Attachment K - Compliance Checklist_PECC 03-23_Compiled part 2 — Long Beach City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 7 of 7)

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SCS Engineers - Long Beach
3900 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 100
SCS040817-L6
01217048.00 Task 2/ 6615 East PCH
Long Beach, CA 90806-6816 Mr. Justin Rauzon 13-Apr-17 14:39 2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled

ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES
Date Received
SV14-5 E704024-01 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV11-5 E704024-02 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV10-5 E704024-03 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV2-5 E704024-04 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV5-5 E704024-05 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV4-5 E704024-06 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV4-5 REP E704024-07 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV1-5 E704024-08 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV6-5 E704024-09 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV9-5 E704024-10 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV7-5 E704024-11 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV3-5 E704024-12 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV13-5 E704024-13 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
SV12-5 E704024-14 Vapor 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17
The percent recovery for 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane fell below the method criteria in the continuing calibration verification. Any results for this analyte may be biased low.

Page 2 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

DETECTIONS SUMMARY
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV14-5 E704024-01
Notes
Reporting
Chloroform 1.3 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Benzene 0.10 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV11-5 E704024-02
Notes
Reporting
Chloroform 0.08 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV10-5 E704024-03
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.03 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV2-5 E704024-04
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.04 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Toluene 0.26 0.20 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV5-5 E704024-05
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.07 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV4-5 E704024-06
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.06 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV4-5 REP E704024-07
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.05 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV1-5 E704024-08
Notes
Reporting

Page 3 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV1-5 E704024-08
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.06 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Toluene 0.46 0.20 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV6-5 E704024-09
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.05 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV9-5 E704024-10
Notes
Reporting
Chloroform 0.02 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Benzene 0.07 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Toluene 0.28 0.20 ug/l H&P 8260SV
m,p-Xylene 0.10 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV7-5 E704024-11
Notes
Reporting
Vinyl chloride 0.01 0.01 ug/l H&P 8260SV
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.18 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Benzene 0.04 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Trichloroethene 0.29 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Toluene 0.31 0.20 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Tetrachloroethene 0.02 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV3-5 E704024-12
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.07 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Chlorobenzene 0.04 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV13-5 E704024-13
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.54 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Trichloroethene 0.09 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Toluene 1.8 0.20 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Chlorobenzene 0.06 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV

Page 4 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV13-5 E704024-13
Notes
Reporting
Ethylbenzene 1.1 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
m,p-Xylene 0.69 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
o-Xylene 0.39 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
n-Propylbenzene 0.14 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.23 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.65 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
p-Isopropyltoluene 0.31 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.23 0.10 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Naphthalene 0.03 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
SV12-5 E704024-14
Notes
Reporting
Benzene 0.03 0.02 ug/l H&P 8260SV
Toluene 0.22 0.20 ug/l H&P 8260SV

Page 5 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV14-5 (E704024-01) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.50 ug/l 0.05 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.05 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.50 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.50 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.50 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Chloroform 1.3 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.10 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 1.0 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.50 " " " " " "

Page 6 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV14-5 (E704024-01) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.50 ug/l 0.05 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.50 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.50 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 112 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 105 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 113 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 91.3 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 7 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV11-5 (E704024-02) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform 0.08 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 8 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV11-5 (E704024-02) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 101 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 100 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 108 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 99.2 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 9 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV10-5 (E704024-03) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.03 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 10 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV10-5 (E704024-03) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 107 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 103 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 116 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.7 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 11 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV2-5 (E704024-04) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.04 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene 0.26 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 12 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV2-5 (E704024-04) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 104 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 110 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 112 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96.7 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 13 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV5-5 (E704024-05) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.07 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 14 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV5-5 (E704024-05) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 101 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 101 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 109 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96.9 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 15 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV4-5 (E704024-06) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.06 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 16 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV4-5 (E704024-06) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 107 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 96.8 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 111 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 90.7 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 17 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV4-5 REP (E704024-07) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.05 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 18 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV4-5 REP (E704024-07) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 105 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 104 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 112 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.7 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 19 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV1-5 (E704024-08) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.06 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene 0.46 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 20 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV1-5 (E704024-08) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 98.9 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 103 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 110 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93.1 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 21 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV6-5 (E704024-09) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.05 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 22 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV6-5 (E704024-09) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 99.4 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 101 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 109 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.1 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 23 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV9-5 (E704024-10) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform 0.02 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.07 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene 0.28 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene 0.10 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 24 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV9-5 (E704024-10) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 97.6 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 98.6 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 111 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 94.3 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 25 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV7-5 (E704024-11) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride 0.01 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.18 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.04 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene 0.29 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene 0.31 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene 0.02 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 26 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV7-5 (E704024-11) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 103 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 107 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 110 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 88.4 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 27 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV3-5 (E704024-12) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.07 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene 0.04 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 28 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV3-5 (E704024-12) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 105 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 108 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 113 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 90.8 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 29 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV13-5 (E704024-13) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.54 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene 0.09 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene 1.8 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene 0.06 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene 1.1 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene 0.69 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 30 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV13-5 (E704024-13) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene 0.39 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene 0.14 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.23 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.65 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene 0.31 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.23 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene 0.03 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 109 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 113 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 123 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 82.7 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 31 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV12-5 (E704024-14) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Benzene 0.03 0.02 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Toluene 0.22 0.20 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 " " " " " "

Page 32 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV12-5 (E704024-14) Vapor Sampled: 08-Apr-17 Received: 08-Apr-17 o-Xylene ND 0.10 ug/l 0.01 ED70801 08-Apr-17 08-Apr-17 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 102 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 107 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 111 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96.2 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 33 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch ED70801 - EPA 5030
Blank (ED70801-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 08-Apr-17
1,1-Difluoroethane (LCC) ND 0.10 ug/l
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.10 "
Chloromethane ND 0.10 "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.01 "
Bromomethane ND 0.10 "
Chloroethane ND 0.10 "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.10 "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.10 "
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.10 "
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.10 "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.10 "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.10 "
Chloroform ND 0.02 "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.10 "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.02 "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.02 "
Benzene ND 0.02 "
Trichloroethene ND 0.02 "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.10 "
Dibromomethane ND 0.10 "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 "
Toluene ND 0.20 "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.10 "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.10 "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.10 "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.10 "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.02 "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.10 "

Page 34 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch ED70801 - EPA 5030
Blank (ED70801-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 08-Apr-17
Chlorobenzene ND 0.02 ug/l
Ethylbenzene ND 0.10 "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.10 "
o-Xylene ND 0.10 "
Styrene ND 0.10 "
Bromoform ND 0.10 "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.10 "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.10 "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.10 "
Bromobenzene ND 0.10 "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.10 "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.10 "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.10 "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.10 "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.10 "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 1.0 "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.10 "
Naphthalene ND 0.02 "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.10 "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 0.526 " 0.500 105 75-125 Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 0.519 " 0.500 104 75-125 Surrogate: Toluene-d8 0.539 " 0.500 108 75-125
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 0.459 " 0.500 91.9 75-125

Page 35 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch ED70801 - EPA 5030
LCS (ED70801-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 08-Apr-17
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 4.4 0.50 ug/l 5.00 88.2 70-130 Vinyl chloride 4.7 0.05 " 5.00 95.0 70-130
Chloroethane 4.9 0.50 " 5.00 98.5 70-130
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) 4.9 0.50 " 5.00 98.6 70-130 1,1-Dichloroethene 5.6 0.50 " 5.00 111 70-130
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) 6.5 0.50 " 5.00 130 70-130 Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) 5.2 0.50 " 5.00 104 70-130 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 5.4 0.50 " 5.00 109 70-130
1,1-Dichloroethane 5.2 0.50 " 5.00 103 70-130
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5.5 0.50 " 5.00 110 70-130
Chloroform 5.3 0.10 " 5.00 106 70-130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.2 0.50 " 5.00 105 70-130
Carbon tetrachloride 5.6 0.10 " 5.00 113 70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 5.1 0.10 " 5.00 102 70-130
Benzene 5.1 0.10 " 5.00 102 70-130
Trichloroethene 5.7 0.10 " 5.00 114 70-130
Toluene 5.1 1.0 " 5.00 102 70-130
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5.0 0.50 " 5.00 100 70-130
Tetrachloroethene 5.2 0.10 " 5.00 104 70-130
Ethylbenzene 5.1 0.50 " 5.00 101 70-130
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 5.6 0.50 " 5.00 113 70-130
m,p-Xylene 9.2 0.50 " 10.0 92.0 70-130
o-Xylene 5.0 0.50 " 5.00 100 70-130
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.9 0.50 " 5.00 97.6 70-130
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 2.65 " 2.50 106 75-125
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 2.45 " 2.50 98.1 75-125 Surrogate: Toluene-d8 2.76 " 2.50 110 75-125
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2.72 " 2.50 109 75-125

Page 36 of 37 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Notes and Definitions
Percent Recovery
RPD Relative Percent Difference
%REC
MDL Method Detection Limit
ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit LCC Leak Check Compound
Appendix
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc. is approved as an Environmental Testing Laboratory and Mobile Laboratory in accordance with the DoD -ELAP Program and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 programs, accreditation number 69070 for EPA Method TO-15, H&P Method TO-15, EPA Method 8260B and H&P 8260SV.

H&P is approved by the State of Arizona as an Environmental Testing Laboratory and Mobile Laboratory, certification numbers AZM758 and AZ0779.

H&P is approved by the State of California as an Environmental Laboratory and Mobile Laboratory in conformance with the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) for the category of Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Chemistry of Hazardous Waste, certification numbers 2740, 2741, 2743, 2744, 2745, 2754 & 2930.

H&P is approved by the State of Florida Department of Health under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) certification number E871100.

The complete list of stationary and mobile laboratory certifications along with the fields of testing (FOTs) and analyte lists are available at www.handpmg.com/about/certifications.

Page 37 of 37 ends

,-p Mobile
Geochemistry, Inc.
2470 Impala Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92010
& Field Office - Signal Hill, CA
W handpmg.com E [email protected]
P 760.804.9678 F 760.804.9159
VAPOR I AIR Chain of Custody DATE: /f//7
Page / of2-
Lab Client and Project Information Sample Receipt (Lab Use Only) Lab Client/Consultant: ..--- . Project Name / #: Date Recd:: v/r/7 Control #: /?_03 Lab Client Project Manager: " Project Location: ‘ - 6 1.5- c 1 tcy H&P Project # 5 ran W pi TLab Client Address: „3,v_ ,_,/ /. i , i e. 4 tei, ,/ • /<-, ivoy A yob, f 1./G,7 / .1.41
Report E-Mail(s): , .
y gat-7,,t---, eki.,47/00,1, V/4-/ J ,
ch."4,44,xe-z- If', eli,e;eei- r'2. C(4--7
Lab Work Order # tr--7,2t/ a ,z .,;e•
Lab Client City, State, Zip: Sample Intact: See Notes Below bot igghtli , a pggc- 6g./6 • Yes • No •
Phone Number:
') (-12- 714, - qs- '-'''-' " ' '1-
Receipt Gauge ID: Temp:

Reporting Requirements _ Turnaround Time Sampler Information Outside Lab:

Standard Report ❑ Level III ❑ Level IV
❑ Excel EDD ❑ Other EDD:
❑ 5-7 day Stnd
❑ 3-day Rush
48-Hr Rush
❑ 24-Hr
❑ Mobile
Rush
Lab
Sampler(s):
7-- (141,
Receipt Notes/Tracking #:

Lab PM Initials:

Signature:
❑ CA Geotracker Global ID: Date: Y 67- • Other:

Additional Instructions to Laboratory:

C_Pq0&01
* Preferred VOC units (please choose one):
jig/L ❑ pg/m3 ❑ ppbv ❑ ppmv
VOCs Standard Full List
•
8260SV E TO-15
VOCs
Short List/ProjectList
❑
8260SV E TO-15
Oxygenates
E
8260SV E TO-15
Naphthalene E 8260SV 0 TO-15 TPHvasGas
E
8260SVmE TO-15m
Aromatic/Aliphatic Fractions
E
8260SVmE TO-15m
Leak
Check Compound
DFA E IPA E He
Methane by EPA 8015m
Fixed GasesbyASTM D1945
CO2 E 02 E N2

SAMPLE NAME

FIELD POINT
NAME
(if applicable)
DATE
mm/dd/yy
TIME
24hr clock

SAMPLE TYPE
Indoor Air (IA), Ambient
Air (AA), Subslab (SS),
Soil Vapor (SV)

CONTAINER

SIZE & TYPE
400mU1 U6L Summa,
Tedlar, Tube, etc.

CONTAINER
ID (#tf)
Lab use only:

Receipt Vac
Sy hi - 1 S;--- cv r ,-, X ,<
(7\1 it- -S ef- 144. K X
in - :1.,,i( N )r.
5v / -
'S ;(2. 63 k X
-IV S-S 4 -5 f---. .?(
5v 11- /4 it 04 /s. 7',
5\1 Li -.4) 14;-2 trii x Y
.,)I I- i 1,-i >c >c
5\16 -5- r .v.(ed$ x ?<.
,,,,,A c_ 4 t., rv.sf? ., 'N X
App ed/ inquished b • Company: Time:
-
_sr. C. cil9i44its eiDAiii /5 7
Received by: Company: Time:
,?1.----- 'Sin// : i
A elinquished / p Compaq' Date: Time: Received by: Company Date: Time:

Approved/Relinquished by: Company: Date: Time: Received by Company. Date: Tme:
'Approval constitutes as authorization to proceed with analysis and acceptance of conditions on back Appendix 6A1, Rev1232016, Effecti 5 ve -p
Mobile
Geochemistry, Inc.
2470 Impala Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92010
& Field Office - Signal Hill, CA
W handpmg.comE [email protected]
P 760.804.9678 F 760.804.9159
VAPOR / AIR Chain of Custody DATE: v/g/r7
Page z of2-
Lab Client and Project Information Sample Receipt (Lab Use Only) Lab Client/Consultant:, ,
le 5 6,7f ;01‘;1-.

Project Name / #:

Oil; / le Vir-C1 a --/ --- L.

Date Recd:
• ,
Control #:, "
iraaz 3 r, 2-
Lab Client Project Manager: — i
j ts- '7
(
LA Zgil
Project Location:

C& l',. C•4 71 r‘ill
H&P Project #
-) Cse7y .51
Lab Client Address:
.390g /elk, )- 7,1d Iii-A., -,1,, : )4- /1/;%
Report E-Mail(s): Lab Work Order # -
c: 7-,0 472. ‹,r1
Lab Client City, State, Zip: 6 eio,
i '11 ,d4 c4 , 4 f
7a2sex Sample Intact: U Yes • No • See Notes Below
Phone Number: ..,7
C6 2 - "tiLl- C-54“1 )-0-2-7
Receipt Gauge ID: Temp:

Reporting Requirements Turnaround Time Sampler Information Outside Lab:
❑ Standard Report ❑ Level III ❑ Level IV
❑ Excel EDD ❑ Other EDD:
❑ 5-7 day Stnd
❑ 3-day Rush
❑ 48-Hr Rush
❑ 24-Hr Rush Sampler(s): ..,--
t OW Ci
Receipt Notes/Tracking #:

Lab PM Initials:
t.

Signature: (' II Mobile Lab
❑ CA Geotracker Global ID: ❑ Other: Date: 9 8//7-
Additional Instructions to Laboratory:
" Preferred VOC units (please choose one):
❑ lig/L ❑ lig/m3 ❑ ppbv ❑ ppmv
VOCs StandardFu ll List
Z 8260SV ❑ TO-15
VOCs ShortList I ProjectList
❑
8260SV ❑ TO-15
Oxygenates
❑
8260SV ❑ TO- 15
Naphtha lene
❑
8260SV ❑ TO-15
TPHv as Gas
❑
8260SVm ❑ TO-15m
Aromatic/AliphaticFractions
❑
8260SVm ❑ TO-15m
Leak Check Compound
DFA ❑ IPA ❑ He
Methaneby
EPA 8015m
Fixed Gases byASTM D1945
CO2 ❑ 02 ❑ N2

FIELD POINT
NAME
SAMPLE NAME . (if applicable)
DATE
mm/dd/yy
TIME
24hr clock

SAMPLE TYPE
Indoor Air (IA), Ambient
Air (M), Subslab (SS),
Soil Vapor (SV)

CONTAINER

SIZE & TYPE
400mUlLAL Summa,
Tedlar, Tube, etc.

CONTAINER
ID ( fit)
Lab useon ly:

ReceiptVac
'VT- .. 'ilc,fi 1- I S -ti 54 L. ( Ct>"-7 ""2. )‹ X,
5‘1 77-‘.'

1.11://i7 X
9 4 1 1, - ' '. 14 'A
t
'?<. ><
Ali / 1,- < 11T-56 L x- X
Appr ed/R quished by: .. Company: Date Time: Received by: ? an iv We., - , Time Ap d/Relinquished 7 . Company: Date: Time: Received by: Company: Date: Time.

Approved/Relinquished by: Company: Date: Time: Received by: Company: Date: Time:

Approval constitutes as authorization Appendix 6A1, Rev 5/23/2016, Effective 5/23/2016 to proceed with analysis and acceptance of conditions on back FMS004
Revision: 4
Revised: 3/22/2017
Effective: 3/24/2017

Page 1 of 1 ends

li T Mobile
Geochemistry 3ric.

H&P Project #:

Site Address:

Consultant:

Consultant Rep(s):

Log Sheet: Soil Vapor Sampling with Syringe
Y/5// 7
I of
5esows(7 -/6

6.1 fc#
5t, 6/ ;0 eetfri
Date:

Page:

H&P Rep(s): -44„, Reviewed: 1)6.

Scanned:
'7
Equipment Info
Inline Gauge ID#: I I
Pump ID#:

Purge Volume Information
PV Amount: `Y\./ PV Includes: S. Tubing
18 Sand 40%
in Dry Bent 50%
Leak Check Compound IN 1,1-DFA
A cloth saturated with LCC is placed around 0 1 ,1 ,1 ,2-TFA tubing connections and probe seal. This is 0 IPA
done for all samples unless otherwise noted. 0 Other:
-sarrlp,
S = esampie
i = for Dilution
,
Sample Information Probe Specs Purge & Collection Information Point ID
Syringe
ID
Sample
Volume
(cc)
Sample
Time
Probe
Depth
(ft)
Tubing
Length
(ft)
Tubing
OD (in.)
Sand
Ht (in.)
Sand
Dia
(in.)
Dry
Bent.

Ht (in.)
Dry
Bent.

Dia (in.)
Shut In
Test
60 sec
() /
Leak
Check
(•/)
Purge
Vol (mL)
Purge
Flow Rate
(mUmin)
Pump
Time
(min:sec)
Sample
Flow Rate
(mUmin)
ProbeVac
El Hg
• H2O
- 1 „,...,), y i Vi ,.., C w cr hvb (4(' 10,70 '-; 7 1 S i / -".- 6 11 -- - C,:i '.7 62.,‘Ir- - (v.v.., ,---,7 -2 <))) iy, < it7 1 71 5a (g-,‘' ? s 7 15 17- i .1 6- I. .1 , - iv cue -- (go..,-, -3 SV fr- S
26(7/ II? 10a 6'1'4 C I A ,s .7.7 ‘ .-K -- - , ,?,/ e7.,:w - -4
5U P - 5 226/ifi. fas7 9: 471, 5 7 A .7 : 4 5 6 .-%2 - - / P (.0'6' - -,,,''' C 5 5v1- 4 ta4A4i2 (' 114,0' 5 ? // /--,: I. `,' C ' , 19.2- 17.ow - eAst--2 47 - 6 * 5 - /co/ 74 l'-'1 (A-.S. 5 7 ih ; z 1' 6 (.5" , 6$i toe' - c*.e,-, ,-- -7 cjV '1-12
tiler
IR4 (00 • '
- 8 5N q_ -kip 1/4110, ii d na 11:7 S 7.- /I , z-- 74 t -745 -- I* ci e - r2.a,--/ ,;- 9 -‘1 r'
k0
911/411/ 144 W i( 5 7 /6 I? /_, 6 6-'..- - , ‘ 10,7 - 6z6/0, (2 -lo 4A, ....1 (41.1., 1 47 -A ( V a 1-V,0 4 s / (6 r (. ="7 c ( 5 _ 6f7 61," _ Lan a - 11 <2,\I 1,-5 1-14/41? tii IL 71Y1' .7- Vs is '- 6 /-c .. , C'? r;a;r7 - 0147a c - 12 <-2\i 15-- 5 (04 5 7 A ;7_ i. -. e 4 -; _ 0 c--‘;.(2 e2.0:712 Site Notes such as weather, visitors, scope deviations, health & safety issues, etc. (When making sample specific notes, reference the line number above):
5(17 617 -' :140.4/ .7 H&P Rep(s):

Log Sheet: Soil Vapor Sampling with Syringe
H&P Project #: 5C7 c`-Wi 17 - Ze Date: `i/2( rl
Site Address: 66 Page: 2 of -2,
Consultant:

Consultant Rep(s):

FMS004
Revision: 4
Revised: 3/22/2017
Effective: 3/24/2017

Page 1 of 1 ends

Reviewed:

Scanned: )43
IR Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Equipment Info
Inline Gauge ID#: 7/ 7
Pump ID#:

Purge Volume Information
PV Amount: k, PV Includes: K Tubing
KI Sand 40%
K Dry Bent 50%
Leak Check Compound N 1,1-DFA
A cloth saturated with LCC is placed around D 1,1,1,2-TFA tubing connections and probe seal. This is Li IPA
done for all samples unless otherwise noted. 0 Other:

Resample.

RD = for
RL = for
RS = F?esampie
Key
Dilution
LCD Fail
Sample Information Probe Specs Purge & Collection Information Point ID Syringe
ID
Sample
Volume
(cc)
Sample
Time
Probe
Depth
(ft)
Tubing
Length
(ft)
Tubing
OD (in.)
Sand
Ht (in.)
Sand
Dia
(in.)
Dry
Bent.

Ht (in.)
Dry
Bent.

Dia (in.)
Shut In
Test
60✓sec
(v)
Leak
Check
(v)
Purge
Vol (mL)
Purge
Flow Rate
(mL/min)
Pump
Time
(min:sec)
Sample
Flow Rate
(mL/min)
ProbeVac
M Hg
• H2O
1 <)iv 9 _ iii-- 1L4kif (dj i V11 .3 --4- VS l -,- k '-' 6 4 5- --- ' C97 4.7#.9 C?...-7--7 r 2 5N--.._.. 5 ilis17, 1, (a,-) 0-Aq .--- 7 , ,-z (,- & _ . - ker7.. (-7-- ,-/ (-„,,,-:, C 3 45V l' 1
'11.4,0 ix 141-"b C 1 Al i -z_ t '-5 6 V 6917 we, Com„ c 4 4 .)7 _ 11 - rt o' 07 5 1 A r2' i. -' b , ...-- (- 7,' , 6 v cAg7,-.2 . ..76,-, ,....
5 4 P -.- 1 (4 , ,
.-- i -,i 6, (.. --5 o
i1/4--,- i-2 ,..,,,
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 Site Notes such as weather visitors, scope deviations, health & safety issues, e c (When making sample specific notes, reference the line number above):
5\I S -
2018 First Quarter Report
Operation, Monitoring and Maintenance
of Landfill Gas Migration Control
Facilities at the
Marketplace Long Beach
6615, 6621, 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy
Long Beach, California
Presented to:

CP VI Marketplace, LLC
c/o New mark Knight Frank
Ms. Amy Rasilla
Newmark Knight Frank
4675 MacArthur Court
Newport Beach, California 92660
Presented by:

SCS FIELD SERVICES
3900 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 100
Long Beach, California 90806-6816
(562) 426-9544
April 26, 2018
File No. 07217153.00
Offices Nationwide
www.scsengineers.com
Environmental Consultants 3900 Kilroy Airport Way 562 426-9544 and Contractors Suite 100 FAX 562 492-9292
Long Beach, CA 90806-6816 www.scsfieldservices.com
April 26, 2018
File No. 07217153.00
Ms. Amy Rasilla
Senior Property Manager
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
c/o Newmark Knight Frank
4675 MacArthur Court
Newport Beach, California 92660
Subject: Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance of Landfill Gas Migration Control Facilities at the Marketplace Long Beach Properties (City Dump & Salvage #2) located at 6615, 6621 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California
SWIS No. 19-AK-5017
Dear Ms. Rasilla:

This letter provides the results of operation, monitoring and maintenance (OM&M) services performed by SCS Field Services (SCS) at the subject site. Monitoring was performed to determine the effectiveness of the landfill gas (LFG) migration control cut-off trench and subfloor air ventilation system. The scope of OM&M services is delineated in SCS Engineers' contract agreement dated December 1, 2017. Below is a summary of services performed during the First Quarter of 2018.

CONCLUSIONS
Testing for methane gas at the methane monitoring probes and trench vents at the subject site indicated that landfill gas control facilities were performing satisfactorily at the time of our testing. As of that date, the site buildings were adequately protected from migrating landfillgenerated methane gas and are safe to occupy with respect to such gas.

The quarterly visual observation of the landfill surface conducted on March 23, 2018, appears that cracking and settlement was observed in the parking lot areas. It does not adversely impact the effectiveness of the LFG control facilities however; it is a violation, according to the Los Angeles County Solid Waste, Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), because it affects the subject site as a whole.

RECOMMENDATIONS
SCS continues to recommend that the property owner, CP VI Marketplace LLC, notify SCS to arrange for testing beneath any building at the site prior to confined space entry by plumbers, electricians, or other personnel due to the potential presence of methane gas.

M s . Am y Rasill a
April 26 , 2018

Page 2 ends

GAS TESTING
Testing for methane gas (the combustible component of LFG) is performed using a Landtec GEM-5000. This instrument measures combustible gas concentrations in air directly as percent by volume of the gas sampled (0 to 100 percent). If exposed to an ignition source, methane gas can be explosive at concentrations between 5 and 15 percent, and flammable at higher concentrations.

MONITORING WELL, PROBE AND VENT PIPE TESTING
SCS conducted the routine quarterly testing at the Marketplace Long Beach site on March 23, 2018. Test locations included monitoring wells, landfill vent pipes, trench vent pipes and sub-floor monitoring probes beneath Building No. 6 (refer to Figures 1 and 2). Methane was detected above the lower explosive limit (LEL) at Vent No. VP-2 at a concentration of 18.1 percent by volume. Methane was not detected at any of the other monitoring locations. Test results are presented in the Probes Data Tables and Sample Port Data Tables provided in Attachment A.

Methane concentrations obtained during quarterly monitoring from the landfill vent and trench pipes indicated the landfill is continuing to decompose anaerobically, producing combustible gas.

LFG CONTROL CUT -OFF TRENCH AND SUB - FLOOR VENTILATION SYSTEM
During routine monitoring visits, observations are conducted to verify that no pipe breakages have occurred, vault boxes remain secure and vent pipes remain void of any debris. In addition, observations are conducted to verify that Building No. 6 blower is operational. All components of the LFG control system appeared to be in satisfactory working order.

The blower is currently operated by a timer. The timer is set for the blower to run intermittently, daily. Inspection of the blower station was performed on January 26, February 16 and March 23, 2018. Results are presented on the Monthly Inspection Check List Forms.

SITE SURFACE OBSERVATION
Visual observations of the landfill surface are performed on a quarterly basis. Quarterly observations include identification of surface cracks (that may allow LFG to escape), settlement around vault boxes, general condition of vent pipes, etc.

The quarterly visual observation and testing conducted on March 23, 2018, appears that cracking and settlement was observed in the parking lot areas; it does not adversely impact the effectiveness of the LFG control facilities however; it is a violation because it affects the subject site as a whole.

ACTIONS TAKEN/NON- ROUTINE SERVICE S
• None
M s . Am y Rasill a
April 26 , 2018

Page 3 ends

PROJECT SCHEDULE
In accordance with the recommended monitoring frequency, test visits are to be conducted on a quarterly basis. Our next monitoring visit is scheduled to be conducted during the month of June 2018. In the interim, SCS will conduct monthly site visits to check for proper operation of the mechanical and electrical components of the air ventilation blower.

STANDARD PROVISIONS
This report addresses site conditions observed only for the test dates. Accordingly, we assume no responsibility for any changes that may occur between or following the date of our inspections that may bear upon the nature and quantity of subsurface methane gas at the subject site.

CP VI Marketplace LLC is responsible for ensuring SCS is the only party designated to adjust or operate the subject LFG Migration Control facilities.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned, at (562) 426-9544.

Sincerely,

Steven Croasdale Cornelius Fong
Project Manager Project Manager

SCS FIELD SERVICES SCS FIELD SERVICES
Enclosures
cc: Roosevelt Davis – LA County Solid Waste, LEA
Shikari Ota – LA County, Dept. of Environmental Health
Lorna Villa – LA County
[email protected]
David Rowley – Newmark Knight Frank

ATTACHMENT A
Marketplace Long Beach ‐ Monitoring Probes Data ‐ 01/01/2018 to 03/31/2018 Point Name Record Date CH4 (% by vol) CO2 (% by vol) O2 (% by vol) Bal Gas (% by vol) Rel Pressure ("H2O) Comments M-02A 3/23/2018 08:40 0.0 0.4 20.6 79.0 0.04M-02B 3/23/2018 08:41 0.0 10.5 2.9 86.6 0.06M-03A 3/23/2018 08:43 0.0 0.1 20.5 79.4 0.04M-03B 3/23/2018 08:46 0.0 13.8 2.0 84.2 0.05M-06A 3/23/2018 08:47 0.0 0.3 19.7 80.0 0.08M-06B 3/23/2018 08:48 0.0 9.0 5.1 85.9 0.13M-07A 3/23/2018 08:50 0.0 4.8 1.0 94.2 0.02M-7B 3/23/2018 08:51 0.0 3.2 0.9 95.9 -1.01M-08A 3/23/2018 08:53 0.0 3.8 9.2 87.0 0.04M-10A 3/23/2018 07:50 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.05M-10B 3/23/2018 07:51 0.0 0.5 20.4 79.1 0.08M-11A 3/23/2018 07:53 0.0 9.4 9.6 81.0 0.09M-11B 3/23/2018 07:54 0.0 3.9 17.1 79.0 0.03M-12A 3/23/2018 07:59 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.01M-12B 3/23/2018 08:01 0.0 2.7 18.0 79.3 0.01M-13A 3/23/2018 08:02 0.0 0.9 20.0 79.1 0.01M-13B 3/23/2018 08:03 0.0 4.2 16.7 79.1 -0.04M-14A 3/23/2018 08:05 0.0 0.8 19.0 80.2 -0.01M-14B 3/23/2018 08:07 0.0 5.9 9.0 85.1 -0.04M-15A 3/23/2018 08:09 0.0 9.0 1.7 89.3 -0.10M-15B 3/23/2018 08:10 0.0 7.1 2.5 90.4 -0.16SP-1 3/23/2018 12:39 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 -SP-2 3/23/2018 12:41 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.02SP-3 3/23/2018 12:42 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.02SP-4 3/23/2018 12:55 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.01SP-5 3/23/2018 12:56 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.00SP-6 3/23/2018 12:57 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.00SP-7 3/23/2018 12:59 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.04SP-8 3/23/2018 13:00 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.08 1 of 2
Marketplace Long Beach ‐ Monitoring Probes Data ‐ 01/01/2018 to 03/31/2018 Point Name Record Date CH4 (% by vol) CO2 (% by vol) O2 (% by vol) Bal Gas (% by vol) Rel Pressure ("H2O) Comments SP-9 3/23/2018 13:02 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.04SP-9A 3/23/2018 13:04 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.02SP-9B 3/23/2018 13:05 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.00SP-9C 3/23/2018 13:07 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.04SP-10 3/23/2018 13:09 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.07SP-11 3/23/2018 13:11 0.0 0.1 20.4 79.5 0.03SP-12 3/23/2018 13:13 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.01SP-13 3/23/2018 13:14 0.0 0.1 20.5 79.4 -0.01SP-14 3/23/2018 13:15 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.02SP-15 3/23/2018 13:16 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.00SP-16 3/23/2018 13:17 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.06SP-17 3/23/2018 13:18 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.01SP-18 3/23/2018 13:20 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.10SP-19 3/23/2018 13:21 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.01SP-20 3/23/2018 13:22 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 -0.01SP-21 3/23/2018 13:23 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.02SP-22 3/23/2018 13:24 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.04SP-23 3/23/2018 13:25 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.04SP-24 3/23/2018 13:26 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.06SP-25 3/23/2018 13:28 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.00SP-26 3/23/2018 13:29 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.06SP-27 3/23/2018 13:30 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.06SP-28 3/23/2018 13:31 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.09SP-29 3/23/2018 13:32 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.02 2 of 2
Marketplace Long Beach ‐ Sample Port Data ‐ 01/01/2018 to 03/31/2018 Point Name Record Date CH4 (% by vol) CO2 (% by vol) O2 (% by vol) Bal Gas (% by vol) Init Temp (F) Adj Temp (F) Init Static Pressure ("H2O) Adj Static Pressure ("H20) Init Flow (scfm) Adj Flow (scfm) Comments T-1 3/23/2018 08:36 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.03 0 0T-2 3/23/2018 08:38 0.0 0.1 20.8 79.1 0.0 0.0 -0.01 0.04 0 0T-3 3/23/2018 08:58 0.0 0.2 20.6 79.2 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.02 0 0T-4 3/23/2018 08:21 0.0 0.2 20.6 79.2 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.03 0 0T-5 3/23/2018 08:19 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.0 0.0 -0.02 -0.01 0 0T-6 3/23/2018 08:17 0.0 0.1 20.6 79.3 0.0 0.0 -0.07 -0.03 0 0T-7 3/23/2018 08:16 0.0 0.4 20.2 79.4 0.0 0.0 -0.03 -0.02 0 0T-8 3/23/2018 08:12 0.0 0.3 20.0 79.7 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.03 0 0VP-1 3/23/2018 13:38 0.0 0.1 20.8 79.1 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.03 0 0VP-2 3/23/2018 13:39 18.1 6.5 15.4 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0VP-3 3/23/2018 13:41 0.0 0.1 20.8 79.1 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.06 0 0VP-4 3/23/2018 13:43 0.0 0.1 20.8 79.1 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.06 0 0VP-5 3/23/2018 13:45 0.0 0.1 20.8 79.1 0.0 0.0 -0.03 -0.01 0 0VP-6 3/23/2018 13:46 0.0 0.1 20.8 79.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0 0VP-7 3/23/2018 13:47 0.0 0.1 20.8 79.1 0.0 0.0 -0.02 -0.01 0 0GTE-1 3/23/2018 08:32 0.0 0.2 20.7 79.1 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.01 0 0SEWER MH-1 3/23/2018 08:34 0.0 3.7 16.8 79.5 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1 of 1
Marketplace Long Beach ‐ Calibration Record Data ‐ 01/01/2018 to 03/31/2018 Point Name Record Date CH4 (% by vol) CO2 (% by vol) O2 (% by vol) Bal Gas (% by vol) Comments CAL GAS 4 O2 3/23/2018 07:38 0.0 0.0 4.0 96.0CAL GAS 15 CH4 3/23/2018 07:40 15.0 15.0 0.0 70.0CAL GAS 20 O2 3/23/2018 07:36 0.0 0.1 20.7 79.2 1 of 1
Marketplace Long Beach ‐ Weather Data ‐ 01/01/2018 to 03/31/2018 Record Date Barometric Pressure Ambient Temp Precipitation Wind Speed Wind Direction General Weather Field Technician 3/23/2018 30.13 58 0 4 SE Clear Mike Braun
1 of 1
Marketplace Long Beach
Monthly Inspection Check List
07217153.00

SATISFACTORY CONDITION
BLOWER STATUS:

BLOWER FILTER CONDITION:

BLOWER STATION CLEANLINESS AND SECURITY:

BLOWER BELTS, OIL, ETC.:

BLOWER STATION VALVE & PIPING, ETC.

BLOWER ALARM:

BLOWER DISCHARGE PRESSURE (IN. WC)

QUARTERLY INSPECTION
VAULT BOXES CONDITION AND WORKABILITY:

COCK VALVE CONDITION AND WORKABILITY:

SITE SURFACE SETTLEMENT, PONDED WATER,
CRACKS:

SUBSLAB AND PERIMETER PROBES CONDITION
AND WORKABILITY:

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

BLOWER DAYS OF OPERATION

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
58 Clear
Mike Braun

30.08 DATE: 01-26-2018 10:19 TECHNICIAN:

TEMPERATURE: BAR. PRESSURE:

WEATHER: WIND SPEED:

On Intermittently
Yes

30.45 N/A
N/A
Yes. Parking lot has areas of
cracking and settlement.

Yes
BLOWER COMMENT: Ok
HEADER LINE COMMENT: Ok
Marketplace Long Beach
Monthly Inspection Check List
07217153.00

SATISFACTORY CONDITION
BLOWER STATUS:

BLOWER FILTER CONDITION:

BLOWER STATION CLEANLINESS AND SECURITY:

BLOWER BELTS, OIL, ETC.:

BLOWER STATION VALVE & PIPING, ETC.

BLOWER ALARM:

BLOWER DISCHARGE PRESSURE (IN. WC)

QUARTERLY INSPECTION
VAULT BOXES CONDITION AND WORKABILITY:

COCK VALVE CONDITION AND WORKABILITY:

SITE SURFACE SETTLEMENT, PONDED WATER,
CRACKS:

SUBSLAB AND PERIMETER PROBES CONDITION
AND WORKABILITY:

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

BLOWER DAYS OF OPERATION

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
73 Clear
Mike Braun

30.14 DATE: 02-16-2018 11:45 TECHNICIAN:

TEMPERATURE: BAR. PRESSURE:

WEATHER: WIND SPEED:

On Intermittently
Yes

29.26 N/A
N/A
Yes. Parking lot has areas of
cracking and settlement.

Yes
BLOWER COMMENT: Ok
HEADER LINE COMMENT: Ok
Marketplace Long Beach
Monthly Inspection Check List
07217153.00

SATISFACTORY CONDITION
BLOWER STATUS:

BLOWER FILTER CONDITION:

BLOWER STATION CLEANLINESS AND SECURITY:

BLOWER BELTS, OIL, ETC.:

BLOWER STATION VALVE & PIPING, ETC.

BLOWER ALARM:

BLOWER DISCHARGE PRESSURE (IN. WC)

QUARTERLY INSPECTION
VAULT BOXES CONDITION AND WORKABILITY:

COCK VALVE CONDITION AND WORKABILITY:

SITE SURFACE SETTLEMENT, PONDED WATER,
CRACKS:

SUBSLAB AND PERIMETER PROBES CONDITION
AND WORKABILITY:

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

BLOWER DAYS OF OPERATION

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
58 Clear
Mike Braun

30.13 DATE: 03-23-2018 10:39 TECHNICIAN:

TEMPERATURE: BAR. PRESSURE:

WEATHER: WIND SPEED:

On Intermittently
Yes

20.50 Yes
Yes
Parking lot has areas of
cracking and settlement
Yes
BLOWER COMMENT: Blower operates 4 times a day
HEADER LINE COMMENT: Ok

1 Rauzon, Justin
From: Kenya Creer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 3:11 PM
To: Rauzon, Justin
Subject: Clarification on Records Search
Good afternoon Mr. Rauzon,
My apologies. To clarify, no hazardous materials/UST files were found for the address you submitted. I apologize for the inconvenience this may cause.

If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me.

Thank you,
Kenya Creer, Clerk Typist
Fire Prevention Bureau – CUPA
Long Beach Fire Department
3205 N. Lakewood Blvd., Long Beach, CA. 90808
Direct: 562.570.2541 Fax: 562.570.2566
Email: [email protected]
From: Kenya Creer
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 11:44 AM
To: 'Rauzon, Justin' <[email protected]>
Subject: Records Search for 6615, 6621, and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy Good morning Justin Rauzon;
I received your request for a file search for various locations in the City of Long Beach. Files were found for the addresses you submitted and are available for review to the public here at LBFD Headquarters during our file review hours. Please reply to this email to schedule a time (as we don’t accept walk-ins) OR to inform us if you are no longer interested in reviewing these files. Please note that we have a copy charge of $0.15 cents a page (acceptable forms of payment are check or cash, exact change only).

NO FILES FOUND:
6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803
6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803
6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803
LOCATION FOR VIEWING:

Long Beach Fire Department Headquarters
Bureau of Fire Prevention
3205 Lakewood Blvd
Long Beach, CA 90808
File Search Hours:

Monday - Friday from 8:00 am - 3:30 pm
Dates and/or times may vary during Holidays.
2 PLEASE NOTE: If NO response is received within ONE week of this email, ALL files will be returned and you will need to submit a NEW request.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

MAP NO. 024- 197 ( Con' t.)

42. l60- 360 ( 024- 197) Adams, Industries, ( 2l3th St~eet Dump). 213th St. ~ d Delores Street, Carson

42. 160- 361 ( 024- 197) California B{- Produets Dump, 2241 E.

Carson Stree , Carson

41. l60- 362 ( 024- l97)
J2'. l'O ~ ( g21~ l~)

44. 160- 364 ( 024- 197)

44. 160- 222 ( 024- 197)

44. 160- 366 ( 024- 197)

44. 160- 367 ( 024- 197)

44. 160- 368 ( 024-:h97)
MAP NO. 024- 237

44. 160- 372 ( 024- 237)
T. C. L. Dump, Anaheim street and Tel"' minal
Island Freeway, Wilmington
CaraeB6 ~ 811e~ >>wm., i'ly , f 2l3ih S, re8'
ana E' l) af B8mift~ e8 GkMBlel, SarseR
Watson Land Co., 22400 S. Alameda Street,
Carson ~
Watson Land Co., N. E. corrier of Wilmington
Avenue and Lomita Blvd., Carson
Tide Water Associated Oil Co., S. E. corner
of Wilmington Ave., and SeptUveda Blvd.,
Carson
Superior Oil Co., 24900 S. Vermont Avenue
Carson
Cronese Products, Inc. end Union Pacific
Railroad, 420 HeIlrY Ford ' Ave., Wilmington
C1~{ of Si~ al Hill, 2175 E. ~ 8th Street,
Signal Hill

44. 160-ill. (024- 237) Citv (\f Lon~ Beach Dump, Willow Street at Temple Avenue, Long Beach

42. 160- 374 ( 024- 237) City Dump arid Salva~e Co. t 6363 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

42. 160- 212 ( 024- 237) C1tv num'P and Sa1valte Co., 6501 Pacific Coast. Highway, l,ong Beach

42. 160- 376 ( 024- 237) Citv Dump and Salval(e Co., 6364 Pacific Coast Highway, Long BeaCh
22-
P hase I – 6615, 6621, & 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway

APPENDIX F

EDR DATABASE REPORT
SCS Resume – J. Justin Rauzon Page 1 of 3 www.scsengineers.com J. JUSTIN RAUZON, REPA
Education
MEM – Environmental Management, Duke University, 2014
BS – Zoology (Double Emphasis: Human and Marine Biology), Brigham Young University, 2004 Professional Licenses
Registered Environmental Property Assessor (REPA), National Registry of Environmental Professionals (No. 485639)
Specialty Certifications
OSHA 40-Hour Health and Safety Training for Hazardous Waste Workers 8-Hour Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Site Activities OSHA 16-Hour Initial Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Training Thermo Scientific Niton XRF Analyzer Operator’s Training First-Aid and CPR Training
Professional Affiliations
National Ground Water Association, Member (2015 to Present) Professional Experience
Mr. Rauzon has more than 12 years of environmental services experience, all with SCS. Fluent in Spanish, Mr. Rauzon is an SCS Senior Project Professional with a diverse background in biological and environmental sciences, and regularly performs environmental assessments and compliance audits at sites in the U.S. and in Latin America. He has technical and management experience with soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigations at industrial, commercial, landfill, greenfield, and residential properties. He has extensive experience with environmental laws and regulations in both the U.S. and Mexico. His work experience includes all project phases, from development of cost estimates for various site assessment and cleanup programs to implementing remediation programs and interfacing with regulatory agencies.

Selected projects in which he has participated are described below.

SCS Resume – J. Justin Rauzon Page 2 of 3 www.scsengineers.com Environmental Management
Due diligence assessments of properties prior to real estate transfer of properties in California, Arizona, New Jersey, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. Mr. Rauzon has completed numerous due diligence assessments of properties prior to acquisition, disposition, or loan financing by investment banks, insurance companies, corporations, non-profit entities, real estate developers, and private parties. Projects have included Phase I assessments that meet federal All Appropriate Investigation (AAI) regulations, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, and client-specific guidelines; inspections for asbestos and lead-based paint; Phase II investigations; preparation of abatement and remediation cost estimates; and regulatory agency coordination. These projects frequently involve review of previous environmental reports and investigation of current and past on-site operations, regulatory agency records searches, evaluation of historical property use information, identification of nearby potentially contaminated sites, and development of appropriate conclusions about environmental risks. Investigations involve preparation of work plans, soil boring and subsequent sampling, groundwater well installation and sampling, soil gas probe installation and sampling, precision mapping, evaluation of contaminants in accordance with regulatory requirements or generally accepted guidelines, preparation of investigation report, and analysis of applicable remedial alternatives. Mr. Rauzon has served as the Project Manager for sites that have received regulatory closure from various regulatory agencies.

Planning, coordinating, and supervising remedial actions that included excavation, transport, and disposal of contaminated soils and water. Investigations involve preparation of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs), direction of fieldwork, oversight of confirmatory sampling, and interfacing with regulatory agencies.

The characterization of hazardous waste materials. These projects include collection of soil and/or liquid samples to profile the waste materials, interpretation of laboratory results, and evaluation of disposal/recycling options to minimize the costs and liabilities to clients associated with the removal of wastes.

Assessment and certification of hazardous waste tank systems. These investigations involve working with a Professional Engineer to complete field inspections of hazardous waste tanks, associated ancillary equipment, leak-detection systems, and secondary containment devices, as well as interfacing with regulatory agencies.

Project Management
Project Manager for due diligence investigation of a portfolio with more than 300 industrial sites throughout Mexico. SCS services included conducting Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments within the strict timeline of the $1.2 billion industrial real estate transaction.

Subsequent to the closing of the deal, SCS provided ongoing consulting services to facilitate integration and management of various facilities with ongoing environmental issues.

Project Manager for hazardous materials consulting services in support of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project in Orange and Riverside Counties, CA. SCS services included sampling and inventory of potentially hazardous materials associated with more than 25 bridges along the SR-91 and I-15 freeways; environmental assessments on properties within the proposed freeway expansion area; and soil testing for herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides on several land parcels.

Project Manager for investigation and remediation of industrial facility located in Fontana, CA.

SCS conducted a series of environmental assessments, investigations, and remedial activities that provided sufficient information to identify environmental issues and business risks, and facilitate the SCS Resume – J. Justin Rauzon Page 3 of 3 www.scsengineers.com client’s successful purchase of property. A number of recognized environmental conditions, including releases of coal tar, solvents, heavy metals, and total petroleum hydrocarbons, were identified.

Project activities conducted during the acquisition and redevelopment of the property included shallow and deep soil and soil vapor investigations; installation of groundwater monitoring wells and subsequent groundwater sampling; subsequent remedial excavation under San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) oversight to obtain closure; and excavation and off-site disposition of contaminated soil.

Health and Safety
Mr. Rauzon has participated in a certified health and safety program in compliance with OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.120. He is knowledgeable in incident response operations, team functions, personnel safety, and field equipment. He is able to recognize and evaluate potential chemical and physical hazards and associated risks in field operations; discuss and use personal protective equipment (PPE), such as respiratory protection and protective clothing; use and interpret directreading instruments; and examine and establish Standard Operating Safety Guidelines to ensure safe and effective response operations.

Publications
Rauzon, J. J., “Mexico: Environmental Due Diligence and the Mexican Waste Law,” EHS Journal, November 13, 2010.

SCS Resume – Julio A. Nuno Page 1 of 8 www.scsengineers.com JULIO A. NUNO, REPA, CESCO
Education
MS – Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, 1982 BS – Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, 1979 Professional Licenses
Registered Environmental Property Assessor (REPA), National Registry of Environmental Professionals (No. 443198)
Certified Environmental and Safety Compliance Officer (CESCO), National Registry of Environmental Professionals (No. 265109)
Professional Affiliations
Water Environment Federation
California Water Environment Association
National Groundwater Association
Professional Experience
Mr. Nuno has over 35 years of environmental services experience, all with SCS, and extensive expertise in property evaluation and due diligence; site assessment, investigation, and remediation; underground storage tank (UST) assessment, upgrading, removal, and leakage cleanup; and hazardous waste management. He works extensively with regulatory agencies, fully understands regulations pertaining to petroleum hydrocarbons and hazardous waste, and has worked on numerous projects associated with real estate transactions to assess the potential for releases, characterize releases of contaminants to soil, soil vapor, and groundwater, implement remedial measures, and develop cost estimates for assessing and mitigating impacts. As SCS Vice President responsible for Environmental Services in Southern California and Nevada, Mr. Nuno has directed SCS’s contributions to a number of major projects, including construction of the Staples Center and the Phoenix Award-winning Chesterfield Square project, both in Los Angeles, CA.

Hazardous Waste/Materials Management
Project Manager for closure of an ordnance production and ramjet test facility, Van Nuys, CA. The project involved closure of a facility containing Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste management units. Closure activities included implementing a plan approved by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), conducting inventory while sampling various containers of hazardous materials, preparing a preliminary site assessment, conducting an investigation of former underground tanks and SCS Resume – Julio A. Nuno Page 2 of 8 www.scsengineers.com hazardous materials storage areas, providing asbestos management services, installing/monitoring groundwater wells, and remediating impacted areas. Mr. Nuno served as the primary contact for the DTSC and SCS’s client.

Managed a 2-year multiple assignment contract to provide environmental services to the Port of Los Angeles, CA. Projects completed under this contract included preliminary site assessments of numerous properties scheduled for acquisition by the Port of Los Angeles (Port), the implementation of subsurface investigations for two closed shipyards, development of a sampling plan and collection of surface soil samples from the property storing various hazardous materials, collection and analysis of samples from building materials for asbestos, and collection and analysis of samples from creosote wharf pilings to evaluate disposal options. Mr. Nuno’s responsibilities included coordinating site activities, interfacing with Port personnel, reviewing project submittals, preparing monthly progress reports, managing subcontractors, and interfacing with regulatory agencies.

Due diligence assessments of properties prior to acquisition, Southern California. Mr. Nuno has completed various due diligence assessments of properties prior to acquisition by real estate developers, City Redevelopment Agencies, corporations, non-profit entities, and private parties.

Projects have included Phase I assessments meeting federal All Appropriate Investigation (AAI) regulations and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, inspections for asbestos and lead-based paint, Phase II investigations, preparation of abatement and remediation cost estimates, and regulatory agency coordination. On behalf of the City of Pico Rivera, Mr. Nuno served as the Project Manager for the first closure issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under the Polanco Bill.

Regulatory compliance assessment of a manufacturing facility, Bell, CA. This project included conducting facility operations to determine compliance with environmental regulations, including materials management, permitting, and maintenance of records. A report was prepared summarizing the applicable regulations while providing recommendations.

Managed a multi-year contract for environmental services at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard and Terminal Island Naval Complex. Projects completed under this contract included the preparation of a hazardous materials Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan, evaluation of wastewater discharges from industrial sources, preparation of a closure plan for a permitted hazardous waste storage facility, the design of three hazardous waste staging facilities, and the implementation of a site closure investigation.

Project to determine whether impoundment ponds used for the treatment of wastewater generated during operations involved in explosives formulation and packing should be permitted as hazardous waste treatment facilities, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA. The objective for this project was to determine whether the impoundment ponds, used for the treatment of wastewater generated during operations, were exposed to explosive formulations, which required permitting the Naval Weapons Center as a hazardous waste treatment facility. The project was completed on site at the military facility and involved interviewing personnel familiar with the operations. Per regulatory requirements, the collection of wastewater and sediment from the impoundments was used for subsequent analysis, which was presented in a final written report submitted to the client.

Hazardous waste/materials management program for the Nevada Department of Transportation.

Visits were made to each field maintenance station and major maintenance stations located throughout the state to determine the types of hazardous materials used, along with observing the methods of handling and disposal. The final report contained (1) suggestions for improving hazardous waste/materials management practices; (2) a policy document for the hazardous materials; and (3) a training program for personnel involved in hazardous waste management.

SCS Resume – Julio A. Nuno Page 3 of 8 www.scsengineers.com Guidance to the California Department of Health Services in performing and implementing an audit program for facilities generating hazardous wastes. The audits were conducted to evaluate present waste/materials management practices and to propose recommendations to reduce the volume of wastes being generated. Recommendations were evaluated on the basis of cost effectiveness and ease of implementation. Audit programs were developed for three industries: the paint and body segment of the automotive repair industry, the marine shipyard maintenance and repair industry, and the precious metals recovery industry. Mr. Nuno participated in many of the facility audits and prepared portions of the reports submitted to the client.

Inventory of oil-filled electrical equipment at properties owned by the State of California to determine if this equipment contained polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). State of California-owned properties were evaluated in a housing inventory of oil-filled electrical equipment that potentially contained PCB. To determine the outcome in an event of equipment failure, SCS assessed potential pathways and receptors that could contribute to the failure. Mr. Nuno’s role on this project was to visit facilities throughout the state, identify electrical equipment that could contain PCBs, and inventory the equipment.

Preparation of SPCC Plans. Mr. Nuno has directed and managed several projects involving preparation of SPCC Plans, including several container facilities within the Port of Long Beach, an airship operation in Carson, a printing operation, and an aerospace facility at the Van Nuys Airport.

Plans met or exceeded federal regulations.

Second-Party Review of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Proposed Intermodal Facility. As part of a review prior to submittal for public evaluation, Mr. Nuno reviewed sections of the EIR pertaining to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. A detailed review was conducted, with comments provided for consideration as part of the final draft document.

Independent Review of Reports, Various Locations. Mr. Nuno is continuously requested to review documents and provide his professional opinion regarding complex cases. Clients include the City of El Monte, City of Buena Park, Retirement Housing Foundation, Doerken Properties, and Olive Branch Development.

Porter Ranch Dust Monitoring. During grading activities for a major residential development, notices of violation were issued to the grading contractor by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Mr. Nuno’s role on this project consisted of attending meetings with the SCAQMD, preparing a dust mitigation plan, and coordinating staff to provide dust monitoring during grading.

Site Assessment and Remediation
For Staples Center/LA Live in Los Angeles, served as Project Director for assessment and cleanup of properties acquired as part of the support area (parking lots, future hotels, and other support operations). This project included Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) of properties on several blocks surrounding the Staples Center, implementation of subsurface investigations to assess potential contaminants from past on-site operations to soil and groundwater, risk evaluation and negotiation of cleanup levels with regulatory agencies, and implementation and oversight during remediation. Due to the Staples Center’s construction schedule, SCS’s work was completed on an expedited basis.

Former Refinery, Santa Fe Springs, CA. Mr. Nuno was the principal investigator prior to a real estate transaction involving a former refinery. Mr. Nuno was responsible for reviewing previous investigative reports, including a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for completeness, and for providing remediation recommendations based on available data, which were implemented in cost estimates for the site development.

SCS Resume – Julio A. Nuno Page 4 of 8 www.scsengineers.com City of Irwindale, CA. A residential development was proposed for a parcel of land associated with historical uses resulting in potential hazardous material releases. SCS conducted a Phase II investigation with an approach developed by Mr. Nuno assessing soil and soil vapor at the site. Wipe samples were also collected in a building on site that was reported as a clandestine drug laboratory.

Due Diligence and Permitting for a Nationwide Building Materials Manufacturer, various locations in the US and Canada. Mr. Nuno has served as the primary interface between clients and SCS staff within several SCS offices conducting Phase I ESAs on manufacturing facilities throughout the US and Canada. He has developed project budgets, coordinated SCS staff efforts, submitted investigations, and served as Principal Reviewer for deliverables.

City of El Monte Gateway project, El Monte, CA. The City of El Monte planned to expand its Public Works Yard on 14 acres of what used to be a former burn dump. In preparation for this development, Mr. Nuno reviewed previous environmental investigations while collaborating with site developers and regulatory agencies to obtain necessary approvals for the proposed development. Regulatory agency involvement included the DTSC, Los Angeles County Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), CalRecycle, and South Coast Air Quality Control Management District (AQCMD). As Project Director, Mr. Nuno prepared a work plan for an additional investigation and implementation, which included a cap for lead-impacted soils. During development, he reviewed analytical data from soil samples collected during excavation, and provided consulting services to site developers while interfacing with the DTSC. As a result, a Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) was prepared and submitted to DTSC for approval, which later granted development of the site for residential and commercial uses.

Preparation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Remedial Design Documents for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) South Region Elementary School No. 6. Mr. Nuno served as the Principal Contact for the preparation of a RAP and remedial design documents. The documents were completed to meet DTSC requirements and approved for implementation. The design included excavation of soils impacted by pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and in-situ remediation of VOC-impacted soil using vapor extraction.

Malibu Civic Center, Limited Phase I ESA for Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility, Malibu, CA. Mr. Nuno served as Project Director for the assessment of a proposed wastewater treatment facility in Malibu, CA. The assessed area consisted of approximately 1.15 by 2.13 miles of proposed project area with a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP), two injection well areas, six pump stations, and numerous piping runs within city streets. For the Limited Phase I ESA, the WTP, injection well areas, and pump station areas were inspected to identify possible Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). Historical review was conducted for each of the project areas. In addition, a database search of known sites with reported releases was conducted. Potential RECs within the project area (i.e., leaking USTs, solvent use, dry cleaners, and other release sites) were identified and reported.

Market Street Development, Long Beach, CA. As part of a pre-acquisition evaluation, Mr. Nuno was involved in the preparation of a Phase I ESA and Phase II investigations to assess potential impacts associated with past oil extraction activities on the site and in the vicinity. In addition, available information indicated that releases from a nearby former service station and dry cleaning facility may have impacted the site. Mr. Nuno developed an investigation approach to assess impacts to the property, which included collection of soil and soil vapor samples. He also provided recommendations for evaluation and re-abandonment of former oil wells occupying the property.

Due Diligence associated with acquisitions of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball organization, Los Angeles, CA, and Vero Beach, FL. Mr. Nuno was responsible for coordinating assessments of Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles and the training facility in Vero Beach, FL, initially as part of the SCS Resume – Julio A. Nuno Page 5 of 8 www.scsengineers.com acquisition by Fox Entertainment Group and again when acquired by Frank McCourt. The assessments included Phase I ESAs, lead-based paint surveys, and inspections for asbestoscontaining materials. Subsurface investigations of certain areas of both facilities were also completed under his direction.

Investigations and remediation of former dry cleaning facilities, Torrance, Stanton, and La Verne, CA. Investigations at numerous active and former dry cleaning facilities have been completed to assess the potential for releases of solvents. These investigations consisted of soil vapor assessments, collection of bulk soil samples, and groundwater monitoring. Additional evaluations have been completed to define the extent of the plume to obtain information used in evaluating remedial alternatives. Implemented remedial measures have included excavation, vapor extraction, in situ chemical oxidation, biological enhancement, monitored natural attenuation, and risk management. Permanent overlying structures contributed to the complexity of the remediation efforts. The contractors retained to implement portions of the remediation collaborated with Mr.

Nuno, utilizing his expertise to review submitted bids and ensure that work performed was in accordance with bid requirements.

Remedial investigation, groundwater well installation and monitoring, and evaluation of mitigation measures for a former refinery in Central California. Mr. Nuno served as Project Manager for the site investigation, which included coordination of site activities, interpretation of analytical data, and interfacing with SCS’s client and regulatory agency personnel.

Naval Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants program conducted at 16 Navy and Marine Corps facilities, San Diego, CA. As part of the Department of Defense (DOD) installation restoration program, 16 facilities were identified as potentially contaminated sites resulting from the past use, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials. The project consisted of the review of archival and base records, interviews with long-term or retired base personnel, on-site inspections/surveys, and the submission of a final report.

Former Miller Way Landfill closure and removal of soil stockpile from former gun range, South Gate, CA. On behalf of the City of South Gate, Mr. Nuno assisted with the closure of a former inert refuse landfill, which included preparation of a grading plan for the facility, quality assurance as part of the grading process, and installation of drainage structures while maintaining communication with the Los Angeles RWQCB. Following an inspection by the DTSC, an enforcement order was issued to remove a stockpile of soil contaminated with lead. Under Mr. Nuno’s direction, the soil was characterized and disposed of in a cost-effective manner. He interfaced with DTSC personnel throughout the duration of the program. A final report was submitted to DTSC, leading to issuance of a no further action letter regarding the soils.

Supplemental site investigation and preparation of a health risk assessment for former industrial zinc plating facility, Long Beach, CA. A removal action was issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for an abandoned facility. SCS reviewed available reports associated with the facility, initiated discussions with the DTSC, prepared a work plan for additional investigation in accordance with the corrective action agreement, and implemented the investigation that included collection and analysis of soil, soil vapor (sub-slab and subsoil), indoor air, and groundwater samples. Data collected was used to prepare a health risk assessment submitted to the DTSC, which resulted in the commercial redevelopment approval.

Investigation and Abatement of Pesticide-Impacted Soil, Oxnard, CA. In response to recommendations within a Phase I Environmental Assessment and Soil Sampling report prepared by another consultant for a property proposed for residential development, Mr. Nuno worked with the Ventura County Environmental Health Department (EHD) to develop an abatement approach for elevated concentrations of toxaphene detected in the soil. Based on the information provided, closure was issued by the EHD.

SCS Resume – Julio A. Nuno Page 6 of 8 www.scsengineers.com Methane Gas Assessments – Los Angeles, Signal Hill, Long Beach, and Santa Fe Springs, CA. In order to assess potential hazards associated with development within former and existing oil field areas, investigations were conducted to address local requirements to determine protection measures potentially required as part of existing or proposed developments. Investigations consisted of installing several wells, monitoring to assess concentrations of combustible gases, and preparing reports to provide conclusions and recommendations analyzed from the data.

Proposed Redevelopment, Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles, CA. In order to evaluate a property proposed for subterranean construction, Mr. Nuno developed an approach to investigate potential concerns associated with past on- and off-site uses, which included former automotive repair. The investigations also included surveys for asbestos-containing materials and a methane gas investigation in accordance with City of Los Angeles requirements. In addition, a soil management plan was prepared to provide contingencies for the impacted soil in the event of exposure during construction. Based on the results of the investigation, regulatory concurrence was received from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Site Mitigation Unit.

Phase I ESA and Site Characterization, Canoga Park, CA. Available documentation indicated that a portion of a building was used as a dry cleaner. A soil vapor investigation revealed the presence of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in soil. Assessments of soil vapor, soil, and groundwater were conducted to fully characterize the extent of the release. In addition, indoor air sampling was conducted to assess the potential for PCE migration into the building.

Site Assessments, Oil and Gas Industry, Central Coast and Bakersfield, CA. Mr. Nuno has been involved in conducting initial assessments and subsurface investigations of oil fields in the Central Coast and Bakersfield areas. The initial assessments included a site inspection and evaluation of background information, including historical aerial photographs to identify potential release areas.

Investigations were conducted to assess possible releases.

Storage Tanks
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). For several years, Mr. Nuno has assisted UCLA in complying with applicable federal, state, and local regulations for USTs throughout the campus located in Los Angeles, CA. Services provided have included inspections, reviews of existing as-built drawings, coordination of testing, preparation of plans for upgrades or modifications, assistance with plan checks, interfacing with regulatory agencies, sample collection, preparation of work plans and closure reports, and construction quality assurance (CQA).

City of Buena Park Auto Center, Buena Park, CA. As part of the acquisition of properties that would comprise the Auto Center, SCS completed several Phase I Assessments and Phase II Investigations.

One of the properties assessed was determined to have been a former gasoline service station that had impacted both soil and groundwater. Investigations of soil and groundwater were completed under Mr. Nuno’s direction, and a RAP was submitted for the mitigation of fuel hydrocarbons.

Groundwater monitoring was conducted on a semi-annual basis through cleanup. Based on the investigations, a transaction was structured for the purchase of the property.

City of South Gate Department of Public Works, South Gate, CA. Following failed Senate Bill 989 (SB 989) highlighting fueling system tests and emergency USTs, SCS performed evaluations of existing installations to identify the necessary upgrades. As Project Manager, Mr. Nuno interfaced with SCS’s client and regulatory agency personnel for several projects providing recommendations for upgrading underground tank installations, preparing and reviewing plans and specifications, providing assistance during the bidding process, conducting oversight during installation, collecting soil samples as part of closures, and preparing closure reports.

SCS Resume – Julio A. Nuno Page 7 of 8 www.scsengineers.com Retirement Housing Foundation, Angelus Plaza, Los Angeles. As follow-up to a Phase I ESA completed on this property, an investigation was completed to assess the potential for releases of fuel from underground tank systems. Borings were drilled adjacent to the underground tanks and pipelines, subsequently assisting in the evaluation of alternatives for replacing one of the underground tanks.

Investigation and remediation of soil and groundwater impacted as a result of release from a UST, Santa Fe Springs, CA. This project consisted of characterizing soil and groundwater with the oversight of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and RWQCB. A vapor extraction remediation system was installed to mitigate gasoline-impacted soil. Groundwater monitoring was conducted throughout the duration of remediation efforts. Costs were reimbursed under the California Underground Tank Cleanup Fund, requiring review of all work and associated costs by fund personnel.

Evaluation of alternatives for mitigation of soil contamination from leaking USTs at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), CA. The evaluated alternatives included excavation and on-site treatment, excavation and hauling to a disposal site, vapor extraction, and no action. Alternatives were evaluated in terms of ease of implementation, regulatory constraints, costs, duration of treatment, and other applicable factors.

RHF Bixby Tower investigation and closure, Long Beach, CA. Available information indicated a portion of the property occupied by Bixby Tower was a former service station with USTs. A subsurface investigation indicated the presence of low concentrations of petroleum hydro-carbons. Data were submitted to the Long Beach Health Department for review. Based on the data, no further action was issued by the Health Department.

Aboveground Storage Tank Evaluation. Mr. Nuno has been involved in several projects involving the evaluation of aboveground storage tanks used to contain hazardous wastes. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the California Code of Regulations and included the evaluation of construction materials, compatibility of the tank with materials stored in the tank, corrosion protection, and whether adequate spill protection is available.

Expert Witness/Litigation Support
Mr. Nuno has provided litigation support on various projects, a representative sampling of which is provided below.
• In support of an eminent domain action to gain access to a property for investigation, Mr.

Nuno provided court testimony that included an explanation of the rationale for the investigation, a description of what would be done on site, the amount of time required for the investigation, and how the results would be used. As part of this project, Mr. Nuno appeared in court on four separate occasions.
• Mr. Nuno served as an expert witness and provided deposition testimony regarding investigation and remedial activities conducted on a property in Los Angeles County. Soil and groundwater on a property taken through eminent domain by a redevelopment agency had been impacted by a release of fuel hydrocarbons. He provided testimony regarding the investigation that had been conducted by SCS, and the applicability of regulatory requirements to the site. He also critiqued reports prepared by the plaintiff’s expert witness.
• Mr. Nuno served as an expert witness for a partnership involved in reorganization. His involvement regarded mitigation of contaminants on a developed property owned by the partnership, which was formerly utilized for oil production. He reviewed investigations SCS Resume – Julio A. Nuno Page 8 of 8 www.scsengineers.com conducted on the site by others, and provided realistic cost estimates for mitigating petroleum hydrocarbons identified in soil on the site.
• On behalf of a defendant that sold several properties throughout Southern California that contained USTs, Mr. Nuno reviewed investigation reports and provided a separate assessment of remedial measures that would be required at each site. Based on this evaluation, a settlement was negotiated.
• For a major manufacturing facility in Silicon Valley, Mr. Nuno evaluated information for a remedial investigation and cleanup action conducted as a result of a release from an aboveground tank containing chlorinated solvents. An opinion was provided regarding the appropriateness of measures taken to investigate and prevent the off-site migration of contaminants.
• Mr. Nuno served as Project Manager for an investigation conducted on a property that had been impacted by oil field operations. He interfaced with legal counsel and assisted SCS’s expert witness in preparation for deposition and trial testimony. • Mr. Nuno has managed numerous preliminary site assessments and investigations conducted on behalf of law firms. In many cases, the work conducted by SCS formed the basis for negotiating the sale of real property. He has been involved in meetings with legal counsel of sellers and purchasers to discuss findings and provide opinions of potential liabilities associated with properties.

Publications and Presentations
Nuno, J. A, “Site Characterization,” American Society of Civil Engineering National Conference on Environmental and Pipeline Engineering, July 2000.

Nuno, J. A., and T. Dong, “Contracting with Environmental Consultants” California Redevelopment Association Journal, September 1994.

Dong, T., and J. A. Nuno, ‘Phased Approach to Due Diligence Environmental Assessment,” California Redevelopment Association Journal, August 1994.

Nuno, J. A., Sullivan, P. S., and Lister, K. H., “Project Plan Development, Site Characterization, Risk Assessment, and Development and Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives,” American Society of Civil Engineers/Canadian Society of Civil Engineers Environmental Engineering Conference, 1997.

Devinny, J. S., J. April, D. F. Buss, C. Johnson, K. Khan, K. H. Lister, J. A. Nuno, P. S. Sullivan, M.

Tagoe, and D. Williams, “The ASCE Draft Environmental Site Remediation Manual,” Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management, Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1997.

P hase I – 6615, 6621, & 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway

APPENDIX G

OWNER AND USER QUESTIONNAIRE S

controls, land use restrictions, or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been filed or recorded against the property under federal, tribal, state or local law? Yes XNo
If Yes, explain and/or provide information:
(3) Specialized Knowledge or Experience (40 CFR 312.28). Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business?
XYes No
If Yes, explain and/or provide information: We are aware of the findings of the June 2016 Phase I ESA, which states that the property has been used for oil production and as a landfill, and therefore a subsurface investigation is recommended. In addition, we are aware of the findings of the Phase II ESA dated May 2017. (4) Purchase Price vs. Fair Market Value (40 CFR 312.29). Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the property? X Yes No If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property? Yes No If Yes, explain and/or provide information:
(5) Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information (40 CFR 312.30). Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property that would help the Environmental Professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example,
(a) Do you know the past use of the property?
(b) Do you know specific chemicals that are present or once were present at the property? (c) Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property? (d) Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property? X Yes No to all
If Yes, explain and/or provide information: See SCS Phase I ESA dated June 2016 and Phase II ESA dated May 2017.
(6) Obvious Indications of Contamination (40 CFR 312.31). Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination of the property?
X Yes No
If Yes, explain and/or provide information: According to the Phase II ESA dated May 2017, petroleum and volatile organic compounds are present at the property.

Page 2 of 4 ends

5. To the best of your knowledge, have there ever been any incidents of chemical spills/dumping or waste disposal on or close to this property? Yes, the property was used as a landfill.

6. Are there any wells on the site? If yes, what are they used for? No, but one to two oil wells were previously located on the Property.

SECTION II – Developed Property

1. What is your involvement with this property and when did that involvement begin? I am a representative of the entity that owns the property, CP VI Marketplace, LLC. My involvement began in the Fall of 2017 when our group began to seriously consider purchasing the land.

2. To the best of your knowledge, how long has the current development been on the property? What was there before the current development? Per our understanding, the three office buildings on the property were constructed between 1979 and 1983.

3. Does this facility use, store, manufacture, or dispose of chemicals or petroleum products? What types (be as specific as possible)?
Not to our knowledge. However, one to two oil wells were previously located on the site.

4. If the answer to Question 3 above was “Yes,” may we review MSDS, business plans, hazardous material inventories, manifest files, SPCC plans (whatever is applicable)?

Page 3 of 4 ends

5. Do you have any environmental permits (wastewater discharge, air emissions, hazardous material storage, etc.)? Have there ever been any Notices of Violation in regards to any of these permits?
Not to our knowledge, other than as discussed in the previous SCS environmental reports noted below.

6. Have any environmental investigations ever been conducted on this property? When and why? Are there any reports available that we can review? Yes, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared on June 13, 2016 and a Phase II Site Investigation Report was prepared on May 12, 2017.

7. Has the facility ever been subject to an environmental health and safety regulatory action, complaint, or lawsuit? When and why? What was the outcome? See Phase II ESA dated 2017. The California Regional Water Quality Board oversaw investigations of the property in the 1980s and 1990s.

8. Have there been any know chemical spills or releases on this property? Not to our knowledge, other than as discussed in the previous SCS environmental reports noted below.

9. Are there any underground or aboveground storage tanks on this property? How many? Sizes? Ages?
Not to our knowledge.

10. Where is wastewater discharged to? To the best of your knowledge, have there ever been any on-site wastewater disposal systems (septic tank, leach field, cesspool, dry well, etc.)?
Wastewater is discharged into the City of Long Beach’s underground sanitary sewer system.

Page 4 of 4 ends

11. To the best of your knowledge, are there any environmental liens or deed restrictions associated with this property? If yes, please describe.

No.

P hase I – 6615, 6621, & 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway

APPENDIX H

RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
July 2023
Appendix H Sea Level Rise Analysis
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

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

LONG BEACH

MARKETPLACE
Sea Level Rise Analysis
REPORT
Produced For Carmel Partners
June 2023
Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners ii
Document Verification
Revision Description Issued by Date Checked
00 Draft JT 10/24/2022 W. Jin
01 Final JT 11/03/2022 W. Jin
02 Final, rev1 JT 4/25/2023 W. Jin
03 Final, rev2 JT 4/27/2023 W. Jin
04 Final, rev3 JT 6/30/2023 W. Jin
Produced by:

Moffatt & Nichol
4225 E Conant St
Long Beach, CA 90808
562-590-6500
www.moffattnichol.com
Client Carmel Partners
Project name Long Beach Marketplace
Document title Sea Level Rise Analysis
Document sub-title –
Status Final
Date 6/30/2023
Project number 222196
File reference \\mne.net\projects\LB\222196\90 Submittals\2023-0630-Final SLR Report\LBMarketplace_SLRStudy_2023_0630.docx
Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners iii
Table of Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Study Approach............................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Coastal Setting.............................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2.1. Water Levels ............................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2.2. Coastal Hazards........................................................................................................................................ 3

2. Sea Level Rise Projections .................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Probability and Timing................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Selected Sea Level Rise Scenarios .............................................................................................................................. 7

3. Sea Level Rise Hazard Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 8

3.1. SEASP Numerical Model .............................................................................................................................................. 8

3.1.1. Model Selection and Description............................................................................................................... 8

3.1.2. Model Verification...................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.3. Model Domain, Bathymetry, and Topography........................................................................................... 9

3.2. Flood Projections ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

3.3. Groundwater Hazard Projections ................................................................................................................................ 15

4. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 16

4.1. Hazard Exposure ........................................................................................................................................................ 17

4.1.1. 3.7 ft Sea Level Rise, During Project Design Life.................................................................................... 17

4.1.2. 4.3 ft Sea Level Rise, End of Project Design Life.................................................................................... 17

4.1.3. 6.7 ft Sea Level Rise, After Project Design Life ...................................................................................... 17

4.2. Hazard Sensitivity ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.3. Project Alternatives and Adaptive Capacity ................................................................................................................ 18

4.3.1. Site Elevation .......................................................................................................................................... 18

4.3.2. Dry Floodproofing.................................................................................................................................... 19

5. Impacts to Coastal Resources............................................................................................................................................. 21

5.1. Public Access and Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 21

5.2. Coastal Habitats.......................................................................................................................................................... 21

5.3. Natural Landforms....................................................................................................................................................... 21

5.4. Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 21

5.5. Water Quality and Groundwater.................................................................................................................................. 21

5.6. Scenic Resources ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

6. References............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners iv
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Key questions used to guide the Sea Level Rise Analysis.................................................................................. 1 Figure 1-2: Project site location in southest Long Beach, CA................................................................................................ 2 Figure 1-3: Topography and bathymetry surrounding the project site. .................................................................................. 2 Figure 1-4: 100-year coastal storm wave heights at the project site...................................................................................... 4 Figure 1-5: Current FEMA 100-year flood extents at the project site.................................................................................... 4 Figure 2-1: Global and regional factors that can contribute to changes in sea level (IPCC, 2019). ...................................... 5 Figure 2-2: Approximate sea level rise projections for low, medium-high, and extreme risk aversion levels (Opc, 2018) .... 6 Figure 3-1: 50-year stormflow hydrographs for the San Gabriel River and Los Cerritos Channel......................................... 8 Figure 3-2: AdH model mesh for the 2019 SEASP sea level rise study (Moffatt & Nichol, 2019). ...................................... 10 Figure 3-3: Flood Projections at the LB Marketplace Project area, 3.7 ft Sea Level Rise. Project boundary provided by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. ............................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3-4: Flood Projections at the LB Marketplace Project area, 4.3 ft Sea Level Rise. Project boundary provided by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. ............................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3-5: Flood Projections at the LB Marketplace Project area, 6.7 ft Sea Level Rise. Project boundary provided by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. ............................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-6: Groundwater hazard projections at the project area, 4.1 ft sea level rise ......................................................... 15 Figure 4-1: Components of sea level rise vulnerability as defined within this study. ........................................................... 16 Figure 4-2: Example of dry floodproofing measures using bolted connections (FEMA, 2014)............................................ 20 Figure 4-3: Conceptual example of sliding and lift-out flood shields for building entrances (FEMA, 2013)......................... 20 List of Tables
Table 1-1: Tidal datums at Los Angeles outer harbor (1983-2001 Tidal Epoch) ................................................................... 3 Table 2-1: Probability and potential timing ASSOCIATED with selected sea level rise scenarios ........................................ 7 Table 3-1: Water levels associated with each ANALYZED sea level rise and storm scenario. ........................................... 11 Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners v
Disclaimer
Moffatt & Nichol devoted effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised by competent professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii) the time and budget available for its work, to ensure that the data contained in this report is accurate as of the date of its preparation. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by Moffatt & Nichol from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the Client, the Client's agents and representatives, or any third-party data source used in preparing or presenting this study. Moffatt & Nichol assumes no duty to update the information contained herein unless it is separately retained to do so pursuant to a written agreement signed by Moffatt & Nichol and the Client.

Moffatt & Nichol’s findings represent its professional judgment. Neither Moffatt & Nichol nor its respective affiliates, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods disclosed in this document. Any recipient of this document other than the Client, by their acceptance or use of this document, releases Moffatt & Nichol and its affiliates from any liability for direct, indirect, consequential or special loss or damage whether arising in contract, warranty (express or implied), tort or otherwise, and irrespective of fault, negligence and strict liability.

This report may not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the Client.

This study may not be used for purposes other than those for which it was prepared or for which prior written consent has been obtained from Moffatt & Nichol.

Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication or the right to use the name of "Moffatt & Nichol" in any manner without the prior written consent of Moffatt & Nichol. No party may abstract, excerpt or summarise this report without the prior written consent of Moffatt & Nichol. Moffatt & Nichol has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically identified in the agreement between the Client and Moffatt & Nichol or otherwise expressly approved in writing by Moffatt & Nichol, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use.

This document was prepared solely for the use by the Client. No party may rely on this report except the Client or a party so authorised by Moffatt & Nichol in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a reliance letter). Any party who is entitled to rely on this document may do so only on the document in its entirety and not on any excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon this document is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility and not holding Moffatt & Nichol liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings from the project resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behaviour of consumers or competitors and changes in the owners’ policies affecting the operation of their projects.

This document may include “forward-looking statements”. These statements relate to Moffatt & Nichol’s expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “will,” “should,” “seek,” and similar expressions. The forward-looking statements reflect Moffatt & Nichol’s views and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of this study and are subject to future economic conditions, and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed in this study. These factors are beyond Moffatt & Nichol’s ability to control or predict. Accordingly, Moffatt & Nichol makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved.

This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations.

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 1 1. Introduction

1.1. Study Approach
This Sea Level Rise Analysis for the Long Beach Marketplace Project (Project) assesses the potential vulnerability of the Project area under projected future sea level rise scenarios. Analyses first focus on the extent to which local coastal hazards change under future sea level rise scenarios. The overlap of projected future hazard zones and the Project area is then used to identify potential future vulnerabilities to hazards related to sea level rise. Key questions that guide the Sea Level Rise Analysis are illustrated in Figure 1-1.

FIGURE 1-1: KEY QUESTIONS USED TO GUIDE THE SEA LEVEL RISE ANALYSIS.

The vulnerability of the Project area to future sea level rise hazards is evaluated through an analysis of hazard exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Within this assessment, exposure refers to the type, duration, and frequency of coastal hazards a specific resource is subject to under a given sea level rise scenario. Sensitivity represents the degree to which a resource is impaired by exposure to coastal hazards.

Adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a resource to cope with changes in coastal hazards over time. The sea level rise projections utilized within this analysis are discussed in Section 2. A discussion of the sitespecific coastal hazard analysis methodologies used within the study can be found in Section 3. Sea level rise hazard vulnerability analysis results are discussed in detail in Section 4.

1.2. Coastal Setting
The Project site is located at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road in southeast Long Beach (Figure 1-2). The Project site lies in close proximity to three bodies of water: Alamitos Bay, Los Cerritos Channel, and the San Gabriel River. Low-lying areas made up of current and former wetlands are present to the north of the project site (Figure 1-4). Flood control infrastructure is present along the boundary of the San Gabriel River, preventing floodwaters from entering neighboring low-lying areas to the north, whereas water from the Los Cerritos Channel is free to flow directly into neighboring wetlands.

What are the
hazards
associated with
sea level rise for
Long Beach
Marketplace?
What magnitudes
of sea level rise
are relevant for
Long Beach
Marketplace?
What Project
areas are at risk
under future sea
level rise
scenarios?
When could these
scenarios happen
and how do we
plan for and adapt
to them?
Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 2 FIGURE 1-2: PROJECT SITE LOCATION IN SOUTHEST LONG BEACH, CA.

FIGURE 1-3: TOPOGRAPHY AND BATHYMETRY SURROUNDING THE PROJECT SITE.

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 3 1.2.1. Water Levels
The nearest tidal gage with long-term sea level records is the Los Angeles Outer Harbor gage, Station Number 9410660, operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The gage has been operational for over 90 years. Tides in the region are semidiurnal in nature meaning two highs and two lows occurring daily. Tidal datums of the latest published tidal epoch from the gage are provided in Table 1-1.

TABLE 1-1: TIDAL DATUMS AT LOS ANGELES OUTER HARBOR (1983-2001 TIDAL EPOCH) Description Datum Elevation (ft, NAVD88)
Highest Observed Water Level (1/10/2005) HOWL 7.7
Highest Astronomical Tide HAT 7.1
Mean Higher-High Water MHHW 5.3
Mean High Water MHW 4.6
Mean Tide Level MTL 2.6
Mean Sea Level MSL 2.6
Mean Diurnal Tide Level DTL 2.5
Mean Low Water MLW 0.7
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NAVD88 0.0
Mean Lower-Low Water MLLW -0.2
Station Datum STND -4.0
Lowest Astronomical Tide LAT -2.2
Lowest Observed Water Level (12/17/1933) LOWL -2.9

1.2.2. Coastal Hazards
The Long Beach Marketplace is securely protected from open ocean wave impact due to its inland location near the interior of Alamitos Bay and the San Gabriel River. This protection can be seen in wave modeling results obtained from the USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (Figure 1-4), which shows negligible wave energy arriving at the Project site even under severe, 100-year return period coastal storm conditions. Due to its inland location, the primary hazard to the Project is a fluvial flood event in combination with high tidal elevations. The current 100-year (1% annual chance) combined coastal and fluvial flood event as presented in the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map is not projected to impact the Project site (Figure 1-5). In Figure 1-5, Zone AE indicates the base floodplain where Base Flood Elevations (BFE) are provided, and Zone X indicates areas protected by levee from the 100‐ year flood, but within 500‐year floodplain. This study examines the potential for these flood extents to change over time as sea level rise occurs, increasing underlying tidal elevations.

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 4 FIGURE 1-4: 100-YEAR COASTAL STORM WAVE HEIGHTS AT THE PROJECT SITE FIGURE 1-5: CURRENT FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD EXTENTS AT THE PROJECT SITE Project Site
Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 5 2. Sea Level Rise Projections
Sea level rise science involves analysis of both global and local physical processes, as illustrated in Figure 2-1. Global climate and oceanographic processes are complex and dynamic. Numerical models are created based on the best scientific understanding of these global and local processes to provide predictions of future sea level rise. Hence, modelling efforts and predictions are periodically updated to reflect any changes in scientific knowledge. At the state level, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) recommends using the best available sea level rise science, discussed in Section 2.1, which is expected to be updated approximately every 5 years.

FIGURE 2-1: GLOBAL AND REGIONAL FACTORS THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO CHANGES IN SEA LEVEL (IPCC, 2019).

2.1. Probability and Timing
The State of California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) Science Advisory Taskforce compiled the best available sea level rise science relevant to California in their report Rising Seas in California (Griggs, et al., 2017). This report was then used to update the OPC California State Sea Level Rise Guidance in 2018 (California Ocean Protection Council, 2018). The 2018 OPC Sea Level Rise Guidance is now referenced as the best available science throughout updated CCC Sea Level Rise policy guidance documents (California Coastal Commission, 2018).

The 2018 OPC guidance includes sea level rise projections for multiple emissions scenarios and uses a probabilistic approach based on Kopp et al., 2014 to generate a range of projections at a given time horizon for 12 tide gauges along the California coast. The projections for the Los Angeles tide gauge under a highemissions scenario are referenced in this section. The CCC sea level rise policy guidance recommends using projections associated with a high-emission future to provide a conservative estimate of future hazard conditions.

The OPC sea level rise guidance defines the likely range of sea level rise at a given time horizon as the central 66% of projections, or all projections bounded by the 17th and 83rd percentiles, based on methods from Kopp et al., 2014. The upper end of the likely range is recommended by the CCC for use in low risk aversion situations, or when considering projects that would have limited consequences or have a higher ability to adapt, such as sections of unpaved coastal trail, public accessways, and other small or temporary structures that are easily removable and would not have high costs if damaged. This low risk aversion curve Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 6 is shown in orange in Figure 2-2. At a given time horizon there is a 17% chance that sea level rise will meet or exceed these values based on current sea level rise projections and guidance.

For medium-high risk aversion situations the use of more conservative, or lower probability, sea level rise projections is recommended by OPC sea level rise Guidance. At a given time horizon there is a 0.5% chance that sea level rise meets or exceeds these levels, making them appropriate for use on projects where damage from coastal hazards would carry a high consequence or in cases where the ability to adapt is limited, such as when dealing with residential and commercial structures. The medium-high risk aversion curve is shown in red in
Figure 2-2 and is most applicable for major upland development.

The OPC guidance also includes a singular extreme sea level rise scenario, referred to as H++. It is based on projections by Sweet et al., 2017 that incorporate findings of Pollard & Deconto, 2016 related to potential Antarctic ice sheet instability, which could make extreme sea level rise outcomes more likely than indicated by Kopp et al., 2014 (Griggs et al., 2017). Because the H++ scenario is not a result of probabilistic modelling, the likelihood of this scenario cannot be determined. The H++ extreme risk aversion curve is shown in purple in Figure 2-2.

Projections and scientific understanding of future ice-sheet melt have evolved since these publications. A more recent study, DeConto et al. 2021, reduced estimates of Antarctic ice melt contributions under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario in 2100 from 1.05 +/- 0.3 m (Pollard & Deconto, 2016) to 0.34 +/- 0.15 m. The newly released NOAA report Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States, an update to Sweet et al. 2017, excludes the extreme H++ scenario based on evidence presented in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report (AR6) (NOAA, 2022).

FIGURE 2-2: APPROXIMATE SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS FOR LOW, MEDIUM-HIGH, AND EXTREME RISK AVERSION LEVELS (OPC, 2018)
17% Probability, Low Risk Aversion

0.5% Probability, Medium-High Risk Aversion
H++, Extreme Risk Aversion
Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 7 2.2. Selected Sea Level Rise Scenarios
The Long Beach Marketplace Project consists of both commercial and residential development. A 55-year minimum design life is assumed for these structures based on the affordability covenant with the City for the proposed Project. Using a 55-year design life for Project development, 2080 is used as the time horizon for sea level rise hazard analyses.

Sea level rise scenarios of 3.7 ft, 4.3 ft, and 6.7 ft have been selected for analysis within this study to capture potential hazards during, at the end of, and after the Project design life. Time horizons for the sea level rise scenarios are based on the medium-high risk aversion sea level rise projections within the 2018 OPC Sea Level Rise Guidance.
• The 3.7 ft sea level rise scenario is used to illustrate any potential hazards during the 55-year Project design life.
• The 4.3 ft sea level rise scenario represents potential hazards at the end of the 55-year Project design life.
• The 6.7 ft sea level rise scenario is presented to evaluate potential hazards beyond the 55-year Project design life.

Sea level rise scenarios and their projected time horizons based on level of risk aversion are presented in Table 2-1. Though low risk aversion and extreme risk aversion projections are not recommended for use in evaluating the vulnerability of commercial development, the time horizons for these projections are additionally presented in Table 2-1 as a point of comparison. Selected sea level rise scenarios also consider available hazard data for the region from previous modeling studies (Moffatt & Nichol, 2015, 2019).

TABLE 2-1: PROBABILITY AND POTENTIAL TIMING ASSOCIATED WITH SELECTED SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS Sea Level
Rise Scenario
(ft)
Probability and Timing for Each Sea Level Rise Scenario Low Risk Aversion
(17% probability)
Medium-High Risk Aversion
(0.5% probability) Extreme Risk Aversion

3.7 2120 2070 – 2080 2060

4.3 2130 2080 2060 – 2070

6.7 > 2150 2100 2080 - 2090
Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 8 3. Sea Level Rise Hazard Analysis
This study utilizes and expands upon modeling results from the 2019 Sea Level Rise Modeling Study for the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) within the City of Long Beach (Moffatt & Nichol, 2019). Flood hazards due to sea level rise are analyzed under two baseline conditions:
• No Storm: High spring tide conditions. The highest water surface elevation during a typical spring tide was determined to be 6.52 ft NAVD88 based on the latest 19-year monthly tidal means at the time of the study.
• 50-Year Storm: A simultaneously occurring 50-yr (2% annual chance) stormflow in the San Gabriel River and the Los Cerritos Channel in conjunction with a high spring tide. The hydrographs for this 50-year event are presented in Figure 3-1. Outflow from Colorado Lagoon is not included due to negligible contribution. Note these 50-year storm hydrographs were provided by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). The peak flows are very conservative and are higher than FEMA’s 100-year peak discharges according to LACDPW staff.

FIGURE 3-1: 50-YEAR STORMFLOW HYDROGRAPHS FOR THE SAN GABRIEL RIVER AND LOS CERRITOS CHANNEL.

3.1. SEASP Numerical Model
The following sections provide an overview of numerical modeling conducted as part of the 2019 SEASP sea level rise modeling effort (Moffatt & Nichol, 2019). These flood hazard modeling results were directly applied for both the 3.7 ft and 6.7 ft sea level rise scenarios. Flood hazard projections for the 4.3 ft sea level rise scenario were obtained using a conservative interpolation between the 3.7 ft and 6.7 ft scenarios.

3.1.1. Model Selection and Description
The hydraulic complexity in the project area required a two-dimensional (2-D) model to simulate hydrodynamics of the hydraulic system. A 2-D AdH model developed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was applied. The AdH model uses adaptive numerical meshes that can be employed to improve model accuracy without sacrificing efficiency. It also allows for the rapid convergence of flows to steadystate solutions. The AdH model contains other essential features such as wetting and drying, completely 0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
-12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Flow (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Colorado Lagoon
Los Cerritos Channel
San Gabriel River
Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 9 coupled sediment transport, constituents transport (temperature and salinity), and wind effects. The 2-D shallow water formulation was used for 2019 SEASP sea level rise hazard modeling.

3.1.2. Model Verification
The AdH model used in the 2019 SEASP study had been validated in a previous SLR impact study performed for the Upper Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Moffatt & Nichol, 2017). The model domain in the M&N 2017 study includes the same tidal hydraulic system as the SEASP project without SLR.

3.1.3. Model Domain, Bathymetry, and Topography
The model domain, bathymetry, and topography used in the 2019 SEASP model integrated prior model meshes and elevations. This section presents all three model meshes and their integrated model elevations.

The domain of 2011 Los Cerritos Wetland study (Moffatt & Nichol, 2011) included the entire Alamitos Bay, Marine Stadium, Colorado Lagoon, several miles along the San Gabriel River and Los Cerritos Channel, and the nearshore ocean. The ocean boundary is approximately 2 miles from the shoreline; this distance was deemed to be sufficient to minimize boundary effects within the area of interest.

The Los Cerritos Wetlands model was first expanded for a 2015 study to include land areas within the SEASP Planning Area that may be vulnerable to inundation. This process involved adding additional nodes, defined by their geospatial location and elevation. Elevation data were based on topographic data provided by the City (City of Long Beach, 2015). In addition, bathymetry in the San Gabriel River was updated based on as-built plans provided by USACE (USACE, 1960).

As shown in Figure 3-2, the final AdH model mesh covers the entire SEASP Planning Area, as well as lowland areas at Belmont Shore, Naples, and Belmont Park. Model elevations were based on integrated data of bathymetric data from the previous SEASP model (Moffatt & Nichol, 2015) and topographic data provided by the City (City of Long Beach, 2015).

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 10 FIGURE 3-2: ADH MODEL MESH FOR THE 2019 SEASP SEA LEVEL RISE STUDY (MOFFATT & NICHOL, 2019).

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 11 3.2. Flood Projections
Floodwater elevations at the Project site associated with each selected sea level rise scenario, time horizon, and storm condition are presented in Table 3-1. Flood projections under each sea level rise and storm scenario are mapped in Figure 3-3, Figure 3-4, and Figure 3-5. The Project boundary depicted in these figures is provided by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. (Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., 2023). For these analyses the

3.7 ft sea level rise scenario is used to evaluate potential flood hazards during the 55-year Project design life. The 4.3 ft sea level rise scenario is used to evaluate potential flood hazards at the end of the Project 55-year design life (2080 time horizon), and the 6.7 ft sea level rise scenario is used to evaluate potential flood hazards at the site after the 55-year Project design life.

TABLE 3-1: WATER LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ANALYZED SEA LEVEL RISE AND STORM SCENARIO.

Sea Level Rise
Scenario
Time
Horizon*
No Storm Water Elevation
(ft, NAVD88)
50-Year Storm Water Elevation
(ft, NAVD88)

3.7 ft 2075 10.2 10.5

4.3 ft 2080 10.8 11.5

6.7 ft 2100 13.2 14.0
*Time horizons based on high-emissions, medium-high risk aversion projections (California Ocean Protection Council, 2018)
Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 12 FIGURE 3-3: FLOOD PROJECTIONS AT THE LB MARKETPLACE PROJECT AREA, 3.7 FT SEA LEVEL RISE. PROJECT BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 13 FIGURE 3-4: FLOOD PROJECTIONS AT THE LB MARKETPLACE PROJECT AREA, 4.3 FT SEA LEVEL RISE. PROJECT BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 14 FIGURE 3-5: FLOOD PROJECTIONS AT THE LB MARKETPLACE PROJECT AREA, 6.7 FT SEA LEVEL RISE. PROJECT BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 15 3.3. Groundwater Hazard Projections
Sea Level Rise impacts on groundwater are evaluated using the recently published USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) results on projected responses of the coastal water table for California using present-day and future sea-level rise scenarios. Groundwater modelling efforts use the USGS groundwater flow software MODFLOW to simulate changes in the water table and groundwater flow for coastal California under all SLR scenarios examined (Befus, Hoover, Barnard, & Erikson, 2020). Results presented within this study are based on model results using a MHHW boundary condition. Groundwater hazards can be influenced by a number of local factors that may not be captured in regional modelling efforts. Full verification of these results is beyond the scope of this study, and so results presented within this report are intended to be used as an initial screening of potential hazard areas.

Modeling data is available in 0.25 m sea level rise increments. The 1.25 m (4.1 ft) sea level rise scenario is used to represent conditions at the end of the Project 55-year design life. CoSMoS groundwater hazard modeling results for the Project site are presented in Figure 3-6. No groundwater emergent is expected in the project design life.

FIGURE 3-6: GROUNDWATER HAZARD PROJECTIONS AT THE PROJECT AREA, 4.1 FT SEA LEVEL RISE Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 16 4. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis
This sea level rise analysis provides an evaluation of potential vulnerabilities in the Project area due to future sea level rise hazards. Methodology for assessing vulnerabilities and risk were based on guidelines published within the reports Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments (Snover et al., 2007) and the California Adaptation Planning Guide (Cal OES, 2020).

In accordance with these and other state sea level rise planning guidelines (California Coastal Commission, 2018), sea level rise vulnerability within different areas of the project is assessed as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. These concepts, in the context of how they are used within this sea level rise analysis, are illustrated in Figure 4-1.

FIGURE 4-1: COMPONENTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY AS DEFINED WITHIN THIS STUDY.

The vulnerability of an asset increases with both exposure and sensitivity, while adaptive capacity is inversely related to vulnerability. As an example, large residential structures typically have a high sensitivity to sea level rise hazards because even minor flooding or erosion can cause significant and costly damages.

Large structures may also have a low adaptive capacity to sea level rise in that they cannot be easily relocated or raised to cope with consequences, compounding overall vulnerability. An alternative example would be structures such as floating docks, which are highly exposed to coastal hazards but often maintain a low vulnerability to sea level rise because they can easily adapt to increasing water levels.

In addition to the guidance documents discussed above, the vulnerability assessment approach used within this report is also consistent with the proposed City of Long Beach Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) (City of Long Beach, 2020). The Long Beach CAAP analyzed sea level rise scenarios up to 66’’ in 2100 and discusses vulnerabilities in terms of hazard exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, noting Ability of a resource to
adapt to evolving
hazards using existing
tools or strategies
Degree to which a
resource is impaired
by hazard exposure
Hazard type, duration,
and frequency a
resource is subject to
Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 17 potential widespread daily high tide flooding impacts in areas surrounding the Project site by 2100 if no adaptation measures are taken.

4.1. Hazard Exposure
Overall flood hazard exposure is limited within the Project area. Current site elevations are located above all but one of the sea level rise scenarios outlined in Table 3-1. Low-lying areas to the north and east (wetland areas) of the Project site show a higher degree of hazard exposure as do nearby roadways, particularly under the 4.3 ft and 6.7 ft SLR scenarios.

4.1.1. 3.7 ft Sea Level Rise, During Project Design Life Under a 3.7 ft sea level rise scenario flood hazard exposure is absent within the Project area (Figure 3-3).

Flood projections under the no-storm condition and 50-year storm condition are limited to the wetland area located north of 2nd Street as well as select low-lying portions of the roadway.

4.1.2. 4.3 ft Sea Level Rise, End of Project Design Life Under a 4.3 ft sea level rise scenario flood hazard exposure increases within low-lying areas but remains absent from the Project area (Figure 3-4). This scenario represents a threshold at which flood projections extend into the low-lying area to the east of the Project site as floodwaters originating from the Los Cerritos Channel travel across 2nd Street at multiple locations. No overtopping of the San Gabriel River levees is projected under this sea level rise scenario.

Groundwater hazard modeling results show no projected areas of emergent groundwater within the Project area. The groundwater table depth is projected to be between 2 m – 5 m depth over the majority of the Project area under this sea level rise scenario, with limited areas of 1 m – 2 m depth.

4.1.3. 6.7 ft Sea Level Rise, After Project Design Life Under the current topographic conditions, the 6.7 ft sea level rise scenario is the threshold at which flood hazard exposure becomes present within the Project area and increases substantially in areas surrounding the Project (Figure 3-5). Flood hazard exposure remains absent within building footprints but extends across select right-of-way improvement areas along Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road. Flood projections for the no-storm condition extend across sections of Pacific Coast Highway at the western boundary of the Project area due to floodwaters traveling south along Pacific Coast Highway and across neighboring development. Flood projections for the no-storm condition also extend over a small portion of the Project right-of-way improvement area along Studebaker Road. Additional flooding is projected at the eastern portion of the Project site under the 50-year storm condition as floodwaters extend inland from the low-lying areas to the north and east of the Project site. No overtopping of the San Gabriel River levees is projected under this sea level rise scenario.

4.2. Hazard Sensitivity
Large built structures such as residential development within the Project area are most sensitive to flood hazards. Any temporary flooding of such structures can cause significant damage and prevent use of the structure as any necessary repairs are made. Any inundation on a regular basis would severely reduce the utility of any Project residential or commercial structures, though this is not projected under sea level rise scenarios examined within this analysis.

Parking areas and similar paved roadways are less sensitive to flood hazards, though impacts can still be significant if flooding occurs on a frequent basis. Such structures are generally resilient to temporary, shallow flooding during infrequent fluvial flood events as floodwaters are free to wash over and recede from paved areas with little overall structural damage. If inundated more regularly, as projected for limited portions of the Project area bordering Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road under a 6.7 ft sea level Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 18 rise scenario, parking areas and roadways can experience increased damage and loss of utility as visitors become unable to access or park safely within the Project area.

4.3. Project Alternatives and Adaptive Capacity
Given the lack of projected flood and groundwater hazard exposure within the Project area over the Project 55-year design life, no specific Project alternatives are necessary and evaluated to mitigate future flood hazards. Supplementary sea level rise adaptation strategies to bolster the adaptive capacity of the Project area are discussed below.

The adaptive capacity of the Long Beach Marketplace Project is bolstered by the absence of flood projections within the Project area up to the 6.7 ft sea level rise scenario. Flood projections for the no-storm condition are also relatively limited, only impacting a small portion of the Project area under the 6.7 ft sea level rise scenario. Raising the elevation of select portions of development and paved areas as part of Project design represents an effective solution to mitigate these projected flood hazards. Floodproofing retrofits can also be applied to structures to address any projected increases in coastal hazards over time as needed. Given current sea level rise projections as discussed in Section 2.1, it is highly unlikely that any adaptation actions would become necessary until after 2080, allowing for significant time to monitor hazard conditions and plan for implementation accordingly.

Adaptation options discussed within this report also align with medium-term and long-term sea level rise and flooding adaptation actions outlined in the Long Beach CAAP (City of Long Beach, 2020), which include • Elevate critical infrastructure
• Elevate riverine levees
• Expand beach nourishment
• Construct living shoreline/berm
• Elevate street hardscapes
• Elevate streets/pathways
• Retreat/realign parking lots
• Extend/upgrade existing seawalls
From a regional perspective, raising roadways such as 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway over time as necessary also provides an effective adaptive measure to reduce flood hazard exposure at the Project site and surrounding areas.

4.3.1. Site Elevation
Increased site elevation can be used to directly reduce projected sea level rise impacts throughout the Project area by increasing the height of Project elements relative to flood projections. Based on current topography data, the Project site is not projected to experience any flood hazards with 4.3 ft sea level rise, the projection for the 55-year Project design life (time horizon of 2080).

The northwestern portion Project site is projected to experience approximately 1.5 ft of flooding under the

6.7 ft sea level rise scenario, not projected to occur until after the 55-year Project design life. Projected flood depths at the eastern portion of the project site with 6.7 ft sea level rise are shallower at approximately

0.5 ft. At each location flood projections remain within a limited area. To address potential hazards beyond the 55-year Project design life, and dependent on cost considerations, adaptive measures such as fill can be used to increase elevation throughout the Project area or in targeted areas along the eastern and northwestern Project boundaries to reduce hazard exposure under the 6.7 ft sea level rise scenario. An increase in elevation of approximately 2 ft at the northwestern boundary and 1 ft at the eastern boundary would be sufficient to mitigate projected flood hazards with 6.7 ft sea level rise. In other words, if the low- Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 19 lying areas along the project boundary were raised to elevation 14.0 ft or higher, this increased site elevation represents a potential long-term, low maintenance adaptive method to significantly mitigate potential 6.7 ft sea level rise flood hazards throughout the Project area, but these adaptive measures are not necessary over the 55-year Project design life.

Advantages
• Once implemented, provides effective, long-term flood mitigation with little need for maintenance. • Elevation reduces risk directly as opposed to barriers or other structures that have a level of residual risk due to potential damage or failure under conditions beyond those considered in design.

Challenges
• Grade transitions to adjacent infrastructure, such as Pacific Coast Highway. • Often not feasible to raise major structures further after initial construction.

4.3.2. Dry Floodproofing
Dry floodproofing refers to building techniques or retrofit measures that prevent floodwaters from entering a building. Dry floodproofing can provide a redundant layer of flood damage protection for buildings sensitive to flooding, such as residential or commercial structures. A number of methods are available for dry floodproofing, including waterproof coatings or installation of removable shields at structure openings as shown in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3. All dry floodproofing efforts must consider the potential depth of flooding to properly account for hydrostatic pressure applied to walls and floors.

Advantages
• No additional space needs to be dedicated to flood protection. • Can be used to improve resilience of existing structures vulnerable to storm related flooding. • Measures can be applied to buildings at a future date in response to sea level rise or other flood hazards.

Challenges
• Effectiveness may be limited by potential flood duration, flow velocity, wave action, or debris in floodwaters. Measures are typically feasible for flood depths of up to three feet. • Adequate warning time prior to installation may be required depending on type of measure employed.
• Ongoing maintenance efforts are often required to maintain watertight connections.

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 20 FIGURE 4-2: EXAMPLE OF DRY FLOODPROOFING MEASURES USING BOLTED CONNECTIONS (FEMA, 2014).

FIGURE 4-3: CONCEPTUAL EXAMPLE OF SLIDING AND LIFT-OUT FLOOD SHIELDS FOR BUILDING ENTRANCES (FEMA, 2013).

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 21 5. Impacts to Coastal Resources

5.1. Public Access and Recreation
Public access to the Project area is projected to experience impacts due to sea level rise over time. Lowlying portions of 2nd Street are projected to experience flooding under no-storm conditions with 4.3 ft sea level rise. Flood projections become extensive along 2nd Street as well as Pacific Coast Highway and sections of Studebaker Road under the 6.7 ft SLR scenario, beyond the Project 55-year design life, potentially limiting access to the Project site while flooding is present. Other public access and recreation resources such as public access easements, beaches, recreation areas, public trust lands, and trails are not present within the Project area. Projected impacts to public access are solely due to projected sea level rise hazards and are not influenced by the proposed Project or conceptual adaptation measures as discussed in Section 4.3.

5.2. Coastal Habitats
The proposed Project does not contain and is not near any existing coastal habitats of special biological or economic significance that would be at risk given the influence of sea level rise over time.

5.3. Natural Landforms
The proposed Project does not contain and is not near any natural landforms such as coastal caves, rock formations, bluffs, terraces, ridges, or cliffs that would be at risk given the influence of sea level rise over time.

5.4. Agricultural Resources
The proposed Project does not contain and is not near any existing agricultural resources that would be at risk given the influence of sea level rise over time.

5.5. Water Quality and Groundwater
The proposed Project does not support an on-site wastewater treatment system and involves no significant changes to existing on-site drainage patterns that would be at risk given the influence of sea level rise over time.

5.6. Scenic Resources
The proposed Project does not include any scenic resources that would be at risk given the influence of sea level rise over time.

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 22 6. References
Befus, Hoover, Barnard, & Erikson. (2020). Projected responses of the coastal water table for California using present-day and future sea-level rise scenarios: U.S. Geological Survey data release.

Cal OES. (2020). California Adaptation Planning Guide.

California Coastal Commission. (2018). California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance:

Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits.

California Emergency Management Agency, & California Natural Resources Agency. (2012). California Adaptation Planning Guide: Planning for Adaptive Communities.

California Ocean Protection Council. (2018). State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance: 2018 Update.

City of Long Beach. (2015, March). Bathymetry and Topography Data File for the SEADIP Project Area.

Brant Birkeland.

City of Long Beach. (2020). Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

DeConto, R., Pollard, D., Alley, R., Velicogna, I., Gasson, E., Gomez, N., . . . Kopp, R. (2021). The Paris Climate Agreement and future sea-level rise from Antarctica. Nature, 83-89.

Erikson, L., Barnard, P., O'Neill, A., Vitousek, S., Limber, P., Foxgrover, A., . . . Warrick, J. (2017). CoSMoS

3.0 Phase 2 Southern California Bight: Summary of data and methods. U.S. Geological Survey.

FEMA. (2013). FEMA P-936: Floodproofing Non-Residential Buildings.

FEMA. (2014). Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your Home From Flooding.

Fetter, C. (1994). Applied hydrogeology. New York: Macmillan College Publishing Company.

Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. (2023, June 27). Project Boundary, CAD file. Los Angelse, Califronia.

Griggs, G., Arvai, J., Cayan, D., Deconto, R., Fox, J., Fricker, H., . . . Whiteman, E. (2017). Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science. California Ocean Science Trust.

IPCC. (2019). The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Kopp, R., Horton, R., Little, C., Mitrovica, J., Oppenheimer, M., Rasmussen, D., . . . Tebaldi, C. (2014).

Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites.

Earth' s Future, 383-407.

Moffatt & Nichol. (2011). Los Cerritos Wetlands Conceptual Restoration Plan Hydrology and Hydraulic Baseline Report.

Moffatt & Nichol. (2015). Memorandum of Sea Level Rise Modeling for the SEADIP Area.

Moffatt & Nichol. (2017). Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration and Oil Construction Project: Updated Sea Level Rise Impact Analyses.

Moffatt & Nichol. (2019). An Updated Sea Level Rise Modeling Study for the SEASP Area.

NOAA. (2022). Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States.

Poland, J., & Piper, A. (1956). Ground-water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach - Santa Ana Area, California. United States Government Printing Office.

Pollard, D., & Deconto, R. (2016). Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise. Nature, 531.

Snover, A., Whitley Binder, L., Lopez, J., Willmott, E., Kay, J., Howell, D., & Simmonds, J. (2007). Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments. ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability.

Long Beach Marketplace Sea Level Rise Analysis | Carmel Partners 23 State of California Department of Conservation. (1965). Geologic Map of California: Santa Ana Sheet.

Sweet, W., Kopp, R., Weaver, C., Obeysekera, J., Horton, R., Thieler, R., & Zervas, C. (2017). Global and Regional Sea Level Rise for the United States. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083(January).

USACE. (1960). San Gabriel River Improvement: Constructed Drawings.

MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
July 2023
Appendix I Construction Noise Modeling
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

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

COLB-09.5 - Vibration Annoyance Attenuation Calculations Levels in VdB
Equipment
Commercial
Offices to the
North at 6601 CA1
Commercial
Offices to the
East at 6621 CA-1
Commercial Offices
to the South at 6700
CA-1
Petco to the West at
6500 E Pacific Coast
Highway
Distance in feet 190 80 250 340
Pile Driver (Impact) 112.0 85.6 96.8 82.0 78.0
Pile Driver (Sonic) 105.0 78.6 89.8 75.0 71.0
Vibratory Roller 94.0 67.6 78.8 64.0 60.0
Static Roller 82.0 55.6 66.8 52.0 48.0
Hoe Ram 87.0 60.6 71.8 57.0 53.0
Large Bulldozer 87.0 60.6 71.8 57.0 53.0
Caisson Drilling 87.0 60.6 71.8 57.0 53.0
Loaded Trucks 86.0 59.6 70.8 56.0 52.0
Jackhammer 79.0 52.6 63.8 49.0 45.0
Small Bulldozer 58.0 31.6 42.8 28.0 24.0
Vibration @ 25
ft
COLB-09.5 - Vibration Damage Attenuation Calculations
Levels, PPV (in/sec)
Commercial Offices
to the North at
6601 CA-1
Commercial Offices
to the East at 6621
CA-1
Commercial Offices
to the South at 6700
CA-1
Petco to the West at
6500 E Pacific Coast
Highway
Distance in feet 190 80 250 340
Pile Driver (Impact) 1.52 0.072 0.265 0.048 0.030
Pile Driver (Sonic) 0.73 0.035 0.128 0.023 0.015
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.010 0.037 0.007 0.004
Static Roller 0.05 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.001
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.004 0.016 0.003 0.002
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.004 0.016 0.003 0.002
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.004 0.016 0.003 0.002
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.004 0.013 0.002 0.002
Jackhammer 0.035 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.001
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Vibration
Reference Level
at 25 feet
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
July 2023
Appendix J Transportation Memorandum
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

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

Memorandum
Date: June 26, 2023
To: Mariana Zimmermann, Placeworks
From: Michael Kennedy, Ryan Liu, & Marta Polovin, Fehr & Peers Subject: 6615 Pacific Coast Highway Transportation Consistency Findings with the

SEASP PEIR
LB23-0081
Introduction
The 6615 Pacific Coast Highway Project (“Project”) is a proposed redevelopment of a 3.7-acre office building site located within the Southeast Area Specific Plan Area (SEASP) in Long Beach, anticipated to be completed in 2027. The proposed Project is a six-story mixed use development with 390 residential units inclusive of studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. Of the total residential units, 17 will be income restricted for residents who qualify as Very Low Income. The Project also proposes 5,351 square feet of retail space. The Project Site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road within the SEASP area of the City of Long Beach. The Project Site currently consists of approximately 61,493 square feet of office use and associated surface parking.

The Project also proposes a variety of street improvements, including curb protected bicycle facilities and a bus turnout along PCH, and new curbs, sidewalks, medians, bicycle lanes, and a roundabout terminus along Studebaker Road.

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 Placeworks
June 26, 2023

Page 2 of 12 ends

area based on this trip budget.1 The trip budget allows for flexibility in the land uses proposed within the SEASP. As long as the collective project trips associated with proposed development projects do not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the PEIR, the projects can be found to be consistent with the findings of the PEIR, and no additional transportation analyses would be required for a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The SEASP has a 5,432 PM peak hour trip budget available for use within the 85-acres of the specific plan area designated for mixed use projects, inclusive of 2,719 trips for existing uses active at the time the SEASP transportation impact analysis was prepared, for a total trip budget of 2,713 net-new project trips.

The transportation analysis of the SEASP PEIR used the Mixed-Use Development (MXD) trip generation methodology. As detailed in the Long Beach Southeast Area Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis2, the MXD methodology was developed in partnership with the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to more accurately estimate the internalization of project trips associated with mixed use developments and districts, and the associated net external trip generation of mixed-use projects, which typically generate fewer vehicle trips than single use developments located in more isolated settings. The MXD methodology adjusts typical Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates to reflect the internalization and site-specific attributes of mixed-use developments. The MXD model was developed and calibrated to 239 existing mixed-use developments.

The SEASP indicates that “internalization of trips due to project design (internal trip capture) or TDM strategies applied shall be incorporated into the analysis [of projects] using best practice methodologies. At the time of publication of this Specific Plan, best practices include use of the EPA’s mixed use trip generation (MXD) methodology.”3 Subsequent to the development of the original MXD methodology, Fehr & Peers has updated and refined the methodology to include additional model sensitivities, updated ITE trip generation rates, and updated input data calculated from the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) travel demand model (TDFM), which includes the SEASP area. Additionally, the MXD methodology collected data from additional mixed-use development sites to use for additional model validationpurposes.

This methodology, MXD 2.0, has been incorporated into Fehr & Peers’ MainStreet trip generation tool, which represents the current best practice for mixed-use trip generation. The evaluation of the proposed project’s trip generation has been conducted using the MainStreet tool. 1 Southeast Area Specific Plan, City of Long Beach, October 8, 2020. Page 226. 2 Final Long Beach Southeast Area Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, February 2017.

Page J1-37.
3 Southeast Area Specific Plan, City of Long Beach, Page 228.

Placeworks
June 26, 2023

Page 3 of 12 ends

Trip Generation Estimates
The proposed Project’s existing land uses to be removed and proposed uses to be constructed were inputted into the MainStreet tool with the difference between them reflecting the net external trip generation for the proposed Project. Consistent with the transportation impact study for the SEASP EIR, the SCAG TDFM was used to update estimates of employment accessible to the proposed Project site. However, the TDFM employment within one mile of the proposed Project was updated to reflect the completion of the 2nd & PCH project which opened in 2020.

As detailed in Table 1, the proposed Project is expected to generate 53 net external PM peak hour trips with an estimated MXD trip reduction of 20% compared with raw ITE Trip Generation rates. The SEASP had an estimated 18% MXD trip reduction4. The increase in the percentage of the trip reduction is associated with the buildout of projects within the SEASP (such as the 2nd & PCH project), as well as the improved accuracy of the updated MXD methodology, which reduces the overestimation of net external project trips.

Table 2 details the available trip budget by SEASP quadrant and total plan area. After accounting for trips associated with the 2nd & PCH project, 6500 PCH, and 6700 PCH, as well as the proposed Project, the SEASP would stay within the plan area trip budget, as well as within the trip budget for the Southeast Quadrant, which encompasses Block 4 as shown below in Figure 1. As demonstrated by this analysis, the proposed Project is consistent with the transportation impact analysis findings of the SEASP PEIR.
4 Final Long Beach Southeast Area Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, February 2017.

Page J1-41.

Rate In% Out% Rate In% Out% In Out Total In Out Total
PROPOSED PROJECTMultifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 390 DU 4.54 0.37 23% 77% 0.39 61% 39% 1,771 33 111 144 93 59 152 Less: MXD Reduction [b] 22% 19% 19% 20% 20% (390) (6) (21) (27) (19) (12) (31) Net External Vehicle Trips 1,381 27 90 117 74 47 121
Retail (<40 ksf) 820 5.35 ksf 37.01 0.84 62% 38% 3.4 48% 52% 198 2 2 4 9 9 18 Less: MXD Reduction [b] 22% 19% 19% 20% 20% (44) 0 0 0 (2) (2) (4) Net External Vehicle Trips 154 2 2 4 7 7 14
TOTAL PROJECT EXTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS 1,535 29 92 121 81 54 135EXISTING USE CREDITOffice 710 61.49 ksf 10.84 1.52 88% 12% 1.44 17% 83% 667 82 11 93 15 74 89 Less: MXD Reduction [b] 8% 9% 9% 8% 8% (52) (7) (1) (8) (1) (6) (7)Net External Vehicle Trips 615 75 10 85 14 68 82 TOTAL EXISTING USE CREDIT 615 75 10 85 14 68 82NET INCREMENTAL EXTERNAL TRIPS 920 -46 82 36 67 -14 53 Notes:

TABLE 1
6615 PCH PROJECT, LONG BEACH

TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE
ITE Land
Use Code Size
Trip Generation Rates [a] Estimated Trip Generation
Daily
Land Use AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Trips
[a] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 11th Edition , 2021 PM Peak Hour
Daily
PM Peak Hour Trips
[b] This percentage is a total reduction associated with walking, biking, transit use, and internal capture. It is informed by MXD 2.0 Mixed Use Trip Generation Methodology , which incorporated the findings of NCHRP Project 8-51 as described in "ImprovedEstimation for Internal Trip Capture for Mixed-use Developments," ITE Journal, August 2010. Internal capture represents the percentage of trips between land uses that occur within the site. MXD assumptions were modified in accordance with information provided in the Southeast Area Specific Plan EIR , Appendix J1 (TIA), 2021.

TABLE 2
6615 PCH PROJECT, LONG BEACH

SEASP TRIP BUDGET BY QUADRANT
Project Number Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4
Project Name 2nd and PCH [c] 6700 PCH [d] 6500 PCH [e] 6615 PCH Completion Date 2020
Block Mixed Use Development Areas PM Trip Budget [a] Existing PM Trip Gen [b] PM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Remaining Trips 1 Northwest Quadrant 2nd/PCH (Marina Pacifica) 1,847 1,472 375 2&3 Southwest Quadrant 2nd/PCH 1,361 423 792 9 1 136
4 Southeast Quadrant 2nd/PCH 1,369 558 53 7585 Northeast Quadrant 2nd/PCH (In n Out) 173 160 136 Mixed Use Marina 682 106 576 Total Trips: 5,432 2,719 792 9 1 53 1,858
Notes
[a] Based on selected Reduced Intensity Alternative, accounts for existing+future traffic and includes adjustment for pass-by-trips not included in the SEASP TIA[b] Existing at the time of the completion of the 2017 SEASP TIA. Completed projects since then are listed under the project columns. [c] Trip generation source: 2nd+PCH Project Traffic Impact Analysis , LLG, 2017[d] Trip generation source: 6700 Pacific Coast Highway Transportation Consistency Findings , Fehr & Peers, 2023 [e] Trip Generation source: Marina Shores Transportation Consistency Findings (6500 PCH) , Fehr & Peers, 2022 Placeworks
June 26, 2023

Page 6 of 12 ends

Figure 1 – SEASP Plan Area Quadrants
Vehicle Miles Travelled Consistency Evaluation
Analysis Approach
The methodologies and thresholds of significance used to assess the transportation impacts of the SEASP EIR were consistent with the City of Long Beach’s adopted methodologies and thresholds of significance at the time the analysis was conducted. Intersection level of service (LOS) was the primary quantified transportation metric used to evaluate the SEASP. However, for informational purposes, a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) analysis was included in the EIR.5 After the certification of the Final PEIR for the SEASP, the City of Long Beach adopted revised transportation impact study methodologies and thresholds of significance for assessing transportation impacts. These changes were made to update the City’s approach to evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA in accordance with the changes made to CEQA statute by Senate Bill (SB) 743. These changes required that lead agencies no longer use intersection LOS in the determination of impact significance under transportation. The State of California’s Governor’s 5 Southeast Area Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Long Beach, July 2016. Page 5.16-47 through 5.16-48.

Placeworks
June 26, 2023

Page 7 of 12 ends

Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a Technical Advisory6 recommending that VMT be used as the primary transportation metric for assessing transportation impacts under CEQA. The City of Long Beach adopted revised transportation impact study guidelines that are largely consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory.

The SEASP EIR was prepared before the implementation of SB 743. Therefore, the required VMT analysis methodologies that the City was going to adopt were not known at that time. However, in anticipation of SB 743, a VMT analysis was included in the SEASP EIR. A total VMT estimate and a VMT estimate per service population (population+employment) for the SEASP Area was prepared using the SCAG TDFM. While the summarization of VMT in the SEASP EIR is not consistent with the City’s current transportation impact study guidelines, it was done using the same required analysis tool. The City’s current guidelines generally express VMT in a per-capita basis, compared against Los Angeles County as a regional baseline.

Given that the City’s intention for the SEASP is to allow developments to tier off of the SEASP EIR through a finding of consistency, VMT analyses would need to follow the approach taken in the SEASP EIR to be consistent. To evaluate this consistency, the following analysis approach for VMT was conducted:

1. The SCAG TDFM was used in combination with the MXD trip generation methodology to estimate total project VMT. This analysis was conducted by calculating updated average trip lengths by trip purpose for theTransportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) that contains the proposed Project multiplied by daily net external vehicle trip generation as estimated using the MXD trip generation methodology.

2. The total project VMT estimated based on the methodology described above was compared to the SEASP VMT budget as identified in the SEASP EIR. Using a similar framework as the PM peak hour trip budget, the proposed Project’s total VMT, along with the total VMT of other approved and proposed projects provided by the City of Long Beach within the SEASP was deducted from the total VMT for the SEASP. If there is still VMT budget available, then the project would be consistent with the VMT findings of the SEASP EIR, and no further CEQA transportation analysis would be required.
6 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. OPR, December 2019.

Placeworks
June 26, 2023

Page 8 of 12 ends

Consistent with the PEIR, the TDFM was used to estimate trip lengths. However, the updated 2016 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) model was used. This model was also used for the City of Long Beach’s current Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.7 The base year and future year models were used to extract actual trip length by trip purpose for the traffic analysis zone containing the proposed Project. The model’s congested network assignment skim matrices to derive trip length by trip purpose (e.g. home-based work (HBW), home-based other (HBO), and non-home based (NHB)) for both trips that are attractions and trips that are productions. As detailed in the SEASP EIR, calculating trip length in this way provides trip length information that is compatible with the mixed-use trip generation model and provides a full-accounting methodology for VMT estimation (e.g. it incorporates the entire length of the trip).

The updated trip length information by trip purpose for both productions and attractions is summarized below reflecting the updated data from the 2016 SCAG TDFM:
• Existing (2016 Base Year)
o Productions (length by trip purpose):
 HBW – 13.7 miles
 HBO – 8.0 miles
 NHB – 7.8 miles
o Attractions (length by trip purpose):
 HBW – 15.8 miles
 HBO – 9.5 miles
 NHB – 8.6 miles
• Future Year (Year 2040)
o Productions (length by trip purpose):
 HBW – 13.3 miles
 HBO – 7.7 miles
 NHB – 6.8 miles
o Attractions (length by trip purpose):
 HBW – 15.6 miles
 HBO – 9.2 miles
 NHB – 7.5 miles
7 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. City of Long Beach, June 2020. Page 5.

Placeworks
June 26, 2023

Page 9 of 12 ends

VMT Estimates
Total VMT
MainStreet was used to estimate daily trip generation for the proposed Project by trip purposes consistent with the SCAG TDFM calculated trip lengths, as well as for trip productions and attractions. Existing VMT for the current uses on the proposed Project site was calculated using the MainStreet MXD trip generation output multiplied by the base year trip lengths detailed above. Existing VMT is 7,086 per day.

Future VMT was calculated using the Year 2040 trip lengths multiplied by the MainStreet MXD trip generation output for the proposed Project. Proposed Project VMT is estimated to be 16,613 per day, for a net increase of 9,527 VMT per day.

For the full SEASP, Existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Adjusted VMT was estimated at 455,236 VMT per day, and the Future Year with Project was estimated at 633,617 VMT per day, a net increase of 178,381 VMT8.

Below are the other known related SEASP projects’ net VMT increases:
• 6700 PCH - 4,351 VMT per day, 2.4% of SEASP VMT budget • 6500 PCH – 4,868 VMT per day, 2.7% of SEASP VMT budget The net increase in VMT associated with the proposed Project is expected to utilize approximately

5.3% of the total net increase VMT budget. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the net increase in Total VMT estimates contained in the EIR and no additional CEQA transportation impact analysis is required.

VMT per Service Population
Service population is calculated by adding population plus employment. Using SCAG TDFM factors for the TAZ that contains the proposed Project Site, the average household size for the TAZ is 1.7 people per household. The 390 units of the proposed Project would have an estimated population of approximately 663 people. Using typical TDFM employee estimates, the 5,351 square feet of retail spaces is expected to have one employee for 500 square feet of retail space, for a total of 11 employees. The total service population for the proposed Project would therefore be 674. The resulting VMT per service population for the proposed Project is estimated to be 24.65 (16,613 daily VMT divided by a 674 service population).

The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Adjusted VMT Estimates per Service Population for the SEASP PEIR is 32.91. The VMT per Service Population for the proposed Project is approximately 25.1% lower than that of the SEASP.

Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the VMT estimates contained in the SEASP EIR, and no additional CEQA transportation impact analysis is required. 8 Recirculated DEIR Appendix J3 VMT Memo, Fehr & Peers, February 16, 2017, Page J3-6.

Placeworks
June 26, 2023

Page 10 of 12 ends

Site Access Review
Figure 2 illustrates the proposed Project’s ground site plan with its proposed project site access points. The following narrative describes site access for various transportation modes.

Figure 2 – Proposed Project Site Access
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access is provided by sidewalks along the Studebaker Road and PCH frontages.

Sidewalks are present on all surrounding streets except Marina Drive south of Studebaker Road.

The Project proposes direct building access at street level along PCH and Studebaker Road.

Access will also be provided along the eastern side of the Project Site, which leads to existing surface parking and adjacent uses. Building access for pedestrians will be separate and independent from vehicular access driveways.

Bicycle Access
The following bicycle facilities are available in the vicinity of the Project Site:
• Class II bicycle lanes on PCH between the Traffic Circle and Seal Beach Placeworks
June 26, 2023

Page 11 of 12 ends

• Class II buffered and Class IV protected bicycle lanes on Marina Drive between Seal Beach and 2nd Street
• Class II bicycle lanes in the westbound direction of Studebaker Road between PCH and Marina Drive
• Class II bicycle lanes and Class IV protected bicycle lanes on 2nd Street between Belmont Shore and Seal Beach
• Class I San Gabriel River Bike Trail
The Project proposes secure bike parking in the building. No bike racks exist along the public ROW in the Project vicinity, but the Project would install public bike racks in proximity to the proposed retail use. Additionally, the Project would construct a bicycle lane on Studebaker Road and upgrade existing bicycle lanes on PCH to provide curb protection in accordance with the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. The Project would not preclude the implementation of other components of Bicycle Master Plan.

Transit Access
A northbound bus stop for Long Beach Transit (LBT) and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is located on PCH along the Project Site frontage. A southbound bus stop for both agencies is also located on PCH, across the street. These stops serve LBT Route 171 and OCTA Route 1. OCTA Route 1 runs along PCH between the Long Beach Veterans Affairs Hospital/CSULB and San Clemente with headways of 1 hour throughout the day on weekdays. LBT Route 171 runs along PCH between Seal Beach and Century Villages at Cabrillo with headways of 40 minutes throughout the day on weekdays.

The Project proposes a new bus turnout on PCH, near the current bus stop along the Project site.

Vehicle Access
Vehicular access to the proposed site will be provided via one full-access driveway on Studebaker Road, leading to enclosed ground level parking, one floor of underground parking, and six floors of above ground parking. No additional driveways would be proposed along PCH. Access to adjacent surface parking and existing land uses would be preserved via a new roundabout at the eastern terminus of Studebaker Road as part of the Project. An ingress-egress driveway would extend north of the roundabout to provide access to the parking lot northeast of the Project site.

In addition, the Project would install a median along Studebaker Road.

Placeworks
June 26, 2023

Page 12 of 12 ends

Figure 3 – Proposed Roundabout from Site Plan
Conclusions
The evaluation of the net external trip generation, net increase in Total VMT, and VMT per service population for the proposed Project indicates that the proposed Project is well within the available SEASP trip and VMT budgets, and therefore is consistent with the SEASP EIR, and no additional CEQA transportation impact analysis is required. Adequate site access is provided by the proposed Project for a variety of transportation modes.

MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
July 2023
Appendix K Sewer Area Study
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

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

SEWER AREA STUDY
6615 Pacific Coast
Highway, Long Beach
C it y o f Lon g B ea ch
County of Los Angeles, California
Prepared For
C a r m e l P a r t n e r s
Prepared By
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.
600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1470
Los Angeles, California 90017
213.988.8802
www.fuscoe.com
Project Manager:

Andrew Willrodt, PE
Date Prepared: September 2022
Job Number: 1287-010
SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 1

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 1

4.0 SEWAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 2

4.1 EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 2

4.2 PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEM ............................................................................................ 3

5.0 METHODOLOGIES .......................................................................................................... 3

5.1 SEWER FLOW DETERMINATION ..................................................................................... 3

5.2 SEWER PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 4

6.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 5

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A……………LA COUNTY AND CITY OF LONG BEACH SEWAGE FLOW RATES APPENDIX B……………LA COUNTY’S POLICY FOR MANAGING AVAILABLE SEWER CAPACITY

AND SEWAGE DISCHARGE IN EXCESS OF DESIGN CAPACITY
APPENDIX C……………LA COUNTY EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM MAPS AND AS-BUILT PLANS APPENDIX D……………LA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WILL SERVE LETTER APPENDIX E…………….US3 SEWER FLOW MONITORING REPORT
APPENDIX F…………….FLOW MASTER CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX G……………SEASP FUTURE PROJECTS

SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
1 6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Sewer Area Study has been prepared by FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC. to:
a.) Determine and illustrate the capacity of the existing sewer segments from the proposed development site to the City of Long Beach maintained sewer facility. b.) Determine and assess the existing sewer facilities’ capacity to adequately service the proposed development’s demand.
c.) As request of City and as part of this study's diligence, the sewer analysis will also consider the affects of a future office building project included in the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP), identified as 6701 Pacific Coast Highway in combination of the proposed subject project located at 6615 E. PCH.

The subject project site address is 6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA, 90803. The site is bound by Pacific Coast Highway to South West, 2nd Street to the North West, Shopkeeper Road to the North East, and Studebaker to South East. The study area is delineated by the existing sewer system within Pacific Coast Highway. The study begins at a manhole at South East side of the property and ends at the intersection of E 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway.

This sewer study is based on concept project program prepared by Architects Orange, dated July 14, 2022. This analysis will include tributary flow data collected through field investigations/monitoring of the sewer system from the proposed development.

Please note in reviewing the sewer flow monitoring data report provided in Appendix E (prepared by Utility Systems, Science & Software (UC3), the flow data for the most remote down stream SS MH #29 structure was unmeasurable due to the varying invert elevations and the resulting turbulent flow regimes. And as a consequence the next down stream SS MH #13 was monitored instead.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed development will be a 6-story mixed-use development consisting of up to 390 residential units with 4,800 SF of ground floor retail with 6 story parking structure consisting of 644 stalls. The project will connect to the 10” VCP sewer main in Pacific Coast Highway.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The limits of the area study consider the flows measured at the manholes within Pacific Coast Highway as well as within the existing adjacent property located at 6500 Pacific Coast Highway.

The project site is within the existing APNs #7237-020-050, 7237-020-040 and 7237-020-041, found in the records of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. The proposed 390 Residential Unit project consists of the redevelopment a 3.74-acre parcel which previously served as a commercial/industrial center. The site is situated on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway about 1,258.60 feet south from the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and 2nd street in the City of Long Beach.

Refer to Figure 1, Vicinity Map, for the project location and general vicinity context.

SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
2 6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach
FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP

4.0 SEWAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

4.1 EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM
An existing 10-inch VCP sewer main serving the site, under the local jurisdiction of the City of Long Beach, is located 91’ north of the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway and to the South side of the project site. Utility Systems, Science, and Software (US3) performed sewer flow monitoring on two sewer alignments.

The first alignment is along Pacific Coast Highway, which is the 10-inch VCP sewer line starting at the manhole #1 in front of the project and ending at manhole #37 in the intersection of 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway. This portion of the sewer main (about 3,214 feet long) consisting of 12 manholes was cleaned and video recorded. The flow monitoring took place at manhole #001, #34 and #37.

The second alignment is along Marina Drive, which is the 12” VCP sewer line starting from the manhole #31 located in the intersection of Studebaker Rd and Marina Dr. to manhole #41 in the intersection of 2nd St. and Marina Drive. This portion of the sewer main (about 2,761 feet long) consisting of 14 manholes was cleaned and video recorded. The flow monitoring took place at manhole #011 and #39. This sewer main currently serves the properties on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway between above mentioned intersections. (See Appendix C for the existing sewer as-built plans).

The 10” sewer main has a southerly flow conveyance toward the Marina Trunk Sewer in Pacific Coast Highway.

This sewer main has a slope of 0.014. The report completed by US3 gives a maximum flow depth during the study period of 0.57”. The measured peak flow rate in the 10-inch pipe is 8,755.2 GPD. The average flow depth during the study period is 0.34” (d/D = 0.03) with an average flow rate of 3,096 GPD. See Appendix E for the complete US3 Report).

Any existing on-site sewer lines uncovered during demolition and excavation shall be capped and abandoned at the right of way.

SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
3 6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

4.2 PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEM
The project site will be served by its own private sewer. No new public sewers are proposed onsite or offsite for this project. The proposed residential building will collectively discharge to the existing 10-inch VCP sewer main between manholes #003 and #034 as outlined in the US
3 Flow Monitoring Report dated July 26, 2022 (See
Appendix E). The proposed building will discharge an average daily flow of 103,740 GPD (d/D = 0.17) and a peak discharge of 207,480 GPD (d/D = 0.25). See Section 5.0 – Methodologies for complete calculations.

Two existing office buildings are going to be demolished and the peak flow generated out of those building is taken into account per table 2.

Los Angeles County Sewer District will serve has been provided for the project (See Appendix D). Approval of the City of Long Beach will serve for this project is contingent upon approval of this sewer study.

5.0 METHODOLOGIES

5.1 SEWER FLOW DETERMINATION
For the proposed apartment building located 6915 E. Pacific Coast Highway, The tributary sewer flow rates (Q) for the studied sewer lines are analyzed based on LA County sewer generation factor methodology and City of Long Beach system flow rate criteria. (See Appendix A)
For the proposed apartment building located 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway, By using Sewer Generation Factors based on occupancy for residential use –The daily “PEAK” flows are obtained by multiplying the “Average” daily flow of 95 gpcd by per capita factor of 2.8 by a peak flow factor of 2.

The proposed apartment building consists of 390 residential units. See Table 1 below for the GPD totals.

Average daily flow Per Capita Factor Number of Housholds Peak Factor Q 95 2.8 390 2 207,480
TABLE 1 - PROPOSED SEWER GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS 6615 E. PCH In addition, a 5,200 SF two story office building with 9,750 SF storage/warehouse at 6701 E. Pacific Coast Highway is proposed and the generated sewer will flow into 10” sewer line on north side of Pacific Coast Highway and is calculated per Table 2.

Use Type Sewer Demand Bldg Size (GSF) Peak Factor Est. Daily PEAK Flow Office 200 gal/1000 GSF 14,950 2.5 7,475
TABLE 2 - PROPOSED SEWER GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS 6701 E. PCH The existing onsite commercial buildings, to be demolished, has an estimated flow rate of 36,261 GPD (d/D =

0.1) using LA County flow calculation methods (based on county “zoning/land-use” method). See Table 3. This flow will be subtracted from the total proposed flows in order to generate that final build out condition d/D of the pipe.

SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
4 6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach
Existing Commercial Building Commercial City of Long Beach 0.015 3.74 36,261 Total 36,261
* Based on "Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies" document zoning coefficients TABLE 3 - EXISTING SEWER GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS
Name Occupancy Type City/County Jurisdiction *Coefficient (CFS/ACRE) Area (AC) *Est. Daily PEAK Flow

5.2 SEWER PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The existing sewer pipes were analyzed per LA County Standard S-C4, an acceptable range of d/D values of 0.5 or less (for pipe sizes < 15") up to d/D values of 0.75 (for pipe sizes up to 15" and larger). Refer to Appendix B for published LA County criteria.

The design capacity for the existing pipes were obtained by using Kutter’s formula with a roughness coefficient “n=0.013” for VCP pipes as shown in the flow diagram for the design of circular sanitary sewer system.

Flowmaster was used to calculate the flows within the sewer main. See Appendix F for the Flowmaster calculations.

Tables 4 below summarizes the Flowmaster findings for the pipe capacities for the peak flow condition when including both of the proposed flows from the proposed subject project located at 6615 E. PCH and the future project located at 6701 E. PCH.
10" existing pipe @ MH # 1
Peak GPD Max Pipe Ht. (in) d/D
Current Flow Rate 0.57 0.057 8,755
Existing Offices Removed 36,261
Both new projects Add. Flow 214,955 2.60 0.260
Total 2.40 0.240 187,449
10" existing pipe @ MH # 34
Peak GPD Max Pipe Ht. (in) d/D
Current Flow Rate 2.58 0.258 119,678
Existing Offices Removed 36,261
Both New Projects Add. Flow 214,955 2.60 0.260
Total 3.00 0.300 298,372
15" Sewer Trunk Line @ MH #34
Peak GPD Max Pipe Ht. (in) d/D
Current Flow Rate 2.58 0.172 119,678
Existing Offices Removed 36,261
Both New Projects Add. Flow 214,955 2.60 0.173
Total 4.20 0.280 298,372
15" Sewer Trunk Line @ MH #37
Peak GPD Max Pipe Ht. (in) d/D
Current Flow Rate 2.06 0.137 142,560
Existing Offices Removed 36,261
Both New Projects Add. Flow 214,955 2.60 0.173
Total 4.30 0.287 321,254
TABLE 4 - PROPOSED PIPE IMPACT - PEAK DAILY FLOW
SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
5 6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The results of the sewer calculations reflect findings at 10” sewer pipe at MH 34 (with the use of existing flow data information) show that the existing 10-inch sewer is flowing at 119,678 GPD (d/D = 0.25) under peak conditions. Table 4 shows that the addition of the proposed development’s peak flows to the existing 10” sewer line will result in flows at the lower end of the 0.5-0.75 d/D reference range for on-site analysis in Los Angeles County. The existing sewer main will experience a peak daily flow of 298,372 GPD with a max flow height of 3” (d/D = 0.3).

In conclusion when including both of the proposed flows from the proposed subject project located at 6615 E.

PCH and the future project located at 6701 E. PCH, the existing local 10-inch sewer is anticipated to have capacity to serve the proposed project.

The sewer calculations reflect findings at 15” sewer pipe at MH 37 (with the use of existing flow data information) show that the existing 15-inch sewer trunk line which is within LA county jurisdiction is flowing at 142,560 GPD (d/D = 0.13) under peak conditions. Table 4 shows that the addition of the proposed development’s peak flows to the existing 15” sewer trunk line will result in flows at the lower end of the 0.5-0.75 d/D reference range for on-site analysis in Los Angeles County. The existing sewer trunk line will experience a peak daily flow of 321,254 GPD with a max flow height of 4.3” (d/D = 0.29).

In Conclusion when including both of the proposed flows from the proposed subject project located at 6615 E.

PCH and the future project located at 6701 E. PCH, the existing 15-inch LA county sewer trunk line is anticipated to have capacity to serve the proposed project.

SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
6 6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

APPENDICES
SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

APPENDIX A
Occupancy Abbreviation *Average daily flow
Apartment Buildings:

Bachelor or Single dwelling units Apt 150 gal/D.U.
1 bedroom dwelling units Apt 200 gal/D.U.
2 bedroom dwelling units Apt 250 gal/D.U.
3 bedroom or more dwelling units Apt 300 gal/D.U.

Auditoriums, churches, etc. Aud 5 gal/seat
Automobile parking P 25 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Bars, cocktails lounges, etc. Bar 20 gal/seat
Commercial Shops & Stores CS 100 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Hospitals (surgical) HS 500 gal/bed
Hospitals (convalescent) HC 85 gal/bed
Hotels H 150 gal/room
Medical Buildings MB 300 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Motels MB 150 gal/unit
Office Buildings Off 200 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Restaurants, cafeterias, etc. R 50 gal/seat
Schools:

Elementary or Jr. High S 10 gal/student
High Schools HS 15 gal/student
Universities or Colleges U 20 gal/student
College Dormitories CD 85 gal/student
Zone Coefficient (cfs/Acre)
Agriculture ---------------------------------- 0.001
Residential*:

R-1 -------------------------------------------- 0.004
R-2 -------------------------------------------- 0.008
R-3 -------------------------------------------- 0.012
R-4 -------------------------------------------- 0.016* Commercial:

C-1 through C-4 ---------------------------- 0.015*
Heavy Industrial:

M-1 through M-4 -------------------------- 0.021*
exceed the coefficients shown
* Use 0.001 (cfs/unit) for condominiums only
Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies *Multiply the average daily flow by 2.5 to obtain the peak flow Zoning Coefficients
* Individual building, commercial or industrial plant capacities shall be the determining factor when they

Page 1 of 6 ends

3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES
All sanitary sewers shall be designed in accordance with these Design Standards, LBWD Rules and Regulations, and to accepted engineering principles. In all newly developed areas and/or in all existing areas where new sanitary sewers are required, the design shall include the provisions that the sewer system size and capacity can adequately accommodate the ultimate anticipated conditions.

3.01 SYSTEM FLOW RATE CRITERIA
Residential Use
Since the quantity of domestic sewage is a function of the population and of water consumption, sanitary sewer mains and laterals shall be designed for the saturation density of population expected in the areas served. The sanitary sewer system shall be designed for tributary areas, land use and population estimates based on the most recent General Plan and Sewer Master Plan.

All sanitary sewer mains shall be designed based on the peaked average daily flow. Design flow rates shall be in accordance with the following:

Qp = Peaked Average Daily Flow
Qp = Average daily flow x Per Capita Factor x Number of Households x Peak Factor Average daily flow: 95 gpcd (gallons per capita per day) Per Capita Factor: 2.8 persons/household (from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census) Peak factor: 2.0
Commercial and Industrial Use
Commercial and industrial dischargers will be investigated on a case‐by‐case basis.

3.02 SANITARY SEWER PIPELINE SIZING and Slope
Pipeline sizing for gravity pipelines shall be determined on the basis of the design Peak Average Daily Flow Rate (Qp) and incorporating the following criteria:

Pipe Diameter Manning’s Roughness Coefficient d/D Maximum 8” to 12” 0.013 0.50
15” or greater 0.013 0.75
A minimum pipe size of 8 inches shall be used for all public sewers, collection sewers, and private sewers within streets.

Required velocities at design flow (Qp) shall be as follows:

Minimum Maximum
Sanitary Sewer Pipelines 2 fps 8 fps
The maximum velocity at Qp flow allowed in any sanitary sewer pipeline is 8 fps.

SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

APPENDIX B
,CL, '",' :'.,,' ": " ,l", ' .. ~,:~(;.( '';~~(,;,
October 12, 2005 ~~ o~jj
Approved
--
'TO:

FROM:

Dean Efstathi0l;\ V
Dennis Hunte( ~
Land Development Division

POLICIES FOR MANAGING AVAILABLE SEWER CAPACITY

AND SEWAGE DISCHARGE IN EXCESS OF DESIGN CAPACITY
The following will set forth Public Works' policies related to managing sewer infrastructure capacity. Design capacity of the sewer mainline is defined as follows:
c: 15" diameter
;: 15" diameter
~ full = 100% capacity (dID)
% full = 100% capacity (dID)
When Public Works determines there is available capacity in a mainline sewer for infil and redevelopment projects, the remaining available capacity shall be allocated on a first come - first serve basis.

Sewer Advisory Committee
A Sewer Advisory Committee (SAC) will be formed for the purpose of recommending courses of action to address proposed development connecting to existing sewers that will cause them to be operating beyond their design capacity. The SAC will make their recommendations to Dean Efstathiou, Assistant Director. The SAC will be chaired by Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division and will have representatives from Design and Land Development Divisions. Each Division will appoint a Principal Engineer or Senior Civil Engineer as a representative to the SAC and will convene whenever sewer decisions are required to address developmental impacts. Sewer Maintenance will maintain records of SAC meetings and will prepare recommendations to Administration for approval. The SAC may require other Division representatives to participate on a case-by-case basis when necessary, such as Building and Safety and Programs Development.

Divisional Responsibilties
Desiqn Division

1. Support activities of the SAC.

2. Prepare sewer area studies when required.

Dea n Efstath iou
August 25, 2005

Page 2 ends

3. Maintain records/archive of all approved sewer area studies and flow measurements.

Land Development Division

1. Support activities of the SAC.

2. Impose sewer area study requirements for private developments if necessary and reviewlapprove all submittals.

3. Refer cases to SAC when both sewer area studies and flow measurements indicate that a potential overload situation exists or will exist based on criteria described below.

4. Provide copies of all approved sewer area studies and flow measurements to Design Division for archiving.

Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division
1 . Chair the SAC, maintain meeting records and prepare position papers to Administration.

2. Advise the SAC when an overload condition is observed during maintenance activities.

3. Initiate effort to track and map all overload areas within the Consolidated Maintenance District.

4. Keep database of all flow measurement results.

Desiqn Criteria

1. Capacity of sewer mainlines less than 15" in diameter are considered full (100 percent) when the ratio of the depth of flow (d) over the pipe diameter (D) is equal to 0.5, expressed as dID = 0.5.

2. Capacity of sewer mainlines equal to or greater than 15" in diameter are considered full (100 percent) when the ratio of the depth of flow (d) over the pipe diameter (D) is equal to 0.75, expressed as dID = 0.75.

Dean Efstathiou
August 25, 2005

Page 3 ends

3. When an area study indicates that flow conditions based on calculated discharges is between 101 percent to 150 percent of capacity, no flow measurements and no mitigation will be required. If maintenance records warrant, a flow test may be required.

4. When an area study for a development that proposes to increase the density or change the zoning indicates that flow conditions are between 151 to 200 percent of capacity, flow measurements shall be required. If the flow test indicates that the actual flow condition is below 151 percent, no mitigation wil be required. If the flow test results indicate the actual flow is above 151 percent, the case shall be referred to the SAC to evaluate options and make recommendations to Administration for approval. These options may include, but are not limited to: requiring full mitigation from the development, assessing pro-rata shares, creation of a reimbursement district, or establishing a County Improvement (CI) district.

AHN:ca
P:\LDPUB\SUBPCHECK\SEWER\MISCELLANEOUS\SEWER IN FRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT cc: Administration (Kelly)
BUil?ing and Safety (Patel) D,). Design (Kumar) (Itl. ¡Art ¿~ Land Development (D'Antonio, Burge~hong, Witler, Narag) Programs Development (Afshari) ,
Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance (Del Real, Lehto)
SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

APPENDIX C
yL
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
140.5' -RCP
33' -CONC
-RCP 133'
RCP
H-5970 211.0'
H-5978
246.5'
144.0'
SADDLE
H-6000
H-6004

46.5'
H-25
H
0 -248
229.0'
199.0' 212.9'
214.0'
153.5'
SADDLE 57.0'
SADDLE

8.0'
SADDLE
171.0'
SADDLE

65.0'
SADDLE
235.0'
SADDLE
191.5'
H-5954
H-5960
H-5966

81.0'
H-6201
IN MH
H-6640
H-6417
244.0
SA
'
DDLEH-251-253

83.5'
H-251-253
280.0'

THE TOLEDO

MARINA DR SE

STUDEBAKER RD
E 2ND ST

PACIFIC
COAST
HWY
MARINA
DR
APPIAN
WAY
* *
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

LONG BEACH MARINA

STADIUM
BASIN NO. 4
BASIN NO. 3
115
140
36 340
94 135
46 105
36 92
34 68
30 75
21048
36 30
84 92
255
268
37 92
30 180
105
60 100
438
69 460
250
245
236
337
358
36 15

32.5 32.5
4 1
0 5
30 45
30 30
45 1 5
50 69
57 70
30 62.5 62.5
70 30
62 57
60 30
025 087
023
024
027
028
038
011
012
032
014
022
013
009
018
015
021
006
020
019
017
012
001
011
016
010
048
001
005
006 008
004
003
007
001
002
330'
270.51'
-8"
-8"
VCP
VCP
-10" VCP
128.5'

54.02'
330'
-10
-8
"
"
CWP
VCP
VCP
290.76'
-8"
B-336
140.5'
10'
310.62'
-8" CP
-10"
VCP
CWP
-10"
-12"
VC
P
VCP
-10"
VC
P
144'
-6"
-6"
42'
195.8'B-2042A
40'
VCP
VCP -8"
170'
200.1'
-10"
-12"
84'
-6
1 "
13'
-8"
VCP
BS-229
VCP
VCP
VCP
R-3410
-6"
C-3473A
VC
P
50'
VCP
VCP
-8"
-6"
-6"
323.3'
312'
50'
131'

PRIVATE
-18" STUB
0" VCP C-3473A
300'
280'
75' -6" VCP -12"
-8"
VCP
VCP
VCP
-8"

PRIVATE
VCP
B-2042A
219'
-8" 239.1'
56' -6
4 "
01'
VCP
VCP
300'
-10"
-12"
-12"
VCP
328'
VCP
VCP
B-1982
-6" 99'

PRIVATE
66'
41'
B-1982 VCP
-6"
-8" 136'
C-3473A
36'
VCP

PRIVATE
166'
VCP -8"
-8"
55'
250'
VCP

PRIVATE

61.76'
B-1982
50'
40'
54'
250' -12"
314'
VCP
-10" VCP
VCP -12" 266'
250'
330'
-12"
-8"
VCP
VCP B-2036
B-1982
330'
VCP
-8"
-10"
VCP
248'
27'
Z
Z
Z
Z
|Y
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
{`
`{
{`
{`
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
Z
Z
Z
Z
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD AD
AD
AD
SEWER ATLAS:
0 ®50 100
Feet
À
À
À
À

LONG BEACH WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER ATLAS:

SEWER ATLAS: SEWER ATLAS:

This map is not an official record of LBWD but is compiled with data from different sources. Locations and sizes of geographic features and facilities shown are based on those sources. This information is furnished to any person strictly as a convenience. LBWD does not assume any responsibility for its accuracy or completeness.

S04 T04
T06
T05
S06
R04
S05
R06
R05
S04 T04
T06
T05
S06
R04
S05
R06
R05
Date: 7/27/2016
S05
S05
S05
S05
yL
yL
[
[
[
[ [
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
STL 8"
STL -42" 87'
125' -42" STL
33' -CONC
-RCP 133'
150.0'
SADDLE 57.0'
SADDLE

8.0'
SADDLE
171.0'

81.0'
H-6201
H-6417
H-6332
H-6255

PACIFIC
COAST
HWY

WESTMINSTER AVE

MARINA DR SE

MARINA DR SE
E 2ND ST
E 2ND ST
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*

RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS
100
270
130
90 150
66 385
120
230
145
150
35 100
145
35 300
161
140
158
105
475
30 90
174
125
140
180
105
50 69
50 69
50 50
50 58
26 2
2 6
3 32
18 5050
50 60 60
30 50
30 57
52 26
70 23
69 57
70 30
SAD

15.0'
DLE
H-6401
002
004
009
010
015 016
014
017
018
020
019
013
021 022
056
030
023
024 031
029
036
045
025
037
026
010 035
028
044
040
034
008
027
041
009
042
043 039 033
038
011
012
032
014
022
013
009
048
048
007
046
005
006
004
003
001
002
046
047
VCP
6"

14.1'
300'
PVC
-15"
-6"132.2'
VCP
162'
-8" VCP

14.1'
168.3' -8" VCP 27.9'
300' -15"
151.8'
VC
-8
P
" VCP

27.9'
157.4' -8" VC
6 P
0'
322.7'
PVC
-15"
-8"
CSDLAC
52'
VCP

24.1'
143.9'
3-P-26
40'
-8" VC
P
P
VC -8"
58'
93'
-15"
VCP

36.1'
288.5'
-15"
VC
P
P
VC
-10"
126.79'
-8"
B-888
61'
PVC
174.7'
40'
-8"
192'

PRIVATE
VCP
60'
-15
C
"
-3471A
VCP
VCP
38'
40'
-15"
PVC
-10"
3-P-26
-8"
160'
45'
269.70'
75'
VCP
VCP42.4'
60'
291.4'
-10"
-10"
-15"
-10"
VCP
354.6'
60'
PVC
VC
P
P
VC
VCP
-
15"
8" 52'
145.3'

PRIVATE
C-3473A
-15"
269'
VCP
60 -15"
'
VCP
-8"
357'
B-888
VCP
-6
B
"
-890A
PVC
C-3473A
VCP
VCP
-8"
238.4'
-6"
75'
VCPB-890A
60'
8" STUB 288.1'
-12"
VCP

PRIVATE
-10"
-12"
VCP
-10"
180'
231.6'
VCPB-1982PVC
55'
195.4'
-8"
-10"
98'
PVC
45'
VCP
VCP
-8"
70'
-6"
52'
VCP
-15"
-6"
VCP
-10"
95'VCP
275'
FORCE
MAIN

70.3'
PVC B-890A
-8"
291.6' -10"
VCP

PRIVATE
104.2' -12"
VC
P
VCP
-10"
VC
P
144'
-6"
-6"
42'
195.8'B-2042A
40'
VCP
VCP -8"
170'
200.1'
-10"
-12"
84'
-6
1 "
13'
-8"
VCP
BS-229
VCP
VCP
VCP
R-3410
-6"
C-3473A
VC
P
50'
VCP
VCP
-8"
-6"
-6"
323.3'
312'
50'
131'

PRIVATE
-18" STUB
0" VCP C-3473A
300'
280'
75' -6" VCP -12"
-8"
VCP
VCP
-8"VCP
78'
30' -6" VCP
25' VCP -6"

RELINED W/ CIPP
SC-0216
|P8
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
|Y
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
{`
Z
Z
Z
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
X! X!
X!
X!
X!
X!
Z
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
SEWER ATLAS:
0 ®50 100
Feet
À
À
À
À

LONG BEACH WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER ATLAS:

SEWER ATLAS: SEWER ATLAS:

T07
T06
S07
T05
S06
S05
R07
R06
R05
T07
T06
S07
T05
S06
S05
R07
R06
R05 Date: 7/27/2016
S06
S06
S06
S06

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
X
!e
8'' VCP 0
B-1982 PVT
8'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
10'' VCP
0 B-1982
LBWD
8'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
10'' CWP
B-1982 LBWD
8'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
8'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
15'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
15'' VCP 0
B-888
LBWD
6'' VCP
B-888
LBWD
6'' VCP 0
C-3473A
PVT
6'' V
CP 0
C-3473A
PV
T
6'' VCP
0 C-3473A
PVT
6'' VCP
0 C-3473A
PVT
6'' VCP 0
C-3473A
PVT
10'' VCP
B-1982
LBWD
6'' VCP 0
C-3473A
PVT
6'' VCP 0
C-3473A
PVT
6'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
6'' VCP 0
C-3473A
PVT
12'' VCP 0
B-1982
LBWD
6'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
10'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
'' VCP 0
C-3473A
PVT
8'' VCP 0 B-1982 LBWD
8'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
10'' V
C
P 0 B-1982 LB
W
D
12'' VCP 0
B-1982 LBWD
10'' VCP 0
C-3473A PVT
028
010
001
037
003
007
018
006
008
005
033
001
009
009
034
002
032
011
017
036
004
035
011
023
019
031
012
020
010
030
029
001
047
001
046
005
004
001
003
008 006
007
002
026
S06
S05
S04
T06
T05
T04
2ND ST

SAN GABRIEL

RIVER FC

MARINA DR

STUDEBAKER RD

E PACIFIC COAST HWY

SHOPKEEPER RD
Disclaimer: This map and/or data are not an official record LBWD. It is compiled from data furnished by private contractors and other sources. Locations, sizes of geographic feature and facilities shown are based on these sources. This information is furnished strictly as a convenience. LBWD does not assume any responsibility for its accuracy or completeness. ± 0 40 80 160 240 Feet
1 inch = 233 feet
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
D
D
D
D
D
zP
zP
S08
10 STL
40'W
CL
3-P-26
CSDLAC
12 VCP
50'W
CL
3-P-43
CSDLAC
15'' VCP
3-P-26
CSDLAC
15'' VCP
3-P-26
CSDLAC
15'' VCP 0
C-3473A
PVT
15'' VCP 0
3-P-48
CSDLAC
6'' VCP 0
3-P-26
CSDLAC
6'' VCP 0
3-P-26
CSDLAC
15'' VCP 0
B-888
LBWD
6'' VCP
B-888
LBWD
6'' VCP
B-888
LBWD
8'' VCP
C-3471A
PVT
8'' VCP 0 C-3471A PVT
8'' PVC 0
B-890A
PVT
10'' VCP 0
3-P-26
CSDLAC
10'' VCP
0 C-3473A
PVT
15'' VCP
0 B-890A
LBWD
15'' VCP 0
3-P-26
CSDLAC
12'' VCP 0
B-1982 LBWD
10'' VCP 0
3-P-26
CSDLAC
10'' PVC 0
B-890A PVT
6'' PVC 0
3-P-26
CSDLAC
15''
VCP 3-P-48
CSDLAC
6'' UNK
3-P-26
CSDLAC
12'' VCP 0
B-890A LBWD
041
012
017
030
015
029
037
013 011
018
003
016
044
005
033
019
014
016
009
034
006
028
042
018
026
031
043
020
004
021
025
015
002
010
022
036
023
035
024
014
013
039
040
005
004
047
046
002
003
S07
S06
MARINA
DR

E PACIFIC COAST HWY
BASIN 6 FC

MARINA PACIFICA MALL

LOS CERRITOS

CHANNEL FC
2ND ST

MARINA PACIFICA DR

MARINA DR
Disclaimer: This map and/or data are not an official record LBWD. It is compiled from data furnished by private contractors and other sources. Locations, sizes of geographic feature and facilities shown are based on these sources. This information is furnished strictly as a convenience. LBWD does not assume any responsibility for its accuracy or completeness. ± 0 40 80 160 240 Feet
1 inch = 233 feet
SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

APPENDIX D
DOC 6637708.D03
July 25, 2022
Ref. DOC 6634600
Mr. Fedros Ghadiri
Civil Engineer II
Fuscoe Engineering
600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Dear Mr. Ghadiri:

Will Serve Letter for 6615 Pacific Coast Highway Mixed-Use Development The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received your will serve letter request for the subject project on July 20, 2022. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundary of District No. 3. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:

1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Marina Trunk Sewer Section 4, located in Pacific Coast Highway north of Westminster Avenue. The Districts’ 15-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 1.4 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 0.5 mgd when last measured in 2017.

2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 243.1 mgd.

3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project, described in the application as a mixeduse development to include 400 residential apartments, 5,013 square feet of retail space, a 3,579 squarefoot gym, and 2,191 square feet of office space, is 37,406 gallons per day, after all structures on the project site are demolished. For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.

4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, the developer should contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727.

SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

APPENDIX E
2022.07 Pacific Site 4
MH at ~6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy
MH in NW corner of address parking
lot, west of bldg
X
Install Date: 7/26/2022
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 82"
MH Coordinates: 33.755057, -118.108002
Slow to moderate open channel hydraulics
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

0.8 fps 0.3" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
No laterals; monitored the upstream line as it
provided the best hydraulics during inspection.

Traffic Safety
Used cones & signs in accord w/site-specific
CATTCH requirements.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
10"

96.5"
Round
10"/10"
Good
Concrete
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

14.4"

4.4"
Upstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Fuscoe
Long Beach, CA 90803
MH # 001
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
8/12/2022
Sewer Plan
Northwest
2022.07 Pacific Site 4
MH at ~6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy
Long Beach, CA 90803
Meter Site Document
Manhole Before Install
Installed
Site
Installation Process
Upstream Pipe Size
Temporary Flow Study
Fuscoe
2022.07 Pacific Site 4
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 7/26/2022
Meter Stop Date To 8/3/2022
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 0.761 0.350 0.003
Maximum 1.680 0.570 0.009
Minimum 0.250 0.250 0.001
Pipe Size 10.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
2022.07 Pacific Site 1
MH at ~6346 E. Pacific Coast Hwy
MH on sidewalk, east of address X
Install Date: 7/26/2022
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 119.5"
MH Coordinates: 33.759735, -118.113014
Slow to moderate open channel hydraulics
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

0.9 fps 6.9" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
No laterals; monitored the upstream line as it
provided the best hydraulics during inspection.

Traffic Safety
Used cones to delineate work zone.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
15"
141"
Round
15"/15"
Fair
Brick
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

21.5"

6.5"
Upstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Fuscoe
Long Beach, CA 90803
MH # 013
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
8/12/2022
Sewer Plan
Northwest
2022.07 Pacific Site 1
MH at ~6346 E. Pacific Coast Hwy
Long Beach, CA 90803
Meter Site Document
Manhole Before Install
Installed
Site
Installation Process
Upstream Pipe Size
Temporary Flow Study
Fuscoe
2022.07 Pacific Site 1
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 7/26/2022
Meter Stop Date To 8/3/2022
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 0.938 6.866 0.332
Maximum 1.830 8.250 0.816
Minimum 0.520 4.220 0.160
Pipe Size 15.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
2022.07 Pacific Site 3
MH at ~6405 Pacific Coast Hwy
MH in green space south of 2nd St, NW
of address
X
Install Date: 7/26/2022
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 98.5"
MH Coordinates: 33.758165, -118.110250
Moderate open channel hydraulics with some
turbulence due to inflow from lateral
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

1.2 fps 2.0" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
Inlets from NE & SE; monitored downstream line
to get total flow.

Traffic Safety
MH in green space, no traffic control required.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
15"
118"
Round
15"/15"
Good
Brick
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

19.5"

4.5"
Downstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Fuscoe
Long Beach, CA 90803
MH # 034
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
8/12/2022
Sewer Plan
Northwest
2022.07 Pacific Site 3
MH at ~6405 Pacific Coast Hwy
Long Beach, CA 90803
Meter Site Document
Manhole Before Install
Installed
Site
Installation Process
Upstream Pipe Size
Temporary Flow Study
Fuscoe
2022.07 Pacific Site 3
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 7/26/2022
Meter Stop Date To 8/3/2022
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 1.188 1.961 0.075
Maximum 1.780 2.580 0.120
Minimum 0.690 1.260 0.025
Pipe Size 15.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
2022.07 Pacific Site 2
MH at ~6391 Pacific Coast Hwy
MH in open space east of road, NW of
address
X
Install Date: 7/26/2022
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 147"
MH Coordinates: 33.758708, -118.111529
Moderate open channel hydraulics with some
turbulence due to bend in trough
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

1.9 fps 1.4" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
No laterals; monitored the upstream line as it
provided the best hydraulics during inspection.

Traffic Safety
MH in open space, no traffic control required.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
15"
167"
Round
15"/15"
Fair
Concrete
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

19.75"

4.75"
Upstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Fuscoe
Long Beach, CA 90803
MH # 037
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
8/12/2022
Sewer Plan
Northwest
2022.07 Pacific Site 2
MH at ~6391 Pacific Coast Hwy
Long Beach, CA 90803
Meter Site Document
Manhole Before Install
Installed
Site
Installation Process
Upstream Pipe Size
Temporary Flow Study
Fuscoe
2022.07 Pacific Site 2
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 7/26/2022
Meter Stop Date To 8/3/2022
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 1.922 1.421 0.078
Maximum 2.620 2.060 0.143
Minimum 1.344 0.710 0.023
Pipe Size 15.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
2022.07.26-08.03 Temporary Sewer Flow Monitoring Fuscoe Engineering Inc.

Utility Systems Science & Software
 Prepared the data reports.
o The table below contains a summary of the average (Avg) and maximum (Max) velocities (Vel) and levels (Lev) collected during this study as well as the calculated flow rates (Flow) and depth versus diameter ratios (d/D).

MH
Pipe
Size
(in)
Avg
Vel
(fps)
Max
Vel
(fps)
Avg
Lev
(in)
Max
Lev
(in)
Avg
Flow
(gpm)
Max
Flow
(gpm)
Avg
d/D
Max
d/D
013 15 0.92 1.83 6.87 8.25 227.81 566.63 0.46 0.55
037 15 1.93 2.62 1.41 2.06 53.33 99.00 0.09 0.14
034 15 1.19 1.78 1.95 2.58 51.93 83.11 0.13 0.17
001 10 0.75 1.68 0.34 0.57 2.15 6.08 0.03 0.06
011 12 1.21 2.14 2.14 4.08 53.58 140.71 0.18 0.34
039 12 0.80 1.19 3.90 5.57 82.47 140.64 0.33 0.46
Equipment
Figure above: Web-Enabled Flo-Dar® AV Sensor, Radar-Based Velocity/Area Flow Meter SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

APPENDIX F
Cross Section for Modeled Max flow @ 10" SS - 1.4% MH#1 Project Description
Kutter
Formula Friction Method
Solve For Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.014 ft/ft
Normal Depth 2.4 in
Diameter 10.0 in
Discharge 0.29 cfs
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
9/13/2022
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Marina Trunk Sewer .fm8 Center
Cross Section for Copy of Modeled Max flow @ 10" SS - 1.4% MH#34 Project Description
Kutter
Formula Friction Method
Solve For Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.014 ft/ft
Normal Depth 3.0 in
Diameter 10.0 in
Discharge 0.46 cfs
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
9/10/2022
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Marina Trunk Sewer .fm8 Center
Cross Section for Modeled Max flow @ 15" SS - 0.2% Marina Tr MH #34 Project Description
Kutter
Formula Friction Method
Solve For Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.002 ft/ft
Normal Depth 4.2 in
Diameter 15.0 in
Discharge 0.46 cfs
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
9/10/2022
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Marina Trunk Sewer .fm8 Center
Cross Section for Modeled Max flow @ 15" SS - 0.2% Marina Tr MH#37 Project Description
Kutter
Formula Friction Method
Solve For Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.002 ft/ft
Normal Depth 4.3 in
Diameter 15.0 in
Discharge 0.49 cfs
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
9/13/2022
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Marina Trunk Sewer .fm8 Center
SEWER AREA STUDY September 2022
6615 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach

APPENDIX G

MARINA DR

SAN GABRIEL RIVER FC

PACIFIC COAST HWY
2ND ST

STUDEBAKER RD

SAN GABRIEL RIVER FC

SHOPKEEPER RD

PACIFIC

MARINA DR

COAST HWY
APNs: 7237020050, 7237020040
6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway
Carmel Partners
390 dwelling units, 4,800 SF of commercial
APN: 7242012006
6700 E. Pacific Coast Highway
Holland Partner Group
290 units, 3,100 SF of commercial
APN: 7242011013
6500 E. Pacific Coast Highway
Onni Group
Approx. 600 units with small amount of retail
APN: 7237020043
6701 E. Pacific Coast Highway
Lyon Living
5,200 SF (2-story) office building with
9,750 SF storage/warehouse,
establish 50 new oil wells & associated storage
5 4 7
3 1
9 8
6 2
T:\DeveServices\Map and Analysis Requests\A Map for 2 Parcels for Sergio Gutierrez SEASP Area Projects
250 125 0 250 500
Feet
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
July 2023
Appendix L Will Serve Letter, Long Beach Water
Department
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

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

MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
July 2023
Appendix M Will Serve Letter, Long Beach Energy
Resources
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

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

2400 EAST SPRING STREET • LONG BEACH, CA 90806
(562) 570-2000 • www.longbeach.gov
February 02, 2023

Mr. Nick Molina
DUEx
125 N Olive St,
Orange, CA 92866
Subject: Will Serve Letter for New Development at 6615 E PCH (2nd and PCH) Dear Mr. Molina:

This letter confirms that, upon completion of construction, natural gas hook up and services will be provided to the 6615 E PCH (2nd and PCH) development site located in the vicinity of Pacific Coast Hwy & South of 2nd St, in Long Beach, California.

Since the City of Long Beach is the sole provider of natural gas within its city limits, gas service to this parcel is available, subject to analysis of gas loads for this development and the utility and development regulations in the City of Long Beach Municipal Code.

The developer/owner will be responsible for all costs and fees associated with impacts to the gas distribution system and the installation of all gas facilities to meet demands for the development. Please refer to the City of Long Beach, Energy Resources Department website, http://www.longbeach.gov/lbgo/, for information on existing/new gas service standards and to access current gas rates and fee schedule.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Giancarlo Moral, PE
Mechanical Engineer
[email protected]
(562) 570-2032
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
July 2023
Appendix N Will Serve Letter, Southern California
Edison
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

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

Will Serve Letter Only
Rev. 07/09/12 DS-125
Your project is located in Southern California Edison (SCE) service territory. SCE will serve the above subject project’s electrical requirements per the California Public Utilities Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tariffs.

SCE may need to conduct utility studies, where applicable, to assess whether additions or modifications to the existing electric infrastructure are required to serve this project. Where applicable, SCE has attached Appendix (B) which not only describes the study, and permitting, but includes a Project Information Sheet that will need to be completed by you and submitted to SCE if your project is at a point where SCE has to determine the required electrical utility work. This Will-Serve letter does not imply that either: (i) these studies have been completed, or (ii) that any required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis of project-related electric utility impacts has been conducted.

I am the SCE Design Representative currently assigned to this project. SCE or Applicant will design and construct all required electrical infrastructure to serve this project provided you enter into the applicable contractual agreements with SCE identify scope of electrical utility work required, and supply the following information:

Site plans as required
Required contracts and agreements (fully executed)
Applicable fees
Local permits
Required easement documents
Your project will be scheduled for construction once SCE has all the necessary information for your project and you have submitted or agreed to the applicable requirements as stated above, and paid any necessary fees.

If your project will not require SCE services, please notify us so that we can update our records.

SCE appreciates your business. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at Sincerely,
SCE Design Representative
Enclosure: Appendix B, where applicable

Long Beach City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Long Beach City Council
September 19, 2023