Long Beach City Council
July 18, 2023





  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   ZJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8MOd<e<f]EJB_<=@J g]@gE<DE^EBHI<h@?Q dE?S<;;;;cNP<e<`Ra<9ONO<i=bg D=g<A]<j;;;;cNPedgA;k
W
lm 4nl&&5&65#& 

&$#
,


 &"*/ &*' #'*'
5
")*6 '*6#& )'
&+' #' 

&$#
,


 &"*6 &*' #'*' o ""*' '*6&& )'
&+' #' &$#
,


W
W &6*" &*' #'*' o "(*+ '*/+6 )'
&+' #' &$+
,


W
W #'*) &*' #'*' o &'( &*') )'
&+' #' #$#
,


W
W &6*" &*' #'*' o "(*) '*&76 )'
&+' #' &$&
,


W
W &"*( &*' #'*' o ")*# &*'+ )'
&+' #' 

&$+
,


W
W &"*& '*7' #'*' o "7*/ '*)+7 )'
&+' #' 

&$+
,


W
W &"*' '*7' #'*' o "(*" '*()+ )'
&+' #' 2p



l
 #+*) &*' #'*' o &&6 &*)" )'
&+' #' q W
W4

n ##*# &*' #'*' o &&& '*""/ )'
&+' #' W
q W
W4


 #+*7 &*' #'*' o &&) &*)# )'
&+' #'
4



l &6*# 7*' #'*' o "&*# #*'7 )'
&+' #' W
 #&*7 &*' #'*' o &'6 &*") )'
&+' #' 

W4

n ##*# &*' #'*' o &&& &*(7 )'
&+' #' %4
 ##*& &*' #'*' o &&& '*7(+ )'
&+' #' &$&$#$#
r


 #&*' &*' #'*' o &'7 &*") )'
&+' #' &$&$&$#
r


 #&*& &*' #'*' o &'7 '*//) )'
&+' #' r


 #&*" &*' #'*' o &'" #*'+ )'
&+' #' &$#$+
r




n ##*) &*' #'*' o &&( '*+'6 )'
&+' #' &$#$(
r




n #&*/ &*' #'*' o &'6 &*&# )'
&+' #' &$&$#
r



 &6*/ &*' #'*' o "+*' '*)77 )'
&+' #' &$&$&
r



 &"*# &*' #'*' o "/*# '*666 )'
&+' #' r



 #'*' &*' #'*' o &'' #*'# 6(*"
&#' #' r



0



 &)*& &*' #'*' o 67*+ #*') )'
&+' #' &$#$+
r



W
W #'*6 &*' #'*' o &'( '*"&7 )'
&+' #' &$+$7
r

4

n ##*# &*' #'*' o &&& &*/+ )'
&+' #' &$#$(
r

4

n ##*# &*' #'*' o &&& &*/( )'
&+' #' !
4



l &7*" &*' #'*' o )"*/ '*&6" )'
&+' #' sn &"*7 '*7' #'*' o ")*7 '*'' )6*&
&#+ #' r

 &"*# '*7' #'*' o "/*' '*()' )"*/
&#+ #' 4

n #&*+ '*7' #'*' o &') '*)7( )'
&+' #'
$W
t4
 (+*6 #*' ('*' o &'" &*&" )'
&+' #' 
t4
 #&*+ '*7' #'*' o &') '*)'/ )'
&+' #' }~€‚ƒ„
†‡{ˆ€‰€Š‹~€€Œ„Ž„„ |xw u vwxw yzxy{||z ‡x }~€‚ƒ„ †’“Œ€‰€Š‹~€€‰„ƒ”‚„ vwxv u vwxw ‡xv{|‘ |w|
•00V$


%
%
V



 $q* –”„†„—~‹ƒ—†“†ƒ”“—†„˜€ƒ†‚˜˜‹™†ƒ€†ƒ”„†—‚‰˜‹„—†‚‚‹™Ž„š†“†‚››€š‚›„†œ“ƒ”†ƒ”„†›”‚“†€Š† ›~—ƒ€š™†š€›~‰„ƒx†–”“—†‚‚‹™ƒ“›‚‹†„˜€ƒ†‰~—ƒ†Œ„†„˜€š~›„š†“†“ƒ—†„ƒ“„ƒ™x &+#0&+6







  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   ZJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8MOd<e<f]EJB_<=@J g]@gE<DE^EBHI<h@?Q dE?S<;;;;cNP<e<`Ra<9ONO<i=bg D=g<A]<j;;;;cNPedgA;k
W
lm 4nl&&5&65#& 

&$#
,


 &"*/ &*' #'*'
5
")*6 '*6#& )'
&+' #' 

&$#
,


 &"*6 &*' #'*' o ""*' '*6&& )'
&+' #' &$#
,


W
W &6*" &*' #'*' o "(*+ '*/+6 )'
&+' #' &$+
,


W
W #'*) &*' #'*' o &'( &*') )'
&+' #' #$#
,


W
W &6*" &*' #'*' o "(*) '*&76 )'
&+' #' &$&
,


W
W &"*( &*' #'*' o ")*# &*'+ )'
&+' #' 

&$+
,


W
W &"*& '*7' #'*' o "7*/ '*)+7 )'
&+' #' 

&$+
,


W
W &"*' '*7' #'*' o "(*" '*()+ )'
&+' #' 2p



l
 #+*) &*' #'*' o &&6 &*)" )'
&+' #' q W
W4

n ##*# &*' #'*' o &&& '*""/ )'
&+' #' W
q W
W4


 #+*7 &*' #'*' o &&) &*)# )'
&+' #'
4



l &6*# 7*' #'*' o "&*# #*'7 )'
&+' #' W
 #&*7 &*' #'*' o &'6 &*") )'
&+' #' 

W4

n ##*# &*' #'*' o &&& &*(7 )'
&+' #' %4
 ##*& &*' #'*' o &&& '*7(+ )'
&+' #' &$&$#$#
r


 #&*' &*' #'*' o &'7 &*") )'
&+' #' &$&$&$#
r


 #&*& &*' #'*' o &'7 '*//) )'
&+' #' r


 #&*" &*' #'*' o &'" #*'+ )'
&+' #' &$#$+
r




n ##*) &*' #'*' o &&( '*+'6 )'
&+' #' &$#$(
r




n #&*/ &*' #'*' o &'6 &*&# )'
&+' #' &$&$#
r



 &6*/ &*' #'*' o "+*' '*)77 )'
&+' #' &$&$&
r



 &"*# &*' #'*' o "/*# '*666 )'
&+' #' r



 #'*' &*' #'*' o &'' #*'# 6(*"
&#' #' r



0



 &)*& &*' #'*' o 67*+ #*') )'
&+' #' &$#$+
r



W
W #'*6 &*' #'*' o &'( '*"&7 )'
&+' #' &$+$7
r

4

n ##*# &*' #'*' o &&& &*/+ )'
&+' #' &$#$(
r

4

n ##*# &*' #'*' o &&& &*/( )'
&+' #' !
4



l &7*" &*' #'*' o )"*/ '*&6" )'
&+' #' sn &"*7 '*7' #'*' o ")*7 '*'' )6*&
&#+ #' r

 &"*# '*7' #'*' o "/*' '*()' )"*/
&#+ #' 4

n #&*+ '*7' #'*' o &') '*)7( )'
&+' #'
$W
t4
 (+*6 #*' ('*' o &'" &*&" )'
&+' #' 
t4
 #&*+ '*7' #'*' o &') '*)'/ )'
&+' #' }~€‚ƒ„
†‡{ˆ€‰€Š‹~€€Œ„Ž„„ |xw u vwxw yzxy{||z ‡x }~€‚ƒ„ †’“Œ€‰€Š‹~€€‰„ƒ”‚„ vwxv u vwxw ‡xv{|‘ |w|
•00V$


%
%
V



 $q* –”„†„—~‹ƒ—†“†ƒ”“—†„˜€ƒ†‚˜˜‹™†ƒ€†ƒ”„†—‚‰˜‹„—†‚‚‹™Ž„š†“†‚››€š‚›„†œ“ƒ”†ƒ”„†›”‚“†€Š† ›~—ƒ€š™†š€›~‰„ƒx†–”“—†‚‚‹™ƒ“›‚‹†„˜€ƒ†‰~—ƒ†Œ„†„˜€š~›„š†“†“ƒ—†„ƒ“„ƒ™x &+#0&+6







  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   ZJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8MOd<e<f]EJB_<=@J g]@gE<DE^EBHI<h@?Q dE?S<;;;;cNP<e<`Ra<9ONO<i=bg D=g<A]<j;;;;cNPedgA;k
W
lm 4nl&&5&65#& {o||}p~€‚ƒ}ro€„€y
v z†uw opqr stut vwuxyztv †xus
‡00V$


%
%
V



 $ˆ* ƒ‰€‚|€ŠorŠ‚‹„‚‰‹Š‚|€Œ}|‚~ŒŒr‚}‚‰€‚Š~ŽŒr€Š‚~„~r€ ‚‹„‚~}|
~„€‚‘‹‰‚‰€‚‰~‹„‚}’‚ oŠ}
‚
}oŽ€„u‚ƒ‰‹Š‚~„~r‹~r‚|€Œ}|‚ŽoŠ‚“€‚|€Œ|}
o€
‚‹„‚‹Š‚€„‹|€u &++0&+6








  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   ZJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8MOd<e<f]EJB_<=@J g]@gE<DE^EBHI<h@?Q dE?S<;;;;cNP<e<`Ra<9ONO<i=bg D=g<A]<j;;;;cNPedgA;k
W
lm 4nl&&5&65#& {o||}p~€‚ƒ}ro€„€y
v z†uw opqr stut vwuxyztv †xus
‡00V$


%
%
V



 $ˆ* ƒ‰€‚|€ŠorŠ‚‹„‚‰‹Š‚|€Œ}|‚~ŒŒr‚}‚‰€‚Š~ŽŒr€Š‚~„~r€ ‚‹„‚~}|
~„€‚‘‹‰‚‰€‚‰~‹„‚}’‚ oŠ}
‚
}oŽ€„u‚ƒ‰‹Š‚~„~r‹~r‚|€Œ}|‚ŽoŠ‚“€‚|€Œ|}
o€
‚‹„‚‹Š‚€„‹|€u &++0&+6








  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   Z>BCJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8:O=<d<e]EJB_<=@J Z]@ZE<DE^EBHI<f@?Q gE?S<;;;;:8L<d<`Ra<N99O<`=Ahi=bZ gJE@F<j;;;;:8LdgDk;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& 1

n
 , +''
5- 

 o

, &''' #
1

W
&$(
,



n , +''


 m


W
W4


 &$#$(
p




n (
1


+

4
W
, &''' &

4
W
 , +'' #

4
W
 W (


W
, &''' #$(
,




 , +'' 

W
, &''' 4
 , +'' W4
 
 qnrs
 qnr
s0


 qnr-s0


 qnr$$
sW
4
 , &''' qnrsW4
 , +'' qn4


q
r#


t4s
 q
r#


4
s
q
r#



W
W4
s
q
r#
4
t4
sW
 (
q

W4
W4

q
4

n4
W
 (
1



 #
1

W
 (
1

W4
W4

1
4  ,

nr$s
 ,

n0

 ,



4
W
 u00V$


%
%
V



 $v* wxyz{y|}~|z€zx€|z{y‚ƒ{z„‚‚~
zƒzxyz|„†‚~y|z„„~
‡yˆz€z„‰‰ƒ{ˆ„‰yzŠ€xzxyz‰x„€zƒ‹z ‰}|ƒˆ
zˆƒ‰}†yŒzwx€|z„„~
€‰„~z{y‚ƒ{z†}|zyz{y‚{ƒˆ}‰yˆz€z€|zy€{y
Π&+(0&+6








  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   Z>BCJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8:O=<d<e]EJB_<=@J Z]@ZE<DE^EBHI<f@?Q gE?S<;;;;:8L<d<`Ra<N99O<`=Ahi=bZ gJE@F<j;;;;:8LdgDk;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& 1

n
 , +''
5- 

 o

, &''' #
1

W
&$(
,



n , +''


 m


W
W4


 &$#$(
p




n (
1


+

4
W
, &''' &

4
W
 , +'' #

4
W
 W (


W
, &''' #$(
,




 , +'' 

W
, &''' 4
 , +'' W4
 
 qnrs
 qnr
s0


 qnr-s0


 qnr$$
sW
4
 , &''' qnrsW4
 , +'' qn4


q
r#


t4s
 q
r#


4
s
q
r#



W
W4
s
q
r#
4
t4
sW
 (
q

W4
W4

q
4

n4
W
 (
1



 #
1

W
 (
1

W4
W4

1
4  ,

nr$s
 ,

n0

 ,



4
W
 u00V$


%
%
V



 $v* wxyz{y|}~|z€zx€|z{y‚ƒ{z„‚‚~
zƒzxyz|„†‚~y|z„„~
‡yˆz€z„‰‰ƒ{ˆ„‰yzŠ€xzxyz‰x„€zƒ‹z ‰}|ƒˆ
zˆƒ‰}†yŒzwx€|z„„~
€‰„~z{y‚ƒ{z†}|zyz{y‚{ƒˆ}‰yˆz€z€|zy€{y
Π&+(0&+6








  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   Z>BCJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8:O=<d<e]EJB_<=@J Z]@ZE<DE^EBHI<f@?Q gE?S<;;;;:8L<d<`Ra<N99O<`=Ahi=bZ gJE@F<j;;;;:8LdgDk;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& &$#
,



n , +''
5- &$+
,



n o
#$(
,


W
, &''' ,
4
W
 , +'' #$(
,

4
W
, &''' ,

4
W
 , +'' ($/
,



#

4
W
, &''' #$(
,


W
#$/
,




 ,


4
W
 , +'' p


 p


 2q


n , &7'' 2q



m
 , +'' 2q

4
Wm
 , &''' 2q

 , +'' rms&$#$+
mtW4
 r W
 #

4
W
, &''' (

4
W
W
 , +'' #




 +




 (







n , &''' #


W


 m

4


 , +''


 m
W4


 #$+$7$/
u


W
#$+$($/
u


W

 n
n #$($7
u



W
, &''' 4

m
 , +'' #$($/
u



W
, &'''
v00V$


%
%
V



 $r* wxyz{y|}~|z€zx€|z{y‚ƒ{z„‚‚~
zƒzxyz|„†‚~y|z„„~
‡yˆz€z„‰‰ƒ{ˆ„‰yzŠ€xzxyz‰x„€zƒ‹z ‰}|ƒˆ
zˆƒ‰}†yŒzwx€|z„„~
€‰„~z{y‚ƒ{z†}|zyz{y‚{ƒˆ}‰yˆz€z€|zy€{y
Π&+70&+6








  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   Z>BCJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8:O=<d<e]EJB_<=@J Z]@ZE<DE^EBHI<f@?Q gE?S<;;;;:8L<d<`Ra<N99O<`=Ahi=bZ gJE@F<j;;;;:8LdgDk;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& &$#
,



n , +''
5- &$+
,



n o
#$(
,


W
, &''' ,
4
W
 , +'' #$(
,

4
W
, &''' ,

4
W
 , +'' ($/
,



#

4
W
, &''' #$(
,


W
#$/
,




 ,


4
W
 , +'' p


 p


 2q


n , &7'' 2q



m
 , +'' 2q

4
Wm
 , &''' 2q

 , +'' rms&$#$+
mtW4
 r W
 #

4
W
, &''' (

4
W
W
 , +'' #




 +




 (







n , &''' #


W


 m

4


 , +''


 m
W4


 #$+$7$/
u


W
#$+$($/
u


W

 n
n #$($7
u



W
, &''' 4

m
 , +'' #$($/
u



W
, &'''
v00V$


%
%
V



 $r* wxyz{y|}~|z€zx€|z{y‚ƒ{z„‚‚~
zƒzxyz|„†‚~y|z„„~
‡yˆz€z„‰‰ƒ{ˆ„‰yzŠ€xzxyz‰x„€zƒ‹z ‰}|ƒˆ
zˆƒ‰}†yŒzwx€|z„„~
€‰„~z{y‚ƒ{z†}|zyz{y‚{ƒˆ}‰yˆz€z€|zy€{y
Π&+70&+6








  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   Z>BCJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8:O=<d<e]EJB_<=@J Z]@ZE<DE^EBHI<f@?Q gE?S<;;;;:8L<d<`Ra<N99O<`=Ahi=bZ gJE@F<j;;;;:8LdgDk;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{ƒ„~
{‚ xv‰t opqrp ssst uvwuxu †‡ˆx yozz{p|}~€‹„~
{‚wŒ‡ x‡†t Š ssst x‰wuus tˆt yozz{p|}~€}z{‘~
’~
~wŒv x††t Š ssst xuˆswuuŽ sˆx yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{‘ƒ„~ “‚ xŽ‡t Š ssst sxˆ‰wutx ˆ† yozz{p|}~€x”‰”‡w•z‘z{–{ƒ„~ {‚ xŽŽt Š ssst uˆuwutv Žˆ yozz{p|}~€•~zƒ„~
“‚wŒ‚‰ s‡tt Š ssst xŽˆuwust ut D=Z<j;;;;:8LdgZ;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& 
#7#' &''' +++' +(
&&(
5- )7*7 #
1

W
#(&' &''' +++' +(
&&( — )#*# &$(
,



n #+7' +'' +++' +(
&&( )'*(


 m


W
W4


 #/6' +'' +++' +'
&&' 6'*( &$#$(
˜




n #('' +'' +++' +"
&&" )#*' (
1


+

4
W
#)&' &''' +++' 7'
&+' 6&*( W #+)' +'' +++' +(
&&( )&*' 

W
+&'' &''' +++' 7'
&+' "#*" 4
 &"#' +'' +++' ++*)
&#+ 7)*7 yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{ƒ„~
{‚ xvvt Š ssst uvwuxu †‡ˆv yozz{p|}~€‹„~
{‚wŒ‡ x‡‡t Š ssst x‰wuus †ŽˆŽ yozz{p|}~€}z{‘~
’~
~wŒv xut Š ssst xuˆswuuŽ ‰ˆ‰ yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{‘ƒ„~ “‚ xŽxt Š ssst sxˆ‰wutx †ˆv yozz{p|}~€x”‰”‡w•z‘z{–{ƒ„~ {‚ xŽst Š ssst uˆuwutv †ˆŽ yozz{p|}~€•~zƒ„~
“‚wŒ‚‰ svt Š ssst xŽˆuwust ut† D=Z<A]<j;;;;:8LdgZA;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& 
#(/' &''' +++'
5- )+*" #*&6 +(
&&( (# #
1

W
#+)' &''' +++' — )&*& &*7/ +(
&&( (' &$(
,



n #+'' +'' +++' — /"*' &*"& +(
&&( #6


 m


W
W4


 #/6' +'' +++' — 6'*( '*'/## +'
&&' +6 &$#$(
˜




n #+)' +'' +++' — )&*& &*## +"
&&" #6 (
1


+

4
W
#)/' &''' +++' — 6#*6 &*)+ 7'
&+' (# W #((' +'' +++' — )+*+ +*#) +(
&&( +& 

W
+&7' &''' +++' — "(*/ &*)6 7'
&+' 7' 4
 &"(' +'' +++' — 76*& &*'# ++*)
&#+ +& yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{ƒ„~
{‚ x‰Žt Š ssst uvwuxu †‰ˆ yozz{p|}~€‹„~
{‚wŒ‡ x‡st Š ssst x‰wuus †ˆ ™00V$


%
%
V



 $š* •„~€z~›o‚}›€
€}„›€z~ƒ{z}€|ƒƒ‚“€}{€}„~€›|–ƒ‚~›€|
|‚“’~Œ€
€|œœ{zŒ|
œ~€}„€}„~€œ„|
€{ž€ œo›}{Œ“€Œ{œo–~
}ˆ€•„›€|
|‚“}œ|‚€z~ƒ{z}€–o›}€‘~€z~ƒz{Œoœ~Œ€
€}›€~
}z~}“ˆ &+/0&+6








  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   Z>BCJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8:O=<d<e]EJB_<=@J Z]@ZE<DE^EBHI<f@?Q gE?S<;;;;:8L<d<`Ra<N99O<`=Ahi=bZ gJE@F<j;;;;:8LdgDk;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{ƒ„~
{‚ xv‰t opqrp ssst uvwuxu †‡ˆx yozz{p|}~€‹„~
{‚wŒ‡ x‡†t Š ssst x‰wuus tˆt yozz{p|}~€}z{‘~
’~
~wŒv x††t Š ssst xuˆswuuŽ sˆx yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{‘ƒ„~ “‚ xŽ‡t Š ssst sxˆ‰wutx ˆ† yozz{p|}~€x”‰”‡w•z‘z{–{ƒ„~ {‚ xŽŽt Š ssst uˆuwutv Žˆ yozz{p|}~€•~zƒ„~
“‚wŒ‚‰ s‡tt Š ssst xŽˆuwust ut D=Z<j;;;;:8LdgZ;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& 
#7#' &''' +++' +(
&&(
5- )7*7 #
1

W
#(&' &''' +++' +(
&&( — )#*# &$(
,



n #+7' +'' +++' +(
&&( )'*(


 m


W
W4


 #/6' +'' +++' +'
&&' 6'*( &$#$(
˜




n #('' +'' +++' +"
&&" )#*' (
1


+

4
W
#)&' &''' +++' 7'
&+' 6&*( W #+)' +'' +++' +(
&&( )&*' 

W
+&'' &''' +++' 7'
&+' "#*" 4
 &"#' +'' +++' ++*)
&#+ 7)*7 yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{ƒ„~
{‚ xvvt Š ssst uvwuxu †‡ˆv yozz{p|}~€‹„~
{‚wŒ‡ x‡‡t Š ssst x‰wuus †ŽˆŽ yozz{p|}~€}z{‘~
’~
~wŒv xut Š ssst xuˆswuuŽ ‰ˆ‰ yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{‘ƒ„~ “‚ xŽxt Š ssst sxˆ‰wutx †ˆv yozz{p|}~€x”‰”‡w•z‘z{–{ƒ„~ {‚ xŽst Š ssst uˆuwutv †ˆŽ yozz{p|}~€•~zƒ„~
“‚wŒ‚‰ svt Š ssst xŽˆuwust ut† D=Z<A]<j;;;;:8LdgZA;l
W
m&&5&)5#& 4nm&&5&65#& 
#(/' &''' +++'
5- )+*" #*&6 +(
&&( (# #
1

W
#+)' &''' +++' — )&*& &*7/ +(
&&( (' &$(
,



n #+'' +'' +++' — /"*' &*"& +(
&&( #6


 m


W
W4


 #/6' +'' +++' — 6'*( '*'/## +'
&&' +6 &$#$(
˜




n #+)' +'' +++' — )&*& &*## +"
&&" #6 (
1


+

4
W
#)/' &''' +++' — 6#*6 &*)+ 7'
&+' (# W #((' +'' +++' — )+*+ +*#) +(
&&( +& 

W
+&7' &''' +++' — "(*/ &*)6 7'
&+' 7' 4
 &"(' +'' +++' — 76*& &*'# ++*)
&#+ +& yozz{p|}~€xw‚o{z{ƒ„~
{‚ x‰Žt Š ssst uvwuxu †‰ˆ yozz{p|}~€‹„~
{‚wŒ‡ x‡st Š ssst x‰wuus †ˆ ™00V$


%
%
V



 $š* •„~€z~›o‚}›€
€}„›€z~ƒ{z}€|ƒƒ‚“€}{€}„~€›|–ƒ‚~›€|
|‚“’~Œ€
€|œœ{zŒ|
œ~€}„€}„~€œ„|
€{ž€ œo›}{Œ“€Œ{œo–~
}ˆ€•„›€|
|‚“}œ|‚€z~ƒ{z}€–o›}€‘~€z~ƒz{Œoœ~Œ€
€}›€~
}z~}“ˆ &+/0&+6








  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   Z>BCJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8:O=<d<e]EJB_<=@J Z]@ZE<DE^EBHI<f@?Q gE?S<;;;;:8L<d<`Ra<N99O<`=Ahi=bZ D=Z<A]<j;;;;:8LdgZA;k
W
l&&5&)5#& 4ml&&5&65#& ynzz{o|}~€‚}z{ƒ~„
~„~w†‡ tˆus nopqo rrrs tuvrwuux ˆ‰vt ynzz{o|}~€tw‹Œn{z{ƒ‚Ž~„Œ rsss Š rrrs rtv‰wust xsvs ynzz{o|}~€t‰‘w’z‚ƒz{“{Ž~„{Œ rsus Š rrrs uˆvuwus‡ xsv‰ ynzz{o|}~€’~zŽ~„Œw†Œ‰ r‡”s Š rrrs txvuwurs us” •00V$


%
%
V



 $–* ’Ž~€z~—nŒ}—€‚„€}Ž‚—€z~{z}€|Œ€}{€}Ž~€—|“Œ~—€|„|Œ ~†€‚„€|˜˜{z†|„˜~€™‚}Ž€}Ž~€˜Ž|‚„€{š€ ˜n—}{†€†{˜n“~„}v€’Ž‚—€|„|Œ}‚˜|Œ€z~{z}€“n—}€ƒ~€z~z{†n˜~†€‚„€‚}—€~„}‚z~}v &+)0&+6







  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET U

 V

 UW

 X
 V
%W
- U

 %

 YU1 YU1 V

 U, U, 
4 V

   Z>BCJEBJ<[\E@B?<=>]@H<^_<`Ra<bS<c8:O=<d<e]EJB_<=@J Z]@ZE<DE^EBHI<f@?Q gE?S<;;;;:8L<d<`Ra<N99O<`=Ahi=bZ D=Z<A]<j;;;;:8LdgZA;k
W
l&&5&)5#& 4ml&&5&65#& ynzz{o|}~€‚}z{ƒ~„
~„~w†‡ tˆus nopqo rrrs tuvrwuux ˆ‰vt ynzz{o|}~€tw‹Œn{z{ƒ‚Ž~„Œ rsss Š rrrs rtv‰wust xsvs ynzz{o|}~€t‰‘w’z‚ƒz{“{Ž~„{Œ rsus Š rrrs uˆvuwus‡ xsv‰ ynzz{o|}~€’~zŽ~„Œw†Œ‰ r‡”s Š rrrs txvuwurs us” •00V$


%
%
V



 $–* ’Ž~€z~—nŒ}—€‚„€}Ž‚—€z~{z}€|Œ€}{€}Ž~€—|“Œ~—€|„|Œ ~†€‚„€|˜˜{z†|„˜~€™‚}Ž€}Ž~€˜Ž|‚„€{š€ ˜n—}{†€†{˜n“~„}v€’Ž‚—€|„|Œ}‚˜|Œ€z~{z}€“n—}€ƒ~€z~z{†n˜~†€‚„€‚}—€~„}‚z~}v &+)0&+6







  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET UH<E@<AKB@BB@H< % '+ V




43 

3W




 
W


0W




X00*V




43  3

W





Y

-YZ1%* [
') [W



0


W
Y\ ] 


Y
0
Y


 
4Y



0

0


W
Y\ ] Y5



X00* [
'& V[W

Z

 


Y
0
Y


 
4Y



X

0
* ^[
'( VW


4Y5
[,3 

YW



*[

 WY
 Y
WW


4


 
Y
W

 ^1 
W
Y11!Y11_


 * ^

'7 V W
-

43 

YW

 0

%Y5

%,Y
W




X

0
*VZ1%3 3

 W



*VY
W

 


WY
XWY*

'(


W

4 4

YY
3


 Y
Y5






 Y



X00*Z3


 Y
Y


 
4
 W




 
 
W



 * ,
'/ V 
W



W
W
Y 
 

0

 Y
Y
Y0
`


* _
, V
4
0
Y

Y

-




W





 
Y 
W
 
 ,*V



WY* 7'+7 V 
W
3 

Y


-

*



`
 $ 
W
3 W
W
Y
7'+7-





4* %
W



 
W
YY
43


[, [


,
00
 Y
4 [ [W
Y , 
4 aV,V1V,


W




,V 
4,V1V,
b00Z$


%
%
Z



 $c* defghfijkligmnglemighfophlgqookrglpglefgiqsokfigqnqkrtfugmngqvvphuqnvfgwmleglefgveqmngpxg vjilpurgupvjsfnlygdemigqnqkrlmvqkghfophlgsjilgzfghfohpujvfugmngmligfnlmhflry &+60&+6







  










!
 "#

$%

&'' #'()*+# ,


-.

/)''
0 1 2
34

!
1$"#/7/ &&5##5#&&(+6
89:;8<=>>?@<ABC DEF<GHI<=EJBK@BE<L8MNO LPLQ8L:Q9O8O<RS@ LPLQ8L:Q9O8:<GET UH<E@<AKB@BB@H< % '+ V




43 

3W




 
W


0W




X00*V




43  3

W





Y

-YZ1%* [
') [W



0


W
Y\ ] 


Y
0
Y


 
4Y



0

0


W
Y\ ] Y5



X00* [
'& V[W

Z

 


Y
0
Y


 
4Y



X

0
* ^[
'( VW


4Y5
[,3 

YW



*[

 WY
 Y
WW


4


 
Y
W

 ^1 
W
Y11!Y11_


 * ^

'7 V W
-

43 

YW

 0

%Y5

%,Y
W




X

0
*VZ1%3 3

 W



*VY
W

 


WY
XWY*

'(


W

4 4

YY
3


 Y
Y5






 Y



X00*Z3


 Y
Y


 
4
 W




 
 
W



 * ,
'/ V 
W



W
W
Y 
 

0

 Y
Y
Y0
`


* _
, V
4
0
Y

Y

-




W





 
Y 
W
 
 ,*V



WY* 7'+7 V 
W
3 

Y


-

*



`
 $ 
W
3 W
W
Y
7'+7-





4* %
W



 
W
YY
43


[, [


,
00
 Y
4 [ [W
Y , 
4 aV,V1V,


W




,V 
4,V1V,
b00Z$


%
%
Z



 $c* defghfijkligmnglemighfophlgqookrglpglefgiqsokfigqnqkrtfugmngqvvphuqnvfgwmleglefgveqmngpxg vjilpurgupvjsfnlygdemigqnqkrlmvqkghfophlgsjilgzfghfohpujvfugmngmligfnlmhflry &+60&+6










 



 


  







 

!"# $# $ $ $ %& '    $ ()*+,-  





& ./0/ ./0/ ./0/ ./0/ 
1%  



2# 2# 2# 2$ 3
&

&444

&444

&444

&444
  
&

5
6
5
6


7
1

7
1 8





9  9  
%




2

 3
& : : : : ;
 
 &&&
 < < < < 
&
1 =  
 >=
 ?

@

 ?

@

 >=
 

A 3 =
@
%









B  
@
A
A# 
&1C @
A
A#!ADA# 
&1
@
E
 

>


 
1
=

E
FF
? >

 6

@

  > 
 !"DD  & G
$H"
2#
# :
G
$H"
2#
 666I



= I
 GD##H2 D JKLMK,)K-NOL)PO,)PQ-RMS)P,T-(OUM-V-)W-V =
%




@=




@1=  X;
@

44X

%& &




@


%
 %
%
 I444


@1X;
@

I

@
@



Y$I<
 






G

@
@



HI
B %



A"A#
%& 6

&1C @


@
 6=F;2%%
@:F

%
F
$# B;


Z[

3 =
@
= 





 

5&[
&


%& Z
@ F;A##AB2"A
Z 3 =
@

= 





 

5&5&@
3
&ZI= &
@  



 
\<!
@= &
]


I#<

 

I= 
 
&

@ 

 
2









&=



=
#I< 
I&&%& 
@%
 @

#@1
& =  


] 
=
6 I=
%

=&&

 
%

@ @ : %
&&!6=
= 6

%%


&
= &



1I=
%



  @1= &

& %

@


!%%


&!


@

 
1X;![
!


1
1
= ^I
I7


I 
&%%&1
= %& 
 
@I 
%

 

@=

=&
 @
&  I
%



=



%& 


&1C @ %
 &1
& & @2%& I
;3B %





&
@

I!B3AA#










 



 


  







 

!"# $# $ $ $ %& '    $ ()*+,-  





& ./0/ ./0/ ./0/ ./0/ 
1%  



2# 2# 2# 2$ 3
&

&444

&444

&444

&444
  
&

5
6
5
6


7
1

7
1 8





9  9  
%




2

 3
& : : : : ;
 
 &&&
 < < < < 
&
1 =  
 >=
 ?

@

 ?

@

 >=
 

A 3 =
@
%









B  
@
A
A# 
&1C @
A
A#!ADA# 
&1
@
E
 

>


 
1
=

E
FF
? >

 6

@

  > 
 !"DD  & G
$H"
2#
# :
G
$H"
2#
 666I



= I
 GD##H2 D JKLMK,)K-NOL)PO,)PQ-RMS)P,T-(OUM-V-)W-V =
%




@=




@1=  X;
@

44X

%& &




@


%
 %
%
 I444


@1X;
@

I

@
@



Y$I<
 






G

@
@



HI
B %



A"A#
%& 6

&1C @


@
 6=F;2%%
@:F

%
F
$# B;


Z[

3 =
@
= 





 

5&[
&


%& Z
@ F;A##AB2"A
Z 3 =
@

= 





 

5&5&@
3
&ZI= &
@  



 
\<!
@= &
]


I#<

 

I= 
 
&

@ 

 
2









&=



=
#I< 
I&&%& 
@%
 @

#@1
& =  


] 
=
6 I=
%

=&&

 
%

@ @ : %
&&!6=
= 6

%%


&
= &



1I=
%



  @1= &

& %

@


!%%


&!


@

 
1X;![
!


1
1
= ^I
I7


I 
&%%&1
= %& 
 
@I 
%

 

@=

=&
 @
&  I
%



=



%& 


&1C @ %
 &1
& & @2%& I
;3B %





&
@

I!B3AA#


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3 4+
56789:;8<=>?@A76?B<?8;C=D;?;:<B<?8=EE=FCAG6=HA<I6 J<77AKL=MACCAG NO=F7:6?;P8Q=RPA8<=STT FCAG6=HA<I6Q=UF=NOVWV X<K<A@<Y=Z[\ ]6::<Y=^?=Z[\ J;8<=JP<\ J;8<=X<K<A@<Y\ J;8<=]6::<Y=^?\ SS_SN_OS=S`\TT=aO=Y;[=bFbc SS_SV_OS=SV\dd SS_SV_OS=SN\TW b7;@AG=Z<7?<7 e<??Af<7=Z<7:<7 R;BgC<G=X<K<A@<Y=;8\ )h$ '

, 
 i4
$
UjU_];k<CG=F:7<< UPG86Y[=R<;CG U6?8;A?<7G=^?8;K8 l7<G<7@;8A6?=U6?fA7B 56m<G X<K<A@<Y=j?=^K< m<G 

 n
  opq4. /
/  +

rs 0+ t!"#"%
3 ruqv w5j=F5F]mR>Rx 

 n( oqpq4. /
/  0+
rs 0+ t!"#"ruq v
VTST=bA8C<=OO=zPCC={U SS_SN_OS=SW\TT O TW_SW_OO=Ty\SW yTSW=UU=aJ_Djc SS_Sy_OS=SW\TT S SS_|T_OS=Ty\SW yTSW=B=WT|WE}Xj yTyS=l<G8AKAY<G SS_SN_OS=SW\TT O yOVT=WT|W=E=zPCC={U SS_|T_OS=O|\WN yO`TU SS_|T_OS=Ty\SW 


n(
oqpq4. /
/  0+
rs 0+ t!"#"ruq v
VTST=bA8C<=OO=zPCC={U SS_SN_OS=SW\TT O TW_SW_OO=Ty\|T yTSW=UU=aJ_Djc SS_Sy_OS=SW\TT S SS_|T_OS=Ty\|T yTSW=B=WT|WE}Xj yTyS=l<G8AKAY<G SS_SN_OS=SW\TT O yOVT=WT|W=E=zPCC={U SS_|T_OS=O|\WN yO`TU SS_|T_OS=Ty\|T l;:<=S=6f=W


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3 4+
56789:;8<=>?@A76?B<?8;C=D;?;:<B<?8=EE=FCAG6=HA<I6 J<77AKL=MACCAG NO=F7:6?;P8Q=RPA8<=STT FCAG6=HA<I6Q=UF=NOVWV X<K<A@<Y=Z[\ ]6::<Y=^?=Z[\ J;8<=JP<\ J;8<=X<K<A@<Y\ J;8<=]6::<Y=^?\ SS_SN_OS=S`\TT=aO=Y;[=bFbc SS_SV_OS=SV\dd SS_SV_OS=SN\TW b7;@AG=Z<7?<7 e<??Af<7=Z<7:<7 R;BgC<G=X<K<A@<Y=;8\ )h$ '

, 
 i4
$
UjU_];k<CG=F:7<< UPG86Y[=R<;CG U6?8;A?<7G=^?8;K8 l7<G<7@;8A6?=U6?fA7B 56m<G X<K<A@<Y=j?=^K< m<G 

 n
  opq4. /
/  +

rs 0+ t!"#"%
3 ruqv w5j=F5F]mR>Rx 

 n( oqpq4. /
/  0+
rs 0+ t!"#"ruq v
VTST=bA8C<=OO=zPCC={U SS_SN_OS=SW\TT O TW_SW_OO=Ty\SW yTSW=UU=aJ_Djc SS_Sy_OS=SW\TT S SS_|T_OS=Ty\SW yTSW=B=WT|WE}Xj yTyS=l<G8AKAY<G SS_SN_OS=SW\TT O yOVT=WT|W=E=zPCC={U SS_|T_OS=O|\WN yO`TU SS_|T_OS=Ty\SW 


n(
oqpq4. /
/  0+
rs 0+ t!"#"ruq v
VTST=bA8C<=OO=zPCC={U SS_SN_OS=SW\TT O TW_SW_OO=Ty\|T yTSW=UU=aJ_Djc SS_Sy_OS=SW\TT S SS_|T_OS=Ty\|T yTSW=B=WT|WE}Xj yTyS=l<G8AKAY<G SS_SN_OS=SW\TT O yOVT=WT|W=E=zPCC={U SS_|T_OS=O|\WN yO`TU SS_|T_OS=Ty\|T l;:<=S=6f=W


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3
'

, 
 45
$


 (6(789:5. /
/  0+

;7 0+ <!"#" ;=:> BBABGACBDB@F?? C HIJKLMDNLKOJPDQMIRMDKRDOSOJTPIPUDHVJ ?@AB@ACCD?EF@@ JDWIKJLDCCDNLKOJPDJIPKDXDYD ZVJJD[\ ]?B?D^S_I`I_VOJDaLKOJPUDbIPPRJ`L_ E?B@DNDdOPDeVMfL BBABGACBDB@F?? C BBAc?ACBD?EF@@ E?B@DWegh\\Dii`i BBABGACBDB@F?? C bILPLJDXDNRKRMDRIJDRSJT EC]?DhDZVJJD[\ BBABGACBDB@F?? C 


6
 8:9:5. /
/  1+ ;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
]?B?DWIKJLDCCDZVJJD[\ BBABGACBDB@F?? C ?@AB@ACCD?GFC? E?B@D\\DjbAakl BBABEACBDB@F?? B BBAc?ACBD?GFC? E?B@DND@?c@hdmk E?EBDeLPKInI_LP BBABGACBDB@F?? C EC]?D@?c@DhDZVJJD[\ BBAc?ACBDCcF@G ECo?\ BBAc?ACBD?GFC? 


6

8:9:5. /
/  1+

;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
]?B?DWIKJLDCCDZVJJD[\ BBABGACBDB@F?? C ?@AB@ACCD?GFc@ E?B@D\\DjbAakl BBABEACBDB@F?? B BBAc?ACBD?GFc@ E?B@DND@?c@hdmk E?EBDeLPKInI_LP BBABGACBDB@F?? C E?ECDe\p EC]?D@?c@DhDZVJJD[\ BBAc?ACBDCcF@G ECo?\ BBAc?ACBD?GFc@ 

 6
 8:9:5. /
/  1+
;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
]?B?DWIKJLDCCDZVJJD[\ BBABGACBDB@F?? C ?@AB@ACCD?GF@? E?B@D\\DjbAakl BBABEACBDB@F?? B BBAc?ACBD?GF@? E?B@DND@?c@hdmk E?EBDeLPKInI_LP BBABGACBDB@F?? C EC]?D@?c@DhDZVJJD[\ BBAc?ACBDCcF@G ECo?\ BBAc?ACBD?GF@? eOfLDCDRHD@


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3
'

, 
 45
$


 (6(789:5. /
/  0+

;7 0+ <!"#" ;=:> BBABGACBDB@F?? C HIJKLMDNLKOJPDQMIRMDKRDOSOJTPIPUDHVJ ?@AB@ACCD?EF@@ JDWIKJLDCCDNLKOJPDJIPKDXDYD ZVJJD[\ ]?B?D^S_I`I_VOJDaLKOJPUDbIPPRJ`L_ E?B@DNDdOPDeVMfL BBABGACBDB@F?? C BBAc?ACBD?EF@@ E?B@DWegh\\Dii`i BBABGACBDB@F?? C bILPLJDXDNRKRMDRIJDRSJT EC]?DhDZVJJD[\ BBABGACBDB@F?? C 


6
 8:9:5. /
/  1+ ;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
]?B?DWIKJLDCCDZVJJD[\ BBABGACBDB@F?? C ?@AB@ACCD?GFC? E?B@D\\DjbAakl BBABEACBDB@F?? B BBAc?ACBD?GFC? E?B@DND@?c@hdmk E?EBDeLPKInI_LP BBABGACBDB@F?? C EC]?D@?c@DhDZVJJD[\ BBAc?ACBDCcF@G ECo?\ BBAc?ACBD?GFC? 


6

8:9:5. /
/  1+

;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
]?B?DWIKJLDCCDZVJJD[\ BBABGACBDB@F?? C ?@AB@ACCD?GFc@ E?B@D\\DjbAakl BBABEACBDB@F?? B BBAc?ACBD?GFc@ E?B@DND@?c@hdmk E?EBDeLPKInI_LP BBABGACBDB@F?? C E?ECDe\p EC]?D@?c@DhDZVJJD[\ BBAc?ACBDCcF@G ECo?\ BBAc?ACBD?GFc@ 

 6
 8:9:5. /
/  1+
;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
]?B?DWIKJLDCCDZVJJD[\ BBABGACBDB@F?? C ?@AB@ACCD?GF@? E?B@D\\DjbAakl BBABEACBDB@F?? B BBAc?ACBD?GF@? E?B@DND@?c@hdmk E?EBDeLPKInI_LP BBABGACBDB@F?? C EC]?D@?c@DhDZVJJD[\ BBAc?ACBDCcF@G ECo?\ BBAc?ACBD?GF@? eOfLDCDRHD@


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3
'

, 
 45
$


 06
 78985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDB?EB? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDB?EB? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDB?EB? 

 16
;7985. /
/  +
:; 0+ <!"#" :=8> BBABFACBDB@E?? C aIKJLbDXLJcK]DdbIebDJeDcfcKg]I]hDaNK ?@AB@ACCDB?EB@ KDHIJKLDCCDXLJcK]DKI]JDiDjD MNKKDOP G?B?Dkf_IlI_NcKDULJcK]hDTI]]eKlL_ R?B@DXDZc]D\NbmL BBABFACBDB@E?? C BBAQ?ACBDB?EB@ R?B@DH\nYPPDoolo BBABFACBDB@E?? C TIL]LKDiDXeJebDeIKDefKg RCG?DYDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C 

 6 78985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBBE?? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBBE?? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBBE?? 

 6
78985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBBEB? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBBEB? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBBEB? \cmLDQDeaD@


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3
'

, 
 45
$


 06
 78985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDB?EB? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDB?EB? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDB?EB? 

 16
;7985. /
/  +
:; 0+ <!"#" :=8> BBABFACBDB@E?? C aIKJLbDXLJcK]DdbIebDJeDcfcKg]I]hDaNK ?@AB@ACCDB?EB@ KDHIJKLDCCDXLJcK]DKI]JDiDjD MNKKDOP G?B?Dkf_IlI_NcKDULJcK]hDTI]]eKlL_ R?B@DXDZc]D\NbmL BBABFACBDB@E?? C BBAQ?ACBDB?EB@ R?B@DH\nYPPDoolo BBABFACBDB@E?? C TIL]LKDiDXeJebDeIKDefKg RCG?DYDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C 

 6 78985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBBE?? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBBE?? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBBE?? 

 6
78985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBBEB? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBBEB? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBBEB? \cmLDQDeaD@


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3
'

, 
 45
$


 6078985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBBEC? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBBEC? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBBEC? 


6;7985. /
/  +

:; 0+ <!"#" :=8> BBABFACBDB@E?? C aIKJLbDXLJcK]DdbIebDJeDcfcKg]I]hDaNK ?@AB@ACCDBBEQ@ KDHIJKLDCCDXLJcK]DKI]JDiDjD MNKKDOP G?B?Dkf_IlI_NcKDULJcK]hDTI]]eKlL_ R?B@DXDZc]D\NbmL BBABFACBDB@E?? C BBAQ?ACBDBBEQ@ R?B@DH\nYPPDoolo BBABFACBDB@E?? C TIL]LKDiDXeJebDeIKDefKg RCG?DYDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C 

 (6
 78985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBCEC? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBCEC? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C R?RCD\Pp RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBCEC? 


6

78985. /
/  +

:; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBCEQ@ R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBCEQ@ R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBCEQ@ \cmLDqDeaD@


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3
'

, 
 45
$


 6078985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBBEC? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBBEC? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBBEC? 


6;7985. /
/  +

:; 0+ <!"#" :=8> BBABFACBDB@E?? C aIKJLbDXLJcK]DdbIebDJeDcfcKg]I]hDaNK ?@AB@ACCDBBEQ@ KDHIJKLDCCDXLJcK]DKI]JDiDjD MNKKDOP G?B?Dkf_IlI_NcKDULJcK]hDTI]]eKlL_ R?B@DXDZc]D\NbmL BBABFACBDB@E?? C BBAQ?ACBDBBEQ@ R?B@DH\nYPPDoolo BBABFACBDB@E?? C TIL]LKDiDXeJebDeIKDefKg RCG?DYDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C 

 (6
 78985. /
/  + :; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBCEC? R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBCEC? R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C R?RCD\Pp RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBCEC? 


6

78985. /
/  +

:; 0+ <!"#":=8 >
G?B?DHIJKLDCCDMNKKDOP BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBCEQ@ R?B@DPPDSTAUVW BBABRACBDB@E?? B BBAQ?ACBDBCEQ@ R?B@DXD@?Q@YZ[V R?RBD\L]JI^I_L] BBABFACBDB@E?? C RCG?D@?Q@DYDMNKKDOP BBAQ?ACBDCQE@F RC`?P BBAQ?ACBDBCEQ@ \cmLDqDeaD@


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3
'

, 
 45
$



6
789:5. /
/  +
;7 0+ <!"#" ;=:> BBABFACBDB@E?? C GHIJKLDMKJNIODPLHQLDJQDNRNISOHOTDGUI ?@AB@ACCDBCE@? IDVHJIKDCCDMKJNIODIHOJDWDXD YUIIDZ[ \?B?D]R^H_H^UNID`KJNIOTDaHOOQI_K^ c?B@DMDdNODeULfK BBABFACBDB@E?? C BBAb?ACBDBCE@? c?B@DVegh[[Dii_i BBABFACBDB@E?? C aHKOKIDWDMQJQLDQHIDQRIS cC\?DhDYUIIDZ[ BBABFACBDB@E?? C 

 6
 8:9:5. /
/ 
+
;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
\?B?DVHJIKDCCDYUIIDZ[ BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBbE?@ c?B@D[[DjaA`kl BBABcACBDB@E?? B BBAb?ACBDBbE?@ c?B@DMD@?b@hdmk c?cBDeKOJHnH^KO BBABFACBDB@E?? C cC\?D@?b@DhDYUIIDZ[ BBAb?ACBDCbE@F cCo?[ BBAb?ACBDBbE?@ ""pqr") 

 6( 8:9:5. /
/  0+
;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
`HOnvDwUtnQRJLNnJDjOKKDRQJKODl BBABFACBDB@E?? C sOtKOJQODUOHRfDei`TDuKK^DLKOUIJODtSD ?@AB@ACCD?cEB@ YLH^NSDBBABFACB 


6
 8:9:5. /
/  1+ ;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
`HOnvDwUtnQRJLNnJDjOKKDRQJKODl BBABFACBDB@E?? C sOtKOJQODUOHRfDei`TDuKK^DLKOUIJODtSD ?@AB@ACCD?FEC? YLHvDBBABFACB 

 6 8:9:5. /
/  + ;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
`HOnvDwUtnQRJLNnJDjOKKDRQJKODl BBABFACBDB@E?? C sOtKOJQODUOHRfDei`TDuKK^DLKOUIJODtSD ?@AB@ACCDBBE?? YLHvDBBABFACB 

 (6
 8:9:5. /
/  + ;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
`HOnvDwUtnQRJLNnJDjOKKDRQJKODl BBABFACBDB@E?? C sOtKOJQODUOHRfDei`TDuKK^DLKOUIJODtSD ?@AB@ACCDBCEC? YLHvDBBABFACB '

,5
",..
&p. xyzy{|}~€{{‚ƒ{„

OUtfLQUPD\?B?†DVCCDYUIIDi o‡o?AoBDgf
mK_HKˆK^D†S aNJK eNfKD@DQGD@


 





!*"+
!"#"$
%&' !*"
,-+  ()
 $+ !.+ / 0/  
+ + 1! !*"+ 2##3
'

, 
 45
$



6
789:5. /
/  +
;7 0+ <!"#" ;=:> BBABFACBDB@E?? C GHIJKLDMKJNIODPLHQLDJQDNRNISOHOTDGUI ?@AB@ACCDBCE@? IDVHJIKDCCDMKJNIODIHOJDWDXD YUIIDZ[ \?B?D]R^H_H^UNID`KJNIOTDaHOOQI_K^ c?B@DMDdNODeULfK BBABFACBDB@E?? C BBAb?ACBDBCE@? c?B@DVegh[[Dii_i BBABFACBDB@E?? C aHKOKIDWDMQJQLDQHIDQRIS cC\?DhDYUIIDZ[ BBABFACBDB@E?? C 

 6
 8:9:5. /
/ 
+
;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
\?B?DVHJIKDCCDYUIIDZ[ BBABFACBDB@E?? C ?@AB@ACCDBbE?@ c?B@D[[DjaA`kl BBABcACBDB@E?? B BBAb?ACBDBbE?@ c?B@DMD@?b@hdmk c?cBDeKOJHnH^KO BBABFACBDB@E?? C cC\?D@?b@DhDYUIIDZ[ BBAb?ACBDCbE@F cCo?[ BBAb?ACBDBbE?@ ""pqr") 

 6( 8:9:5. /
/  0+
;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
`HOnvDwUtnQRJLNnJDjOKKDRQJKODl BBABFACBDB@E?? C sOtKOJQODUOHRfDei`TDuKK^DLKOUIJODtSD ?@AB@ACCD?cEB@ YLH^NSDBBABFACB 


6
 8:9:5. /
/  1+ ;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
`HOnvDwUtnQRJLNnJDjOKKDRQJKODl BBABFACBDB@E?? C sOtKOJQODUOHRfDei`TDuKK^DLKOUIJODtSD ?@AB@ACCD?FEC? YLHvDBBABFACB 

 6 8:9:5. /
/  + ;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
`HOnvDwUtnQRJLNnJDjOKKDRQJKODl BBABFACBDB@E?? C sOtKOJQODUOHRfDei`TDuKK^DLKOUIJODtSD ?@AB@ACCDBBE?? YLHvDBBABFACB 

 (6
 8:9:5. /
/  + ;7 0+ <!"#";=: >
`HOnvDwUtnQRJLNnJDjOKKDRQJKODl BBABFACBDB@E?? C sOtKOJQODUOHRfDei`TDuKK^DLKOUIJODtSD ?@AB@ACCDBCEC? YLHvDBBABFACB '

,5
",..
&p. xyzy{|}~€{{‚ƒ{„

OUtfLQUPD\?B?†DVCCDYUIIDi o‡o?AoBDgf
mK_HKˆK^D†S aNJK eNfKD@DQGD@

APPENDIX M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Resume www.ngem.com

NICKY G. ROBINSON, PE, QSD, QSP

SENIOR I ENGINEER
Ms. Robinson is a Professional Engineer with a variety of experience serving both public sector and private clients. Her professional engineering and management experience has been focused in remediation design and construction site oversight, stormwater management, Phase I and II environmental site assessments, environmental field sampling and air monitoring, site inspections, and technical data review. Ms. Robinson’s environmental field experience includes soil and groundwater sampling, soil vapor studies, stormwater sampling, indoor air quality studies, air monitoring activities, and site cleanups. She has considerable experience managing and performing environmental due diligence and property transfer projects. Ms. Robinson’s project experience also includes management of Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) studies in surface waters; collecting storm water samples to quantify “first-flush” impacts and composite samples for pollutant loading characterization; and obtaining NPDES permits and managing the water sample collection and analysis process to ensure permit compliance. Ms. Robinson is a licensed Civil Engineer in the state of California. She is a California licensed Qualified SWPPP Developer and Qualified SWPPP Practitioner and has received the OSHA 40 Hour HAZWOPER Training.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Environmental Characterization and Remediation
 Southern California Edison (SCE) Power Pole Relocation into Closed and Capped Landfill, Carson, California – Ms. Robinson was the project manager for the environmental component of a power pole relocation project that required removing two power poles and installing two new power poles with associated anchors and wires into a closed and capped landfill under the regulatory oversight of the DTSC. Ms. Robinson was responsible for providing environmental and engineering direction to SCE to guide their overall design and construction sequencing, soil handling and monitoring procedures, and air monitoring program. On behalf of SCE, she obtained necessary permits including a Rule 1150 permit from the AQMD, developed soil handling and monitoring procedures, prepared work plans for a field investigation program to obtain environmental and geotechnical design data to direct the final power pole design and for the final power pole installation work, and developed an air monitoring activities related to operations at the landfill. Ms.

Robinson provided direct field oversight of the field investigation program and the final power pole relocation work, which included air monitoring for SCAQMD Rules 1150, 402, and 403. She coordinated with various entities including the DTSC, the client, the landowner, the site occupant, the engineer of record for the landfill, and the AQMD for the various components of this project.

Ms. Robinson was also responsible for preparing technical documents including work plans and completion reports and management to ensure the overall project success and quality.  Former Riverton Steel Facility, Southgate, California – Ms. Robinson performed initial due diligence and reviewed field data for the investigation and remediation of a former steel production facility that is now currently adjacent to a residential development and a newly developed school.

She assisted with scoping for remediation of leak impacted soil and concrete. Ms. Robinson Nicky G. Robinson, PE, QSD, QSP
Senior I Engineer
Resume www.ngem.com

developed and oversaw the implementation of an air monitoring program during demolition and concrete crushing operations to ensure protection of adjacent receptors. The CMS/RAP for the remedial approach at the facility, which dovetails remediation and development, is currently pending agency approval. The remedial activities will include perimeter dust monitoring in addition to air monitoring in compliance with SCAQMD Rules 1166 and 1466 permits and SCAQMD Rules 401, 402, and 403. Ms. Robinson is responsible for the management and oversight of these air monitoring activities in addition to review and submittal of data and documentation to the agency.  Baker Cold Storage Facility Brownfield Clean-up, Long Beach, California – Ms. Robinson is the engineer of record for the remedial design for a site that is impacted with pentachlorophenol (PCP), metals, VOCs, and dioxins/furans and under the regulation of the DTSC. She assisted with the development of the Soil and Groundwater Response Plan and the Remedial Design Document for the site that is developed with a 250,000 square-foot cold storage facility. During development, Ms. Robinson conducted oversight of the site activities, including soil import/export, excavation, construction, and the installation of a methane barrier, and she has performed work zone and perimeter air monitoring. She also prepared daily activity reports including the analysis of air monitoring and Rule 1166 monitoring data to submit to the DTSC. Ms. Robinson coordinated field activities including the decontamination and sampling of former drip pads, air monitoring activities, and wastewater sampling. She managed the data obtained from daily field activities and trained the field staff. Ms. Robinson prepared the Remedial Action Completion Report and the Operation and Maintenance Plan for the remedial activities.
 Black Mountain Industrial Complex, Henderson, Nevada – Ms. Robinson was a field engineer on site for the remediation of Tronox’s industrial facility in Henderson, Nevada in which approximately 800,000 cubic yards of impacted soil were removed. Previously the world’s largest magnesium production facility during World War II, the site was later utilized for the manufacture of rocket fuel, other products, and most recently alkali and manganese oxide-based chemicals.

Historical industrial operations resulted in subsurface impacts from heavy metals, perchlorate, pesticides, chlorinated solvents, asbestos, radionuclides, and other chemicals. Her responsibilities included providing technical oversight of excavation, construction, and groundwater pumping well installation activities; collecting groundwater samples; obtaining soil and air samples; monitoring dust levels; overseeing the perimeter and work zone air monitoring programs; and conducting weekly site inspections for SWPPP compliance. Ms. Robinson coordinated with design engineers to oversee the installation of their remediation and monitoring systems and provide field support and input for design revisions.

Environmental Assessments, Investigations, and Characterization  CenterCal Development, Long Beach, California – Ms. Robinson is the engineer of record for the remedial design of a property in Long Beach that was formerly partially occupied by a gasoline service station with documented leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) impacting the subsurface. Historic site operations also included oil wells and crude oil pipelines. Ms. Robinson assisted with the design of an excavation program to remove impacted materials to accommodate the development of a mixed-use commercial and residential facility. Her work included analyzed historic investigation results and analytical data to determine the remediation program and provide support for the engineering decisions to reach a settlement agreement with the responsible party for the contamination present at the Site. Ms. Robinson also assisted with the preparation of various Nicky G. Robinson, PE, QSD, QSP
Senior I Engineer
Resume www.ngem.com

documents and reports for the site including a Remedial Action Plan, remedial costing analysis, and responses to questions from regulators and the responsible party.  Kimco Lakewood Plaza, Bellflower, California – Ms. Robinson conducted soil and indoor air sampling to help determine a remedial design for soil impacts with VOCs from a former dry cleaning operation. She oversaw excavation activities and collected confirmation samples. Ms. Robinson managed the data and documents associated with the project and assisted with the preparation of final reports.
 Historic Oil Fields, Brea, California – Ms. Robinson conducted a Phase I ESA of historic oil fields spanning over 3,000 acres in Brea with operations still active across portions of the site. She coordinated a limited Phase II investigation across the site and utilized the results to prepare remedial cost documents, estimate of impacted material, and recommendations for areas of potential concern for redevelopment. She prepared all documentation, figures, and spreadsheets for meetings with developers interested in redeveloping the site.  Park and Market Redevelopment, San Diego, California – Ms. Robinson managed and performed field activities, investigations, and oversight of the redevelopment of a property located in downtown San Diego that was formerly occupied by automobile repair facilities and several burn wells and pits associated with historic residential development. During excavation activities, impacted soils were encountered when former burn wells impacted with elevated concentrations of lead up to 60,000 parts per million. Ms. Robinson prepared environmental project documentation including a health and safety plan, a soil management plan, and completion report, collected samples and provided oversight of the handling and removal of lead impacted soil, and performed air monitoring during excavation and handling of lead impacted soil.  Monsanto Former Detergent Manufacturing Facility, Carson, California – Ms. Robinson measured groundwater levels and collected groundwater samples to monitor for hydrocarbons, predominantly benzene, which migrated through the soil to the groundwater beneath the site and migrated downgradient. Some samples were collected on the adjacent oil refinery property and Ms. Robinson received the appropriate training to access the refinery.  Oxygen Biosparge Pilot Scale Investigation, Carson, California – Ms. Robinson collected groundwater samples using low flow sampling techniques as part of an oxygen biosparge in situ treatment system. Work was performed using supplied air in Level B personal protective equipment. She also routinely works in conjunction with a mobile laboratory to simultaneously collect and analyze soil vapor samples to monitor benzene concentrations as part of the pilot scale investigation.
 Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California – Ms. Robinson performed reviews of environmental documents including site investigation and remedial reports and agency correspondence for Los Angeles World Airports’ tenants at LAX to create summaries of key environmental information for input into the Conceptual Site Model. She also managed the review of similar work by other consultants for the facility. Ms. Robinson utilized the results of these investigation efforts to develop a facility wide groundwater monitoring program.  Former Paint Facility, City of Commerce, California – Ms. Robinson was responsible for coordinating the field activities associated with collecting soil vapor and LNAPL samples for a former paint facility. A soil vapor extraction system was operated on the site and sampling was Nicky G. Robinson, PE, QSD, QSP
Senior I Engineer
Resume www.ngem.com

performed to develop a conceptual site model to assess the effectiveness of continued remediation at the Site. Ms. Robinson was responsible for coordinating the sample collection and analysis with the laboratory and worked to draft the analytical report.  Port of Oakland Embarcadero Cove, Oakland, California – Ms. Robinson was a staff engineer on site to oversee the abandonment of existing groundwater monitoring wells and the installation and development of new groundwater monitoring wells. Her responsibilities also included annual groundwater sampling at the site that is known to have been impacted by VOCs, SVOCs, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, and furans from facilities that previously occupied the site that were known to have handled and stored solvents, refined petroleum products, wood, preservatives, pesticides, and herbicides. She also assisted the preparation of the annual report and five-year review for the site.
 Former Apartment Complex Close-Out, Carson, California – Ms. Robinson was responsible for the oversight of environmental field activities related to the demolition of an existing apartment complex for redevelopment. Field activities included asbestos and lead-based paint surveys and removal, hazardous waste packaging and disposal, geophysical surveys, and air monitoring.

Ms. Robinson also prepared close out reports and documents for the site.  Former Dry-Cleaning Facility, Santa Rosa, California – Ms. Robinson performed low flow groundwater sampling for quarterly reporting for a site containing both a dry cleaner and a residential apartment building to monitor impacts to the groundwater. The site is known to have existing soil and groundwater impacts from historic use and storage of petroleum products and other hazardous substances on surrounding sites.
 Wetland Restoration Project, San Francisco, California – Ms. Robinson reviewed contractor submittals, including dust control, decontamination, soil stabilization, and execution plans for compliance with the project specifications and regulatory requirements and prepared responses to requests for information for the restoration of 26.5 acres of tidal wetland habitat. The site is known to have soil containing naturally occurring asbestos, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, TPH, PAHs, pesticides, and PCBs and some metals impacting groundwater.  Environmental Site Assessments, Various Locations, California, Nevada, and Texas – Ms. Robinson has managed and conducted dozens of Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments for commercial, industrial, and residential properties. Her responsibilities included complete site history reviews, identifying recognized environmental conditions and areas of potential concern, as well as field sampling and analysis to investigate potential impacts to soil and groundwater quality. Ms. Robinson assisted with the design of investigation programs, coordinated with field staff and subcontractors, and analyzed results to determine remedial actions. She also managed budgets, schedules, and client communication. Work was performed in general conformance with the ASTM environmental assessment standard and the U.S. EPA All Appropriate Inquiry guidelines. She has also conducted and completed preliminary endangerment assessments and obtained necessary permits for construction (NPDES, Rule 1166, etc.) on behalf of the developer to support the redevelopment activities.

Stormwater Monitoring and Compliance
 Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Sampling, Torrance, California – Ms. Robinson manages the stormwater monitoring, sampling, and reporting for the City of Torrance in accordance with the Nicky G. Robinson, PE, QSD, QSP
Senior I Engineer
Resume www.ngem.com

provisions of the Machado Lake TMDL Special Studies Work Plan and the Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL (established by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board) to monitor nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous discharged from the City of Torrance to Machado Lake. She coordinates routine sampling activities and has been a field lead for activities that include rapid mobilization during wet weather and dry weather events on a monthly basis since 2012 and data collection from data loggers to calculate flow rate and discharge volume and to monitor storm events. Ms. Robinson is also responsible for maintaining a network of flow sensors in subsurface conveyances and storm drains to quantify hydrology of the storm drain system and determine mass-based discharge compliance. She maintains discharge flow and volume calculations for annual reporting and prepares the annual report document. Ms. Robinson is also responsible for communicating with the City of Torrance, maintaining the scheduling, and ensuring the project stays within budget.  Walteria Lake Monitoring Program for Nutrients and Toxics, Torrance, California – Ms.

Robinson manages a monitoring program for discharge from Walteria Lake in accordance with the Walteria Lake Monitoring Program Nutrients and Toxics Study Work Plan developed by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. She coordinates with the City of Torrance to conduct field sampling activities during pumping events that discharge from Walteria Lake. Ms. Robinson also maintains and analyzes the analytical and flow data from the stormwater and dry weather flow in relation to the applicable nutrients and toxics TMDL waste load allocations to determine if the lake contributes or removes pollutant loading from the flow. She also maintains communication with the City of Torrance and manages the budget and reporting for the project.  Stormwater Basins Enhancement Project Monitoring and Reporting, Torrance, California – Ms. Robinson manages a project for the City of Torrance that includes stormwater sampling and flow measurements at various locations within three stormwater basins. The work is conducted in accordance with a plan approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Ms.

Robinson manages communication with the client, field sampling events, the schedule, and the project budget.
 Nutrient TMDL Sampling, Peter Weber Equestrian Center, Rolling Hills Estates, California – Ms. Robinson manages a project involving the collection of stormwater samples and flow measurements to monitor nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous at an active equestrian facility in Rolling Hills Estates following facility upgrades designed to reduce surface water impacts.  Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Sampling, Rolling Hills Estates, California – Ms. Robinson was the field lead for the collection of stormwater samples and flow measurements in accordance with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Coordinated Monitoring Plan and the Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL (established by the Los Angeles RWQCB) to monitor nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous discharged from Rolling Hills Estates to Machado Lake. Sampling activities included rapid mobilization during wet weather and dry weather events on a monthly basis between 2012 and 2016 to collect samples from surface waters and confined conveyance systems. She calculated monthly averages of total nitrogen and total phosphorous and compared the results to waste load allocations to determine attainment status.  Anthropogenic Source Nutrient Assessment, Rolling Hills Estates, California – Ms. Robinson was a field lead for wet weather event stormwater sampling conducted for identification of nutrient sources to study nutrient load reduction at the Model Equestrian Center Project.

Nicky G. Robinson, PE, QSD, QSP
Senior I Engineer
Resume www.ngem.com

Regulatory Compliance
 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Monitoring, Marina del Rey, California – Ms. Robinson coordinates field activities associated with water quality sampling and analysis, flow data collection and analysis, and system operation and maintenance for a groundwater treatment system for VOCs, selenium, and metals prior to discharge to the storm drain. Her responsibilities also include preparing quarterly and annual monitoring reports for the Regional Water Quality Control Board per requirements in the monitoring and reporting program of the NPDES permit for the project. She currently manages the testing, maintenance, and reporting associated with the ongoing dewatering system.
 Environmental Audits, Various Locations, California – Ms. Robinson has performed and managed multiple environmental audits at several commercial and industrial facilities in California.

Her responsibilities included conducting interviews with current tenants, inspecting site facilities to determine environmental compliance or potential issues, and completing a final audit report of findings. She also managed budgets, schedules, and client communication.

EDUCATION
B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, 2009

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
Northgate Environmental Management, Inc., Senior Engineer, January 2020 to date Northgate Environmental Management, Inc., Project Engineer, January 2015 to December 2019 Northgate Environmental Management, Inc., Staff Engineer, August 2010 to December 2014 Incledon Consulting Group, Civil Engineer, July 2009 to July 2010 Incledon Kirk Engineers, Engineering Intern, June to September 2007 and June to September 2008

REGISTRATIONS / CERTIFICATIONS
Professional Engineer, California, No. 83985
Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and Practitioner (QSP), No. 27442 OSHA 40-hour HAZWOPER
OSHA 8-Hour HAZWOPER, Supervisor

PRESENTATIONS
Brown, D., Dettle, J., and Robinson (Galloway), N., 2016. Update on City of Torrance Stormwater Quality Project, presentation, poster, and proceedings for the California Stormwater Quality Association’s 12th Annual Conference on Stormwater Evolution: Source to Resource, San Diego, California. September 12-14, 2016.

Robinson, N., and Willis, D. 2018. Minimizing Environmental Exposure by Incorporating Redevelopment Design in Remediation of Former Wood Treatment Facility, poster and proceedings for the Association for Environmental, Health and Sciences Foundation’s Annual West Coast Conference. March 19-22, 2018.

Resume www.ngem.com

DERRICK S. WILLIS

PRINCIPAL III
Mr. Willis has over 28 years’ experience serving both public sector and private clients in the Western United States and Canada on a wide variety of environmental projects. He has designed and implemented numerous site investigations, feasibility studies, client portfolio remedial cost scenarios, cleanup plans, and economic analyses involving contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater as well as land reuse options. For the last several years, Derrick’s focus has been on formulating and facilitating closure and development strategies for large, complex, high profile, environmental projects for aerospace, industrial, and real estate development clients. He specializes in developing closure strategies that integrates remediation with redevelopment/land re-use. Derrick works with his client base to streamline the regulatory and clean-up process and successfully transforms projects for his clients from liabilities to assets. His expertise in fate and transport of chemicals in the environment, risk evaluation, and remedial technologies, regulatory requirements, combined with a keen understanding of client business objectives results in creative, efficient, and successful remediation/ revitalization projects.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Site Investigation and Remediation
 Former Riverton Steel Facility, Southgate, California – Project manager on the investigation and remediation of a former steel production facility that is now currently adjacent to a residential development and a newly developed school. Developed remedial approach for lead impacted soil and concrete and air monitoring program (in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1466) so that demo and concrete crushing operations were protective of adjacent receptors. CMS/RAP for remedial program, which dovetails remediation and development, was approved, and is currently being implemented.
 Baker Cold Storage, Port of Long Beach Pier B Facility, California – Serves as project manager for investigation, remediation and redevelopment support of a 12-acre former brownfield (wood treatment facility) in the Port of Long Beach. The site is impacted with pentachlorophenol (PCP), metals, VOCs, and dioxins/furans. In addition, tidally influenced groundwater is impacted with PCP and petroleum hydrocarbons and methane charged from oilfield operations. Mr. Willis evaluated investigation data, managed a groundwater investigation program and developed a remedial approach for soil and groundwater. Mr. Willis successfully streamlined the regulatory process by aggregating the remedial work plans including RCRA closure of a drip pad, into one encompassing work plan (Soil and Groundwater Response Plan), which included an air monitoring program during earthmoving of the contaminants on Site, and one Remedial Design Document ([RDD] that incorporated the facility design components into building mitigation design), and securing agency approvals on components of site construction concurrent with development of the RDD. Site was redeveloped with a 250,000 square-foot cold storage facility and is currently undergoing monitored natural attenuation for groundwater.

Derrick S. Willis
Principal III
Resume www.ngem.com

 Black Mountain Industrial Complex Remedial Design and Implementation, Nevada – Served as project manager for expedited investigation and remediation program for the Tronox industrial facility within the BMI Complex. Previously the world’s largest magnesium production facility during World War II, the site was later utilized for the manufacture of rocket fuel, other products, and most recently alkali and manganese oxide-based chemicals. Historical Industrial operations resulted in subsurface impacts from heavy metals, perchlorate, pesticides, chlorinated solvents, asbestos, radionuclides, and other chemicals. Developed streamlined investigation and remedial approach, prepared remedial plans, including a comprehensive air and dust monitoring program, and rapidly mobilized and managed a team of staff and subcontractors to remove approximately 800,000 cubic yards of soil from the site to meet commercial soil cleanup goals for direct contact exposure in an expedited timeframe.  Kimco Realty Corporation, multiple locations in California and Nevada, – Serves Principal-inCharge and program manager for investigation and remediation of several dry-cleaner sites in California (Cupertino, Daly City, Lakewood, LaVerne, Anaheim, Whittier) and Reno, Nevada.

Projects range from investigation of soil and soil vapor impact to remediation of soil, soil vapor and groundwater. Mr. Willis is responsible for developing remedial strategies, negotiating with regulatory agencies, and providing technical direction to staff in order to evaluate and remediate site impacts, and bring sites to regulatory closure.
 RREEF, Villa Marina Marketplace, Marina Del Rey, California ― Mr. Willis managed the design and installation of a groundwater treatment system to treat groundwater impacted from metals and selenium to meet NPDES discharge requirements for a basement dewatering system for a shopping center. He currently manages the operation, maintenance and reporting associated with the ongoing dewatering system.
 Hawaii Wood Preserving Company Treatment Facility, Maui, Hawaii – Served as project manager, for decommissioning, investigation, remediation, and closure for a former wood treatment facility to allow for redevelopment. The site operated as from 1972 to 2001 to treat lumber with PCP, chromated copper arsenate (CCA), permithrin, and disodium octoborate. Chemicals were profiled, all equipment was decontaminated and decommissioned, and verification sampling was conducted as part of decommissioning. A remedial investigation and remedial alternatives analysis was developed and implemented to investigate and develop a path-forward to closure. The implemented remedial approach consisted of site capping and long-term groundwater monitoring.  Lockheed Martin Former International Light Metals Facility, Torrance, California ― Served as project manager and principal investigator for a 67-acre aerospace facility where client objective was expedited redevelopment. The project included facility demolition, preparation and implementation of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure plan for 11 permitted RCRA units, negotiations with the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), preparation of a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) (210 features identified that required intrusive investigation), implementation of a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) for soil and groundwater, preparation of a health-based risk assessment, and implementation of soil remediation. Site closure for soil was granted only three years after project initiation, in contrast to the normal six to eight year process, and has been used as an example by head DTSC officials as an example of industry and the regulatory community working together to achieve expedited site closures for property redevelopment purposes. Mr. Willis also developed strategy for groundwater investigation and remediation and negotiated the corrective action consent agreement (CACA) with DTSC.

Derrick S. Willis
Principal III
Resume www.ngem.com

 Playa Capital Corporation, Playa Vista Development Project, Los Angeles, California ― Mr. Willis served as program manager for the Playa Vista project, one of the largest and most visible brownfield development projects in the country. At 1,100 acres, it is the largest underway in Los Angeles County. His primary responsibility included environmental program management (including scoping, developing, scheduling, and tracking environmental activities for the development project), risk management (including developing and negotiating with agencies for appropriate cleanup criteria), remedial strategy/management (including development and implementation of pilot tests and oversight of investigation and remediation activities), agency/RP/buyer negotiations, consultant and contractor selection/oversight, coordination with Playa’s infrastructure group on the development/implementation of integrated remedial approach where appropriate, litigation support, data management, and transactional support with respect to the sale of remediated parcels.
 Project Manager, Confidential Client, Buena Park, California ― Served as project manager for multi-media remediation project at a commercial development in Buena Park, California. The site was a former food processing facility that was redeveloped into commercial offices and warehouse space. Evaluated the environmental liability for a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) that subsequently purchased the property, and managed remediation program in conjunction with site redevelopment.
 Project Manager, Brownfield Redevelopment, Torrance, California ― Served as project manager for site redevelopment project for a PacTrust. Evaluated environmental liabilities associated with a 12-acre parcel that was part of a butadiene plant (Del Amo Superfund Site) left undeveloped as a brownfield, and formulated a strategy to expedite regulatory closure and redevelopment. A comprehensive investigation was completed on the parcel, and the report submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review. Successfully negotiated with EPA to conduct a non-Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) closure program. Conducted soil remediation program under EPA oversight in conjunction with site construction activities.
 Project Manager, Investigation and Remediation Program, Safety Kleen, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ― Managed remediation of former solvent recycler transfer stations in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. Sites involved characterization and remediation of soil and perched groundwater zones. Assessed feasibility of vapor extraction for cleanup of vadose zone contamination, and designed and installed a dewatering system for perched water in former tank cavities and surficial saturated zone for Vancouver transfer station. Achieved regulatory site closure two years faster than previous consultant’s estimate.  Cupples Manufacturing, Investigation and Remediation Program, La Mirada, California ― Project manager for soil/groundwater characterization and remediation program at a truck maintenance facility in La Mirada, California. Conducted an underground storage tank and clarifier removal program in conjunction with site characterization activities. Implemented remediation of soil and groundwater impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons. Negotiated and received closure from Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
 Alberta Environment, Abandoned Wood Treatment Sites, Various Locations, Alberta, Canada ― Project manager for the Wood Preserving Sites Characterization Program for Alberta Environment. Performed site characterization of four former wood preservation sites in Alberta, Canada. The sites had been used for many years for treating wood poles and railroad ties with a pentachlorophenol/diesel mixture. Soil and/or groundwater were impacted at the sites. Soil borings Derrick S. Willis
Principal III
Resume www.ngem.com

and groundwater monitoring wells were installed, and laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater was performed, to help determine the lateral and vertical migration of dissolved-phase hydrocarbons in the groundwater and dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) through glacial tills and several non-confining layers. Detailed drilling and sampling plans were necessary to ensure correct evaluation of vertical DNAPL migration. Aquifer tests were performed and receptor data were collected in order to formulate a quantitative assessment of both health-based and environmental risk.
 Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., Investigation and Remediation Programs, Various Locations, Southern California ― Responsible for remediation programs at several petroleum retail outlets for Texaco in the southern California area. Projects included soil and groundwater investigation programs, underground storage tank (UST) removals, remedial design (including design and implementation of vapor extraction and aquifer tests), implementation of remedial program, and operation and maintenance of remediation systems. This included designing, specifying, permitting, and installing of all equipment (including piping, downhole pumps, off-gas treatment, and water treatment).
 Groundwater Contamination Investigation and Analysis, Technisol, Raymond, Alberta, Canada ― Conducted a groundwater investigation program at a solvent recycling facility located in southern Alberta, Canada. The program was implemented to determine the lateral and vertical extent of several species of chlorinated volatile organic compounds present in the confined aquifer beneath the facility. Aquifer testing was performed to estimate migration rates and to provide preliminary data for remedial action. Successfully negotiated with Alberta Environment (lead regulatory agency) for monitored natural attenuation approach.  Pier A Railyard, Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California ― Managed a soil and groundwater investigation program at a Port of Los Angeles rail transfer yard. The objective of the project was to characterize previously identified polynuclear aromatic compounds, volatile organic compounds, and petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil and groundwater, and identify any regulated building materials in the site structures in order to facilitate an expedited redevelopment program.

The project was finished ahead of schedule and under budget.  Soil and Groundwater Remediation, Texaco, Various Locations, Southern California ― Conducted vapor extraction tests, performed data analysis, and generated recommendations for an industrial manufacturing facility to determine the viability of using vapor extraction for remediating chlorinated solvents, primarily tetrachloroethene (PCE), present in the soil beneath the facility. Each test was designed to assess air flow rates and vacuums, vertical interference and crossflow, radii of influence, potential for water upwelling, and effectiveness of vapor extraction in both vadose and capillary zones. Extracted vapors were collected to determine volatile organic compound concentrations. Data were used to determine well spacing and slotting intervals, optimum flow rate/vacuum combinations, extraction blower sizing, and vapor treatment equipment.  Texaco, Various Locations, Southern California― Responsible for preparation of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permitting, installation, operation and maintenance of thermal and catalytic oxidizers/vapor extraction systems for the remediation of soil (containing petroleum hydrocarbons) beneath operating service stations.

Derrick S. Willis
Principal III
Resume www.ngem.com

Environmental Site Assessments
 RREEF, Multiple Sites, Southern California ― Mr. Willis serves as client director for RREEF on multiple projects including acquisition studies (which include mold, asbestos and indoor air quality surveys), tenant audit programs, soil remediation, groundwater investigation and remediation, third party oversight, agency negotiation, and mold and asbestos abatement programs.  Watson Land Company, Multiple Sites, Southern California ― Mr. Willis has directed over 40 acquisition-related due diligence investigations for Watson Land Company (Watson). Scope of work has included Phase I ESAs, soil and groundwater investigations, risk evaluations, agency negotiation, and aiding Watson in evaluating and quantifying the potential risk associated with recognized environmental concerns.
 Various Clients, Various Locations, Southern California ― Project manager for more than 200 Phase I environmental assessments (ESAs) for industrial facilities including aerospace, furniture and paper manufacturing factories; utility companies, vehicle and equipment maintenance facilities; and landfills as well former agricultural land. The objective of the ESAs was to evaluate and quantify potential liabilities associated with the acquisition and development of the properties.

Litigation Support
 Litigation Support, Confidential Client, City of Commerce, California – Conducted site review of historical records, developed and implemented soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigation, and developed Site Conceptual Model (SCM) for former aerospace facility that was now developed as a multi-tenant warehouse. Successful in being able reconstruct historical SCM to show that environmental impacts were caused by historic aerospace operations from the 1940s to 1960s and not from the more recent tenant operations. Provided information and deposition for property management firm’s counsel.
 Mediation Support, Confidential Client, Los Angeles, California – Project manager for mediation support of insurance claim for cost reimbursement for handling, transportation and disposal of petroleum contaminated soil encountered during development of a high rise on a former hospital site. Work consisted of using photogrammetry and historical records to develop a volume of contaminated soil and expert witness report using spatial data analysis, rebuttal of expert witness reports, and expert witness testimony as part of mediation where a judgement was made in favor of our client for the full reimbursement cost.

EDUCATION
B.S., Geology, University of Alberta, Alberta, 1988
Derrick S. Willis
Principal III
Resume www.ngem.com

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
Northgate Environmental Management, Principal, 2006 to date LFR Levine Fricke, Principal Geologist, 2002 – 2006
Integrated Environmental Services, Director of Operations/Senior Program Manager, 1999– 2002 ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Senior Geologist, 1993 – 1999 Environmental Design Corporation, Vice President, 1992
Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc., Staff Geologist, 1991 Terracon Geotechnique, Ltd., Geologist, 1989 – 1991
Contract Positions, Various Locations, Geologist, 1988

REGISTRATIONS
Certified Environmental Manager, Nevada, No. EM 2252
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
April 2023
Appendix F Hydrology and LID Report
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

HYDROLOGY AND LID REPORT
FOR
MRNA
6700 PCH,
Long Beach, CA 90803
Prepared for:

City of Long Beach
Prepared by:

Labib Funk+ Associates
Structural | Shoring | Civil Consulting Engineers
319 Main St.

El Segundo, California 90245
LFA Job # 22029
December 6, 2022
Revised: January 30, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Project Summary

1.1 Existing Conditions

1.2 Proposed Conditions

2.0 Low Impact Development

2.1 Methodology

2.2 BMP Feasibility Screening

2.3 Proposed Treatment System

2.4 Hydromodification

3.0 Hydrologic Analysis

3.1 Methodology

3.2 Source Control BMP’s

3.3 Design Control BMP’s
Appendices
Appendix A – Existing Conditions
Appendix B – LID Calculations
Appendix C – BMP Exhibit
Appendix D – BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M)
Appendix E – Hydrocalc 24hr., 50 year
Appendix F – FEMA Flood Zone Map
Appendix G – Soils Report
Appendix H – NPDES permit MS 4 2020-105(Excerpts)
Appendix I – Long Beach LID Manual(Excerpts)

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 1 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m
1 . 0 P R O J E C T S U M M A R Y
1 . 1 E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s
The existing site is located at Lots 1 and 2 on the on the Southeast corner of Studebaker Road and Marina Dr, in Long Beach, California. The existing site contains of office buildings and an asphalt paved parking lot with some planting areas around the site, neither of which contains any apparent drainage structures in place.

The existing historic high groundwater for the site is on the order of 10 feet below the ground surface, according to the project geotechnical report (Appendix D). The proposed site is located in a Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction. The site is located in flood zone X which are a reduced flood zone area due to level.

1.2 Proposed Conditions
The proposed project is 6 story mixed-use structure over a two level of parking structure, featuring 281 residential units, amenity areas, retail, and parking. Stormwater runoff from the proposed building and site will be collected via roof drains and area drains and conveyed to flow-through planter boxes designed to capture the 0.75 in rain event.

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 2 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m
2 . 0 L O W I M P A C T D E V E L O P M E N T ( L I D ) 2 . 1 M e t h o d o l o g y
The City of Long Beach Low Impact Development Standards were used to determine the appropriate storm water mitigation solution for the proposed project. The City of Long Beach LID Standards require the that the proposed project mitigate runoff volume produced from the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event, or the volume of annual runoff to achieve 80 percent or more volume treatment, or the volume of runoff produced from a 0.75-inch storm event.

2.2 BMP Feasibility Screening
Infiltration at the proposed project site is not feasible due to the depth of the found groundwater per the Soils Report. (Appendix D). Therefore, the proposed project will use Permavoid stormwater planters which use a combination of capture and reuse and biofiltration as the BMP for mitigating stormwater runoff and meeting City of Long Beach LID standards.

2.3 Proposed Treatment System
Stormwater runoff from the proposed building and site will be collected via roof drains and area drains and conveyed to 15 planter boxes on Ground and podium levels with an area totaling to 6,149 sq. ft. The planter boxes being proposed are the Permavoid Planter boxes manufactured by ABT, inc. and designed to capture the 85th percentile rain event.

See Appendix A for Drainage Management Areas/ Area distribution for each planter.

2.4 Hydromodification
Hydromodification per NPDES permit no. MS4-2021-105 by California State Water Resource Control Board is defined as changes to the existing natural drainage structures affected by the proposed development. Furthermore, in the Long Beach LID manual section 3 it states to minimize the impacts to the natural drainage. Since our project is not proposing any changes and/or drains to natural drainage, measures are not applicable.

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 3 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m
3 . 0 H Y D R O L O G I C A N A L Y S I S
3 . 1 M e t h o d o l o g y
The LA County Hydrology Maps were used to determine the peak flow runoff using Hydrocalc from the project site for both the Pre-Developed and Post-Developed conditions. The 50-yr storm event was selected for comparison which equates to 4.8 in/hr. for the project site. Since the project exceeds an Acre a SWPP would be required for the project. The proposed BMP’s should be designed and maintained per general permit and SWPP requirements. See below for the constraints and outputs that were modeled from Hydrocalc for our project site.

The constraints are shown below:

Design frequency = 50yr
Rainfall depth = 4.8in
Drainage Area = 2.62 Acres
Existing Conditions: The project site is relatively level with some steep slopes on the frontage by the PCH followed by an asphalt paved , parking area/ drive aisle. Area drains and catch basins in the lot are conveyed via storm drain piping to a curb inlet catch basin on Marina Dr. The existing conditions are shown in the survey in Appendix A.

Drainage areas BMP Percent impervious V50 Q50
Existing
conditions
Unknown 74% 31,486 cfs 4.52 cfs
Proposed
development
LID planters on
podium and at grade
89% 34,193 cfs 4.06 cfs
Proposed Conditions: The project proposes several BMP’s to reduce the discharge and capture the 85th percentile storm even. Runoff is collected in roof drains and area drains, which discharge into permavoid planters as a design control BMP. Overflow from the planters discharges into the site storm drain piping which eventually empties to the same curb inlet catch basin on Marine Dr as the existing condition. Overall, the proposed BMP’s would capture the runoff from the roof and reduce the discharge from the project site.

See Appendix B for LID calculations/DMA’s.

See Appendix C for BMP Exhibit (Proposed Conditions)
See Appendix E for 24hr. 50yr Hydrocalc results.

See Appendix F for FEMA flood zone maps.

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 4 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m
3 . 2 S o u r c e c o n t r o l B M P ’ s
Per Long Beach LID manual, Source control measures are recommended as a lowtechnology practice to mitigate runoff prior to entering a BMP or flowing offsite. These measures are defined in section 3 of the Long Beach LID Manual. The following sitespecific source control measures are proposed for the project.  S-1 (Storm drain message and signage) would be provided at curb face and on catch basins in the public ROW.
 S-2 (Outdoor material storage area design) Storage will be provided inside the building.
 S-3 (Outdoor trash and waste handling area design) will be provided inside the building.
 S-4 (Outdoor loading/unloading dock area design) will be provided inside the building.
 S-5 (Outdoor repair/maintenance bay design)

3 . 3 D e s i g n c o n t r o l B M P ’ s
Per Long Low impact development manual. The onsite BMP’s in the order of feasibility are as follows:
 Infiltration
 Capture and Use
 Offsite Mitigation
Since infiltration is deemed infeasible due to the depth of found groundwater per soils report (Appendix D), We opted with capture and use with Permavoid Planter Boxes to treat the 85th percentile storm event. The calculations for the planters can be seen in Appendix B. The planters would be located at grade and at the podium level. Storm water would be conveyed through area drains and/or roof downspouts to these planters for treatment. The implementation of these measures increases the time of concentration reducing the overall runoff discharge rate from the site.

See Appendix E for Hydrology Calculations. See Appendix C for a DMA Exhibit.

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 5 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m

APPENDIX A

EXISTING CONDITIONS
STUDEBAKER RD. PARCEL MAP NO. 11290 147/94-95 PARCEL 1 4 5 5 7 7 MARINA DR. 7 6 62 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PROJECT # CHECKED BY DRAWN BY 700 FLOWER ST., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 O: 213.418.0201 F: 213.266.5294 www.kpff.com DATE PREPARED MR. JACOB STONE 5000 EAST SPRING STREET, SUITE 500 LONG BEACH, CA 90815 2100904CJ AA 01/14/2022 HOLLAND PARTNER GROUP COMMENTS (PER CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY POLICY No. OR DER No. 00164329-002-WK1-JS9 DATED OCTOBER 19,2021 AT 7:30 A.M.) EXCEPTIONS (PER CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY POLICY No. OR DER No. 00164329-002-WK1-JS9 DATED OCTOBER 19,2021 AT 7:30 A.M.) LEGAL DESCRIPTION SURVEYOR'S NOTES SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND 01/18/2022 STUDEBAKER RD.

PARCEL MAP NO. 11290 147/94-95 PARCEL 1
MARINA DR.

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
PROJECT #

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY
700 FLOWER ST., Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: 213.418.0201
F: 213.266.5294
www.kpff.com

DATE PREPARED

JACOB STONE
5000 EAST SPRING STREET, SUITE 500
LONG BEACH, CA 90815
2100904
CJ
AA
11/30/2021

HOLLAND PARTNER GROUP

DIG ALERT

ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND

LINETYPES

ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 6 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m

APPENDIX B
LID Calculation
PV323189 Date:
6700 PCH, Long Beach ECD: 6 23

0.75 inches
DrainageAreaImperviousAreaCatchment AreaDesign Capture Vol.Required Planter AreaCapture & Use VolumeBiofiltration VolumeMinimum Plant FactorSoil DepthPonding Depth Planter Depth (Interior) At Ai Acat Vcap Ap Vcu Vbf PF Dsoil Dpond Dip
(ft²) (%) (ft²) (ft³) (ft²) (ft³) (ft³) --- (in.) (in.) (in.) 2,215 100.0% 1,993 125 90 84 60 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 68 68 16 340 12 5.5 11,684 100.0% 10,515 657 476 446 317.6 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 352 352 80 1,760 59 29.1 4,746 100.0% 4,271 267 194 181 129 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 144 144 33 720 24 11.8 11,232 100.0% 10,109 632 458 428 305.3 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 338 338 77 1,690 57 28.0 4,023 100.0% 3,621 226 164 153 109.4 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 122 122 28 610 21 10.0 4,881 100.0% 4,393 275 199 186 132.7 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 148 148 34 740 25 12.2 4,588 100.0% 4,129 258 187 175 124.7 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 138 138 32 690 23 11.4 2,011 100.0% 1,810 113 82 77 54.7 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 62 62 14 310 11 5.0 30,915 100.0% 27,824 1,739 1,261 1,179 840.5 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 930 930 211 4,650 155 77.0 9,763 100.0% 8,786 549 398 372 265.4 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 294 294 67 1,470 49 24.3 19,051 100.0% 17,146 1,072 777 726 517.9 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 574 574 130 2,870 96 47.5 7,887 100.0% 7,098 444 322 301 214.4 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 238 238 54 1,190 40 19.7 9,627 100.0% 8,664 542 393 367 261.7 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 290 290 66 1,450 49 24.0 6,599 100.0% 5,939 371 269 252 179.4 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 200 200 46 1,000 34 16.4 9,740 100.0% 8,766 548 397 371 264.8 0.44 18.0 3.0 36.0 150x2 294 294 67 1,470 49 24.3 138,961 --- 125,065 7,817 5,667 5,298 3,778 --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 4,192 0 0 4,192 955 20,960 704 346.2 Permavoid Los Angeles LID Table 1.1 REF: 236PV323189h8370M Permavoid Planter Soil Requirements (non-traffic loading):
∙ 75% (+/- 5%) by weight shall consist of sand meeting the following:
- For soil depths of 6 to 12 inches, average particle size shall be 500mm (0.020 in.) - For soil depths of 12 to 24 inches, average particle size shall be 300mm (0.012 in.) ∙ Soils shall have a uniformity coefficient of 4.0 or less. ∙ Soils shall have less than 10% fines (passing 200 sieve) by weight. ∙ Soils used for biofiltration shall meet "Attachment H. Biofiltration / Biofiltration Design Criteria " as provided by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Material Summary
Est. Soil Volume (CY)
Tie
Connectors
CUB-9
CUB-10
CUB-1
CUB-2
CUB-3
CUB-4
CUB-5
CUB-6
CUB-7
CUB-8
Design Summary
Shear
Connectors
Wicking Geotex.
(Roll-ft)
85HD PV150
Total
CUB-15
CUB-11
CUB-12
CUB-13
CUB-14
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
BMP Design & Material Summary
1/25/2023

LID BMP
ID - #
Project Number:

Street Address:
85th Rainfall Depth:

Capillary Cones
(Quantity)
System
Type
Permavoid Units
(Quantity)
36/60+
24/30 36/90 23/160TPairs 85s
6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 1
Acat 1,993.2 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others 6
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 1993.2ft²
# Vcap = 124.6 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
# Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 90.3 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 90.3 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 84.4 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (124.6 ft³ - 84.4 ft³)
# Vbf = 60.2 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 60.2 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 90.3 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin

90.3 ft² vs. 90.3 ft²

90.3 ft² = 90.3 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (84.4 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 90.3 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 90.3 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 84.4 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7

84.4 ft³ vs. 84.4 ft³
# 84.4 ft³ = 84.4 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 90.3 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 84.4 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 60.2 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 68 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 68 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 12 - 15 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 5.5 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 2
Acat 10,515 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 10515.3ft²
# Vcap = 657.2 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 476.4 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 476.4 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 445.5 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (657.2 ft³ - 445.5 ft³)
# Vbf = 317.6 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 317.6 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 476.4 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
476.4 ft² vs. 476.4 ft²
476.4 ft² = 476.4 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (445.5 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 476.4 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 476.4 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 445.5 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
445.5 ft³ vs. 445.5 ft³
# 445.5 ft³ = 445.5 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 476.4 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 445.5 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 317.6 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 352 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 352 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 58 - 80 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 29.1 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 3
Acat 4,271 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 4271.2ft²
# Vcap = 267 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 193.5 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 193.5 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 180.9 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (267 ft³ - 180.9 ft³)
# Vbf = 129 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 129 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 193.5 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
193.5 ft² vs. 193.5 ft²
193.5 ft² = 193.5 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (180.9 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 193.5 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 193.5 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 180.9 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
180.9 ft³ vs. 180.9 ft³
# 180.9 ft³ = 180.9 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 193.5 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 180.9 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 129 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 144 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 144 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 25 - 32 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 11.8 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 4
Acat 10,109 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 10108.5ft²
# Vcap = 631.8 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 458 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 458 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 428.2 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (631.8 ft³ - 428.2 ft³)
# Vbf = 305.3 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 305.3 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 458 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
458 ft² vs. 458 ft²
458 ft² = 458 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (428.2 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 458 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 458 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 428.2 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
428.2 ft³ vs. 428.2 ft³
# 428.2 ft³ = 428.2 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 458 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 428.2 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 305.3 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 338 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 338 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 56 - 77 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 28 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 5
Acat 3,621 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 3620.7ft²
# Vcap = 226.3 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 164.1 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 164.1 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 153.4 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (226.3 ft³ - 153.4 ft³)
# Vbf = 109.4 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 109.4 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 164.1 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
164.1 ft² vs. 164.1 ft²
164.1 ft² = 164.1 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (153.4 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 164.1 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 164.1 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 153.4 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
153.4 ft³ vs. 153.4 ft³
# 153.4 ft³ = 153.4 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 164.1 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 153.4 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 109.4 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 122 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 122 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 21 - 28 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 10 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 6
Acat 4,393 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 4392.9ft²
# Vcap = 274.6 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 199 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 199 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 186.1 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (274.6 ft³ - 186.1 ft³)
# Vbf = 132.7 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 132.7 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 199 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
199 ft² vs. 199 ft²
199 ft² = 199 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (186.1 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 199 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 199 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 186.1 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
186.1 ft³ vs. 186.1 ft³
# 186.1 ft³ = 186.1 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 199 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 186.1 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 132.7 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 148 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 148 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 25 - 33 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 12.2 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 7
Acat 4,129 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 4129.2ft²
# Vcap = 258.1 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 187.1 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 187.1 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 174.9 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (258.1 ft³ - 174.9 ft³)
# Vbf = 124.7 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 124.7 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 187.1 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
187.1 ft² vs. 187.1 ft²
187.1 ft² = 187.1 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (174.9 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 187.1 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 187.1 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 174.9 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
174.9 ft³ vs. 174.9 ft³
# 174.9 ft³ = 174.9 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 187.1 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 174.9 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 124.7 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 138 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 138 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 24 - 31 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 11.4 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 8
Acat 1,810 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others 5
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 1810.2ft²
# Vcap = 113.1 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 82 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 82 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 76.7 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (113.1 ft³ - 76.7 ft³)
# Vbf = 54.7 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 54.7 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 82 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
82 ft² vs. 82 ft²
82 ft² = 82 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (76.7 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 82 ft²]
# PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 82 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 76.7 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7

76.7 ft³ vs. 76.7 ft³
# 76.7 ft³ = 76.7 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 82 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 76.7 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 54.7 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 62 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 62 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 11 - 14 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 5 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 9
Acat 27,824 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 27823.7ft²
# Vcap = 1739 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 1260.7 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 1260.7 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 1178.7 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (1739 ft³ - 1178.7 ft³)
# Vbf = 840.5 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 840.5 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 1260.7 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
1260.7 ft² vs. 1260.7 ft²
1260.7 ft² = 1260.7 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (1178.7 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 1260.7 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 1260.7 ft²] / 0.85 # ETWU-7 = 1178.7 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
1178.7 ft³ vs. 1178.7 ft³
# 1178.7 ft³ = 1178.7 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 1260.7 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 1178.7 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 840.5 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 930 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 930 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 149 - 210 ft 7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 77 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 10
Acat 8,786 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 8786.4ft²
# Vcap = 549.2 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 398.1 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 398.1 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 372.2 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (549.2 ft³ - 372.2 ft³)
# Vbf = 265.4 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 265.4 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 398.1 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
398.1 ft² vs. 398.1 ft²
398.1 ft² = 398.1 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (372.2 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 398.1 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 398.1 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 372.2 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
372.2 ft³ vs. 372.2 ft³
# 372.2 ft³ = 372.2 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 398.1 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 372.2 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 265.4 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 294 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 294 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 49 - 67 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 24.3 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 11
Acat 17,146 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 17145.8ft²
# Vcap = 1071.6 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 776.9 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 776.9 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 726.3 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (1071.6 ft³ - 726.3 ft³)
# Vbf = 517.9 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 517.9 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 776.9 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
776.9 ft² vs. 776.9 ft²
776.9 ft² = 776.9 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (726.3 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 776.9 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 776.9 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 726.3 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
726.3 ft³ vs. 726.3 ft³
# 726.3 ft³ = 726.3 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 776.9 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 726.3 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 517.9 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 574 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 574 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 93 - 130 ft 7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 47.5 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 12
Acat 7,098 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 7098.3ft²
# Vcap = 443.6 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 321.6 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 321.6 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 300.7 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (443.6 ft³ - 300.7 ft³)
# Vbf = 214.4 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 214.4 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 321.6 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
321.6 ft² vs. 321.6 ft²
321.6 ft² = 321.6 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (300.7 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 321.6 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 321.6 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 300.7 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
300.7 ft³ vs. 300.7 ft³
# 300.7 ft³ = 300.7 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 321.6 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 300.7 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 214.4 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 238 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 238 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 40 - 54 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 19.7 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 13
Acat 8,664 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 8664.4ft²
# Vcap = 541.5 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 392.6 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 392.6 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 367 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (541.5 ft³ - 367 ft³)
# Vbf = 261.7 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 261.7 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 392.6 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
392.6 ft² vs. 392.6 ft²
392.6 ft² = 392.6 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (367 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 392.6 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 392.6 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 367 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
367 ft³ vs. 367 ft³
# 367 ft³ = 367 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 392.6 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 367 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 261.7 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 290 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 290 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 48 - 66 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 24 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 14
Acat 5,939 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 5939ft²
# Vcap = 371.2 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 269.1 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 269.1 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 251.6 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (371.2 ft³ - 251.6 ft³)
# Vbf = 179.4 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 179.4 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 269.1 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
269.1 ft² vs. 269.1 ft²
269.1 ft² = 269.1 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (251.6 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 269.1 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 269.1 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 251.6 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
251.6 ft³ vs. 251.6 ft³
# 251.6 ft³ = 251.6 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 269.1 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 251.6 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 179.4 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 200 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 200 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 34 - 45 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 16.4 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth. 6700 PCH, Long Beach Date:

PV323189
CUB 15
Acat 8,766 ft² Ap
D85 0.0625 ft Vcu
Dsoil 18.0 in. Vbf
Wa 0% % PF
Dpond 3.0 in. Dip
Ksat 5.0 in/hr
SF 2.0 ft³ #
Tf 2.0 hrs PV-150 #
150x2 11.8 in. 23/160 T #
Vpv 95 % Cap. Tex. #
ETo7 21.7 in. By Others #
IE 0.85
Calculate the Design Capture Volume (Vcap):

Vcap = D85 ∙ Acat
Vcap = 0.0625ft ∙ 8766.1ft²
# Vcap = 547.9 ft³
Calculate the Permavoid Capture & Use Depth (Dcu):

Dcu = (150x2 ∙ Vpv) + (Dsoil ∙ Wa)
Dcu = (11.8in. ∙ 95%) + (18in. ∙ 0%)
# Dcu = 11.22 in. = 0.935 ft
Calculate the Planter Area (Ap):
# Ap = 397.2 ft²
Calculate the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu):

Vcu = Ap ∙ Dcu
Vcu = 397.2 ft² ∙ 0.935ft
# Vcu = 371.4 ft³
Calculate the Biofiltration Volume (Vbf):

Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (Vcap - Vcu)
Vbf = 1.5 ∙ (547.9 ft³ - 371.4 ft³)
# Vbf = 264.8 ft³
Calculate the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Amin = Vbf / [Tf ∙ (Ksat/SF) + Dpond]
Amin = 264.8 ft³ / {[2.0hrs ∙ (5.0in/hr / 2.0) + 3in.] / 12ipf} # Amin = 397.2 ft²
Check the Planter Area (Ap) vs. the Minimum Area Required (Amin):

Ap vs. Amin
397.2 ft² vs. 397.2 ft²
397.2 ft² = 397.2 ft²
Ap = Amin ✓ - CHECKED
Calculate the Minimum Required Plant Factor (PF):

PF = (Vcu ∙ IE) / (ETo7 ∙ Ap)
PF = (371.4 ft³ ∙ 0.85) / [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 397.2 ft²] # PF = 0.44
Calculate the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU-7):

ETWU-7 = (ETo7 ∙ PF ∙ Ap) / IE
ETWU-7 = [(21.7in. / 12ipf) ∙ 0.44 ∙ 397.2 ft²] / 0.85
# ETWU-7 = 371.4 ft³
Check the Capture & Use Volume (Vcu) vs. the 7-Month Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU-7):

Vcu vs. ETWU-7
371.4 ft³ vs. 371.4 ft³
# 371.4 ft³ = 371.4 ft³
Vcu = ETWU-7 ✓ - CHECKED
Planter ID Number: Design Summary
Los Angeles Low Impact Development
Capture & Use / Biofiltration Planter Design Calculations Project Name: 1/25/2023
Project Number:

Catchment Area: Planter Area: 397.2 ft²
85th Percentile Storm Depth: Capture & Use Volume: 371.4 ft³ Soil Depth: Biofiltration Volume: 264.8 ft³
Soil Available Water: Plant Factor (min.): 0.44
Ponding Depth: Internal Planter Depth: 36 in.

Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate:

Safety Factor: Material Requirements
Time To Fill: Permavoid Units: 294 Units
Permavoid System Depth: Capillary Cones: 294 Pairs
Permavoid Voids: Wicking Geotextile Length: 49 - 66 ft
7-Month Reference Evapotranspiration: Planting Media: 24.3 CY Permavoid Irrigation Efficiency: *NOTES: Quantities are for estimation only. Fluctuations in material quatities will occur based on the precise configuration. Contact ABT-Permavoid for planting media recommendations based on soil depth.

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 7 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m

APPENDIX C
BMP Exhibit

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 8 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m

APPENDIX D
BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M)

P.O. Box 837
259 Murdock Road
Troutman, NC 28166
Phone: (800) 438-6057 (704) 528-9806
Fax: (704) 528-9806
www.abtdrains.com
LID Planter System Inspection and Maintenance Procedure – ABT Permavoid

Example with Permavoid 85 (PV 85) layer.

The engineered LID Planter system should provide many years of enjoyment. As with all systems, regular inspections are an important part of a healthy and functioning planter. Each LID planter has been engineered and designed with a specific configuration to the project so it is important to keep a file of the plans including the detail of each planter on the site. With the planter detail in hand, it will be evident the planters are built with layers of pervious soil materials, fabrics for protection and capillary irrigation function, a layer or so of ABT Permavoid, and it is all encapsulated by a water proof membrane. (NOTE: It is extremely important to not damage, scrape or tear the fabrics or the waterproof membrane during the inspection and maintenance process to avoid compromising the function and integrity of the system. If something is damaged, replacement items are available. Contact www.abtdrains.com for more information).

Routine Inspections and Maintenance Steps
The LID planter should be relatively maintenance free other than surface debris removal. With that, it is important to conduct regular visual inspections(monthly) of the planter for trash and debris and to remove any physical debris which could impede the planter function. Also, be sure the sand and soil mix is free of wood, other waste, coating such as clay, stone dust, carbonate, etc or any other deleterious material. Mulch can be left in place as it as likely part of the planter design.

Once the surface debris is removed, remove the cover on the overflow pipe to examine and make sure there are no visible obstructions using a flashlight. If obstructions are visible, remove them. If your unit is fitted with a pipe that extends to the bottom of the chamber, use the flashlight to determine if debris accumulation has occurred. This will be evident when the geotextile and bottom of the ABT Permavoid units, both black in color, can no longer be seen. If both are clearly visible, no action needs to be taken. In the event sediment has begun to accumulate, it is important to measure and document the amount. Check with the Los Angeles LID team if there are questions on your planter or if the sediment accumulation requires additional cleaning steps.

If there are further concerns about your planter function specific to the Permavoid and its capillary components, contact ABT for more information at www.abtdrains.com.

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 9 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m

APPENDIX E
Hydrocalc 24hr., 50yr
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: Q:/22029 - 6700 PCH/LFA C/C E/01 STORM/LID/01 CALCS AND REPORT/MRNA - 6700 PCH - 50YR - PRE DEV.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name MRNA
Subarea ID 6700 PCH - EX.

Area (ac) 2.62
Flow Path Length (ft) 509.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.018
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.8
Percent Impervious 0.74
Soil Type 15
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.8
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.2962
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.326
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7508
Time of Concentration (min) 8.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.5166
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.5166
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.7228
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 31485.4637
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: Q:/22029 - 6700 PCH/LFA C/C E/01 STORM/LID/01 CALCS AND REPORT/Appendix/MRNA - HYDROCALC POST.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name MRNA
Subarea ID 6700 PCH
Area (ac) 2.62
Flow Path Length (ft) 885.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.018
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.8
Percent Impervious 0.9
Soil Type 15
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.8
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.977
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.2871
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8387
Time of Concentration (min) 11.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.3443
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.3443
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.8535
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 37178.6087

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 1 0 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m

APPENDIX F
FEMA Flood zone map

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 1 1 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m

APPENDIX G
Soils Report

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MIXED-USE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
6700 EAST PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Marina Shores Owner, LP
5000 E. Spring St., Suite 500
Long Beach, CA 90815
Prepared by:

Geotechnical Professionals Inc.
5736 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
(714) 220-2211
([email protected])
Project No. 3084.1I July 29, 2022
3084-1I-01L.doc (7/22)
July 29, 2022
Marina Shores Owner, LP
5000 E. Spring St., Suite 500
Long Beach, CA 90815
Attention: Mr. Jacob Stone
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Mixed-Use Apartment Development
6700 East Pacific Coast Highway
Long Beach, California
GPI Project Number: 3084.1I
Dear Mr. Stone:

Transmitted herewith is one electronic copy of our report of geotechnical investigation for the subject project. The report presents our evaluation of the foundation conditions at the site and recommendations for design and construction. Additional electronic copies have been distributed as outlined below.

We appreciate the opportunity of offering our services on this project and look forward to seeing the project through its successful completion. Feel free to call us if you have any questions regarding our report or need further assistance.

Very truly yours,
Geotechnical Professionals Inc.

James E. Harris, G.E.

Principal
Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 GENERAL 1

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

1.3 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION 1

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK 2

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3

3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3

3.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS 3

3.3 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING 3

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5

4.1 OVERVIEW 5

4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN 6

4.2.1 General 6

4.2.2 Strong Ground Motion Potential 6

4.2.3 Potential for Ground Rupture 7

4.2.4 Liquefaction 7

4.2.5 Lateral Spreading 7

4.2.6 Seismic Ground Subsidence 8

4.3 MITIGATION OF SETTLEMENT 8

4.4 EARTHWORK 10

4.4.1 Clearing and Grubbing 10

4.4.2 Excavations 11

4.4.3 Subgrade Preparation 12

4.4.4 Material for Fill 12

4.4.5 Placement and Compaction of Fills 13

4.4.6 Shrinkage and Subsidence 13

4.4.7 Trench/Wall Backfill 13

4.4.8 Observation and Testing 14

4.5 FOUNDATIONS 14

4.5.1 Pile Foundations 14
Axial Capacity 15
Lateral Capacity 16
Construction and Testing Considerations 16

4.5.2 Spread Footings 17
Minimum Footing Width and Embedment 17
Estimated Settlements 17
Lateral Load Resistance 18

4.5.3 Foundation Concrete 18

4.5.4 Foundation Observation 18

4.6 RETAINING STRUCTURES AND SHORING 18

4.6.1 Basement and Retaining Walls 18

4.6.2 Temporary Shoring 20

4.7 CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS 22

4.8 CORROSION 22

4.9 EXTERIOR CONCRETE AND MASONRY FLATWORK 22

4.10 SURFACE DRAINAGE 23

4.11 STORM WATER INFILTRATION 23

4.12 PAVED AREAS 23

4.13 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING 24

5.0 LIMITATIONS 25

REFERENCES
Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22)

APPENDICES

A CONE PENETRATION TESTS

B EXPLORATORY BORINGS

C LABORATORY TESTS

D APG PILE SPECIFICATIONS

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
1 Lateral Pile Design Parameters

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
1 Site Location Map
2 Site Plan – Proposed Condition
3 Site Plan – Existing Condition
4 and 5 Proposed Building Section

APPENDIX A
Table A-1 Shear Wave Measurements
A-1 Cone Penetrometer Diagram
A-2 to A-6 Cone Penetrometer Test Results

APPENDIX B
B-1 to B-3 Logs of Borings

APPENDIX C
C-1 Atterberg Limits
C-2 to C-4 Direct Shear Test Results
C-5 to C-8 Consolidation Test Results
Table 1 Corrosivity Test Results
Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed by Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI) for the proposed mixed-use apartment development at 6700 Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach, California. The site location is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on project plans dated October 21, 2021 provided by AC Martin, the Project Architect, we understand that the proposed project will consist of a new 7-story mixed-use development. The structure will include 4-stories of wood framed apartments over 3 stories of concrete parking/metal-frame apartments/retail. The concrete parking includes 1 partially subterranean level. The parking levels will cover approximately 60,000 square feet. We understand the finish floor of the partially subterranean level will be at approximately Elevation +13 feet.

The proposed site configuration for the development is shown on the Site Plans, Figures 2 and 3. Proposed building profiles are included on Figures 4 and 5.

Structural loads were not available at the time we have prepared this report. Based on similar previous projects, we have assumed that maximum column loads for this concrete podium type building will be on the order of 500 to 700 kips.

Our recommendations are based upon the above structural and grading assumptions.

We should be notified if the actual loads and/or grades change during the project design to either confirm or modify our recommendations. Also, when the project grading, shoring, and foundation plans become available, we should be provided with a copy for review.

1.3 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION
The primary purpose of this investigation and report is to provide an evaluation of the existing geotechnical conditions at the site as they relate to the design and construction of the proposed development.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 2

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work for this investigation consisted of review of existing data, field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and the preparation of this report.

GPI performed a geotechnical feasibility-level investigation (GPI, 2021) for the proposed development. The geotechnical data from our previous report is contained herein.

Our field investigation consisted of 5 cone penetration tests (CPT’s) and 3 exploratory borings. The CPT’s were performed to depths of 35 to 100 feet below existing grades.

The borings were drilled to a depth of 61 feet below existing grades. A description of field procedures and logs of the explorations are presented in Appendices A and B. The locations of the subsurface explorations are shown on the Site Plans, Figures 2 and 3.

Laboratory soil tests were performed on selected representative samples as an aid in soil classification and to evaluate the engineering properties of the soils. The geotechnical laboratory testing program used for this investigation included evaluations of in-place moisture content and dry density, Atterberg Limits, grain-size distribution, direct shear, consolidation, compaction, expansion potential, and corrosivity. Laboratory testing procedures and results are summarized in Appendix C.

Soil corrosivity testing was performed by HDR. This work was performed under subcontract to GPI. Their test results are presented in Appendix C.

Engineering evaluations were performed to provide earthwork criteria, foundation and slab design parameters, preliminary pavement sections and assessments of seismic hazards. The results of our evaluations are presented in the remainder of the report.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 3

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is currently occupied by a 3-story office building with partial subterranean parking and at-grade parking. The current development was built in the early 1980’s. The site is bounded on the northeast by Pacific Coast Highway, on the northwest by Studebaker Road, on the southwest Marina Drive, and on the southeast by the San Gabriel River The site is located approximately 40 feet north of the San Gabriel River and approximately 315 feet northeast of the Alamitos Bay Marina. In general, the site slopes downward from the northeast to the southwest with ground surface elevations ranging from approximately +20 to +9 feet based on Google Earth. The project site slopes upward to Pacific Coast Highway by approximately 6 to 8 feet from the at-grade parking within the project site when approaching the San Gabriel River. The San Gabriel River consists of a sloped channel with riprap revetment. An access road for City vehicles separates the riprap revetment and the property limits of the project.

3.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
Our field investigation disclosed a subsurface profile consisting of undocumented fill soils overlying natural soils. Detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered are shown on the Logs of CPT’s and Borings in Appendices A and B, respectively.

The fill soils extend to a depth of approximately 5 feet below existing grades at the locations of our exploratory borings. The fill soils consist of sandy silts and silty sands in our borings. In general, the moisture contents of these soils were moist to wet. The finegrained soils are generally firm to stiff, and the sandy soils are loose to medium dense.

Documentation regarding the placement and compaction of the fill was not provided.

The natural soils encountered below the undocumented fill soils consist of interbedded silty sands, sandy silts, clayey silts, silty clays, and clays to a depth of approximately 35 feet, and silty sands, sands, clayey silts, silty clays, and clayey sands from 35 feet to the 100 foot depth explored. In general, the near surface finer grained soils were soft to stiff and the sandy soils were medium dense. At depths greater than approximately 35 to 50 feet, the finer grained soils were firm to hard and the sandy soils were dense to very dense.

3.3 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING
Groundwater was encountered at a depth as shallow as 9 feet below existing grade in one of our explorations (C-1). Historical high groundwater levels are mapped to approximately 10 feet below the ground surface by the State of California in the site vicinity.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 4
A monitoring well was installed near the southern corner of the site at an approximate elevation of +13 feet during our investigation at the site. We periodically monitored the well after our field work. The groundwater level recorded ranged from approximately 11 to 13 feet below existing grades. This groundwater level correlates with the tidal level within the San Gabriel River. The water level should be observed during the “King” tides during December and January to ensure the highest groundwater level is considered during design.

Caving was observed in our borings and will likely occur in sand layers below groundwater.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 5

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 OVERVIEW
Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that from a geotechnical viewpoint it is feasible to develop the site as proposed. The structure will need to be supported on either pile foundations and a structural floor slab or another type of ground improvement for the reasons described below. The most significant geotechnical issues that will affect the design and construction of the proposed structure are as follows:
• There is a potential for liquefaction induced seismic settlement to adversely impact the buildings. Layers of silty and sandy soil between depths of approximately 9 to 60 feet below existing grade exhibit a significant potential for liquefaction from a design earthquake. Should liquefaction of these layers occur, we estimate the magnitude of induced settlement is expected to be up to 5½ inches. • Due to the settlements of potentially liquefiable soils and static settlement of shallow or mat foundations, we recommend a deep pile foundation system supporting the columns and a structural floor slab for the proposed structure. Piles will need to be designed to resist the structural loads of the building and downdrag forces on the pile caused by liquefaction.
• Overexcavation of the undocumented fills and upper compressible soils will not be required below the building pad for the concrete podium building provided that the structure is supported on pile foundations with a structural floor slab. • Near surface soils exhibit high moisture contents. Stabilization of excavation bottom in the building pad may be required to create a working surface.

Stabilization can be achieved using geogrid/aggregate base or chemical (cement or lime treatment).
• Deeper trench and tank excavations may be difficult due to groundwater and caving soils.
• Guidelines for storm water infiltration by the County of Los Angeles do not allow infiltration into potentially liquefiable soils, and state that infiltration should be at least 10 feet higher than the seasonally high groundwater. As such, storm water infiltration is not feasible at the site.
• The on-site soils should be considered severely corrosive to buried metals.

Additionally, chloride levels were found to be high.

Our recommendations related to the geotechnical aspects of the development of the site are presented in the subsequent sections of this report.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 6

4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN

4.2.1 General
The site is located in a seismically active area typical of Southern California and is likely to be subjected to strong ground shaking due to earthquakes on nearby faults.

We assume the seismic design of the proposed development will be in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) criteria. A Site Class D may be used for design in accordance with the 2019 CBC. This site class was determined using the average shear wave velocity data measured in a CPT (see Table A-1) during our investigation.

The weighted average velocity was calculated to be approximately 750 ft/sec. Using the Site Class and the appropriate internet website (seismicmaps.org), the corresponding seismic design parameters from the CBC can be determined by the Project Structural Engineer.

In accordance with the 2019 CBC, site-specific response spectra are required for structures located in a Site Class D (with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2), unless per the exceptions detailed in Section 11.4 8 of ASCE 7-16 (ASCE, 2017), the structure is designed using seismic response coefficient (Cs) determined by either:
• Equation 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5 TS,
• 1.5 times the value computed by Equation 12.8-3 for values of TL ≥ T > 1.5 TS, or • 1.5 times the value computed by Equation 12.8-4 for values of T > TL.

If this exception is not taken and the structure will still be designed in accordance with the 2019 CBC, GPI should be notified that a site-specific response spectra is required.

4.2.2 Strong Ground Motion Potential
Based on published information (geohazards.usgs.gov), the most significant fault in the proximity of the site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, which is located about 0.3 miles from the site.

During the life of the project, the site will likely be subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes on nearby faults. Based on the SEAOC/OSHPD website (SEAOC, 2020), we computed that the site could be subjected to a peak ground acceleration (PGAM) of

0.74g for a mean magnitude 6.9 earthquake. This acceleration has been computed using the mapped Maximum Considered Geometric Mean peak ground acceleration from ASCE 7-16 and a site coefficient (FPGA) based on site class. The predominant earthquake magnitude was determined using a 2-percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year period, or an average return period of 2,475 years. The structural design will need to incorporate measures to mitigate the effects of strong ground motion.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 7

4.2.3 Potential for Ground Rupture
There are no known active faults crossing or projecting through the site. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, ground rupture due to faulting is considered unlikely at this site.

4.2.4 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils undergo a temporary loss of strength during severe ground shaking and acquire a degree of mobility sufficient to permit ground deformation. In extreme cases, the soil particles can become suspended in groundwater, resulting in the soil deposit becoming mobile and fluid-like.

Liquefaction is generally considered to occur primarily in loose to medium dense deposits of saturated soils. Thus, three conditions are required for liquefaction to occur: (1) a cohesionless soil of loose to medium density; (2) a saturated condition; and (3) rapid large strain, cyclic loading, normally provided by earthquake motions.

The site is located within a zone identified as having a potential for liquefaction by the State (CGS, 1999). We evaluated the potential for liquefaction using methods presented in Robertson, 2009 (Robertson, 2009) and modifications provided in Special Publication 117A (CGS, 1997). The California Building Code (CBC), ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2017), and Special Publication 117A (CGS, 1997) requires that the ground motion used for liquefaction evaluation be based on the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) adjusted for site class effects. Accordingly, we used a ground acceleration of 0.74g for a magnitude

6.9 earthquake for our analyses. Based on our field data at the site, we used a groundwater level of 9 feet in our analysis.

Based on our evaluation of the CPT data using computer software CLIQ (GeoLogismiki, 2007), should a design earthquake occur, the soils within thin layers exhibit a potential for liquefaction induced seismic settlement between the depths below grade of approximately 9 to 60 feet. The majority of the liquefaction induced seismic settlement occurs at depths less than approximately 42 feet below existing grade. In general, the potentially liquefiable layers consist of medium dense silty sands and soft to stiff finegrained material. Total liquefaction-induced settlement is estimated to be up to 5½ inches, with differential settlement expected between up to 2¾-inches across a span of 40 feet.

4.2.5 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is defined as the horizontal movement of soils resulting from the loss of shear strength during liquefaction combined with either a sloping ground surface or a nearby free-face condition. Conditions contributing to the potential for lateral spreading include the extent and severity of liquefaction, grain size of liquefiable materials, distance to the causative fault, and extent of surficial grade changes.

The project site has gentle slope away from a free-face condition at the San Gabriel River.

The distance from the project limits to the top of the free-face is approximately 10 to 15 Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 8
feet. These conditions along with the liquefaction potential of underlying soils are consistent with areas that may be subject to lateral spreading.

We analyzed the potential for lateral spreading based on Zhang, 2004 (Zhang, 2004).

The method was utilized by using Cliq. For lateral spreading to occur, the layers subject to liquefaction need to be continuous across the site. Based upon our evaluation, our field explorations encountered one continuous layer of sandy soils which exhibit the potential for liquefaction. The continuous layer ranges in depths from approximately 20 to 30 feet.

Based on our analysis, we estimate lateral spreading to be on the order of 10 to 15 inches.

Holland should be aware of the risk associated with the potential of lateral spreading. The potential for lateral spreading likely impacts the entire area surrounding the project site.

Mitigating the impact of lateral spreading should it occur during a design seismic event (2-percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year period) would require deep ground improvement both within the project site and in the adjoining properties and City streets, which is not feasible.

Supporting the structure on deep foundations will lessen the impact of lateral spreading should it occur during a design seismic event. Larger diameter piles will also lessen the potential impact of lateral spreading on the building. Further ground improvement mitigation measures to help mitigate the potential for lateral spreading, such as multiple rows of soil-cement columns, could be constructed between the apartments and the river in order to lessen the future risks beyond supporting the building on deep foundations.

However, the effectiveness of ground improvement installed locally at the site to mitigate a more area-wide problem is questionable. Due to the site being relatively narrow directly adjacent to the river embankment, impacts of lateral spreading on the remaining limits of the site would likely be impacted by the lateral spreading in the adjacent properties.

Holland should consult with specialty ground improvement contractors to better understand the costs associated with mitigation to reduce risks to the building or satisfy local regulatory requirements.

4.2.6 Seismic Ground Subsidence
Seismic ground subsidence (not related to liquefaction induced settlements), occurs when loose, granular (sandy) soils above the groundwater are densified during strong earthquake shaking. Earthquake-induced seismic subsidence during a strong earthquake is not anticipated to adversely affect the planned project because the on-site soils below the proposed subterranean foundation level and above the groundwater are limited and predominantly silts, clays, and medium dense silty sands.

4.3 MITIGATION OF SETTLEMENT
The site soil profile includes compressible and liquefiable soils in the upper 40 to 50 feet that will adversely impact the structure. The placement of new fill or structural loads will cause significant long-term settlement of these upper materials. Static settlement of shallow foundations for the proposed building would be on the order of 3 to 5 inches with typical remedial grading under the foundations. As discussed previously, the seismic settlement due to liquefaction is anticipated to be up to 5½ inches in the event of a design Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 9
level earthquake. Static settlement of a mat foundation for the proposed building would be on the order of 1 to 1½ inches. However, the seismic settlement discussed above would need to be added to the static settlement of mat foundation. Typically, Structural Engineers will limit buildings supported on spread footings and a slab-on-grade floor slabs to total settlement (static and seismic) on the order of 1½ inches and mat foundations to total settlements (static and seismic) of 4 inches or less. The maximum total combined settlements described above are beyond the typical performance of shallow or mat foundations.

The potential building settlement under both static and earthquake loads could be mitigated with pile foundations. The pile foundations could consist of conventional driven concrete piles, Auger Pressure Grouted (APG) piles, or other proprietary pile types. The pile foundations would mitigate the static and dynamic settlement by extending below the liquefiable soils into a dense sand bearing material. The pile designs will need to account for the down drag forces due to dynamic settlement above the majority of liquefiable soils.

Piles will need to extend to depths of greater than 65 feet below existing grades to derive support from end bearing. Due to the noise and vibration associated with driven piles, we assume that driven piles are not an acceptable alternative with the nearby residential, restaurants, boat slips, and retail businesses. Preliminary recommendations for APG pile foundations are provided in Section 4.5. APG piles are typically designed, built, and installed by specialty pile contractors.

We also reviewed ground modification methods to control settlements for the multi-story concrete podium building planned at the site. We reviewed typical methods used in Southern California such as rammed aggregate piers (Geopiers), vibro-replacement (stone columns) and deep soil mixing (soil-cement columns). Geopiers consist of drilled holes that are filled with aggregate base that is mechanically compacted as it is placed.

Geopiers typically reduces the extent of remedial grading and anticipated static settlements. Vibro-replacement utilizes a large vibrating probe (mandrel) to create a cavity which is filled with gravel or crushed stone, and compacted as the mandrel is removed. The result is a stone column with the stone pushed laterally into the soil. The stone columns provide lower compressibility and higher shear strength while improving drainage. Stone columns can reduce both anticipated static and seismic settlement.

Deep soil mixing involves the creation of soil/cement mixed columns extending through the soft compressible soil deposits. The resultant is similar to that of stone columns in that the method results in lower compressibility and increased shear strengths. Deep soil mixing can reduce both anticipated static and seismic settlement.

Geopiers will not be effective at this site due to limitations in the depth of installation and their inability to densify surrounding soils to mitigate the magnitude of dynamic settlement due to liquefaction anticipated at the site. Stone columns are generally effective if the soils to be densified are sands containing less than 15 to 20 percent fines. However, significant liquefiable soils layers at the site consist of silty sands with fine contents greater than 20 percent. Deep soil mixing could be effective in mitigation of the liquefaction at the site as well as lessening the impact of lateral spreading. Past experience at similar sites with significant layers of clays indicated that the amount of cement or multiple treatments required within thick clay layers could make this method difficult.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 10
Stone columns and deep soil mixing are also construction methods that cause significant ground water intrusion upward to the ground surface. Additionally, these construction activities generally cause significant noise and vibration that would impact the nearby residents and businesses.

Ground improvement is typically performed on a design-build basis by the specialty contractor. Ground improvement contractors should determine if the liquefaction potential at the site can be mitigated sufficiently to support the building on spread footings or a mat foundation. The design and construction of the ground improvement is the sole responsibility of the specialty design-build contractor. In addition, foundation design parameters, including estimated settlements of footings bearing on ground improvement must be provided by the design-build contractor. Our design review is typically limited to confirming that the soil parameters used are consistent with the data provided in this report. A representative of GPI should observe the installation of the ground improvement.

The placement of new fill above the existing grade will cause about ½ inches of settlement at the ground surface for every 1-foot of fill placed beyond an initial fill height of 3 feet.

We anticipate that the majority of the settlement will be completed in 90 days. Where fill placement resulting in higher grades is planned, it should be placed as early as possible with respect to construction of buildings (including piles) and utilities to allow the areal settlement to occur. We recommend that settlement caused by raising grades beyond 3 feet from existing grade be monitored by GPI with a series of monuments placed and surveyed prior to placing the fill. Construction of the gravity utilities or piles should not begin until the building have been released for construction at the direction of GPI.

4.4 EARTHWORK
The earthwork anticipated at the project site will consist of demolition of existing structures, clearing and grubbing, excavation for the partial subterranean building level, subgrade preparation, and the placement and compaction of fill.

4.4.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Prior to grading, performing excavations, or constructing the proposed improvements, the areas to be developed should be stripped of vegetation and cleared of existing structures, debris, and pavements. Buried obstructions, such as footings, abandoned utilities, and tree roots should be removed from areas to be developed. Deleterious material generated during the clearing operation, including organic topsoil, should be removed from the site. If approved by the owner and regulatory agency, inert demolition debris, such as concrete and asphalt may be crushed for reuse in engineered fills outside the planned building areas in accordance with the criteria presented in the "Materials for Fill" section of this report.

Portions of the existing building at the site may be supported on concrete piles. If encountered, we recommend the piles be removed to a depth of 5 feet below the proposed pile caps or 2 feet below the slabs for the proposed building. The existing piles below these depths should not be disturbed. The upper portions of the piles should be Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 11
cutoff. Heavy equipment should not be used to break off the piles. The location and depth to the top of the piles should be surveyed during demolition. The results of the survey should be provided to the Project Structural Engineer designing the foundations of the new structures. New deep foundations for the proposed building may need to be adjusted based upon existing pile locations. The resulting excavation should be backfilled as recommended in the “Subgrade Preparation” and “Placement and Compaction of Fill” sections of this report.

If cesspools or septic systems are encountered during grading, they should be removed in their entirety. The resulting excavation should be backfilled as recommended in the "Subgrade Preparation" and "Placement and Compaction of Fill" sections of this report.

As an alternative, cesspools can be backfilled with lean sand-cement slurry (two-sack).

At the conclusion of the clearing operations, a representative of GPI should observe and accept the site prior to further grading.

4.4.2 Excavations
Excavations at this site will include the partially subterranean building excavation, footing/pile cap excavations, and trenching for new utility lines.

The moisture content of the on-site soils at the anticipated bottom of the partially subterranean level are expected to be very moist to wet. The wet soils anticipated at the excavation bottom may be unstable when subjected to heavy construction equipment.

At this time, it is our opinion that stabilization of a significant portion of the excavation bottom using aggregate base/geogrid or cement treatment may be required to support heavy construction equipment. For stabilization with aggregate base/geogrid, we expect that 12 to 18 inches of aggregate base over a geogrid will be required. If cement treatment is used, we expect that approximately a minimum of 4 to 6 percent cement, by weight, will be required. A contractor specializing in cement treatment, such as Pavement Recyclers, should be consulted for details of this process.

For minor at-grade supported structures, such as screen walls, canopies, or short retaining walls, the footings be underlain by at least 2 feet of properly compacted fill over competent soils. Where space is available, the base of the overexcavation should extend laterally a distance at least equal to the depth of removal below footings.

Where not removed by the aforementioned excavations, existing utility trench backfill should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. This is especially important for deeper fills associated with existing sewers and storm drains. For planning purposes, removals over the utilities should extend to within 1-foot of the top of the pipe. For utilities, which are 5 feet or shallower, the removal should extend laterally 1-foot beyond both sides of the pipe. For deeper utilities, the removals should include a zone defined by a 1:1 projection upward (and away from the pipe) from each side of the pipe. The actual limits of removal will need to be confirmed in the field. We recommend that all known utilities be shown on the grading plan.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 12
Temporary construction excavations may be made vertically without shoring to a depth of 4 feet below the adjacent grade. For cuts up to 15 feet, the slopes should be properly shored or sloped back to at least 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The inclination is measured from the top to toe of slope, and we do not recommend incorporating a vertical cut at the base of the slope. The exposed slope face should be kept moist (but not saturated) during construction to reduce local sloughing. Surcharge loads should not be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of cut from the top of the excavation or 5 feet from the top of the slopes, whichever is greater, unless the cut is properly shored. Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of the adjacent existing site facilities should be properly shored to maintain support of adjacent elements. Excavations and shoring systems should meet the minimum requirements given in the most current State of California Occupational Safety and Health Standards.

4.4.3 Subgrade Preparation
After removals are complete and prior to placing fills or construction of the proposed structures, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moistureconditioned, and compacted to dry densities equal to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, determined in accordance with ASTM D1557.

In areas where very moist to wet soils are encountered, scarification of the subgrade may be omitted.

4.4.4 Material for Fill
The on-site soils are, in general, suitable for use as compacted fill under the structures.

Clayey soils (if encountered) should not be used directly underneath exterior flatwork.

Imported fill material should be predominately granular (containing no more than 40 percent fines - portion passing No. 200 sieve) and non-expansive (E.I. of 20 or less).

Import or on-site materials used in compacted fills should not contain particles larger than 6 inches in diameter. GPI should be provided with a sample (at least 50 pounds) and notified of the location of soils proposed for import at least 72 hours in advance of importing. Each proposed import source should be sampled, tested and accepted for use prior to delivery of the soils to the site. Soils imported prior to acceptance by GPI may be rejected if not suitable.

On-site inert demolition debris, such as concrete and asphalt, may be reused in the compacted fills provided approval is obtained from the reviewing regulatory agency and the Owner. The material should be crushed to the consistency of aggregate base.

Soils used for compacted fills should not contain particles greater than 3 inches in largest dimension.

If open-graded rock is used as backfill, the material should be placed in lifts and mechanically densified. Open-graded rock should be separated from the on-site soils by a suitable filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent).

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 13

4.4.5 Placement and Compaction of Fills
Fill soils consisting of the on-site materials should be placed in horizontal lifts, moisture-conditioned, and mechanically compacted to densities equal to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, determined in accordance with ASTM D1557.

The optimum lift thickness will depend on the compaction equipment used and can best be determined in the field. The following uncompacted lift thickness can be used as preliminary guidelines.

Plate compactors 4-6 inches
Small vibratory or static rollers (5-ton±) or track equipment 6-8 inches Heavy loaders, or heavy vibratory rollers 8-12 inches
The maximum lift thickness should not be greater than 12 inches and each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts.

Fills consisting of the on-site silts and clays should be placed at a moisture content of 1 to 3 percent over the optimum moisture content in order to achieve the required compaction and reduce the potential for future swelling. On-site or imported granular fills should be placed at a moisture content of 0 to 2 percent over the optimum moisture content. A portion of the soils at the site are well over optimum such that significant drying should be anticipated.

Once moisture conditioned and properly compacted, the exposed soils should not be allowed to dry out prior to covering with concrete. A representative of GPI should confirm the moisture content of the subgrade soils immediately prior to placement of concrete or additional fill.

During backfill of excavations, the fill should be properly benched into the construction slopes as it is placed in lifts.

4.4.6 Shrinkage and Subsidence
Shrinkage is the loss of soil volume caused by compaction of fills to a higher density than before grading. Subsidence is the settlement of in-place subgrade soils caused by loads generated by large earthmoving equipment. Neither shrinkage nor subsidence is anticipated to be a major factor on the project because of the significant soil export.

However, for earthwork volume estimating purposes an average shrinkage value of 10 to 15 percent and subsidence of less than 0.1 feet may be assumed for the surficial soils.

These values are estimates only and exclude losses due to removal of vegetation or debris. Actual shrinkage and subsidence will depend on the types of earthmoving equipment used and should be verified during grading.

4.4.7 Trench/Wall Backfill
Utility trench and wall backfill, consisting of the on-site materials or imported sand, should be mechanically compacted in lifts. Lift thickness should not exceed those values given in the "Compacted Fill" section of this report. Moisture conditioning (drying) of the deeper Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 14
on-site soils will likely be required prior to re-use as backfill. Jetting or flooding of backfill materials should not be permitted. GPI should observe and test trench and wall backfills as they are placed.

In backfill areas where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, sand-cement slurry may be substituted for compacted backfill. The slurry should contain one sack of cement per cubic yard and have a maximum slump of 5 inches. Within building areas, the slurry should contain two sacks of cement per cubic yard.

Open-graded rock used for bedding should be separated from the on-site soils by a suitable filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent).

4.4.8 Observation and Testing
A representative of GPI should observe excavations, subgrade preparation, and fill placement activities. Sufficient in-place field density tests should be performed during fill placement and in-place compaction to evaluate the overall compaction of the soils. Soils that do not meet minimum compaction requirements should be reworked and tested prior to placement of additional fill.

4.5 FOUNDATIONS

4.5.1 Pile Foundations
The proposed concrete podium building may be supported on piles to help mitigate excessive total and differential settlement (static and seismic). We have provided preliminary recommendations for18-inch diameter APG piles for foundation support of the building.

APG piles derive their support from a combination of friction and end-bearing in the dense to very dense sands at depth. APG piles are more flexible than driven piles with respect to pile length and the potential need for pile cut-offs when refusal in very dense materials is encountered.

The APG piles are typically designed, built, and installed by specialty design-build pile contractors. All aspects of the design, construction, and performance verification of such systems are the responsibility of the registered engineer designing the system. The final foundation design including embedment depths, downdrag loads, allowable capacities and estimated settlements must be provided by the design-build pile contractor. The actual capacities used for design will need to be based on full-scale load tests and the structural design of the piles by the design-build pile contractor.

Other proprietary pile alternatives may be considered for the project. The most suitable pile alternative will be based on the economies of each system, the anticipated column loads, soil conditions, and environmental limitations, such as noise and vibration.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 15
Axial Capacity
Based on our CPT data, we recommend using allowable pile capacities for APG piles end bearing into dense to very dense sands at depths of approximately 65 or 85 feet below existing grade at the site. The allowable capacities are estimated using the end bearing resistance of dense sands and side friction resistance below a depth of 42 feet below the existing grade.

The following estimates for axial design capacities are provided for information only to develop preliminary cost estimates for the structures:

Preliminary Estimate of Pile Embedment and Allowable Capacity 18-inch Diameter APG Pile
Pile Tip Below
Existing Grade (ft)
Allowable Axial
Compressive Pile Capacity
(kips)
65 250
85 400
A factor of safety of 2 for both skin and tip resistance was used to determine the allowable compressive pile capacities presented above.

Due to the liquefiable soils at the site, a downdrag load should be added to the dead and live load of the piles during earthquake loading conditions. The downdrag load results from the downward skin friction of the pile caused from overlying settlement above the liquefiable soils. Based on the magnitude and depths of the liquefiable soils, we estimate the downdrag loads from the piles will occur at depths above 42 feet below existing grade.

Based on the residual shear strength characteristics of the soils above 42 feet, we recommend a downdrag load of 100 kips for an 18-inch diameter APG pile be used for the design of foundations.

To resist uplift loads, the piles will derive their resistance from friction between the subsurface soils and the pile surface. Preliminary allowable uplift capacity of 18-inch diameter APG piles may be taken as 180 kips for piles embedded to 65 feet below existing grades and 300 kips for piles embedded to 85 kips below existing grades. A factor of safety of 3 was used to determine the allowable uplift capacity. The weight of the piles may be added to the allowable capacities to evaluate the total uplift resistance.

The pile capacities may be increased by up to one-third for short-term wind and seismic forces or other transient loading conditions.

Settlement of the piles is expected to be less than ½-inch.

Group effects should be considered on the axial capacity of piles where center-to-center spacing is less than 3 times the pile diameter.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 16
Lateral Capacity
The lateral capacities of the piles will be provided by the design-build pile contractor which will, in part, be controlled by the axial loads on the piles.

We performed a preliminary analysis for the lateral load response of 18-inch diameter APG piles using LPILE, a finite difference computer program. The soil is modeled as a series of non-linear lateral springs, with lateral response defined by segmentally-variable p-y curves. The lateral capacity of the piles will depend on the permissible deflection and on the degree of fixity at the top of the pile. For an 18-inch diameter APG pile, preliminary allowable values of 7.0 and 14.3 kips for the free and fixed head condition, respectively, can be assumed for a deflection of ¼ inch.

Lateral loads may be resisted by the piles and passive resistance of the soils against the pile cap. An allowable lateral bearing pressure equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pounds per cubic foot may be used, provided the footings are poured tight against the natural soils above the groundwater.

Preliminary lateral capacities for other pile diameters and deflections can be provided upon request. When the final pile configuration is determined, deflection, shear and moment curves for the piles can be provided.

The design parameters in Table 1 can be used by the design-build pile contractor in lateral load analyses, using programs such as LPILE, with a desired head deflection and fixity to determine the lateral capacity of the pile for the various quadrants of the project.

The unit soil weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, strain, and lateral subgrade modulus provided in Table 1 are based upon our exploration data, published values, and our experience with similar materials.

Group effects should be considered on the lateral behavior of piles where center-to-center spacing is less than 8 times the pile diameter.

Construction and Testing Considerations
We recommend at least 2 full scale load tests be performed at the site. Test piles should be located in areas where boring or CPT data are available.

We recommend performing Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP) to confirm the integrity of the test and reaction piles. It is our opinion that TIP provides definitive integrity assessments and less inconclusive anomalies than the gamma gamma testing. The TIP testing should be performed in accordance with ASTM D7949. We recommend that a qualified independent engineering firm specializing in pile integrity testing be retained to perform these services.

After completion of the static pile load test and prior to the installation of production piles, supplemental recommendations based on the load test data should be prepared for confirmation or revision to the preliminary pile capacities provided above. The Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 17
supplemental report should be submitted to the proper regulatory agency for review and approval.

Unless used as production piles, the test and reaction piles used for the load testing should be cut-off at least 3 feet below the bottom of the structure concrete pavements (slab). Prior to backfilling over the pile, a representative of GPI should observe the pile and confirm that the minimum cut-off has been achieved.

Appendix D includes a sample specification of APG piles.

The installation of the APG piles should be observed under the direct supervision of GPI.

4.5.2 Conventional Spread Footings
For minor at-grade structures, a static allowable net bearing pressure of up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for both continuous footings or isolated column footings based on the shear strength and elastic settlement characteristics of the recompacted on-site soils.

These bearing pressures are for dead-plus-live loads, and may be increased one-third for short-term, transient, wind and seismic loading. The actual bearing pressure used may be less, such that economics and structural loads will determine the minimum width for footings as discussed below. The maximum edge pressures induced by eccentric loading or overturning moments should not be allowed to exceed these recommended values.

Minimum Footing Width and Embedment
For foundations bearing on properly compacted fill soils, minimum footing widths and embedments presented below are recommended.

ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES

STATIC BEARING

PRESSURE
(psf)

MINIMUM FOOTING
WIDTH
(inches)
MINIMUM FOOTING*

EMBEDMENT
(inches)
2,000 24 24
1,500 12 18
* Depth to bottom of footing below lowest adjacent finish grade.

A minimum footing width and depth of 12 inches should be used even if the actual bearing pressure is less than 1,500 psf.

Estimated Settlements
Total static settlement for the minor structures is expected to be less than 1-inch.

Maximum differential settlements are expected to be up to ½-inch across a distance of 40 feet.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 18
The above estimates are based on the assumption that the recommended earthwork will be performed and that the footings will be sized in accordance with our recommendations.

The above estimates are based on the assumption that the recommended earthwork will be performed and that the footings will be sized in accordance with our recommendations.

Lateral Load Resistance
Soil resistance to lateral loads will be provided by a combination of frictional resistance between the bottom of footings and underlying soils and by passive soil pressures acting against the embedded sides of the footings. For frictional resistance, a coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used for design. In addition, an allowable lateral bearing pressure equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 275 pounds per cubic foot may be used, provided the footings are poured tight against the compacted fill. These values may be used in combination without reduction.

4.5.3 Foundation Concrete
Laboratory testing by HDR (Appendix C) indicates that the near surface soils exhibit a soluble sulfate content of 540mg/kg (0.054 percent by weight). For the 2019 CBC, foundation concrete should conform to the requirements outlined in ACI 318, Section 4.3, for negligible levels of soluble sulfate exposure from the on-site soils, (Category S0).

Chloride levels in the on-site soils were found to be high (225 ppm). For concrete exposed to soil moisture and potentially saltwater, such as piles, footings, and floor slabs, we recommend a chloride Category C2.

4.5.4 Foundation Observation
Prior to placement of concrete and steel, a representative of GPI should observe and approve foundation excavations and observe installation of the piles.

4.6 RETAINING STRUCTURES AND SHORING
Basement walls, cantilever retaining walls and temporary shoring are planned for the site.

The following recommendations are provided for walls and shoring that do not extend more than 15 feet in height. We recommend that conventionally constructed walls be backfilled with sandy (granular) soils.

4.6.1 Basement and Retaining Walls
Active pressure may be used in the designing of walls that can yield at least ½-inch laterally in 10 feet of wall height under imposed loads. For cantilever walls with level, backfill comprised of drained granular soils, the magnitude of active pressures is equivalent to the pressures imposed by a fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).

For cantilever walls with level, backfill comprised of drained natural soils, the magnitude of active pressures is equivalent to the pressures imposed by a fluid weighing 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 19
At-rest pressures should be used for restrained walls that remain rigid enough to be essentially non-yielding such as basement walls. For basement walls conventionally backfilled with granular soils, at-rest pressures imposed by a fluid weighing 55 pounds per cubic foot should be used for retaining level, drained granular soils at the site. For basement walls against shored excavations, at-rest pressures imposed by a fluid weighing 66 pounds per cubic foot should be used for retaining level, drained natural soils at the site.

The following pressures should be used to design the basement walls if they are waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic pressure. At-rest pressures imposed by a fluid weighing 94 pounds per cubic foot should be used for retaining level, undrained natural soils.

To account for seismic load an additional lateral earth pressure equal to 25 pcf (equivalent fluid pressure distribution) should be added to the active pressures of the soils. If the walls are designed using the above at-rest pressure, the added seismic load plus at-rest pressures can be limited to 70 pcf for drained natural soils for the site. The added seismic load plus at-rest pressures can be limited to 97 pcf for undrained natural soils for the site.

Walls subject to surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third and one-half the anticipated surcharge pressure for unrestrained and restrained walls, respectively. The subterranean wall of the building adjacent to the parking structure in the adjacent property should be designed for the surcharge load of the parking structure footings. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of the walls adjacent to the streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pound per square foot surcharge behind the basement walls due to normal street traffic. If traffic is kept at least 10 feet from the walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected.

Construction equipment, such as cranes, concrete trucks, or loaders supported on the ground adjacent to the walls can impose lateral surcharge loads if they are supported adjacent to the basement walls. Therefore, surcharge effects from such equipment will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and, if needed, the walls locally reinforced to support the surcharge from such loads.

The recommended pressures for drained conditions are based on the assumption that the supported earth will be fully drained, preventing the build-up of hydrostatic pressures.

For traditional backfilled retaining walls, a drain consisting of perforated pipe and gravel wrapped in filter fabric should be used. One cubic foot of rock should be used for each lineal foot of pipe. The fabric (non-woven filter fabric, Mirafi 140N or equivalent) should be lapped at the top. We prefer pipe and gravel drains to weep holes to avoid potential for constant flow of surface water in front of the wall. For retaining walls constructed adjacent to temporary shoring, a composite geotextile drain may be used with a manifoldtype collection drain at the base. A representative of GPI should observe and approve wall drains prior to placement of wall backfill.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 20
The Structural Engineer should specify the use of select, granular wall backfill on the plans for walls that are to be conventionally backfilled. Wall footings should be designed as discussed in the "Foundations" section.

4.6.2 Temporary Shoring
Where there is not sufficient space for sloped embankments and slot cuts are not practical, which is anticipated along the property limits on all sides of the proposed building, shoring will be required. One method of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles placed in drilled holes, backfilled with concrete, and, while not anticipated, tied-back with earth anchors. Driven or vibrated soldier piles may also be more economical alternative to drilled holes.

For cantilever shoring with level backfill, the magnitude of active pressure is equivalent to the pressures imposed by a fluid weighing 38 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). For cantilever shoring with 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) sloping backfill, such as along Pacific Coast Highway, the magnitude of active pressure is equivalent to the pressures imposed by a fluid weighing 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).

In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the shoring should be designed for surcharge loads due the adjacent structures and construction traffic surcharge loads. The upper 10 feet of the shoring adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pound per square foot surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. If traffic is kept at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. The parking structure on the adjacent property will impart a surcharge load on shoring. The location and depth of the parking structure footings as well of the loading will need to be determined to estimate the surcharge pressure on the shoring.

For design of soldier piles spaced at least two diameters on centers, the allowable lateral bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the excavation may be taken to be 550 pounds per square foot at the excavated surface, up to a maximum of 5,500 psf. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be made to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavation below the excavated level may be a lean mix, but it should be of adequate strength to transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils.

The shoring contractor should evaluate the potential drilling conditions, including the groundwater level, when planning the installation methods. Moderate to severe caving may be encountered below the groundwater.

To improve production or minimize ground vibration during driving of soldier piles, predrilling down to the design elevation of the excavation bottom is acceptable, provided that a continuous flight auger is utilized to enable reversing the auger to minimize the removal of soil during the process. If soil is removed during the predrilling process, the resulting void should be backfilled with 1½ sack sand-cement slurry. The diameter of the auger used for predrilling should not exceed 80 percent of the maximum depth of the soldier pile beam section.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 21
The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be used in resisting the downward component of the anchor load, if used. The coefficient of friction between the soldier pile and the retained earth may be taken as 0.30. This value is based on the assumption that uniform full bearing will be developed between the steel soldier beam and the lean-mix concrete and between the lean mix concrete and the retained earth. In addition, provided the portion of the soldier piles below the excavated level is backfilled with structural concrete, the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. The frictional resistance between the concrete soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken as equal to 500 pounds per square foot.

Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles. Careful installation of the lagging will be necessary to achieve bearing against the retained earth. We recommend that the voids between the lagging and retained earth be backfilled with a lean-mix sand cement slurry prior to continuing the excavation deeper. The soldier piles should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However, the pressure on the lagging will be less because of arching of the soils between piles. We recommend that the lagging be designed for the recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 pounds per square foot, provided the soldier beam spacing is 8 feet or less.

It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of the shored embankment. It should be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. Shoring directly adjacent to city right-of-way should be designed to limited deflection to 1 inch. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary. In areas where less deflection is desired, such as adjacent to existing settlement sensitive improvements, the shoring should be designed for higher lateral earth pressures. We recommend limiting the lateral deflection of shoring adjacent to any buildings or other sensitive structures (within a 1:1 plane projected up from the base of the excavation) to ½ inch.

Ground vibrations should be monitored when driving/vibrating soldier piles adjacent to sensitive structures within 20 feet from the excavation. A seismograph should be used to measure peak particle velocities (PPV) at the ground surface of the structures of concern. We suggest a maximum allowable PPV of 0.5 inches per second be used as a threshold value unless a lower value is required by the adjacent property owners.

Measures should be taken to reduce vibrations if PPV limits are exceeded. Such measures could include altering the predrilling methods or changing to the installation of the soldier piles in a drilled and grouted hole.

We recommend performing a detailed survey of the improvements to be supported above the planned shoring prior to and during the shoring installation. The survey should include topographic data and a video account of the condition of the existing improvements, including cracks or signs of distress. During construction, the monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of the soldier piles.

We suggest weekly readings during the excavation and for the first three weeks after achieving the bottom of the excavation. After that time, the readings should be performed every other week until the completion of the basement walls.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 22

4.7 CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS
A structural floor slab will be required to span the compressive and liquefiable soils.

A moisture vapor retarder should be placed under slabs (including structural floor slabs) that are to be covered with moisture-sensitive floor coverings (wood, vinyl, tile, etc.).

Polyolefin in 15-mil thickness should be covered by a layer of clean sand (less than 5 percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve) having a minimum thickness of 2 inches.

Based on our explorations and laboratory testing, the soils at the site are not consistently suitable for this purpose. The function of the sand layer is to protect the vapor retarder during construction and to aid in the uniform curing of the concrete. This layer should be nominally compacted using light equipment. The sand placed over the vapor retarder should only be slightly moist. If the sand gets wet (for example as a result of rainfall or excessive moistening) it must be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete. Care should be taken to avoid infiltration of water into the sand layer after placement of the concrete slab, such as at slab cut-outs and other exposures.

It should be noted that the material used as a vapor retarder is only one of several factors affecting the prevention of moisture accumulation under floor coverings. Other factors include maintaining a low water-cement ratio for the concrete used for the floor slab, effective sealing of joints and edges (particularly at pipe penetrations) as well as excess moisture in the concrete. The manufacturer of the floor coverings should be consulted for establishing acceptable criteria for the condition of the floor surface prior to placing moisture-sensitive floor coverings.

For lateral resistance design, a coefficient of friction value of 0.30 between select fill and concrete may be used. For a slab on a visqueen moisture barrier, a coefficient of 0.1 should be used.

4.8 CORROSION
Soil corrosivity testing was performed by HDR under subcontract to GPI. The corrosivity test results are presented in Appendix C. The on-site soils should be considered severely corrosive to buried metals. If corrosion consultation is required, a corrosion engineer such as HDR should be consulted.

4.9 EXTERIOR CONCRETE AND MASONRY FLATWORK
Exterior concrete and masonry flatwork should be supported on non-expansive, compacted fill. The use of the clayey soils, if encountered, within 2 feet of the slab subgrade should not be permitted unless differential heave is tolerable. This includes exterior sidewalks, stamped concrete, non-traffic pavement, pavers, etc. Prior to placement of concrete, the subgrade should be prepared as recommended in the "Subgrade Preparation" section of this report.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 23

4.10 SURFACE DRAINAGE
Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to structures to direct surface water run-off and roof drainage away from foundations and slabs toward suitable discharge facilities. Long-term ponding of surface water should not be allowed on pavements or adjacent to buildings.

4.11 STORM WATER INFILTRATION
Current regulations require that storm water be infiltrated into the site soils of new developments when possible. The soil types and groundwater levels present at the site control the ability of water to infiltrate into the subgrade. Additionally, Los Angeles County requires that water be infiltrated a minimum of 10 feet above seasonal groundwater levels.

Based on the current groundwater level (9 feet below existing grades) on-site subsurface infiltration of stormwater is not considered feasible.

4.12 PAVED AREAS
Preliminary pavement design has been based on an assumed R-value of 20 for the onsite granular soils. The California Division of Highways Design Method was used for design of the recommended preliminary pavement sections. These recommendations assume that the pavement subgrades will consist of the existing silty soils. The subgrade soil conditions will need to be confirmed at the conclusion of rough grading with R-value testing.

PAVEMENT AREA TRAFFIC INDEX
SECTION THICKNESS (inches)

ASPHALT/PORTLAND

CONCRETE

AGGREGATE

BASE COURSE
Asphalt Concrete
Automobile Parking
Automobile Drives
Truck Drives

4.0 5.0

6.0 3.0

3.0 3.0
5 7
10 Portland Cement Concrete
Automobile Parking
Automobile Drives
Truck Drives

4.0 5.0

6.0 6.5

6.5 7.0
----
----
----
The pavement subgrade underlying the aggregate base should be properly prepared and compacted in accordance with the recommendations outlined under "Subgrade Preparation".

If vehicular pavers are to be used for the project, the paver and leveling sand may be supported on the thickness of aggregate base shown above for flexible pavements and the appropriate traffic index.

The Portland cement concrete used for paving should have a modulus of rupture of at least 550 psi (equivalent to an approximate compressive strength of 3,700 psi) at the time the pavement is subjected to truck traffic.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 24
The pavement base course (as well as the top 12 inches of the subgrade soils) should be compacted to at least 90 percent (95 percent for sandy soils) of the maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Aggregate base should conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Class II aggregate base (three-quarter inch maximum) or Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) for untreated base materials, excluding processed miscellaneous base.

The above recommendations are based on the assumption that the base course and compacted subgrade will be properly drained. The design of paved areas should incorporate measures to prevent moisture build-up within the base course which can otherwise lead to premature pavement failure. For example, curbing adjacent to landscaped areas should be deep enough to act as a barrier to infiltration of irrigation water into the adjacent base course.

4.13 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING
We recommend that a representative of GPI observe earthwork, pile installation, and shoring installation during construction to confirm that the recommendations provided in our report are applicable during construction. The earthwork activities include grading, compaction of fills, subgrade preparation, pavement construction and foundation excavations. If conditions are different than expected, we should be afforded the opportunity to provide an alternate recommendation based on the actual conditions encountered.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) 25

5.0 LIMITATIONS
This report, exploration logs, and other materials resulting from GPI's efforts were prepared exclusively for use by the Marina Shores Owner, LP, its subsidiaries and their consultants in designing the proposed development. The report is not intended to be suitable for reuse on extensions or modifications of the project or for use on project other than the currently proposed development as it may not contain sufficient or appropriate information for such uses.

Soil deposits may vary in type, strength, and many other important properties between points of exploration due to non-uniformity of the geologic formations or to man-made cut and fill operations. While we cannot evaluate the consistency of the properties of materials in areas not explored, the conclusions drawn in this report are based on the assumption that the data obtained in the field and laboratory are reasonably representative of field conditions and are conducive to interpolation and extrapolation.

Furthermore, our recommendations were developed with the assumption that a proper level of field observation and construction review will be provided by GPI during grading, excavation, and foundation construction. If field conditions during construction appear to be different than is indicated in this report, we should be notified immediately so that we may assess the impact of such conditions on our recommendations. If construction phase services are performed by others, the client and new geotechnical firm must accept full responsibility for all geotechnical aspects of the project, including this report.

Our investigation and evaluations were performed using generally accepted engineering approaches and principles available at this time and the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in this area. No other representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended in our report.

Respectfully submitted,
Geotechnical Professionals Inc.

James E. Harris V, P.E. Donald A. Cords, G.E.

Project Engineer Principal
Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22)

REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (2017), “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-16.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Los Alamitos 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 19.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, “State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Los Alamitos Quadrangle, Official Map”, dated March 25, 1999.

California Geological Survey, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A.

GeoLogismiki, 2007, “CLIQ – CPT Liquefaction Software,” Version 3.0.3.2 Geotechnical Professionals Inc., “Report of Geotechnical Feasibility-Level Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, 6700 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California,” Project No. 3084.I, dated November 19, 2021.

Robertson, P.K. 2009. Performance based earthquake design using the CPT, Proceedings of IS-Tokyo 2009: International Conference on Performance-Based Design in Earthquake GeotechnicalEngineering — From Case History to Practice, Tokyo, Japan, 15–18 June 2009. Edited by T. Kokusho, Y. Tsukamoto, and M. Yoshimine. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, the Netherlands. pp. 3–20.

Structural Engineers Association of California/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, U.S Seismic Design Maps, 2020, https://seismicmaps.org/.

United States Geological Survey, 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps, Source Parameters, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/hf_search_main.cfm.

Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K. Brachman, R.,2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, Vol. 130, No.8, 861-871.

Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22)
TABLE 1
Recommended Design Parameters – Lateral
Depth
Below
Basement
Finished
Floor
(feet) Soil Type L-Pile Model
Estimated
Effective
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Internal
Angle of
Friction
(degrees)
Static
Soil
Modulus,
k
(pci)
Undrained
Shear
Strength,
cu
(psi)
Strain
Ė50
0 – 10
Soft
Clays
and Silts
Soft Clay
(Matlock) 110 --- --- 2.6 0.02
10 – 28
Soft
Clays
and Silts
Soft Clay
(Matlock) 53 --- --- 2.6 0.02
28 – 31
Medium
Dense
Silty
Sands
Sand
(Reese) 61 32 60 --- ---
31 – 35
Soft
Clays
and Silts
Soft Clay
(Matlock) 53 --- --- 5.2 0.01
35 – 50
Dense to
Very
Dense
Sands
Sand
(Reese) 61 34 125 --- ---
50 – 59
Soft
Clays
and Silts
Soft Clay
(Matlock) 49 --- --- 3.4 0.01
59 – 65
Dense to
Very
Dense
Sands
Sand
(Reese) 64 34 125 --- ---

SITE LOCATION
FIGURE 1

MARINA SHORES
GPI PROJECT NO. 3084.1I

GEOTECHNICAL
PROFESSIONALS, INC.

SITE

LOCATION
N
SCALE: 1” = 2000 FEET
0 2000ft 4000ft
BASE MAP REPRODUCED FROM © CALTOPO MAPS

SAN GABRIEL RIVER

SITE PLAN
(PROPOSED CONDITIONS)
GPI PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I FIGURE 2

GEOTECHNICAL
PROFESSIONALS, INC.

MARINA SHORES
SCALE: 1" = 80'

BASE PLAN REPRODUCED FROM THE GROUND LEVEL PLAN
BY ACMARTIN, DATED: 10/21/2021
N
0 80 160 FEET
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5

STUDEBAKER ROAD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
B-1
B-2
B-3

EXPLANATION
W-1

APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXPLORATORY BORING

APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF CONE PENETRATION TEST

APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF MONITORING WELL
B-1
C-2
W-1
SEE SECTION 1
ON FIGURE 4
SEE SECTION 3
ON FIGURE 4
SEE SECTION 2
ON FIGURE 5

SITE PLAN
(EXISTING CONDITIONS)
GPI PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I FIGURE 3

GEOTECHNICAL
PROFESSIONALS, INC.

SOCAL GAS SOLAR CANOPIES
SCALE: 1" = 80'

BASE PLAN REPRODUCED FROM THE SURVEY PLAN
BY ACMARTIN, DATED: 10/21/2021
N
0 80 160 FEET
APP

EXPLANATION
W-1

APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXPLORATORY BORING

APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF CONE PENETRATION TEST

APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF MONITORING WELL
B-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
C-2
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
W-1

PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION
G FIGURE 4 PI PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I

GEOTECHNICAL
PROFESSIONALS, INC.

SCALE: 1” = 60’
0 60 120 FEET

BASE PLAN REPRODUCED FROM BUILDING SECTION PLAN PROVIDED BY AC MARTIN: DATED 07-21-2022

MARINA SHORES

PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION
G FIGURE 5 PI PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I

GEOTECHNICAL
PROFESSIONALS, INC.

SCALE: 1” = 60’
0 60 120 FEET

BASE PLAN REPRODUCED FROM BUILDING SECTION PLAN PROVIDED BY AC MARTIN: DATED 07-21-2022

MARINA SHORES

APPENDIX A
Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) A-1

APPENDIX A

CONE PENETRATION TESTS
The subsurface conditions were investigated by performing five Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) at the site. The CPT’s were advanced to depths ranging from 35 to 100 feet below existing grades. The locations of the CPTs are shown on the Site Plans, Figures 2 and 3.

The Cone Penetration Test consists of pushing a cone-tipped probed into the soil deposit while simultaneously recording the cone tip resistance and side friction resistance of the soil to penetration (refer to Figure A-1). The CPTs described in this report were conducted in general accordance with ASTM specifications (ASTM D5778) using an electric cone penetrometer.

The CPT equipment consists of a cone assembly mounted at the end of a series of hollow sounding rods. A set of hydraulic rams is used to push the cone and rods into the soil while a continuous record of cone and friction resistance versus depth is obtained in both analog and digital form at the ground surface. A specially designed truck is used to transport and house the test equipment and to provide a 30-ton reaction to the thrust of the hydraulic rams. Due to limited accessibility to the southern parking lot, a limited access rig was used to perform C-3, C-4, and C-5. This equipment is much lighter than the conventional 30-ton rig. These constraints resulted in shallow refusals.

Standard data obtained during a CPT consists of continuous stratigraphic information with close vertical resolution. Stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone tip resistance and friction resistance. The calculated friction ratio (CPT friction sleeve resistance divided by cone tip resistance) is used as an indicator of soil type.

Granular soils typically have low friction ratios and high cone resistance, while cohesive or organic soils have high friction ratios and low cone resistance. These stratigraphic material categories form the basis for all subsequent calculations which utilize the CPT data.

Computer plots of the reduced CPT data acquired for this investigation is presented in Figures A-2 to A-6 of this appendix. The field testing and computer processing was performed by Kehoe Testing and Engineering under subcontract to Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI). The interpreted soils descriptions were prepared by GPI.

A seismic cone penetration test provided shear wave velocity measurements of the soil profile. A standard cone penetrometer is equipped with two sets of geophones located approximately 3 feet apart on the cone penetrometer. At 10-foot intervals, a shear wave source is activated at the ground surface using an air-actuated hammer. A seismograph measures the travel time of the shear wave detected at each set of geophones. The time difference provides the velocity of the shear wave in the layer between the two geophone sets.

Marina Shores Owner LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) A-2
Seismic cone penetration tests were performed at CPT C-2. The cone penetration test at location C-2 was performed to 100 feet below existing grade and the subsequent data was used in order to estimate the weighted average shear wave velocity for the upper 100 feet of soil profile. The shear wave velocity measurements are provided in Table A1 of this appendix.

The CPT locations were laid out in the field by measuring from existing site features. Upon completion, the un-caved portions of the CPT holes were backfilled with bentonite chips.

Ground surface elevations at the exploration locations were estimated from Google Earth and should be considered very approximate.

TABLE A-1
CPT Shear Wave Measurements
Marina Shores, Long Beach, California
Location
Tip
Depth
(ft)
Geophone
Depth
(ft)
Travel
Distance
(ft)
S-Wave
Arrival
(msec)
S-Wave
Velocity
from
Surface
(ft/sec)
Interval
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/sec)
C-2 10.04 9.04 9.26 15.74 588

20.05 19.05 19.15 40.24 476 404

30.02 29.02 29.09 60.36 482 494

40.03 39.03 39.08 73.84 529 741

50.03 49.03 49.07 87.70 560 721

60.14 59.14 59.17 101.48 583 733

70.05 69.05 69.08 112.74 613 880

80.02 79.02 79.05 122.28 646 1045

90.09 89.09 89.11 129.32 689 1430
100.03 99.03 99.05 135.76 730 1543
Shear Wave Source Offset -2 ft
S-Wave Velocity from Surface = Travel Distance/S-Wave Arrival Interval S-Wave Velocity = (Travel Dist2-Travel Dist1)/(Time2-Time1)
    

   




  




  

Interbedded SILTY SAND (SM)
and SANDY SILT (ML) medium
dense and soft
@ 6 feet, lens of clay
SILTY CLAY (CL) soft
@ 16 feet, lens of sandy silt
SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense
SILTY CLAY (CL) stiff
SILTY SAND (SM) dense
@ 37 to 42 feet, Interebededd
clayey silt
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) very
dense
SILTY CLAY (CL) firm
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) very
dense
@ 64 feet, lens of silty clay
@ 69 feet, lens of silty sand
CLAYEY SAND (SC) loose to
medium dense
@ 77 feet, lens of clayey silt
P
(
I
300 4
I PR
(%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 This summary applies only at the location of this cone penetration test and at the time of the exploration. Subsurface conditions may differ at F
Dateperformed:11-10-21
8 T
6 350 2
E
(

C N C TE
f
EV
250

T CONERESISTANCE
other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The interpreted soil description is derived from the friction ratio and cone resistance and is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. e
I

MARINA SHORES
f
H O
0 50
) EET)
5 0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
200
DE T
0 (
O E
tsf (
F L
150
R
RATIO
R
t
F . SOILDESCRIPTIONI
0 8
)
I T
PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I
R N D
100
)
4 2
E
et s
N
6 LOG OF CPT NO. C-1
FIGURE A-2
CLAYEY SILT (ML) very stiff to
hard
SAND (SP) very dense
@ 92 feet, lens of clayey sand
Terminated @ 100 feet
P
(
I
300 4
I PR
(%)
80 85
90 95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
This summary applies only at the location of this cone penetration test and at the time of the exploration. Subsurface conditions may differ at F
Dateperformed:11-10-21
8 T
6 350 2
E
(

C N C TE
f
EV
250

T CONERESISTANCE
other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The interpreted soil description is derived from the friction ratio and cone resistance and is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. e
I

MARINA SHORES
f
H O
0 50
) EET)
-75
-80
-85
-90
-95
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
-125
-130
-135
-140
-145
-150
200
DE T
0 (
O E
tsf (
F L
150
R
RATIO
R
t
F . SOILDESCRIPTIONI
0 8
)
I T
PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I
R N D
100
)
4 2
E
et s
N
6 LOG OF CPT NO. C-1
FIGURE A-2
SANDY SILT (ML) hard
Interbedded SILTY SAND (SM)
and CLAYEY SILT (ML) loose and
soft
@ 19 feet, lens of sandy silt
CLAY (CL) firm
SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense
CLAY (CL) very stiff to hard
SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense
to dense
@ 41 and 43 feet lens of clayey silt
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) very
dense
SANDY SILT (ML) very stiff to hard
P
(
I
300 4
I PR
(%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 This summary applies only at the location of this cone penetration test and at the time of the exploration. Subsurface conditions may differ at F
Dateperformed:11-10-21
8 T
6 350 2
E
(

C N C TE
f
EV
250

T CONERESISTANCE
other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The interpreted soil description is derived from the friction ratio and cone resistance and is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. e
I

MARINA SHORES
f
H O
0 50
) EET)
10 5
0 -5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
200
DE T
0 (
O E
tsf (
F L
150
R
RATIO
R
t
F . SOILDESCRIPTIONI
0 8
)
I T
PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I
R N D
100
)
4 2
E
et s
N
6 LOG OF CPT NO. C-2
FIGURE A-3
CLAYEY SILT (ML) hard
@ 80 feet, lens of clayey sand
SAND (SP) dense
CLAYEY SAND (SC) medium
dense to dense
SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) very
dense
Terminated @ 100 feet
P
(
I
300 4
I PR
(%)
80 85
90 95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
This summary applies only at the location of this cone penetration test and at the time of the exploration. Subsurface conditions may differ at F
Dateperformed:11-10-21
8 T
6 350 2
E
(

C N C TE
f
EV
250

T CONERESISTANCE
other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The interpreted soil description is derived from the friction ratio and cone resistance and is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. e
I

MARINA SHORES
f
H O
0 50
) EET)
-70
-75
-80
-85
-90
-95
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
-125
-130
-135
-140
-145
-150
200
DE T
0 (
O E
tsf (
F L
150
R
RATIO
R
t
F . SOILDESCRIPTIONI
0 8
)
I T
PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I
R N D
100
)
4 2
E
et s
N
6 LOG OF CPT NO. C-2
FIGURE A-3
Interbedded SILTY SAND (SM)
AND CLAYEY SILT (ML) medium
dense to dense and stiff to very
stiff
SILTY CLAY (CL) soft
@ 10 feet, lens of silty sand
@ 19 feet, lens of silty sand
@ 20 feet, lens of sandy silt
SANDY SILT (ML) very stiff to hard
SILTY CLAY (CL) firm to stiff
SILTY SAND (SM) dense
Refusal @ 35 feet
P
(
I
300 4
I PR
(%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 This summary applies only at the location of this cone penetration test and at the time of the exploration. Subsurface conditions may differ at F
Dateperformed:11-4-21
8 T
6 350 2
E
(

C N C TE
f
EV
250

T CONERESISTANCE
other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The interpreted soil description is derived from the friction ratio and cone resistance and is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. e
I

MARINA SHORES
f
H O
0 50
) EET)
10 5
0 -5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
200
DE T
0 (
O E
tsf (
F L
150
R
RATIO
R
t
F . SOILDESCRIPTIONI
0 8
)
I T
PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I
R N D
100
)
4 2
E
et s
N
6 LOG OF CPT NO. C-3
FIGURE A-4
SANDY SILT (ML) hard
CLAYEY SILT (ML) firm to stiff
CLAY (CL) soft to firm
SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense
CLAYEY SILT (ML) soft to firm
SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense
SANDY SILT (ML) stiff
CLAYEY SILT (ML) firm to stiff
@ 33 lens of silty sand
SILTY SAND (SM) dense
Refusal @ 49 feet
P
(
I
300 4
I PR
(%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 This summary applies only at the location of this cone penetration test and at the time of the exploration. Subsurface conditions may differ at F
Dateperformed:11-4-21
8 T
6 350 2
E
(

C N C TE
f
EV
250

T CONERESISTANCE
other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The interpreted soil description is derived from the friction ratio and cone resistance and is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. e
I

MARINA SHORES
f
H O
0 50
) EET)
15 10
5 0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
200
DE T
0 (
O E
tsf (
F L
150
R
RATIO
R
t
F . SOILDESCRIPTIONI
0 8
)
I T
PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I
R N D
100
)
4 2
E
et s
N
6 LOG OF CPT NO. C-4
FIGURE A-5
SANDY SILT (ML) stiff to very stiff
@ 6 feet lens of silty sand
Interbedded SILTY SAND (SM)
and CLAYEY SILT (ML) soft to firm
SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense
CLAY (CL) stiff to very stiff
SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense
to dense
@ 36 feet lens of clayey silt
Refusal @ 40 feet
P
(
I
300 4
I PR
(%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 This summary applies only at the location of this cone penetration test and at the time of the exploration. Subsurface conditions may differ at F
Dateperformed:11-4-21
8 T
6 350 2
E
(

C N C TE
f
EV
250

T CONERESISTANCE
other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The interpreted soil description is derived from the friction ratio and cone resistance and is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. e
I

MARINA SHORES
f
H O
0 50
) EET)
10 5
0 -5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
200
DE T
0 (
O E
tsf (
F L
150
R
RATIO
R
t
F . SOILDESCRIPTIONI
0 8
)
I T
PROJECT NO.: 3084.1I
R N D
100
)
4 2
E
et s
N
6 LOG OF CPT NO. C-5
FIGURE A-6

APPENDIX B
Marina Shores Owner LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) B-1

APPENDIX B

EXPLORATORY BORINGS
The subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling and sampling three exploratory borings. The borings were advanced to depths of 61 feet below the existing ground surface. The locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plans, Figures 2 and 3.

The exploratory borings were drilled using truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill equipment. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a brass-ring lined sampler (ASTM D3550). The brass-rings have an inside diameter of 2.42 inches. The ring samples were driven into the soil by a 140-pound hammer dropping 30 inches. The number of blows needed to drive the sampler into the soil was recorded as the penetration resistance.

The field explorations for the investigation were performed under the continuous technical supervision of GPI's representative, who visually inspected the site, maintained detailed logs of the borings, classified the soils encountered, and obtained relatively undisturbed samples for examination and laboratory testing. The soils encountered in the borings were classified in the field and through further examination in the laboratory in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. Detailed logs of the borings are presented in Figures B-1 to B-3 in this appendix.

The boring locations were laid out in the field by measuring from existing site features.

Ground surface elevations at the exploration locations were estimated from Google Earth and should be considered very approximate.
12 4
3 3
4 3
2 20
30 86
79 71
82 88
86 78
83 97

34.2 35.3

51.1 33.9

33.2 35.0

41.1 39.2

26.8 26.9
4-Inch AC over 4-Inch BASE
Fill: SILTY SAND (SM) dark brown, wet, loose
Natural: CLAYEY SILT (ML) dark brown, wet, soft
@ 7 feet, soft to very soft
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, very loose
CLAYEY SILT (ML) brown, wet, very soft, trace sand
@ 25 feet, soft
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense
SILTY CLAY (CL) brown, wet, very soft, trace sand
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense
@ 35 feet, little recovery
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

Standard Split Spoon
Drive Sample SAMPLE TYPE

FIGURE DEPTH

S ELEVATION
GROUNDWATER LEVEL (ft):

PROJECT NO.:
9 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 5
0 -5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
D
DATE DRILLED: (FEET)
T
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
Rock Core

SAMPLE TYPES
T
C
5 0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
C
EQUIPMENT USED:
9 (FEET)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
S
B-1
6-8-22
(%)
Drive Sample DRY DENSITY (BLOWS/FOOT) ELEVATION
3084.1I MOISTURE
8 " Hollow Stem Auger PENETRATION RESISTANCE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS DEPTH
Rock Core
D
B
3084.1I
B-1
DATE DRILLED:

MARINA SHORES

SAMPLE TYPES
(PCF)
Standard Split Spoon MOISTURE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS SAMPLE TYPE
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample (%)
(FEET)
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

FIGURE
13 30
5 4
5 97
92 69
84 68

28.0 30.1

20.1 62.3

33.8 57.6
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense
CLAYEY SILT (ML) dark brown, wet, stiff
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense
SILTY CLAY (CL) brown, wet, soft
@ 60 feet, brown grey
Total Depth 61 feet
D
D
D
D
D
B
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

Standard Split Spoon
Drive Sample SAMPLE TYPE

FIGURE DEPTH

S ELEVATION
GROUNDWATER LEVEL (ft):

PROJECT NO.:
9 40
45 50
55 60
-35
-40
-45
-50
D
DATE DRILLED: (FEET)
T
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
Rock Core

SAMPLE TYPES
T
C
-35
-40
-45
-50
EQUIPMENT USED:
9 (FEET)
40 45
50 55
60 S
B-1
6-8-22
(%)
Drive Sample DRY DENSITY (BLOWS/FOOT) ELEVATION
3084.1I MOISTURE
8 " Hollow Stem Auger PENETRATION RESISTANCE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS DEPTH
Rock Core
D
B
3084.1I
B-1
DATE DRILLED:

MARINA SHORES

SAMPLE TYPES
(PCF)
Standard Split Spoon MOISTURE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS SAMPLE TYPE
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample (%)
(FEET)
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

FIGURE
16 5
12 6
5 5
5 7
35 105
105
92 100
90 90
83 91
93 99
97 13.0

13.0 13.6

19.6 29.7

28.9 36.1

30.2 28.1

21.5 24.9
4?-Inch AC over 4-Inch BASE
Fill: SANDY SILT (ML) brown, moist, stiff
Natural: SANDY SILT (ML) brown, wet, soft, with clay
@ 7 feet, firm to stiff
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense
CLAYEY SILT (ML) brown, wet, soft
SANDY SILT (ML) brown, wet, soft
CLAYEY SILT (ML) brown, wet, soft
SILTY CLAY (CL) dark brown, very moist, firm
SILTY SAND (SM) dark brown, wet, medium dense
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

Standard Split Spoon
Drive Sample SAMPLE TYPE

FIGURE DEPTH

S ELEVATION
GROUNDWATER LEVEL (ft):

PROJECT NO.:
12 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 10
5 0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
D
DATE DRILLED: (FEET)
T
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
Rock Core

SAMPLE TYPES
T
C
10 5
0 -5
-10
-15
-20
-25
C
EQUIPMENT USED:
12 (FEET)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
S
B-2
6-8-22
(%)
Drive Sample DRY DENSITY (BLOWS/FOOT) ELEVATION
3084.1I MOISTURE
8 " Hollow Stem Auger PENETRATION RESISTANCE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS DEPTH
Rock Core
D
B
3084.1I
B-2
DATE DRILLED:

MARINA SHORES

SAMPLE TYPES
(PCF)
Standard Split Spoon MOISTURE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS SAMPLE TYPE
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample (%)
(FEET)
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

FIGURE
9 24
20 25
37 99
91 93
104

24.0 30.9

30.9 19.0
SANDY SILT (ML) dark brown, wet, firm
@ 45 feet, very stiff
SILTY CLAY (CL) brown, wet, stiff
@ 55 feet, very moist, very stiff
@ 60 feet, no recovery
Total Depth 61 feet
D
D
D
D
D
B
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

Standard Split Spoon
Drive Sample SAMPLE TYPE

FIGURE DEPTH

S ELEVATION
GROUNDWATER LEVEL (ft):

PROJECT NO.:
12 40
45 50
55 60
-30
-35
-40
-45
D
DATE DRILLED: (FEET)
T
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
Rock Core

SAMPLE TYPES
T
C
-30
-35
-40
-45
EQUIPMENT USED:
12 (FEET)
40 45
50 55
60 S
B-2
6-8-22
(%)
Drive Sample DRY DENSITY (BLOWS/FOOT) ELEVATION
3084.1I MOISTURE
8 " Hollow Stem Auger PENETRATION RESISTANCE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS DEPTH
Rock Core
D
B
3084.1I
B-2
DATE DRILLED:

MARINA SHORES

SAMPLE TYPES
(PCF)
Standard Split Spoon MOISTURE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS SAMPLE TYPE
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample (%)
(FEET)
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

FIGURE
17 9
3 4
7 7
3 20
22 101
86 78
82 87
90 81
92 102

13.0 21.5

33.3 35.9

33.6 29.1

37.9 30.3

23.1 4-Inch AC over 6-Inch BASE
Fill: SILTY SAND (SM) brown, moist, medium dense
Natural: SILTY CLAY (CL) brown, very moist, firm
CLAYEY SILT (ML) brown, wet, soft to very soft
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, loose
CLAYEY SILT (ML) brown, wet, soft
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense
CLAY (CL) brown, wet, soft
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

Standard Split Spoon
Drive Sample SAMPLE TYPE

FIGURE DEPTH

S ELEVATION
GROUNDWATER LEVEL (ft):

PROJECT NO.:
14 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 10
5 0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
D
DATE DRILLED: (FEET)
T
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
Rock Core

SAMPLE TYPES
T
C
10 5
0 -5
-10
-15
-20
-25
C
EQUIPMENT USED:
14 (FEET)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
S
B-3
6-8-22
(%)
Drive Sample DRY DENSITY (BLOWS/FOOT) ELEVATION
3084.1I MOISTURE
8 " Hollow Stem Auger PENETRATION RESISTANCE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS DEPTH
Rock Core
D
B
3084.1I
B-3
DATE DRILLED:

MARINA SHORES

SAMPLE TYPES
(PCF)
Standard Split Spoon MOISTURE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS SAMPLE TYPE
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample (%)
(FEET)
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

FIGURE
30 24
18 21
65/11"
98 98
90 105

25.3 25.5

28.7 30.6

22.1 SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense
SILTY CLAY (CL) brown, wet, very stiff
SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense
@ 60 feet, dense
Total Depth 61 feet
D
D
D
D
D
B
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

Standard Split Spoon
Drive Sample SAMPLE TYPE

FIGURE DEPTH

S ELEVATION
GROUNDWATER LEVEL (ft):

PROJECT NO.:
14 40
45 50
55 60
-30
-35
-40
-45
D
DATE DRILLED: (FEET)
T
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
Rock Core

SAMPLE TYPES
T
C
-30
-35
-40
-45
EQUIPMENT USED:
14 (FEET)
40 45
50 55
60 S
B-3
6-8-22
(%)
Drive Sample DRY DENSITY (BLOWS/FOOT) ELEVATION
3084.1I MOISTURE
8 " Hollow Stem Auger PENETRATION RESISTANCE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS DEPTH
Rock Core
D
B
3084.1I
B-3
DATE DRILLED:

MARINA SHORES

SAMPLE TYPES
(PCF)
Standard Split Spoon MOISTURE

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS SAMPLE TYPE
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample (%)
(FEET)
This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

FIGURE

APPENDIX C
Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) C-1

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TESTS

INTRODUCTION
Representative undisturbed soil samples and bulk samples were carefully packaged in the field and sealed to prevent moisture loss. The samples were then transported to our Cypress office for examination and testing assignments. Laboratory tests were performed on selected representative samples as an aid in classifying the soils and to evaluate the physical properties of the soils affecting foundation design and construction procedures.

Detailed descriptions of the laboratory tests are presented below under the appropriate test headings. Test results are presented in the figures that follow.

MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY DENSITY
Moisture content and dry density were determined from a number of the ring samples.

The samples were first trimmed to obtain volume and wet weight and then were dried in accordance with ASTM D 2216. After drying, the weight of each sample was measured, and moisture content and dry density were calculated. Moisture content and dry density values are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B.

ATTERBERG LIMITS
Liquid and plastic limits were determined for selected samples in accordance with ASTM D4318. Results of the Atterberg Limits test are summarized on Figure C-1.

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Selected soil samples were dried, weighed, soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated, and then washed on the No. 200 sieve. That portion of the material retained on the No. 200 sieve was oven-dried and weighed to determine the percentage of the material passing the No. 200 sieve.

BORING
NO.

DEPTH
(ft) SOIL DESCRIPTION PERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVE
B-1 0-5 Silty Sand (SM) 44
B-1 15 Silty Sand (SM) 28
B-2 10 Silty Sand (SM) 47
B-3 15 Silty Sand (SM) 17
B-3 20 Silty Sand (SM) 13
Marina Shores Owner, LP July 29, 2022
Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development, Long Beach, California GPI Project No. 3084.1I 3084-1I-01R (7/22) C-2

DIRECT SHEAR
Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed samples in accordance with ASTM D 3080. The test specimens were placed in the shear machine, and a normal load comparable to the in-situ overburden stress was applied. The samples were inundated, allowed to consolidate, and then were sheared to failure at a strain rate of 0.001 inches per minute. The tests were repeated on additional test specimens under increased normal loads.

Shear stress and sample deformation were monitored throughout the tests. The results of the direct shear tests are presented in Figures C-2 to C-4.

CONSOLIDATION
One-dimensional consolidation testing was performed on undisturbed samples in accordance with ASTM D 2435. After trimming the ends, the samples were placed in the consolidometer and loaded to 0.4 ksf. Thereafter, the samples were incrementally loaded to a maximum load of 25.6 ksf. The samples were inundated at 1.6 ksf. Sample deformation was measured to 0.0001 inch. Rebound behavior was investigated by unloading the samples back to 0.4 ksf. Results of the consolidation tests, in the form of percent consolidation versus log pressure, are presented in Figures C-5 to C-8.

COMPACTION TEST
A maximum dry density/optimum moisture test was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557 on a representative bulk sample of the site soils. The test are as follows:

BORING
NO.

DEPTH
(ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

MAXIMUM

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

OPTIMUM

MOISTURE
(%)
B-2 0 – 5 Sandy Silt (ML) 117 13

EXPANSION INDEX
An expansion test was performed in accordance with ASTM D 4829 on a sample to assess the expansion potential of the recompacted soils. The results of the test are summarized below.

BORING
N0.

DEPTH
(ft) SOIL DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX
B-2 0-5 Sandy Silt (ML) 2

CORROSIVITY
Soil corrosivity testing was performed by HDR on a soil sample provided by GPI. The test results are summarized in Table 1 at the end of this Appendix. 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 20 40 60 80 100
ML
45 SAMPLE LOCATION
PROJECT:

PI
PROJECT NO.

Fines, %

20.0 3084.1I
MH
29 16
OH

MARINA SHORES

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
CL
FIGURE C-1

PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)
LL PL
CH

CLAYEY SILT (ML)
CL-ML
Classification

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
or
B-1
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
PROJECT:

Cohesion= 437 psf
Classification

PEAK STRENGTH

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
FIGURE C-2
3084.1I
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf

SANDY SILT (ML)
Note: Samples remolded to 90% of maximum dry density.

Friction Angle= 26 degrees
Sample Location DD,pcf
MARINA SHORES PROJECT NO.:

Cohesion= 316 psf

ULTIMATE STRENGTH
B-2 0-5 105 13.0
MC,%
Friction Angle= 26 degrees
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
FIGURE C-3
PROJECT: MARINA SHORES PROJECT NO.:

ULTIMATE STRENGTH
Cohesion= 312 psf
Friction Angle= 26 degrees

SANDY SILT (ML)
Sample Location
3084.1I
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
Cohesion= 273 psf

PEAK STRENGTH

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

5.0 MC,%
Friction Angle= 26 degrees
DD,pcf

19.6 Classification
B-2 100
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
FIGURE C-4
PROJECT: MARINA SHORES PROJECT NO.:

ULTIMATE STRENGTH
Cohesion= 516 psf
Friction Angle= 22 degrees

SILTY CLAY (CL)
Sample Location
3084.1I
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
Cohesion= 366 psf

PEAK STRENGTH

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

7.0 MC,%
Friction Angle= 24 degrees
DD,pcf

33.3 Classification
B-3 78
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRAIN, %

MARINA SHORES
CLAYEY SILT (ML) 78
DD,pcf MC,%
3084.1I
Classification
PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:

Sample Location
B-1

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
STRESS, psf

20.0 41.1
FIGURE C-5
Sample inundated at 1600 psf
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRAIN, %

MARINA SHORES
SANDY SILT (ML) 91
DD,pcf MC,%
3084.1I
Classification
PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:

Sample Location
B-2

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
STRESS, psf

20.0 30.2
FIGURE C-6
Sample inundated at 1600 psf
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRAIN, %

MARINA SHORES
CLAYEY SILT (ML) 93
DD,pcf MC,%
3084.1I
Classification
PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:

Sample Location
B-2

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
STRESS, psf

25.0 28.1
FIGURE C-7
Sample inundated at 1600 psf
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRAIN, %

MARINA SHORES
SILTY CLAY (CL) 99
DD,pcf MC,%
3084.1I
Classification
PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:

Sample Location
B-2

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
STRESS, psf

30.0 21.5
FIGURE C-8
Sample inundated at 2000 psf
Sample ID
B-2 @ 0-5'
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 720
saturated ohm-cm 720
pH 7.4
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.53
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium   Ca2+ mg/kg 45
magnesium Mg2+ mg/kg ND
sodium Na1+ mg/kg 522
potassium K
1+ mg/kg 54
ammonium NH4
1+ mg/kg ND
Anions
carbonate CO3
2- mg/kg 68
bicarbonate HCO3
1-mg/kg 253
fluoride F
1- mg/kg 23
chloride Cl1- mg/kg 225
sulfate SO4
2- mg/kg 540
nitrate NO3
1- mg/kg 4.6
phosphate PO4
3- mg/kg ND
Other Tests
sulfide S
2- qual na
Redox mV na
Resistivity per ASTM G187, pH per ASTM G51, Cations per ASTM D6919, Anions per ASTM D4327, and Alkalinity per APHA 2320-B.

Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analyses were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.

Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Marina Shores
Your #3084.1I, HDR Lab #22-0618LAB
29-Jun-22
Geotechnical Professionals, Inc.
431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX D

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 1 2 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m

APPENDIX H
NPDES PERMIT MS4-2021-105 (EXCERPTS)
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
PROVISIONS 53
(1) Require conformance with Part VIII.F.4 of this Order and, where applicable, Part VIII.F.2 of this Order, or
(2) Update its local ordinance to conform to the requirements herein and resubmit to the Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer for approval.
ii. Regional Stormwater Mitigation Program. Permittees may apply for approval of a regional or sub-regional stormwater mitigation program to substitute in part or wholly for new development and redevelopment requirements for proposed areas. Upon review and a determination by the Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer that the proposal is technically valid and appropriate, the Los Angeles Water Board may consider for approval such a program if its implementation meets all of the following requirements:
(a) Retains the runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event or the 0.75 inch, 24-hour rain event, whichever is greater;
(b) Results in improved stormwater quality;
(c) Meets the hydromodification management requirements in Part VIII.F.2 of this Order if applicable;
(d) Is fiscally sustainable and has secure funding; and (e) Is completed in five years including the construction and start-up of treatment facilities.
(f) Nothing in this provision shall be construed as to delay the implementation of requirements for new development and redevelopment, as approved in this Order.
iii. Specific LID Performance Standards attached to Waste Discharge Requirements (Order No. R4-2012-0139) for Newhall Ranch Project Phases I and II. The Newhall Ranch Project Phases I and II (a.k.a. the Landmark and Mission Village projects) are deemed to be an existing development that will at a minimum be designed to comply with the Specific LID Performance Standards attached to the Waste Discharge Requirements in Order No. R4-2012-0139. All subsequent phases of the Newhall Ranch Project constructed during the term of this Order shall be subject to the requirements of this Order. d. Priority Development Project Structural BMP Performance Requirements. Each Permittee shall require all Priority Development Projects identified in Part VIII.F.1.a of this Order to meet the Structural BMP Performance Requirements contained in Part VIII.F.4 of this Order in the following order of preference:
i. On-site infiltration, bioretention and/or rainfall harvest and use, ii. If subpart i above is infeasible, on-site biofiltration, off-site groundwater replenishment, and/or off-site retrofit, or
iii. If subpart ii above is infeasible, on-site treatment, where all the above options are infeasible.

Hydromodification Management Requirements. Permittees must require (i) Priority Development Projects within natural drainage systems in Los Angeles County and (ii) Priority Development Projects disturbing land areas of 50 acres or greater in Ventura County to implement hydrological control measures to prevent accelerated downstream erosion and protect stream habitat.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
PROVISIONS 54
a. Definition of Natural Drainage Systems. Natural drainage systems that are subject to the hydromodification assessments and control include all drainages that have not been modified using engineering controls or drainages that are tributary to a natural drainage system. Examples of engineering modifications to a drainage include channelization, armoring with concrete, and application of rip-rap. The clearing or dredging of a natural drainage system does not constitute a “modification” for purposes of these provisions.
b. Exemptions to Hydromodification Controls. Permittees may exempt the following New Development and Redevelopment projects from implementation of hydromodification controls where assessments of downstream channel conditions and proposed discharge hydrology indicate that adverse hydromodification effects to beneficial uses of Natural Drainage Systems are unlikely:
i. Projects that are replacement, maintenance or repair of a Permittee’s existing flood control facility, storm drain, or transportation network. ii. Redevelopment Projects in the Urban Core that do not increase the effective impervious area or decrease the infiltration capacity of pervious areas compared to the pre-project conditions.
iii. Projects that have any increased discharge directly or via a storm drain to a sump, lake, area under tidal influence, into a waterway that has a 100-year peak flow (Q100) of 25,000 cfs or more, or other receiving water that is not susceptible to hydromodification impacts.
iv. Projects that discharge directly or via a storm drain into concrete or otherwise engineered (not natural) channels (e.g., channelized or armored with rip rap, shotcrete, etc.), which, in turn, discharge into receiving water that is not susceptible to hydromodification impacts (as in Parts VIII.F.2.b.i-iii above). v. LID BMPs implemented on single family homes are sufficient to comply with Hydromodification criteria.
c. Hydromodification Management Control Criteria
i. Projects disturbing an area less than or equal to 1 acre must implement controls meeting applicable performance requirements in Part VIII.F.4 of this Order. ii. Projects disturbing an area greater than 1 acre, but less than 50 acres will be presumed to meet pre-development hydrology if one of the following demonstrations are made:
(a) The project is designed to retain onsite the runoff of the 95th percentile, 24- hour storm; or
(b) The runoff flow rate, volume, velocity, and duration for the post-development condition do not exceed the pre-development condition for the 2-year, 24- hour storm event. This condition may be substantiated by simple screening models, including those described in Hydromodification Effects on Flow Peaks and Durations in Southern California Urbanizing Watersheds or other models acceptable to the Executive Officer of the Los Angeles Water Board; or
(c) The Erosion Potential (Ep) in the receiving water is approximately 1. Ep is determined as follows: The total effective work done on the channel boundary is derived and used as a metric to predict the likelihood of channel adjustment given watershed and stream hydrologic and geomorphic

H y d r o l o g y a n d L I D R e p o r t 3 1 9 M a i n S t r e e t 6 7 0 0 P a c i f i c C o a s t H i g h w a y E l S e g u n d o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 2 4 5 L o n g B e a c h , C A 9 0 8 0 3 t : 2 1 3 / 2 3 9 9 7 0 0 P a g e 1 3 w w w . l a b i b f u n k . c o m

APPENDIX I

LONG BEACH LID MANUAL (EXCERPTS)
Section 3: Stormwater Management Measures |17
CITY OF LONG BEACH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES HANDBOOK

3.  Hydromodification impacts shall be minimized to natural drainage systems.

If partial or complete onsite compliance of any type is technically infeasible, the project Site and  LID  Plan  shall  be  required  to  comply  with,  at  a  minimum,  all  applicable  SUSMP requirements in  order  to maximize  onsite  compliance.  Any  remaining  runoff  that  cannot feasibly  be  managed  onsite  must  be  mitigated  with  the  offsite  runoff  mitigation  fee requirements  of  Section  5.0.  Figure  3.2  is  a  schematic,  which  depicts  the  design requirements for both small‐scale residential projects, and depicts the design requirements for all other developments.

Section 3: Stormwater Management Measures |19

3.2 STANDARD URBAN STORMWATER MITIGATION PLAN (SUSMP)
Any project that cannot comply with the LID requirements in Section 3.1 shall be required to  comply  with,  at  a  minimum,  all  applicable  SUSMP  requirements  in  order  to  maximize onsite compliance.

Project  applicants  will  be  required  to  incorporate  stormwater  mitigation  measures  into their  design  plans  and  submit  the  plans  to  the  City  for  review  and  approval.  The  design lans will be subjected to a review process as indicated in Section 2, prior to the issuance of pprovals for building and/or grading permits.
p
a

3.3 SITE SPECIFIC MITIGATION
Site  Specific  project  applicants  will  be  required  to  submit  to  the  City  a  design  plan  that incorporates  appropriate  stormwater  mitigation  measures  and  details  the  source  and treatment  control  BMPs,  and  must  also  submit  the  O&M  plan  for  the  treatment  control BMPs.  All  maintenance  agreements  should  refer  the  Covenant  and  Agreement  forms  in ppendix C.  The design plans will be subject to the review and approval process described n Section 2, prior to the issuance of building or grading permits.

A
i

3.4 SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES
Source control measures are low‐technology practices designed to prevent pollutants from contacting stormwater runoff or to prevent discharge of contaminated runoff to the storm drainage system.  This section addresses site‐specific source control measures consisting of specific  design  features  or  elements.  These  control  measures  have  been  developed  for specific types of sites or activities that have been identified as potential significant sources of  pollutants  in  stormwater.    Each  of  the  measures  specified  in  this  section  should  be implemented  in  conjunction  with  any  other  operational  source  control  measure  such  as good housekeeping, and employee training to optimize pollution prevention.

The  measures  addressed  in  this  section  apply  to  both  stormwater  and  non‐stormwater discharges.  Non‐stormwater  discharges  are  the  discharge  of  water  runoff  from  over irrigation, draining  of swimming pools, washdowns and/or any  other water produce and found to run over land and into the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) such as gutters,  catch  basins  storm water  floor  drains  stormwater  channels,  ditches  and  outfalls.

Discharges of stormwater and non‐stormwater to the MS4 or a water body may be subject to  local,  state,  or  federal  permitting  prior  to  discharge.    The  Long  Beach  Public  Works Storm Water Management (SWM) should be contacted prior to any discharge.  Discuss the CITY OF LONG BEACH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES HANDBOOK matter with the SWM Staff if you are uncertain as to which agency should be contacted.

Some  of  the measures presented in  this  section  require connection  to  the  sanitary  sewer system.  Connection and discharge to the sanitary sewer system without prior approval or obtaining  the  required permits is prohibited.  Contact  the Long Beach Water Department Section 3: Stormwater Management Measures |20
CITY OF LONG BEACH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES HANDBOOK (LBWD)  staff  at  562‐570‐2300  to  obtain information  regarding  obtaining  sanitary  sewer permits from the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.  Discharges of certain types of flows  to the sanitary sewer system may be cost prohibitive and may not be allowed.  The designer is urged to contact the LBWD prior to completing site and equipment design of the facility.

Site‐specific source control measures and associated design  features specified  for various sites and activities are summarized in Table 3.2.

The source control measures and the site‐specific requirements that are discussed in  this section should be incorporated in the design plans when appropriate.  The C&A should also make  a  reference  to  any  long‐term  operational  plans  such  as  a  Stormwater  Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to commit the facility to these measures. 6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
April 2023
Appendix G Flood Resilience Assessment
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

Marina Shores | 6700 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA Flood Resilience Assessment
Issued: March 18, 2022; Revised: February 5, 2023
This flood resilience assessment was not originally conducted as part of the permitting and entitlements process for the Marina Shores development; therefore, the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) Coastal Hazard Policy and the requirements under that policy were not considered in the original assessment. The original analysis was conducted for a 2050 time horizon, to align with investor hold periods and used data from global flood modeler, Fathom, as well as local data from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance as mapped using the Our Coast Our Future mapping and data visualization platform.

At the request of the City, this analysis was updated on February 5, 2023 to add additional detail that reflects the requirements under SEASP Coastal Hazard Policy, and addresses comments received from City staff during the permitting and entitlements process. Specifically, we understand that the SEASP requires the following information, relevant to this flood analysis:
• Identify project area and scope
• Describe the anticipated useful life of the project and anticipated sea level rise projections for the site, as identified by guidance from the California Coastal Commission
• Analyze physical effects of coastal hazards and sea level rise Additional information required by the SEASP, but outside the scope of this analysis, will be provided under separate cover.

Some of these details were previously included in the assessment and did not require additional information to meet the SEASP requirements; others required new information to be included and analyzed in order to comply with SEASP Coastal Hazard Policy. Edits made to this analysis as a result of SEASP requirements and City comments are provided in blue text throughout this document in order to clearly identify the new information provided.

In order to avoid confusion and to align more closely with the SEASP and CCC guidance, some of the maps and data from the Fathom flood modeling have been removed from this updated analysis.

SEASP Coastal Hazard Policy Compliance
2 Project Overview
Arup was hired by Invesco (Marina Shores GP, LLC) to perform a desktop flood resilience assessment for Marina Shores, located at 6700 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), Long Beach, CA. The site is currently utilized as office space but will be converted into residential apartments.

This site is currently in the beginning stages of design.

Prior to engaging Arup, Invesco worked with Four Twenty Seven (427) to conduct a high-level physical climate risk assessment for the site.

Through the assessment, Marina Shores was deemed a "Red Flag" flood risk, the highest possible risk score in 427's Climate Risk Scorecard. The highest marked indicators for the rating included: flood frequency and flood severity (depth of the flooding).

The following analysis is intended to help Invesco better understand the flood hazard, inclusive of sea level rise impacts, at the property to guide future design stages and implementation of flood risk mitigation measures. This analysis provides:
• An assessment of flood hazards indicated on FEMA Maps and publicly-available data, including USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) data
• An assessment of publicly-available topographic maps to identify relevant watershed characteristics and flood pathways
• Site-specific assessment of future rainfall and flooding projections, inclusive of sea level rise, obtained from Fathom data, California Coastal Commission data, and Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS)
• Narrative assessment of flood hazard finding and flooding extents • Recommendations for flood protection measures at the new development
Figure 1. Marina Shores, 6700 PCH, Site Location (Google Earth) SITE
3 For the purposes of this assessment, the following key property details were assumed.
• Project area: Project site is based on the ALTA Survey prepared on 11/30/2021 (shown in Figure 2).
• Project scope: Redevelopment of the site from office to residential use. Flood assessment will look at present-day and future flood risk, including sea level rise impacts.
• Anticipated sea level rise projections: Using data from the California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance and the Medium-High Risk Aversion scenario, we have assumed 1.8’ of sea level rise by 2050, and 6.7’ of sea level rise by 2100.

Property Details
4 Figure 2. ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey (Prepared by kpff, 11/30/2021) According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Marina Shores (FIRM Panel 06037C1988G, effective 04/21/2021), the property is located within designation “Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due To Levee, Zone X”. FEMA describes this as an area protected from the 1% annual chance (100-year) year flood by a levee system, while noting that overtopping or failure of any levee system is possible.

It is not anticipated that the project site will be impacted by the FEMAdefined present-day 100-year event and, therefore, there is no FEMAdefined Base Flood Elevation (BFE).

For the purposes of this assessment, we will reference BFEs adjacent to the site as the basis of review. The highest present-day 1% annual chance (100-year) Base Flood Elevation (BFE) adjacent to the site, along the San Gabriel River, and in the Marina is 8-feet NAVD88.

FEMA Review
Figure 3. Marina Shores Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06037C1988G, effective April 21st, 2021
5 The site is protected by the San Gabriel River 1 (SGR1) levee which was built by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1968 and is currently operated by the LA County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). This levee is a Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) by FEMA and is designed to protected from the FEMA-defined present day 1% annual chance (100-year) year flood. This is in accordance with FIRM Panel 06037C1988G, effective 04/21/2021. There is a possibility that the levee may provide additional protection during larger flooding events but would need to be verified by LACDPW.

USACE also provides periodic inspections of the levee. The first, in 2013, gave the SGR1 levee an Unacceptable rating. However, some of these issues were rectified, and the second (and latest) inspection in 2017 gave the levee a Minimally Acceptable rating. Minimally Acceptable means that there are some minor issues, but the levee would provide protection during a high runoff event.

Additionally, the Levee Senior Oversight Group (LSOG), an oversight group within the USACE tasked with reviewing levee inspections and providing rating and recommendations to municipalities, noted the following: "The LSOG considers the risk associated with the San Gabriel River 1 to be High. The risk is driven by uncertainties regarding levee seepage and erosion concerns that have been identified during past highwater events but not mitigated. In the event of a levee breach there would be shallow, high velocity flows through the leveed area. This raises uncertainty in the risk along with the fact that there are limited evacuation routes."
Regardless of the condition of the levee, the entire project site is elevated above the adjacent BFEs. We find this elevated site condition significantly reduces flood risks to the site associated with a levee failure. However, utility infrastructure serving the site and access to and from the site may be disrupted during and following levee failure, as most of the surrounding areas are not similarly elevated and protected.

Provisions for building occupants to shelter-in-place within the building in the event of a levee failure should be considered.

SITE
LEVEE
Existing Infrastructure
Levee
Figure 4. Location of levee at 6700 PCH (Google Earth)
6 Levee Profile
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 31800 31850 31900 31950 32000 32050 32100
Elevation above NAVD88 (ft.)
Distance Along Levee (ft.)
Levee Elevation

END START
HIGH
POINT

START END
Figure 5b. Levee Elevation Profile Segment
7 Figure 5a. Levee Elevation Profile
Figure 5a and 5b demonstrate the elevation profile of the levee in the vicinity of the site. At the property, the levee elevation matches the existing ground elevation, and the river elevation is lower than both the levee and site. In the event of levee erosion or failure, the levee would likely fall into the river rather than onto the site further demonstrating that there is low risk of a levee failure causing flooding on site. The project site and building FFE is elevated above the San Gabriel River’s BFE of 8-ft. If the levee fails, there would likely be shallow, high velocity flows through the FEMA defined Levee, Zone X (See Figure 3 on page 5). Although there is a low risk of flooding at the property, flooding is likely to occur directly adjacent to the site and throughout the local area and may limit evacuation routes.

Topography Analysis and Flow Paths
Figure 6b. Site Topography Map
In addition to the FEMA flood hazard data, Arup assessed local topography and potential stormwater flow paths for water movement in and around the site.

Based on the NAVD88 Digital Elevation Model displayed in GIS, the ground elevation at the site varies from approximately 12.5-feet at the northwest corner to 22-feet at the southeast corner (NAVD88). Based on a review of the immediate topography of the area around the project, the site is a relative high point, with the major flow paths directing stormwater away from the site in the northeast and west directions.
8 Major Flow Path
Figure 6a. Site elevation
analysis of 8-feet NAVD88.

Comparing the 1% BFE of the adjacent FEMA
Zone AE to the existing site elevation, the
entire property is at least 4.5-feet above the
present-day BFE of 8-feet (NAVD88). As
displayed in Figure 6a, areas shaded dark green
have an elevation above 8-feet NAVD88. There
is therefore minimal present-day storm surge
and riverine flood risk related to adjacent
defined BFEs due to the site’s higher elevation.

As no significant localized depressions were
identified on or adjacent to the site, there is also
low risk of present-day or future rainfall events
resulting in significant on-site ponding.

Sea Level Rise and Future Flood Hazards
California Coastal Commission & CoSMoS
The California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance projects anticipated sea level rise of 1.8’ in 2050 and 6.7’ in 2100 under the Medium-High Risk Aversion scenario, the scenario that the CCC guidance deems most appropriate for commercial and residential buildings (see Figure 7).

The Our Coast Our Future mapping and data visualization of these sea level rise projections, as modeled by CoSMoS, shows that the site is not expected to experience flooding under the 2050 sea level rise scenario (see Figure 8). Under the 2100 sea level rise scenario, the site may start to see some flood impacts in the Northwest corner of the site (see Figure 9). Additionally, Figure 10 shows that the project site is not expected to experience flooding under the 2050 100-year storm event with 1.8’ of sea level rise.

Using the Our Coast Our Future mapping, we can determine that the site is not expected to experience flooding under a 100-year flood event with sea level rise until somewhere between 2080 and 2090, as shown in Figures 11 and 12. This suggests that the site is unlikely to experience flooding over the next 57 years. Figure 13 also shows the potential flooding under a 2100 100-year storm event with 6.7’ of sea level rise.

Figure 7. Projected Sea Level Rise (in feet)
9 Sea Level Rise and Future Flood Hazards
California Coastal Commission & CoSMoS
10 Figure 8. 2050 Sea Level Rise Map (1.8’ SLR) Figure 9. 2100 Sea Level Rise Map (6.7’ SLR) Figure 10. 2050 100-year Storm with 1.8’ SLR Sea Level Rise and Future Flood Hazards
California Coastal Commission & CoSMoS
11 Figure 11. 2080 100-year Storm with 4.3’ SLR Figure 12. 2090 100-year Storm with 5.3’ SLR Figure 13. 2100 100-year Storm with 6.7’ SLR Site Plan and Design Flood Elevation
12 Vertical Datum Comparison
The flood risk review and topography analysis was conducted using NAVD88 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988). A vertical datum was not provided for documents provided by the client: site survey (Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey) and architectural plan set (AC Martin, 6900 Arch Set). Arup assumes that both provided documents have the same datum, but one that differs from NAVD88. While we could not determine what vertical datum is used for the Alta Survey and Architectural set, we were able to compare the elevation data in those drawing sets with the NAVD88 elevations for the site and determine that there is a 1’-11” difference between the project vertical datum (PVD) and NAVD88:
• Southeast Corner: 11’-11” NAVD88 – 10’-0” PVD = 1’-11” • Northeast Corner: 14’-11” NAVD88 – 13’-0” PVD = 1’-11” To compare site and building elevations to flood elevations, we converted the site and building elevations from the PVD to NAVD88 using the following conversion:

Project Vertical Datum + 1’-11” = NAVD88
Design Flood Elevation (DFE)
While the maps from Our Coast Our Future technically show depth of flooding at the site, it is difficult to determine the exact flood depth numbers from the map images. Therefore, in order to determine the potential future base flood elevations and design flood elevations, we calculated both using the FEMA-defined base flood elevation (BFE) from a nearby site and then added the sea level rise projections for each time horizon to that FEMA-defined BFE for a 100-year storm event in the present-day. In order to determine a design flood elevation for each time horizon, we used a recommended freeboard of 2-feet. The Design Flood Elevation for 2050, 2080, and 2100 were calculated as follows:

DFE = FEMA-defined BFE + SLR + Free Board
DFE(2050) = 8’-0” + 1’-10” + 2’-0” = 11’-10” NAVD88
DFE(2080) = 8’-0” + 4’-4” + 2’-0” = 14’-4” NAVD88
DFE(2100) = 8’-0” + 6’-9” + 2’-0” = 16’-9” NAVD88
In the current design, the critical utility systems have been elevated on the first floor or above, which is above the 2080 Design Flood Elevation of 14’-4” NAVD88. Additionally, we understand that there is flexibility in the design to implement further design alternatives in the future if necessary, such as wet and dry floodproofing.

Site Plan and Design Flood Elevation
13 Figure 14. Level B1 Plan
Proposed Building Elevation and DFE
Arup conducted a review of the preliminary architecture plan set (AC Martin, 6900 Arch Set) and observed that the proposed “Level B1” will be at 11’-0” PVD (12’-11” NAVD88). Level B1 is assumed to be nonresidential uses such as parking, utilities, lobby space, fitness center and ancillary retail, and is assumed to be the lowest occupied floor. Level B1 is partially below-grade, with site grade assumed to be at 17’-6” PVD (19’-5” NAVD88). The first above-grade floor, Level 1, is assumed to be at 22’-6” PVD (24’-5” NAVD88). Level 1 is the lowest floor that includes residential units. See Figures 14-16. All critical utilities are located on Level 1 or above.

The following table outlines how Level B1, Level 1, and the site grade compare to each of the previously defined DFEs, and whether flooding is anticipated on each of these levels under each of the scenarios.

Elevation 2050 DFE
(11’-10”)
Recommended
DFE: 2080
(14’-4”)
2100 DFE
(16’-9”)
Level B1 12’-11” No flooding ~1’-5” flood
depths
~3’-10” flood
depths
Site grade 19’-5” No flooding No flooding No flooding
Level 1 24’-5” No flooding No flooding No flooding
Figure 15. Level 1 Plan Figure 16. Floor Elevations
Key Findings and Recommendations
Key Findings
Based on our review of the FEMA Report and FIRM, USACE available levee data, CCC Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance, and Our Coast Our Future mapping, as well as the analysis of existing topography and flow paths throughout the watershed, we conclude that there is a relatively low risk of flooding for Marina Shores over the next 50-60 years (the estimated useful life of the building). Based on existing literature, estimated useful life of wood structures is approximately 51 years and estimated useful life of residential buildings in the U.S. is approximately 61 years.1, 2
• The project site is not expected to be impacted by present-day or 2050 100-year storm surge or riverine flood events. Expected flood impacts to the site begin sometime around the 2080 100-year storm event. • The project site is protected from the 1% annual chance (100-year) year flood by a levee system. We find this elevated site condition significantly reduces flood risks to the site associated with a levee failure. In the event of a levee failure, there is a low risk of flooding at the property, however flooding is likely to occur directly adjacent to the site and throughout the local area. This may cause potential disruptions to utility service and access to and from the site.

Provisions for building occupants to shelter-in-place within the building in the event of a levee failure should be considered. • No flow paths or localized depressions were identified that would pose flood hazards from rainfall on the project site.

Recommendations
To align with the project’s useful life of 50 years, the project should consider a Design Flood Elevation (DFE) of 14’-4” NAVD88. Enclosed spaces and critical utility systems should be elevated above the DFE. If elevating above the DFE is determined to be impractical, alternative flood protection strategies, such as wet- and dry-floodproofing, should be considered. Additionally, the project design team should consider building flexibility into the design so critical systems can be further elevated in the future, if needed, to meet the potential 2100 sea level rise and flood projections.

The proposed design indicates a lowest building level (Level B1) at an elevation of 12’-11” NAVD88 and a site grade elevation of 19’-5” NAVD88, indicating that there is the potential for moderate flooding of the basement level (approximately 1’-5”) under the 2080 100-year storm event, but the site elevation remains 5’-1” above the 2080 DFE. We recommend any critical equipment and utility systems, such as MEP equipment, generators, switchgear, and transformers, be elevated above the DFE. This likely requires equipment located on Level B1 to be elevated above 1’-5” above the floor elevation.
1 Aktas, C.B., Bilec, M.M. (2012). “Impact of lifetime on U.S. residential building LCA results.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 17(3): 337-349. doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0363-x 14 2 O’Connor, J. (2004) “Survey on actual services lives for North American buildings.” Presented at Woodframe Housing Durability and Disaster Issues Conference, Las Vegas.

Data Sources, Assumptions & Limitations
Useful Life References
• Aktas, C.B., Bilec, M.M. (2012). “Impact of lifetime on U.S. residential building LCA results.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 17(3): 337-349. doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0363-x • O’Connor, J. (2004) “Survey on actual services lives for North American buildings.” Presented at Woodframe Housing Durability and Disaster Issues Conference, Las Vegas.

Present-day Flooding
• FEMA April 21st, 2021, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), panel 06037C1988G
• FEMA June 2nd, 2021, Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 06037CV001F through 06037CV003F
Levee
• USACE National Levee Database
• USACE San Gabriel River 1 Periodic Inspection Report No. 1, March 15, 2013
• USACE San Gabriel River 1 Periodic Inspection Report No. 2, April 19, 2017
Topography Sources
• Orange County, California 1/3 arc-second NAVD 88 Digital Elevation Model
Publicly-Available Sea Level Rise and Flood Data
• Point Blue Conservation Science and U.S. Geological Survey. Our Coast Our Future (OCOF). Web application, Petaluma, California. www.ourcoastourfuture.org
• State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance (2018 Update) • Long Beach Climate Action and Adaptation Plan: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Results
• Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) | 2060
• California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Key Assumptions & Limitation
This document is a high-level desktop analysis. It did not include a detailed review of site conditions or a site visit to understand the site context. This analysis is intended to be used for planning and high-level decision-making purposes. For all design decisions, we recommend hiring a building professional to conduct a more detailed, site-specific analysis to verify the site and building elevations as well as the projected flood elevations and proposed Design Flood Elevations for the site. 15 6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
April 2023
Appendix H Noise and Vibration Impact
Compliance Letter
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

Veneklasen Associates
Consultants in Acoustics | Noise | Vibration | AV | IT
1711 Sixteenth Street • Santa Monica California 90404 • tel: 310.450.1733 • fax: 310.396.3424 • www.veneklasen.com December 1, 2022
Holland Partner Group
5000 East Spring Street #500
Long Beach, California 90815
Attention: Jake Stone | Director of Construction
Subject: Noise and Vibration Impact Compliance Letter
6700 PCH Marina Shores
Long Beach, California
VA Project No. 4824-032
Dear Jake:

Veneklasen Associates, Inc. (Veneklasen) reviewed the plans, site layout, and equipment list for the proposed site for 6700 PCH project in Long Beach, California. The purpose of this study was to determine if the noise and vibration levels due to construction activities at different phases (building demolition, site preparation, rough grading, building construction, paving, etc.) will be following the project specific vibration requirements, or Mitigation Measure MM N2, as well as local noise and vibration regulations.

Mitigation Measure N-2 (MM N-2) states that “prior to issuance of a building permit for any development project requiring pile driving or blasting, the project applicant/developer shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. The maximum levels shall not exceed 0.2 inch/second, which is the level that can cause architectural damage for typical residential construction. If the maximum level would exceed these thresholds, alternative methods such static rollers, nonexplosive blasting, and drilling piles as opposed to pile driving shall be used”.

The City of Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80 Noise, section 8.80.202 Construction Activity – Noise Regulations, stipulates that no person shall operate or permit the operation of any tools or equipment used for construction, alternation, repair, remodeling, drilling, demolition or any other related building activity which produce loud or unusual noise which annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am on weekdays and federal holidays, and between the hours of 7 pm and 9 am on Saturdays. Construction is not allowed on Sundays.

Veneklasen reviewed the equipment list and understands that auger pressure grouting of piles (APG) will be performed instead of traditional pile driving. Based on machine description and Veneklasen’s experience, APG generates non-invasive vibration levels that are significantly less than traditional pile driving. Veneklasen understands no blasting or similar activity is planned for this project. Since there is no pile driving or blasting planned for this project construction, MM N-2 is satisfied and a vibration analysis is not required.

Veneklasen understands that construction hours will be between 7 am and 4 pm, Monday to Friday. No activities are planned for Saturdays and Sundays. Since construction hours will be between 7am and 4pm, Monday to Friday, the City of Long Beach Municipal Code, section 8.80.202, is satisfied.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
Veneklasen Associates, Inc.

Rich Silva Elias Montoya
Associate Principal Associate
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
April 2023
Appendix I Transportation Memorandum
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

Memorandum
Date: January 19, 2023
To: Marina Shores Owner, LP & Amy Harbin, Long Beach Development Services, Planning Bureau
From: Michael Kennedy & Ryan Liu, Fehr & Peers
Subject: 6700 Pacific Coast Highway Transportation Consistency Findings with the

SEASP PEIR
LB21-0050
Introduction
The 6700 Pacific Coast Highway project is a proposed redevelopment of a 2.6-acre office building site located within the Southeast Area Specific Plan Area (SEASP) in Long beach. The proposed Project is a six-story mixed use development with 281 residential units inclusive of studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. Of the total residential units, 13 will be income restricted for residents who qualify as Very Low Income. Non-residential uses include 3,100 square feet of retail space. The Project site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road within the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) of the City of Long Beach. The Project site is currently an approximately 73,076 square-foot commercial office building that provides surface and one level of subterranean parking.

The SEASP Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) served as the environmental clearance for the SEASP area. To facilitate projects tiering off of the analysis contained in the PEIR, the SEASP provides an analytical framework for determining a project’s consistency with its findings.

This memorandum summarizes the evaluation of the proposed Project consistent with this framework, and provides conclusions about the Project’s consistency with the SEASP PEIR.

Trip Generation Consistency Evaluation
Analysis Approach
The SEASP introduced a trip budget tracking system based on PM peak hour net external vehicle trips, and controls the amount and intensity of residential and non-residential uses in the SEASP 100 Oceangate | Suite 1425 | Long Beach, CA 90802 | (562) 294-5848 | www.fehrandpeers.com Marina Shores Owner, LP & Amy Harbin, Long Beach Development Services, Planning Bureau January 19, 2023