Glendale City Council
September 27, 2022

Pursuant to GMC Section 8.44.080 the Project is required to subscribe to and pay for collection of all waste generated. Commercial generators will be required to supply and provide employees and contractors with access to an adequate number, size, and location of collection containers with sufficient labels or colors consistent with the city’s collection service requirements. The City will have the right to review the number and size of a generator’s containers and frequency of collection to evaluate the adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation and containment of materials, and the business is required to adjust their service level for their collection services as requested by the City.

The Revised Project would be required comply with the City’s requirements to comply with SB 1383 and will also be required to comply GMC Section 8.44 for construction and operation refuse collection. The Revised Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 530 of 675
APRIL 2022
Subsequent MND PAGE 50
1633 VICTORY BOULEVARD
5) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste generated on the Project site deposited at the Scholl Canyon Landfill (owned by the City of Glendale). The annual disposal rate at the Scholl Canyon facility is currently approximately 400,000 tons per year. Based on a generation factor of (2 lbs. /room/day), implementation of the Original Project would have generated approximately 23.36 tons (64 rooms x 2lbs./hotel room/day = 46,720 lbs. per year) and would result in a 0.0000584% increase to the overall annual disposal rate at the Scholl Canyon facility. Implementation of the Revised Project would increase development by adding 7,147 square feet (20 additional guest rooms) compared to the Original Project. Based on a same generation factor, the Revised Project would generate approximately 30.66 tons (84 rooms x 2 lbs./hotel room/day = 61,320 lbs. per year) of solid waste per year- which results in an additional 7.3 tons, 14,600 lbs. per year and a 00007665% increase to the overall annual disposal rate at the Scholl Canyon facility.

As discussed in Section S-4 above, the Revised Project would be required to implement SB 1383 and other waste-diversion programs for construction debris and for green waste aimed at reducing the amount of solid waste disposed in the landfill, the amount of solid waste deposited in landfills will be reduced compared to the Original Project. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

T. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility area or lands classified as v ery high fire hazard sev erity zones,
would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? X

2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X

3. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel, breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X

4. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) maps areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, pursuant to Public Resources Code §§ 4201-4204 and Government Code §§ 51175-51189. These areas are referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) and are identified for areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection (i.e., state responsibility areas, or SRAs), and areas where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection (i.e., local responsibility areas, or LRAs).

There are three FHSZ mapped for SRAs (moderate, high, and very high), while only lands zoned as very high are identified in LRAs (CAL FIRE 2007). The Project site is not located within a LRA and is not located near a SRA or a very high FHSZ.
531 of 675
APRIL 2022
Subsequent MND PAGE 51
1633 VICTORY BOULEVARD
Since the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration in conjunction with a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in 2019, the conditions on and surrounding the project site are unchanged since the Original Project was evaluated, and impacts associated with the Revised Project would be the same. As a result of the Revised Project, no impact would occur related to wildfire hazards, including emergency response/evacuation, pollutants and uncontrolled wildfire spread, associated infrastructure, or post-fire effects.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. As indicated in Response T-1 above, Project site is not located within a LRA and is not located near a SRA or a very high FHSZ. No impacts would occur related to wildfire hazards due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel, breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. As indicated in Response T-1 above, Project site is not located within a LRA and is not located near a SRA or a very high FHSZ. No impacts would occur related to the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. As indicated in Response T-1 above, Project site is not located within a LRA and is not located near a SRA or a very high FHSZ. No impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

U. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Does the project have the potential to substantial
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, substantially 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?
X

2. 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
X
532 of 675
APRIL 2022
Subsequent MND PAGE 52
1633 VICTORY BOULEVARD
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effectsof probable future
projects.)

3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
1) 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? No Impact. The project site is a currently developed located within an urbanized area along Victory Boulevard. No biological species or habitat for biological species exist on the Project site or in the vicinity. . In addition, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plans apply to the Project site. As such, the Revised Project would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

Furthermore, the Revised Project would not have the potential to eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, including historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts that have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. No impacts would occur.

Since the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration in conjunction with a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in 2019, the conditions on and surrounding the project site are unchanged since the Original Project was evaluated, and impacts associated with the Revised Project would be the same.
2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts may occur when the proposed project in conjunction with one or more related projects would yield an impact that is greater than what would occur with the development of only the proposed project. With regard to cumulative effects for the issues of agricultural, biological, and mineral resources, the project site is located in an urbanized area and therefore, other developments occurring in the area of the project would largely occur on previously disturbed land and are not anticipated to have an impact. Thus, no cumulative impact to these resources would occur. Impacts related to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and hazards and hazardous materials are generally confined to a specific site and do not affect off-site areas.

The City’s approved and pending projects in the vicinity combined with the Revised Project may result in cumulative effects in other environmental issue areas due to the aggregate development within an already urbanized area. However, project-related impacts that require mitigation measures to reduce the level of significance would not result in cumulative impacts when combined with the City’s other related projects. Therefore, the Revised Project would have not cumulatively considerable effects, and as such, cumulative impacts would not occur. 533 of 675
APRIL 2022
Subsequent MND PAGE 53
1633 VICTORY BOULEVARD
Since the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration in conjunction with a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in 2019, the conditions on and surrounding the project site are unchanged since the Original Project was evaluated, and impacts associated with the Revised Project would be the same.
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce environmental impacts such that no substantial adverse effects on humans would occur. Less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Revised Project.

13. Earlier Analyses
2018 MND for the Original Project.14. Project References Used to Prepare Initial Study Checklist One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and are available for review in the Planning Division Office, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206- 4386. Items used are referred to by number on the Initial Study Checklist.

1. The City of Glendale’s General Plan, “Open Space and Conservation Element,” as amended.

2. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2010 (September 2011).

3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42 (Revised 1997, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999).

4. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning (May 2005).

5. City of Glendale, General Plan, “Safety Element” (2003).

6. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines (2017).

7. City of Glendale Municipal Code, as amended.

8. City of Glendale, Transportation Analysis Guidelines (2020)

9. CALEEMOD

10. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A (High-Quality Transit Maps Glendale TIA Guidelines, dated October 30, 2020)

11. City of Glendale – 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2021 adopted)

12. Trip Generation Memo (Transultions, Inc., dated July 6, 2021) 534 of 675
E-mail:[email protected]
Solar Study – Date: 08-30-20222
1633 Victory Blvd., Glendale CA
Project Background:
• Revit file is provided by the client and is the basis for the solar study • Site orientation with respect to North is adjusted on the Revit file • The solar access study is to show the effect of the new building on the existing neighboring single-family dwelling located on the northern border of the proposed hotel. • Shadow projections were shown on allsolstices: Spring Equinox, Summer Solstice, Fall Equinox, Winter Solstice. Dates are specified with each image
Findings:
• Shadows will mostly cross the north border during 12 noon and onwards on all solstices • The most time shadows will be beyond the north border will be during the winter months • Most of the shadows casted on all solstices are towards southwest and has the most shaded time during the day
• Duration of House in Shade:

SOLSTICE AMOUNT OF TIME Exceeds 2-hour Shade
Standards
Summer Solstice 9AM TO 5PM 0 min No
Winter Solstice 9AM TO 3PM 2:11PM-3PM (49 min.) No
535 of 675
cqGG
_cOAck1
Ɖ
<qI
ĠğħG
536 of 675
cqGG
_cOAck1
Ɖ
<qI
ĠğğĠII
537 of 675
cqGG
_cOAck1
Ɖ
<qI
Ġğġ[G
538 of 675
cqGG
_cOAck1
Ɖ
<qI
Ġğģ[G
539 of 675
}1Ik
_cOAck1
Ɖ


G
_ĠğħG
540 of 675
}1Ik
_cOAck1
Ɖ


G
_ĠğğĠII
541 of 675
}1Ik
_cOAck1
Ɖ


G
_Ġğġ[G
542 of 675
"Ǥ88P\*>BmƠ
TNY=
QŕŕŜǤ=
543 of 675
"Ǥ88P\*>BmƠ
TNY=
QŕŕŔŕ>>
544 of 675
"Ǥ88P\*>BmƠ
TNY=
QŕŕŖN=
545 of 675
"Ǥ88P\*>BmƠ
TNY=
QŕŕřN=
546 of 675
c[_1I)
^q1IO‚Ɖ
G_.ĠĞħG
547 of 675
c[_1I)
^q1IO‚Ɖ
G_.ĠĞğĠII
548 of 675
c[_1I)
^q1IO‚Ɖ
G_.ĠĞġ[G
549 of 675
c[_1I)
^q1IO‚Ɖ
G_.ĠĞĤ[G
550 of 675

LIMITED PHASE II

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Auto Repair & Sales Building
1633 Victory Boulevard
Glendale, California 91201
Prepared for:

Mr. Jayesh Kumar
2010 North Highland Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90068
Prepared by:
23862 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 201
Torrance, California 90505
(310) 373-0159 / Fax (310) 373-0179
CCI Project Number: CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
551 of 675
552 of 675

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

1.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 PROPERTY LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK COMPLETED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.0 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.1 PRE-FIELDWORK ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.2 SOIL SAMPLING ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.3 SOIL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.1 CONCLUSIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5.0 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6.0 LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - FIGURES

APPENDIX B - TABLES

APPENDIX C - PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX D - ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA SHEETS
ii CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
553 of 675

1.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

1.1 PROPERTY LOCATION
CCI conducted a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at 1633 Victory Boulevard, Glendale, LosAngelesCounty, California (Property). The Propertyislocated at the north corner of the intersection of Victory Boulevard and Winchester Avenue. The Property is legally described by its assessor's parcel number (APN) 5626-013-024 (refer to Figure 1 in Appendix A).

1.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CCI completed a Phase I ESA of the Property on August 26, 2016. According to the report, the Property is approximately 21,000 square-feet in area and has been developed with two buildings.

There is the main building, which includes the canopy, that was constructed on the Property in 1966.

The building and canopyare steel structureswhich were originallyconstructed for a gasoline service station including automobile repair. The building is approximately 3,537 square-feet in size and currently consists of offices and an automobile repair area. The automobile repair shop is located in the northwest portion of the Property building. The automobile repair shop consists of three service bays, two of which have in-ground hydraulic lifts. A secondary building is located behind (northeast adjacent) the main Property building. The building is used for office purposes and storage reportedly.

The steel canopy is located adjacent to the southwest side of the main Property building. There are two former dispenser islands located beneath the canopy and the area is paved with concrete. The other exterior areas of the Property are paved with asphalt. Multiple cars were parked on the Property. Because of this, CCI was unable to observe the exterior ground surface of the majority of the Property for suspect in-ground features. There is an enclosure located at the north corner of the Property which is used by the automobile repair shop for the storage of hazardous waste drums.

The Property is currently occupied by M&R Auto Tech (automobile repair), GTR Auto Sales, LLC (automobile sales), and IMEX Remarketing (automobile sales).

A gasoline station was constructed on the Property in 1939. Information reviewed for the Phase I ESA indicated that two underground storage tanks (USTs) were installed on the Property in 1946.

These tanks are suspected of being removed in 1966 during the rebuild of the gasoline station. In 1966 four USTs were installed on the Property. In 1971, one UST was installed on the Property.

Four USTs were removed from the Property in 1981. There is a canopy located adjacent to the southwest side of the Property building. The dispenser islands were located beneath this canopy.

Automobile repair activities have been conducted on the Property since at least 1966 and possibly earlier during the time period of the original gasoline station building (1939 - 1966). The current automobile repair shop utilizes two in-ground hydraulic lifts. The installation date(s) of these lifts is unknown. The current automobile repair shop stores and uses hazardous materials (motor oil, coolant, and other automotive fluids/lubricants) inside the building and stores hazardous wastes 1 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
554 of 675
(waste oil, waste oil filters, and waste coolant) in an enclosure at the exterior north end of the Property. Surface-stainingwas observed throughout the automobile repair shopand hazardouswaste enclosure. Overall housekeeping practices inside the automobile repair shop were observed to be poor.

CCI observed a metal lid inside the automobile repair shop. The operator of the automobile repair shop indicated that the lid covers a drain which is used to collect wastewater from floor washing activities. CCIsuspected that the drain is connected to a 3-stage clarifier. Information reviewed for the Phase I ESA indicated that an industrial waste permit was issued for the Property in 1966 for industrial waste liquids generated from "covered automobile wash rack and lubrication room floor washing." The waste permit also indicated the existence of a 3-stage clarifier. The current tenant, M&R Auto Tech applied for a similar industrial waste permit in 2004 and also indicated an existing clarifier. CCI did not observe a clarifier on the Property. However, there were multiple cars parked throughout the Property, and CCI was unable to observe the exterior ground surface of the majority of the Property for suspect in-ground features.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK COMPLETED
The scope of work conducted as part of this Limited Phase II ESA included the evaluation of soil conditions through the installation of soil borings and the collection and analysis of select soil samples. The following provides a summary of the tasks performed:

1. On September 20, 2016, CCI notified Dig Alert of the proposed soil sampling activities at the Property (Ticket No. A62641590).

2. Prepared a Health and Safety Plan (H&SP) for use byCCI, as well as subcontractors, for the field activities conducted during this Limited Phase II ESA.

3. Conducted geophysical surveys on the Property on September 27 and 30, 2016. The purpose of the geophysical surveys was to locate underground utilities not identified through the Dig Alert process. The geophysical surveys were also conducted to attempt to located current/former subsurface features on the Property such as USTs and clarifiers. The geophysical surveys were conducted by Pacific Coast Locators (PCL) of La Crescenta, California.

4. Conducted the soil sampling activities on the Property on September 27 and 30, 2016, using either a direct-push drill rig or a hand auger to facilitate sample collection. The sampling activities were conducted by Strongarm Environmental Field Services(SEFS) of Norwalk, California.

5. Fourteen (14) soil borings (SB1 - SB14) were advanced on the Property during this Limited Phase II ESA. The soil borings were advanced to total depths ranging between 5-feet below ground surface (bgs) and 20-feet bgs. Soil samples were collected from each soil boring location at depths of 2-feet, 3-feet, 5-feet, 10-feet, 15-feet, and/or 20- 2 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
555 of 675
feet bgs. Soil borings SB1 through SB3 were advanced in the area of the former motor vehicle fuel USTs. Soil boring SB4 was advanced adjacent to the clarifier. Soil borings SB5 and SB6 were advanced adjacent to the in-ground hydraulic lifts. Soil boring SB7 was advanced in the area of the former waste oil UST. Soil boring SB8 was advanced adjacent to the hazardous waste enclosure. Soil borings SB9 through SB12 were advanced adjacent to the former dispenser islands. Soil borings SB13 and SB14 were advanced adjacent to the former product piping lines.

6. The soil samples were delivered to Jones Environmental, Inc. (Jones), a State of California certified environmental laboratorylocated in Santa Fe Springs, California, for analysis. Select soil samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) method 8260B, total petroleum hydrocarbons carbon chain identification (TPHCC ID) usingUSEPAmethod 8015M, and/or total lead using US EPA method 6010B.

7. Backfilled the soil borings with hydrated bentonite and completed the ground surface with either concrete or asphalt to best match the existing ground surface.

8. Preparation of this report documenting the completed fieldwork and results. 3 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
556 of 675

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The Property is relatively level. The general slope in the area of the Property is to the south. The Property lies approximately 486 feet above mean sea level. The nearest surface body of water is the Los Angeles River which is located approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Property.

The Property is located in the southeast portion of the San Fernando Valley between the Santa Monica Mountains to the south and the Verdugo Mountains to the north. Geology of the area consists of Recent Alluvium described unconsolidated, poor to well stratified clay, silt, sand, and gravel derived from alluvial fan, flood plain, and stream deposits of the surrounding mountains (Geologic Map of California, Los Angeles, 1991).

2.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
According to the Phase I ESA completed by CCI on August 26, 2016, depth to groundwater in the area of the Property is anticipated to be encountered at depths greater than 60-feet below bgs. The groundwater flow direction in the area of the Property is anticipated to be to the south.

The deepest soil borings were advanced to total depths of 20-feet bgs during this assessment.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the soil borings advanced during this assessment.

4 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
557 of 675

3.0 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

3.1 PRE-FIELDWORK ACTIVITIES
Prior to initiating the assessment activities, the underground utility notifications were performed in accordance with underground utility notification requirements (Dig Alert ticket confirmation number: A62641590). In addition, a geophysical survey was conducted to locate underground utilities not identified through the Dig Alert process.

The geophysical surveywas also conducted to attempt to located current/former subsurface features on the Property such as USTs and clarifiers. The results of the geophysical survey identified the former motor vehicle fuel UST area on the east exterior area of the Property and the former waste oil UST area on the north exterior area of the Property. Former product piping linesfrom the former dispenser islands to the former motor vehicle fuel UST area were evident based on trenches which were re-paved with asphalt. It should be noted that all areas of the Property could not be surveyed due to the parked vehicles and miscellaneous equipment.

A Property specific H&SP was prepared for the project. Prior to initiating the fieldwork activities, the H&SP was reviewed by all field personnel and maintained on the Property during the field activities.

3.2 SOIL SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
On September 27 and 30, 2016, fourteen (14) soil borings (SB1 - SB14) were advanced on the Property. Soil borings SB1 through SB3 were advanced in the area of the former motor vehicle fuel USTs. These soil borings were advanced to total depths of 20-feet bgs and soil samples were collected from these soil borings at depths of 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. Soil boring SB4 was advanced adjacent to the clarifier. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 20-feet bgs and soil samples were collected from this soil boring at depths of 5-feet, 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. Soil borings SB5 and SB6 were advanced adjacent to the in-ground hydraulic lifts. These soil borings were advanced to total depths of 20-feet bgs and soil samples were collected from these soil borings at depths of 5-feet, 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. Soil boring SB7 was advanced in the area of the former waste oil UST. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 20-feet bgs and soil samples were collected from this soil boring at depths of 5-feet, 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. Soil boring SB8 was advanced adjacent to the hazardous waste enclosure. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 10-feet bgs and soil samples were collected from this soil boring at depths of 2-feet, 5-feet, 10-feet bgs. Soil borings SB9 through SB12 were advanced adjacent to the former dispenser islands. These soil borings were advanced to total depths of 10-feet bgs and soil samples were collected from these soil borings at depths of 2-feet, 5-feet, 10-feet bgs. Soil borings SB13 and SB14 were advanced adjacent to the former product piping lines. These soil borings were advanced to total depths of 5-feet bgs and soil samples were collected from these soil borings at depths of 3-feet and 5-feet bgs. Please refer to Figure 3 in Appendix A for a map showing the soil boring locations.
5 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
558 of 675
Soil borings SB1 through SB7 and SB9 through SB12 were advanced using either a truck-mounted or track-mounted direct-push Geoprobe® sampling rig. The Geoprobe® sampling rig utilizes direct push technology to collect soil samples from specific subsurface depths without generating soil cuttings. The Geoprobe® sampling system consists of a series of 1.5-inch diameter hollow stainless steel rods which were hydraulically driven into the ground using a pneumatic hammer. Soil samples were then collected by driving an approximately 4-foot long stainless steel sample sleeve attached to the end of the steel rods into soil at a specified sample depth. Soil samples were then collected in an acetate sample tube installed inside the sample sleeve. A new acetate sample tube was used at each sample interval/location to avoid cross-contamination between sampling points. After the rod assemblywas hydraulicallyextended to the target sample depth, the sample sleeve wasretrieved to ground surface and the acetate sample tube containing soil from the appropriate sample interval was removed from the stainless steel rod. The tube was then cut with a hand saw into a 6-inch section and capped with Teflon®-lined end caps. The sample tubes were then labeled with unique identification, sealed inside a Ziplock® bag, and placed in a chest cooled with ice for delivery to the analytical laboratory. CCI recorded the unique sample identification information on a chain-ofcustody form.

Soil borings SB8, SB13, and SB14 were advanced using a hand auger. Upon reaching the desired sample depth using the hand auger, soil samples were collected using a core sampler attached to a slide hammer. A 2-inch diameter stainless steel sample tube was placed inside the core sampler.

Using the slide hammer, the core sampler was then pounded into the bottom of the soil boring to collect a relatively undisturbed soil sample inside the sample tube. The slide hammer was then removed from the soil boring and the sample tube was removed from the core sampler. Each end of the sample tube was covered with Teflon® tape then sealed with a plastic end cap. The sample tubes were then labeled with unique identification, sealed inside a Ziplock® bag, and placed in a chest cooled with ice for delivery to the analytical laboratory. CCI recorded the unique sample identification information on a chain-of-custody form.

3.3 SOIL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESULTS
The soil samples were delivered to Jones. Select soil samples were analyzed for VOCs using US EPA method 8260B, TPH CC ID using US EPA method 8015, and/or total lead using US EPA method 6010B. The analytical results were compared with their respective Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Maximum Soil Screening Levels (MSSLs) where groundwater is between 20-feet and 150-feet bgs and their respective US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential soil. Copies of the analytical data reports can be found in Appendix D. The results of the analysis detected the following:

Soil Boring SB1
Soil boring SB1 was advanced in the area of the former USTs on the east exterior portion of the Property. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 20-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 10-feet and 15-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID, VOCS, and total lead. With the exception of ethylbenzene, xylenes, and/or total lead, the results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted 6 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
559 of 675
analytes above their respective Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) in soil samples SB1-10 and SB1-15.

The results of the analysis detected ethylbenzene and xylenes in soil sample SB1-10 at concentrations of 3.7 micrograms per kilogram (mg/kg) and 29.4 mg/kg, respectively. The detected ethylbenzene and xylenes concentrations did not exceed their respective RSLs of 5,800 mg/kg and 580,000 mg/kg.

Total lead was detected in soil samples SB1-10 and SB1-15 at concentrations of 21.7 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 2.8 mg/kg, respectively. The detected total lead concentrations did not exceed the respective RSL of 400 mg/kg.

Soil Boring SB2
Soil boring SB2 was advanced in the area of the former USTs on the east portion of the Property.

This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 20-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID, VOCS, and/or total lead.

Total TPH was detected in soil sample SB2-10 at a concentration of 103 mg/kg. The carbon chain breakdown indicated that TPHwas detected in the C24 -C43 carbon range at a concentration of 103 mg/kg. The detected TPH concentration in carbon range C24 - C43 did not exceed the respective MSSL of 10,000 mg/kg. The results of the analysis detected toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes in soil sample SB2-10 at concentrations of 6.1 mg/kg, 48.9 mg/kg, and 382 mg/kg, respectively. The detected toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes concentrations did not exceed their respective RSLs of 4,900,000 mg/kg, 5,800 mg/kg, and 580,000 mg/kg. Total lead was detected in soil sample SB2-10 at a concentration of 23.0 mg/kg. The detected total lead concentration did not exceed the respective RSL of 400 mg/kg.

Total TPH was detected in soil sample SB2-15 at a concentration of 1,510 mg/kg. The carbon chain breakdown indicated that TPH was detected in the C12 - C23 carbon range at a concentration of

49.3 mg/kg and in the C24 - C43 carbon range at a concentration of 1,458 mg/kg. The detected TPH concentration in carbon range C12 - C23 did not exceed the respective MSSL of 1,000 mg/kg, and the detected TPH concentration in carbon range C24 - C43 did not exceed the respective MSSL of 10,000 mg/kg. The results of the analysis detected ethylbenzene and xylenesin soil sample SB2-15 at concentrations of 1.0 mg/kg and 8.3 mg/kg, respectively. The detected ethylbenzene and xylenes concentrations did not exceed their respective RSLs of 5,800 mg/kg and 580,000 mg/kg. Total lead was detected in soil sample SB2-15 at a concentration of 17.2 mg/kg. The detected total lead concentration did not exceed the respective RSL of 400 mg/kg.

The results of the analysis did not detected concentrations of Total TPH or VOCs above their respective PQLs in soil sample SB2-20.
7 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
560 of 675
Soil Boring SB3
Soil boring SB3 was advanced in the area of the former USTs on the east exterior portion of the Property. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 20-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 10-feet and 15-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID, VOCS, and total lead. With the exception of ethylbenzene, xylenes, and/or total lead, the results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLs in soil samples SB3-10 and SB3-15.

The results of the analysis detected ethylbenzene and xylenes in soil sample SB3-10 at concentrations of 5.0 mg/kg and 36.9 mg/kg, respectively. The detected ethylbenzene and xylenes concentrations did not exceed their respective RSLs of 5,800 mg/kg and 580,000 mg/kg.

Total lead was detected in soil samples SB3-10 and SB3-15 at concentrations of 24.1 mg/kg and 0.7 mg/kg, respectively. The detected total lead concentrations did not exceed the respective RSLof 400 mg/kg.

Soil Boring SB4
Soil boring SB4 was advanced adjacent to the clarifier located inside the auto repair area of the Property building. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 20-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 5-feet, 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 5-feet and 10-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID and VOCs. The results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLsin soil samples SB4-5 and SB4-

10. Soil Boring SB5
Soil boring SB5 was advanced adjacent to one of the two in-ground hydraulic lifts located inside the auto repair area of the Property building. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 20- feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 5-feet, 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 10-feet and 15-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID. The results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of TPH above the respective PQLin soil samples SB5-10 and SB5-15.

Soil Boring SB6
Soil boring SB5 was advanced adjacent to one of the two in-ground hydraulic lifts located inside the auto repair area of the Property building. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 20- feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 5-feet, 10-feet, 15-feet, and 20-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 10-feet and 15-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID. The results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of TPH above the respective PQLin soil samples SB6-10 and SB6-15.

Soil Boring SB7
Soil boring SB7 was advanced in the area of the former waste oil UST on the north exterior portion of the Property. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of the 20-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 5-feet, 10-feet, 1-feet, and 20-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 5-feet 8 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
561 of 675
and 10-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID. The results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of TPH above the respective PQL in soil samples SB7-5 and SB7-10.

Soil Boring SB8
Soil boringSB8 was advanced adjacent to the hazardous waste storage enclosure located at the north corner of the Property. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 10-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 2-feet, 5-feet, and 10-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 2-feet, 5-feet, and 10-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID and VOCs. The results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLs in soil samples SB8-2, SB8-5, and SB8-10.

Soil Boring SB9
Soil boring SB9 was advanced adjacent to the former fuel dispenser islands beneath the canopy.

This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 10-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 2-feet, 5-feet, 10-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 2-feet and 5-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID, VOCs, and total lead. With the exception of total lead, the results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLs in soil samples SB9-2 and SB9-5.

Total lead was detected in soil samples SB9-2 and SB9-5 at concentrations of 4.0 mg/kg and 4.3 mg/kg, respectively. The detected total lead concentrations did not exceed the respective RSLof 400 mg/kg.

Soil Boring SB10
Soil boring SB10 was advanced adjacent to the former fuel dispenser islands beneath the canopy.

This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 10-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 2-feet, 5-feet, 10-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 2-feet and 5-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID, VOCs, and total lead. With the exception of total lead, the results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLs in soil samples SB10-2 and SB10-5.

Total lead was detected in soil samples SB10-2 and SB10-5 at concentrations of 2.5 mg/kg and 7.5 mg/kg, respectively. The detected total lead concentrations did not exceed the respective RSLof 400 mg/kg.

Soil Boring SB11
Soil boring SB11 was advanced adjacent to the former fuel dispenser islands beneath the canopy.

This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 10-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 2-feet, 5-feet, 10-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 2-feet and 5-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID, VOCs, and total lead. With the exception of total lead, the results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLs in soil samples SB11-2 and SB11-5.
9 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
562 of 675
Total lead was detected in soil samples SB11-2 and SB11-5 at concentrations of 23.3 mg/kg and 2.9 mg/kg, respectively. The detected total lead concentrations did not exceed the respective RSLof 400 mg/kg.

Soil Boring SB12
Soil boring SB12 was advanced adjacent to the former fuel dispenser islands beneath the canopy.

This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 10-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 2-feet, 5-feet, 10-feet bgs. The soil samples collected from 2-feet and 5-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID, VOCs, and total lead. With the exception of total lead, the results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLs in soil samples SB12-2 and SB12-5.

Total lead was detected in soil samples SB12-2 and SB12-5 at concentrations of 6.5 mg/kg and 3.0 mg/kg, respectively. The detected total lead concentrations did not exceed the respective RSLof 400 mg/kg.

Soil Boring SB13
Soil boring SB13 was advanced adjacent to the former product piping lines. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 5-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 3-feet and 5-feet bgs.

The soil samples collected from 3-feet and 5-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID, VOCs, and total lead. With the exception of total lead, the results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLs in soil samples SB13-3 and SB13-5.

Total lead was detected in soil samples SB13-3 and SB13-5 at concentrations of 2.7 mg/kg and 3.5 mg/kg, respectively. The detected total lead concentrations did not exceed the respective RSLof 400 mg/kg.

Soil Boring SB14
Soil boring SB14 was advanced adjacent to the former product piping lines. This soil boring was advanced to a total depth of 5-feet bgs with soil samples collected at depths of 3-feet and 5-feet bgs.

The soil samples collected from 3-feet and 5-feet bgs were analyzed for TPH CC ID, VOCs, and total lead. With the exception of total lead, the results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLs in soil samples SB14-3 and SB14-5.

Total lead was detected in soil samples SB13-3 and SB13-5 at concentrations of 1.5 mg/kg and 2.7 mg/kg, respectively. The detected total lead concentrations did not exceed the respective RSLof 400 mg/kg.
10 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
563 of 675

4.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this Limited Phase II ESA was to assess whether historical uses of the Property, including a gasoline station and automobile repair shop, have adversely impacted the subsurface environment beneath the Property. This assessment included the analysis of soil samples collected from inside the Property building and from the exterior areas of the Property.

Soil borings were advanced in the area of the former motor vehicle fuel USTs on the east exterior portion of the Property, in the area of the former waste oil UST on the north exterior portion of the Property, adjacent to the former fuel dispenser islands, adjacent to the former product piping lines, adjacent to the hazardous waste storage enclosure, and adjacent to the clarifier and in-ground hydraulic lifts located inside the Property building.

Select soil samples collected from these soil borings were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and/or lead. The results of the analysis did not detect concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective PQLsin the soil samples collected from the area of the former waste oil UST, from adjacent to the hazardous waste storage enclosure, and from adjacent to the clarifier and inground hydraulic lifts located inside the Property building. Minor concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and/or total lead were detected in soil samples collected from the area of the former motor vehicle fuel USTs, from adjacent to the former fuel dispenser islands, and from adjacent to the former product piping lines. However, the detected concentrations of these targeted analytes were below their respective regulatory action level.

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of this assessment, it does not appear that the historical uses of the Property, including a gasoline station and automobile repair shop, have significantly impacted the subsurface environment beneath the areas of the Property assessed. CCI does not recommend additional assessment of these areas at this time.

However, based on CCI's understanding that a 15-feet deep excavation is planned as part of future redevelopment of the Property, CCIrecommends developing a soil management plan (SMP)for any soil excavation on the Property. This SMP would recommend that a geologist/environmental professional be on-site during excavation activities to monitor for potentially impacted soils not identified during this assessment and to perform South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)Rule 1166 monitoring. The SMPwouldalso include recommended actions for handling and disposing of potentially impacted soils, if identified. 11 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
564 of 675

5.0 REFERENCES
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; CCI, dated August 26, 2016 Los AngelesRegional Water QualityControl Board (LARWQCB) Maximum Soil ScreeningLevels (MSSLs)
United States Environmental Protection (US EPA) Agency Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), November 2015
12 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
565 of 675

6.0 LIMITATIONS
This assessment was conducted according to accepted industry standards and guidelines for similar assessments conducted in this geographic region at this time.

The conclusions and recommendations of this assessment are based, in part, from information and data provided by others. CCIis not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of this information.

Inaccurate data, or information that was not found or made available to CCI, may result in a modification of our conclusions and recommendations.

In today's technology, no amount of assessment can ascertain that the Property is completely free of environmental concern. This assessment is not intended to be all inclusive, identify all potential concerns, or wholly eliminate the possibility of the Property having environmental risks. It is possible that variations in unpermitted, undocumented, or concealed improvements or alterations to the Property could exist beyond what was found during this assessment. Future changes in observed conditions on the Property could occur due to variations in environmental and physical conditions.

USER RELIANCE
This report may be distributed and relied upon by Mr. Jayesh Kumar, its successors and assigns.

Reliance on the information and conclusions of this report by any other person or entity is not authorized without the written consent of CCI. This report is not legal opinion and does not offer warranties or guarantees.
13 CCI Project # CC2000-2
October 11, 2016
566 of 675

APPENDIX A - FIGURES
567 of 675
Map Taken From:

Microsoft
2016
Auto Repair & Sales Building
1633 Victory Boulevard N
Glendale, California 91201
CCI Project No. CC2000-2
Property
568 of 675
N
Auto Repair & Sales Building
1633 Victory Boulevard
Glendale, California 91201
CCI Project No. CC2000-2
Property
Boundaries
Map Courtesy of:

Google Earth, 2016
569 of 675
N
Auto Repair & Sales Building
1633 Victory Boulevard
Glendale, California 91201
CCI Project No. CC2000-2
38-Feet
Building
W i n c h e s t e r A v e n u e
Sidewalk
Chevron
Gasoline Station
Residential
Hazardous Waste
Storage Enclosure
Former Waste
Oil UST
A l l e y w a y V i c t o r y B o u l e v a r d Sidewalk Former Fuel
Former Product UST Area
Piping
Former
Dispensers
Canopy
Clarifier
Hydraulic
Lifts
SB1
SB2
SB3
SB6
SB7
SB8
SB9
SB10
SB5
SB4
SB11
SB12
SB13
SB14
570 of 675 SB1 Soil Boring Location

APPENDIX B - TABLES
571 of 675
Table 1 - Analytical Laboratory Results (TPH CC ID & Total Lead) Auto Repair & Sales Building
1633 Victory Boulevard
Glendale, California 91201
CCI Project No. CC2000-2
Sample ID
Analytical Laboratory Results, mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram) Carbon Range C10 - C11 Carbon Range C12 - C23 Carbon Range C24 - C43 Total TPH Total Lead 1 SB1-10 ND ND ND ND 21.7 2
SB1-15 ND ND ND ND 2.8
SB1-20 NA NA NA NA NA
3 SB2-10 ND ND 103 103 23.0
SB2-15 ND 49.3 1,458 1510 17.2
SB2-20 ND ND ND ND NA
SB3-10 ND ND ND ND 24.1
SB3-15 ND ND ND ND 0.7
SB3-20 NA NA NA NA NA
SB4-5 ND ND ND ND NA
SB4-10 ND ND ND ND NA
SB4-15 NA NA NA NA NA
SB4-20 NA NA NA NA NA
SB5-5 NA NA NA NA NA
SB5-10 ND ND ND ND NA
SB5-15 ND ND ND ND NA
SB5-20 NA NA NA NA NA
SB6-5 NA NA NA NA NA
SB6-10 ND ND ND ND NA
SB6-15 ND ND ND ND NA
SB6-20 NA NA NA NA NA
SB7-5 ND ND ND ND NA
SB7-10 ND ND ND ND NA
SB7-15 NA NA NA NA NA
SB7-20 NA NA NA NA NA
MSSLs 500 1,000 10,000 - - - 400* 4
572 of 675
Sample ID
Analytical Laboratory Results, mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram) Carbon Range C10 - C11 Carbon Range C12 - C23 Carbon Range C24 - C43 Total TPH Total Lead SB8-2 ND ND ND ND NA
SB8-5 ND ND ND ND NA
SB8-10 ND ND ND ND NA
SB9-2 ND ND ND ND 4.0
SB9-5 ND ND ND ND 4.3
SB9-10 NA NA NA NA NA
SB10-2 ND ND ND ND 2.5
SB10-5 ND ND ND ND 7.5
SB10-10 NA NA NA NA NA
SB11-2 ND ND ND ND 23.3
SB11-5 ND ND ND ND 2.9
SB11-10 NA NA NA NA NA
SB12-2 ND ND ND ND 6.5
SB12-5 ND ND ND ND 3.0
SB12-10 NA NA NA NA NA
SB13-3 ND ND ND ND 2.7
SB13-5 ND ND ND ND 3.5
SB14-3 ND ND ND ND 1.5
SB14-5 ND ND ND ND 2.7
MSSLs 500 1,000 10,000 - - - 400 9
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 1
ND - Non-Detect
2 NA - Not Analyzed 3
MSSLs - Maximum soil screening levels where groundwater is between 20-feet and 150-feet below ground surface (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) 4 *United States Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Level (Residential Soil) 573 of 675
Table 2 - Analytical Laboratory Results (VOCs)
Auto Repair & Sales Building
1633 Victory Boulevard
Glendale, California 91201
CCI Project No. CC2000-2
Sample ID
Analytical Laboratory Results, mg/kg (micrograms per kilogram, or parts per billion [ppb]) PCE Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes MTBE 1 2
SB1-10 ND ND ND 3.7 29.4 ND
3 SB1-15 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB1-20 NA NA NA NA NA NA
4 SB2-10 ND ND 6.1 48.9 382 ND
SB2-15 ND ND ND 1.0 8.3 ND
SB2-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB3-10 ND ND ND 5.0 36.9 ND
SB3-15 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB3-20 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB4-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB4-10 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB4-15 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB4-20 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB5-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB5-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB5-15 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB5-20 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB6-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB6-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB6-15 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB6-20 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB7-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB7-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB7-15 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB7-20 NA NA NA NA NA NA
RSLs 24,000 1,200 4,900,000 5,800 580,000 47,000 5
574 of 675
Sample ID
Analytical Laboratory Results, mg/kg (micrograms per kilogram, or parts per billion [ppb]) PCE Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes MTBE
SB8-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB8-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB8-10 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB9-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB9-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB9-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB10-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB10-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB10-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB11-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB11-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB11-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB12-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB12-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB12-10 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB13-3 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB13-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB14-3 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SB14-5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
RSLs 24,000 1,200 4,900,000 5,800 580,000 47,000
PCE - Tetrachloroethylene 1
MTBE - Methyl Tert Butyl Ether 2
ND - Non-Detect
3 NA - Not Analyzed 4
RSLs - United States Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels (Residential Soil) 5 575 of 675

APPENDIX C - PHOTOGRAPHS
576 of 675
Photograph 1: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB1.

Photograph 2: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB2.

Photograph 3: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB4.

Photograph 4: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB4.

Photograph 5: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB5.

Photograph 6: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB6.
577 of 675
Photograph 7: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB7.

Photograph 8: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB9.

Photograph 9: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB10.

Photograph 10: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB11.

Photograph 11: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB12.

Photograph 12: View of the soil sampling
activities at soil boring location SB13.
578 of 675

APPENDIX D - ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA SHEETS
579 of 675

ANALYSES REQUESTED

1. EPA 8015M – Extended Range Hydrocarbons

2. EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates

3. EPA 6010B by 3050B – Lead
Approval: ________________________

Steve Jones, Ph.D.

Laboratory Manager

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
Client: CCI, Inc. Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: 23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201 JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717 Torrance, CA 90505 Client Ref. No: CC2000-2
Attn: David Jonas Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Jayesh Kumar Date Analyzed: 9/27-29/2016
Project Address: 1633 Victory Blvd. Physical State: Soil Burbank, CA 91201
1 of 23
580 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/28-29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB1-10 SB1-15 SB2-10 SB2-15 SB3-10
JEL ID: ST-9717-01 ST-9717-02 ST-9717-04 ST-9717-05 ST-9717-07 Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND ND ND 4.5 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND ND ND 44.8 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND ND 13.0 198 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND ND 36.2 416 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND ND 27.9 307 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND ND 26.1 285 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND ND ND 252 ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND ND 103 1510 ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 71% 78% 92% 78% 70%
Batch: 8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND ND ND 49.3 ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND ND 49.2 614 ND mg/kg
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

QC Limits
Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL
David Jonas
CCI, Inc.

Practical
Quantitation
Limit
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons

LABORATORY RESULTS
30 - 120
Units
2 of 23
581 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/28-29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB3-15 SB4-5 SB4-10 SB5-10 SB5-15
JEL ID: ST-9717-08 ST-9717-10 ST-9717-11 ST-9717-15 ST-9717-16 Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 102% 107% 59% 70% 69%
Batch: 8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
QC Limits
30 - 120
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
3 of 23
582 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/28-29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB6-10 SB6-15 SB7-5 SB7-10
JEL ID: ST-9717-19 ST-9717-20 ST-9717-22 ST-9717-23
Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND ND ND ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 72% 63% 79% 93%
Batch: 8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
8015_
160928_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND ND ND ND mg/kg

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
QC Limits
30 - 120
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
4 of 23
583 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/28-29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: METHOD
BLANK
JEL ID: MB160928_01
Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 106%
Batch: 8015_
160928_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND mg/kg

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
30 - 120
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
QC Limits
5 of 23
584 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/28-29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
BATCH: Prepared: 9/28/2016 Analyzed: 9/28/2016
Result Spike Level Source
Result % Recovery % RPD % Recovery Limits Units
LCS: LCS-160928_01 SAMPLE SPIKED: CLEAN SOIL
Analyte:

Diesel 817 600 ND 136% 60 - 140 mg/kg
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 85% 30 - 120
LCSD: LCSD-160928_01 SAMPLE SPIKED: CLEAN SOIL
Analyte:

Diesel 750 600 ND 125% 8.6% 60 - 140 mg/kg
Hexacosane 75% 30 - 120
LCS = Laboratory Control Sample

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505

QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
8015_160928_01
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Surrogate Recoveries:

David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
6 of 23
585 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/27/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB1-10 SB1-15 SB2-10 SB2-15 SB3-10
JEL ID: ST-9717-01 ST-9717-02 ST-9717-04 ST-9717-05 ST-9717-07 Analytes:

Benzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromoform ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
sec-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Carbon tetrachloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chloroform ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromochloromethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromomethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2- Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
CCI, Inc.

Practical
Quantitation
Limit
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Units
David Jonas
Burbank, CA 91201
Jayesh Kumar
Torrance, CA 90505
1633 Victory Blvd.
7 of 23
586 of 675
Sample ID: SB1-10 SB1-15 SB2-10 SB2-15 SB3-10
JEL ID: ST-9717-01 ST-9717-02 ST-9717-04 ST-9717-05 ST-9717-07 Analytes:
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Ethylbenzene 3.7 ND 48.9 1.0 5.0 1.0 μg/kg
Freon 113 ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Hexachlorobutadiene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Isopropylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Isopropyltoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Methylene chloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Naphthalene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Propylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Styrene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Toluene ND ND 6.1 ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Vinyl chloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Xylenes 29.4 ND 382 8.3 36.9 1.0 μg/kg
MTBE ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Di-isopropylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-amylmethylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylalcohol ND ND ND ND ND 50.0 μg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recoveries:

Dibromofluoromethane 102% 103% 102% 103% 101%
Toluene-d₈ 102% 103% 102% 103% 100%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 103% 104% 105% 108% 103%
VOC1-092716-
CHECKS
VOC1-092716-
CHECKS
VOC1-092716-
CHECKS
VOC1-092716-
CHECKS
VOC1-092716-
CHECKS
ND= Not Detected
60 - 140
QC Limits
60 - 140
60 - 140
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
8 of 23
587 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/27/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB3-15 SB4-5 SB4-10
JEL ID: ST-9717-08 ST-9717-10 ST-9717-11
Analytes:

Benzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromobenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromoform ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Butylbenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
sec-Butylbenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylbenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Carbon tetrachloride ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chloroform ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromochloromethane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromomethane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2- Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
9 of 23
588 of 675
Sample ID: SB3-15 SB4-5 SB4-10
JEL ID: ST-9717-08 ST-9717-10 ST-9717-11
Analytes:
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Ethylbenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Freon 113 ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Hexachlorobutadiene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Isopropylbenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Isopropyltoluene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Methylene chloride ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Naphthalene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Propylbenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Styrene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Toluene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichloroethylene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Vinyl chloride ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Xylenes ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
MTBE ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Di-isopropylether ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-amylmethylether ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylalcohol ND ND ND 50.0 μg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1
Surrogate Recoveries:

Dibromofluoromethane 100% 104% 104%
Toluene-d₈ 101% 103% 105%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 102% 105% 106%
VOC1-092716-
CHECKS
VOC1-092716-
CHECKS
VOC1-092716-
CHECKS
ND= Not Detected
60 - 140
60 - 140
60 - 140

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
QC Limits
10 of 23
589 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/27/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: METHOD
BLANK
JEL ID: ST-9717-26
Analytes:

Benzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromodichloromethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromoform ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
sec-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Carbon tetrachloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chloroform ND 1.0 μg/kg
2-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromochloromethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromomethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2- Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
11 of 23
590 of 675
Sample ID: METHOD
BLANK
JEL ID: ST-9717-26
Analytes:
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Ethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Freon 113 ND 5.0 μg/kg
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Isopropylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Methylene chloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Naphthalene ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Propylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Styrene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Toluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichloroethylene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Vinyl chloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Xylenes ND 1.0 μg/kg
MTBE ND 5.0 μg/kg
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
Di-isopropylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-amylmethylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylalcohol ND 50.0 μg/kg
Dilution Factor 1
Surrogate Recoveries:

Dibromofluoromethane 102%
Toluene-d₈ 101%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 107%
VOC1-092716-
CHECKS
ND= Not Detected

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
QC Limits
60 - 140
60 - 140
60 - 140
12 of 23
591 of 675
Client: 9/29/2016
Client Address: ST-9717
CC2000-2
Attn: 9/27/2016
9/27/2016
Project: 9/27/2016
Project Address: Soil
Sample Spiked: GC#:

JEL ID: ST-9717-27
Parameter RPD
Acceptability
Range (%) LCS
Acceptability
Range (%)
Vinyl Chloride 1.9% 60 - 140 120% 70 - 130
1,1-Dichloroethylene 1.7% 60 - 140 122% 70 - 130
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.6% 70 - 130 128% 70 - 130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.7% 70 - 130 137% 70 - 130
Benzene 3.3% 70 - 130 133% 70 - 130
Trichloroethylene 0.1% 70 - 130 127% 70 - 130
Toluene 3.0% 70 - 130 137% 70 - 130
Tetrachloroethene 6.5% 70 - 130 124% 70 - 130
Chlorobenzene 0.4% 70 - 130 120% 70 - 130
Ethylbenzene 3.9% 70 - 130 131% 70 - 130
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene 5.4% 70 - 130 142% 70 - 130
Surrogate Recovery:

Dibromofluoromethane 60 - 140 92% 60 - 140
Toluene-d₈ 60 - 140 98% 60 - 140
4-Bromofluorobenzene 60 - 140 99% 60 - 140
110% 105%
132%
102%
110% 107%
101%
95%
97%
Date Sampled:

Burbank, CA 91201
Date Received:

Jayesh Kumar Date Analyzed:
1633 Victory Blvd.
106%
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates ST-9717-28 ST-9717-29
107%
MSD = Matrix Spike Duplicate
RPD = Relative Percent Difference; Acceptability range for RPD is ≤ 15% MS = Matrix Spike
96%
CCI, Inc. Report date:
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
David Jonas

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
Client Ref. No.:

MS
Recovery (%)
MSD
Recovery (%)
110%
101%
105% 101%
100%
114%
98% 98%
JEL Ref. No.:

Torrance, CA 90505
Physical State:

CLEAN SOIL
129%
116%
117%
108%
VOC1-092716-CHECKS
111%
111%
101%
100%
13 of 23
592 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 21.7 1 I16092801 9/28/2016 9/29/2016 0.5 mg/kg ND= Not Detected
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
CCI, Inc.

EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
Torrance, CA 90505
Jayesh Kumar
Units
Burbank, CA 91201
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
David Jonas
1633 Victory Blvd.

SB1-10 ST-9717-01
14 of 23
593 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 2.8 1 I16092801 9/28/2016 9/29/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
Jayesh Kumar
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
CCI, Inc.

David Jonas
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Burbank, CA 91201
Torrance, CA 90505
Units

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
1633 Victory Blvd.

SB1-15 ST-9717-02
15 of 23
594 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 23.0 1 I16092801 9/28/2016 9/29/2016 0.5 mg/kg ND= Not Detected
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
SB2-10 ST-9717-04

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
Jayesh Kumar
16 of 23
595 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 17.2 1 I16092801 9/28/2016 9/29/2016 0.5 mg/kg ND= Not Detected
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
Units
SB2-15 ST-9717-05
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
Practical
Quantitation
Limit

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
17 of 23
596 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 24.1 1 I16092801 9/28/2016 9/29/2016 0.5 mg/kg ND= Not Detected
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
SB3-10 SB3-10

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
Jayesh Kumar
18 of 23
597 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 0.7 1 I16092801 9/28/2016 9/29/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
Units
SB3-15 ST-9717-08
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
Practical
Quantitation
Limit

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
19 of 23
598 of 675
Client: Report date: 9/29/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/29/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
BATCH: Prepared: 9/28/2016 Analyzed: 9/29/2016
Result Spike Level Source Result % Recovery % RPD % Recovery Limits METHOD BLANK:

Analyte:

Lead, Pb ND mg/kg
LCS:

Analyte:

Lead, Pb 51.3 50.0 103% 80 - 120 mg/kg
LCSD:

Analyte:

Lead, Pb 52.2 50.0 ND 104% 1.7% 80 - 120 mg/kg
RPD = Relative Percent Difference; Acceptability range for RPD is ≤ 15% Units
I160928-BLK1
I160928-LCS1
I160928-LCSD1
I16092801
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
20 of 23
599 of 675
21 of 23
600 of 675
22 of 23
601 of 675
23 of 23
602 of 675

ANALYSES REQUESTED

1. EPA 8015M – Extended Range Hydrocarbons

2. EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Additional analysis requested for sample SB2-20 on 9/30/2016.

Approval: ________________________

Steve Jones, Ph.D.

Laboratory Manager

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
Client: CCI, Inc. Report date: 10/3/2016
Client Address: 23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201 JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717 Torrance, CA 90505 Client Ref. No: CC2000-2
Attn: David Jonas Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Jayesh Kumar Date Analyzed: 9/30&10/3/2016
Project Address: 1633 Victory Blvd. Physical State: Soil Burbank, CA 91201
1 of 12
603 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/3/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB2-20
JEL ID: ST-9717-06
Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 64%
Batch: 8015_
161003_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND mg/kg

LABORATORY RESULTS
30 - 120
Units
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

QC Limits
Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL
David Jonas
CCI, Inc.
2 of 12
604 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/3/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: METHOD
BLANK
JEL ID: MB161003_01
Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 108%
Batch: 8015_
161003_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND mg/kg
30 - 120
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
QC Limits
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
3 of 12
605 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/3/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
BATCH: Prepared: 10/3/2016 Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Result Spike Level Source
Result % Recovery % RPD % Recovery Limits Units
LCS: LCS-161003_01 SAMPLE SPIKED: CLEAN SOIL
Analyte:

Diesel 500 600 ND 83% 60 - 140 mg/kg
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 86% 30 - 120
LCSD: LCSD-161003_01 SAMPLE SPIKED: CLEAN SOIL
Analyte:

Diesel 490 600 ND 82% 2.0% 60 - 140 mg/kg
Hexacosane 86% 30 - 120
LCS = Laboratory Control Sample
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
8015_161003_01
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Surrogate Recoveries:

David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505

QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
4 of 12
606 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/3/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/30/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB2-20
JEL ID: ST-9717-06
Analytes:

Benzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromodichloromethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromoform ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
sec-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Carbon tetrachloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chloroform ND 1.0 μg/kg
2-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromochloromethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromomethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2- Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
CCI, Inc.

Practical
Quantitation
Limit
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Units
David Jonas
Burbank, CA 91201
Jayesh Kumar
Torrance, CA 90505
1633 Victory Blvd.
5 of 12
607 of 675
Sample ID: SB2-20
JEL ID: ST-9717-06
Analytes:
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Ethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Freon 113 ND 5.0 μg/kg
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Isopropylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Methylene chloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Naphthalene ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Propylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Styrene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Toluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichloroethylene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Vinyl chloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Xylenes ND 1.0 μg/kg
MTBE ND 5.0 μg/kg
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
Di-isopropylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-amylmethylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylalcohol ND 50.0 μg/kg
Dilution Factor 1
Surrogate Recoveries:

Dibromofluoromethane 112%
Toluene-d₈ 104%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 114%
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_2
ND= Not Detected
60 - 140
QC Limits
60 - 140
60 - 140
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
6 of 12
608 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/3/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9717
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/27/2016
Date Received: 9/27/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/30/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: METHOD
BLANK
JEL ID: ST-9717-30
Analytes:

Benzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromodichloromethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromoform ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
sec-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Carbon tetrachloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chloroform ND 1.0 μg/kg
2-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromochloromethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromomethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2- Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
7 of 12
609 of 675
Sample ID: METHOD
BLANK
JEL ID: ST-9717-30
Analytes:
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Ethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Freon 113 ND 5.0 μg/kg
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Isopropylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Methylene chloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Naphthalene ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Propylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Styrene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Toluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichloroethylene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Vinyl chloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Xylenes ND 1.0 μg/kg
MTBE ND 5.0 μg/kg
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
Di-isopropylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-amylmethylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylalcohol ND 50.0 μg/kg
Dilution Factor 1
Surrogate Recoveries:

Dibromofluoromethane 105%
Toluene-d₈ 104%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 108%
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
ND= Not Detected

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
QC Limits
60 - 140
60 - 140
60 - 140
8 of 12
610 of 675
Client: 10/3/2016
Client Address: ST-9717
CC2000-2
Attn: 9/27/2016
9/27/2016
Project: 9/30/2016
Project Address: Soil
Sample Spiked: GC#:

JEL ID: ST-9717-31
Parameter RPD
Acceptability
Range (%) LCS
Acceptability
Range (%)
Vinyl Chloride 3.7% 60 - 140 133% 70 - 130
1,1-Dichloroethylene 1.9% 60 - 140 98% 70 - 130
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.9% 70 - 130 137% 70 - 130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.7% 70 - 130 110% 70 - 130
Benzene 3.3% 70 - 130 102% 70 - 130
Trichloroethylene 1.8% 70 - 130 95% 70 - 130
Toluene 2.6% 70 - 130 108% 70 - 130
Tetrachloroethene 1.3% 70 - 130 97% 70 - 130
Chlorobenzene 0.0% 70 - 130 98% 70 - 130
Ethylbenzene 0.8% 70 - 130 108% 70 - 130
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene 0.2% 70 - 130 112% 70 - 130
Surrogate Recovery:

Dibromofluoromethane 60 - 140 97% 60 - 140
Toluene-d₈ 60 - 140 107% 60 - 140
4-Bromofluorobenzene 60 - 140 115% 60 - 140
107% 106%
131%
128%
107% 108%
127%
104%
Date Sampled:

Burbank, CA 91201
Date Received:

Jayesh Kumar Date Analyzed:
1633 Victory Blvd.
95% 94%
104%
MSD = Matrix Spike Duplicate
RPD = Relative Percent Difference; Acceptability range for RPD is ≤ 15% MS = Matrix Spike
93%
114%
106%
94%
CCI, Inc. Report date:
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
David Jonas

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
Client Ref. No.:
96%
MS
Recovery (%)
MSD
Recovery (%)
100%
94%
111%
JEL Ref. No.:

Torrance, CA 90505
Physical State:

CLEAN SOIL
126%
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates ST-9717-32 ST-9717-33
114%
107%
VOC3-093016-CHECKS_2
105%
113%
95%
98%
98% 98%
9 of 12
611 of 675
10 of 12
612 of 675
11 of 12
613 of 675
12 of 12
614 of 675

ANALYSES REQUESTED

1. EPA 8015M – Extended Range Hydrocarbons

2. EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates

3. EPA 6010B by 3050B – CAM 17 Metals
Approval: ________________________

Steve Jones, Ph.D.

Laboratory Manager

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
Client: CCI, Inc. Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: 23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201 JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737 Torrance, CA 90505 Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: David Jonas Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Jayesh Kumar Date Analyzed: 9/30&10/3-4/2016
Project Address: 1633 Victory Blvd. Physical State: Soil Burbank, CA 91201
1 of 30
615 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3-4/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB8-2 SB8-5 SB8-10 SB9-2 SB9-5
JEL ID: ST-9737-01 ST-9737-02 ST-9737-03 ST-9737-04 ST-9737-05 Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 64% 30% 63% 37% 49%
Batch: 8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg

LABORATORY RESULTS
30 - 120
Units
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

QC Limits
Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL
David Jonas
CCI, Inc.
2 of 30
616 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3-4/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB10-2 SB10-5 SB11-2 SB11-5 SB12-2
JEL ID: ST-9737-07 ST-9737-08 ST-9737-10 ST-9737-11 ST-9737-13 Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 49% 53% 35% 53% 53%
Batch: 8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
QC Limits
30 - 120
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
3 of 30
617 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3-4/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB12-5 SB13-3 SB13-5 SB14-3 SB14-5
JEL ID: ST-9737-14 ST-9737-16 ST-9737-17 ST-9737-18 ST-9737-19 Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 53% 45% 46% 46% 54%
Batch: 8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
8015_
161003_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND ND ND ND ND mg/kg
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
QC Limits
30 - 120
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
4 of 30
618 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3-4/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: METHOD
BLANK
JEL ID: MB161003_01
Carbon Chain Range
C10 - C11 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C12 - C13 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C14 - C15 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C16 - C17 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C18 - C19 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C20 - C23 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C24 - C27 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C28 - C31 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C32 - C35 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C36 - C39 ND 1.0 mg/kg
C40 - C43 ND 1.0 mg/kg
Total ND mg/kg
Dilution Factor 1
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 108%
Batch: 8015_
161003_01
ND = Not Detected
C10 - C11 ND mg/kg
C12 - C23 ND mg/kg
C24 - C31 ND mg/kg
30 - 120
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
QC Limits
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
5 of 30
619 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3-4/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
BATCH: Prepared: 10/3/2016 Analyzed: 10/3-4/2016
Result Spike Level Source
Result % Recovery % RPD % Recovery Limits Units
LCS: LCS-161003_01 SAMPLE SPIKED: CLEAN SOIL
Analyte:

Diesel 500 600 ND 83% 60 - 140 mg/kg
Surrogate Recovery:

Hexacosane 86% 30 - 120
LCSD: LCSD-161003_01 SAMPLE SPIKED: CLEAN SOIL
Analyte:

Diesel 490 600 ND 82% 2.0% 60 - 140 mg/kg
Hexacosane 86% 30 - 120
LCS = Laboratory Control Sample
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
8015_161003_01
EPA 8015M - Extended Range Hydrocarbons
Surrogate Recoveries:

David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505

QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
6 of 30
620 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/30/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB8-2 SB8-5 SB8-10 SB9-2 SB9-5
JEL ID: ST-9737-01 ST-9737-02 ST-9737-03 ST-9737-04 ST-9737-05 Analytes:

Benzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromoform ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
sec-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Carbon tetrachloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chloroform ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromochloromethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromomethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2- Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
David Jonas
Burbank, CA 91201
Jayesh Kumar
Torrance, CA 90505
1633 Victory Blvd.

Practical
Quantitation
Limit
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Units

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
CCI, Inc.
7 of 30
621 of 675
Sample ID: SB8-2 SB8-5 SB8-10 SB9-2 SB9-5
JEL ID: ST-9737-01 ST-9737-02 ST-9737-03 ST-9737-04 ST-9737-05 Analytes:
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Ethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Freon 113 ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Hexachlorobutadiene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Isopropylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Isopropyltoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Methylene chloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Naphthalene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Propylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Styrene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Toluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Vinyl chloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Xylenes ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
MTBE ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Di-isopropylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-amylmethylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylalcohol ND ND ND ND ND 50.0 μg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recoveries:

Dibromofluoromethane 106% 106% 109% 110% 104%
Toluene-d₈ 103% 106% 105% 107% 102%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 110% 109% 111% 113% 111%
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
ND= Not Detected

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
60 - 140
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates 60 - 140
QC Limits
60 - 140
8 of 30
622 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/30/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB10-2 SB10-5 SB11-2 SB11-5 SB12-2
JEL ID: ST-9737-07 ST-9737-08 ST-9737-10 ST-9737-11 ST-9737-13 Analytes:

Benzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromoform ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
sec-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Carbon tetrachloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chloroform ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromochloromethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromomethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2- Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
9 of 30
623 of 675
Sample ID: SB10-2 SB10-5 SB11-2 SB11-5 SB12-2
JEL ID: ST-9737-07 ST-9737-08 ST-9737-10 ST-9737-11 ST-9737-13 Analytes:
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Ethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Freon 113 ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Hexachlorobutadiene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Isopropylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Isopropyltoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Methylene chloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Naphthalene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Propylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Styrene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Toluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Vinyl chloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Xylenes ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
MTBE ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Di-isopropylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-amylmethylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylalcohol ND ND ND ND ND 50.0 μg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recoveries:

Dibromofluoromethane 111% 109% 110% 113% 111%
Toluene-d₈ 106% 101% 102% 105% 102%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 113% 111% 114% 117% 112%
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
ND= Not Detected
Units
QC Limits
60 - 140
60 - 140
60 - 140

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
10 of 30
624 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/30/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: SB12-5 SB13-3 SB13-5 SB14-3 SB14-5
JEL ID: ST-9737-14 ST-9737-16 ST-9737-17 ST-9737-18 ST-9737-19 Analytes:

Benzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromoform ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
sec-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Carbon tetrachloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chloroform ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromochloromethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromomethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2- Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
11 of 30
625 of 675
Sample ID: SB12-5 SB13-3 SB13-5 SB14-3 SB14-5
JEL ID: ST-9737-14 ST-9737-16 ST-9737-17 ST-9737-18 ST-9737-19 Analytes:
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Ethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Freon 113 ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Hexachlorobutadiene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Isopropylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Isopropyltoluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Methylene chloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Naphthalene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Propylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Styrene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Toluene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Vinyl chloride ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
Xylenes ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 μg/kg
MTBE ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
Di-isopropylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-amylmethylether ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylalcohol ND ND ND ND ND 50.0 μg/kg
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Surrogate Recoveries:

Dibromofluoromethane 111% 113% 114% 111% 112%
Toluene-d₈ 104% 102% 104% 102% 103%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 114% 116% 120% 118% 115%
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
ND= Not Detected
60 - 140
60 - 140
60 - 140

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
QC Limits
12 of 30
626 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 9/30/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: METHOD
BLANK
JEL ID: ST-9737-20
Analytes:

Benzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromodichloromethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Bromoform ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
sec-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Carbon tetrachloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Chloroform ND 1.0 μg/kg
2-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromochloromethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dibromomethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2- Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
13 of 30
627 of 675
Sample ID: METHOD
BLANK
JEL ID: ST-9737-20
Analytes:
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Ethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Freon 113 ND 5.0 μg/kg
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Isopropylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Methylene chloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Naphthalene ND 1.0 μg/kg
n-Propylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Styrene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Toluene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichloroethylene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 5.0 μg/kg
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 μg/kg
Vinyl chloride ND 1.0 μg/kg
Xylenes ND 1.0 μg/kg
MTBE ND 5.0 μg/kg
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
Di-isopropylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-amylmethylether ND 5.0 μg/kg
tert-Butylalcohol ND 50.0 μg/kg
Dilution Factor 1
Surrogate Recoveries:

Dibromofluoromethane 105%
Toluene-d₈ 104%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 108%
VOC3-093016-
CHECKS_02
ND= Not Detected
QC Limits
60 - 140
60 - 140
60 - 140

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
14 of 30
628 of 675
Client: 10/4/2016
Client Address: ST-9737
CC2000-2
Attn: 9/30/2016
9/30/2016
Project: 9/30/2016
Project Address: Soil
Sample Spiked: GC#:

JEL ID: ST-9737-21
Parameter RPD
Acceptability
Range (%) LCS
Acceptability
Range (%)
Vinyl Chloride 3.7% 60 - 140 133% 70 - 130
1,1-Dichloroethylene 1.9% 60 - 140 98% 70 - 130
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.9% 70 - 130 137% 70 - 130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.7% 70 - 130 110% 70 - 130
Benzene 3.3% 70 - 130 102% 70 - 130
Trichloroethylene 1.8% 70 - 130 95% 70 - 130
Toluene 2.6% 70 - 130 108% 70 - 130
Tetrachloroethene 1.3% 70 - 130 97% 70 - 130
Chlorobenzene 0.0% 70 - 130 98% 70 - 130
Ethylbenzene 0.8% 70 - 130 108% 70 - 130
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene 0.2% 70 - 130 112% 70 - 130
Surrogate Recovery:

Dibromofluoromethane 60 - 140 97% 60 - 140
Toluene-d₈ 60 - 140 107% 60 - 140
4-Bromofluorobenzene 60 - 140 115% 60 - 140
105%
113%
95%
98%
98% 98%
JEL Ref. No.:

Torrance, CA 90505
Physical State:

CLEAN SOIL
126%
EPA 8260B by 5035 – Volatile Organics by GC/MS + Oxygenates ST-9737-22 ST-9737-23
VOC3-093016-CHECKS_02
MS
Recovery (%)
MSD
Recovery (%)
100%
94%
111%
114%
CCI, Inc. Report date:
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
David Jonas

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
Client Ref. No.:

MSD = Matrix Spike Duplicate
RPD = Relative Percent Difference; Acceptability range for RPD is ≤ 15% MS = Matrix Spike
93%
114%
106%
94%
104%
Date Sampled:

Burbank, CA 91201
Date Received:

Jayesh Kumar Date Analyzed:
1633 Victory Blvd.
95% 94%
107% 106%
131%
128%
107% 108%
127%
104%
96%
107%
15 of 30
629 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 4.0 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
CCI, Inc.

EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
Torrance, CA 90505
Jayesh Kumar
Units
Burbank, CA 91201
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
David Jonas
1633 Victory Blvd.

SB9-2 ST-9737-04
16 of 30
630 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 4.3 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
Jayesh Kumar
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
CCI, Inc.

David Jonas
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Burbank, CA 91201
Torrance, CA 90505
Units

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
1633 Victory Blvd.

SB9-5 ST-9737-05
17 of 30
631 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 2.5 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
SB10-2 ST-9737-07

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
Jayesh Kumar
18 of 30
632 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 7.5 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
Units
SB10-5 ST-9737-08
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
Practical
Quantitation
Limit

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
19 of 30
633 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 23.3 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg ND= Not Detected
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
SB11-2 ST-9737-10

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
Jayesh Kumar
20 of 30
634 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 2.9 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
Units
SB11-5 ST-9737-11
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
Practical
Quantitation
Limit

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
21 of 30
635 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 6.5 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
SB12-2 ST-9737-13

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
Jayesh Kumar
22 of 30
636 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 3.0 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
Units
SB12-5 ST-9737-14
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
Practical
Quantitation
Limit

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
23 of 30
637 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 2.7 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
SB13-3 ST-9737-16

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
Jayesh Kumar
24 of 30
638 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 3.5 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
Units
SB13-5 ST-9737-17
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
Practical
Quantitation
Limit

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
25 of 30
639 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 1.5 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
SB14-3 ST-9737-18

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
Practical
Quantitation
Limit
Units
Jayesh Kumar
26 of 30
640 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
Sample ID: JEL ID:

Result Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed
Analytes:

Lead, Pb 2.7 1 I16100301 10/3/2016 10/3/2016 0.5 mg/kg
ND= Not Detected
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201
Units
SB14-5 ST-9737-19
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
Practical
Quantitation
Limit

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
David Jonas
27 of 30
641 of 675
Client: Report date: 10/4/2016
Client Address: JEL Ref. No.: ST-9737
Client Ref. No.: CC2000-2
Attn: Date Sampled: 9/30/2016
Date Received: 9/30/2016
Project: Date Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Project Address: Physical State: Soil
BATCH: Prepared: 10/3/2016 Analyzed: 10/3/2016
Result Spike Level Source Result % Recovery % RPD % Recovery Limits METHOD BLANK:

Analyte:

Lead, Pb ND mg/kg
LCS:

Analyte:

Lead, Pb 52.4 50.0 105% 80 - 120 mg/kg
LCSD:

Analyte:

Lead, Pb 51.1 50.0 ND 102% 2.5% 80 - 120 mg/kg
RPD = Relative Percent Difference; Acceptability range for RPD is ≤ 15% Units
I161003-BLK1
I161003-LCS1
I161003-LCSD1 SAMPLE SPIKED: CLEAN SOIL
I16100301
EPA 6010B by 3050 - Lead by ICP-OES
David Jonas
Jayesh Kumar
1633 Victory Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91201

JONES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION
CCI, Inc.
23862 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201
Torrance, CA 90505
28 of 30
642 of 675
29 of 30
643 of 675
30 of 30
644 of 675
translutions, inc.
17632 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 200,
Tustin, California 92780
Phone (949)656-3131 Fax (949)445-3131
solutions @ translutions.com
the transportation solutions company...

September 15, 2021
Mr. Anand Desai
S2K Development
(via email)
Subject: 1633 Victory Boulevard, Glendale, California – Trip Generation Analysis Dear Anand:

Translutions, Inc. (Translutions) is pleased to provide this letter discussing the trip generation for the proposed 1633 Victory Boulevard project. The project will include 84 rooms. The project was previously approved for a 64-room hotel and until recently, was occupied by automobile related businesses. This discussion is based on our evaluation of the site plan.

Trip Generation for Proposed Project. Based on discussion with the City, the trip generation for the proposed project was developed using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition) and are based on Land Use 312 - "Business Hotel".

Table A shows the trip generation for the project. As shown in Table A, the proposed facility would generate 33 a.m. peak hour trips, 27 p.m. peak hour trips, and 338 daily trips.

Table A - Proposed Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Business Hotel
Trip Generation Rates 1 0.16 0.23 0.39 0.18 0.14 0.32 4.02 Trip Generation 84 Room 14 19 33 15 12 27 338
Notes: 1 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 312 - "Business Hotel" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition).

Trip Generation for Existing Uses. The project site was occupied and is currently permitted for automobile-oriented businesses. Based on discussion with the City, it is our understanding that prior to the sale of the property, the site included a seven bay (3 bays in the building and 4 bays in the canopy area) oil and lube facility and 515 square feet of used car sales uses. Note that there is a small, lockable shed in the rear of the site which was used for auto parts sales, but since the City does not have records of that space, this analysis does not include potential trips from that use. Table B shows the areas of existing uses provided by the City.

Table B - Existing Uses
Area & Quantity Land Use
1633 Victory 1,120 SF/3 Bays Auto Repair/Oil Change
1633 Victory Unit B 290 SF Auto Sales
1633 Victory Unit C 225 SF Auto Sales
Canopy 1,860 SF/4 Bays Auto Repair/Oil Change
Total 3,495 SF
Source: City of Glendale
SF = Square Feet
To identify the trip generation associated with the on-site uses, the following ITE categories were used:

1. Land Use: 941 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop A quick lubrication vehicle shop is a business where the primary activity is to perform oil change services for vehicles. Other ancillary services provided may include preventative maintenance, such as fluid and filter changes. Automobile repair service is generally not provided. The number of service bays as the independent variable was used since the number of bays is the primary determinant of the number of vehicles that can be serviced. 645 of 675
9/15/2021 (\\TRANSLUTIONS\Projects\Desai - Victory Bl Hotel\Trip Gen Letter v6.docx) 2 the transportation solutions company...

2. Land Use: 841 Automobile Sales (Used). A used automobile sales dealership is typically located along a major arterial street characterized by abundant commercial development. The sale or lease of used cars is the primary business at these facilities; however, automobile services and parts sales may also be available. Some dealerships also include leasing options, truck sales, and servicing.

Trip generation for the on-site uses are shown on Table C. As shown in Table C, the existing uses would generate 22 a.m. peak hour trips, 36 p.m. peak hour trips, and 294 daily trips.

Table C - Trip Generation of Existing Uses
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Oil Change/Quick Lube
Trip Generation Rates 1 2.01 0.99 3.00 2.72 2.13 4.85 40 Trip Generation 7 Bays 14 7 21 19 15 34 280
Used Car Dealership
Trip Generation Rates 2 1.62 0.51 2.13 1.76 1.99 3.75 27.06 Trip Generation 0.515 KSF 1 0 1 1 1 2 14
Total Existing Trips 15 7 22 20 16 36 294
Notes:
1 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use: 941 "Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition).
2 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use: 841 "Automobile Sales (Used)" from ITE Trip Generation (10th Edition).

Net New Project Trip Generation. After subtracting the trip generation of on-site uses from the trips generated by the proposed project, the project is anticipated to generate 11 additional a.m. peak hour trips, 9 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 44 additional daily trips.

Conclusion. The City of Glendale requires a traffic study if the trip generation of a project is more than 50 trips during a peak hour.

Based on the above calculations, the project is forecast to generate 11 additional a.m. peak hour trips and 9 fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the permitted uses on site. Since the trip generation of the project is less than 50 trips during any peak hour, it is our professional opinion that a traffic study should not be required for the project. In addition, the project will generate 44 new daily trips and since the project generates fewer than 145 daily trips, based on the City’s Guidelines, a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis should not be required.

We hope you will find this information helpful. Should you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call me at (949) 656-3131.

Sincerely,
translutions, inc.

Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., T.E., AICP, ENV SP
Principal
646 of 675
9/23/2013 Page 1 of 2
City of Glendale  Community Development Dept., Planning Division  633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103  Glendale, CA 91206  818.548.2140  www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning Case No. 2101078
Date ____7/27/2022_______
Submit 3 copies of this application, along with the required fee, to:

Permit Services Center (PSC), 633 East Broadway, Rm. 101, Glendale, California, 91206 (Monday thru Friday, 7:00 am to 12:00 pm);
Or to:

Community Development Department (CDD), 633 East Broadway, Rm 103, Glendale, California, 91206 (Monday thru Friday, 12:00 pm to 5 p.m.).

For more information please call the PSC at 818.548.3200, or the Planning Division at 818.548.2115.

Please complete (PRINT or TYPE) the following information:

PART 4 – FINDINGS OF FACT (per Glendale Municipal Code Title 30, Chapter 30.44). To justify your Administrative Exception request, please answer all of the following questions:

A. How will the granting of the exception result in design improvements OR how do the space restrictions of the site preclude full compliance with Code requirements without hardship? __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. Why will granting of the exception NOT be detrimental to the public welfare?__________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C. Why will granting of the exception be in keeping with the objective/s of the applicable regulation/s? ____________

Note: Failure to furnish any of the requested information will delay action on the request. Three (3) copies of this application are to be submitted. Attach additional pages as needed.

PART 1 – NOTICE TO APPELLANT (please read carefully)
A. This form must be prepared, and 3 copies filed, within 15 days of the date of the decision being appealed.

B. Every question must be answered.

C. If a question does not apply, you must answer “does not apply” or words to that effect.

D. Failure to properly fill out this notice or failure to make a sufficient statement of a case in this notice, even if in fact you have valid and sound grounds for appeal, may cause your appeal to be dismissed forthwith.

E. Attach additional pages for long answers.

F. Prior to completing this form, read the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.88 Uniform Appeal Procedure on the City’s webpage at www.ci.glendale.ca.us/gmc/2.88.asp Appeal
PART 3 – APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. State the name or title of the board, commission or officer from which this appeal is taken ___________________ __________Design Reivew Board__________________________________________________ B. Were you given written notice of the action, ruling or determination? Yes  No  If “Yes,” attach a copy of the written notice and write the date you received it here _________________________ If “No,” give the following information concerning your receipt of notice of the action, ruling or determination.

Date __________________ Time __________________ Location __________________ Manner __________________ C. State generally what kind of permit, variance, ruling, determination or other action was the basis for the decision from which the appeal is taken _________________________________________________________________ _
____
____82 room hotel project was approved with multiple conditions________ _ _
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ D. State the specific permission or relief that was originally sought from the board, commission, or officer _______ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _
_
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____ E. Were you the party seeking the relief that was originally sought? Yes _______________________________ No  If “No,” how are you involved with the permit, variance, ruling, determination, or other action referred to above? ______________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. Does this matter involve real property? Yes  No 
If “Yes,” give the address, or describe the real property affected __________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ PART 2 – APPELLANT INFORMATION
A.___Anand__________________Desai______________________________________________anand@s2kdev.com_________ First Name Last Name Email Address
B.__1628 Victory Blvd__Suite 101____Glendale_______________CA 91201 __________ (818) 208-4700__ Street Address City State Zip Code Area Code - Phone Number X

1633 Victory Blvd, Glendale, CA 91201
Approval of the 82 unit hotel project without conditions number 1, 3, and 4. 647 of 675
9/23/2013 Page 2 of 2
City of Glendale  Community Development Dept., Planning Division  633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103  Glendale, CA 91206  818.548.2140  www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning FOR STAFF USE ONLY Date Stamp
Date received in Permit Services Center ____________ Received by _____________ Fee paid ________________________________________ Receipt No. _____________________________________ Statement of additional facts related to the appeal: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The foregoing statements, contained in PARTS 2, 3 and 4 above, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
_____________________________________________________
Appellant’s Name – Please Print
__________________________________________ __ _______________________________ Appellant’s Signature Date Signed PART 4 – STATEMENT OF ERROR
A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of law, which forms the basis for this appeal? ___Yes ___No If “Yes”, state each specific provision of law that you contend was violated: _______________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ B.

C. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in answer “A”? ___Yes ___No If “Yes”, state which provision, and the specific duty that it failed to exercise: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ D. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? ___Yes ___No If “Yes”, state each such fact, and for each fact, state how it should have changed the act, determination or ruling:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board, commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling or any specific finding in support thereof? ___Yes ___No If “Yes”, state what evidence was necessary, but lacking: ________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination or ruling? ___Yes ___No If “Yes”, state each new material fact not previously presented to the board, commission or officer. For each fact, state why it was not available, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and previously presented by the appellant:

X
This project complies with all development standards for the particular zone in which it is located. The allowable setback for _zone is 10 feet. The appl ______________________ icant proposes 11 f _ ________________________ t 6 inch setback The DRB is ____ violating the development standards by imposing an _______________________ additional setback.

Do you contend that the board, commission or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of setback any of the provisions of law given in answer “A”? _X__Yes ___No If “Yes”, state which provisions, and state specifically each act that was in excess of authority: _____ The board exceeded its authority by imposing requirements on t _______________________________________________________ he applicant beyond ____________ _______________________________what is allowed by the City of Glendale P _________________________________________ lanning Department. _____________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ X
The Design Review Board failed to adhere to the standards as set by the City of Glendale Planning Department.

X
X
X
Anand Desai
July 27, 2022
Applicant proposed a project that is "By-Right". The applicant's project complies with every standard and requirement for Hotel Development set by the City of Glendale Planning Department. The Design Review Board exceed it's authority by imposing an additional setback that would eliminate rooms for the project and ultimately render the project financially unfeasible. 648 of 675
649 of 675
650 of 675
651 of 675
652 of 675
653 of 675
654 of 675
655 of 675
656 of 675
657 of 675
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/12/11) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1633 Victory Blvd, Glendale, CA 91201 ENTITLEMENTS REQUESTED: 84-Unit Hotel
I hereby acknowledge, on behalf of the applicant(s) and owner(s)/lessor(s) for the project above, that the applicant seeking entitlement has received the campaign finance disclosure forms related to applicants seeking entitlement before the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority. I acknowledge it is the applicant’s responsibility to review the requirements of the City’s campaign finance ordinance, including its disclosure obligations and its applicability to the applicant and its contractors and subcontractors, which include architects, engineers, design professionals, prime or general contractors, and subcontractors retained by the applicant at the time the application is pending before the Council, Redevelopment Agency or Housing Authority.

Executed on 3/6/2021 at Glendale, California
Applicant’s Signature_________________________________, Print Applicant’s Full Name Anand Desai

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF

CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE
(To Be Submitted at Time of Application Submittal)
Submit to Permit Services Center, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101. For more information call 818-548-3200.
658 of 675
659 of 675
660 of 675
661 of 675
662 of 675

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

APPEAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO. 2101078
1633 Victory Boulevard
City Council
September 27, 2022
Comprehensive Design Guidelines (Adopted No. 29,
2011) Chapter 4 - Commercial.

See link here:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5 157/635245562671200000
663 of 675
1633 Victory Blvd Appeal Hearing for Decision PDR 2101078 Comments from Neighborhood Residents for the 27 September 2022 Hearing A) Appeal by the Owner. The proposed hotel already added 18 more rooms in the last Design Review Board decision, and the developers now want to add 2 more rooms for a total of 20 more. They also want the city to remove three condiƟons specified by the DRB in their 14 July 2022 approval. We want the specified CondiƟons to remain and are against adding more rooms.

CondiƟon 1 - Reduce the massing at the 2nd and 3rd level expansions. We strongly favor reducing the massing to prevent having a massive block on the corner. Such a block would be uninviƟng, stark and out of scale with the street and neighborhood. Note that adding the addiƟonal rooms will greatly limit opportuniƟes for reducing the massing.

CondiƟon 3 - Provide window openings at ground level on the Winchester façade. These window openings on Winchester will help bring the scale of the building on this residenƟal street down to that of the neighboring houses and be much more appropriate than a blank wall. People in this neighborhood like to walk, and a façade without windows is unnecessarily harsh to pedestrians. This request by the developer demonstrates their insensiƟvity to the appearance of the neighborhood and the neighbors’ wellbeing.

CondiƟon 4 - Relocate the egress staircase (as allowed by Building and Safety) to reduce or eliminate visibility.

The developer’s request is another example of their disregard for the neighbors and neighborhood as a whole.

B) Appeal by the Neighbor. The Neighbor would like to overturn the 14 July 2022 DRB decision to increase the project size by 18 rooms, reduce the interior setback by 4 feet, and reduce the Outdoor Terrace. We completely support overturning the July decision.
 Adding more rooms will add more cars in the neighborhood. In addiƟon, the hotel will add noise and traffic during--and for many years aŌer--construcƟon. If its out-of-town guests don’t see that the entrance to parking is on the alley, or they find it easier to simply park on the street, then street parking and traffic will be further increased. (We assume there is no charge for parking--otherwise, parking & traffic becomes a bigger issue.)
 This neighborhood already deals with a variety of serious traffic and parking issues related to Benjamin Franklin Elementary School because most of the students do not live in the neighborhood. We love the school but it unquesƟonably has complicated traffic and parking for the neighborhood. This hotel will aggravate these complicaƟons, especially on Winchester.  Decreasing the interior setback will exacerbate noise and further impose the building on the neighboring property. The potenƟal noise from the pool deck would aim directly into the neighborhood with the 2nd & 3 rd story exterior walls amplifying the noise, despite adding planƟng and acousƟcal panels. Decreasing the setback will bring the pool deck and noise even closer to the neighbors.  Reducing the Outdoor Terrace removes some of the visual buffer from neighboring properƟes, creaƟng a visual imposiƟon. Reducing both the interior setback and Outdoor Terrace will contribute to decreasing the property values of the adjacent and nearby houses, and in turn, decreasing the values of all the houses in the neighborhood.

We therefore request that the DRB reject all the modificaƟon requests made by the developer. Do not approve the addiƟonal 2 rooms. Do not approve removal of CondiƟons 1, 3, and 4. Furthermore, we fully support the appeal by the neighbor to overturn the July 14, 2022 Design Review Board decision - do not approve the 18 addiƟonal rooms; do not reduce the interior setback; and do not reduce the Outdoor Deck.

Respecƞully,
Gary Geller and Debbie Gloria, 1550 Randall St, Glendale 91201 CC 9/27 9B
664 of 675
9c

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5978 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlement and/or Permits for Hotels in the Downtown Specific Plan Area of the City

1. Introduction of Ordinance Extending, for an Additional One Year Period, Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5978 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlements and/or Permits for Hotel Development Projects in the Downtown Specific Plan Area

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following the completion of a market study and analysis of potential changes to the Downtown Specific Plan regarding hotel uses, Council requested additional study and analysis regarding modifications to the hotel use incentive and consideration of the use of a conditional use permit and/or development agreement for hotel development projects. As such, an extension to the moratorium is necessary while staff completes the analysis and provides recommended alternatives. The extension of the moratorium would be for a period of 12 months, but it can be terminated at the conclusion of any adopted changes to the Downtown Specific Plan.
665 of 675
2 c 9

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Economic Vibrancy: The moratorium is consistent with the Council’s desire to ensure that the growth and economic vibrancy of downtown is befitting of the Council and community’s vision of a vibrant downtown, and to better understand the need and demand for new hotel rooms without encouraging over-development.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report regarding an extension of the moratorium and study of hotels in the Downtown Specific Plan area. If the City Council is inclined to adopt a one-year extension of the ordinance temporarily prohibiting the issuance of entitlements and/or permits for hotel projects using the hotel use incentive, a public hearing has been noticed; following such hearing, Council may introduce the ordinance and subsequently, at the next Council meeting of October 4, 2022, adopt the ordinance.

BACKGROUND
The City Council requested a report regarding the downtown hotel development and a moratorium on the development of hotels while studying the demand for hotels, the existing use incentive, and considerations for requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) or other regulations regarding hotel development.

Staff completed a market study of current and anticipated conditions of hotels in Glendale, as well as alternatives to modify the Downtown Specific Plan regarding hotel uses and the incentive system. As part of that report Council directed staff to continue studying and provide alternatives to the following:
• Modifying the Downtown Specific Plan Hotel Use Incentive so that it is focused on attracting hotel uses that were identified as deficient in the market study; • Consider the possibility of requiring a CUP for hotel uses in the Downtown Specific Plan; and
• Considering incorporating a requirement for a Development Agreement for hotel uses in the Downtown Specific Plan.

Staff will continue to study alternatives, and will return to City Council in 2022 with proposed changes.

ANALYSIS
Under California Government Code section 65858, a city may adopt an interim ordinance to temporarily prohibit certain land uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City Council is considering or intends to study within a reasonable time. The purpose of such an interim ordinance is to give the City time to maintain the status quo and prohibit the issuance of entitlements or permits that would be in conflict with new contemplated standards. The rationale for an urgency ordinance that takes immediate effect is to prevent a “rush to the counter” of applications to establish new uses before standards can be put in place. 666 of 675
3 c 9
The delay in permits allows the city to subject all new uses to the new standards.

Urgency interim ordinances under Government Code Section 65858 require adoption by 4/5 vote of the Council and expire within 45 days, unless extended in the manner described below. An urgency ordinance may only be adopted if the Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and that the approval of additional entitlements, permits, and other approvals would result in a threat to that public health, safety, or welfare. In this case, the findings in the included ordinance identify the consideration of proposed changes to the DSP, including revisions to the allowable incentives given to a hotel use or modifying how hotels are permitted within the DSP. These findings would be legislative in nature, and would be entitled to a presumption of conclusiveness if adopted by Council.

After notice and public hearing, Council originally enacted an urgency ordinance on October 19, 2021 (only effective for 45 days) and then extended such ordinance on November 30, 2021 for a period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days. Unless extended, this ordinance will expire on October 18, 2022.

The ordinance may be extended one more time for an additional year, following a noticed public hearing. A public hearing has been noticed for September 27, 2022, and after the hearing is conducted, Council may introduce the ordinance to extend the moratorium. If introduced, the Council must vote on whether to adopt the ordinance at the next Council meeting of October 4, 2022. Any extension of an interim ordinance also requires a 4/5 vote of the Council. An ordinance extending Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5978 an additional 12 months has been included for introduction, which may occur following the public hearing. The ordinance contains the same “pipeline provision” as Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5977 and 5978; if they choose, Council may modify the “pipeline provisions” in this extension ordinance.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A.

FISCAL IMPACT
The action of placing a moratorium on land use entitlements/future hotel developments has no direct costs or financial benefits associated with it. Indirectly, the City would not gain the transient occupancy tax (TOT) and associated permit fees that would flow from future hotel developments.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Community Development Department staff have evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of the proposed Ordinance extending for an additional one-year period Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5978 temporarily barring hotel development projects in the DSP within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and have concluded that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and thereby qualify for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308; the action is therefore exempt from further environmental review or the preparation of an 667 of 675
4 c 9
environmental document.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Introduce an extension to the ordinance imposing a moratorium on all downtown hotel development projects for twelve (12) months with the same “pipeline provision” as the previous ordinance; per previous Council direction, staff will develop alternatives related to the hotel use incentive and the use of a conditional use permit and/or development agreement for hotel projects, and return to Council to present such alternatives.

2. Decline to introduce an ordinance extending, for twelve (12) months, a moratorium on all DSP hotel development projects. In this case, the moratorium on all DSP hotel development projects will expire of its own terms on October 18, 2022, but staff would continue to develop alternatives related to the hotel use incentive and the use of a conditional use permit and/or development agreement for hotel projects, and return to Council to present such alternatives.

3. Any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Bradley Calvert, Assistant Director of Community Development Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
668 of 675
1 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING, BY AN ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR, INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 5978 PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF

ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR PERMITS FOR HOTELS IN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA OF THE CITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the California Constitution, the Glendale City Charter, and the State Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Sections 6500, et seq.) broadly empower the City of Glendale (“City”) to plan for and regulate the use of land in order to provide for orderly development, the public health, safety and welfare and a balancing of property rights and desires of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) is a mixed-use, urban design plan that establishes the desired physical vision for Downtown Glendale through a clear and comprehensive set of policies, incentives, and requirements, adopted on November 7, 2006 and comprehensively amended on March 26, 2019; and WHEREAS, as a means to create maximum community benefit and to enhance livability and quality for all residents, visitors, and those employed within the City, the DSP establishes priorities that enhance the City’s vision, defined as Community Benefits; and WHEREAS, the hotel Community Benefit program contained in Chapter 7.2.3 of the DSP (“Hotel Use Incentive”) allows hotel development projects that provide ground floor designs that enhance the uses and activity of the pedestrian realm to be awarded additional height and FAR because of their role as an important component of a thriving business district, and their ability to oftentimes provide amenities (entertainment, restaurants, and meeting rooms) that are available for use by the general public; and WHEREAS, the Hotel Use Incentive has been utilized to assist in the development of the following hotels: 1) Hampton Inn – 315 S. Brand (Completed 2017); 2) Hyatt Place – 225 W. Wilson (Completed 2019); 3) Residence Inn – 199 N. Louise (Completed 2020); 4) Glenmark Hotel – 1100 N. Brand (Completed 2020); resulting in a total of 499 hotel rooms; and
WHEREAS, there are three hotels proposing to utilize the Hotel Use Incentive that have received some level of discretionary approval: 1) Hilton Expansion – 100 W.

Glenoaks (Stage I approved), 226 rooms; 2) AC Hotel – 120 W. Colorado (fully entitled and Development Agreement approved in May 2021 for an additional three years to obtain building permits by May 2024), 130 rooms; 3) Hotel Indigo – 515-523 N. Central (fully entitled and in plan check), 122 rooms; if developed, these hotels would add a total of 478 hotel rooms; and
669 of 675
2 WHEREAS, hotels are a permitted use in the DSP that do not require any special conditional or other use permit, and additional other hotels may be developed in the DSP that do not utilize the Hotel Use Incentive; and
WHEREAS, the City is considering and currently studying revising the Hotel Use Incentive and is also considering amending the DSP to require hotel uses in the DSP to obtain a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, on or about June of 2022, PKF completed a study titled “Market Study for the City of Glendale in Glendale, CA” that studied, among other things, hotel demand, gap analysis, and potential revised incentives for hotel developments; and the City Council received a report on said study at a Special Meeting held on September 13, 2022, but determined additional study, analysis, and information regarding policy and code amendments options is needed; and
WHEREAS, during this period of study and process, the City has and will continue to thoroughly study and examine the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of hotel development and uses in the DSP, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, the Hotel Use Incentive, a conditional use permit process, and the need for additional hotel development in the DSP with an emphasis on the type of hotels the City should incentivize or condition; and
WHEREAS, the potential exists that hotel development project applications inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated DSP hotel development policies, zoning, incentives, impact fees or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to DSP hotel use and development; and
WHEREAS, any approval of hotel development and uses in the DSP have the potential to contravene future revised DSP hotel design, development and entitlement standards and requirements, while such revisions are being studied, which will result in a threat to the health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, the City evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 5977 temporarily prohibiting new hotel development projects in the DSP (“Interim Ordinance 5977) within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the Council found that the adoption of Interim Ordinance 5977 was consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approved a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308, and certified that Interim Ordinance 5977 was exempt from additional environmental review, including from the preparation of an environmental impact report; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, the City Council, by a fourth-fifths vote, adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5977 imposing a 45-day moratorium on the approval of any new hotel development project in the DSP, with certain specific exemptions for projects that 670 of 675
3 had an approved statutory development agreement prior to the effective date of Interim Ordinance No. 5977, or that had received at least a Stage I design review approval by the City prior to the effective date of Interim Ordinance No. 5977, and for any subsequent approvals or project modifications to a project previously approved by the City; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021, the City issued a “10-day report” describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of Interim Ordinance 5977, which date was at least 10 days prior to the adoption of this extension, as required by Government Code Section 65858(d); and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, following a duly-noticed public hearing, the City Council, by a fourth-fifths vote, adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5978 (“Interim Ordinance 5978”), extending, by ten months and fifteen days, Interim Ordinance 5977 imposing a moratorium on the approval of any new hotel development project in the DSP, with certain specific exemptions for projects that had an approved statutory development agreement prior to the effective date of Interim Ordinance 5978, or that had received at least a Stage I design review approval by the City prior to the effective date of Interim Ordinance 5978, and for any subsequent approvals or project modifications to a project previously approved by the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is now necessary for the City to extend Interim Ordinance 5978 by an additional one year in order to continue to undertake action to review and revise applicable provisions of the DSP in order to provide for the reexamination within a reasonable time, of hotel design, development and entitlement standards and requirements in the DSP; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 provides that a city council may adopt by a four-fifths vote as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a general plan or zoning measure that the city is considering or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time, for 45 days, and may extend such moratorium following notice and public hearing for an additional 10 months and 15 days and then for an additional one year period; and WHEREAS, the moratorium and extension of Interim Ordinance 5978 on new hotel use or development for any hotel development projects will prevent changes to the existing physical environment within the DSP area of the city, and therefore, will not result in significant environmental impacts under CEQA, which are made in comparison to existing physical conditions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(a) and 15126.2(a)); and WHEREAS, notice of the date, time and place of the public hearing for this Ordinance to extend Interim Ordinance 5978 for an additional one year was given pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090 and 65858, by publication in Glendale Independent on September 15, 2022, and by posting and making available all written materials referenced herein, which notified the public the City would be considering a one year extension of the adopted Interim Ordinance 5978 imposing a moratorium on all new hotel development projects in the DSP.
671 of 675
4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings.

The City Council finds, determines, and declares that:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

2. The City’s Community Development Department staff have fully evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of this Ordinance temporarily barring hotel development projects in the DSP within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and the City Council finds that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approves a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308, and certifies that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirement of further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental document.

3. The City has an overriding interest in planning and regulating development projects within the City. Implicit in any plan or regulation is the City’s interest in maintaining the quality of urban life and the character of the City’s neighborhoods.

4. Without stable, well-planned neighborhoods, areas of the City can quickly deteriorate, with negative consequences to social, environmental, and economic values.

5. The City has adopted a General Plan and various specific plans, namely the DSP, to ensure a well-planned and safe community.

6. A written report was issued by the City on November 16, 2021, at least ten days prior to the expiration of Interim Ordinance 5977, describing measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance.

7. An additional two written reports in the form of staff reports to City Council, were issued, published and presented to the City Council on September 13, 2022 and September 27, 2022, ten days prior to the expiration of Interim Ordinance 5978, describing additional measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance and specifically describing progress made on studying the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of hotel development and uses in the DSP, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, the Hotel Use Incentive, and whether there is a need for additional hotel development in the DSP.

8. The City finds that the potential exists that hotel development project applications inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated DSP hotel use and development policies, zoning, incentives, impact fees or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to 672 of 675
5 the DSP Hotel Use Incentive, hotel design and development standards, and conditional use permit requirements (collectively, “hotel use and development standards”), and that any approval of hotel development and uses in the DSP have the potential to contravene future revised or eliminated DSP hotel use and development standards while such standards are being studied, which will result in a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City.

SECTION 2. Moratorium.

1. There is hereby imposed a one-year extension of Interim Ordinance No. 5978 on the approval of any land use entitlement(s) and/or permits under the Glendale Municipal Code for Hotel Development Projects (projects proposing the development of a “hotel or motel”, as defined in Glendale Municipal Code section 30.70.090) located in the Downtown Specific Plan area (DSP) within the City of Glendale. Said moratorium shall not apply to any Hotel Development Project with an approved statutory development agreement prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 5978, or that has received at least a Stage I design review approval by the City prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 5978, and shall not apply to any subsequent approvals or project modifications to a project previously approved by the City.

2. It is the intent of the City Council that any proposal for a Hotel Development Project within the DSP during the period of the moratorium shall be considered inconsistent with this Ordinance and with the City’s land use policies and zoning regulations for all purposes, and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such use except as specifically exempted in Section 1 above.

3. City staff is directed to continue to undertake a comprehensive study, as described above, and recommend new or amended policies, zoning or development standards, incentives or impact fees with respect to hotel uses and development in the DSP for consideration by the City Council.

4. Violations of this interim moratorium may be charged as a misdemeanor as set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.20.010, may be the subject of administrative code enforcement remedies as set forth in Chapter 1.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, or may be deemed a public nuisance and may be enforced by an action for injunction or civil penalties as provided in the Glendale Municipal Code, or by any other remedy authorized by law.

5. The Glendale City Manager is hereby authorized to direct all City Departments, including the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and City Attorney, to facilitate compliance with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance using the enforcement powers described in the preceding paragraph.

SECTION 3. Urgency.

By the City Council’s making the findings and determinations of fact which the Council declares to constitute an urgency for the immediate preservation of the public 673 of 675
6 health, safety or welfare, the City Council hereby declares that this Ordinance is an urgency measure pursuant to City of Glendale Charter Article 6, Section 7 and Government Code Section 65858, which becomes effective immediately upon adoption by an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members of the City Council.

SECTION 4. Severability.

This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.

SECTION 5. Adoption and Incorporation.

The findings and information contained in the City Council staff reports dated November 16, 2021, November 30, 2021, September 13, 2022, and September 27, 2022 are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 6. Effectiveness.

This Ordinance shall go into effect upon the expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5978 and shall be of no further force and effect one year from the expiration date of Interim Ordinance No. 5978, unless otherwise lawfully reenacted or extended by further action of the City Council.

SECTION 7. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify this Ordinance’s adoption and cause the Ordinance to be published in a manner consistent with the requirements of applicable state and local law.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the ____ day of ________, 2022.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
674 of 675
7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _________ was passed by a 4/5ths vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
675 of 675