytical is not able to assess the degree of hazard resulting from materials analyzed. Forensic Analytical reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty(30)days,according to all state and federal guidelines,unless otherwise specified. All samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted. ATTACMMT NO. f 9 2959 Pacific Commerce Drive,Rancho Dominguez,California 90221-5729 Telephone:310/763-2374 8"13-9417 Fax 310/763-8684 o CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD PANACEA,a N C. tt Date: y 12,;/�-•r C Project Manager. t)C n t-t.;. Page: ► of: Z 14700 Firestone Blvd.,Suite 118 Project No.: La Mirada,CA 90638 Project Name: f S Tel.(714)228-1286 Sampled By: rJ,r v Fax(714) 228-1248 Shipped To: 1 �, by: SAMPLE SAMPLING PRESERVATION CONTAINER SAMPLE ANALYSES REQUIRED NUMBER DATE t TIME METHOD TYPEISIIZE MATRIX PLM r - v `t rct.a f �? EL ►S f E OTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES dW F..1 i' COMMENTS: Return signed chain-of-custody forms with final report(s).Fax results as soon as possible. FTM=floor the and mastic:LNM=linoleum and mastic CBM=cove base and mastiff CTM=ceiling tile and mastic DWJ=wallboard and pant compound:ML=other multiple-layered materials. P.;J. rrr:�ci.r� )�:c.f 2{ �r•t7=`' j)uS: jv 4:f Relinquished By: _ r '� �rr� Company: Date. Time: Received By: _ Company:- j S� Date: ?��Li rime: Rel•nquished By: Company. Date: Time: Received By: Company. Date: Time: Relinquished By: Company Date: Time: Received By: Company: Date: Time: R.vi.M-O IWI e �'. CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD �1 PANACEA,I N C. Date: Project Manager. f 4,;,n `l�. Page: of: 2 14700 Firestone Blvd-,Suite 118 Project Na.: ('ry-of s La Mirada.CA 90638 Project Name: _rt<< �ta, Tel.(714)228-1286 Sampled By: "ern_ v Fax(714)228-1248 Shipped To: F„R (�„; by: SAMPLE SAMPLING PRESERVATION CONTAINER SAMPLE ANALYSES REQUIRED NUMBER DATE r TIME METHOD TYPEISIZE MATRIX PLM fait► h" z z'I .• �rTcr �,.{<.� �j.1 V" i raia .e C. '7 �a :rlt �•( a^t 31 sl f ; / � / ! i TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES 3v F•'� i�c i•3 = Sr r `f f"'� ::7•> ""° v COMMENTS: Return signed chain -of �g study forms with final report(s).Fax results as soon as possible.FTM=floor file and mastic LNM=fmdeum and mastic;CBM=cave base and mastiff rrrt ..t•1 l?. CTM=ceiling tile and masti-,DWJ=wallboard and joint compound;ML=other multiple-layered materials. Relinquished BY: �i .1 f Company. -7.•. Date: ' -Zc j, Time: Received By: �. •- 6Q Company: 11Zi•-•y Date: ( j 1# Time: X3 Relinquished By Company: Date: Time: Received By Company: Date: Time: Relinquished By: Company: Date: Time: Received By: Company Date: Time: Rovlaiq..OStd�t 8nJ r , ?., _ . n_. , a. BOLLARD ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS , INC . IN Acoustics Vibration Noise Control Engineering January 23,2006 Mr.Art Lucas Lars Andersen&Associates,Inc. 4630 W.Jacquelyn Ave,Suite 119 Fresno,CA 93722 Subject: Comparison of Compaction Grouting and Stone Column construction methods at Huntington Beach Home Depot Store. Dear Mr.Lucas: Pursuant to the request from the City of Huntington Beach,this letter has been prepared to provide additional descriptions of the Compaction Grouting and Stone Column construction methods. This letter was developed with input from the project Geotechnical Engineer(The Twining Laboratories, Inc.), and on research conducted by Bollard Acoustical Consultants. The following descriptions have been provided to summarize the equipment and procedures for two (2) alternative methods being considered for deep ground improvement to reduce the potential impacts from liquefaction related settlements for the proposed Home Depot structure at the subject site. In addition, a summary of the potential vibration and noise impacts to adjacent properties is discussed. It is our understanding the following descriptions will be used by the Home Depot design team to evaluate which method of ground improvement would result in the least impact to adjacent properties. General Description ofEquipment and Procedures used for Compaction Grouting Techniques for Liquefaction Mitigation In brief, compaction grouting involves the injection of cement grout under high pressures at individual locations over an evenly spaced grid pattern across the entire building area and beyond. The purpose of the grout injection is to laterally densify the loose soils which are susceptible to seismic settlement and thereby decrease the liquefaction and seismic settlement potential of the densified layers. For liquefaction mitigation, this process typically involves construction of compaction grout locations on a uniform square-grid pattern of about 6 to 10 feet on center. This treatment is conducted to a depth necessary to densify the soils that are subject to liquefaction over a plan area that includes the entire building footprint and areas of adjacent appurtenances. For this project,the treatment area is anticipated to be about 150,000 square feet. 1293 Lincoln Way,Suite A - Auburn,CA 95603 - Phone:(530)745-0550 - Fax:(530)745-0551 - BACNOiSECOM ATTACWMT NO, �� Compaction grout involves installation of a grout pipe into the subsurface soils. The grout pipe is generally installed by a combination of drilling and driving a steel casing into the ground. The casing is then used as a conduit for the grout pipe to inject grout from the bottom of the casing at high pressures up to the top of the soil layer to be densified. The grout pipe is slowly raised from the ground as the grout is injected, so that the pressure used to force the grout into the ground induces lateral compaction effort to the subsurface soils. At the completion of an individual compaction grout column, subsequent columns are constructed throughout the process until all . columns are installed and the required densification is obtained. The equipment used to extend the grout pipe into the ground is a specialized unit that typically has. the appearance of a crane or a bull dozer with a frame attachment used to mechanically or hydraulically advance the grout pipe and/or casing. For the purposes of this letter,this equipment is referred to as the injection rig. Heavier injection rigs are generally required as the depth of ground improvement increases. Due to the depth of the ground improvement required for this site,the injection rig equipment demands will be high. In order to pump the grout at the high pressures required, a large air compressor is generally used. Based on the total volume of grout anticipated for this project,the grout will be mixed in an onsite batch plant,which will include silos of cement and stockpiles of aggregate (sand and gravel)and water supply. The batch plant will mix-the cement grout, which consists of water, cement and aggregate. Equipment such as a front end loader and cement mixing equipment are used for proportioning and mixing the cement grout. The cement grout will then be pumped through hoses to the location of the injection rig,through the grout pipe and into the ground. Supporting equipment often includes a generator,drill rig,tractor-trailers,air supply tank and air compressors. General Description of Equipment and Procedures used for Stone Columns Installation for Liquefaction Mitigation The Stone Column technique for soil densification consists of compaction of aggregate(i.e,sand and gravel)into underlying site soil strata. Compaction of the aggregate results in densification of the surrounding soil strata using specially designed equipment. For liquefaction mitigation,this process typically involves construction of stone columns on a uniform,square-grid pattern of about S to 10 feet on center: The Stone Column equipment consists of a base machine which includes a low frequency vibratory hammer,aggregate hopper,casingpipe,and Iifting bucket,that is fed aggregate by a front end loader. The base machine looks similar in appearance to a crane such as those used for pile driving. Additional equipment includes a generator, air supply tank, and air compressor that are usually mounted to the base machine. The operating procedure consists of positioning the base machine in the location of the proposed column, inserting the casing pipe below the ground surface to the required depth, and starting construction of the stone column. The casing pipe is then loaded with aggregate,the casing pipe is inserted below the ground surface to the desired depth, and the aggregate is released through the bottom ofthe casing pipe into the ground by using compressed air. The casing pipe is then vertically Page 2 of 4 2.2 �.� � �f1mmT ta -- r raised approximately ten(10)feet,allowing the aggregate to drop into the resulting void space. The casing pipe is then vibrated and pushed into the newly placed aggregate, thereby compacting the aggregate and densifying the surrounding soil. This process is repeated until the column is constructed throughout the treatment depth. Upon completion of one column,subsequent columns are installed until all columns are completed and the desired densification is obtained. Summary of Noise and Vibration Impacts The intent of the following summary is to discuss the potential for noise and vibration impacts to adjacent properties for further evaluation by a specialist in this field. The impacts discussed herein are not intended to address impacts caused to workmen within the limits of the subject property. It is our understanding the proposed Home Depot property is bordered by a mix of residential and commercial property. Based on information provided by the project civil engineers(Lars Andersen), the proposed Home Depot structure is located about 160 feet from the adjacent Blockbuster retail store and about 60 feet from the property line bordering a residential development. It is our understanding no structures are located within about 75 feet of the proposed Home Depot(LA to confirm). Based on the limits of the deep ground improvement recommended in the geotechnical report, the source of the machinery generating the highest noise and/or ground vibrations is not anticipated to be closer than 50 feet from the nearest property line during production. The following summary of potential noise and vibration impacts has been prepared based on this understanding. As with any construction activity,noise is generated during activities such as compaction grouting and stone column installation. The noise levels are generally attributed to the actual equipment type rather than the ground improvement method (i.e.,depending on the equipment used, compaction grouting may be noisier,or stone column installation may be noisier). As a result of the variables surrounding both construction types, it is difficult to project which process will be louder. In addition,although one method may generate lower noise emissions than another,the quieter method may require a greater duration to complete,thereby extending the duration of the construction noise generation. Based on the December 2004 report "Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites"from DEFRA(Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs), the noise level ofthe stone column construction method was measured to be 84 dB at 20 feet.Moore and Taber, soil grouting and ground improvement specialists, report that compaction grouting activities were measured to be 88 dB at 20 feet from the operating equipment. Assuming that these activities will occur about 60+ feet from the nearest residential property line,noise generation of these methods would range from approximately 70-75 dB,at the adjacent properties. These data indicate that there is not a substantial acoustic difference between the two construction types. Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMM o - During the compaction grouting and stone column installation,ground vibrations are induced when the casing is driven and/or pushed into the ground and ground vibrations in areas adjacent to air compressors occur. Comparatively, ground vibrations are also induced during compaction of the stone columns. In our experience,the ground vibrations generated at the source from compaction grouting are less than when compared with conventional stone column techniques. However, vibration levels reduce with increased distance from the source of the vibration.Given the distance of the work area from the property line,the perceptible vibration levels from typical equipment used to install stone columns may not be greater than typical equipment used for compaction grouting. Summary The acoustic literature cited indicates that there is not an appreciable acoustic difference between the two types of construction being considered for this project, with noise levels predicted to be approximately 70 -75 dB at the nearest residences to the west while the construction activities are at their closest positions to those residences. These levels are within the range normally associated with construction activities (i.e. earthmoving equipment, demolition equipment, etc.). Finally, vibration levels associated with either of these construction types are anticipated to be well below the range required for damage to structures. Respectfully Submitted, Paul Bollard Paul Bollard,President Bollard Acoustical Consultants Page 4 of 4 JATT-A. BOLLARD ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Acoustics Vibration b. Noise Control Engineering January 23,2006 Mr. Art Lucas Lars Andersen&Associates,Inc. 4630 W.Jacquelyn Ave,Suite 119 Fresno,CA 93722 Subject: Nighttime compliance of rear parldng area activities at Huntington Beach Home Depot Store. Dear Mr.Lucas: In reviewing the most recent correspondence for this project,it was noted that nighttime parking activities could exceed the City's noise ordnance. This statement was developed from the noise analysis prepared by our company for this project(last paragraph on page 16 of our report dated October 28,2005). In that analysis,we noted that noise from those rear parking spaces could reach 53 dB L50 and 73 dB Lmax at the property line of the adjacent residences to the west if each parking stall behind the store were to empty and fill during a worst-case nighttime hour. Although this situation was considered to be unlikely,the levels indicated that such an event could result in exceedance of the 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax nighttime noise level limits at the adjacent residences. The conclusion that the nighttime standards may be exceeded by 3 dB included shielding provided by an existing 6-foot tall wall. However,the project mitigation calls for increasing the height of the property line wall to 8 feet. Using our noise barrier insertion loss program,we determined how effective the 8-foot wall would be in reducing parking lot noise levels in the nearest backyards. Because noise barrier effectiveness is a fimction of the proximity of the receiver to the barrier,we conducted an iterative barrier analysis to determine the worst case location in the back yard(i.e. the location where the combination of distance and barrier shielding would yield the highest parking lot noise levels anywhere on the adjacent residential property). Our analysis indicates that,with the proposed 8-foot tall wall,the highest noise level received anywhere within the adjacent residential properties to the west would occur with the receiver at a distance of 5 feet west of the wall. At this position,parking lot noise is predicted to be attenuated by the 8-foot tall barrier to 45 dB L50 and 55 dB Lmax(attachment). 1293 Lincoln Way,Suite A - Aubum,CA 95603 - Phone:(530)7454)550 Fax:(530)745-0551 - BACNO1SE.COM Al [ , The predicted levels with the 8-foot tall barrier are in compliance with the nighttime noise level limit during nighttime parking activities in the rear parking lot. Therefore,no additional parking lot noise mitigation measures would be required for this project. Respectfully Submitted, Paul Bollard Paul Bollard,President Bollard Acoustical Consultants AC . Attachement A Barrier Insertion Loss Calculation Project Information: Job Number. 2004-279 Project Name: Huntinton Beach Home Depot Location(s): Rear Parking Area Noise Level Data: Source Description: Parking Lot Noise Source Noise Level,dBA: 55 Source Frequency(Hz): 500 Source Height(ft): 5 Site Geometry: Receiver Description: Nearest Property Lines Source to Barrier Distance(C,): 9 Barrier to Receiver Distance(C2): 5 Pad/Ground Elevation at Receiver: 0 Receiver Elevation: 5 Base of Barrier Elevation: 0 Starting Barrier Height 0 Barrier Effectiveness: Top of Barrier Barrier Height Barrier Breaks Line of Site to Elevation(ft) (ft) Insertion Loss,dB Noise Level,dB Source? 0 0 0.0 55.0 No . 1 1 0.0 55.0 No 2 2 0.0 55.0 No 3 3 -0.4 54.6 No 4 4 -2.9 52.1 No 5 5 -5.0 50.0 No 6 6 -6.2 48.8 Yes 7 7 -8.6 46.4 Yes 8 8 -10.5 i Yes 9 9 -12.3 42.7 Yes 10 10 -13.5 41.5 Yes Notes: 1.Standard receiver elevation is five feet above grade/pad elevations at the receiver locations) BOLLARD Acoustical Comultarts ATT _ _ BOLLARD ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Acoustics 0 Vibration 0 Noise Control Engineering January 19,2006 Mr. Art Lucas Lars Andersen&Associates, Inc. 4630 W.Jacquelyn Ave, Suite 119 Fresno, CA 93722 Subject: Nighttime compliance of rear parking area activities at Huntington Beach Home Depot Store. Dear Mr.Lucas: In reviewing the most recent correspondence for this project, it was noted that nighttime parking activities could exceed the City's noise ordnance. This statement was developed from the noise analysis prepared by our company for this project (last paragraph on page 16 of our report dated October 28,2005). In that analysis,we noted that noise from those rear parking spaces could reach 53 dB L50 and 73 dB Lmax at the property line of the adjacent residences to the west if each parking stall behind the store were to empty and fill during a worst-case nighttime hour. Although this situation was considered to be unlikely,the levels indicated that such an event could result in exceedance of the 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax nighttime noise level limits at the adjacent residences. The conclusion that the nighttime standards may be exceeded by 3 dB included shielding provided by an existing 6-foot tall wall. However,the project mitigation calls for increasing the height of tha property line wall to 8 feet. Due to the close position of the parking spaces to the noise barrier,the additional 2 feet of wall height is predicted to reduce parking lot noise by an additional 4 dB (see attached worksheet). As a result,the increased wall height would result in rear parking area noise levels of 59 dB L50,and 69 dB Lmax. These levels are in compliance with the nighttime noise level limit during nighttime parking activities in the rear parking lot. Therefore,no additional parking lot noise mitigation measures would be required for this project. Respectfully Submitted, Paul Bollard Paul Bollard, President Bollard Acoustical Consultants 1293 Lincoln Way,Suite A 11 Auburn,CA 95603 0 Phone:(530)745-0550 0 Fax_(530)745-0551 0 BACNOISE.COM •/�� f� Attachement A Barrier Insertion Loss Calculation Project Information: Job Number. 2004-279 Project Name: Huntinton Beach Home Depot Location(s): Rear Parking Area Noise Level Data: Source Description: Parking Lot Noise Source Noise Level,dBA: 59 Source Frequency(Hz): 500 Source Height(ft): 5 Site Geometry: Receiver Description: Nearest Property Lines Source to Barrier Distance(Cl): 9 Barrier to Receiver Distance(CO: 10 Pad/Ground Elevation at Receiver: 0 Receiver Elevation': 5 Base of Barrier Elevation: 0 Starting Barrier Height 0 Barrier Effectiveness: Top of Barrier Barrier Height Barrier Breaks Line of Site to Elevation(ft) (ft) Insertion Loss,dB Noise Level,dB Source? 0 0 0.0 59.0 No 1 1 0.0 59.0 No 2 2 -0.3 58.7 No 3 3 -0.7 58.3 No 4 4 -3.6 55.4 No 5 5 -5.0- 54.0 No 6 6 -5.9 53.1 Yes 7 7 -7.8 51.2 Yes 8 8 -9.7 49.3 Yes 9 9 -11.1 47.9 Yes 10 10 -12.6 46.4 Yes Notes: i•Standard receiver elevation is five feet above grade/pad elevations at the receiver location(s) JJBOLLARD ) Acoustic-al Consultants ATTACMEW NO. 2 ®ISE IMPACTS Letter from Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. Chy of HunOngbn Beach JAN 17 2006 ATTACHMENT0 2 �3 BOLLARD ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Acoustics ► Vibration Noise Control Engineering January 12,2006 Mr.Art Lucas Lars Andersen&Associates, Inc. 4630 W. Jacquelyn Ave, Suite 119 Fresno, CA 93722 Subject: Nighttime compliance of HVAC system noise at Huntington Beach Home Depot Store. Dear Mr.Lucas: In reviewing the MND for the above referenced project,it was noted that"mechanical equipment noise will comply with the City's noise ordnance(assuming rooftop parapets are in place)but that nighttime standards could be exceeded." This statement was developed from the noise analysis prepared by our company for this project. Based on additional information provided by the project's mechanical engineer(see attached sheet fr 5 ton convertible units),we determined that the reference noise level data we used in our HVAC assessment was approximately 8 dB louder than the manufactures test data for the proposed units. Specifically,BAC utilized a reference level of 52 dB at a distance of 100 feet(92 dB PWL),whereas. the reference sound level data for a 5 ton unit computes to 44 dB (84 dB PWL). As a result,the predicted noise levels contained in our report are extremely conservative, and actual levels are expected to be 8 dB lower than the level of 51 dB L50(at the nearest residential property line to the west)contained in our report. Based on the updated HVAC noise emission data,the predicted level of 43 dB L50 at the property line of the nearest residences would satisfy both the daytime and nighttime noise ordinance standards of the City ofHuntington Beach. However,during nighttime hours,the project mechanical engineer reports that the system is programmed to "nighttime setting" due to the lower air conditioning demands during the hours of 10 pm to 7 am. The nighttime setting would operate the HVAC equipment at 25% capacity, thereby further reducing the overall system noise output by approximately 6 dB. In conclusion,nighttime noise levels at the nearest residences are predicted to be approximately 37 dB L50, which is 13 dB below the City's nighttime noise level limit. Therefore,no additional HVAC noise mitigation measures would be required for this project. Respectfully Submitted, City of HUnfl rlon Beach Paul Bollard JM 172 Paul Bollard,President Bollard Acoustical Consultants 1293 Lincoln Way,Suite A Auburn,CA 95603 Phone:(530)745-0550 Fax:(530)745-0551 w BACNOISECOM A-RACHMM'T NOo �. 2>1 E6 General 3 - 4Tonsi Data High E - ilde e- Table GD-5—Genera/Data—3.4Tons 31on Convertible Units 41on Convertible Units T/YHC036A7,A3,A4,AW TMiCo48A1,A3,A4,AW Cooling Iw„ror ma ince, Grass Cooling Capacity 38.000 49,800 SEEFF 12.50 120 Nominal CFM/ARI Rated CFM 1,2W/1,200 1,600/1,600 AM Net Cooling Capacity 36,600 475M System Power(KW) 333 4.48 Cornpressor N014" 1/Scroll 1/scroll Outdoor Sound Rating(dB)s 83 85 Outdoor Cal-Type lanced Lanced Tube Sae('ma CID 0.3125 03125 Face Area(sq ft) 219 9.59 RolnrslFP1 2n7 3/17 ktdoor Coil-Type Lanced Lanced Tube Sae(in.) 03125 0-3125 Face Area(sq ft) 6.68 6.68 RowslFPl 3/16 4/16 Refrigerant Control Short Orifice Short Orifice Drain Connection NolSize(in-) 1/r/.NPl• IPY.NPi Outdoor Fan-Type Propeller Propeller No.UsedlDiameter(in.) 122 1/22 DriveTypetNo.Speeds Direct/1" Direct/"I" CFM Z550 3A50 No.Motors/1-11' 1/020 1/0.33 Motor RPM 1,075 1,075 Direct Drive brdoor Fan-Type FC Centrifugal FC Centirillbpl No.UsedlDiameter(in.) 1/10 x 10 1/11 x 11 DriveTypeiNo.Speeds Direct/2 Direct/2 No.Motors 1 1 Motor HP(StandardtOversized) 033/0,50 0.60/0.80 Motor RPM(Standard/Oversized) 950h,10Ds 930/I AW Motor Frame Size(StandarrYOversized) 4848 48/48 Belt Drive bdoor Fan-Type FC Centrifugal FC Centrifugal No.UsedlDiameter(in.) 1/11 x 11 1/11 x 11 DriveTyprlNo.Speeds BelWariable Sheave 1z BelWariabfe Sheave'z No.Motors 1 1 Motor HP(Standard0versized) tool— 1.00/— Motor RPM(Standard0versized) 1,750/— 1,750/— Motor Frame Sae(StandardADversked) 56/— 56/— Fifters-Type Furnished a Thrt7wwwy TV-V away (No.)Size Reoommerded (2)20 x 25 x 11e (2)20 x 25 x 1 a Optional Not Gas Reheat Cal-T)W Lanced Lanced Tube Size 000D 0.375 0375 Face Area(sq,ft-) 2.22 2.22 Rovvo" 1116 U16 Notes 1. Cooling Performance is rated at 95 F ambient-So F entering dry dab.67 F entering wet bulb.Gross capacity does not include the effect of fan motor heat ARI rapacity is not and includes the effect of fan motor heat.Units are suitable for operation to z20%of nominal don.Cenibed bt accordance wRh the unnary Air-Corrfwner Equipment certification program,which is based on ARI Standard2lW40, 2 SEER are rated at ARI conditions and in accordance with DOE test procedures. a Heating Performance limit settings and rating data were established and approved under laboratory test conditions using American National Standards Institute standards.Ratings shown are for elevations up to 2000feet For elevations above 2000feet.ratings should be reduced at the rate of 4%for each 1000 feet above sea level. 4. AWE and Steady State Efficiency is rated in accordance with DOE test procedures. S Outdoor Sound Rating shown is tested in accordance with ARI Standard 270-For additional iniorritation rotor to Table,PD-12& 8 Refrigerant charge is an approximatevabe.Foramoreprecisevalue,seaunitnameplateandserviceinstructions. 7. yHC036Al gw and YHCO48AI Heating Outl8tu)is Low 47,000.Medium 63,000,High95,000. 8 YMC036AI andYHC048At AFUF I%)and Steady State t%f is Low.Medium and High 80.0. 9 Motor RPM shown is low speed.High speed Motor RPM is:YHCO36A1.060/1,145,YHCO48A 1,000/1,100. 10,Filter size shown is for low and medium heat models_High Mat model Cher size recommended is 20 x 30 x 1- 11.Refrigerant charge shown is for threaphase.YHCO36AI Refrigerant Charge is 4.5,YHCO48 I refrigerant charge is 8.t. 12.Bob Drive motor is not available for YHC036A7.YHCO48AI 13,Optional 2-pleated fliers also available. 14.With Dehumidification(Hot Gas Reheat)option Direct/2. 15..Avarlableonthree-phaseonly. GD-5 continued on next page RFPRCO25-EN 23 LrvACh5 LL55 Worf Cf'1 ATTACHMEW NO. 2.2LO TFa General 5 .n n l' Data High Efficiency rave Go-6-Gwma/Data-5.6Tons 5Ton Convertible Urits 6Ton Convertible Units TAMOWDA7 TAHCDWA3,A4,AW T/Y IC072A3,A4,AW Cooring , Gross Cooling Capacity 62.100 62.400 73,000 SEERIEERz 11.8/- 12.0r- -111.51 Nominal CFM/ARI Rated CFM 2,000/2,000 2,000/2,000 2,4002,100 ARI Net Coding Capacity 59A00 59,500 70,E System Power(KW) 5.73 5.56 &09" cornP- NoJType I/scroll 1/scroll 1/Scroll Outdoor Sound Rating(dB)' 84 84 89 Outdoor Col-Type Lanced Lanced Lanced Tube Size(in.)OD 0.3125 0.3125 03125 Face Area(sq ft) 10.96 to-% 17.00 RowsM 3r17 3117 3/17 kKbW Coil-Type Lanced Lanced Lanced Tube Size(in.) 0.3125 03125 03125 Face Area(sq ft) '271 7.71 9.89 Rovusim 4/1 6 4/16 3r16 Refrigerant Control Short Orifice Short Orifice" Short Orifice Drain Confection No.ISae(in.) 1/ah NPT 113%NPT IN NPf Outdoor Fen-Type Propeller Propeller Propeller No.tlsed0ameter 0n.) 122 122 126 W-Type/No.Speeds Direan DireWl" Directn CRN 3,170 3.370 6100 No.MotorsW 1/0.33 110.33 1%70 Motor RPM 1075 1,075 1,075 Direct Drive Indoor Fan-Type F-C Centrifugal FC Cetltr(filgai - No.UsedlDiameter(i .) 1/11 x 118 1/11 x 11a - DriveTypeTlo.Speeds Direct/2 Direct2 No.Motors 1 1 - Motor HP(Standard/Oversized) 0.90/1.00 0.90/1.00 - Motor RPM(StandardfOversized) 985/1,080, 985/1,080' - Motor Frame Sae(StandardADversizem 48/48 48/48 - Belt Drive Indoor Fan-Type FC Centrifugal FC Centrifugal FC Centrifugal No.UsedDlarrleter Cm.) 1/11 x It 1/11 x 11 M x 12 DriveTypdNo.Speeds BettlVariable Sheave" Bel~able Sheave" BeWVariable Sheave NO.Motors 1 1 1 Motor HP(StandardOversiaed) 1.0 W- W01- 1.002.00 Motor RPM(StandardlOversized) 1,75W- 1175W- 1750,1750 Motor Frarne Size(StandardVversaed) 5faf- 5W- 56156 Filters Type Furnished TtaOwavvey Thraaeway T1n0vrr -v (No.)Sim Re conru tended (2)20 x 30 x l" (2)20 x 30 x 1tz (4)16 x 25 x 2" Optional Hot Gas Reheat Col Type- - Lanced - Tube Size 0n.)OD - 0.375 - Face Area(sq.ft) - 2.22 - Rows/FPI - 2/16 - Notees: I. Cooling Pertormarxe is rated at 95 F ambient,BD F entering dry bulb,67 F entering wet bulb.Gross capacity does not include the effect of fan motor heat.ARI capacity is net and includes"effect 0f tan motor heal.Units are suitable for operation to t20%of nominal iim Units are certified in accordance with the Unitary Air-Conditioner Ei;uiprnent certification program,which is based on ARISWOW2101240. 2. EER and/or SEER are rated at ARI conditions and in accordance with DOE test procedures. a Integrated Pan toad value is rated'maccordancewithAR►Stardard2101240or360.UnitsareratedatWFambient,8WFenterirgdrybulb,and67'FenteringwowbulbatARlrateddm. 4. Heating Performance limit settings and rating data were estabfished and approved under laboratory test CArrdliorr3 trsirgAmeriean National Standards institute standards.Rat'ags shown one for elevations up 2000feet.For elevations above 2000few.ratings should be reduced at rate of 4%for eedt 1000 feat above s�level. 5 AFUE is rated in 30cordance with DOE test procedures. 6. Outdoor Sound Rating shown is tested in a ccIdarxsvathARI Standard 270.For additionalinbrmation refer to Table PD-128. 7. Refrigerant charge is an approximate value.For a more precise value,see unrt nameplate and service instructions. 6. YHC060AOvarsized Motor Fan Diameter is 12 x 1 i. R Motor RPM shown is low speed.nigh speed Motor RPM is 1.100/1.135 to.YHC072A when applied in horizontal configuration has an 113 EER and6.2 System Power(kW). lt.Bet Orme Motor is riot available for YHCOBOAI. 12.2'pleated filters is a factory"rmalled option.2'pleated filters is standard with the Dehumidification(Hot Gas Reheat)option. 13.With Deh midificatan(Hot Gas Reheall option.DiracYl. 14.TXV is supplied from the factory as standard with the Dehumidification(Hot Gas Reheat)option.. 15 Availableonthree-phassonfy. G&6 continued on next page fiF41CO25-EN 25 � ri moor 2-- a 1 � __� Santos, Ron '-0m: Paul Bollard [paulb@bacnoise.com] et: Friday, December 16,2005 10:02 AM ..�: alucas@larsandersen.com;rsantos@surfcity-hb.org Subject: RE: Home Depot Huntington Beach- Noise Issues Good Morning Ron and Art.. . As we discussed yesterday Ron, the City of Huntington Beach has remaining concerns with two aspects of the noise analysis we prepared for the project. I appreciate the opportunity to provide additional information as to the logic behind our approach to these issues. Parking Lot Impulsive Noise Issue: As you know, in our professional opinion the impulsive sounds of car doors opening and closing and vehicles being loaded did not warrant the application of the -5 dB offset to the City's noise standards because those impacts were not the predominant sounds within the parking lot area. More specifically, parking lot noise generation consists of vehicle arriving and departing, engines starting and stopping, people talking, and shopping carts rolling, in addition to car doors opening and closing. The sound generation of a parking lot is a blend of all of these noise sources, with the impulsive sound of car doors opening and closing or vehicles being loaded (lumber being dropped into the back of a truck for example) making up only a part of the overall parking lot noise generation. The -5 dB offset to the City's noise standard is intended to account for the higher level of annoyance people receive from noise sources which are -�pulsive versus non-impulsive noise sources. Were parking lot activities Ly made up of impulsive sounds, we would have appropriately applied the -5 -6 offset in our assessment. However, because the impulsive nature of the parking lot is substantially masked by all of the other parking lot noise _ sources, the conditions which would lead to the greater annoyance are no longer present. As a result, we did not believe it appropriate to apply the impulsive offset to parking lot noise. Assessment of Noise Impact at the Property Line of the Commercial Use to the South: As we agreed yesterday, the property line between the project site and the existing commercial uses to the south is not considered noise sensitive. I understand the City's position that the noise standards are to be applied at the property line of neighboring uses, but I cannot envision that the intent of the standards was to mitigate noise levels at parking areas of neighboring commercial uses. In our analysis, we considered it a reasonable interpretation of City noise policy to assess noise impacts of the project inside the commercial uses to the south, which is where the real noise sensitivity exists. In my 18 years of analyzing noise, I have never seen a noise ordinance or noise element interpreted so as to require consideration of a parking area between similar uses noise-sensitive. Please consider the dangerous precedent which would be set by literally interpreting the Noise Ordinance in considering the property lines between neighboring commercial uses as being noise-sensitive. In effect, it would require noise walls between virtually every commercial use in the City which are separated by parking areas. Because the Municipal Code applies to . existing projects as well as new projects, it could be argued that if the code is interpreted in this fashion for the Home Depot project, that it Nuld require enforcement uniformly throughout the City. In our _•ofessional opinion, it would be unreasonable to so interpret the noise ordinance in that fashion, as it is highly doubtful the drafters of the ordinance intended for these parking lot spaces to be considered i ATTACHMEW . �� ` noise-sensitive. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding our thoughts on these issues, and thank you again for allowing us to present them to you. Sincerely, Paul Bollard, President Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2 k, 1 : �i r Environmental Noise Assessment Home Depot ® Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Bollard&Brennan Job#2004-279 Prepared For: Lars Anderson & Associates, Inc. 4630 W. Jacqueline Ave., Ste. 119 Fresno, California 93722 Prepared By: Bollard & Brennan, Inc. PA4At getit" Paul Bollard President Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineers Revised December 15,2005 bolla�d � Brennan, Inc. - 1293 Lincoln Way,Suite A - Auburn,California 95603 - (530)745-0191 - Fax:(530)745-0192 ATTACHE O. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains an assessment of noise impacts and mitigation measures for the Huntington Beach Home Depot Project,and includes revisions made to the August 2e version of this report to respond to City of Huntington Beach comments. The project consists of the construction and operation of a Home Depot store as a replacement structure to the former K-Mart structure of approximately 100,000 square feet which is currently located on the project site. For this assessment, noise impacts related to on-site truck movements, parking lot activities, mechanical equipment,construction,off-site traffic,lumber off-loading activities(including forklift usage), trash collection, garden area noise sources, will-call, and loading dock activities were evaluated. The evaluation was conducted relative to City of Huntington Beach Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards at both interior and exterior areas of the adjacent commercial and residential uses during both day and nighttime hours. This analysis concludes that, with the mitigation proposed by the project applicant, and the additional noise mitigation proposed herein, this project will comply with applicable City of Huntington Beach noise standards and not result in significant noise impacts. The specific noise mitigation measures recommended in this analysis include the following: 1. The existing property line noise barrier along the south side of the site should be increased in height to 8 feet. 2. The rooftop parapet should be of sufficient height to block line of sight between rooftop HVAC equipment and the residences located immediately west of the project site. 3. The Garden Area P/A system should be designed and tested so as not to exceed the Table 1 standards at any location within the adjacent residential properties to the west. 4. All truck movements and unloading in areas on the west and south side of the store should be limited to daytime hours. 5. Activities at the will-call area and building materials storage area should be limited to daytime hours. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page I No AMCHMENT INTRODUCTION The proposed Home Depot project is located on the southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach, California. The project site, which formerly housed a K-Mart Store, is located adjacent to existing commercial uses to the south, and existing single-family residential uses to the west. The site is bordered to the north and east by Garfield Avenue and Magnolia Street,respectively,beyond which are additional residential and commercial uses. Please refer to Figure 1 for locations of the project site and nearest noise-sensitive receivers. Due to the proximity of the existing residential uses to the project site, an acoustical analysis has been requested for this project to quantify noise levels associated with on-site truck circulation, loading dock operations,parking lot noise, lumber unloading, and mechanical equipment at these nearest noise-sensitive uses. Where project-related noise generation is predicted to exceed applicable City of Huntington Beach noise standards,noise mitigation measures are proposed. ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY Noise is often described as unwanted sound.Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard, and are designated as sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound,and is expressed as cycles per second, or Hertz(Hz). Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this,the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals of pressure)as a point of reference,defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to the reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB.Another useful aspect of the decibel scale is that changes in decibel levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Figure 2 illustrates common noise levels associated with various sources. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However,within the usual range of environmental noise levels,perception of loudness is relatively predictable,and can be approximated by filtering the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A-weighting network.There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels(expressed as dBA)and community response to noise.For this reason,the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 2 ATTACH: O% �'Z Figure 1 Home Depot Huntington Beach, California r 117 TI Increas g I Mer X/C s I es L I n i t ii to 8-fe I L?!� --- - i I - P L--4� *-A -L,- 4X7=rr-mr-ri I Ili 111111-11 16 6 feet I �;F MYrril'ITTI-I I 17ri-mr-rf r-1-1-5737. li Loading Docks Proposed —&W3 p�$Ccj Outdoor II i jKb WLL CALL AT.AL STORAGE -*-AL1 Pro rvor4iem Center rpr -H- ENTRY TI — —1 — —— -" I I 11 lu (Is255 SF) 'umber Off-Load 1 rw -M i c- 1:1 fit ---------- Q= U.1 1511 rT-I -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -—-—-—-—-— —-—-—-—- - - - - - - - - - - -MAGNOUA-STREEFT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L Noise Measurement Locations -41- k.j Bollard & Brennan Inc. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the"ambient"noise level,which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment.A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average,or equivalent,sound level(L q). Additional information regarding acoustical terminology is attached in Appendix A. Figure 2 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels of Common Noise Sources Loudness Ratio Level A-Weighted Sound Level(dBA) 128 130 Threshold of pain 64 120 Jet aircraft take-off at 100 feet 32 110 Riveting machine at operators position 16 100 Shotgun at 200 feet 8 90 Bulldozer at 50 feet 4 80 Diesel locomotive at 300 feet 2 70 Commercial jet aircraft interior during flight 1 60 Normal conversation speech at 5-10 feet 1/2 50 Open office background level 1/4 40 Background level within a residence 1/8 30 Soft whisper at 2 feet 1116 20 Interior of recording studio Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 4 TTAC NO. 1 CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE NOISE EXPOSURE City of Huntington Beach Noise Element Criteria: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Noise Element states that residential developments are considered acceptable in exterior noise environments up to 60 dB Ldn for outdoor living areas and 45 dB Ldn for indoor spaces. The City Noise Element does not contain hourly performance standards. City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Criteria: The City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.40 of the Municipal Code "Noise Control") establishes acceptable noise level criteria for non-transportation noise sources (i.e. stationary noise sources) such as on-site delivery truck circulation, parking lots, loading dock operations, and mechanical equipment which are associated with projects such as a Home Depot store. Table 1 shows the hourly noise level performance criteria contained with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 5 Table 1 City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Standards Applicable to Residential Uses (Section 8.40.050 of Municipal Code) Daytime Nighttime Land Use Noise Descriptor (7 a.m.-10 p.m.) (10 p.m.-7 a.m.) Residential(Exterior) L50—30 min/hr 55 50 L25—15 min/hr 60 55 L08—5 min/hr 65 60 L02—1 min/hr 70 65 Lmax—any period 75 70 Residential(Interior) L08—5 min/hr 55 45 L02—1 min/hr 60 50 Lmax—any period 65 55 Commercial(Exterior) L50—30 min/hr 55 55 L25—15 min/hr 60 60 L08—5 min/hr 65 65 L02—1 min/hr 70 70 Lmax—any period 75 75 Commercial(Interior) L08—5 min/hr 55 55 L02—I min/hr 60 60 Lmax—any period 65 65 In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the exterior noise level limits shown above,those limits shall be increased to the ambient level. In the event the offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple note noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof,each of the noise level limits shown above shall be reduced by 5 dB. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 6 ATTACMENT NO. Z.Z�5U Section 8.40.090(d)of the Municipal Code(Special Provisions),states that noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property shall be exempt from the provisions of the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance provided a permit has been obtained from the City and provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8 pm and 7 am on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT IN THE PROJECT VICINITY The ambient noise environment in the immediate project vicinity is defined primarily by noise from Garfield Avenue and Magnolia Street. To generally quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, a short term (15-minute) ambient noise survey was conducted by Bollard and Brennan,Inc.on October 20, 2004 at the locations shown in Figure 1. A Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL)Model 820 precision integrating sound level meter equipped with a LDL 2560'/2"microphone was used for the ambient survey. The meter was calibrated before use with an LDL Model CA200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 (precision) sound level meters (ANSI SIA). The results of these short-term measurements are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels Vicinity of Proposed Home Depot Site—Huntington Beach,California Sete' TimeMeasured Noise Levels(dB) L50 Lax Est.Ldn 1 1:00 P.M. 60 69 65 2 1:30 p.m. 48 58 55 3 2:00 p.m. 57 71 65 See Figure I for noise measurement locations. The Table 2 data indicate that measured midday ambient noise levels were below the City's 55 dB L50 daytime noise level standard at site 2, but over that standard at Sites 1 & 3. As a result, satisfaction of the City's noise level standards shown in Table l would ensure that project-related noise emissions do not significantly exceed existing ambient noise conditions in the immediate project vicinity. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 7 ATTAR T . PROJECT-RELATED NOISE SOURCES The major noise-producing components of this project identified as potentially significant by Home Depot and Bollard and Brennan, Inc. consist of on-site truck movements, parking lot activities, mechanical equipment,construction,off-site traffic,lumber off-loading activities(including forklift usage),trash collection,garden area noise sources,and loading dock activities. For this project,the lumber off-loading area is located at the front ofthe store under the lumber canopy. The majority of the on-site parking lot is located on the east side of the store(and therefore shielded from the nearest residences to the west by the building itself),but parking lot activities are assessed in this report at the request of the City of Huntington Beach. As a means of assessing the noise impacts associated with the proposed project,Bollard&Brennan, Inc.utilized noise level data collected at Home Depot stores and other similar commercial uses in California in recent years. The reference noise Ievel measurements which are most applicable to this store are provided in Table 3. Table 3 Summary of Noise Measurement Data For Dome Depot Store Activities Noise Source Distance(feet) Duration Descriptor Level,dBA Lmax 75 Truck Pass-bys 50' - L02 70 Lmax 86 L02 72 1 Hour L08 67 Lumber Off-Loading (ncluding forklift) 50 L25 61 L50 56 Lmax 85 L02 75 Loading Dock` 50, 1 hour L08 70 L25 65 L50 60 Parking Lot Movements 50' - SEL 70 Lmax 65 Lmax 52 Rooftop Mechanical Equipment L02 52 (mechanical equipment noise generation is 100, 1-hour L08 52 steady-state while turned on) L25 52 L50 52 Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot-Huntington Beach,CA Page 8 ATTACHMWI _�... On-Site Home Depot Truck Traffic Pass-By Noise According to Home Depot representatives,file data for other Home Depot stores indicate that daily truck activity at the proposed Home Depot will conservatively consist of 10-15 light duty or semi- trailer trucks per day for delivery of materials. For this analysis, it was assumed that up to 5 such events could occur in a given hour. Based on evaluation ofthe project site plan,delivery trucks will likely enter the site From Magnolia Street(southeast corner)and exit the site at Garfield Avenue(northwest corner). The trucks will be closest to the noise-sensitive receivers during passages directly behind the store. Specifically,truck pass-bys will be approximately 30 feet from the closest point of the nearest residential backyards to the west.: It should be noted that there is an existing masonry wall located along the western site boundary. The wall is nominally 6 feet in height but at some residences it has been increased in height. Using the operations data described above,the reference noise level data presented in Table 3,and an offset accounting for spherical spreading loss(attenuation with distance),the noise exposure at the nearest receivers to the south and west were computed and the results shown in Table 4. Because the 5 truck passages in a worst case hour would occur for less than a minute each,the total noise exposure due to truck passages would be more than 1 minute per hour,but less than 5 minutes per hour. Therefore,the Lmax and L02 standards shown in Table 3 would apply to this source. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 9 ATTAC T NO. 2 2 Table 4 Predicted Truck Circulation Noise Levels Home Depot—Huntington Beach,California Predicted Noise Levels Location Descriptor Level,dBA EXTERIOR AREAS Residential property lines to the west—30 ft. Lmax 72 L02 67 Commercial facades to the south—l 10 ft. Lmax 70 L02 65 INTERIOR AREAS Residences to the west—40ft. Lmax 55 L02 50 . Commercial uses to the south— I 10 ft. Lmax 55 L02 50 Source: Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Note: These levels include a-6 dB offset at the residential uses for shielding provided by the existing noise barrier at the western property line. Interior noise levels were computed with a conservative estimate of 15 noise reduction provided by the residential and commercial building facades. Based on the predicted noise levels presented in Table 4, truck traffic pass-by noise levels will comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance exterior and interior noise standards during both day and nighttime hours at the commercial uses to the south. However, the City's exterior nighttime noise level standards would be exceeded at the residences to the west during nighttime truck passages. As a result, nighttime truck passages behind the store should be prohibited. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 10 1 gTACHMENT NO. ��' Off-Site Traffic Noise The proposed project will add traffic to the local roadway system. Using the existing and future,project versus no-project traffic volumes reported in the project traffic study, the project- related traffic noise level increase on Garfield Avenue and Magnolia Street were predicted. Those traffic noise levels are shown below in Table 5. Table 5 Predicted Off-Site Traffic Noise Level Increases Roadway Segment Project Related Noise Level Increase(dBA) Existing Plus Project Conditions Compared to Existing No Project Conditions Garfield Avenue East of Magnolia St 0.4 West of Magnolia St 0.1 Magnolia Street North of Garfield Ave 0.2 South of Garfield Ave 0.2 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Compared to Cumulative No Project Conditions Garfield Avenue East of Magnolia St 0.1 West of Magnolia St 0.1 Magnolia Street North of Garfield Ave 0.2 South of Garfield Ave 0.2 Source:Bollard and Brennan,Inc.with traffic volumes provided by Associated Transportation Engine rs Loading Dock Noise The loading dock area is located near the northwest corner of the proposed Home Depot Store,as indicated on.Figure 1. Based on this configuration, the nearest bay in the Ioading dock area is located approximately 60 feet from the nearest point of the residential backyards to the west. The proposed loading dock at this location would be completely enclosed(as would the trash compactor located within the enclosed loading dock area and garbage pickup), with a roll-up door at the entrance to the dock. This enclosure would provide dramatic shielding of loading dock noise at the residences to the west. The primary noise source associated with the Home Depot loading dock area is the heavy trucks stopping(air brakes),backing into the loading areas as necessary(backup beepers),and pulling out of the loading docks (revving engines). If the heavy truck engines idle while the trucks are being unloaded,then this would be an additional source of noise at those locations. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page I I MACHMENT No. Noise exposure from the loading dock area at the closest noise-sensitive receivers was calculated using the reference noise level data presented in Table 3 and a spreading loss component (attenuation with distance) as described for the truck movement calculations above(the formulas shown on Page 7 using a 20 Log multiplier for the loading dock distance correction rather than the 15 log multiplier for moving trucks). Calculation results are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Predicted Loading Dock Area Noise Levels Home Depot—Huntington Beach, California Predicted Noise Levels Location Descriptor Level,d)BA Residential property lines to the West —60 ft.—Exterior Areas Lmax 73 L02 63 L08 58 L25 53 L50 48 Residences to the West —70 ft.—Interior Areas Lmax 55 L02 45 L0S 40 Source: Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Note that Loading Dock noise levels were reduced by a conservative estimate of 10 dB to account for the loading dock enclosure. Interior noise levels were computed using the same formulae with a conservative estimate of 15 noise reduction provided by the residential building facades. Based on the predicted noise levels shown in Table 6,loading dock activity noise levels will comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance standards at the nearest residences during daytime hours,both at outdoor and indoor locations. However,because loading dock activities may exceed City standards during nighttime hours, such activities should be limited to daytime hours. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 12 A MO Z � 1� Home Depot Mechanical Equipment Noise Based on information provided by the project architect,the primary cooling for the large store space will be produced by roof-top evaporative coolers. The coolers will likely be evenly distributed across the roof of the building,with the closest units to the nearest residences approximately 30 feet in from the edges of the roof. The noise impacts associated with this mechanical equipment are assessed relative to the City of Huntington Beach's daytime noise level criteria for residential and commercial land uses. If mechanical equipment is to operate past 10 p.m.,then the City's nighttime criteria would apply to this source as well,however,extensive usage of the mechanical equipment during nighttime hours is not anticipated. The roof-top evaporative coolers are predicted to produce approximately 52 dB at a reference distance of 100 feet (per unit). Mechanical equipment noise exposure was calculated assuming approximately 30 total rooftop coolers(operating simultaneously)and standard spherical spreading loss(-6 dB per each doubling of distance from the source. For example,a level of 52 dB at 100 feet would be reduced to 46 dB at 200 feet, and 40 dB at 400 feet). The distance used to assess noise impacts from the HVAC equipment to the nearest residences is 90 feet for this study(30 feet from equipment to parapet plus 6(v;eet to residential property lines). The HVAC noise levels were computed to be approximately 51 dB L50 at the closest residences and slightly lower at the nearest commercial uses to the south based on the above described distribution/locations of the rooftop units. The predicted levels include shielding which will be provided by rooftop parapets. As with the previous assessments of interior noise levels, HVAC noise levels within the nearest residences and commercial uses are conservatively predicted to be 15 dB lower than exterior noise levels,or approximately 36 dB L50 or less. The predicted levels would satisfy the City's daytime noise exposure criteria, but could exceed the nighttime criteria. As a result, no additional noise mitigation measures would be required for the proposed Home Depot mechanical equipment during daytime usage. Because nighttime usage would be far less than daytime usage(if at aIl),HVAC system noise generation would be lower during nighttime hours, thereby complying with the nighttime standards of the City of Huntington Beach as well. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 13 ATTACHMENT NO. Rome Depot Lumber Unloading Area Noise According to Home Depot representatives,file data for other Home Depot stores indicate that daily truck activity at the proposed Home Depot will conservatively consist of 2-3 flatbed trucks for lumber deliveries per day. Home Depot representatives and the project site plans have indicated that the lumber unloading activities will be take place under the lumber canopy at the front of the store outside of normal store hours. Therefore,the nearest point of the lumber off-loading area will be approximately 320 feet from the nearest residential property lines to the west, and approximately l 10 feet to nearest commercial buildings to the south. It should be noted that the nearest residences to the west would be shielded from noise generated by lumber off-loading activities by the proposed Home Depot building, and as noted previously, there is an existing 6-foot tall masonry wall located along the western project property line.Using the operations data described above,the reference noise level data presented in Table 3,the hourly noise exposure was determined for the lumber unloading area during a worst-case hour of lumber unloading activities. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 7. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 14 TT ®. 2-Z � Table 7 Predicted Lumber Unloading Noise Levels Home Depot—Huntington Beach,California Predicted Noise Levels(dB) Location Descriptor Level,dBA EXTERIOR AREAS Residential property lines to the west—320 ft. Lmax 55 L02 41 L08 36 L25 30 L50 25 Commercial buildings to the south—220 ft, Lmax 73 L02 59 L08 54 L25 48 L50 42 INTERIOR AREAS Residences to the west—330 ft. Lmax 40 L02 26 L0S 21 Commercial buildings to the south—220 ft. Lmax 58 L02 44 L08 39 Note: A-15 dB offset has been applied to the Table 7 data to account for noise reduction provided by the existing property line noise barrier and the Home Depot building facade. Interior noise levels were computed based on the conservative assumption that building facades would provide a 15 dB noise reduction. Source: Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 15 j u NO, 2 Z Based on the predicted noise levels shown in Table 7,lumber unloading noise levels are predicted to comply with both the daytime and nighttime City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance standards at the closest residential property lines to the west and at the closest commercial buildings to the south.. The predicted levels include noise from backup beepers and forklifts operating in the lumber off- loading areas, in addition to the arrival and departure of flatbed lumber trucks. As a result, no additional noise mitigation measures would be required for lumber off-loading operations. Parking Lot Noise The majority of the on-site parking for the proposed Home Depot Store will be located on the east side of the store, well removed from the residences to the west. Nonetheless, there is a smaller parking area just north of the Garden Center and a row of parking spaces located along the western site boundary, as indicated in Figure 1. Assuming all of the approximately 100 stalls in the area north of the Garden Center filled and emptied in one hour, a total of 200 parking lot events would occur in that area during a very busy hour. The nearest stalls of that parking area would be approximately 100 feet from the residential property line to the west. At that nearest property line,the predicted median hourly and maximum noise levels were computed to be 45 dB L50 and 53 dB Lmax. Interior levels within these residences would be at least 15 dB lower,or approximately 30 dB L50 and 38 dB Lmax.Because parking lot activities would occur for more than 30 minutes out of the hour,they are appropriate assessed relative to the City's L50 and Lmax standards. The predicted levels,which include a-6 dB offset to account for the existing property line noise barrier, would satisfy the day and nighttime, exterior and interior,noise level standards shown in Table 1 for this parking area,even with those standards reduced by 5 dB to account for the impulsive nature of the car doors opening and closing. As a result,no additional noise mitigation measures are warranted for this parking area. The strip of parking stalls which extends along the western site boundary are reserved for carpool/vanpool use, and general use. These stalls are approximately 9 feet from the residential property line to the West. Given the distance from these stalls to the store entrance,it is likely that the intensity of usage of these stalls will be relatively low. Since there are approximately 7 stalls adjacent to each residence,a conservative approach to the prediction of parking lot noise levels at the adjacent residential property Iines would be to assume 14 parking lot events in a given hour for a given residence(each site filling and emptying). Based on this approach,the predicted parking tot noise levels at the adjacent residences from these closest parking spaces was computed to be approximately_53 dB L50 and 73 dB Lmax. Interior levels within these residences would be at least 15 dB lower, or approximately 38 dB L50 and 58 dB Lmax.These levels,which include a-6 dB Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 16 AT T NO. -L-60 offset to account for the existing property line noise barrier,would satisfy the daytime,exterior and interior,noise level standards shown in Table 1 for these nearest parking spaces,but could exceed the nighttime noise level standards. Because these spaces are not anticipated to be used during nighttime hours, so no additional noise mitigation measures would be warranted for these nearest parking spaces. Trash Compaction and Removal Noise For this project, the trash compactor is located inside the proposed loading dock enclosure, and therefore, completely shielded from view of nearby residences. Because loading dock activities, which would occur slightly closer to the residences to the west than trash compaction and removal activities(the trash compaction equipment is to be located on the far easterly side of the enclosed loading dock),were found to be well within compliance with City Noise Ordinance standards,trash compaction and removal activities are predicted to similarly be well within compliance with City standards. It should be noted that both trash compaction and removal will occur within the shielded loading dock area. Garden Center Noise The proposed Garden Center is located on the north-central portion of the proposed Home Depot Store. There is a small concrete pad to be used for the unloading of materials for sale at the Garden Center. Using the same reference noise level data for the lumber offloading area (which also includes forklifts),noise levels associated with Garden Center loading pad activities were computed at the nearest residential property line to the west(150 feet). The resulting levels are 42 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax. Interior levels within the nearest residences to the garden area would be at least 15 dB lower, or approximately 27 dB L50 and 55 dB Lmax.These levels,which include a-6 dB offset to account for the existing property line noise barrier,would satisfy the day and nighttime,exterior and interior, noise level standards shown in Table 1. As a result,no additional noise mitigation measures are warranted for the unloading area of the Garden Center. The public address(P/A)system at the Garden Center is anticipated to generate lower noise levels than the garden area truck unloading activities,provided that the speakers used face down and into the Garden Center and away from the nearest residences to the west. As a result,no additional noise mitigation measures appear to be warranted for the Garden Center area. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 17 NO. �`� � Building Material Storage and Will Call According to project representatives, this portion of the store, which is located at the southwest corner of the building,will be used to store building materials for contractor pickup. A forklift will be the primary noise source at this location, and hours of activity are reported to be daytime only. Because these activities will be sporadic and limited to daytime hours, and because a single light- duty forklift will be utilized for moving pallets in this area,the noise generation of this aspect of the project is predicted to be less than that of the loading dock and lumber off-loading areas. However, because activities at the will call area generate noise levels in excess of nighttime noise level limits, and create brief periods of elevated noise levels during forklift usage in this area,it is recommended that noise mitigation be incorporated for this area. A discussion of such measures follows in a later section of this report. Construction Noise During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Activities involved in construction would temporarily generate maximum noise levels,as indicated in Table 8,ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Therefore,all equipment should be equipped with factory matching mufflers and in good working order. In addition,construction activities should be restricted to the daytime hours. Table 8 Construction Equipment Noise Type of Equipment Maximum Level,dB at 50 feet Bulldozers 90 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe&Portable Concrete Plant 85 Pneumatic Tools 85 Source:Environmental Noise Pollution,Patrick R.Cunniff,1977. Because construction activities will be limited to daytime hours, the noise generation of construction-related activities will be exempt from the local noise level standards of the City of Huntington Beach. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 18 ATTACHMENT No Cumulative Noise Exposure from all Represented Noise Sources Due to the layout of the proposed store, project-generated noise sources which affect a certain portions of the nearby residences or commercial uses may not have an appreciable affect on others. An example is lumber offloading will be conducted in an area opposite from the loading dock,so the noise generation of these activities will not be additive. As a result,the cumulative contribution of all of the project noise sources at a given location may not be much greater than the contribution of the nearest source. The cumulative noise exposure from all sources is predicted to be highest at the commercial uses located immediately south of the lumber offloading area,as that is the loudest identified noise source associated with this project. Noise levels predicted at the closest commercial buildings from all of the noise sources described above during a worst-case noise hour were calculated to be approximately 57 dB L50 and 79 dB Lmax,respectively. These levels would comply with the City's Noise Ordinance standards as presented in Table I during daytime hours,but not during nighttime hours. As a result,noise mitigation measures will be necessary for this project. Such measures are specified in the following section of this report. NOISE MIT'IGAT'ION MEASURES As noted above,activities associated with certain aspects of the proposed project,specifically truck passages behind the store,may generate noise levels in excess of the City of Huntington Beach noise level standards. To reduce the noise impacts identified for lumber unloading and on-site truck circulation activities at the_ nearest residences, the following noise mitigation measures are recommended: 1. At the property line along the west side of the project site either; a. the existing 6-foot tall property line noise wail should be increased in height from 6 feet to 8 feet,or b. a new wall 8 feet in height should be constructed in front of the existing 6-foot wall, or c. the existing 6-foot noise wall should be removed and a new wall 8 feet in height should be constructed along the property line. 2. The rooftop parapet should be of sufficient height to block Iine of sight between rooftop HVAC equipment and the residences located immediately west of the project site. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 19 F . 3. The Garden Area P/A system should be designed and tested so as not to exceed the Table 1 standards at any location within the adjacent residential properties to the west. 4. All truck movements and unloading in areas on the west and south side of the store should be limited to daytime hours. 5. Activities at the will-call area and building materials storage area should be limited to daytime hours. CONCLUSIONS With the exception of noise generated by on-site truck circulation, calculated noise exposure from the proposed project is predicted to satisfy the City of Huntington Beach Noise standards at the nearest residences and commercial uses during both day and nighttime periods without additional mitigation. The noise mitigation measures described in the previous section should be implemented to ensure that noise from the project truck passages is reduced to acceptable levels at the nearest residences. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the site plan presented in Figure 1,and on operational information and noise level data contained herein. Deviation from this plan,assumptions,or data could cause actual noise levels to vary relative to those predicted in this report. Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Home Depot—Huntington Beach,CA Page 20 NO. Appendix A Acoustical Terminology Acoustics The science of sound. Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases,the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study. Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal. A-Weighting A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response. Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one-tenth of a Bell. CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging. Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz. Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting. Leq Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level. Lmax The highest root-mean-square (RMS)sound level measured over a given period of time. Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound. Masking The amount(or the process)by which the threshold of audibility is for one sound is raised by the presence of another(masking)sound. Noise Unwanted sound. Peak Noise The level corresponding to the highest(not RMS)sound pressure measured over a given period of time. This term is often confused with the"Maximum"level,which is the highest RMS level. RTw The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed. Sabin The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 sabin. Threshold of Hearing The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing. Threshold of Pain Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. Bollard & Brennan Inc. _ v F Z6� THE TWINING LABORATORIES , INC . ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY •ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING •SAMPLING SERVICES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION&MATERIALS TESTING January 23,2006 D05094.02-03 Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. c/o Scott A.Mommer Consulting,Land Development Service 4630 West Jacquelyn Avenue,Suite 119 Fresno,CA 93722 Attention: Mr.Art Lucas Subject: Descriptions of Compaction Grouting and Stone Column Methods for Ground Improvement: Proposed Home Depot,SS00341 19101 Magnolia Street Huntington Beach,California Dear Mr. Lucas: At your request,this letter was prepared to provide descriptions of compaction grouting and stone column methods for ground improvement at the proposed Home Depot site in Huntington Beach, California, and is subject to the terms and limitations expressed in the project geotechnical report and the agreement for professional services between Home Depot and Twining. The following descriptions have been provided to summarize the equipment and procedures for two (2) alternative methods being considered for deep ground improvement to reduce the potential impacts from liquefaction related settlements for the proposed Home Depot structure at the subject site. In addition, a summary of the potential vibration and noise impacts to adjacent properties is discussed. It is our understanding the following descriptions will be used by the Home Depot design team to evaluate which method of ground improvement would result in the least impact to adjacent properties. General Description of Equipment and Procedures used for Compaction Grouting Techniques for Liquefaction Mitigation In brief, compaction grouting involves the injection of cement grout under high pressures at individual locations over an evenly spaced grid pattern across the entire building area and beyond. The purpose of the grout injection is to laterally densify the loose soils which are susceptible to seismic settlement and thereby decrease the liquefaction and seismic settlement potential of the densified layers. For liquefaction mitigation, this process typically involves construction of compaction grout locations on a uniform square-grid pattern of about 6 to 10 feet on center. This treatment is conducted to a depth necessary to densify the soils that are subject to liquefaction over a plan area that includes the entire building footprint and areas of adjacent appurtenances. For this project,the treatment area is anticipated to be about 150,000 square feet(this should be confirmed by the project civil engineer). CORPORATE MODESTO CORONA BAKERSFIELD MONTEREY SACRAMENTO 2527 Fresno Street 5253&nr.lern Corot,SU1e E 840 East Parma Avenue,Sri 104 3651 Pegasus(XhA#117 5DI Ortiz Avenue 5675 Power bin Hoed.State C Rearok CA 93721-18D4 Modest%CA 95356a= Corona,CA 92879 Balms CA 93300-OB43 Sand M CA 93955 Sa=nento6 CA 95824 (559)268-7021 R"342 2081 (951)89&MM (661)393-X8 (amity 3821056 P16)381-9477 ft268.7126 Far579-1480 Huc 74 Fax393AM ■■ �®aF�t�1059 Fax381-9478(S/��////JJ(//� A U d fi R 2 —_ Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. D05094.02-03 January 23,2006 Page 2 Compaction grout involves installation of a grout pipe into the subsurface soils. The grout pipe is generally installed by a combination of drilling and driving a steel casing into the ground. The casing is then used as a conduit for the grout pipe to inject grout from the bottom of the casing at high pressures up to the top of the soil layer to be densified. The grout pipe is slowly raised from the ground as the grout is injected, so that the pressure used to force the grout into the ground induces lateral compaction effort to the subsurface soils. At the completion of an individual compaction grout column, subsequent columns are constructed throughout the process until all columns are installed and the required densification is obtained. The equipment used to extend the grout pipe into the ground is a specialized unit that typically has the appearance of a crane or a bull dozer with a frame attachment used to mechanically or hydraulically advance the grout pipe and/or casing. For the purposes of this letter,this equipment is referred to as the injection rig. Heavier injection rigs are generally required as the depth of ground improvement increases. Due to the depth of the ground improvement required for this site, the injection rig equipment demands will be high. In order to pump the grout at the high pressures required, a large air compressor is generally used. Based on the total volume of grout anticipated for this project,the grout will be mixed in an onsite batch plant,which will include silos of cement and stockpiles of aggregate(sand and gravel) and water supply. The batch plant will mix the cement grout, which consists of water, cement and aggregate. Equipment such as a front end loader and cement mixing equipment are used for proportioning and mixing the cement grout. The cement grout will then be pumped through hoses to the location of the injection rig,through the grout pipe and into the ground. Supporting equipment often includes a generator,drill rig,tractor-trailers, air supply tank and air compressors. General Description of Equipment and Procedures used for Stone Columns Installation for Liquefaction Mitigation The Stone Column technique for soil densification consists of compaction of aggregate(i.e,sand and gravel)into underlying site soil strata. Compaction of the aggregate results in densification of the surrounding soil strata using specially designed equipment. For liquefaction mitigation,this process typically involves construction of stone columns on a uniform,square-grid pattern of about 8 to 10 feet on center. The Stone Column equipment consists of a base machine which includes a low frequency vibratory hammer,aggregate hopper,casing pipe,and lifting bucket,that is fed aggregate by a front end loader. The base machine looks similar in appearance to a crane such as those used for pile driving. Additional equipment includes a generator, air supply tank, and air compressor that are usually mounted to the base machine. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Biome Depot U.S.A.,Inc. D05094.02-03 January 23, 2006 Page 3 The operating procedure consists of positioning the base machine in the location of the proposed column, inserting the casing pipe below the ground surface to the required depth, and starting construction of the stone column. The casing pipe is then loaded with aggregate,the casing pipe is inserted below the ground surface to the desired depth, and the aggregate is released through the bottom of the casing pipe into the ground by using compressed air. The casing pipe is then vertically raised approximately ten(10)feet,allowing the aggregate to drop into the resulting void space. The casing pipe is then vibrated and pushed into the newly placed aggregate, thereby compacting the aggregate and densifying the surrounding soil. This process is repeated until the column is constructed throughout the treatment depth. Upon completion of one column,subsequent columns are installed until all columns are completed and the desired densification is obtained. Summary of Noise and Vibration Impacts The intent of the following summary is to discuss the potential for noise and vibration impacts to adjacent properties for further evaluation by a specialist in this field. The impacts discussed herein are not intended to address impacts caused to workmen within the limits of the subject property. It is our understanding the proposed Home Depot property is bordered by a nix of residential and commercial property. Based on information provided by the project civil engineers(Lars Andersen), the proposed Home Depot structure is located about 160 feet from the adjacent Blockbuster retail store and about 60 feet from the property line bordering a residential development. It is our understanding no structures are located within about 75 feet of the proposed Home Depot(LA to confirm). Based on the limits of the deep ground improvement recommended in the geotecbnical report, the source of the machinery generating the highest noise and/or ground vibrations is not anticipated to be closer than 50 feet from the nearest property line during production. The following summary of potential noise and vibration impacts has been prepared based on this understanding. As with any construction activity,noise is generated during activities such as compaction grouting and stone column installation. The noise levels are generally attributed to the actual equipment type rather than the ground improvement method (i.e., depending on the equipment used,compaction grouting may be noisier,or stone column installation may be noisier). As a result of the variables surrounding both construction types, it is difficult to project which process will be louder. In addition,although one method may generate lower noise emissions than another,the quieter method may require a greater duration to complete,thereby extending the duration of the construction noise generation. During the compaction grouting and stone column installation,ground vibrations are induced when the casing is driven and/or pushed into the ground and ground vibrations in areas adjacent to air compressors occur. Comparatively, ground vibrations are also induced during compaction of the stone columns. In our experience,the ground vibrations generated at the source from compaction grouting are less than when compared with conventional stone column techniques. However, vibration levels reduce with increased distance from the source of the vibration.Given the distance of the work area from the property line,the perceptible vibration levels from typical equipment used to install stone columns may not be greater than typical equipment used for compaction grouting. s, _ n12W Home Depot U.S.A.,Ina D05094.02-03 January 23,2006 Page 4 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. If you have any questions regarding this report,or if we can be of further assistance,please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, THE TWIMNG L TORIES, � �,�� j Kenneth J. Clark, CEG _ �EK Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Engineering Division ATTACHMENT NO. GEOLOGY & SOILS Letter from Twining Laboratories, Inc. city of Huntington BO aC JAN 11 2006 ATTACHMENT . 2. �176 sm THE City of Huntington reach JUTWINING JM 1 7.206 LABORATORIES , INC . ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY -ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING -SAMPLING SERVICES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION&MATERIALS TESTING January 12, 2006 D05094.02-02R Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. 3800 West Chapman Avenue Orange,CA 92868 Attention: Mr.Bob Burnside Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report Clarification Proposed Roane Depot, SS00341 19101 Magnolia Street Huntington Beach, California Reference: The Twining Laboratories,Inc.Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report dated November 23, 2004,Project No.D05094.02 Dear Mr.Burnside: As requested,this letter has been prepared to clarify: 1)the depth of engineered fill recommended below foundations,and 2)the methods recommended for foundation support for the proposed Home Depot store to be located at 19101 Magnolia Street in Huntington Beach,California. Depth of Engineered Fill Below Foundations The Executive Summary of the geotechnical report,states: "...new foundations should 8e supported on at least 2 feet ofengineered fill to reduce the anticipated static settlements to I inch total and'/z inch in 50 feet differential." It is our understanding a clarification of the minimum depth of fill below foundations is desired. The intent of this recommendation is to provide 2 feet of engineered fill below the bottom of new foundations to reduce the potential for excessive differential static settlements. The report states " . . . at least 2 feet. . ."to account for additional fill that may be placed below the foundations if the elevation of the site were to be modified by placement of fill soils,i.e.,if the site were raised or cut. The use of the term"minimum"also provides a clarification to Contractors bidding the project that at least 2 feet of engineered fill is required for the project. By stating that at least 2 feet is required, the contractors are informed that less than 2 feet is not satisfactory-, however, if the contractor inadvertently over-excavated 2 feet and I inch due to the nature of earthwork operations this would be acceptable since the minimum depth of engineered fill was achieved. It is our understanding that no significant fill or cut is planned as part of the proposed development. CORPORATE MODESTO CORONA BAKERSFIELD MONTEREY . .SACRAMENT 2527 Fresno Street 5253 JenS&rn Corot,Sty E 840 Eat Parbidge Avenue,Suuke 104 3651 Pegass Drive.#117 5M Ortiz Avenue 5675 Pourer Inn Road,Sub C Fre M CA 937211804 Modesto;CA 9322 Corona,CA 92M I3*msfield,CA 6843 Sard CR%CA 939% Samanrwtq CA 95824 (559)268-702t PM 3422 MM P51)898MO2 (661)39a @M)3W-1056 (916)361-9-W Fax 268-712B fax 579-1460 Nm 898-8974 F X 393 M Fax392-1059 Fax 381-9478 U0 2.2 Home Depot-Huntington Beach D05094.02-02R January 12,2006 Page 2 Accordingly,proposed foundations may be supported on 2 feet of engineered fill. The proposed foundations will not be required to be supported on more than 2 feet of engineered fill unless the finish floor elevation of the proposed building is raised. In addition,the report recommends at least 2 feet of non-expansive fill below the slab-on-grade due to the expansive nature of the on-site soils. Again,the intent of this recommendation is to provide no less than 2 feet of non-expansive engineered fill below the new slab-on-grade to reduce the potential for excessive differential movements and swell. The report indicates". . . at least 2 feet ..."to account for additional fill that may be placed below the slab-on-grade if the elevation of the site were to be modified by placement of fill soils,i.e.,if the site were raised or cut. The use of the term"minimum"also provides a clarification to contractors bidding the project that at least 2 feet ofnon-expansive engineered fill is required below the slab-on-grade for the project. By stating that at least 2 feet is required, the contractors are informed that less than 2 feet is not satisfactory; however, if the contractor inadvertently places 2 feet and 2 inch of non-expansive fill due to the nature of earthwork operations this would be acceptable since the minimum thickness of non- expansive engineered fill was achieved.It is our understanding no significant fill or cut is planned as part of the proposed development. Accordingly,the proposed slab-on-grade may be supported on 2 feet of non-expansive engineered fill. The proposed foundations will not be required to be supported on more than 2 feet of non-expansive engineered fill. Foundation Support As discussed in,the geotechnical engineering investigation report,the subsurface soils exhibit the prerequisite conditions for liquefaction and excessive seismic settlements. These characteristics are similar to geotechnical conditions within the Huntington Beach area and many other low lying coastal areas of Southern California. Given the potential for excessive seismic settlements,two(2) methods of foundation support were considered for this site: I)a deep foundation system,i.e.,driven piles,etc.; and 2) densification of the native soils using a deep ground improvement method and support of shallow foundations on engineered fill. Based on our evaluation of the two methods,the ground vibration and noise impacts resulting from construction of a deep foundation system(i.e.,driven piles)would,in our opinion,likely be greater than the impacts from the implementation of a deep ground improvement program completed using compaction grouting, "stone" column techniques, etc. Accordingly, based on discussions with multiple specialty geotechnical contractors, a deep ground improvement was recommended for support of a shallow foundation system for this site as compared with a deep foundation system consisting of driven piles. The final geotechnical engineering investigation report will include recommendations and specifications for the type of deep ground improvement for this site. The method selected will be chosen based on several parameters including reducing the potential impacts to adjacent properties related to noise and vibration that will result for the ground improvement operations,and the duration of the construction or implementation. The method selected will also be based on the effectiveness of the ground improvement technology considering the subsurface soil A :` i Hoare Depot-Huntington Beach YD05094.02-02I2 January 12,2006 Page 3 conditions. The final geotechnical engineering investigation report will also include vibration and noise criteria developed to reduce the impact on the adjacent properties. The geotechnical engineering investigation report will require that the contractor comply with these criteria during the deep ground improvement program to limit the potential impacts to adjacent properties from noise and vibrations. Finally, the site will be monitored during the ground improvement operations to verify that the contractor complies with the allowable criteria specified in the final geotechnical engineering investigation report. Conclusions In conclusion,the proposed foundations will not be required to be supported on more than 2 feet of non-expansive engineered fill. However,if the contractor inadvertently places more than 2 feet of non-expansive fill due to the nature of earthwork operations this would be acceptable since the minimum thickness of non-expansive engineered fill was achieved. In conclusion, a deep ground improvement program has been recommended for support of a shallow foundation system for this site. The deep ground improvement was selected to reduce the noise and vibration impacts as compared with other alternative methods of foundation support such as a deep, driven pile foundation system. Closing Ourprofessional services were performed,our findings obtained,and ourrecommendations prepared in accordance with generally-accepted engineering principles and practices._ This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, _ 4R aFEss/o THE TWINING LABORATORIES,INC. ��ps ��F _ ��0�.( p, CIO Op 'yam =� cD Z �tr► n�, ' No.GE2069 m No.C35147 m Up.Date 9/30/07 `� P• Date 9/30/07 Harry D.Moore,RCE,RGE s J'I9 OTECHN��' President �9TFOF CA` lFOF CAL�F4� RA/HDM cc: Lars Andersen and Associates,Inc.;Attention Mr.Art Lucas ATTACHMENT . THE TWINING LABORATORIES , INC . ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY -ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING -SAMPLING SERVICES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION&MATERIALS TESTING DRAFT ' GEOTECIINICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BIOME DEPOT, SS00341 19101 MAGNOLIA STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA Project Number: D05094.02-01 For: Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. - 3800 West Chapman Avenue �� Orange,CA 92868 WED November 23,2004 FEB 17 2005 City of Huntington Beach TTA T . �-Z7Y CORPORATE MODESTO VISALIA BAKERSFIELD MONTEREY SACRAMENTO 2527 Fresno Street 5253 Jerusalem Court Stine E 130 North Ke"St,#H6 3651 Pegasus DO^#117 501 Ortiz Avenue 5675 Pow km ROM,Stile C Fresno,CA 9 3721-1 80 4 Modesto,CA 953.56-9322 Visalia,CA 93291-9DOO Bakersfield,CA 93308-6843 Sand City,CA 93955 Saaart>errt CA 95824 (559)288-7021 (209)342 2061 (559)651-8280 (661)393308E (831)392-1056 (916)381-9477 Fax268-7126 Fax 579-1480 Fax 651-82BB Fax 3934643 Fax 392-1059 Fax381-9478 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HOME DEPOT, SS00341 19101 MAGNOLIA STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA Project Number: D05094.02 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed Home Depot store to be located at 19101 Magnolia Street,on the southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue,in Huntington Beach, California. The Twining Laboratories,Inc. (Twining)was authorized by Mr. Scott Mommer to perform the initial geotechnical engineering investigation and by Mr.Robert Burnside to perform the supplemental geotechnical engineering investigation. The contents of this report include the purpose of the investigation and the scope of services provided. The site history,previous studies, existing site features,and anticipated construction are discussed. In addition,a description of the investigative procedures used and the subsequent findings obtained are presented. Finally, the report provides an evaluation of the findings, general conclusions, and related recommendations. The three report appendices contain the drawings (Appendix A),the logs of borings and CPT soundings(Appendix B), and the results of laboratory tests(Appendix Q. The Geotechnical Engineering Division of Twining,headquartered in Fresno,California,performed the investigation. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Purpose: The purpose of the investigation was to conduct a field exploration, a laboratory testing program,evaluate the data collected during the field and laboratory portions ofthe investigation, and provide the following: 2.1.1 Evaluation of the near surface soils within the zone of influence of the proposed foundations,exterior slabs-on-grade,and pavements with regard to Home Depot design criteria; ATTACHMENT NC . Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 2 2.1.2 Conclusions regarding the potential for liquefaction, magnitude of seismic settlement, and recommendations for CBC seismic near source factors and coefficients; 2.1.3 Geotechnica.parameters for use in design of foundations and slabs-on-grade, (e.g., soil bearing capacity and settlement), and development of lateral resistance; 2.1.4 Recommendations for site preparation including placement, moisture conditioning, and compaction of engineered fill soils; 2.1.5 Recommendations for the design and construction of new asphaltic concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete(PCC)pavements; 2.1.6 Evaluation of pavement overlay alternatives; 2.1.7 Recommendations for temporary excavations and trench backfill; and 2.1.8 Conclusions regarding soil corrosion potential. This report is provided specificallyfor the proposed Home Depot store referenced in the Anticipated Construction section of this report. This investigation.did not include a floodplain investigation, compaction tests, environmental investigation, or environmental audit. 2.2 Scone: Our proposed scopes of work,dated June 6,2004 and September 16,2004, outlined the scope of our services. It was not the intent of this investigation to fully comply with the Home Depot Design Manual requirements.for the number of borings on the site(21 borings in the building area and on a 100-foot grid across the entire site). As agreed initially with Mr. Scott Mommer and, later, with Mr. Burnside, the intent of this investigation was to perform at least twenty-one(21)borings and CPTs in the proposed Home Depot store building area,including the overbuild zone, as well as several additional test borings in the parking lot area. The actions undertaken during the investigation are summarized as follows. 2.2.1 The Home Depot Store Geotechnical Investigation Requirements,National Edition(Part Two dated January 9, 2004),was reviewed. 2.2.2 A Site Plan for the proposed project, prepared by Scott A. Mommer Consulting,dated July 26,2004,was reviewed. ATTACHMENT , Home Depot U.S.A.,Ina DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 3 2.2.3 The following civil plans,prepared for the Kmart Store#4424 by Psomas& Associates, were reviewed: + - Grading - Architectural Survey -Proposed Parking Lay-Out These plans are referred to, hereinafter, as the Kmart Civil Plans. 2.2.4 A set of structural plans, prepared by Coogan & Walters Commercial Developers, dated September 25, 1970, for Kmart store #4424, were reviewed. These plans are referred to,hereinafter, as the Kmart Structural Plans. 2.2.5 The Seismic Hazard Zone Report 003,prepared by the California Department of Conservation,Department of Mines and Geology,dated April 17, 1997, including a map showing seismic hazard zones(Newport Beach Quadrangle), and highest historic groundwater level contours,was reviewed. 2.2.6 The City of Huntington Beach Building Code (last revision October 2002) was reviewed. 2.2.7 A visual site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration were conducted. 2.2.8 Laboratory tests were conducted to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils. 2.2.9 Mr. Robert Burnside(Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.), Mr. Scott Mommer(Scott A. Mortimer Consulting) and Mr. Juan Baez (Consultant) were consulted during the investigation. 2.2.10 The data obtained from the investigation were evaluated to develop an understanding of the subsurface soil conditions and engineering properties of the subsurface soils. 2.2.11 This report was prepared to present the purpose and scope, background information,field exploration procedures,findings,evaluation,conclusions, and recommendations. It should be noted that the scope of work did not fully comply with the Home Depot requirements for new store construction as discussed and agreed with Home Depot. In addition,some aspects of the proposed scope had to be modified due to restrictions posed by the existing improvements. ATTACHMENT NO. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 4 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site history, previous studies, existing site features, and the anticipated construction are summarized in the following subsections. 3.1 Site Description: The project site comprises approximately 916 acres located at 19101 Magnolia Street, on the southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue, in Huntington Beach,Orange County,California. A site location map is presented on Drawing No. 1 in Appendix A. The site was bound to the north by a Taco Bell Restaurant,Magnolia Street,and an apartment complex beyond;to the west by a Blockbuster Store,Garfield Avenue and single family residences beyond; to the east by an existing retail development; and to the south by single family residences. At the time of the field explorations conducted in June 2004 and November 2004, the project site was occupied by an existing Kmart store building and attached automotive center, garden shop, associated asphaltic concrete(AC) parking areas, drive areas, and landscape areas. Underground utilities, including electric, telephone, water, irrigation, sewer, and storm drain dines,were noted throughout the site. Existing hydraulic lifts were observed in the area of the automotive center in July of 2004. It is anticipated that a grease interceptor is present in the area of the existing Kmart food court. Also,a vapor extraction well system was observed on the adjacent property,north of the existing Blockbuster Store. According to the Grading Sheet of the Kmart Civil Plans,the site elevations ranged from 9.5 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southeast portion of the site to 12.5 feet AMSL along the perimeter of the Kmart store building. 3.2 Site History: At the time of the supplemental field exploration in November 2004, the project site was occupied by an existing Kmart .store building, including existing asphaltic concrete parking and drive areas associated with the store. The store was not in business operation at the time of the field exploration. It was assumed that the original construction occurred in the early 1970's. The store was remodeled in the late 1980's.or early 1990's. Based on this information, the building and site improvements were estimated to be between approximately 15 and 35 years old. 3.3 Previous Studies: At the time of the preparation of this report, the design level geotechnical report for the existing Kmart store was not available. The Kmart Structural Plans reference a report prepared by Sladden Engineering, dated December 8, 1969. If this report or any other prior geotechnical engineering, geological, or environmental studies conducted for this site become available,these reports should be provided for review and consideration for this project. ATTACH MENT NO. Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 5 The foundation notes on the structural plans for the original construction state the following: 2. Type of ootings: 1 � Spread footings on compacted fill or recompacted existing soils. 3. Design soil pressure: Isolated column footings: 2,000 p.sf. Continuous footings: 1,500 p.sf. 4. Minimum embedment o�footings: 1`--6"below adjacent grade or top of slab. 3.4 Existing and Anticipated Construction 3.4.1 Existing Kmart: The original Kmart store building comprises about 116,824 square feet in plan dimensions at the approximate location shown on the site plan,Drawing No. 2 in Appendix A. In brief, the existing building is a single-story structure with a mezzanine,with concrete masonry unit (CMU)block walls, a combination of steel and wood frame roof, and concrete slab-on-grade floors. Review of the Kmart structural plans indicates that the structure is supported by.a shallow spread foundation system. The thicknesses and reinforcement of the building slabs indicated on the foundation plan of the Kmart Structural Plans are summarized in Table No. 1. Fable No. 1 Thicknesses and Reinforcements of the Kmart Store Building Slabs Location of the Slab Thickness of Reinforcement the Slab,inches Kmart Store Supplies Storage Room 6 10 gauge wire mesh spaced 6 inches by 6 inches Automotive Center and Loading Dock South of Kmart 6 #3 rebar spaced 18 inches each - Track Well way Truck Wells 8 #3 rebar spaced 18 inches each way Kmart Store and Sales Areas 4 10 gauge wire mesh spaced 6 inches by 6 inches ATTACH . �' Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 6 The Grading Plan of the Kmart Civil Plans indicates a finish floor elevation of 13.0 feet for the existing building. The foundation plan of the Kmart Structural Plans indicates that the slab in the automotive center is depressed 51/a inches. 3.4.2 Proposed Home Depot: The proposed Home Depot development includes demolition and removal of the existing Kmart Building, underground utilities, hardscapes and parking and drive areas within the overbuild zone. It is our understanding the existing pavements will be replaced with new pavements. The development will include a new Home Depot store building and garden center as indicated on the July 26, 2004 Site Plan. The site plan indicates that the Home Depot store and garden center will occupy about 102,513 square feet and 34,643 square feet in plan dimensions,respectively. The approximate locations ofthe proposed Horne Depot store and garden center are shown on the site plan,Drawing No.2 in Appendix A. The Home Depot store is anticipated to be a single-story building consisting of CMU or concrete tilt-up walls and a combination wood and steel frame roof with a concrete slab-on-grade floor. The development will also include underground utilities, and paved parking and drive areas. In addition, the proposed development will include demolition and reconstruction of the existing pavements. Maximum loads for the proposed Home Depot store of 5 kips per lineal foot for bearing walls, 120 kips for columns, and a slab-on-grade live load of 650 pounds per square foot were specified by the Home Depot Design Criteria Manual. Tolerable total and differential settlements due to anticipated dead plus live loads of 1-inch and %Z-inch in 50 feet, respectively, were stipulated by the Design Manual for the purpose of design. The proposed development will include driveways and parking for automobile.and truck traffic. -Equivalent 18 kip axle loads (EAL) of 50,000 and 220,000 for a design life of 10 years were indicated in the Design Manual for the Home Depot"standard duty" and"heavy duty"pavement sections,respectively. The finished floor elevation for the proposed Home Depot Store is anticipated to be at or near the finished floor elevation of the existing Kmart building(13.0 feet AMSL). Earthwork cuts and fills up to 3 feet are anticipated to establish design grades and to provide positive site drainage. These estimates do not include additional over-excavation required to provide engineered fill below the foundations as recommended in this report. 4.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES The field exploration and laboratory testing programs conducted for this investigation are summarized in the following subsections. 4.1 Field Exploration:The field exploration consisted of a site reconnaissance,drilling test borings, coring the existing concrete slabs-on-grade, soil sampling, standard penetration tests, and cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings. ATTACHMENT NO . . Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 8 Drawing No. 2 in Appendix A. The CPT soundings were performed by Kehoe Testing and Engineering using an electronic piezocone with+ a 60-degree apex angle and a diameter of 35.7 millimeters (about 1 V2 inches) hydraulically advanced using a 30-ton CPT rig in accordance with ASTM Test Method D3441. CPT measurements of cone bearing resistance, sleeve friction, and dynamic pore water pressure were recorded at 0.25-foot intervals during penetration to provide nearly continuous logs of the soil behavior types. The CPT logs are presented in Appendix B. CPT sounding locations were determined by pacing with reference to the southwest corner of the existing Kmart store building. The locations,as shown on Drawing No.2(Appendix A),should be considered accurate to within 5 feet. The sounding holes were backfilled with bentonite chips. 4.1.4 S oil Sampling: Standard penetration tests were conducted in the test borings, and both disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained. The standard penetration resistance,N-value,is defined as the number of blows required to drive a standard split barrel sampler into the soil. The standard split barrel sampler has a 2-inch O.D. and a 13/a-inch inside diameter (I.D.). The sampler is driven by a 140-pound weight free falling 30 inches. The sampler is lowered to the bottom of the bore hole and set by driving it an initial 6 inches. It is then driven an additional 12 inches and the number of blows required to advance the sampler the additional 12 inches is recorded as the N-value. Relatively undisturbed soil samples for laboratory tests were obtained by pushing or driving a California modified split barrel ring sampler into the soil. The soil was retained in brass rings, 2.5 inches O.D. and I-inch in height. The lower 6-inch portion of the samples were placed in close- fitting,plastic,airtight containers which,in turn,were placed in cushioned boxes for transport to the laboratory. Soil samples obtained were taken to Twining's laboratory for classification and testing. 4.1.5 Concrete Slabs-On-Gracie Coring: On June 17,2004,the existing Kmart store interior slab was cored at four locations. The concrete cores were returned to our laboratory in order to determine the thickness of the cores and the approximate size and location of reinforcement. 4.2 Laboratory Testing: The laboratory testing was programmed to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils underlying the site. 1 he tests were conducted on disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples representative of the subsurface materials. The results of laboratory tests are summarized on Figure Numbers I through 27 in Appendix C. These data, along with the field observations, were used to prepare the final test boring logs in Appendix B. AT1t.;#1 IN . Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 7 4.1.1 Site Reconnaissance: The site reconnaissance consisted of walking the site and noting visible surface features. The reconnaissance was conducted by Mr. Dean Ledgerwood on June 17, 2004 and Mr. Hatim Elbadri (both of Twining)on November 4, 2004. The features noted are described in the background information! l 1 4.1.2 Drilling Test Borings: The depths and locations oftest borings were selected based on the size of the structure, type of construction, estimated depths of influence of proposed foundation loads, and the subsurface conditions. On June 17,2004,four(4)test borings were drilled inside the existing Kmart store and automotive center to depths of 18 to 25 feet BSG. The test borings inside the existing Kmart building included coring the floor slab and excavating soil borings using a limited access drill rig. On June 17,2004, six(6)test borings were drilled in the area of the proposed Home Depot store(outside the exiskting building),and parking and drive areas associated with the existing Kmart store to depths ofbetween 11 Y7.and 50 feet BSG. On November 4,2004,six(6)supplemental test borings were drilled in the area proposed for the Home Depot store and nine(9) supplemental test borings were drilled in the parking lot area. Soil samples were collected and returned to our laboratory for classification and testing. The exterior test borings(outside the existing building)were drilled using a CME-75 drill rig equipped with 65/a-inch outside diameter(O.D.)hollow-stem augers. The interior test borings were drilled using a limited access drill rig equipped with 6-inch O.D. solid-flight augers. The test borings were drilled under the direction of a Twining staff geologist: The soils encountered in the test borings were logged. The field soil classification was in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and consisted of particle size, color, and other distinguishing features of the soil. The presence and elevation of free water, if any, in the borings were noted and recorded during drilling and immediately following completion of borings. Test boring locations were determined by pacing with reference to the southwest corner of the existing Kmart store building. The locations,as described,should be considered accurate to within 5 feet. The locations of the test borings-are described on the boring logs in Appendix B. Elevations of the interior building test borings were not surveyed as a part of the investigation,however,they were interpreted from the Kmart Civil Plans. The test borings were looselybackfilled with bentonite chips or bentonite grout;thus, some settlement should be anticipated in the boring locations. 4.1.3 Cone Penetration Test(CPT)Soundings: In addition to the hollow stem auger borings,cone penetration testing(CPT)was performed at the site. On June 16, 2004,six(6) CPT soundings were advanced to depths of 25 to 50 feet BSG in the area proposed for the Home Depot store. On November 12, 2004, six (6) supplemental CPTs were performed to depths of approximately 50 feet BSG. CPT methods were used to obtain nearly continuous soil behavior type and penetration resistance information for use in liquefaction evaluation. The soundings were conducted under the direction of a Twining staff geologist. The CPT locations are shown on ATTACKMW, NO, HomeDepot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 9 5.0 FINDINGS AND RESULTS The findings and results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are summarized in the ' following subsections. ' 5.1 Condition of Interior Slabs-on-Grade: Visual observations of the interior slabs-on- grade revealed numerous cracks in the slabs-on-grade in areas that were exposed(no floor covering). The cracks observed in the store slab exhibited an"alligator"pattern with lengths in the 6 to 10 inch range. These cracks appear to be shrinkage cracks. The existing Kmart store interior slabs-on-grade were cored to determine the slab thicknesses at several locations. The test locations are shown on Drawing No.2 in Appendix A. The thicknesses of the slab at the coring locations are summarized in Table No.2. Table No.2 Interior Slabs-On-Grade- Summa 'of Core Tests Test Boring Location Average Core Location of the 0.184nch wire Designation Thickness,inches* reinforcement,inches below top of the slab B-1 Northeast Portion of the 5.9 3.6 Building B-2 Southeast Portion of the 4.8 3.7 Building B-3 Kmart Store Supplies Storage 6.4 5.5 Room B-4 Automotive Center 5.5 NE *Note: Measurements made to the nearest 1/10-inch using a micrometer. NE Not encountered It should be noted that sand layers,vapor barriers,or aggregate base sections were not encountered in any test boring drilled at the site. 5.2 Exterior Slabs-On-Grade: Longitudinal cracks up to 20 feet long and up to %4 inch wide were observed in the garden center and front sidewalk slabs (area adjacent to the garden center). 5.3 Asphaltic Concrete Pavements: The asphaltic concrete pavements appeared to be in poor condition. Numerous "alligator" cracking and potholes in the pavement were observed throughout the parking and drive areas. During the test boring excavation, the thicknesses of the asphaltic concrete and aggregate base were determined at each location. The thicknesses are recorded on the logs of boring included in Appendix B of this report. ATTACHMENT NO � �� Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 10 5.4 Soil Profile: In general,the soils encountered consisted of interbedded layers of silty sands,poorly graded sands,sandysilts,and lean clays to the maximum depth explored,50 feet BSG. The near surface soils consisted predominantly of silty sands and sandy silts. These subsurface soil descriptions constitute a general summary of the soil conditions encountered in the test borings drilled and the CPT soundings conducted for this investigation. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered at each test boring are presented on the logs of borings in Appendix B. The stratification lines shown on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types; the actual in-situ transition may be gradual. 5.5 Soil Engineering Properties: The silty sand soils encountered between the ground surface and IS feet BSG were very loose to medium dense as indicated by standard penetration resistance,N-values,ranging from 4 to 21 blows per foot. The natural moisture content of the soils ranged from about 9 to 35 percent above the groundwater table. The soils exhibited high compressibility characteristics with the addition of moisture as indicated by consolidation testing. Upon inundation,the soils exhibited slight to moderate collapse potential when saturated under a 2 kips per square foot confining load. The silty sand soils,encountered predominantly between the depths of 15 to 50 feet BSG,were loose to medium dense as indicated byN-values ranging from 8 to 12 blows per foot. The natural moisture contents of the soils ranged from about 26 to 30 percent below the groundwater table. The sandy silt soils encountered between the ground surface and a depth of about 15 feet BSG were soft to medium stiff as indicated by N-values ranging from 3 to 8 blows per foot. The natural moisture contents of soils ranged from 10 to 39 percent above the groundwater table. A maximum density/optimum moisture determination performed on one near-surface.soil sample indicated a maximum dry density of 119.8 pounds per cubic foot at an optimum moisture content of 11.9 percent. The soils exhibited low compressibility characteristics with the addition of moisture as indicated by consolidation testing. Upon inundation,the soils exhibited low collapse potential. The results of one(1)expansion index test indicates that the near surface silts are expansive(CJBC EI= 47,classified as low expansion per UBC Table 18-1-B). The sandy silt soils encountered between depths of 15 and 50 feet BSG were medium stiff to stiff as indicated by N-values ranging from 8 to 11 blows per foot. The natural moisture contents of the soils ranged from 30 to 34 percent below the groundwater table. The poorly graded sands were loose to medium dense as indicated by N-values ranging from 5 to 21 blows per foot. The natural moisture contents of the soils ranged from 3 to 31 percent and from 23 to 37 percent below the groundwater table. The soils exhibited high compressibility characteristics with the addition ofmoisture as indicated consolidation testing. Upon inundation,the soils exhibited moderate collapse potential. AAF _ . . Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 11 The lean clay soils encountered were soft to very stiff as indicated by N-values ranging from 2 to 17 blows per foot. The natural moisture content of soils ranged from 25 to 60 percent below the groundwater table. r + R-value tests were conducted on six (6) near surface samples collected between the depths of approximately%2 and 3%2 feet BSG. The results of the tests indicate R-values of 20,24, 27, 29,44 and 62. Chemical tests performed on two (2)near surface soil samples indicated pH values of 7.7 for both samples,minimum resistivity values of 2,600 and 2,100 ohms/centimeter, 0.018 and 0.019 percent by weight concentrations of sulfate, and 0.0061 and 0.0044 percent by weight concentrations of chloride. 5.6 Groundwater Conditions: Groundwater was encountered in nine(9)of the ten(10) test borings drilled for the investigation. Groundwater depths ranged from 9 to 18 feet BSG at the time of the field exploration(June and November 2004), with the exception of one(1)test boring which encountered some groundwater seepage at a depth of 5 feet(at the location of test boring B-24 in the parking lot on the east side of the existing building). The shallow depth to water at this location (B-24) is anticipated to be a localized zone of perched groundwater. Interpolation of groundwater level contours indicated on Plate 1.2 of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report 003,prepared by the Division of Mines and Geology,indicates an historic high groundwater level of 4 feet below the surface for the area of the site. A groundwater depth of 4 feet or less should be used by the design professionals for purposes of design. The Contractor should use a groundwater depth of 4 feet or less for bidding purposes. It should be recognized, however, that water table elevations fluctuate with time, since they are dependent upon seasonal precipitation,irrigation,land use, and climatic conditions as well as other factors: Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered both during the construction phase and the design life of the project. The evaluation of such factors was beyond the scope of this investigation and report. A groundwater depth of 9 feet was used in the liquefaction and seismically induced settlement evaluations. 6.0 EVALUATION The data and methodology used to develop conclusions and recommendations for project design and preparation of geotechnical related construction specifications are summarized in the following subsections. The evaluations were based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the investigation,our review of the project site plan,and our understanding of the proposed construction. The conclusions obtained from the results of our evaluations are described in the Conclusions section of this report(Section 7.0). Twining should review the grading plans(when available). The grading could significantly impact our evaluations and recommendations for this site. A summary of the r T - =� Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 12 evaluations performed as a part of this report are described below. 6.1 - Expansive Soils: One of the geotechnical concerns evaluated at this site is the expansion potential of the near surface soilg. Over time, expansive soils will experience cyclic drying and wetting as the dry and wet seasons pass. Expansive soils experience volumetric changes (shrink/swell) as the moisture content of the clayey soils fluctuate. These shrink/swell cycles can impact foundations and lightly loaded slabs-on-grade when not designed for the anticipated expansive soil pressures. Expansive soils cause more damage to structures, particularly light buildings and pavements,than any other natural hazard,including earthquakes and floods(Jones and Holtz, 1973). Expansion potential may not manifest itself until months or.years after construction. . The potential for damage to slabs-on-grade and foundations supported on expansive soils can be reduced by placing non-expansive sections underlying foundations-and slabs-on-grade. In consideration of the expansive soils at the site,expansion testing was performed on representative samples of the near surface soils which are anticipated to be within the zone of influence of planned improvements. The expansion testing was performed in accordance with UBC Standard 29-2. The soils tested were classified by expansion potential in accordance with UBC Table 18-1-B and are summarized in Appendix C of this report. At most sites there exists a depth to which the moisture content of the subgrade remains essentially constant throughout the year,thus, expansive soils would not be expected to undergo a significant volume change below this depth. This depth is referred to as the "critical depth." This depth influences the selection of suitable foundation and floor slab alternatives. Climatic conditions, groundwater conditions, irrigation, and soil type affect the critical depth. Since most of the site will be covered with buildings and pavements,which should impede moisture fluctuations,it is expected that the post-development critical zone will be about 24 inches BSG at this site. Foundations should be extended to a depth of at least the post construction critical depth to limit the influence of the seasonal moisture fluctuations. In addition, the foundations should extend to the critical depth below finished grades around the entire perimeter of the building,including doorways, so that the perimeter foundations can act as a lateral cutoff for migration of moisture. Some of the adverse effects of expansive soils can be reduced,not eliminated,by supporting the slabs-on-grade on imported non-expansive,granular engineered fill. Recommendations for placing imported non- expansive soils below slabs are provided in the Recommendations section of this report. 6.2 Static Settlement and Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations: The potential for excessive total and differential static settlements of foundations and slabs-on-grade is a geotechnical concern which should be evaluated for this building site. The increases in effective stress to underlying soils which can occur from new foundations and structures,placement of fill, withdrawal of groundwater, etc. can cause vertical deformation of the soils, which can result in Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 13 damage to the overlying structure and improvements. The differential component of the settlement is often the most damaging. In addition,the allowable bearing pressures of the soils supporting the foundations should be evaluated for shear and punching type failure of the soils resulting from the imposed foundation loads. ' Based on the subsurface data and laboratory testing performed as part of this report,static settlement calculations were performed. Calculations indicate that static settlement of foundations placed directly on native soils at the proposed foundation depth would exceed the Home Depot design criteria for differential settlements of%2 inch in 50 feet. To reduce the estimated static total and differential settlements to 1 inch and Y2 inch in 50 linear feet,respectively,the foundations would need to be supported on a uniform thickness of engineered fill (a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of foundations). Total and differential static settlements due to combined anticipated foundation loads of 1-inch and %2-inch in 50 feet,respectively,were estimated considering: 1)the compressibility of the native soils following the recommended site preparation;2)the structural loads anticipated,and 3)the use of a maximum allowable net bearing pressure.of 2,000 pounds per square foot for dead-plus-live loads. Net allowable soil bearing pressure is the additional contact pressure at the base of the foundations caused by the structure. The weight of the soil backfill may be neglected and the weight of concrete in the footings may be assumed to be 50 pounds per cubic foot. The net allowable soil bearing pressure presented was selected to satisfy both the settlement criteria and Terzaghi bearing capacity equations for spread foundations. A factor of safety of 3 was used to determine the allowable bearing capacity based on the Terzaghi equations. 6.3 Interior Slab on Grade Construction: As indicated above,the potential for damage to slabs due to expansive soils should be addressed by placing a non-expansive section below slabs- on-grade. In addition,several issues need to be considered to limit the potential for damage to slabs during construction. These issues include: 1)using perimeter pour-strips at tilt-up and CMU wall locations to avoid damage to slab-wall connections; 2) differential slab movement at, interior columns;3)aggregate base sections below the slabs,and 4)crane and construction equipment loads on the slabs. Depending on the sequence of slab loading and the location of wall construction,damage to slabs from differential loading conditions could occur. It has been our experience that a concentrated amount of differential movement and damage at the slab-to-perimeter footing location can occur as heavy load bearing walls are placed and the footing is loaded. This typical procedure can result in cracking of slabs and foundations due to differential movement. This potential damage can be reduced by leaving a perimeter pour strip between the wall footing and the adjacent slabs. After the walls are erected, and a majority of the static movement has occurred,the pour strip can be placed. Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 14 The method of interior column construction can also potentially damage the overlying slabs. In some cases,the subgrade preparation for the slab is not continuous across the top of spread footings. Often the zone above the top of structural footings is backfilled with concrete during slab placement. This results in a differential slab support condition which often causes cracking at the soil/base-to- concrete transition. This crack appears as an outline of the underlying footing at the floor surface. The potential for this type of slab cracking can be reduced bybackfilling the zone above the top of the footing and below the bottom of slabs with an approved backfill material and/or an aggregate base section below the floor slab. This procedure will provide uniform support for the slabs which _! should reduce the potential for cracking. It has been our experience that placing concrete for the concrete slabs by the tailgating method can cause subgrade instability due to the high frequency of concrete trucks which travel across the prepared subgrade.Compacted subgrade can experience instability under high traffic loads resulting in heaving and depressions in the subgrade during critical pours. This condition becomes more critical during wet winter and spring months. A layer of aggregate base (AB) can reduce the potential for instability under the high frequency loading of concrete trucks. Also, the improved - support characteristics of the AB can be used in the design of the slab sections. Therefore, it is recommended to utilize a slab design with at least 6 inches of AB for constructability and design purposes. Finally,it is expected that erection of concrete tilt-up wall panels and roof steel will require cranes and heavy construction equipment. It should be noted that cranes and heavy construction equipment can impart intense loads on slabs and pavements. The loaded track pressure of cranes and/or heavy construction equipment that will operate on slabs or pavements should be assessed by the contractor prior to placing equipment on the slab. 6.4 Faulting and Ground Rupture: The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest known active or potentially active fault is the Newport - Inglewood Fault(L.A. Basin segment)located about 1.6 miles(2.8 km)northeast of the site. Due to the distance to the nearest mapped fault,the potential for fault rupture at the site is considered low. 6.5 Seismic Coefficients and Near Source Factors: It is our understanding that the 2001 CBC will be used for structural design,and that seismic site coefficients are needed for design. Based on the 2001 CBC Table 16A-J, the site is classified as a stiff soil SD site with standard penetration resistance N-values averaging between 15 and 50 blows per foot in the upper 100 feet BSG. The site coefficients for acceleration and velocity are based on the distance and activity of the local faults. Digitized seismic models published by the CGS indicate that three(3)faults or fault segments are located within 15 kilometers of the site. These faults are:L.A.Basin Segment of the Newport- Inglewood Fault (distance approximately 2.8 km, Mm= 6.9, slip rate 1.0 mm/year), the Compton Thrust Fault (distance approximately 9.3 km, Mm= 6.8, slip rate 1.5 mm/year), and the Offshore Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 15 Segment of Newport - Inglewood Fault (distance approximately 11.7 km, M.= 6.9, slip rate 1.5 mm/year). According to Table 16A-U-Seismic Source Type,these faults are considered to be type B seismic sources;therefore,the site requires near-source corrections(CBC Tables 16A-S and 16A- T). The values of the near-source acceleration factor,Na, and the near-source velocity factor,Nv, maybe taken as 1.2 and 1.5, respectively. The values of the seismic coefficients, Ca and Cv,may be taken 0.54 and 0.95,respectively. A table providing the recommended seismic coefficients for the project site is included in the Foundations Recommendations section of this report. 6.6 Seismic Ground Motion: Seismic ground motion estimates were developed to conduct the liquefaction hazard analyses. The"Design Basis Ground Motion,"Section 1627 ofthe California Building Code (CBC), is defined as the seismic ground motion having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-year period. The probabilistic analyses.described in this section was used to determine the Design Basis Ground Motion. Probabilistic ground motion evaluation requires use of a seismicity model and ground motion attenuation functions to approximate the modification of seismic waves between the earthquake hypocenter(source)and the site. The seismicity model,including the location and fault parameters (such as slip rate,fault length, magnitude and rupture area) of faults capable of impacting the site, were based on published geologic papers and correspond with those listed in the California Geological Survey(CGS)database entitled"California Fault Parameters." Multiple probabilistic evaluations were conducted using the FRISKSP computer program and the faults indicated as those active and potentially active faults listed in the"California Fault Parameters"database. Our evaluation considered the average of the predicted design basis ground motions for four(4) separate analyses incorporating the ground motion attenuation relationships of Boore et. al.(1997), Sagigh et. al. (1997), Idriss (1994), and Abrahamson and Silva(1997), the active and potentially active faults within 100 kilometers of the site. The average of design basis site accelerations based on the above attenuation relationships was determined to be 0.42g. Accordingly, a ground motion of 0.42g was selected for use in the liquefaction analyses.This represents a value not weighted for magnitude. Magnitude weighting was conducted in the liquefaction analysis. Hazard deaggregation was conducted using the FRISKSP computer program. The results indicate that an earthquake magnitude of 6.9 represents the predominant earthquake magnitude contributing to the Design Basis Ground Motion (L. A. Basin Segment of Newport - Inglewood Fault). This earthquake magnitude was used with the above ground motion estimate for the liquefaction analyses. 6.7 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement: The subject site is located in a seismic hazard special studies zone for liquefaction which delineate areas of historical occurrence of liquefaction or where local geological,geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement such that a mitigation as defined in'Public Resources Code Section 26930 would be required. A site specific liquefaction evaluation was performed as a part of this report. 2 79 ATTAR --- ., Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 16 Liquefaction and seismic settlement are conditions that can occur under seismic shaking from earthquake events. Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which a saturated, cohesionless soil loses strength during an earthquake as a result of induced shearing strains. Lateral and vertical ' movements of the soil mass,combined{with loss of bearing usually results. Fine,well sorted,loose sand, shallow groundwater conditions,higher intensity earthquakes, and particularly long duration of ground shaking are the common characteristics for liquefaction. Liquefaction and seismic settlement analyses were conducted based on soil properties revealed by test borings and CPT soundings,and the results of laboratory testing. The analyses were conducted for soils encountered in CPT soundings CPT-1 through CPT-6 using a spread sheet developed based on the computer program LIQUEFY2 developed by Mr. Thomas F. Blake. A design basis earthquake acceleration of 0.42g and a design earthquake magnitude of 6.9 were used. TheN-values generated based on the CPT results were used to determine the cyclic stress ratio needed to initiate liquefaction. Soil parameters,such as wet unit weight,N-value,fines content,and depth of N-value tests,were input for the soil layers encountered throughout the depths explored(see test boring logs, Appendix B). An historic high groundwater depth of 4 feet below existing grade was used,in the analyses. One of the most common phenomena that occurs during seismic shaking is the induced settlement of loose, unconsolidated sediments. This can occur in unsaturated and saturated granular soils, however, seismic settlements are typically largest where liquefaction occurs(saturated soils). The results of liquefaction analyses indicate liquefaction would occur in medium dense silty sands and poorly graded sands and stiff sandy silts. Liquefaction was predicted to occur as a result ofthe design basis earthquake ground motion in discrete sandy layers between the depths of 4 and 50 feet below the present ground surface. Estimates of total seismic settlements ranged from about 1.3 to 4.0 inches. The highest differential seismic settlement calculated between the CPT soundings was about 1 inch in 50 feet. In addition,static total and differential settlements on the order of 1 inch and %z inch, respectively, are anticipated for the proposed building (assumes site preparation recommended in this report is properly performed). Therefore, combined calculated settlements (static and seismic)of up to 5 inches total and 2 inches differential should be anticipated for design if liquefaction is not mitigated. It should be noted that these estimates do not include settlements resulting from an additional effect of liquefaction, loss of bearing strength. The predicted settlements exceed the Home Depot Design Manual requirements of 1 inch total and V2 inch in 50 feet differential. In addition,some loss of soil bearing capacity could occur as a result of liquefaction ofsoils between about 4 and 15 feet BSG. Loss of soil bearing capacity within the foundation influence zone(up to about 15 feet BSG)would be anticipated to result in significantly higher'settlements than predicted above. Estimates of total and differential seismic settlements resulting from loss ofbearing strength can vary widely,however,differential settlements would be anticipated to be much higher than the 2 inches predicted based on no loss of bearing strength. TTA H . . 2�6 Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 17 6.8 Mitigation of Static and Seismic Settlements: Given the magnitude of the anticipated static and seismic settlements,the proposed structure should be designed to tolerate the combined total and differential settlements presented in this report, either by structural mitigation or ground modification. The Home Depot criteria manual requires that the primary option for mitigation of excessive seismic settlements be ground modification methods. It should be noted that seismic settlement,including settlements resulting from loss ofbearing strength could be addressed by means of ground modification and/or structural mitigation. Typical options for structural mitigation include deep foundation systems, mat foundations, quasi- rigid foundations, etc. Structural mitigation should consider that liquefaction occurring in sandy layers at depths of about 4 to 15 feet could cause loss of bearing strength. Settlements due to loss of foundation bearing capacity should be considered for design. In the event that structural mitigation is not selected, ground modification will be required. Typical options for ground modification include "Stone" columns, compaction grouting, etc. Options for ground modification such as stone columns are limited considering that the proposed structure is located adjacent to an existing residential development and other businesses. Due to the proximity of the existing adjacent structures, a compaction grouting program maybe better suited for this site, since the ground vibrations and noise associated with this type of work is significantly less than construction of stone column type mitigation. Grout injection into loose or soft soils has also been used to reduce potential settlements. Considering the relatively t1iin and deep nature of the potentially liquefiable soils,injection type grouting methods are preliminarily estimated to be a potentially feasible alternative for reducing seismic settlements. 6.9 Asphaltic Concrete(AC)Pavements: The existing asphaltic concrete pavements appeared to be in poor condition.Numerous areas of"alligator"cracking andpotholes were observed throughout the parking and drive areas. It should be noted that these pavements are at least 15 years old; thus, theoretically, about 70 to 80 percent of the design life of the pavements have been expended. Preliminary recommendations for asphaltic concrete pavement structural sections are presented in the 'Recommendations" section of this report. The thicknesses of the Asphalt Concrete and the underlying aggregate base materials are based upon the amount and type of traffic loads being considered and the Resistance or R-value of the subgrade soils which will support the pavement. The measure of the amount and type of traffic loads are based upon an index of equivalent axle loads (EAL)from loading of heavy trucks called a traffic index (T.I). Recommendations for new asphaltic concrete pavement structural sections and overlays are presented in the"Recommendations"section of this report. The structural sections were designed using the gravel equivalent method in accordance with Chapter 600 of the California Department of Transportation Highways Design Manual(fifth edition). The traffic loading data were obtained from the Design Criteria Manual provided by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. For the proposed Home ATTACHMENT W. Home Depot U.S.A.,Ina DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 18 Depot store,the"standard duty"pavement should be designed for a life of 10 years and an EAL(18 kips) of 50,000 axles. An EAL of 50,000 equates to a traffic index of 6.5. The-"Heavy duty" pavement was designed for a life of 10 years and an EAL(18 kips)of 220,000 axles. This equates to a traffic index of 7.5. If traffic loading is anticipated to be greater than assumed,the pavement sections should be re-evaluated. In evaluation of the pavement design for this project, samples of the onsite soils anticipated to be representative of the soils which will support pavements were obtained and R-value testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D2844. The R-value test results are summarized in Appendix C of this report. The existing pavement sections do not comply with the minimum Home Depot criteria based on traffic index values of 6.5 and 7.5,and a'design R-value of 20. As a comparison,the design section for standard duty pavements based on the minimum Home Depot criteria would be 3.5 inches of AC over 11.5 inches of AB.The design section for heavy duty pavements based on the minimum Home Depot criteria would be 4.0 inches of AC over 13.5 inches of AB. The average existing pavement section consists of 2V4 inches of AC over 3%2 inches of AB. In our opinion, the.pavements would have to be removed and replaced to comply with the Home Depot Design Criteria. Considering the range of pavement section thicknesses measured, it is estimated that an AC overlay of about 5'/4 inches would be required to achieve the"standard duty" T.I. of 6.5 and an AC overlay of 7%4 inches would be required to achieve a"heavy duty"T.1.of 7.5. In our opinion,overlays of these thicknesses are not practical or cost-effective. 6.10 Portland Cement Concrete (!!CC) Pavements: Recommendations for Portland Cement Concrete pavement structural sections are presented in the"Recommendations" section of this report. The PCC pavement sections are based upon the amount and type of traffic loads being considered and the Resistance or R-value of the subgrade soils which will support the pavement. The measure of the amount and type of traffic loads are based upon an index of equivalent axle loads (EAL)from the loading of heavy trucks called a traffic index(T.I). In evaluation of the pavement design for this project, samples of the onsite soils anticipated to be representative of the soils which will support pavements were obtained and R-value testing performed in accordance with ASTM D2844. The R-value test results are summarized in Appendix C of this report. The EALs for each of the pavement sections were converted to the number of 5-axle trucks per day, one direction,anticipated for the proposed store. The EAL for the"standard duty"pavement section of 50,000 was converted to 14 axles or 6 five-axle trucks per day. The EAL for the "heavy duty" pavement section is 220,000 or 26 five-axle trucks per day. The recommended structural sections were based primarily on the Portland Cement Association"Thickness Design ofHighway and Street Pavements." ATTACH T o. �.7�7 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Rage No. 19 The PCC pavement sections were designed for a life of 10 years,a load safety factor of 1.l,'a single axle weight of 12,000 pounds, a tandem axle weight of 36,000 pounds. A modulus of subgrade reaction,K-value,for the pavement section,considering a minimum 6-inch layer of aggregate base materiall (minimum R-value of 70), of 200 psi/in at the top of the aggregate base was used for pavement design. 6.11 Corrosion Protection: The risk of corrosion of construction materials relates to the potential for soil-induced chemical reaction. Corrosion is a naturally occurring process whereby the surface of a metallic structure is oxidized or reduced to a corrosion product such as iron oxide(i.e., rust). The metallic surface is attacked through the migration of ions and loses its original strength by the thinning of the member. Corrosion can eventually damage or destroy a metallic object. Soils make up a complex environment for potential metallic corrosion. The corrosion potential of a soil depends on soil resistivity, texture, acidity, field moisture and chemical concentrations. In order to evaluate the potential for corrosion of metallic objects in contact with the onsite soils, chemical testing of soil samples was performed by Twining as part of this report. The test results are included in Appendix C of this report. Conclusions regarding the corrosion potential of the soil tested are included in the Conclusions section of this report. If piping or concrete are placed in contact with imported soils, these soils should be analyzed to ' evaluate the corrosion potential of these soils. If the manufacturers or suppliers cannot determine ifmaterials are compatible withthe soil corrosion conditions, a professional consultant, i.e., a corrosion engineer, with experience in corrosion protection should be consulted to provide design parameters. Twining does not provide corrosion engineering services. 6.12 Sulfate Attack of Concrete: Degradation of concrete in contact with soils due to sulfate attack involves complex physical and chemical processes. When sulfate attack occurs,these processes can reduce the durability of concrete by altering the chemical and microstructural nature of the cement paste. Sulfate attack is dependent on a variety of condition_ s including,concrete quality, exposure to sulfates in soil/groundwater and environmental factors. The standard practice for geotechnical engineers in evaluation of the soils anticipated to be in contact with concrete is to perform testing to determine the sulfates present in the soils. The test results are then compared with the categories of the 2001 Uniform Building Code,Table 19-A-3 to provide guidelines for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing solutions. Common methods used to resist the potential for degradation of concrete due to sulfate attack from soils include, but are not limited to the use of sulfate-resisting cements, air-entrainment and reduced water to cement ratios. Nome Repot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094:02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 20 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the data collected during the field and laboratory investigations, our geotechnical experience in the vicinity of the project site, and our understanding of the anticipated construction, we present the following general conclusions. 7.1 The site is suitable for the proposed construction with regard to support of foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade,provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. However, it should be noted that the estimated total (static and seismic)settlements exceed Home Depot's criteria, and mitigation, such as injection grouting, stone columns,etc.would be required to reduce the predicted settlements. 7.2 The site is located approximately%2 mile east from the"Methane District Two." The extent of methane districts is defined in the City of Huntington Beach Building Code. Additional research should be conducted by the project architect in order,to determine the need for additional studies or building requirements relative to the Methane District and this site in particular. 7.3 The existing AC parking and drive area pavement sections were observed to be generally in poor condition. The pavement sections do not comply with the Home Depot standard design and minimum criteria. The design section for standard duty pavements,based on the minimum Home Depot criteria,would be 3.5 inches of AC over 11.5 inches of A.B. The design section for heavy duty pavements,based on the minimum Home Depot criteria,would be 4.0 inches of AC over 13.5 inches of A.B. Considering the range of pavement section thicknesses measured, and using the original design sections,it is estimated that an AC overlay of about 5%4 inches would be required to achieve the "standard duty" T. I. of 6.5 and an AC overlay of 71/4 -inches would be required to achieve a"heavy duty"T.I.of 7..5.Considering the wide variation in existing pavement sections measured, the potential for variable performance across new overlays,and the required construction of the new curb and gutters(due to the high thicknesses of overlay),it is our opinion that the remove-and- replace alternative would provide a significantly better pavement than any other alternative. 7.4 Soils encountered consisted of interbedded layers with very loose to medium dense silty sands,loose to medium dense poorly graded sands,soft to very stiff sandy silts, and soft to very stiff lean clays to the maximum depth explored, 50 feet BSG. The near surface soils predominantly consisted of silty sands and sandy silts. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 IK Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 21 7.5 The near the surface silty and poorly graded sands exhibited high compressibility characteristics, moderate collapse potential, and low shear strength. The near the surface sandy silt soils exhibited low compressibility and low collapse potential. 7.6 Consideration of foundation embedment for frost depth is not required since the mean monthly temperature of the Huntington Beach area is above freezing. 7.7 Upon completion of the deep ground improvement activity(if performed), shallow spread footings placed entirely on at least 2 feet of engineered fill can provide adequate support for the proposed structure with regard to static settlements. 7.8 The soils at the bottom of the over-excavation should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches,conditioned(wetted or aerated),and compacted as engineered fill. The contractor should note that the bottom of excavations will likely exhibit instability due to high moisture contents and require stabilization such as chemical treatment,etc. As a minimum,the contractor shall stabilize the upper 16 inches of the exposed soils at the bottom of excavations using chemical treatment with a minimum of 5 percent.high calcium quicklime or Portland cement. The type of chemical treatment,high calcium quicklime or Portland cement,will be determined by the Twining at the time of construction. 7.9 The results of liquefaction analyses indicate liquefaction would occur in medium dense silty sands and poorly graded sands and stiff sandy silts. Liquefaction was predicted to occur as a result of the design basis earthquake ground motion indiscrete sandy layers between the depths of 4 and 50 feet below the present ground surface. Estimates of total seismic settlements ranged from about 1.3 to 4.0 inches. The highest differential seismic settlement calculated between the CPT soundings was about 1 inch in 50 feet. In addition, static total and differential settlements on the order of 1 inch and %2 inch, respectively, are anticipated for the proposed building (assumes site preparation recommended in this report is properly performed). Therefore, combined calculated settlements (static and seismic) of up to 5 inches total and 2 inches differential should be anticipated for design if liquefaction is not mitigated. It should be noted that these estimates do not include settlements resulting from an additional effect of liquefaction, loss of bearing strength. The predicted settlements exceed the Home Depot Design Manual requirements of 1 inch total and %2 inch in 50 feet differential. ATTACHMENT . 2 �� Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 22 7.10 Given the magnitude of the anticipated static and seismic settlements,the proposed structure should be designed to tolerate the combined total and differential settlements(static and seismic)presented in this report. Either structural mitigation or ground modification,or a combination of the two,should be used for the.project. 1 As noted previously, Home Depot's criteria requires ground modification as the primary option to address excessive seismic settlements. 7.11 To achieve total and differential static settlements of 1 inch and %2 inch in 50 feet, over-excavation and compaction will be required to provide a minimum of 2 feet of engineered fill below all foundations. 7.12 Floor slabs may be supported on at least 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base course material, over at least 18 inches of moisture conditioned (wetted or aerated), imported non-expansive granular engineered fill. 7.13 The analytical results of a soil sample analysis indicate that the near-surface soils exhibit a"corrosive"corrosion potential to buried metal objects. 7.14 The analytical results of a soil sample analysis indicate a"negligible"potential for sulfate attack on reinforced concrete placed in the near-surface soils(CBC Table 19- A-3). 7.15 The near-surface soils exhibit fair to good support characteristics for pavements. 7.16 The existing Taco Bell restaurant and the Blockbuster retail store are to remain unimproved as a part of the Home Depot development. The project contractor will be responsible for protection of these and other structures and improvements which are not to be removed or impacted during the construction process. Prior to the start of construction, the contractor shall be responsible for surveying the existing structures and improvements to document the condition of these facilities prior to the start of construction. 7.17 Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from about 9 feet to 18 feet BS G in the borings drilled at the subject site and at a depth of 5 feet in test boring B-24. Based on our observations of the groundwater depths across the site,the groundwater encountered at a depth of 5 feet is estimated to be a zone of perched groundwater. Therefore, zones of perched water should be anticipated at this site which may require localized- dewatering. Contractors should consider that areas with groundwater as shallow as about 4 feet BSG could be encountered. A design groundwater depth of 4 feet was used based on historic high groundwater data. ATTACHMENT NO. fir Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 23 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the evaluation of the field and laboratory data and our geotechnical experience in the ' vicinity of the project,we present the following recommendations for use in the project design and construction. However, this report should be considered in its entirety. When applying the recommendations for design,the background information,procedures used,findings,evaluation,and conclusions should be considered. The recommended design consultation and construction monitoring by Twining are integral to the proper application of the recommendations. 8.1 General 8.1.1 Grading and structural plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. It is our understanding that the proposed finished pad grade would not change from the existing site grade by more than about 3 feet. If the finished grades are higher or lower than assumed, the recommendations presented may not be appropriate for the changed conditions. Twining should be provided the opportunity to review the grading plans and foundation plans before the plans are released for bidding purposes so that any relevant recommendations can be presented. 8.1.2 Prior to final design and bidding, the deep ground improvement program should be defined and the deep ground improvement plans and specifications should be prepared. Twining is currently evaluating deep ground improvement alternatives for this site. Alternatively, the project structural engineer should be consulted regarding the possible structural mitigation alternative. The owner and proj ect consultants will be consulted with regard to our findings prior to selecting a final mitigation alternative for this site (i.e., structural mitigation or ground improvement). 8.1.3 A demolition plan should be developed to identify existing improvements which will require removal. As a minimum, this plan should show the structural elements planned for removal. The structural elements shown on the demolition plan should be removed in their entirety and the resulting excavations backfilled with non-expansive engineered fill under the observation of Twining. 8.1.4 Foundation plans for the proposed Home Depot were not provided for review at the time of preparing this report. When completed, our firm should be provided the opportunity to review the final grading plans and foundation details, and provide amended recommendations as necessary. ATTACHMENT NO, Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 24 8.1.5 A preconstruction meeting including, as a minimum, the owner, general contractor, foundation and paving subcontractors, and Twining should be scheduled by the general contractor at least one week prior to the start of clearing and grubbing. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss critical project issues, concerns and scheduling. 8.1.6 Contractors should be aware that areas proposed for pavements and slabs-on- grade adjacent to the proposed building and/or within the overbuild zone should incorporate the more stringent requirements for over-excavation, aggregate base,non-expansive soils and native soil moisture conditioning as recommended in this report for interior slabs-on-grade, AC pavements, and PCC pavements. 8.1.7 The contractor is responsible for compliance with the SWPPP requirements specified in the project plans, the project specifications, and the City of Huntington Beach,whichever is most stringent, 8.1.8 Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from about 9 feet to 18 feet BSG in the borings drilled at the subject site and at a depth of 5 feet in test boring B-24. Based on our observations of the groundwater depths across the site,the groundwater encountered at a depth of 5 feet is anticipated to be a zone of perched groundwater. Therefore,zones of perched water should be anticipated at this site which may require localized dewatering. 8.1.9 The contractor is responsible for including in the base bid the costs to perform the work required by the Geotechnical Report,the project plans,the project specifications and the City of Huntington Beach,whichever is most stringent. After review of the aforementioned documents,the contractor(s) bidding on this project should determine if the data are sufficient for accurate bid purposes. If the data are not sufficient,the contractor should conduct,or retain a qualified geotechnical engineer to conduct supplemental studies and collect more data as required to prepare accurate bids. 8.1.10 The contractor is responsible for protecting existing facilities from damage including but not limited to adjacent fences,buildings,utilities, streets, etc. Any damage shall be repaired by the contractor at no cost to Home Depot. 8.1.11 The contractor should use appropriate grading equipment such as low- pressure equipment,steel tracks,etc.to achieve the required over-excavation, compaction and subgrade stabilization to minimize rutting and subgrade instability. ATTACHMENT NO. Z -1, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 25 8.1.12 Prior to placement of asphaltic concrete adjacent to slabs-on-grade, curbs, gutters, the contractor shall compact the area immediately adjacent to these features with equipment that can provide adequate compactive effort to the ' aggregate base adjacent to the vertical face'of the concrete to achieve a dense, non-yielding condition.These compaction operations should be observed by Twining. 8.1.13 Contractors should also be aware that wet soils are anticipated near and below the proposed pad grades and will likely be significantly above the optimum moisture content required for proper compaction and could require - soil.drying or chemical treatment for stabilization_to achieve the required relative compaction. No change orders will be allowed for wet weather conditions, wet soil, soil instability, etc. including chemical treatment, geotextile fabric,rock, soil import,etc. 8.1.14 Based on the high moisture contents (up to 20 percent above optimum moisture content) determined for the soils within the depths anticipated depths for excavations, the contractor should anticipate unstable soil conditions will be encountered during excavations and installation of slabs- on-grade, foundations; utilities, etc. Therefore, the soils will require stabilization. The Contractor should note that the base bid should include stabilization of the bottom 16 inches of the over-excavation with 5 percent high calcium quicklime. The Contractor is responsible for all permits related _ to this activity including the requirements related to Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan(SWPPP). 8.2 Site Grading and Drainage 8.2.1 It is critical to develop and maintain site grades which will drain surface and roof runoff away from foundations and floor slabs - both during and after construction. Adjacent exterior finished grades should be sloped a minimum of two percent for a distance of at least five feet away from the structures to preclude ponding of water adjacent to foundations. Adjacent exterior grades which are paved should be sloped at least 1 percent away from the foundations. 8.2.2 Landscaping after construction should direct rainfall and irrigation runoff away from the structure and not promote ponding of water adjacent to the structures. Care should be taken to maintain a leak-free sprinkler system. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 31 8.4.6 Open graded gravels used as engineered fill and/or backfill should be completely encapsulated in an approved geotextile fabric (N irafi 140N or equivalent), and vibrated and mechanically compacted to a dense, non- yielding condition under the observation of Twining. 8.4.7 Aggregate base shall comply with Class 2 aggregate base per State of California Standard Specifications. Aggregate base shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The-contractor shall test the aggregate base for sulfate content and provide the results to the Owner, Architect and Twining prior to delivery of the aggregate base to the site. The aggregate base shall not be recycled material. 8.5 Foundations 8.5.1 Over-excavation for foundations, soil stabilization, shoring, etc. should be conducted as indicated in this report (including subsection 8.3) and the appendices of this report. Foundations should be supported on a minimum of 24 inches of engineered fill. 8.5.2 Structural loads may be supported on spread or continuous footings placed entirely on at least 2 feet of engineered fill,engineered fill that extends to at least one foot below bottom of existing improvements that are removed,and engineered fill that extends to at least 4 feet below preconstruction site grades, whichever is deeper. The over-excavation depth shall be uniform below the entire building pad including the required overbuild zone. Spread and continuous footings maybe designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000_pounds per square foot for dead-plus-live loads. These values may be increased by one-third for short duration wind or seismic loads. 8.5.3 . New foundations should extend to a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. Footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches,regardless of load. 8.5.4 The results.of liquefaction analyses indicate liquefaction would occur in medium dense silty sands and poorly graded sands and stiff sandy silts. Liquefaction was predicted to occur as a result of the design basis earthquake ground motion in thin layers between the depths of about 4 and 50 feet below the present ground surface. Estimates of total and differential seismic settlements of as.high as 4 inches and 1 inch in 50 feet,respectively, were predicted. A vertical movement(swell)of Yi inch should also be anticipated. In addition,static total and differential settlements on the order of 1 inch and ATTACHMENI WO. o Some Depot U.S.A.,Ina DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 32 %x inch, respectively, are anticipated for the proposed building. Therefore, combined settlements(static and seismic)ofup to 5 inches total and 2 inches differential should be anticipated for design if liquefaction is not mitigated. ' These settlements exceed the Home Depot Design Manual requirements of 1 inch total and%Z inch in 50 feet differential. 8.5.5 Given the magnitude of the anticipated combined static and seismic settlements, the proposed structure should either be designed to tolerate the combined total and differential settlements presented in this report or the potential settlements should be reduced using ground modification methods. These alternatives should be evaluated by the design team and the preferred approach selected based on feasibility, cost, schedule and reliability. The final report will incorporate the recommendations for the selected approach. 8.5.6 The foundations should be continuous around the perimeter of the structure to reduce moisture migration beneath the structure. Continuous perimeter foundations should be extended through doorways and/or openings that are not needed for support of loads. 8.5.7 The following factors were developed based on the tables in Chapter 16 of the 2'001 CBC and the digitized active fault locations published by CGS. Seismic Factor CBC Value Seismic Zone Z=4 Soil Type SD Source Types B Near Source Acceleration Factor,Na 1.2 Near Source Velocity Factor,Nv 1.5 Seismic Acceleration Coefficient, Ca 0.54 Seismic Velocity Coefficient, Cv 0.95 8.5.8 The pylon sign maybe supported on a drilled-cast-in-hole reinforced concrete foundation(pier). An allowable skin friction of 150 pounds per square foot per foot of embedment may be used to resist axial loads. Lateral load resistance may be estimated using the CBC non-constrained design(Section 1806.8.2.1). A value of 150 pounds per square foot per foot of depth maybe used. Home Depot U.S.A.,Ina DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 33 8.5.9 At the time of pier construction and until the concrete is placed, the shaft excavation should have stable sidewalls and all sloughed soil should be completely removed from the bottom of the excavation. If the drilled hole exhibits instability, it should be cased. Twining 'should observe the excavation to confirm that the pier was constructed as described above, and the soils encountered are similar to those indicated in this report. 8.5.10 Twining should observe the bottom of foundation excavations and the exposed subgrade for the slabs-on-grade prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and utilities. The contractor shall provide a minimum of 48 hours notice for these observations. 8.6 Frictional Coefficient and Earth Pressures 8.6.1 The bottom surface area of concrete footings or concrete slabs in direct contact with engineered fill can be used to resist lateral loads(areas of slabs underlain by a synthetic moisture barrier cannot be considered). An ultimate coefficient of friction of 0.38,reduced by an appropriate factor of safety,can be used for design. In areas where slabs are underlain by a synthetic moisture barrier,an ultimate coefficient of friction of 0.15,reduced by an appropriate factor of safety, can be used fdr design. 8.6.2 The ultimate passive resistance of the native soils and engineered fill maybe assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 270 pounds per cubic foot. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied. 8.6.3 The passive pressure was calculated based on a minimum soil unit weight of 90 pounds per cubic foot. The soils within the passive zone at the foot of retaining walls(one footing width in front of the wall to a depth equal to the footing depth)should be tested to verify that the soils have the minimum unit weight of 90 pounds per cubic foot(with moisture). If the soils have a unit weight of less than 90 pounds per cubic foot,the soils within this zone should . be over-excavated and replaced as engineered fill. These soils should be tested prior to backfilling behind the wail. 8.6.4 A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 should be used when combining the frictional and passive resistance of the soil to determine the total lateral resistance. The upper 12 inches of subgrade should be neglected in determining the total passive resistance. ATTACHMENT NO. 2. �2 Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT - D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No.-34 8.6.5 The active and at-rest pressures of the native soils and engineered fill may be assumed to be equal to the pressures developed by a fluid with a density of 43 and 65 pounds per cubic foot,respectively. These pressures assume level ground surface and do not include the surcharge effects of construction equipment, loads imposed by nearby foundations and roadways and hydrostatic water pressure. 8.6.6 The active and at-rest pressures were calculated based on a maximum soil unit weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot. The compacted soils behind the retaining walls should not have a compacted unit weight above 130 pounds per cubic foot(with moisture). If the soils have a unit weight of greater than 130 pounds per cubic foot, the soils should be over-excavated and replaced at a lower degree of compaction. If the backfill soils must be placed at a unit weight of over 130 pounds per cubic foot to achieve minimum compaction requirements the material should not be used as backfiil behind retaining walls. 8.6.7 The at-rest pressure should be used in determining lateral earth pressures against walls which are not free to deflect. For walls which are free to deflect at least one percent of the wall height at the top,the active earth pressure may be used. 8.6.8 The above earth pressures assume that the backfih soils will be drained. Therefore, all retaining walls should incorporate the use of a drain, either a filter fabric encased gravel section or a geo-composite drain, to prevent hydrostatic pressures from acting on the walls. Drainage should be directed either into weep-holes or perforated pipe which can carry drainage from behind the walls. 8.6.9 Since the pressures recommended in this section-do not include vehicle surcharges, it is recommended to use lighter hand operated or walk behind compaction equipment to avoid wall damage during construction. Heavier compaction equipment could cause loads in excess of design loads which could result in cracking,excessive rotation,or failure of a retaining structure. 8.6.10 Where stand alone retaining structures provide more than 6 feet of support, or for structures where the exterior grades on opposite sides differ by more than 6 feet,seismic factors or increments need to be included in the retaining system design. The wall designer should determine if seismic increments should be used or not.If seismic increments are required,contact Twining for recommendations for seismic geotechnical design considerations for the retaining structures. KfTACHMENT NO. L ? Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 35 8.7 Detaining Walls 8.7.1 The moisture content of the in-situ soils which will be encountered during grading operations(cuts and fills)could be above optimum moisture content, and portions of the soils will likely be above optimum moisture content and be unstable.. The contractor is responsible for placing and compacting the upper 8 inches of the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fills, and the placement and compaction of engineered fill to achieve the requirements of this report, the project plans, the project specifications, and the City of Huntington Beach,whichever is most stringent. The contractor is responsible for processing(wetting,drying,chemical treatment,etc.)the soils to achieve these requirements. No change orders will be allowed for weather conditions, or the necessary processing of in-situ or other soils to achieve the minimum relative compaction requirements for the project. If chemical treatment is used by the contractor,the contractor will be responsible for compliance with the project Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPPP) requirements associated with the use of these materials, i.e.,pH of runoff,etc. 8.7.2 Structural loads for retaining walls maybe supported on spread or continuous footings placed entirely on at least 2 feet of engineered fill. Shallow spread wall footings may be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot for dead-plus-live loads. This value may be increased by one-third for short duration wind or seismic loads. 8.7.3 Retaining walls should be constructed with non-expansive granular free- draining backfill placed within the zone extending from a distance of 1 foot laterally from the bottom of the wall footing at a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical gradient to the surface. This requirement should be detailed on the construction drawings. Granular backfill will reduce the effects of expansive soil pressures on the wall. Granular wall backfill should meet the following requirements: Percent Passing 3-Inch Sieve 100 Percent Passing No.4 Sieve 50- 100 Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 10- 45 Plasticity Index Less than 10 Expansion Index (CBC 29-2) Less than 10 8.7.4 The import fill material should be tested and approved as indicated under subsection 8.4 of this report. ATTACHMENT . 2 �`� Horne Depot U.S.A.,Ina DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 36 8.7.5 Granular wall backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. 8.7.6 Retaining walls maybe subject to lateral loading from pressures exerted from the soils, groundwater,slabs-on-grade, and pavement traffic loads,adjacent to the walls. In addition to earth pressures, lateral loads due to slabs-on- grade, footings, or traffic above the base of the walls should be included in design of the walls. 8.7.7 Retaining walls should be designed with a drain system including permeable backfill and drain pipes near the wall to adequately reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures behind the wall. Drainage should be directed to pipes which gravity drain to closed pipes of the storm drain or subdrain system. Drain pipe outlet invert elevations should be sufficient(a bypass should be constructed if necessary)to preclude hydrostatic surcharge to the wall in the event the storm drain system did not function properly. Clean out and inspection points should be incorporated into the drain system and be spaced every 100 lineal feet along the wall. Drainage should be directed to the site storm drain system. 8.7.8 If open graded materials such as crushed rock are used as drain material, these materials should be fully encased in filter fabric and compacted to a non-yielding condition under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. A Caltrans Class 2 permeable material, installed without the use of filter fabric, is preferable to open graded material as it presents a lower potential for clogging than the filter fabric. Class 2 permeable material should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction (CAL Test 216) using a vibratory plate. 8.7.9 It is recommended to use lighter hand operated or walk behind compaction equipment in the zone equal to one wall height behind the wall to reduce the potential for damage to the wall during construction. Heavier compaction equipment could cause loads in excess of design loads which could result in cracking, excessive rotation, or failure of a retaining structure. The contractor is responsible for damage to the wall caused by improper compaction methods behind the wall. 8.7.10 If retaining walls are to be finished with dry wall,plaster, decorative stone, etc., waterproofing measures such as manufactured drainage boards (i.e., Miradrain 6000 or 6200 or approved alternative) should be applied to moisture proof the exterior of the walls. Waterproofing should also be used if effervescence (discoloration of wall face) is not acceptable. ATTACHMENT NO2 7>05 Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 37 8.8 Interior Slabs-on-Grade The slabs on the project that should be prepared as interior slabs include: the floor slab of the Home Depot store,th'e front sidewalk,the Garden Center slab,sidewalks adjacent to the building, the entrance canopy slab, the lumber off-loading slab, the truck dock slab,customer pick-up porte-cochere, and the pickup lane slab. 8.8.1 The recommendations provided herein are intended only for the design of interior concrete slabs-on-grade and their proposed uses, which do not include construction traffic (i.e., cranes, concrete trucks, and rock trucks, etc.). The building contractor should assess the slab section and determine its adequacy to support any proposed construction traffic. 8.8.2 A structural engineer experienced in slab-on-grade design should recommend the thickness, design details and concrete specifications for the proposed slabs-on-grade for a combined differential vertical movement (static and seismic differential settlements)ofthe floor slabs of 2 inches differential over a horizontal distance of 50 feet. This is based on design of a quasi-rigid slab system intended to structurally mitigate the liquefaction and seismic settlements. Alternatively, a deep ground improvement may be considered _ to reduce the design differential settlements. 8.8.3 Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base over at least 18 inches of imported non- expansive engineered fill. The minimum 6 inches of AB is recommended directly below the slabs-on-grade to improve the slab support characteristics and for construction purposes. Aggregate base and all fill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. 8.8.4 The moisture content of the subgrade or engineered fill below the non- expansive section should be verified to be within optimum and three (3) percent above optimum moisture content prior to placing non-expansive fill, and also within 48 hours of placement of the vapor retarding membrane or the.concrete for the slab-on-grade if a vapor retarding membrane is not used. The moisture content of the subgrade beneath the non-expansive section to a depth of at least 12 inches should be tested and confirmed prior to placement of the non-expansive fill section, vapor retarding membrane or slab-on-grade. If necessary to achieve the recommended moisture content, the clayey subgrade could be over-excavated, conditioned (i.e., aerated, treated,moisture-conditioned,etc.)as necessary and compacted as engineered fill. Home Depot U.S.A.,Ina DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 38 8.8.5 In the event that the earthwork operations for this project are conducted prior to the construction of the individual structures such that the construction sequence is not continuous,(or if construction operations disturb the surface soils) we recomniend that the exposed subgrade to receivd floor slabs be tested to verify adequate moisture content and compaction. If the moisture content just prior to placement of the floor slab is not within optimum and three (3) percent above optimum moisture content, the soils should be conditioned as necessary. If adequate compaction is not verified, the disturbed subgrade should be over-excavated, scarified, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. This condition should be verified prior to installation of plumbing, footing excavation, and construction of the slabs-on-grade. 8.8.6 An vapor retarding membrane such as Stegowrap 15-,Vapor Block 15(Raven Industries,P.O.Box 5107,Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5107,Phone: 1-800-635- 3456), or equivalent, should be placed below the aggregate base section beneath all interior floor slabs where floor coverings,such as carpet and tile, are anticipated or where moisture could permeate into the interior and create problems. Typically,Home Depot does not-use a vapor barrier;however,due to the noted moisture problems in the existing Kmart and the high groundwater table, a vapor barrier maybe required for this project to reduce the potential for excessive moisture migration and related damage to product, etc. The underslab membrane should have a high puncture resistance,high abrasion resistance,rot resistant, and mildew resistant. We recommend the membrane be selected in accordance with ASTM C755-85,Standard Practice For Selection of Vapor Retarder For Thermal Insulation and conform to ASTM E154-99 Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth Under Concrete Slabs, on Waters, or as Ground Cover. It is recommended that the vapor retarding membrane selection and installation conform to the ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction (302.1R-96), Addendum, Vapor Retarder Location and ASTM E 1643 -98,Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used In Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs. In addition,it is recommended that the manufacturer of the floor covering and floor covering adhesive be consulted to determine if these manufacturers have additional recommendations regarding the design and construction of the slab-on-grade, -testing of the slab-on-grade, slab preparation,application of the adhesive,installation of the floor covering and maintenance requirements. Y . � Nome Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 39 8.8.7 The membrane should be installed so that there are no holes or uncovered areas. All seams.should be overlapped and sealed with the manufacturer approved tape continuous at the laps so they are vapor tight. All perimeter edges of the membrane, such as pipe penetrations, interior and exferior footings,joints,etc.)should be caulked per manufacturer's recommendations. 8.8.8 Tears or punctures that may occur in the membrane should be repaired prior to placement of concrete per manufacturer's recommendations. Once repaired,the membrane should be inspected by the contractor and the owner to verify adequate compliance with manufacture's recommendations. 8.8.9 The vapor retarding membrane is not required beneath exposed concrete floors,such as warehouses and garages,provided that moisture intrusions into the structure are permissible for the design life of the structure. 8.8.10 Additional measures to reduce moisture migration should be implemented for floors that will receive moisture sensitive coverings. These include: 1) constructing a less pervious concrete floor slab by maintaining a water- cement ratio of 0.45 lbAb. or less in the concrete for slabs-on-grade, 2) ensuring that all seams and utility protrusions are sealed with tape to create a"water tight"moisture barrier,3)placing concrete walkways or pavements adjacent to the structure, 4) providing adequate drainage away from the structure, 5) moist cure the slabs for at least 7 days, and 6) locating lawns, irrigated landscape areas, and flower beds away from the structure. 8.8.11 The moisture vapor transmission through the slab should be tested at a frequency and method as specified by the flooring manufacturer. Vapor transmission results should be within floor manufacturers' specifications prior to placing flooring. 8.8.12 To avoid damaging slabs during construction the following recommendations are presented: 1) use perimeter pour-strips at tilt-wall locations to avoid damage to slab-wall connections;2)design for a differential slab movement of %2 inch relative to interior columns; 3) provide at least 6 inches of aggregate base below the slabs,4)it is expected that erection of concrete tilt- up wall panels and roof steel may require cranes. The loaded track and/or pad pressure of any crane which will operate on slabs or pavements should be considered in the design of the slabs and evaluated by the contractor prior to loading the slab. If cranes are to be used, the contractor should provide slab loading information to the slab design engineer to determine if the slab is adequate. ATTACMENTMO. 4- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 40 8.8.13 A perimeter pour strip between the wall footing and the adjacent interior slab should be incorporated into the project design. After the walls are erected and a majority of the differential movement has occurred, the pour strip should be placed. 8.8.14 Backfill the zone above the top of footings at interior column locations, building perimeters,and below the bottom of slabs with an approved backfill and/or an aggregate base section as recommended herein for the area below interior slabs-on-grade. This procedure should provide more uniform support for the slabs which may reduce the potential for cracking. 8.8.15 To provide a design modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 psi/in, the slabs should be supported on a minimum. of 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base material(R-value of 78). In addition,if concrete trucks will be traveling over the aggregate base material or the aggregate base will be used as a working surface,the contractor should determine an adequate aggregate base section thickness for the type and methods of construction proposed for the project. The aggregate base section maybe included in the non-expansive engineered fill recommended below the floor slabs. The proposed compacted subgrade can experience instability under high frequency concrete truck loads during slab construction resulting in heaving and depressions in the subgrade during critical pours. This condition becomes more critical during wet winter and spring months. Often 6 inches of AB can reduce the potential for instability under the high frequency loading of concrete trucks. The improved support characteristics of the AB can be used in the design of the slab sections. Therefore,it is recommended to utilize a slab design with at least 6 inches of AB for constructability purposes and structural purposes. 8.9 Exterior Slabs-On-Grade The recommendations for exterior slabs provided below are not intended for use for slabs subjected to vehicular traffic, rather lightly loaded sidewalks, curbs, and planters,etc. The slabs on the project to be prepared as exterior flatwork include:all sidewalks not including the store front,sidewalks adjacent to the building and other slabs adjacent to the building. Recommendations for concrete slabs subjected to vehicular traffic (impart a load on the subgrade soils of more than 150 pounds per square foot)are included in the Portland Cement Concrete section of this report. 8.9.1 Exterior slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of Class 2 aggregate base underlain by a minimum of 8 inches of non-expansive, granular imported fill compacted to at least 95 percent. The exposed soils below the imported non-expansive soils should be excavated, conditioned ATTACHMENITNOa 2.3Oj. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 41 and compacted as engineered fill(minimum 95 percent relative compaction). If any city, county, and/or state standards are cited on the -plans or specifications,these standards should be in addition to the recommendations in this report. ' 8.9.2- The moisture content of the subgrade or engineered fill below the non- expansive section should be verified to be within optimum and three (3) percent above optimum moisture content prior to placing non-expansive fill, and also within 48 hours of placement of the slab-on-grade. If necessary to achieve the recommended moisture content, the subgrade could be over- excavated, conditioned (i.e., aerated, treated, dtc.) as necessary and compacted as engineered fill. 8.9.3 Exterior improvements that subject the subgrade soils to a-sustained load greater than 150 pounds per square foot should be prepared in accordance with recommendations presented in this report for foundations and floor slabs. Twining can provide alternative design recommendations for exterior slabs, if requested. 8.9.4 Since exterior sidewalks,curbs,etc.are typically constructed at the end of the construction process,the moisture conditioning conducted during earthwork can revert to natural dry conditions. Placing non-expansive materials and/or concrete walks and finish work over dry or slightly moist subgrade should be avoided. It is recommended that the general contractor notify the geotechnical engineer to conduct in-place moisture and density tests prior to placing non-expansive fill and concrete flatwork. Written test results indicating passing density and moisture tests should be in the general contractor's possession prior to placing concrete for exterior flatwork. 8.10 Asphaltic Concrete(AC, Pavements 8.10.1 The existing pavement sections do not comply with the Home Depot standard or heavy duty designs and have a projected design life of about 2 years or less given the type and frequency of traffic stated in Home Depot's criteria. Considering the range of pavement section thickness measured, it is estimated that an AC overlay of about 51/4 inches would be required to achieve the "standard duty" T. I. of 6.5 and an AC overlay of 7%4 inches would be required to achieve a "heavy duty" T. I. of 7.5. In our opinion, these types of overlays are not practical. ATTACHMENT s Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 42 8.10.2 Contractors should be aware that areas proposed for pavements and slabs-on- grade adjacent to the proposed building and/or within the overbuild zone should incorporate the more stringent requirements for non-expansive soils and native soil moisture conditioning recommended in'the interior slab-on- ' grade section of this report. 8.10.3 The contractor shall proof roll the subgrade of the areas to receive pavements prior to placement and compaction of the aggregate base(AB). All unstable areas should be removed,stabilized,and replaced with engineered fill under the observation of the Twining. 8.10.4 Pavement section design assumes that proper maintenance, such as sealing and repair of localized distress,will be performed on an as needed basis for longevity and safety. 8.10.5 Pavement materials and construction method should conform to Sections 25, 26, and 39 of the State of California Standard Specification Requirements. 8.10.6 The asphaltic-concrete should be compacted to an average relative compaction of 97 percent, with no single test value being below a relative compaction of 95 percent based on a 50-blow Marshall maximum density and a minimum joint density of 95 percent based on a 50-blow Marshall test. 8.10.7 The asphalt concrete should comply with Type 'B" asphalt concrete as described in Section 39 of the State of California Standard Specification Requirements. It is recommended that an asphalt concrete mix design(s)be prepared and approved prior to construction. 8.10.8 If the paved areas are to be used during construction, or if the type and frequency of traffic are greater than assumed in design,the pavement section should be re-evaluated for the anticipated traffic. 8.10.9 The upper 12 inches o f subgrade beneath aggregate base should be excavated, moisture-conditioned as necessary and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by A.STM Test Method D 1557. 8.10.1 OThe following pavement sections are based on an R-value of 20 and a traffic index of 6.5 for the"Standard Duty Pavements,"and a traffic index of 7.5 for the"Heavy Duty Pavements." ATTACHMENI NU. IL Horne Depot U.S.A.,Ina DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 43 Traffic Index=6.5 "Standard Duty Pavements" Two-layer 3.5 11.5 -- 12 Traffic Index=7.5 "Heavy Duty Pavements" Two-layer 4.0 13.5 -- 12 AC - Asphaltic Concrete compacted to an average of 97 percent relative compaction AB - Aggregate Base compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction(CAL test 216) ASB - Aggregate Subbase compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction(ASTM D-1557) Subgrade- Subgrade soils compacted to at least 95 percent(ASTM D-1557)with moisture contents within I to 4 percent above optimum. 8.10.11A geotextile fabric of Mirafi 500X, or equivalent, placed below the AB section can extend the life of the pavements. This is a suggestion for Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to consider and is not intended to become a project requirement unless elected by Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. A geotextile fabric would help prolong the life of the pavements by preventing fine grained subgrade soils from migrating into the AB section. 8.10.12Altemative pavement _sections, such as Portland cement concrete, or equivalent asphaltic concrete sections maybe used. 8.10.13If actual pavement subgrade materials are significantly different from those tested for this study due to unanticipated grading or soil importing, the pavement section should be re-evaluated for the changed subgrade conditions. 8.10.14It is recommended that the base 2 inch thick course of asphaltic concrete consist of a 3/4 inch maximum medium gradation. The top course or wear course should consist of a%a inch maximum medium gradation. Mix designs should be provided to Home Depot and Twining for review and approval prior to placement of concrete ATTACHMENT NO. �! Home Depot U.S.A.,Ina DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 44 8.11 Portland Cement Concrete(PCC)Pavements Recommendations for Portland Cement Concrete pavement structural sections are ' presented in the following subsections. These recommendations should be used for design and construction of the slab,the customer pickup slab;and the seasonal sales area. The PCC pavement design assumes a minimum modulus of rupture of 550 psi. It should be noted that the Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc.criterion requires that PCC slabs within the building pad overbuild area(i.e., 5 feet outside the building perimeter or 5 feet beyond adjacent curblines,whichever is greater)should be designed as interior floor slabs or PCC pavements, whichever section is thicker or more stringent. A qualified design professional should specify where heavy duty and standard duty slabs are used based on the anticipated type and frequency of traffic. 8.11.1 The"standard duty"pavement section was designed based on an ADTT of 6 trucks per day. A design k-value of 200 psi/in was used. considering a recommended 6-inch layer of Class 2 aggregate base material(R-value of 78) over the native compacted soils (the k-value of the native soils is approximately 150 psi/in). Pavement Component Thickness,Inches Portland Cement Concrete 6.5 Class 2 Aggregate Base (95%Minimum Relative Compaction) 6.0 Compacted Subgrade (95%Minimum Relative Compaction) 12.0 8.11.2 The "heavy duty"pavement section was designed based on an ADTT of 26 trucks and a k-value of 200 psi/in considering a recommended 6-inch layer of Class 2 aggregate base material(R-value of 78). Pavement Component Thickness, Inches Portland Cement Concrete 7.0 Class 2 Aggregate Base (95%Minimum Relative Compaction) 6.0 Compacted Subgrade (95%Minimum Relative Compaction) 12.0 ATTACHMENT NO. Z ,313 Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 45 8.11.3 The minimum truck dock,per Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc.,requirements areas follows: Pavement Component Thickness,Inches Portland Cement Concrete 7.0 Class 2 Aggregate Base (95%Minimum Relative Compaction) 6.0 Compacted Subgrade (95%Minimum Relative Compaction 12.0 8.11.4 Stresses are anticipated to be greater.at the edges and construction joints of the pavement section. A thickened edge is recommended on the outside of slabs subjected to wheel loads. 8.11.5 Joint spacing in feet should not exceed twice the slab thickness in inches, e.g., 12 feet by 12 feet for a 6-inch slab thickness. Regardless of slab thickness,joint spacing should not exceed 15 feet. 8.11.6 Lay out joints to form square panels. When this is not practical,rectangular panels can be used if the long dimension is no more-than 1.5 times the short. 8.11.7 Control joints should have a depth of at least one-fourth the slab thickness, e.g., 1-inch for a 4-inch slab. 8.11.8 Isolation(expansion)joints should extend the full depth and should be used onlyto isolate fixed objects abutting or within paved areas.Construction joint location should be determined by the contractor's equipment and procedures. 8.11.9 Pavement section design assumes that proper maintenance such as sealing and repair of localized distress will be performed on a periodic basis. 8.11.1 OPavement construction should conform to Sections 40 and 80 of the State of California Standard Specifications. A ACHE . 3 . Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 46 8.12 Temporary Excavations 8.12.1 It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide safe working conditions with respect to excavation slope stability. The contractor is responsible for r site slope safety, classification of materials for excavation purposes, and maintaining slopes in a safe manner during construction. 8.12.2 Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with CAL OSHA requirements. Temporary cut slopes should not be steeper than 1.5:1, horizontal to vertical,and flatter if possible.-If excavations cannot meet these criteria,the temporary excavations should be shored. Shallow groundwater seepage may cause unstable soil conditions,limit slopes to flatter than 1.5 to 1, and/or require shoring. 8.12.3 Shoring should be designed by an engineer with experience in designing shoring systems and registered in the State of California. The project geotechnical engineer should be provided with the shoring plan for review. 8.12.4 In no case should excavations extend below a 2H to IV zone below existing utilities, foundations and/or floor slabs which are to remain after construction. Excavations which are required to lie advanced below the 2H to IV envelope should be shored to support the soils,foundations,and slabs. 8.12.5 Excavation stability should be monitored by the contractor. Slope gradient estimates provided in this report do not relieve the contractor of the responsibility for excavation safety. In the event that tension cracks or distress to the structure occurs, during or after excavation, the owners and Twining should be notified immediately and the contractor should take appropriate actions to minimize further damage or injury. 8.13 Utility Trenches 8.13.1 It should be anticipated that wet and unstable soils will likely be encountered during utility installations. These conditions, and measures to remove and dispose of water, and stabilize the soils and trenches, should be considered for bidding purposes by the contractor. The design engineers and the contractor should consider the buoyant conditions for design and construction of subsurface utilities and other structures. A groundwater depth of 5 feet or less (designer should assess how critical the depth to groundwater is for the design and use a shallower depth if this is a critical issue to the design) should be used by the design professionals for purposes of design. The Contractor should use a groundwater depth of 5 feet or less for bidding ATTACHMENTNU. Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 47 purposes(a shallower depth maybe appropriate if the Contractor considers the depth to groundwater a critical aspect of the particular element of construction). 8.13.2 The trench width, type of pipe bedding, the type of initial backfill, and the compaction requirements of bedding and initial backfill material for utility trenches (storm drainage, sewer, water, electrical, gas, cable, phone, irrigation,etc.)should be specified bythe project Civil Engineer or applicable design professional compliance with the manufacturer's requirements, governing requirements and this report, whichever is more stringent. For flexible polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipes, these requirements should be in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements or ASTM D-2321, whichever is more stringent. The width of the trench should provide sufficient space between the sidewall of the trench and the pipe to allow testing with a nuclear density gage (minimum 12 inches). The exposed bottom of the trench should be compacted to a minimum depth of 6 inches as engineered fill.As a minimum,the pipe bedding should consist of 4 inches of compacted (92 percent relative compaction) ASTM C-33 sand. The haunches and initial backfill(12 inches above the top ofpipe)should consist of ASTM C-33 sand that is placed in maximum 6-inch thick lifts compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 92 percent using hand equipment. The final fill(12 inches above the pipe to the surface) should be non-expansive material compacted to a minimum of 92 percent relative compaction. All materials should be placed at one to four percent above optimum moisture content. The project civil engineer should take measures to control migration of moisture in the trenches such as slurry collars, etc. 8.13.3 If ribbed or corrugated pipes are used on the project,then the backfill should extend to at least 1 foot above the top of pipe or as required by the manufacturer, whichever is greater, to prevent damage to the pipe by the compaction operations above the pipe. Crushed gravel should be used below (bedding)and around the pipe and should be entirely encased in an approved geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140 N or equivalent. However, a geotextile fabric would not be required if the granular materials consist of Caltrans Class 2 Permeable material. In either case, the sand, gravel, and/or Class 2 Permeable material should be densified using both vibratory and compaction equipment to achieve a non-yielding condition and a minimum relative compaction of 92 percent. The haunches should be-hand tamped to achieve the required relative compaction. The maximum lift shall be 6 inches unless approved in writing by Twining. The backfill within the pipe zone should be a crushed gravel material placed and compacted in a manner to fill the irregular exterior surface of the pipe. The gravel should be compacted to a ATTACHMENI Nu. Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 48 non-yielding condition under the observation of Twining. As an alternative, the pipe zone can be backfilled with a sand-cement slurry. 8.13.4 Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to building areas,exterior slabs or pavements should be moisture conditioned to within one to four percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to utilities and/or structures during placement and compaction of the backfill materials. 8.13.5 When utility trench backfills are determined (by Twining) to be non- structural backfills,they should be comp acted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. 8.13.6 Trench backfill should be placed.in 8 inch lifts, moisture conditioned to within one to four percent above optimum and compacted to achieve the minimum relative compaction. o 8.13.7 Approved imported engineered fill maybe used as final backfill in trenches. 8.13.8 Jetting of trench backfill is not recommended to compact the backfill soils. 8.13.9 Where utility trenches extend from the exterior to the interior limits of a building, lean concrete should be used as backfill material for a minimum distance of 2 feet laterally on each side of the exterior building line to prevent the trench from acting as a conduit to exterior surface water. 8.13.1OStorm drains and/or utility lines should be designed to be "watertight." If encountered, leaks should be immediately repaired. Leaking storm drain and/or utility lines could result in trench failure,sloughing and/or soil heave causing damage to surface and subsurface structures, pavements, flatwork, etc. In addition, landscaping irrigation systems should be monitored for leaks. It is recommended that the pipelines be inspected prior to placement of foundations, slabs-on-grade or pavements to verify that the pipelines are constructed properly and are"watertight." 8.13.11 The plans should note that utility trenches for electrical lines,irrigation lines, etc. should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of either 92 or 95 percent per ASTM D-1557, as required. ENT T _ Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 49 8.13.12The plans should note that utility trenches for electrical lines,irrigation lines, etc. should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of either 92 or 95 percent per ASTM D-1557, as required. 8.13.13Utility trenches should not be constructed within a zone defined by a line that extends at an inclination of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical downward from the bottom of building foundations. 8.13.14The project Civil Engineer should include slurry type cutoff collars along utility trenches at critical locations to prevent the migration of surface water into the trench and along the trench backfill material. For bidding purposes, the contractor should assume for the project a minimum of eight(8) 8-inch wide collars with 1.5 cubic yards of 2-sack concrete per collar. The collars should extend a minimum of 6 inches into the trench sidewall and at least 5 feet above the top of pipe(as permitted based on the depth of the pipe). 8.14 Corrosion Protection 8.14.1 Based on the ASTM Special Technical Publication 741 and the analytical results of sample analyses indicate the samples had resistivity values of 2,600 and 2,100 ohm-cm, with a pH value of 7.7 for both samples. Based on the resistivity values, the soils exhibit a"corrosive" corrosion potential. Buried metal objects should be protected in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations based on a"corrosive" corrosion potential. The evaluation was limited to the effects of soils to metal objects; corrosion due to other potential sources, such as stray currents and groundwater,was not evaluated. If piping or concrete are placed in contact with deeper soils or engineered fill, these soils should be analyzed to evaluate the corrosion potential of these soils. 8.14.2 Corrosion of concrete due to sulfate attack is not anticipated based on a "negligible" concentration of sulfates determined for the near-surface soils (Table 19-A-3 of the 2001 CBC). Therefore, no restrictions are required regarding the type,water-to-cement ratio, or strength of the concrete used for foundation and slabs are needed due to the sulfate content. 8.14.3 These soil corrosion data should be provided to the manufacturers or suppliers of materials that will be in contact with soils (pipes or ferrous metal objects, etc.) to provide assistance in selecting the protection and materials for the proposed products or materials. If the manufacturers or suppliers cannot determine if materials are compatible with the soil corrosion conditions, a professional consultant,i.e.,a corrosion engineer,with experience in corrosion protection should be consulted to design parameters. Twining is not a Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Wage No. 50 corrosion engineer; thus, cannot provide recommendations for mitigation of corrosive soil conditions. It is recommended that a corrosion engineer be consulted for the site specific conditions. 9.0 DESIGN CONSULTATION 9.1 Twining should be provided the opportunity to review those portions of the contract drawings and specifications that pertain to earthwork operations and foundations prior to finalization to determine whether they are consistent with our recommendations. This service is part of this current contractual agreement. 9.2 It is the client's responsibility to provide plans and specification documents for our review prior to their issuance for construction bidding purposes. 9.3 If Twining is not afforded the opportunity for review, we assume no liability for the misinterpretation of our conclusions and recommendations. This review is documented by a formal plan/specification review report provided by Twining. 10.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING I d.1 It is recommended that Twining be retained to observe the excavation,earthwork,and foundation phases of work to determine that the subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design. 10.2 Twining can conduct the necessary observation and field testing to provide results so that action necessary to remedy indicated deficiencies can be taken in accordance with the plans and specifications. Upon completion of the work,we will provide a written summary of our observations,field testing and conclusions regarding the conformance of the completed work to the intent of the plans and specifications. This service is not, however,part of this current contractual agreement. 10.3 Compaction tests should be conducted at a frequency of at least: Area Minimum Test Frequency Mass Fills or 1 test per 2,000 square feet per compacted 6-inch lift Sub grade Pavement 1 test per 5,000 square feet per compacted 6-inch lift Sub grade Utility Lines 1 test per 150 feet per 6-inch lift Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 52 11.0 NOTIFICATION AND LIMITATIONS 11.1 The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the i information provided regarding the proposed construction,and the results-of the field and laboratory investigation,combined with interpolation of the subsurface conditions between boring locations. 11.2 The nature and extent of subsurface variations between borings may not become evident until construction. 11.3 If variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction,Twining should be notified promptly so that these conditions can be reviewed and our recommendations reconsidered where necessary. It should be noted that unexpected conditions frequently require additional expenditures for proper construction of the project. 11.4 If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned,or if there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of our report and the start of work(over 12 months) at the site,or if conditions have changed due to natural cause or construction operations at or adjacent to the site,the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be considered invalid unless the changes are reviewed and our conclusions and recommendations modified or approved in writing. 11.5 Changed site conditions,or relocation of proposed structures,may require additional field and laboratory investigations to determine if our conclusions and recommendations are applicable considering the changed conditions or time lapse. 11.6 The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are valid only for the project discussed in Section 3.4,Anticipated Construction. The use of the information and recommendations contained in this report for structures on this site not discussed herein or for structures on other sites not discussed in Section 3.1,Site Description is not recommended. The entity or entities that use or cause to use this report or any portion thereof for another structure or site not covered by this. report shall hold Twining, its officers and employees harmless from any and all claims and provide Twining's defense in the event of a claim. 11.7 This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the client to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to developers, owners, buyers, architects, engineers,designers, contractors, subcontractors,and other parties having interest in the project so that the steps necessary to carry out these recommendations in the design,construction and maintenance of the project are taken by the appropriate party. ATTACHMENT I NO. ILL) Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. DRAFT D05094.02 November 23, 2004 Page No. 53 11.8 This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation only and should not be construed as an environmental audit or study. 11.9 Ouf professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally-accepted engineering principles and practices in the City of Huntington Beach as of November 2004. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. 11.10 Reliance on this report by a third party(i.e.,that is not a party to our written agreement) is at the party's sole risk. If the project and/or site are purchased by another party, the purchaser must obtain written authorization and sign an agreement with Twining in order to rely upon the information provided in this report for design or construction of the project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Home Depot U.S.A.,Inc. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, THE TWINING LABORATORIES,INC. DRAFT Vasiliy V. Parfenov,RG 7699 Project Geologist Geotechnical Engineering Division DRAFT Read L. Andersen, RCE Manager Geotechnical Engineering Division DRAFT Harry D. Moore, RCE,RGE President HDM/JMKNVP/id F:\ENG\GeOtech\D05094.02 Huntington Beach\094.02HomeDepotHuntngtonBeachDraftGEIRrevisedforteardown.wpd AMCHMENT NO. APPENDIX A ATTACHMENT M0. 232Z A-1 D05094.02 APPENDIX A DRAWINGS Drawing No. 1 - Site Location Map Drawing No. 2- Test Boring and CPT Location Map Drawing No. 3 -Typical Line Surcharge Diagram Drawing No. 4-Typical Uniform Surcharge Diagram F � - rt'x �` ,, rt d l"zL '1" '"� .tXrf aP �• r�atS {{ '' ''y"" F 7 .r^ t 3 _- s fi 5. L �' 'W f - { Y f C- !s Ibe-I -4- ' �C tl"� �4 'p4_� .. ' '^.� rr �$ i .,t"' zrn• Ic Flr �. I _. .tZz,� `a�..s, ....a� R"' J _ r� 'G.?�....ca il'S t �y E - ., s e x. i ,r -s*„ i ..._ a, � l� �r E ,+g r (` -9:,'r.3 a .<-., �"-�- :�'e 'Ti° ,tom t' IF � ¢,;SY -se F t .'s e e�3�" '` -' 1 f '; r Irc 1 r I s p..yY a s� u. f✓.t t^"., ""' r''jt n./r- J�" ,,Y Yi t '"f I a'..1 Imo' �'Q - { Y > s''`--sl. .: er-,-,,, "'� s .pia A �.�4, t j5,�'� � ?rs ry'"�'S" 'f,1�M-7 y' s r �r} f: �.,F $��r - r F v'7t "s r ".� - 1. r Y I ss y' '3 ..f a`a .2q.�""E! a P 144 ; `��., Im y F .e�'i i ril k »-,o ,�+ r' 1 c"'' f -�'4-j�t`II� €*, �yrE, '�: ,t. 'T '.yas , yEms.;,.,,�" ✓ ✓''k•:r i /s1 1> I, < ".. _t , ? ;S.a''5"i�, 11�.�,;. t e � 't+1S .P.1�1.�- r Y ,v i f }TAP'.;" .f114 ��``"�'t � d - S ,t.y#.15�3•I' ,,> �.r �+<, c� .,;�.c £'' `eu t .,. '" � f s `t �"z r .t c Y's d �kh / pa°j- ' ; 'te. `'� -� ta., s, r < L i f. < J t.fir v"-{.Gz�: 3!t` r,c,. } ; "'q'i'. '..� 1 p , } }i.:,{.r +y s.a. ✓ c� Y m a s �W r-><ku `zi. `� "\t'� x s<< t I F P ram,_ a ,,,,1,Fj : r�, 'k- ,i f t yew.. I �I - �`. 6 ti ,�• cz< fr yf'.s'"7T r+s..♦ I� "".'q,5 Y/,.F t t ':r I s�a°' 'pis g �i' ;,s,�'", r4 a Z i:M1 P-y�, b/<i Ca"`I e.'�'• v y s � sc 4 �` P' 4 , s , `� ff, :'4' A ,y+ "� 9 "'4.-^,.t""s' S--� r t �&"� .,:�-1 E'$'!r ti ,vF,.� -Y"'s, �� '.5 ,'Y "`'J' jp z.d�'. f T'> aj: 3f a�' '� f ..y 't r, a r r �, ....# - .r. , y w , s � ,I d s r ° Y- "x . s t L-. I < r t m y ,z '" - t X 7 .3 F . k^,>,yci . L x r.r y J s < x d` r c I wn '_ ' "r4q � -,.'r�... ).;� `'<`!.t- " -a f,* r c 4 -, 's ,L "p ,> �� h '� :a:: R`1t srcy, s^y->~ 's I� x a�t$`z j r -�-f 3,., a,� - r�""",..'S. `y,. .-u.F ' r F ✓ (y ✓ r Kea ^.kz f Y- 1 _,C = kr' �`s 3 S '4 :t _ E ,S llr3 'fir^ i f r 7 3`'ll y� ? �I Iy� r.` v€ sY.'ya"d' ..r g Er" n "kQYr x f{.. - 1 ' � l p,`.A J K jX b 3 � Z� ice'"a i 'Y� / _ "Ill #^MS�I-J �- <v3-`k...✓m' <� £ ,C q'� �---�- J^-p �' s t, ?�' "'• 'w.y. ,.5 y, .A •,,'t k r 2 z7 h .' •,k �» ?-�-� E, ps i .. xz I r>, s A �,, n r � � 3x 3 Y �A'. r t is Rr x ..r �''r -» ty £'.L -�1 .,�' -. tq r 7 s. � 'E2.2'�.-' SMt - '^^r r "'Mg- �" r'�,r-'^>+$r,,fir r --� �.Wl 5,� Y y ,9^v�••`•+...,� =,.y�• 7.--� a. .h"- ' `�,c ..C, a-"' .ems -'`7 n x, c _ �v'- z -'} -a 4>< - 7 .'� � a •t-- -' .,� Klzra?1--3' ",`^.'E �� - �' .'" y r .,e--."Y '6. < •tf',riR *4 €"Illrii% '�"", „ s a �� " ',;'.: s y'� ,,r -``s, ti"Ir :�-a-/ ,-,r�' r".1a ice_> , z;..: ""�`�g }� !" r..q �.. v' sib x'r'4 -...i � .,� ✓'Fa � < -""` I '.�r�rs eRiv" .n.. I F 1 I ;fir �. .�:- � �' f ��y ..z � j"'' �7 .ram s EO�� .'7�.- a, t ':" -.rr a- `z'✓. E e s'' � I '"' ).. r. I'm .v °.< »•a .. �#' z �,,,'C,r�''}>4 lr y °">;' 'x , n�' z, �`a*.x`*.1"'f, � y4•-wi- a �'•c s : r '.i� ,� ZP" h Wiz fI �` , ""r n� s r. .�. - - , - it-e ,'-''1. , 'ram� �r •r-rv . . t,. �"rs, - 3 F�'"= a -if° 3� -I— '`r a €af *'I�c .I' z'y K. `^ �: I .,i N �' ;r -✓��",+.rX �-g. r'-, 1 :da '.at zy' .� -S cs 2Rr'< `._:au '�'t' F 5 :.-f -fir w c a»-a. '� sS i s rA�gu9 't .xF�+�leD MO x r : � s ,..Ws..d..rmllx- `_,.,. :y'�--,23M,r' a..-��i `e`: "'.-yt �y "`e""c `',- a-.�„ , --r '"' �'L w iz ^ss <e _,�, +1'c ..,�'�•�. � �` v-€ .k 5.. rz "'vs4; .*,2 s ..�;. 'r'�l �'.b r'11'-r a �, '�,., � L� q T: J^ s� ,k"y,^ '� K. .'.. '�- : s,r „'� : y?`S€ s5s'T -c ' axe .�,,, '.�( y.� yi., K. - r �`,z ss E } n +sue : ..�..1 ,Msa<, I. . c K! wF'i?� "sue-K.r b!� r r x-,i` x z. 41 -'+°s" .:.,.:A { s�- s, ✓ r .�' ;v i r •, '' ,��-,t '..-.. .z - 't s�.r3' - r -.z� ,i ,I- `-?�'� 1rs -'`iff 7 f' '�'• :'z r 31� `+� .z„ v<'• t- 1 .c <' .z -,sC §" -sr s 3 rr-'Y -�'". „"' '4' �'^` m. ,{r, p'sli F r 'l,< r - i t a I y. z se_;, '£. 1, .. Xt •s*w.t£"",..1�''Y^ �.,�5y 1e.. - ' .:K. --, c, :z'..-Y '..t-.y ..- !Sr �' ;r r aa.-F` `- a"-„'.''r'p, 5r y`. 15 y ..Sa.a^ �. �- .,�{,.`h'S_� a',,X h rGxi r'+',�,. -.. .'x 'i "`^ �,' 3" ,�"" n,i E.-rn.*;,; a`�`'1�` a''s,� € <-.^ Sa"`n�' '�.. r „'`zar•• =� P - k' r �i-'' y e s 5 1�7 ''. z 3 �.,e' Mai 1. ' �'a'-.':r 5 I..,r z e'`- rt r �. x w.�' w, �{ £ z i v '.'_ i t✓•'� it._`s f.- t� ,7'- -"ten "° '' s, 4 4 a tom,?.-a -�`j-r .: 4r3�, -`"15 �`•+ "�'2y,t -2.7 S z' ( ME -r' .•s 3"�„ z•e4� 4 e. �h .� ;.r _=-s,.e �, w{�,r.,�., ,p:. T. I yet+}t,4 I , £ d ..F E� a, 'S a aYw a .E f ,r -rSO* e j A i. t 1-Y '�. t N' c ri` -z.F + •r. r k *'yi a r ,h r'_Y s � i_,5 i r` '3 ta. T { w y t F�e Y� < 4 � x, • 'ta..� J ON ._„,�' I s z�'wrs '�a P.x s',"`- :.i a - �, '3 ti I �'. <r f. /.ts -s_�'IL Y 3 c 7 3- � r I s. `' `' R aa ''S'r a a # ,� E rt s i(.7,._ .y,rt-:+y.. a x'F �"'i' .,5. ,< Fp-, 7 t_i t k Y f t K p �,,`', -lwz.1✓4 ` . r` -s...< s' s�`5 , Si.-�, �2 ! s, 5 r s.:�` 'Lc "'- T:l �'.r-' ,.1 'i y S } P Y`�.F .t J '7 'F.. 'C VfI 3'h.W A '�--11 J1. f '`S` fps "^3'"�' -,r� ...,,,.,7 R -s �"" l min- ,GaL ' I�t7.,, _ 8 y R S S r �,s 7 x,. ,A ..�_ `S k'. s in"^,4 �-? � y ��-z y.�? -�a. -`a•f.-a<t t pit - r s' i, ro r4 t I �`z icy �r"x-, � . t�'g s .-- ri` .s'.s4> P >n q r s, R u€la a ^a e a"r rz $1 ., � l ' x.,An{. ti�a j '� yx ,r I k s yam . Wiz. ^'ti ar•" � � .�•� ': .) #.� r `fs ,z 7 s da �,?,"'. ,.:LI. €�.�' '"' ..�-' ' .fig s ty' �� ,_' d` "'�,"�. - - ` r- 4 ti -c,'�." �e� s"Y .t,'�Fz�-z-.'v .,t3 �c g�a €� as.i Y .>5>- .. °, c R y.s f,-F' .r 't a .'�'` r Y- -t -s+A a k' '��S_ r .s,,, i$�Z c 5' ri S it t zx a �. a �y , ,-, s �s- 91 f p a .' o _„1 ,..x-a,.: _e,.'�'°.[�s ✓ ti, �,a a'� z. "e .»'.+��e.<.r.�>'� .5 ^�"r'�> i r,. ; �. �" ,t sl �S r' x < w r' z C y s, , � sJ sir_ I_ .:,fix r • • •• ♦ • ♦ • / / i I, • • a • • 9.9 9 f I 'i •. 1 1•M 1 1 1. 114 1 • •. .• a1 •• 111 i 7'�` 1 Pill STORE ,- w�1. TIA - r i i • �.� • • - LOCATIONS FILE NO.:• 0 Mr '••• • • '• •' 05094602 1• HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIADRAWNBY: APPROVED ING WME 1, PROJECT • NO. r D05094.02 0 —M=G.I 4 0.2 OA a m=0.3 _ n Oui 0.6 / m R Q _ 0.1 .60H 0.8 0.3 .60H 0.5 .56H 0.7 .48H 1.0 0 .2 A .6 .8 1.0 VALUE OF LINE LOAD °L r FOR m `- 0.4: X=mH H)_ 0.20n (0.16+n2)2 Z=nH PH =0.550L H L aH FOR m > 0.4: R _ 1.28m2n Ott (t)= (m2+e)2 RESULTANT P = 0.640L H (m2+1) PRESSURES FROM LINE LOAD OL (BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT) t HORIZONTAL PRESSURES ON RIGID WALL FROM LINE LOAD *CAL LINE SURCHARGE DIAGRAM FILE NO. DATE DRAWN. POSED HOME DEPOT STORE TYPLINE 07/02/04 TWINING' HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: APPR OVEDBY: /j/1LIABORATORIES.. WME pC / INC. PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. rx�o/ Esro/+ a/auccu 1 14 . D05093.01 3 b' a' q / unit area ' a The total force per unit length (P)and the location of the resultant force,z, due to the strip loading only can be expressed as follows: P=go[H(0,-OZ)l where 0,=tan (H)in degrees OZ=tari'(a',—�b')in degrees H'(O�-OZ)-(R-Q Y57.30a'H z= 21-1(01-02) z where R=(a'+b') (90-0) Q=b'A90-01) - r REF: DAS, BRAJA M. (1990). PRINCIPLES OF FOUNDATION ENGINEERING,2nd Ed., PWS-KENT TYPICAL UNIFORM SURCHARGE DIAGRAM FILE NO.: DATE: ME PROPOSED HOME DEPOT STORE TYPUNIF 07/02l04 � TWINING HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY. APPROVED BY: WME ``LL EST 1esa lABORATORIES, fNC. PROJ RAW T NO. DING NO. FKCM/d0rnsru/Y4AM/8MU-1ELQ/ D05093.01 4 ATT&rW1 APPENDIX ATTACHMENT No. B-1 D05094.02 APPENDIX B LOGS OF BORINGS AND CONE PENETROMETER TESTING This appendix contains the final logs of borings and CPTs. These logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the results of the field and laboratory tests. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at these locations and at the particular time designated on the logs. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these test boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in changes in the soil conditions at these test boring locations. In addition, an explanation of the abbreviations used in the preparation of the logs and.a description of the Unified Soil Classification System are provided at the end of Appendix B. ATTACHMENT o IffTHE THINING SOIL TEST BODING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES. INC. BORINGB-1 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: J. Thatch Elevation: 13 Feet AMSL Drilled By: Pacific Drilling Depth to Groundwater: 10 Feet Drill Type: Beaver Tri-Pod Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6" O.D. Solid Flight Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS USCS Soil Description Remarks N-value Content% feet AND FIELD TEST DATA 0 ........ ........................................ PCC Portland Cement Concrete=6 DD = 102 pcf SM inches — 17 4/6 SAND, Silty,medium dense, 1p 3/6 damp,olive brown, with trace 6 15 3/6 clay At 2 Feet-Loose,moist,with 5 clay 5 _ s/6 SP SAND, Poorly Graded; medium 19 28 10 _ 11/6 dense,wet,fine,olive to light brown,with silt and little clay 0 3/6 3/6 CL LEAN CLAY, Sandy; medium 6 43 15 3/6 stiff, moist, gray to brown,with trace gravel -5 3/6 SP SAND, Poorly Graded; loose, 8 32 20 5/6 wet,gray,with clay and silt -1U 616 Medium dense7/6 15 30 25 8/6 Bottom of Boring at 25 Feet -15 30 Notes: ATTACHMEW NO. 2 �Z Figure Number B-1 THE T%INING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, tNC. BORING B-2 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: J. Thatch Elevation: 13 Feet AMSL Drilled By: Pacific Drilling Depth to Groundwater: 17 Feet Drill Type: Beaver Tri-Pod Cased to Depth: .N/A Auger Type: 6" O.D. Solid Flight Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATIOW SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uses Soil Description Remarks N-value content% feet AND FIELD TEST DATA 0 ........ ........................................ 3/6 PCC Portland Cement Concrete= 5 3/6 SP %inches 7 9 4/6 SAND,Poorly Graded; loose, 10 damp, light,olive brown,with little silt and trace clay 5 SP Medium dense, light brown DD =94 pcf -200=4% — 3 5 10 6066 SM SAND,Silty,loose, moist,tight, 9 28 3/6 olive brown,with clay 0 15 1ei6 CL LEAN CLAY;very stiff, moist, 17 49 1116 low plasticity,olive gray to brown,with little sand -5 4/6 - ------•--•- 3/6 SP SAND,Poorly Graded;loose s 37 3/6 fine,wet,with little silt -10 25 Bottom of Boring at 25 Feet -15 30 Notes: Figure Number B-2 THE TEST TIWNING SOIL® ® BORINGSYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORINGB-3 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Plumber: TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: J. Thatch Elevation: 13 Feet AMSL Drilled By: Pacific Drilling Depth to Groundwater: 16 Feet Drill Type: Beaver Tri-Pod r Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6" O.D. Solid Flight Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION! SOIL SYMBOLS DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uses Soil Description Remarks N-value Moisture feet AND FIELD TEST DATA Content% o ........ ........................................ s/6 PCC Portland Cement Concrete= 6/6 SM .6.5 inches 21 17 13/6 SAND,Silty,medium dense, 10 damp,olive brown,with trace SP" clay.. .................. ......... DD =78pcf 5 SAND,Poorly Graded; loose, — 31 damp,fine,olive, brown with silt 5 4/6 Medium dense,with little silt 5/6 15 31 10J 10/6 0 2/6 ........ .............................. ....... 2/6 CL LEM CLAY,medium stiff,wet, 5 40 15 3/6 low plasticity,dark olive brown to gray -5 Bottom of Boring at 18 Feet 20 -10 25 -15 30 Notes: "HMENT1140. Figure Number B-3 rxe TYWHING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORING B-4 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: J. Thatch Elevation: 13 Feet AMSL Drilled By: Pacific Drilling Depth to Groundwater: 16 Feet Drill Type: Beaver Tri-Pod Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6" O.D. Solid Flight Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION! SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uses Soil Description Remarks N value Content e feet AND FIELD TEST DATA 0 ...... ........................................ PCC Portland Cement Concrete=_ DD=79 pcf 31 ML -.5:5 inches _ .-. o_210 SILT,Sandy-,non plastic, C=287 psf — 10 damp,dark olive brown with -200 =86% trace clay 5 ......•. •.............................•....... 3/6 .. 3/6 S_P SAND, Poorly Graded; loose, 6 29 4/6 damp,light brown,with 2 to 3 inch layers of lean clay 5 10 4/6 3/6 SC SAND, Clayey, loose,moist, s 33 6/6 olive brown with little silt 0 15 4/6 Medium dense,wet 24 28 14/6 -5 20 Bottom of Boring at 20 Feet -10 25 -15 30 (Votes: � �� - ATTAR T Figure Number B-4 ffTHE TPWNING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES. INC. BORINGB-5 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: D. Ledgerwood Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 13 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS USCS Soil Description Remarks N-value Content% feet AND FIELD TEST DATA AC Asphaltic Concrete=3 inches DD= 103 pcf ML :Aggregate Base=2.5 inches — 12 4/6 S _ :At 0.5 Feet-SILT,Sandy, 3/6 :medium stiff,moist,slightly 8 9 5/6 ........ -- Sp lastic,olive brown :P. ..... 5 ML At 2 Feet-SAND,Silty;loose, a/6 :moist fi ::---•-....... brown ................ 6 37 3/6 C.... ::At 3.3 Feet-SAND, Poorly ::Graded; loose,damp,fine, pale :brown ....................................... :At 4 Feet-SILT, Sandy; 10 ML medium stiff,moist,non-plastic, 1/6 ::gray mottled with reddish brown -•-------- -----• 2/6 :At 6 Feet-LEAN CLAY, 3 25 :medium stiff,moist,low plasticity,green At 9 Feet-SILT, Sandy, soft, moist,non-plastic, gray 15 2/6 Stiff,wet, gray to dark gray -200=82% 12 26 6/6 26 CL LEAN CLAY,Sandy; w soft, et, 1/6 low plasticity,grayish blue, 2/6 SM -.trace sea shell fragments 5 60 SAND,Silty; loose,wet,fine, grayish blue 25 2/6 ..... 2/6 -------- ................ . -- ----... 4 57 12/6 CL LEAN CLAY;soft,wet, low plasticity, grayish blue, trace fine sands,trace wood fibers Medium stiff,increase in 30 2/6 percent sand 2/6 6 25 4/6 Notes: ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Figure Number B-5 THE TWWNING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORINGB-5 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: D. Ledgerwood Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 13 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uscS Soil Description Remarks N-value Content% AND FIELD TEST DATA SP SAND,Poorly Graded,medium 35 1/6 dense,wet,fine to medium, -200 = 11% s/6 ra sh blue 12 27 7/6 9 yi -------- ----- .................................. 40 ML SILT,Sandy,stiff,wet,slightly �/6 plastic, olive brown to grayish 3/6 blue 11 34 8/6 ' ........ ........................................ 45 a/6 SP SAND, Poorly Graded, medium dense,wet,fine to medium, -200 =8% 7/6 14/6 light brown 21 22 50 Bottom of Boring at 50 Feet 55 60 65 Notes: ATTACH T NO. L3 Figure Number B-5 .HTIE TWINING TEST BORING SYM I BOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORINGB-6 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: D. Ledgerwood Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 16 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 ' Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uscs Soil Description Remarks Nvalue Moisture feet AND FIELD TEST DATA I Content% AC Asphaltic Concrete=2.25 4/6 ML inches 7/6 .Aggregate.Base.=3.5-inches--- 14 10 7/6 SILT,Sandy,stiff,moist, slightl plastic,brown--.____. SP SAND, Poorly Graded; loose, 5 damp,fine,yellow brown DD =69 pcf 25 ------ ----- ------------------ ----..-----.... 3/6 ML SILT, Sandy,medium stiff, 6 32 3/6 moist,non-plastic,brown,trace clay 10 Slightly plastic,grayish blue 2/6 3/6 8 39 15 5/6 77 3/6 20 316 CL LEAN CLAY, Sandy;medium 5 35 stiff,wet,low plasticity,grayish blue ------- - -- --- .........------------ 3/6 ML SILT;soft,wet, slightly plastic, Pl = 1% grayish blue, trace clay o 4 27 25 2/6 ML LL=28/o Bottom of Boring at 25 Feet SILT=68% CLAY=28% SAND=4% 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT . Figure Number B-6 THE MTHUNING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES. INC. BORINGB-7 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: D. Ledgerwood Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 17 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION! SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uscs Soil Description Remarks N-value Content feet AND FIELD TEST DATA 0 ........ ........................................ 9/6 AC Asphaltic Concrete=3.25 9/6 ML -Inches 18 12 9/6 =Aggregate Base=3.5 inches .................... At 0.7 Feet-SILT,Sandy,very SM stiff, damp, non-plastic,brown DD =87 cf .to li ht brown P — 5 5 ..... . 9... ........... ......... -200= 12% 12/6 CL -.,At 3 Feet-SAND,Silty; loose, a/6 - - dam fine ellow brown 7 28 516 ML ......-P.. . .....---------...... At 5 Feet-LEAN CLAY; -medium stiff, moist,low :plasticity, grayish brown,trace CL fine sands 10 2/6 :AT 6 Feet-SILT; Sandy, 3/6 =medium stiff, moist,slightly 4 34 1/6 Mastic,grayish brown - At 9 Feet-LEAN CLAY,soft, moist to wet, low plasticity, -- ra ish blue trace fine sands 15 2/6 SILT, Sandy; stiff,wet,non 3/6 -------- -plastic,gray to.grayish blue 10 33 7/6 SM SAND, Silty-, loose,wet,fine, gray ........ ..................................------ 2o CL LEAN CLAY,very soft,wet, low 1/6 plasticity, grayish blue,with sea 1/6 shell fragments,trace wood 2 41 fibers No sea shell fragments,with silt 25 1/6 1/6 2 38 1/6 Bottom of Boring at 26.5 Feet 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT NO. 2. Figure Number B-7 THE TYWHING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG _LABORATORIES. INC. BORINGB-S Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: D. Ledgerwood Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 17 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A ' Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip E m W SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture SAMPLER SYMBOLS uses Soil Description Remarks N value Content% AND FIELD TEST DATA ......... . ......0 AC Asphaltic. .Concrete=2 inches ML --A r ate Base-5.5 inches 99.e9. _ ... DD=95 pcf ML SILT,Sandy,medium stiff, __ 20 3/6 moist, slightly plastic,grayish -200=77% 3/6 brown,trace organic smell 7 16 4/6 At 1.5 Feet-No organic smell 5 At 3.5 Feet-2 inch lean clay lens ....................................... 2/6 SM SAND,Silty; loose, moist,fine, 3/6 dark gray,trace clay 6 30 10 3/6 ........ ...................... ................. 1/6 CL LEAN CLAY;very soft,wet,low 1/6 plasticity,gray with grayish 2 44 15 1/6 brown,trace fine sands ....... ........................................ 2/6 ML SILT,Sandy;medium stiff,wet, 4/6 slightly plastic,grayish blue, 8 34 20 4/6 interbedded with fine sands, trace clay 1/6 2/6 SM SAND,Silty,loose,wet,fine, -200=38% 8 30 6/6 grayish blue 25 Bottom of Boring at 25 Feet 30 Notes: ATTACHMEW NO. 2 ?� Figure Number B-8 THE SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES. INC. BORINGB-9 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: J. Thatch Elevation: NIA Drilled By: Pacific Drilling Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: NIA Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip M W SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS USCS Soil Description Remarks Naralue Moisture AND---EST DATA Content% 0 ••-•••-• •....................................... AC Asphaltic Concrete=2.5 inches DD= 105 pcf SM Aggregate Base.=4.5 inches _ 17 2/6 SAND,Silty;damp,olive brown, 3/6 with trace clay 8 22 s/6 At 2 Feet-Loose,damp,light brown to olive brown 5 3/6 ... ---•................................ 3/6 SP SAND,Poorly Graded;loose, g 30 3/6 damp, light brown,with trace fines 10 .. 2/6 CL LEAN CLAY, Sandy,medium 5 35 3/6 stiff, damp,low palsticity,dark gray Bottom of Boring at 11.5 Feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTACH O. 2• �70 Figure Number B-9 rHe SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES. INC. BORINGB-10 Project: Home Depot Remodel Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 06/17/2004 Logged By: J. Thatch Elevation: NIA Drilled By: Pacific Drilling Depth to Groundwater: 9 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A AugerType: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip- • ELEVATIOW SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uses Soil Description Remarks N-value Content e feet AND FIELD TEST DATA 0 .... ..... ............................ ... AC _Asphaltic Concrete=2.5 inches SM --Aggregate Base= 5 inches DD=99 pcf _ 15 3/6 SP :SAND,Silty;loose,damp, light 3/6 'brown to dark brown,with trace 5 13 a/6 ';l y ...... SAND, Poorly Graded;loose, 5 a/6 _...... tb dam li h rows with little silt 3/6 SM p.+ ...... ..�................... ..... 7 28 4/6 SAND,Silty;loose,damp,light brown with little clay 1 4/6 Very loose,wet,dark brown to 2/6 4 35 2/6 gray Bottom of Boring at 11.5 Feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT Figure Number B-9 TKININGSOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG L�ABORATORIES. INC. BORING B_10 r Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 6/17/04 Logged By: D. Ledgerwood Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 9 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip MDEFTH ON/ SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS uscs Soil Description Remarks N-value moisture AND FIELD TEST DATA Content% AC.. Asphaltic Concrete=2.5 inches SIN _Aggregate Base= 5 inches _ ......_I----------- .... 2/6 "SP : SAND.Silty; loose,damp,light 3/6 =brown to dark brown,with trace 5 2/6 May SAND, Poorly Graded;loose, 3/6 SM •:damp, light brown,with little silt 4/6 SAND, Silty, loose,da,p,light brown,with little clay 10 4/6 Wet, dark brown to gray 2/6 4 2/6 Bottom of Boring at 11.5 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: AT7ACH . n ; . Figure Number B-10 THE THUNING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG, LABORATORIES. INC. BORINGB-11 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/05/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 18 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip Em SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS uses Soil Description Remarks N-value Molsture AND FIELD TEST DATA content% ........ ........................................ AC. Asphaltic Concrete=3 inches ML --A re ate Base.-6 inches - --gg� 9 - -- DD= 101.1 cf SILT,Sandy,firm, moist, dark p — 15 4/6 gray 4/6 7 25 3/6 5 3/6 SILT,Clayey,soft, moist, black z/6 4 36 2/6 10 2/6 ... ...... .. ............ ..... ......... 1/6 SP SAND,Poorly Graded;fine, 2 26 1/6 very loose, moist, brown t 15 116 ML SILT,Clayey; soft, moist,wet, 2 27 1/6 brown 20 1/6 SILT,Sandy, Poorly Graded; -200=88.4% a/6 fine, loose,wet,dark brown 4 36 25 3/6 Increase in silt content 2/6 4 32 2/6 30 1/6 Sand,loose, medium to fine, 2/6 wet, gray s 26 7/6 Notes: ATTACHMW NO. Z . Figure Number B-11 ffTHE TRINING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORING B-11 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/05/04 Logged By: H. Elbadd Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 18 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL.SYMBOLS Moisture: DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uscs Soil Description Remarks N`raiue content% feet AND FIELD TEST DATA 35 --------------------------------------- 2/6 ML SILT, Clayey,firm,wet,gray 7 35 5/6 3/6 ........ ........... .... ..— ..... 'Fx: {• 2/6 SP-SM SAND,fine, loose,wet,gray 5 22 3/6 !- .1:CCf 45 Sand heaving into auger below 45 feet ri�ii• 50 Bottom of Boring at 50 feet 55 60 65 Notes: �$}y A17ACh M °ems® E®(��O. Figure Number B-11 THE TWINING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORINGB-12 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/05/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 18 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip =DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture SAMPLERSYMBOLS uscs Soil Description Remarks N-valuecontent°kAND FIELD TEST DATA 0 ---- ------------••-------------...---------- AC _ AS Concrete=4 inches SM -Aggregate Base=6 inches SAND,Silty;fine, moist, brown DD=85.9 pcf s =39.50 - 26 i�6 SP SAND;fine, loose,moist, light C=0 psf 5 15 5 3/6 brown 8/6 SP SAND, Poorly Graded; medium 12 27 10 4/6 dense,medium fine, moist, ligh brown i/6 ML SILT, Clayey;soft,wet,gray 3 26 15 s/6 e/6 Trace of fine sand 11 33 20 5/6 4/6 SM SAND,Silty;fine,loose,wet, -200=23.5% 9 31 25 T-05/6 dark gray Bottom of Boring at 25 feet 30 Notes: ATT ACH T ®o Figure Number B-12 THE TWINING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORINGB-13 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/05/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 18 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 ' Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip, ELEVAMOW SOILSYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uSCS Soil Description Remarks N-value content°k feet AND FIELD TEST DATA AC Asphaltic Concrete=5 inches 16 ML --Ag9pa ate_Base-6 inches._...3 _ 7 24 4/6 SILT,Sandy, medium,firm, moist,dark-gray DD=99.2 pcf 37 ........ .... ............................... 5 4/6 CL LEAN CLAY, Silty,stiff, moist, 11 33 7/6 light brown 10 Y/6 Becomes more silty z/6 6 30 4/6 15 1/6 1/6 6 33 5/6 20 1/6 LEAN CLAY,Silty,very soft, 34 i16 wet, dark brown to dark gray 2 25 3/6 ........ ........ ........... •---•---...---- 4/6 SM SAND,fine,wet,loose, brown 8 34 E14/6 Bottom of Boring at 26.5 feet 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT NO. Figure Number B-13 THE ENTWINING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORINGB-14 Project Home Depot Project Number.TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 18 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type:, 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEP'M SAMPLER SYMBOLS USCS Soil Description Remarks N-value Ccntent,� feet A-FIELD TEST DATA 0 AC__ Asphaltic Concrete=3 inches ML --A re ate Base=4 inches 3/6 g9. .g. . - 4/6 SILT,Sandy-,medium loose, 6 17 SP light brown .- .• .. ... DD=98.3 pcf SAND, Poorly Graded;fine, a =35.2o - 4 5 4/6 loose, moist, light brown o =0 4/6 8 5 4/6 10 1/6 1/6 6 10 5/6 15 2/6 5/6 ML SILT,Sandy, moist,stiff,dark 11 32 6/6 gray 1/6 1/6 CL CLAY, Silty;very soft,wet,dark 2 40 1/6 gray 25 116 ...... ....... 2/6 ML SILT, Clayey,soft,wet,dark -200=76% 4/6gray LL=28 6 40 Bottom of Boring at 26.5 feet PI=2 30 (Votes: ATTACHMENT () Figure Number B-14 THE TWININGSOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORINGB-15 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 16.5 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 518" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATIOW SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLERSYMBOLS USCS Soil Description Remarks N-value Content% feet AND FIELD TEST DATA .... ...... -...... .. - - - ----- 0 AC Asp hal. tic Concrete=3.5..inches ML .Aggregate_BAse=6 inches___ 2/6 SILT, Sandy, medium firm, 33/6 /6 moist,dark gray 6 19 5 DD=95.7 pcf 2/6 SP SAND,Poorly Graded;fine, 2/6 loose, light brown 6 22 4/6 10 1/6 CL CLAY, Silty,soft, moist,dark 3 46 15 2/6 gray 77 -•---•• . ..........................• ----- 3/6 CL-ML SILT, Sandy; Clayey, stiff, -200 =74.1% g 32 20 5/6 moist, dark gray LL=26 PI=6 1/6 -..... ....... ................. .. ........... 4/6 SM Sand, fine, silty, loose,wet, 9 34 125 5/6 dark gray Bottom of Boring at 25 feet 30 Notes: A C T e l Figure Number B-15 THE TWINING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORINGB-16 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 15.5 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip M ON/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture H SAMPLER SYMBOLS USCS Soil Description Remarks Naralue Content% AND FIELD TEST DATA AC Asphaltic Concrete=3 inches 2/6 ML A re ate Base-4 inches _ ..g9. 9 - 316 SILT,Sandy,firm,moist,dark 6 19 3/6 gray 5 2/6 1/6 SP SAND,loose,fine to medium,2/6 moist,light brown 3 17 DD =92.2 psf _ 13 ------ ......-----............................. i16 ML SILT, soft, moist,light brown 4 31 10 3/6 15 _ 1/6 •---.... ..... -----• --•--- •----•----�-----•--- 2/6 CL CLAY, Silty;soft, moist dark 6 33 4/6 gray,wet 20 2/6 Same as above 1/6 3 42 12/6 25 1/6 1/6 3 45 2/6 Bottom of Boring at 26.5 feet 30 Notes: ATTACHMEW NO. Figure Number B-16 THE TWINING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORING B-17 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drill Type: CME 75 ' Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uscS Soil Description Remarks N-value Content o� feet AND FIELD TEST DATA AC Asphaltic Concrete=3 inches ML --A re ate.Base-5 inches ..g9. 9 - 4/6 SILT, Sandy, stiff, moist, brown 9 26 5/6 5 2/6 ..... ........ ............................ 5/6 SP SAND, Poorly Graded;fine to 8 4 3/6 medium, loose,moist, light brown 2/6 5/6 9 33 10 4/6 -- --- --- -------------- ------- -• ML SILT, Sandy,stiff, moist, brown Bottom of Boring at 11.5 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT NO. Figure Number B-17 UTHE T&WNING SOIL. TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES. INC. BORING B_18 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS USCS Soil Description Remarks N-value Moisture feet AND FIELD TEST DATA Content% 0 .. ........................................ AC Asphaltic Concrete-4 inches ML -.Aggregate.Base=6 inches 3/6 SILT,with fine sand,medium 2/6 firm,moist, brown 6 18 4/6 5 3/6 ..... ...................... 2/6 CL CLAY, Silty,firm, moist,brown 6 32 4/6 10 1/6 1/6 4 18 63/6 Bottom of Boring at 11.5 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTACHMEW NO. � 3Y Figure Number B-18 r� TWONING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES INC. BORING B-19 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 518" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATIOW - SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS USCS Soil Description Remarks N-value Content% feet AND FIELD TEST DATA 0 .. ........................................ AC Asphaltic Concrete=4 inches 4/6 11A1. --Aggregate Base=6 inches $ 18 4/6 SILT,Sandy,firm,moist,brown 1/6 2/6 5 14 3/6 SP SAND,Poorly Graded; loose, fine,moist,light brown 3/6 SM SAND Silty, loose,fine,light 5/6 9 21 10 4/6 brown Bottom of Boring at 10 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT NO. 2. Jl� Figure Number B-19 THE TYPNING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORING B-20 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drill Type: OME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A, Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uSCS Soil Description Remarks N-value Content°k feet AND FIELD TEST DATA 0 AC _Asphaltic Concrete=3 inches ML --A re ate Base=4 inches g9. 9 -. . SILT,Sandy,loose,moist, dark 2/6 gray 3/6 ....... ............. ....... 4 34 1/6 CL CLAY, soft,moist, brown 5 :I I;F1 t 1/6 ........ ...................................... ra;E 1: 2/6 SP-SM SAND,silty,fine,loose, moist, 4 25 f i 2/6 brown 'LI:rJ. f1:E1: 10 •--- •.. ... ......... ....................... 1/6 CL CLAY,very soft, moist,dark 2 42 1/6 brown Bottom of Boring at 11.5 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT NO.. Figure Number B-20 THE TWWNING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC. BORING B-21 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drill Type: CME 75 ' Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip =DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture SAMPLER SYMBOLS uses Soil Description Remarks N-value content% AND FIELD TEST DATA AC Asphaltic Concrete =3 inches ML 99...9.............................. A re ate Base=3 inches 2/6 SILT,Clayey-,moist,dark browr 2/6 ..- .. . to black 5 11 6:i 1. SAND,Silty; loose, moist, light 4'1 ► brown 5 1/6 . ............ ............... ......•---- 4/6 ML SILT,Sandy,firm,moist,trace 7 28 3/6 of clay, light brown 10 i/6 d- CLAY,soft,moist,dark gray, 3 39 )12/6 medium plasticity Bottom of Boring at 11.5 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT NO. Figure Number B-21 UTHE THINING SOIL. TEST BORING SYi1 BOLIC LOCH LABORATORIES, INC. BORING B-22 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadd Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drill Type: CAME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS USCS Soil Description Remarks N value content% feet AND FIELD TEST DATA 0 ........ .............. ........................ AC Asphaltic Concrete =2.5 inches 2/6 ..... Aggregate Base=5 inches 2/6 SILT,Sandy, Clayey,soft, 4 23 moist, brown 2/6 5 1/6 ...... 6 9 5/6 SP SAND,Poorly Graded;fine, loose, moist,wet, brown 10 1/6 CL CLAY,very soft, moist, dark 2 44 1/6 brown Bottom of Boring at 11.5 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTAC T ®. Z � 3 Figure Number B-22 n�F TIWNING SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES, INC.U8ORING 8-23 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadd Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uscs Soil Description Remarks N-value content% feet AND FIELD TEST DATA WIN AC Asphaltic Concrete=3 inches 1/6 NIL Aggregate Base 4 inches 3/6 SILT,Sandy,soft, moist,with 4 42 clay,dark brown to black 5 91/6 5/6 ...... ....................... �/6 SP-SM SAND,Silty, moist,fine, 13 18 6/6 medium dense,light brown 101i6 CL CLAY,Silty,very soft,moist, 2 43 dark brown to black Bottom of Boring at 11.5 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT NO. Figure Number B-23 MMSM THE INTYPNING SOIL TESL" BORING SYMBOLIC LOG LABORATORIES. INC. BORINGB-24 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/04/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: 5 Feet Drill Type: CME 75 Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS MoLsture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uscS Soil Description Remarks N-value Content% fee AND FIELD TEST DATA ........ .. . . ..0 AC Asphaltic Concret.e.=.3.inches ML'- '.Aggregate Base=5 inches 2/6 SILT,Clayey:moist,dark gray 1/6 to black 3 21 Silt,soft,moist,trace of clay, brown 5 _ 4/6 .... ..... .. .... ............... ..... 4/6 SP SAND,fine, loose,moist,light 8 7 4/6 brown 2/6 Same as above 1/6 3 29 10 - 2/6 Bottom of Boring at 10 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: pp ATTAC T a Figure Number B-24 THE THE SOIL TEST BORING SYMBOLIC LOG THINING LABORATORIES, INC. BORINGB-25 Project: Home Depot Project Number:TL D05094.02 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Date: 11/05/04 Logged By: H. Elbadri Elevation: N/A Drilled By: T. Conley Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drill Type: CME 75 ' Cased to Depth: N/A Auger Type: 6 5/8" O.D. Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Trip ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS Moisture DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS uscs Soil Description Remarks Nwalue Content% feet AND FIELD TEST DATA AC Asp haltic Concrete-2.5 inches ML :Aggregate.Base.=4 inches...... 1/6 SILT,Clayey;moist, dark brown 116 to black,soft 3 25 5 1/6 ................. ......... 3/6 SP SAND, Poorly Graded;fine, 8 7 5/6 loose, moist,light brown 1/6 2/6 5 21 10 3/6 Bottom of Boring at 10 feet 15 20 25 30 Notes: ATTACHMENT 140. Figure Number B-25 KEY TO SYMBOLS Symbol Description Symbol Description Strata symbols Portland Concrete Cement 0 0 Asphaltic Concrete o 0 Misc. Symbols SILT, Sandy (ML) �_ - Water table during drilling i SAND, Poorly Graded (SP) Boring continues J•h Fr SAND, Poorly Graded Soil Samplers with Silt (SP-SM) l ® California Modified � � •� split barrel ring sampler SAND, Silty (SM) ® Standard penetration test LEAN CLAY (CL) Silty low plasticity , clay Notes: 1. Test borings were drilled on 02/09/04 and 02/11/04 using a CME 75 equipped with Hollow Stem Auger. 2. Groundwater was encountered during excavation of the test borings. 3. Test boring locations were located by measuring wheel with reference to the existing site features. 4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report. S. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported on the logs. Abbreviations used are: DD = Natural dry density LL = Liquid limit (�) UC = Unconfined compression (psf) PI = Plasticity index (�) -4 = Percent passing #4 sieve (%) pH = Soil pH 100 = Percent passing #200 sieve SS = Soluble sulfates (�) SR = Soil resistivity (ohm-cm) Cl = Soluble chlorides M c = Cohesion (psf) 0 = Angle of internal TS = Field Torvane Shear Strength friction (degrees) test (tsf) N/A = Not applicable n N/H = None encountere TT C O. /y� THE TWINING LABORATORIES,INC. /'i0,, (/ KEY TO SYMBOLS Symbol Description Symbol Description Strata symbols Misc. Symbols Portland Cement Concrete �_ Water table during drilling 0 0 - SAND, Silty (SM) N Boring continues SAND, Poorly Graded (SP) Soil Samplers ® California Modified split barrel ring sampler LEAN CLAY (CL) - ® Standard penetration test SILT, Sandy (ML) SAND, Clayey (SC) Asphaltic Concrete r7otes L. Test borings were drilled on 06/17/04 using a Beaver Tri-Pod equipped with a 6" Solid ?light Auger and a CME 75 equipped with 6 5/80 Hollow Stem Auger. 2. Groundwater was encountered during excavation of the test borings. 3. Test boring locations were located by measuring wheel with reference to the existing site features. 1. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report. 5. Results of tests cgnducted on samples recovered are reported on the logs. Abbreviations used are: DD = Natural dry density LL = Liquid limit (�) UC = Unconfined compression (psf) PI = Plasticity index M -4 Percent passing #4 sieve (%) pH = Soil pH -200 = Percent passing #200 sieve ($) SS = Soluble sulfates M SR = Soil resistivity (ohm-cm) . C1 = Soluble chlorides (%) c = Cohesion (psf) o = Angle of internal TS = Field Torvane Shear Strength friction (degrees) test (tsf) N/A Not applicable N/E = None encounter T 6�9CM ®r THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. N K Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 16/Jun/2004 Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT71. Fax: (714) 901-7289 Pro'ect: D05094 Tvskehoe@msn.com Client: Twining Laboratory Job Site: Home Depot/ Huntington Beach Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBTFR 0 (tsf) 250 0 (tsf) 6 .1 (tat) 5 0 M 8 O (Rob.1986) 10 0 0 •'•'�11Q(64�d:1i' 10 10 15 15 20 20 26 25 Maximum depth;23.01 (ft) Page 1 of 2 Taal }� Fit.:C100041212C.ECECP Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 16/Jun/2004 Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-2 E Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: D050 A 94 skehoe@msn.com Client: Twining Laboratory I Job Site: Home Depot Huntington Beach Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR 0 (tsf) 250 0 (tsf) 5 .1 (tsf) 5 0 (%) 8 0 (Rob. 1986) 10 5 1 10elltf!Viand 0 v is 15 .................. Yf 20 20 • 25 L—J Maximum depth:25.36 (ft) Page I of 2 Test IV:CPr-2 IU041101ECP IV, Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 16/Jun/2004 ? Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-3 Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: D05094 skehoe@msn.com Client: Twining Laboratory Job Site: Home Depot/Huntington Beach Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR 0 (tef) 250 0 (tsn 5 -1 (tef) 5 0 M e 0 (Rob.1986) 10 M. 10 10 a 16 15 20 20 25 25 aC Maximumdepih:2e.ts (tt) Pape 1 of 2 1 _ Teal ID;OPT-3 Filet C1eU04106.ECP K,I Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 16/Jun/2004 Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-4 Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: D05094 skehoe@msn.com Client: Twining Laboratory Job Site: Home Depot/ Huntington Beach Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR 0 (tsf) 25D 0 (tsf) 5 .1 (tsf) 5 0 M) $ 0 (Rob. 1986) 10 0 0 5 5 •• .stcp�`.�and�. 10 10 n• I m ; 15 1b :•8ilty.saAd' 20 20 �s(fly,gann 26 26 \ �ira! aadcC�c Maximum depth;25,11 (ft) Page 1 of 2 Taat ID:CPT-f i"^`� 9U0400C.ECP K Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 16/Jun/2004 OVffice: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-5 E Fax: (714) 901'7289 Project: D05094 T skehoe@msn,com . Client: Twining Laboratory Job Site: Home Depot/Huntington Beach Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR 0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 5 -1 (tsf) 5 0 M 8 0 (Rob, 1986) 10 0 •-- 0 10 10 ?tlUty Weird:';, � ' '81 ,eand'•. i v .0 a 30 30 40 40 aiBjY .IGr l� 80 " 8 n .band 50 Maximum depth;50.07 (R) _( Page 1 of 2 . V" Ted 10:CPT.6 FIW 018U0408C,ECP ,J TVKehoe Testing& Engineering CPT Data Date: 16/Jun/2004 Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-6 Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: D05094 , skehoe@msn.com Client: Twining Laboratory I Job Site:, Home Depot Huntington Beach Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR 0 (tal) 250 0 (tsf) 5 .1 (tsf) 5 0 M a 0 (Rob. 1986) 10 0 5 6 10 10 20 20 25 25 Maximum depth:20.14 (ft) Page I of 2 Test 10:CPT4 'OV0407C.ECP K Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 12/Nov/2004 TOffice: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig . Test ID: CPT-1A VE Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: Huntin tonBeac skehoe@msn.com Client: Twining Labortory Job Site:,., Home Depot ` Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR 0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (-A) 10 0 (Rob. 1986) 12 0 t,.,.. 0 5 ' qq Fr 10 'a an 10 N S++hr••13.iMd° 20 8 end.:. 90 ;t}Iltyt3eri'd'„ 30 30 ,I• S11tjiSprid".a. oc LJ V j so }� Maximum depth:49.99 (ft) Tea ID;CPT-1 K Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 12/Nov/2004 '� Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-2A� L Fax: (714) 901-7289 Prolect: Huntington Beac skehoe@msn.com Client: Twining Labortory Job Site: Home Depot lip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SST FR 0 (ten 400 0 051) 8 -1 (tar) 8 •o (°Ye) 10 0 (Rob.1888) 12 ,,.Sll�f'i3and�•• 10 sUgand 10 S11tY s9hd'" 20 20 a 30 - _ 30 0 Y 40 40 50 - sand 50 Maximum depth:50.00 (11) Page 1 of 2 Tod 10:CPT-2 K Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 12/Nov/2004 Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-3A E Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: Huntin tonBeac T skehoe@msn.com Client: Twining Labortory Job Site: Home Depot Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR O (taf) 400 O (tan 8 -1 (tef) 8 O (4To) 10 O (Rob.1986) 12 ��.�.- O 0� • a �",aiity,sand . 10 sties sand 10 20 20 { a O S'Aed: '" 80 J. • 'o..n ;nrw _ 40 40 _ 50 sand' S0 Maximum depth;00,02 (It) Page 1 of 2 Tow 10:OPT-3 en..+.n•u.nen enn Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 12/Nov/2004 Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT4A Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: Huntin tonBeac skehoe@msn.com Client_ Twining Labortory Job Site: Home Depot Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT RR 0 Oaf) 400 0 (tst) 6 -1 (tsn 8 0 (OA) 10 0 (Rob. 1986) 12 0 •:4?�1�, 0 ..•egtysana . 10 10 20 20 a 30 • ('1�.�tiAi,' 30 V 4u.V:�1!Y•y i 011l • AIM,:,��M.l�/':•�, . 40 40 C ; 50 {' S0 MaxI1TMUM depth:50.40 (tt) Page 9 of 2 Ail Q.CPT-4 K Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 12/Nov/2004 TOffice: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-5A� VE Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: Huntin tonBeac skehoe@msn,com' Client: Twining Labortory Job Site. Home Depot Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio,COR SST FIR 0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 .1 (tsf) 8 0 M 10 O (Rob.198e) 12 0 0 ' sra sand •,r>lnv sa�,o ' 10 10 • ;. Sllt)r�siid.. 20 20 " �$IItyI&pnd• 30UtY`senn' 30 40 40 • •811tX S•and.'. ^1 50 Santl SO V v Maximum depth:50.09 (fl) --.� Page 1 of 2 Taal 0 CPT-5 K Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 12/Nov/2004 Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-6A E Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: Huntin tonBeac T skehoe@msn.com Client: Twining Labortory Job Site' Home Depot Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SST FR 0 (tsf) 400 O (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 10 O (Rob.1986Y 12 0 0 _ b 10 10 •.BYtiy:•�and. 20 20 4 �1 40 40 I nd so s0 Maximum depth:49.99 (n) Test ICc CPT-$ APPENDIX C ATTACHMENT NU. C-1 D05094.02 APPENDIX C RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS This appendix contains the individual results of the following tests.The results of the moisture content and dry density tests are included on the test boring logs in Appendix B. These data, along with the field observations,were used to prepare the final test boring logs in Appendix B. These Included: Number of Tests: To Determine: Natural Moisture (ASTM D2216) 97 Moisture contents representative of field conditions at the time the sample was taken. Natural Density (ASTM D2216) 16 Dry unit weight of sample representative of in-situ or in-place undisturbed condition. Grain-Size Distribution (ASTM D422) 11 Size and distribution of soil particles, i.e., clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) 3 The consistency and"stickiness,"as well as the range of moisture contents within which the material is "workable." Direct Shear (ASTM D3080) 3 Soil shearing strength under varying loads and/or moisture conditions. Consolidation (ASTM D2435) 6 The amount and rate at which a soil sample compresses when loaded, and the influence of saturation on its behavior. Expansion Index (UBC 29-2) 1 Swell potential of soil with increases in moisture content. Z TTA . I �.i or�� C-2 D05094.02 These Included: Number of Tests: To Determine: Moisture-Density Relationship (ASTM D15''S7) 1 The optimum (best) moisture content for compacting soil and the maximum dry unit weight (density) for a given compactive effort. R-Value (ASTM D2844) 6 The capacity of a subgrade or subbase to support a pavement section designed to carry a specified traffic load. Sulfate Content (ASTM D4327) 2 Percentage of water-soluble sulfate as (SO4) in soil samples. Used as an indication of the relative degree of sulfate attack on concrete and for selecting the cement type. Chloride Content (ASTM D4327) 2 Percentage of soluble chloride in soil. Used to evaluate the potential attack on encased reinforcing steel. Resistivity (ASTM D1125) 2 The potential of the soil to corrode metal. pH (ASTM D4972) 2 The acidity or alkalinity of subgrade material. ATTACHMENT NOs -PERCENT,FINER 0 0 9 0 CD -4 0 0 + ---------------------- ---------- ----------------------------- ------------ -------------------------------- 6 In. cn a 0 --------------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----- -------------------- In. 0 2 In. m C) 0 0 ��4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- ------------------------------- -1/2 In. 0 N e C) ................................................................ .......... ................................ I In. ...........o ............................... .................... ................................::--------- In. z R4 p 0 r m .............. ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ------------------— 1/2 in, ;u IT! "n r Fn 2 Sn m m .................................. ---------- ---------- ---------- ----- ........ ............................. 0 0 C) ;o "a 0 q10 0. —0 ip m z0 --------------- ---------- ------ --- ------------------------------------------ -------- #20 o 0 F 30 o > -----------------------------------------------—-----I.......... .................omwftq....... #40 —4 > 0 ---------------------------------r.............................. ... ...............w----- ------ . #60 3 Viv N m z 3 ............................................ .......................................... .......... ..... #100 0 9 .......... .......... ..... #140 ----------------------I---------- --------------------- X I ............................................ .......... ................................ 9200 0 z 00 (D z O CA 00 W J I 6 d d e a 0 a . 0 loo MW i go 80 - 70 UJ 60 z LL z 50 LLI LLJ 40 30 20 10 01 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES %+3" 1 CLAY CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 91.6 3.7 01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1. 17.9 82.0 A 0.0 0.0- 0.0 0.0 1.3 86.5 12.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 22.9 76.8 v 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 61.3 38.3 SOIL DATA LE EPTH SYMBOL SOURCE SAMP NO. D(ft-) DESCRIPTION USCS 0 B-2 5 Medium dense,light brown SP 0 B-5, 15 ML A B-7 3.5 SM 0 B-8 1.5 At 1.5 Feet-No organic smell ML v B-8 23 SAND,Silty;loose,wet,fine, grayish blue SM Client: THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. Project: Home Depot Remodel Project No.: D05094.01 Figure No. 2 ATTACH MT r40. _ PERCENT FINER pp to _ O W o O __ 0 _,.- O----0--__ --_ O -..-�---O_-_-o-..-.. --_C O O � N 0 r C + $ - 5 in. cn C0 - ------ - --- - --- -- ---- - - -__- __-_ 31n, n m n 2 In. WC o o ---- --------- ----- --- ---------- ---- ----- ---- 1.1/2In. p D _^-_ ---- --_ --------_ --- ----- ---- ----- ---- tin. O Ey 3/41n, Z 0 m .� m ---- ---- --- --------- --- ---- ---- ----- ---- 1/2.in. rnO Z r O ---- -- - ---- ------ - ------ - -- ----- -- - 3/8in. N m _ c -- m O v n = o 0 c X ,U -0 n p10 o Z .' •� `� O N o - -- ------ --------- ----- - - ---- - -- --- #20 �CD D Z 30 d b > F4 - - --- - ---------- ------ - - - -- - -- aao .. - - -- -- ---- -- - - a b 0 0 ° '� ---- ---------- ---------- --------- ---- --- --- aso NY m +� rn --- ---------- ---------- -------- --- --- -- #100 5 a 0 ---- ----- ---- --- - -- - - --- -- - - - -- xtao ® ---- --- ---- - ------ -- - ---- - - --- 0200 fD O S. Z 0 r 0 r C00 e O -9 o m op z .w — c o I _ '71 PERCENT FINER m O $ W o---o---- --- --- --- --- --- ----o--- • N O r O C BIn, Z O O W rr C -- -------- - - - -- - -- - - -- ---- --- - ---- 31n. N n m n 2 In, C ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---------- ---- ----- --- 1.1/2In. OCA 0 __ _ _ z ---' -------- --- - 3141n. 0 r- - -r Xm -n r ---- --- ---- ----- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1r21n, mC m o --- -- - - -- -- - --- --- -- ----- -- 318In. fA 0 -- m z w v ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---- ----- --- 04 n �, o o � O `O (p 1-0 N o m G) J �z x x O r, C ---- ----- ---- --- ----- ------ - - - -- ----- ---- #20 o .. 0 30 CA v D Z do > p N - --------- ---- -- -- --- ------ --- -- -- ---- wo o o D I �� C v? ---- -------- ---------- ---- --- ---- ---- -- aeo N y o N z 3 .� m � m 3 --- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- --- - --- aloo 5 0 - - - ---- ------ - - ---- --- --- - --- #140 0 O Z a,✓ a �. Ua z m N n (n o _ cn 0PERCENT FINER rn O o o 0 pW g ---- -- -------- ---- ----- ---- ---- --- 61n, C $ - -- -- ------ ------ - ----- -- - ----- - - Sin. A n rt1 � 2 In. --- ---- ---- -------- ----- ---- --- ----- --- 1.1/2In. O e y __-_ --_ __- _-_--- ---- --- ---- --- --_ IIn, 0 3 -_-- --- ----- ---- ----- --- -_-_ ---_ ---_ _-_ 3/4In. O m '--- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---- --- --- 1121n. mz --- --- ----- --------- ----- --- -- - -- - ---- 3/8In, m v ZN ---- --------- ---- ---- --. -__ ---- --- -_-- #4 n O M M "U #10 C `, <'p - 1D f/) O m Z �VxO ov - - - - - -- -- --- ------- - -- -- -- #230 OZ -- - -- -- - - - #aom ---- - ---- --- -- ---- -a • - - ---- ---- --------- -- --- --- #60 3 M ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---------- ---- ----- -- 0 #100 y _n C - - -- - -- ---- -- ----- - -- -- - -- #140 0 A -� ,ram p --- --- ----- --- - -- -- --- - - -- -- - #200 - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- c O Z w o c to :( o 0 o LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 50 00 / Ot 40 X w o /z i 30 U CO 20 ®v / t1� 10 7 4 MIL Or OL MH Or OH 10 30 50 70 90 110 LIQUID LIMIT SOIL DATA NATURAL SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE M LE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY USCS (ft.) CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX B-15 18.5 32 20 26 6 CL-NC LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT Client: Home Depot USA,Inc. Project: Home Depot THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. Project No.: D05094.02 Figure No. 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2,-�;7 q 2.0 x - - z H c 1 W 1.0 E- V) W W x C11 .0 .0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NORMAL STRESS IN KSF 2.0 w x _ - z H w 1.0 x H w x `n 0 141 .00 .06 .12 .18 .24 .30 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH BORING/SAMPLE : B-4 DEPTH (ft) 1.5-3 DESCRIPTION STRENGTH INTERCEPT (C) .287 KSF (PEAK STRENGTH) FRICTION ANGLE (PHI) 21.0 DEG MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL SYMBOL CONTENT (%) (pcf) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) O 60.1 66.1 1.501 1.00 .64 .61 0 58.6 68.0 1.433 2.00 1.124 1.12 0 52.3 73.8 1.242 3.00 1.41 1.34 Remark D05094.01 Home Depot Huntington Beach The Twining Labs Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST Figure No. 10 Fresno, CA 2.0 v� z V) l w 1.0 H w - x .0 .0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NORMAL STRESS IN KSF 2.0 z z 1.0 H w x .0 .00 .06 .12 .18 .24 .30 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH BORING/SAMPLE : B-' 14 DEPTH (ft) : 3.0 - 4.5' DESCRIPTION STRENGTH INTERCEPT (C) .000 KSF FRICTION ANGLE (PHI) 35.2 DEG (PEAK STRENGTH) MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL SYMBOL CONTENT (%) (pef) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) O 33.4 90.1 .836 1.00 .70 .64 0 34.1 94.8 .745 2.00 1.41 1.38 Remark : Proj D05094.02 Home Depot Huntington Beach The Twining Labs Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST Figure No.'ll Fresno, CA COMPRESSIVE STRESS IN KSF 10' 1 10 102 0 .662 2 .629 H - x z '-` 4 .596 -rl W O E- U A E- O W 6 .562 U W a 8 .529 10 .496 BORING B-11 DESCRIPTION SAND DEPTH (ft) 1.5 — 3.0' LIQUID LIMIT SPEC. GRAVITY 2.65 PLASTIC LIMIT MOISTURE DRY DENSITY PERCENT VOID CONTENT (sa) (pcf) SATURATION RATIO INITIAL 17.9 99.6 72 .662 FINAL 24.0 100.7 99 .644 Remark Saturated at 2 ksf Proj D05094.02 Home Depot Huntington Beach The Twining Labs Inc. CONSOLIDATION- TEST Figure No: 17 Fresno, CA 2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST Uniform Building Code(UBC)29-2 Project Number: D05094.02 Project: Home Depot Huntington Beach Sample Location:13-11 Depth: 0 - 3.0` Date Sampled: Sampled by:HE Sample Number Molding Moisture Final Moisture Dry Density Content Content (y d) B-11 13.3 29.1 99.3 Initial Thickness: 1.0000 Final Thickness: 1.0473 Expansion Soil Expansion Index (El): 47 Classification: Low TABLE NUMBER 29-C EXPANSIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Expansion Index Potential Expansion 0-20 Very Low 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91-130 High Above 130 Very High Figure No.19 ATTACHMENT NO. �� ' PROCTOR TEST REPORT 135 130 `+ 125 v a aai 120 a a L Q ZAV for 115 Sp .G.= 2.65 110 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Water content, % "Modified" Proctor, ASTM D 1557, Method A . Elev/ Classification Nat . Sp .G. LL PI % > % < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist . No.4 No.200 .5-3 2.65 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Optimum moisture = 11 .9 % Maximum dry density = 119.8 pcf Project No .: D05094.01 Remarks: Project: Home Depot Huntining Beach Location: B-6 Date: 07-02-04 PROCTOR TEST REPORT AC N 1 NO. JL_LTHNEE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC . Figure No . 20 RNALUE TEST REPORT 100 80 60 m m it 40 20 0 -L-LL If I I 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Exudation Pressure -psi Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure -Cal Test 301 Compact. Density Moist. R Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R - No. Pressure pcf % Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Valu Value psi psi @ 160 psi in. psi Cor 1 275 109.1 18.4 0.00 88 2.51 275 27.4 27. 2 350 110.5 17.5 0.00 83 2.52 420 30.8 30. 3 100 104.6 20.2 0.00 112 2.51 184 15.9 15. Test Results Material Description SILT,Sandy;medium stiff,moist, R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure =29.3 slightly plastic,grayish brown,trace organic smell Project No.: D05094.01 Tested by: Degol M Project:Home Depot Remodel Checked by: Joe S Source of Sample: B-8 Depth: 0.7 Remarks: Date: 7/3/2004 R-VALUE TEST REPORT THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. Figure No. 2/1 A.T.TA ., b RNALUE TEST REPORT 100 80 60 m m 40 20 0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Exudation,Pressure-psi Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure -Cal Test 301 Compact. Density Moist. R Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R No. Pressure pcf % Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Value Valu psi psi @ 160 psi in. psi Cor 1 125 123.4 0.0 0.00 110 2.64 208 15.2 16. 2 300 124.E 1 0.0 1 0.00 1 81 2.51 319 29.8 29. 3 350 127.0 0.0 0.00 50 2.50 439 52.1 52. Test Results Material Description SAND,Silty;medium dense,damp, R value at 300 psi exudation pressure =27.1 slight plasticity,olive brown,with tr clay Project No.: D05094.01 , Tested by: Degol M Project:Home.Depot Remodel Checked by: Joe S Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 0.5 Remarks: Date: 7/3/2004 R VALUE TEST REPORT THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. Figure No. 22 ATTACHE W. 2-�� R-VALUE- TEST REPORT 100 80 60 m m 40 20 0 L III it-fill 111111111 111111111 111111111 [ till 1111 111111111 1111 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Exudation Pressure-psi ' Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure -Cal Test 301 Compact. Density Moist. R Expansion Horizontal . Sample Exud. R No. Pressure pcf % Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Value Valu psi psi @ 160 psi in. psi Cor 1 250 114.4 15.5 0.00 96 2.39 367 21.3 19. 2 135 112.6 16.4 0.00 106 2.49 254 . 20.9 20. 3 350 117.5 14.6 0.00 79 2.40 536 37.5 35. Test Results Material Description R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 19.7 SILT,Sandy;stiff,moist,slightly plastic,brown Project No.: D05094.01 Tested by: Degol M Project:Home Depot Remodel Checked by: Joe S Source of Sample: B-6 Depth: 0.5 Remarks: Date: 7/3/2004 R-VALUE TEST REPORT THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. Figure No. 23 ATTACHMENT W. �-�--- RNALUE TEST REPORT 100 80 60 ca 40 20 0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Exudation Pressure-psi Resistance R Value and Expansion Pressure -Cal Test 301 Compact. Density Moist. R Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R - -No. Pressure Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Valu cf psi p psi @ 160 psi in. psi Value Cor 1 350 111.3 15.1 0.00 43 2.55 158 59.9 59. 2 150 112.3 14.2 1 0.00 32 2.51 667 70.3 70. 3 155 111.7 14.6 0.00 39 2.51 407 63.3 63. Test Results Material Description R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure=61.5 SAND,Silty;loose,damp,light brow to dark brown,with trace clay Project No.: D05094.01 Tested by:Degol M , Project:Home Depot Remodel Checked by:Joe S Source of Sample: B-10 Depth: 0.6 Remarks: Date: 7/3/2004 R-VALUE TEST REPORT THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. Figure No. 2� RNALUE TEST REPORT 100 80 60 m 3 m 40 20 0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Exudation Pressure-psi Resistance R Value and Expansion Pressure -Cal Test 301 Compact. Density Moist. Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R R No. Pressure Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Value psi pcf o�� psi 160 psi in. psi Value Corr. 1 100 99.2 24.6 0.00 60 2.69 528 35.7 40.1 2 100 98.0 25.6 0.00 88 2.70 299 21.2 24.1 3 100 99.8 24.1 0.00 61 2.68 407 34.6 38.7 Test Results Material Description R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure =24.2 Project No.:D05094.02 Tested by:David Suderman Project:Home Depot Checked by:Barry Annis Location:Huntington Beach Remarks: Sample Number: B-22 Depth: 0-3.0' Date: 11/24/2004 R VALUE TEST REPORT THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. Figure No. 25 R-VALUE TEST REPORT 100 80 60 a� 40 20 0 L fill 1111 fill fill fill 1111 lift III I fill 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Exudation Pressure-psi Resistance R Value and Expansion Pressure-Cal Test 301 Compact. Density Moist. Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R R No. Pressure o Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Value psi pcf �� psi 160 psi in. psi Value Corr. 1 100 106.6 19.0 0.00 41 2.62 438 45.7 48.8 2 150 102.2 20.4 0.00 60 2.70 163 33.7 38.1 3 150 105.6 18.0 0.00 38 2.67 563 48.2 52.7 Test Results Material Description R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure=43.7 Project No.:D05094.02 Tested by:David Suderman Project:Home Depot Checked by:Barry Annis Location:Huntington Beach Remarks: Sample Number:B-24 Depth: 0-3.0' Date: 11/24/2004 R-VALUE TEST REPORT THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. Figure No. 26 ATTAMMW hin t.2 I ` THE 2527 Fresno Street WINITNG esno, CA 93721 (559)268-7021 Phon L AB O R A T O R I E S, INC. (559)268-0740 Fax CALIF®RNIA FLAP CERIIFYCATE#1371 June 30, 2004 1 Work Order#: 41725001 Jim Kellogg Twining Geotechnical Department 2527 Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93721 RE: K-Mart Remodel (Home Depot)-Huntington Beach Enclosed are the analytical results for samples received by our laboratory on 06/25/04 . For your reference, these analyses have been assigned laboratory work order number 4F25001. All analysis have been performed according to our laboratory's quality assurance program. All results are intended to be considered in their entirety, The Twining Laboratories, Inc. (TL) is not responsible for use of less than complete reports. Results apply only to samples analyzed. ' If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the number listed above. Sincerely, The Twining Laboratories, Inc. '�& Ronald .eoq # Director of Analytical Chemistry r Fiqure No. 27 ATTACHMENT ® THE 2527 Fresno Street Fresno,CA 93721 (559)268-7021 Phone A$V_$A TO.R IW ff,YxC., (559)269-0740 Fax C !JRNTA Twining Geotechnical Department Project: K-Mart Remodel(Home Depot)-Huntington Beach 2527 Fresno Street Project Number: D05094.01 Reported: Fresno CA,93721 Project Manager. Jim Kellogg 06/30/04 ANALYTICAL.REPORT FOR SAMPLES Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received B-1@0.5-3' 4F25001-01 Soil 06/17/04 00:00 06/25/04 09:21 B-6@1.5-3' 4F25001-02 Soil 06/17/0400:00 06/25/0409:21 `I A ining Laboratories Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of Ronald J.Boquist,Director Of Analytical Chemistry custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. Joseph A.Ureno,Quality Assurance Manager ATTACHMENT . 1 Page 1 of 3 r �'blZs 2527 Fresno Street Fresno,CA 93721 W, -1 IN- G, - -N (559).268-7021 Phone Twining Geotechnical Department Project: K-Mart Remodel(Home Depot)-Huntington Beach 2527 Fresno Street Project NjrZer D05094.01 Reported: Fresno CA,93721t Project Manager: Jim Kellogg 06/30/04 B-1(i70.5-3'(sampled:06/17/2004) 4F25001-01(Soil) Reporting Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Inorganics Chloride 61 6.0 mg/kg 3 T4172810 06/28/04 06/28104 ASTM D-4327-84 Chloride 0.0061 0.00060 %by 3 [CAL.C] 06/29/04 06/28104 ASTM D4327-84 Weight Sulfate as SO4 0.018 0.00060 %by 3 [CALCl 06/28/04 06/28/04 ASTM D4327-84 Weight p111 7.7 pH Units 3 T4F2810 06/28/04 06/28/04 ATSM D4972-89 Mod Resistivity 2600 ohms/cm 3 T4132810 06/28/04 06/28/04 ASTM D1125-82 Sulfate as SO4 180 6.0 mg/kg 3 T4172810 06/29/04 06/28/04 ASTM D4327-84 The Twining Laboratories Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the cha. Ronald J.Boquist,Director of Analytical Chemistry custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. Joseph A.Ureno,Quality Assurance Manager ATTACHMENT NO. T2'` Page 2 of 3 2527 Fresno Street Fresno,CA 93721 IN, N (559)268-7021 Phone . r • (559)268-0740 Fax : r1 ,1PQ Z 1A 1 I L4`A' #1371: Twining Geotechnical Department Project: K-Mart Remodel(Home Depot)-Huntington Beach 2527 Fresno Street Project Number. D05094.01 Reported: Fresno CA,03721 ProjectiManager. Jim Kellogg 06/30/04 D-6 i4l.5-3' (sampled:wimo04) 025001-02(Soil) Reporting Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Inorganics Chloride 44 6.0 mg/kg 3 VF2810 06128/04 06/28/04 ASTM D-4327-84 Chloride 0.0044 0.00060 %by 3 [CALC] 06/28/04 06/28/04 ASTM D4327-84 Weight Sulfate as SO4 0.019 0.00060 %by 3 [CALC] 06/28/04 06/28/04 ASTM D4327-84 Weight pH 7.7 pH Units 3 T4F2810 06/28/04 06/28/04 ATSM D4972-89 Mod Resistivity 2100 ohms/cm 3 T4F2810 06/28/04 06/28/04 ASTM D1125-82 Sulfate as SO4 190 6.0 mg/kg 3 VF2810 06/28/04 06/28/04 ASTM D4327-84 Notes and Definitions ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit NR Not Reported RPD Relative Percent Difference Quality Control Data.Available Upon Request r Twilling Laboratories Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of Ronald J.Boquist,Director of Analytical Chemistry custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced m its entirety. Joseph A.Ureno,Quality Assurance Manager _ ATTA CHMENT NO. 2• �c15 Page 3 of 3. Earthwork Deport Proposed Houle Depot 19101 Magnolia Street Huntington Beach, Ca Prepared For Home Depot USA, Inc. 3800 West Chapman Avenue Orange, Ca 92868 Prepared By Lars Andersen & Associates Inc 4630 W. Jacquelyn Ave Suite#119 Fresno Ca-93'72,2- z Jan 2006 f City of Huntington Bea& JAN 17.2006 ATTACHMENT NO. � Introduction This report presents results of the earthwork analysis for the proposed Home Depot store to be located at 19101 Magnolia Street, on the southwest comer of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue, in Huntington Beach, California. This report will analyze the dirt quantities associated with constructing the proposed Home Depot. This report is limited to dirt quantities and does not evaluate any other materials associated with the construction. References 1. ALTA Survey by Fuscoe Engineering Dated July 2004 2. Geotechnical Report The Twining Labs Dated November 23, 2004 3. Lars Andersen & Associates Conceptual Grading Plan Dated January 11, 2006 Procedure The-earthwork-quantities-were-based-on-eiisting-tapegraphicaLinformation-.-----...----._.-....---- provided by Fuscoe Engineering in their ALTA Survey dated July 2004 see Appendix A. Dirt grade elevations were determined using recommendations from the Geotechnical Report from The Twining Labs dated November 23, 2004. As indicated in the report a 4"concrete slab is assumed for the existing Kmart building and the asphalt section is assumed to be 2"AC over 3.5"AB . Using the combined information from the ALTA survey and the Geotechnical Report a DTM(digital terrain model) was created though a modeling program.AutoCAD Land Desktop, creating a three dimensional profile of the existing topography. The proposed surface based on Lars Andersen Conceptual Grading Plan dated January 11, 2006 (Appendix B) : was also modeled using the same program creating a second three dimensional profile. The proposed surface profile was adjusted to account for design recommendations for the construction of the Home Depot as required by the Geotechnical Report. Pad graded was determined for this analysis to be 2.5 feet below proposed finish floor, heavy duty and standard duty pavement sections were accounted for as required by the Geotechnical Report. The non expansive fill below the slab is analyzed as a separate number as part of this report. A dirt volume calculation and cut fill analyses ` ATTACH T . was then computed by the AutoCAD Land Desktop program in a comparison of the existing ground surface to the proposed ground surface, the results are provided herewith -n this report. Footings, storm Drains and other subsurface structures were not considered in this analysis and not part of this report. Results f The earthwork_results provided herewith are actual numbers generated by computer analysis. The results do not account for any shrinkage or subsidence should not be used for bid purposes. The results may also vary depending means and methods used by the contractor in the grading operation. However since this site is a previously improved and graded site it is expected that the re-grading operation will result in minimal net dirt yardage due to the re-grading and re-compaction efforts on existing onsite soils required by the Conceptual Grading Plan and Geotechnical Report. The earthwork quantities not including the non expansive import required by the Geotechnical Report were determined to be 6636 yards of cut and 5855 yards of fill see Appendix C for volume report. A Cut/Fill Map is t - ine-luded-as-pairt-of-diis-report-in-Appendix D�-this-computer-generated-map----.-.------.-.--- represents areas of the site that are expected to be in cut or fill. A color representation of these cuts and fills are provide in the isometric map provided in Appendix E. In addition to the dirt yardage required to construct the site the Geotechnical Report requires non expansive fill which F was determined to be 12,246 yards of fill for the construction of the OVCrtxca"a r;�,� building pad. The yardage includes the 5 foot erbuil area required by the Geotechnical Report of a total area of 165,323 square feet with a 2 foot fill requirement. This results in a net requirement of 12,246 yards of fill to be brought to the site and 781 yard of cut to be hauled off of the site to create the necessary dirt grade for construction of the proposed Home Depot as depicted by the Conceptual Grading Plan by Lars Andersen & Associates Inc. and fulfillment of the soils requirements of the Geotechnical Report requirements from Twining Labs. t L ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Conclusion The 12,246 yards of import soils is expected to be brought into the site in loose truck loads of 20 yard capacity. Results may vary in the compaction and placement of this loose dirt depending on soil conditions, varying grading techniques along with reasonable accommodations for shrinkage and subsidence. Even with the possibility of varying results it is expected that the necessary truck trips would SU-hof than 850 to place the necessary fill for the project. The 781 yards ould result in approximately 60 additional tripsfor the necessary o spoils. . GN f ATTACHE . 2. E 1�P1V LLI� A AL TA A SURVEY ATTACHMENT O. - r i ---. LT �s7�-.��-.-�.. ram.��.I1��►`� � ��.� {'�� ICI ` .6M'b]�RCR� �i•4'+lR':7,.V9A�.'M�i7✓a�+9.�'�1-16i 7��t„3:y, '� it I � —•i. _ -- � .y �[, --��r� A ...x ; LN /� i +M ;, I` ,�.,.��►� �j �� III► � hpal l �! it= � 7 f I y I dip� Al PENDIX B CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAIT t S 4 c H' 1 . .' SCOTT A.MOMMER CONSULTING LPIDDEVTWIPMEWSERVICES. • ----------- r I �O—CATION MAP v—Wlx) J! AK -----4J 1. E I —-- -------------- - I _ _Iwl I 41 2 y s E3 4i 1 PRbJECT1NFoRmA-n0N W,41 SM6 OUTDOOR 1,49.i Proposed EN WD CEN s, Ld Frop�.s 0 door Prop C,.r�,-ejn��00. ter, r. 105,556 Sr fffff w ma 7r ENTRY 3 f DsvmsciA 01 4T 45 PROJECT NOTES 10 pOl U 10* 4 THE HOME DEPOT ......... EACH,CA HUNTINGTON B At...... 1910MAGN"STREEr A7 APPENDIX C VOLUME REPORT ATTACHMEK No. 2, �d` volume report . txt Site volume Table ® Home Depot Cut Fill Net Method yards yards yards Site : SM01.3 Stratum: dirt volume eg-sg fg - subgrade 6636 5855 780 (C) Grid Page 1 A PPENDEK D CUT / FILL MAP - ------ --------------__ - -------- ---- ------- r fT H NO. �1 � i - p 1 --- - - - ---- --- - j- xN 0.7 - 7 -0 .6 -0.6 -0.6 8 -0.8 - 1.1 1 '1 L. -0. m tl " k p Yes t„ 44., F o aO/i - a 0.8 - - .0 - -1. - -1. -0.8 0. - .9 -1. - 5 i r 7 Q 9 7a-0.1 -0.3 -0.6 0.4 -0.2 -0.4 -0.9 -0.9 0.8 -0.� a N -0.2 -0. 1.1 .1�1.4 ja.8 -1.9 1.9 " 0.2 01 D.1 - . -0'.A' -d. -1.3 .34 1.5 -1.7 k1.8 -Z. :bi1 -�.2 0 - .S - 0. �___. -' _ `1� C7 � a ON � 4 t.il Wrc 6;-0. 1.3 -1. -q)41-1.5 -1.5 1.6 -1. ..1 0. O j 3 g _m :k ° M • 37 tp 9 -0.9� �O�lyt_1,1�1,2 -1. 0:7 +0.5 +0.1 - �0.9 -0. -0,3 i a 31 -0.5 -0.5Rr' -0.7 -0.8 0.8 .5 + ,4 01 1.8 0 s j 3f ' -0.4 -0.5 -_ -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 - 3 + 5 = {: 2-T -D.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0. 2 .7, 0.6 +0.2 - .2 1- -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0. __ 11 4 -0, -0.5 -0.5 -0,5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 _0 .8 +0.5 +0.1 - .1'. 0.2eF0.6 - i , ; I �+ -0.5 -0,5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0. (11 e 3'+( -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 F 1 ®i 8 +01 5i+ -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0,5 4 +1' 4 + 71+ -0,5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0. ' 1. 7 + , a ra p� 8 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 4. °�-0,5 -0.5 -0, 4' 1. A O ',BF , --- -------- "It' Vg 8�+ y0.4 -0.5 -0.5 i -0,5 -0.5 -0. .. .1 .6 +1,1 - ------ - �° I r �s+ -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0x5 -0. '1 +1.3 + 1. 2.1 I, I1 '33 a' t t D+ -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0,5 -0.5 -0.5 -05 -0. i +j 4 1, + +1, f" +1. 2.0 i SF j 4�+ -0,4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 ., t0. 1.0 + 4 + , -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 d -0I .1 1,0 1. +1,8 +1.7 +U6 +1.8_+21.3 2 .8 ;t s -0,4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0,5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0, d 1. + - -- _ _0 2- 1.9 + fc; ?-0.1 -0.4 -0,4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0. 2 +�> +1.2 t,6 +f.7 + +1. 1u r � " 0.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0,4 -0.4 -0. "4 . + +5;.0 + � 8 r 1 1 +1. a 7 -0.4 -0.4 -0,4 -0,4 -0.4 i3.41`T 4 0.8 .7 + 0 1 2 +11. + L�l LW oc at �1�r ° - .� i -0.3 -0.3 -0 - .3 03 -0. - - 1 �4 - - -0.® o -0. `\p. 8 8 - -1,0 ��' } APPENDIX E COLOR CONTOUR CUT / FILL MAP ATTACHMEtdT NO. --------- -------------- j7- WIN Mom N ! l4p%j MR Proposed 105-556 SF lim PAM ENTRY 2 j L; EARTHWORK INDEX CUT FILL on 2.5 FT-2.0 FT 0.0 FT-0.5 FT WIM 2.0 FT-1.5 FT 0.5 FT-1.0 FT 71 n 1.5 FT-1.0 FT 1.0 FT-0.5 FT 1.5 FT-2.0 FT-T 0.5 FT-0.0 FT M 2.0 FT-2.5 FT -M 2.5 FT 3.0 FT APPENDIX E CUT FILL CONTOUR MAP LARS AM)EIRSEM AND ASSOCIATES, NO JOR NO:SMO13 SHEET NO- 77- CML ENGINEERS DR. BY: DZ LAND SURVEYORS - PLANNERS CH. By-riz 4630 WEST JACQUELYN AVE. SUITE 119, FRESNO. CA 93722 DATE: 01-12-06 OF 1 SHEET -276-2790 FAX 359-276-0850 WWW.LARSANDERSEN.COM 559 SCALE: NA :L�4}�.?$:,:�:•?�•ti��r�.�`�.it'F,.F•;�>v:%+'�$ii:'•'i::v:t�:(::j1::iL}::i)j:�{�.��•:Cu�}<j:�:Y:�:::i:::_;:fi.ii`:;:i:':�`ij;:ii�i�C?>.tv'4T'!:':?Lv�:'�:?iiM1 i::Y:i<`v:':r::+{�i`:: Sections: 240.02 Zoning Approval 240.04 Environmental Review 240.06 Fees and Deposits 240.02 Zoning Approval To ensure that each new or expanded use of a site and each new, expanded, reconstructed or structurally altered structure complies with Titles 20-23, zoning approval shall be required prior to issuance of a building, grading, coastal development or demolition permit, certificate of occupancy, business license, or utility service connection. If any grading or scraping is proposed as part of a project, a survey of existing topography on the site and adjacent land within 5 feet of the site boundaries and any proposed changes in topography shall be submitted to the Director for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit; grading permit, or demolition permit. The contours of the land shall be shown at intervals of not more than 5 feet. Grading or stockpiling which involves 25,000 cubic yards or more of import or export shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading or stockpile permit. (3334) 240.04 Environmental Review A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA). This section shall apply to all permits or entitlements, not otherwise exempt, requiring discretionary action by the City. The City Council shall by resolution adopt policies, objectives, criteria, and procedures regulating environmental evaluation of public and private projects. This section and the provisions adopted by resolution provide the basic principles, objectives, criteria, procedures, and definitions to ensure consistent implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. . B. Establishment of Environmental Assessment Committee. There is hereby established an Environmental Assessment Committee consisting of the Director of Community Development, the Director of Public Works, and the City Attorney, or a designated representative of each. A quorum shall require at least two members. C. The Environmental Assessment Committee shall have responsibility for evaluating the environmental impact of all discretionary projects, determine the appropriate environmental documentation required for compliance with CEQA and make recommendations to the discretionary body to adopt or deny a negative declaration or environmental impact report, consistent with State and local law. D. Administration. The Director shall be responsible for: Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 240 240-1 5197 ATTACHMENT O, �• l 1. Preparing and processing all environmental documents necessary to comply with CEQA, the guidelines of the California State Resources Agency as authorized under the Public Resources Code Section 21083, and such additional provisions as may be adopted by the City of Huntington Beach; and 2. Contracting for private, professional consultation for preparation of environmental impact reports. E. Environmental Determination. Prior to any project approval, the discretionary body shall first act upon the negative declaration or the environmental impact report (EIR). The discretionary body acting on the project may adopt the negative declaration or may reject it and require an environmental impact report. The discretionary body may certify the environmental impact report or reject it, if deemed incomplete. F. Mitigation Measures. Any feasible change or alteration to the project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental impacts identified in the negative declaration or final EIR shall be incorporated as a condition of approval imposed on . the project. The condition of approval shall also describe the time period and the manner in which the mitigation measure must be satisfied. G. Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City requires a reporting or monitoring program be prepared to ensure compliance of mitigation measures during project implementation. The project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring completion of the program and shall submit to the City reports indicating the status of compliance. The City may obtain or require an independent analysis of any completed reports submitted as required by a mitigation measure. The cost of the analysis shall be paid by the project applicant. Prior to final inspection the monitoring program report shall be completed and accepted by the City. A separate report may be required for each phase of a project constructed in phases. H. Appeal. Any decision of the committee may be appealed to the discretionary body which has original jurisdiction over approval of the project as provided in this code. The appeal shall be heard prior to the discretionary body's action on the project. 240.06 Fees and Deposits All persons submitting applications for any permits, certificates, development agreements, map approvals, or zoning map or text amendments, or any other approvals as required by this ordinance code, or filing appeals shall pay all fees and/or deposits as provided by the City Council's resolution or resolutions establishing applicable fees and charges. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 240 240-2 5/97 ilffTACHMENT NO. 3 .2 RECEIVED BY: CITY CLERK RECEIPT COPY :i Return DUPLICATE toz_;�r City Clerk's Office (Name) ' d after signing/dating (Date) P, CITY OF H NTINGTON BEACH 7 `l INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Shari Freidenrich, City Treasurer FROM: / r` �?/I DATE: 4/6 3 A 4 SUBJECT: Bond Acceptance have received the bonds foriU // (Company Name) Faithful Performance Bond No. //�� /0 Labor and Material Bond No. 7-0 Monument Bond No. Maintenance Bond No. Guarantee and Warranty Bond No. Re: Tract No. CC No. MSC No. Approved `l Agenda Item No. pp (Council Approval Date) g City Clerk Vault No. j70 #27 g1followuplbondletter.doc ,12,E 7 ��°✓Ci�s�_ Council/Agency Meeting Held: d Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied JAJeoCity rk's gnatur Council Meeting Date: 4/21/2008 Department ID Number: PW 08-26 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEM SUBMITTED BY: PAUL EMERY, INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: TRAVIS K. HOPKINS, PE, DIRECTOR�OF PUBLIC KS SUBJECT: Accept the Securities for Public Improvements Required of Home Depot E atement of Issue, Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The required bonds for the new Home Depot project, located at 19101 Magnolia Street (southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue), have been prepared and are ready for City Council acceptance. Funding Source: No funds required for this action. Recommended Action: Motion to: Accept the Faithful Performance Bond No. 6531070 and Labor and Material Bond No. 6531070, the securities furnished for installation of the required public improvements, and instruct the City Clerk to file the bonds with the City Treasurer. Alternative Action(s): Deny the recommended action. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/21/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 08-26 Analysis: On July 11, 2006, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 04-10 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-56 authorizing the construction of a 99,000 square-foot home improvement store, an attached 25,000 square-foot garden center, 550 parking spaces, paving, landscaping and associated infrastructure, and other site and public improvements. In compliance with the project code requirements, the attached Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Material Bonds are being provided as securities for the installation of the required public improvements. The required bond amounts are: Faithful Performance $611,738 Labor and Materials $305,869 Project data Developer: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., c/o Richard Greene, Real Estate Manager 3800 West Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92868 Engineer: Lars Andersen and Associates, Inc., 4630 West Jacquelyn Avenue, Suite 119, Fresno, CA 93722 Surety: Safeco Insurance Company of America Location: 19101 Magnolia Street (west side of Magnolia Street, south of Garfield Avenue) Zone: CG (Commercial General) No. of Acres: 11.6 acres No. of Lots: 1 numbered and 0 lettered Public Works Commission Action: Not required. Strategic Plan Goal: 1-1 - Improve the City's plan for funding and completing infrastructure needs, and develop strategies for resolving crucial infrastructure problems to preserve the physical foundation of the community and enable the community's value to grow. L-5 - Improve the efficiency of the development review process. Environmental Status: The recommended action is a ministerial act, and is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15268(b). Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page . Description 1. Faithful Performance Bond No. 6531070 2. Labor and Material Bond No. 6531070 -2- 4/2/2008 4:51 PM ATTACHMENT # 1 BOND NO. 6531070 PREMIUM $1,835.00 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND WHEREAS, Home Depot USA, Inc. (hereinafter designated as"principal")is the developer of that certain property located at 19101 Magnolia Street in the City of Huntington Beach;and WHEREAS,on July 11,2006,the City of Huntington Beach approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No.04-10 and Conditional Use Permit No.04-56(collectively, "entitlements")authorizing the development of certain improvements on the Property("Project'); and WHEREAS,the City imposed conditions of approval on the Project,whereby Principal agrees to install and complete designated public improvements for the project identified as The Home Depot Store;and WHEREAS,said principal is required under the terms of said entitlement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said entitlement. Now,therefore,we,the principal and Safeco Insurance Company of America as surety,are held and firmly bound unto the City of Huntington Beach, hereinafter called"City",the penal sum of Six Hundred Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-Eight dollars ($ 611,738.00 )lawful money of the United States,for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made,we bind ourselves,our heirs,successors,executors and administrators,jointly and severally,firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounded principal,his or its heirs, executors,administrators,successors or assigns,shall in all things stand to and abide by,and well and truly keep and perform the covenant,condition and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided,on his or their part,to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified,and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless City,its officers,agents and employees,as therein stipulated,then this obligation shall become null and void;otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. 1 no inovi^rc�o As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore,there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation,all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no charge,extension of time,alteration,or addition to the terms of the entitlement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond,and it does hereby waive notice of any change,extension of time,alteration or addition to the terms of the entitlement or to the work or to the specifications. In witness whereof,this instrument has been duly executed by the principal and surety above named,on January 16 2008. HOME DEPOT U.S.A..INC. as PJnc'pal By {� VV 1 r V By JO ln. a�S�J�i�rt {55iSfClrtlJ�c:r�'`�z�t�J SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ,as Surety Barbara S. MacArthur,Attorney-in-Fact By Sandra S. Carter, Witness APPROVED AS TO FORM JENNIFER M`-GR/ATH,CityAll-m By 1?au1 D'Aless-6 Assistant City Att—ey 2 �C� STATE OF GEORGIA ) /� r_ ) SS COUNTY OF 6jobb ) ON N-18-100 BEFORE ME, NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE,PERSONALLY APPEARED f -�✓ IJl (11X��K(�a ,40 640,l1 AND -ild- 9,PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME(OR PROVED TO ME,ON THE BASIS OF STATISFACTORY EVIDENCE)TO BE THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGES TO ME THAT THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITIES,AND THAT BY THEIR SIGNATURES ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSONS,OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSONS ACTED,EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. WITNESS MY H,�ND SIGNATURE l,(L(, �i \C MY PRII�CIP,AL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS NOTARY PUBLIC IN/AND FOR SA D STATE IN LO{9b COUNTY O PRINTED MAME ��uwttl ,fyOMMISSION EXPIRES -10Nr _U�<< APRIL =_ 26 2010 Q: �i20��UNTY,GE�Q;\U�� STATE OF GEORGIA SS COUNTY OF FULTON ) ON January 16,2008 BEFORE ME, MengLi Tieu A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE,PERSONALLY APPEARED Barbara S. MacArthur AND Sandra S. Carter , PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME(OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF STATISFACTORY EVIDENCE)TO BE THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGES TO ME THAT THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITIES,AND THAT BY THEIR SIGNATURES ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSONS,OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSONS ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. WITNESS MY HAND SIGNATURE �� MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS NOTARY PU LIC I ND FOR SAID STATE IN Fulton COUNTY MengLi Tieu PRINTED NAME MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Dec 21,2010 Ll 21 2010 RY�Pv��o• a Safeco Insurance Company of America POWER General Insurance Company of America i e Safeco Plaza OF ATTORNEY Seattle,WA 98185 No. 6724 KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: That SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, each a Washington corporation,does each hereby appoint ***"****""*"**SANDRA S.CARTER;GARY D.EKLUND;JUDY S.FLEMING;LAUREL D.HUSS; BARBARA S.MACARTHUR; VIRGINIA B.MCMANUS;EDWARD L.MITCHELL;NANCY NIX;CHAUN M.WILSON;Atlanta,Georgia"****"*""**"****** its true and lawful attorney(s)-in-fact,with full authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other documents of a similar character issued in the course of its business,and to bind the respective company thereby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have each executed and attested these presents this 17th day of August 2006 STEPHANIE DALEY-WATSON,SECRETARY TIM MIKOLAJEWSKI,SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT,SURETY CERTIFICATE Extract from the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA: "Article V,Section 13.-FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS...the President,any Vice President,the Secretary,and any Assistant Vice President appointed for that purpose by the officer in charge of surety operations,shall each have authority to appoint individuals as attomeys-in-fact or under other appropriate titles with authority to execute on behalf of the company fidelity and surety bonds and other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business...On any instrument making or evidencing such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument conferring such authority or on any bond or undertaking of the company, the seal, or a facsimile thereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided,however,that the seal shall not be necessary to the validity of any such instrument or undertaking." Extract from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopted July 28,1970. "On any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assistant secretary of the Company setting out, (l) The provisions of Article V,Section 13 of the By-Laws,and (ii) A copy of the power-of-attorney appointment,executed pursuant thereto,and (iii) Certifying that said power-of-attorney appointment is in full force and effect, the signature of the certifying officer may be by facsimile,and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereof." 1,Stephanie Daley-Watson ,Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,do hereby certify that the foregoing extracts of the By-Laws and of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations,and of a Power of Attomey issued pursuant thereto,are true and correct,and that both the By-Laws,the Resolution and the Power of Attorney are still in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto setmy hand and affixed the facsi al of said corporation �( this 1/ day of �v 1E CO, SEAL w SEAL x i d�lk 9 5A1 11A" `1 a2 STEPHANIE DALEY-WATSON,SECRETARY �away Safeco@ and the Safeco logo are registered trademarks of Safeco Corporation. S-0974I13S 4I05 WEB PDF ATTAC H M E N T #2 BOND NO. 6531070 PREMIUM $1,835.00 LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND WHEREAS,Home Depot,USA, Inc.(hereinafter designated as"principal")is the developer of that certain property located at 19101 Magnolia Street in the City of Huntington Beach;and WHEREAS,on July 11,2006,the City of Huntington Beach approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No.04-10 and Conditional Use Permit No.04-56(collectively,"entitlements") authorizing the development of certain improvements on the Property ("Project");and WHEREAS,the City imposed conditions of approval on the Project,whereby principal agrees to install and complete designated public improvements;and WHEREAS,under the terms of said entitlement,principal is required before entering upon the performance of the work,to file a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Huntington Beach to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15(commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of Civil Code of the State of California. Now,therefore,said Principal and the undersigned as corporate surety,are held firmly bound unto the City of Huntington Beach and all contractors,subcontractors,laborers,materialmen and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid entitlement and referred to in the aforesaid Civil Code in the sum of Three Hundred Five Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Nine dollars($ 305,869.00 ),for materials furnished for labor thereon of any kind,or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor,that said surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this bond,will pay, in addition to the face amount thereof,costs and reasonable expenses and fees,including reasonable attorney's fees,incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation,to be awarded and fixed by the court,and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond shall insure to the benefit of any and all persons,companies and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 15(commencing with Section 3082)of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code,so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. 1 Should the condition of this bond be fully performed,then this obligation shall become null and void,otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change,extension of time,alteration or addition to the terms of said entitlement or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligation on this bond,and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension,alteration or addition. In witness whereof,this instrument has been fully executed by the principal and surety above named,on January 16 ,2008. HOME DEPOT U.S.A..INC. as Principal By By SC'.G 6&. j5ts1CL �sP1�L'.Iry Ess SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ,as Surety 01 Bye Barbara S. MacArthur,�Attorney-in-Fact By 1a Sandra S.Carter,Witness APPROVED AS TO FORM JENNNINIF'EjR�McGRAATH,City Attorney By Paul D'AtemnJw Aui tantCityAtu=w 2 STATE OF GEORGIA ) SS COUNTY OF& ) ON ��'f D� _,BEFORE ME, �lt I VlC Lee la yy ,A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE,PERSONALLY APPEARED rti�{n 60ffs�Qeil AND A IIU R,Th i 6c dUX PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME(OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF STATISFACTORY EVIDENCE)TO BE THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGES TO ME THAT THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITIES,AND THAT BY THEIR SIGNATURES ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSONS,OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSONS ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. WITNESS MY H ND /) ' SIGNATURE 6. Ls MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FORSAD�/STAY IN N66 COUNTY �G 6erl rn e. p-eo ILE��. PRINTED NA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES T( DID R C6A $ �� SSIOj� = APRIL N:O; 26 :*= '•110 2010 Q: STATE OF GEORGIA ) 'L ea EOQ� O SS COUNTY OF FULTON ON January 16,2008 BEFORE ME, MengLi Tieu A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED Barbara S. MacArthur AND Sandra S.Carter PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME(OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF STATISFACTORY EVIDENCE)TO BE THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGES TO ME THAT THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITIES,AND THAT BY THEIR SIGNATURES ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSONS,OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSONS ACTED,EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. WITNESS MY HAND SIGNATURE MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS NOTARY PUBLI IN A FOR SAID STATE IN Fulton COUNTY MengLi Tieu PRINTED NAME MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 12/21/2010 k?$SIONF;.. 21 _ 3 2010 Q; Safeco Insurance Company of America POWER General Insurance Company of America # • Safeco Plaza OF ATTORNEY Seattle,WA 98185 No. 6724 KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: That SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, each a Washington corporation,does each hereby appoint ****"**"****SANDRA S.CARTER;GARY D.EKLUND;JUDY S.FLEMING;LAUREL D.HUSS; BARBARA S.MACARTHUR; VIRGINIA B.MCMANUS;EDWARD L.MITCHELL;NANCY NIX;CHAUN M.WILSON;Atlanta,Georgia*****"*"******** its true and lawful attomey(s)-in-fact,with full authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other documents of a similar character issued in the course of its business,and to bind the respective company thereby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have each executed and attested these presents 17th this day of August 2006' STEPHANIE DALEY-WATSON SECRETARY TIM MIKOLAJEWSKI SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT SURETY CERTIFICATE Extract from the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA: "Article V,Section 13.-FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS...the President,any Vice President,the Secretary,and any Assistant Vice President appointed for that purpose by the officer in charge of surety operations,shall each have authority to appoint individuals as attomeys-in-fact or under other appropriate titles with authority to execute on behalf of the company fidelity and surety bonds and other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business...On any instrument making or evidencing such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument conferring such authority or on any bond or undertaking of the company, the seal, or a facsimile thereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided,however,that the seal shall not be necessary to the validity of any such instrument or undertaking." Extract from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopted July 28,1970. "On any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assistant secretary of the Company setting out, (t) The provisions of Article V,Section 13 of the By-Laws,and (ii) A copy of the power-of-attorney appointment,executed pursuant thereto,and (iii) Certifying that said power-of-attomey appointment is in full force and effect, the signature of the certifying officer may be by facsimile,and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereof." I,Stephanie Daley-Watson Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,do hereby certify that the foregoing extracts of the By-Laws and of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations,and of a Power of Attorney issued pursuant thereto,are true and correct,and that both the By-taws,the Resolution and the Power of Attorney are still in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimile se of said corporation this day of ,E CO, E SEAL - SEAL A of�ax � x a� 195 let STEPHANIE DALEY-WATSON,SECRETARY �of Safeco0 and the Safeco logo are registered trademarks of Safeco Corporation. S-0974113S 4105 WEB PDF RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public works SUBJECT: Accept Securities for Public Improvements Required of Home Depot COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 21, 2008 RCAATTACHMENTS zra STATUS ' Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Staff Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MI$SING.AT�T%CHMENTS REVIEIIVED RETURNED FOR DED IA. ,, F- . �m. Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Deputy City Administrator Initial City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION-FOR-rRETURN OF-'ITEM „; M.;<: _.` (Below • . For RCA Author: S. Bogart:jg RECEIVED BY: CITY CLERK RECEIPT COPY Return DUPLICATE to City Clerk's Office (Name) after signing/dating (Date) �, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: S idenrich, City Treasurer FROM: 8fiWA ��,-, S �`r✓ DATE: a SUBJECT: Bond Acceptance I have received the bonds for (company Name) Faithful Performance Bond No. //�s� /0 H Labor and Material Bond No.. � Monument Bond No. Maintenance Bond No. Guarantee and Warranty Bond No. 'Y Re: Tract No. CC No. MSC No. Approved 1) Agenda Item No. (Coun ll Approval Date) City Clerk Vault No. 1 #27 g1followuplbondletter.doc