No significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant with Mitigation.
Construction Vibration
Table 17, Estimated Project Construction Vibrat ion Levels at Nearby Buildings, shows the PPV relative to building damage to sensitive uses from vibr ation activities. The assessment of vibration induced damage was performe d by assuming that equipment would be operating at the property lines closest to the nearest buildings. For analyses of construction vibration induced damage, Project-generated vibration is me asured from the source to the closest structure, unlike analyses of noise impacts, which are conducted at the property lines of affected properties. As sh own in Table 17, all PPV levels would be below the building damage threshold at adjacent off-site stru ctures. As such, vibration generated by the construction of the Project would not result in significant impacts related vibration induced building damage.
TABLE 17
ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
AT NEARBY BUILDINGS
Equipment
Vibration Levels (PPV, in/sec)
North –
St. Francis
Medical Center
West –
Beechwood
Avenue MFR
South –
Holser Middle
School
East – Lynwood
Library
(@ 95 ft) (@ 118 ft) (@175 ft) (@105 ft)
Vibratory roller 0.028 0.020 0.011 0.024
Large bulldozer 0.012 0.009 0.005 0.010
Small bulldozer 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Jackhammer 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.004
Loaded trucks 0.010 0.007 0.004 0.009
Building Damage
Criterion 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300
Exceeds Criteria? No No No No
PPV: peak particle velocity; in/sec: inches per second; ft: feet Source: FTA 2018 (Calculations can be found in Appendix G).
270
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-70
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Table 18, Project Construction Vibration Annoyance at Sensit ive Uses, shows the potential for vibration annoyance from construction-generated vibration proposed at the Project site.
TABLE 18
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANNOYANCE AT SENSITIVE USES
Equipment
Vibration Levels (PPV, in/sec)
North – St.
Francis Medical
Center
West –
Beechwood
Avenue MFR
South – Holser
Middle School
East – Lynwood
Library
(@ 95 ft) (@ 118 ft) (@175 ft) (@105 ft)
Vibratory roller 0.028 0.020 0.011 0.024
Large bulldozer 0.012 0.009 0.005 0.010
Small bulldozer 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 0.0003
Jackhammer 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.004
Loaded trucks 0.010 0.007 0.004 0.009
Annoyance
Criterion 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Exceeds Criteria? No No No No
PPV: peak particle velocity; in/sec: inches per second; avg: average; ft: feet Source: FTA 2018 (Calculations can be found in Appendix G).
As shown in Table 18, Project construction vi bration levels would no t exceed the barely perceptible threshold when cons truction activities occur unde r the worst-case (i.e., closest to the receptor) exposure conditions. Construction-related vibration would be substantially less under typical conditions when construction activities are located farther away. Because vibration levels would be belo w the significance thresholds, vibration generated by Project construction equipment would not be expected to generate distinctly perceptible levels of vibration at the nearest uses. Therefore, impa cts related to vibratio n annoyance would be less than significant without mitigation.
Vibration from Piling Driving
According to the City, pilings may be required should shoring be necessary to accommodate the infiltration chambers. Pile driving is amon g the most vibration in tensive activities in construction. As a result, pile driving was mo deled from the area where the infiltration chambers would be installed to the nearest affected structures in all four cardinal directions.
Table 19, Vibration Levels from Pile Driving at Nearby Buildings, shows the PPV from pile driving relative to building damage to sensitive uses from pile driving activities.
271
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-71
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TABLE 19
VIBRATION LEVELS FROM PILE DRIVING AT NEARBY BUILDINGS
Equipment
Vibration Levels (PPV, in/sec)
North –
Lynwood
Natatorium
West –
Beechwood
Avenue MFR
South – Holser
Middle School
East – Lynwood
Community
Center
(@ 71 ft) (@ 825 ft) (@175 ft) (@ 245 ft)
Pile Driver (impact) -
Upper Range 0.317 0.008 0.082 0.049
Pile Driver (impact) -
Typical 0.135 0.003 0.035 0.021
Pile Driver (sonic) -
Upper Range 0.153 0.004 0.040 0.024
Pile Driver (sonic) -
Typical 0.036 0.001 0.009 0.006
Criteria 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300
Exceeds Criteria? Yes No No No
PPV: peak particle velocity; in/sec: inches per second; avg: average; ft: feet Source: FTA 2018 (Calculations can be found in Appendix G).
Table 20, Pile Driving Vibration Annoyance at Sensitive Uses, shows the potential for vibration annoyance from potential pile driving-generated vibration proposed at the Project site.
272
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-72
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TABLE 20
PILE DRIVING VIBRATION ANNOYANCE AT SENSITIVE USES
Equipment
Vibration Levels (PPV, in/sec)
North –
Natatorium
West –
Beechwood
Avenue MFR
South – Holser
Middle School
East – Lynwood
Library
(@ 71 ft) (@ 825 ft) (@175 ft) (@245 ft)
Pile Driver (impact) -
Upper Range 0.317 0.008 0.082 0.049
Pile Driver (impact) -
Typical 0.135 0.003 0.035 0.021
Pile Driver (sonic) -
Upper Range 0.153 0.004 0.040 0.024
Pile Driver (sonic) -
Typical 0.036 0.001 0.009 0.006
Annoyance
Criterion 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Exceeds Criteria? Yes No Yes Yes
PPV: peak particle velocity; in/sec: inches per second; avg: average; ft: feet Source: FTA 2018 (Calculations can be found in Appendix G).
As shown in Tables 19 and 20, levels of vibr ation generated by impa ct pile drivers would exceed the building damage criteria at the upper range as modeled at the Lynwood Natatorium, while impact pile driver vibrat ion levels would exceed the human annoyance threshold for all receptors with the exception of the residences located to the west of the Project site. Therefore, MM NOI-4 mandates th e use of alternative non-impact pile driving methods. As a result, with implementation of MM NOI-4, vibration impacts at the closest receptors would be reduced to levels that are less than significant.
Vibration from Haul Truck Traffic
Large trucks (haul trucks) generate lower levels of vibration at 25 feet (0.076 in/sec PPV) than vibratory rollers and bulldozers. Vibrat ion generated by vehicles and trucks is influenced by a number of factors, includin g pavement condition; vehicle speed; vehicle weight; type of suspension; and tire condition (under-inflated or over-inflated) [FTA 2018].
Vibration generated by haul trucks during Pr oject construction would be minimal due to several factors, namely:
• Condition of adjacent roadways: The paveme nt on Cesar E. Chavez Lane and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is smooth. Smooth pavement, as opposed to worn pavement riddled with potholes and cracks, mitigate s the intensity of vibration generated by trucks, since pavement that contains cracks and potholes increases the force of tires striking the pavement (Transportation Association of Canada 2006). • Vehicle speed: Haul trucks travelling along the adjacent roadways would be travelling at speeds no greater than 35 miles per hour. According to the FTA, truck speed would 273
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-73
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
need to double to result in a vibration level increase of approximately 4 to 6 VdB (FTA 2018).
Therefore, due to the Project-specific conditions outlined above, vibration generated by haul trucks would not affect nearby sensitive recept ors. As a result, pote ntial impacts resulting from haul truck vibration would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Project Operation Vibration
The operation of the proposed Project would not include the operation of any new sources of vibration that could be felt beyond the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The stormwater infrastructure that would be insta lled is not anticipated to generate levels of vibration that would be detectable offsite, as infiltration chambers and bioswales lack mechanical parts which could cause vibration generated through friction or impact as parts make contact with each other. The pumps that would be utilized to help convey excess runoff would not result in vibration impacts as these pumps would be located at sufficient distance from the closest sensitive receptors. As a re sult, no operational vibration impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project site is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport.
The closest airport to the Project site is Co mpton/Woodley Airport, located approximately three miles southwest of the Project site. The Pr oject site is located outside of the existing and projected 65-dBA CNEL noise contour for Compton/Woodley Airport. In addition, the Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Aircraft overflights do not significantly contribute to the noise environm ent at the Project site, and the Project would not expose park patrons or ma intenance workers to excessive noise levels. As a result, no impact is anticipated to occur.
Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 Construction Timing: Avoid construction during evening and nighttime hours (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and on weekends and holidays.
MM NOI-2 Equipment Noise Abatement Maintenance: Ensure that all construction equipment has the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers and engine enclosures, and is intact, in good condition, and operational.
MM NOI-3 Equipment Idling: Turn off idling equi pment that isn’t imminently needed during construction activities.
274
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-74
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MM NOI-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading perm it, the project Applicant or designee must produce evidence acceptable to the City of Lynwood Community Development Director demonstrating that any pile driving done during the Project must be done using drilled pile s, a sonic/vibratory pile driver, or a push pile driver.
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numb ers of people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
a) Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by pr oposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. Growth-inducing impacts are generally as sociated with the provision of urban services to undeveloped or rural area. Growth-inducing impacts include the following:
• New development in an area presently und eveloped and economic factors which may influence development . The Project would involve the installation of stormwater infrastructure and various park improvements within Lynwood Park. Lynwood Park is situated in an urban area; thus, the Project would not constitute development in an undeveloped or rural area.
• Extension of roadways and other transportation facilities . The Project consists of various stormwater infrastructure an d park improvements. The Project’s implementation would not require the extension of roadways and/or other transportation facilities as the Projec t’s implementation would not result in substantial population or employment growth that would necessitate an extension of any roadways or transportation facilities . In addition, maintenance workers as well as visitors to the butterfly garden and ephemeral stream would continue to utilize the existing roadways, driveways, and sidewalks.
• Extension of infrastructure and other improvements. The Project involves the installation of various stormwater infrastructure. The Project seeks to improve water quality discharged to the Lower Los An geles River and facilitate groundwater recharge through infiltration from the su bsurface reservoir. The replenishment of 275
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-75
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
groundwater aquifers would occur gradually. The site is presently served by existing infrastructure.
• Major off-site public projects (treatment plants, etc.). The Project’s negligible increase in demand for utility services can be accommodated without the construction or expansion of landfills, water treatment plants, or wastewater treatment plants. • The removal of housing requiring replacement housing elsewhere . The Project site is located within the existing Lynwood Park. There are no housing units located within the Park, and the Project’s implementation would not require the removal of nearby housing as the Project would be confined within the Park. • Additional population growth leading to increased demand for goods and services. The Project’s operation would involve quarterly maintenance visits with a one- to two- person crew; this would not necessitate additional hiring to provide long-term maintenance services.
• Short-term growth-inducing impacts related to the Project’s construction. The Project would bring in City staff, contractors, an d other authorized personnel to the Project site for the duration of the construction pe riod. It is anticipated that the local or regional pool of construction workers wo uld provide skilled workers to satisfy the construction-related positions. Accordingly, it is unlikely that workers would relocate to the area for construction of this Project.
The proposed Project would provide a regional stormwater runoff capture facility within Lynwood Park and new park features such as the butterfly garden and ephemeral stream.
Although there will be new and improved on-site facilities because Lynwood Park is already intensively used by all segments of the communi ty, the City does not anticipate a long-term increase in use of the existing park due to the proposed improvements. Development of the Project would not require extending or improv ing infrastructure in a manner that would facilitate growth in the City. The Project woul d not generate population or directly induce unplanned population growth. Additionally, the Project would not indirectly induce growth, such as through provision of employment or extension of infrastructure. As a result, no impacts would occur.
There would be no direct or indirect impact related to population growth, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The Project site is currently occupied by Lynwood Park and does not contain any existing housing or persons currently residing at the site. Therefore, the Project would not displace any people or housing that would require construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. 276
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-76
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial advers e physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmen tal impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
a) Would the Project result in substanti al adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or othe r performance objectives for any of the public services:
• Fire protection?
No Impact. As discussed above in Section 3.14, Popu lation and Housing, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce populati on growth that would generate demand for additional fire protection services. Implem entation of the Project would not involve construction of facilities that would generate greater fire risk than the existing condition.
Construction or operation of the Project would not generate demand for fire protection services such that new or expanded physical facilities would be required whose construction could result in an environmental impact. Ther e would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
• Police protection?
No Impact. As discussed above in Section 3.14, Po pulation and Housing, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce populati on growth that would generate demand for additional police protection services. Temporary Project-rela ted activities, such as the presence of construction equipment on the Project site, may provide increased opportunities 277
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-77
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for theft. However, the construction areas would be fenced, and the Project Contractor would be required to secure building materials an d construction equipment to prevent theft and vandalism from occurring at the Project site du ring construction activities. Construction or operation of the Project would not generate demand for police protection services such that new or expanded physical facilities would be required whose construction could result in an environmental impact. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. • Schools?
No Impact. As discussed above in Section 3.14, Po pulation and Housing, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce populati on growth that would generate demand for additional school services. Therefore, constr uction and operation of the Project would not generate demand for schools such that new or expanded physical facilities would be required whose construction could result in an environmental impact. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
• Parks?
No Impact . As discussed in Section 3.14, Populati on and Housing, the Project would not result in direct or indirect population growth. The proposed Project includes construction of various stormwater appurtenances and park features, such as a butterfly garden and ephemeral stream within the existing Lynw ood Park. Public access to and use of the replacement recreation facilities on the si te with Project impl ementation would be essentially the same as in the existing condition. Although there would be new and improved on-site facilities because Lynwood Park is already intensively used by all segments of the community, the City does not anticipate a long -term increase in park visitation due to the Project. Therefore, construction or operation of the Project would not generate demand for parks such that new or expanded physical facilities would be required whose construction could result in an environmental impact. Th ere would be impact, and no mitigation is required.
• Other public facilities?
No Impact. As discussed above in Section 3.14, Po pulation and Housing, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce populati on growth that would generate demand for additional public facilities not addressed above, such as libraries. Therefore, construction or operation of the Project would not generate demand for other public facilities such that new or expanded physical facilities would be requ ired whose construction could result in an environmental impact. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. 278
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-78
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existi ng neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterior ation of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational faciliti es or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such th at substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would include construction and improvements, although not expansion, of recreation facilities. During construction activities, the northern, central, and eastern portions of Lynwood Park, including the parking lot located along the west side of Bullis Road, would be closed fo r an estimated 18 months. As the Project site experiences high community use, it is assumed construction of the Project would necessitate the use of alternate facilities in the area. Other nearby parks in the City would serve community residents’ recreation needs while the Project site is closed. These parks and their features include, but are not limited to, Ricardo Lara Linear Park, which is located 0.36 mile southeast of Lynwood Park and features play ground equipment; Carnation Park, located
0.66 mile to the northwest; Rose Park, located 0.70 mile to the southwest; Los Amigos East Park, which is located 0.76 mile southwest of the Project site and features a mini playground, two mini picnic areas, and a half basketball court; Adolfo Medina Memorial Park, located
0.83 mile to the southwest with a basketball court, playground, and two picnic shelters; and Yvonne Burke-John D. Ham Park, located 1.09 miles to the southeast of the Project site with exercise stations, a baseball field, basketball court, and playground. Because there are a variety of alternative facilities (including bu t not limited to those ab ove) in the area and because the construction period is 18 months, it is not anticipated that the use of other recreation facilities in the area during cons truction would lead to substantial physical deterioration of any individual facility.
It is important to note that th e closure of a heavily-used recreation facility for any length of time would have an adverse effect on the community; howe ver, because the closure is temporary and there are alternative facilities to use, the closure of large portions of Lynwood Park would be considered a less than signific ant impact. Therefore, the Project would not cause an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks that would lead to substantial deterioration of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
279
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-79
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
b) Does the Project include recreational fa cilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . The Project would include construction and improvement, although not expansion, of recreation facilities. Construction of these facilities may have an adverse physical effect on th e environment, accordingly the potential for impacts due to Project implementation is evaluated through preparation of this IS/MND. There would be less than significant impacts with implementation of the identified mitigation measures for biological resources (refer to Section 3.4), cultural resources (refer to Section 3.5), geology and soils (refer to Section 3.7), noise (refer to Section 3.13) and tribal cultural resources (refer to Section 3.18). As such, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of applicable mitigation measures.
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a ) C o n f l i c t w i t h p r o g r a m , plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase haza rds due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
a) Would the Project conflict with progra m, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transi t, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan represents the City’s overall transportation plan. The Project would not conflict with the City’s policies to encourage walking, biking, and using public transit. The Project would not obstruct the implementation of any of these policies and, in some cases, would support their implementation, in particular, Policy CIR-2.3, which calls for the provision of sidewalks or pathways in residential and commercial areas to provide a safe environment for pedestrians.
For example, the Project woul d include a 10-foot-wide walkin g path and access road along the perimeter of the soccer fields as a new passive recreation oppo rtunity in the park.
Additionally, the Project is not anticipated to directly increase use of Lynwood Park, as it is an existing high-use facility. The proposed Project would provide improved physical facilities to existing users of Lynwood Park. The amounts of parking in the immediate area, 280
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-80
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
similar circulation and access, and the same types and extent of facilities would be provided.
As such, trip generation from operation of th e Project would be essentially the same as the existing condition. The Projec t would not conflict with the City’s policies to encourage walking, biking, and transit. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the Project conflict or be inco nsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No Impact . Section 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Gu idelines provides the criteria for analyzing transportation (not traffic/circulat ion) impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric consistent with SB 743. The Project would not create new land uses that would result in additional VMT, such as a residential, mixed use, or transportation. As such, the VMT metric is not applicable to public infrastructu re projects. Further, operation of the Project would remain essentially the sa me as under the existing cond ition and would not result in increased operational trips, as discussed above. The Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with Section 15064.3(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines or the City’s transportation plans and policies. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project substantially increa se hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerou s intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact . The Project would not involve any permanent change to the roadway configurations and circulation in the Projec t area that would create hazards due to a geometric design feature. Additionally, the Project involves improvements to the existing use and does not change land use, such that woul d represent an incompatible use. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project wo uld not increase traffi c hazards or be an incompatible use. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities for the Project, including staging and worker parking, would occur on site. Private construction worker vehicles/pickup trucks, delivery vehicles, and haul trucks would access the Project si te via driveways located along the west side of Bullis Road and the south side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Should the Project require temporary road, lane or shoulder closures, the Project would comply with all conditions set forth in the required Projec t specific Traffic Cont rol Plan (TCP), which would be reviewed and approved by the Ci ty’s Public Works de partment, engineering division prior to initiation of construction ac tivities. Therefore, with implementation of the required TCP, the potential closure of a few lanes along Birch Street and Bullis Road would not result in a significant interference of emergency access during construction.
Haul trucks would access the Project site via Ma rtin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Imperial Highway. Construction and demolition debris including asphalt, concrete, soil, gravel, rocks, and metal would likely be transported to Construction & Demolition Recycling, Inc., located
1.95 miles to the northeast at 9309 Rayo Avenue, in the City of South Gate, while greenwaste 281
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-81
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
would likely be transported to the Greencycle Recycling facility lo cated approximately 8 miles east of the Project site in the City of Santa Fe Springs. Haul trucks would access these facilities using locally designated truck routes , including Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Imperial Highway, and Firestone Boulevard (C ity of South Gate) to access I-710 to deposit any construction/demolition debris to the designated construction/demolition debris recycling facilities.
During the long-term operation of the proposed Project, public access to and use of the recreation facilities on the site would be the same as in existing condition. Although there would be new and improved on-site facilities because Lynwood Park is already intensively used by all segments of the co mmunity, the City does not antici pate a long-term increase in park visitation due to the Project. As such, the operation of the Project would not impact emergency access. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse chan ge in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
282
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-82
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resour ces Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landsc ape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resour ces as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
No Impact. This section evaluates the Project ’s potential for any adverse effects on TCRs. A TCR, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code, is a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically de fined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to California Na tive American tribe. A resource would be considered a TCR if it is, at minimum, eligible to be listed on a national, State, or local register of historic resources.
As presented above in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the ½-mile SCCIC records search surrounding the Project site footprint was negative for cu ltural resources, including precontact archaeological sites. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the SCCIC may not have documentation regarding TCRs near the Project reaches. Additionally, the NAHC SLF search on May 13, 2024 did not identify the presence of Native American traditional sites/places within the immediate vicinity surrounding the site. Therefore, as discussed further in Section
3.5, there are no cultural resources on the Proj ect site that are currently listed on the CRHR or a local register. Thus, the Project would not affect a documented TCR that is listed or eligible for listing on the CRHR or a local register. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resour ces Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landsc ape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significan t pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact. Because Native American tribes have knowledge concerning important undocumented cultural resources, th e lead agency (the City) submitted Project notification letters to initiate tribal consultation, consistent with the requirements of AB 52.
AB 52 requires the City to notify any groups (who have requested notification) who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a project for which a negative declaration, an MND, or an Environmental Im pact Report (EIR) is required pursuant to 283
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-83
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CEQA. The Tribes are provided 30 days to request consultation after the lead agency notifies the tribe of a project. Consultation was initiated by the City on September 23, 2024. The City mailed notification letters to each tribal representative on the approved contact list for tribal representatives, notifying the representatives of the Project and inviting them to participate via consultation. These following tribe was noti fied of the Project as p a r t o f t h e A B 5 2 process, including the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Tribal consultation is still ongoing, and mitigation measures ar e to be determined upon completion of the consultation process.
Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1 To be included if a mitigation measure is determined to be necessary
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relo cation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which co uld cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water suppl ies available to serve the project and reasonably fore seeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, Stat e, and local management and reduction statutes and regu lations related to solid
waste?
284
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-84
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
a) Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact.
Water
Municipal water services are currently provided by the City and Liberty Utilities. The City provides water service to 90 percent of resi dents and businesses, and Liberty Utilities provides water service to the remaining 10 percent located in the City’s southeastern portion. The Project includes the relocation of a n e x i s t i n g w a t e r l i n e j u s t s o u t h o f t h e proposed infiltration basin, and the installa tion of a new 12-inch water line, which would occur prior to the commencement of the relocation of the wate r line, to ensure that the existing water line would remain in service for the majority of the construction period. Once the proposed water line can be tied into the existing line at the connection point located just west of the proposed infiltration basin, the existing water line would be shut off for a period of approximately one week or less. The installa tion and relocation of the new and existing water lines would serve the Project only, as such it would not result in significant impacts to surrounding uses.
Construction of the Project would minima lly increase demand for water for dust suppression. However, this demand would not result in the need for new or expanded water supply infrastructure. Therefore, impacts rela ted to water facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater collection service is provided to th e site by the City of Lynwood Public Works Department. Sewage generated onsite is conv eyed through City owned sewer lines to Los Angeles County trunk lines, which then tran sport effluent to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in the City of Carson (City of Lynwood 2003). A sewer line connection located along the south side of Martin Luth er King Jr. Boulevard provides the Park, Natatorium, and Community Cent er access to the sanitary se wer lines that extend along Bullis Road. Project implementation would not affect this sewer line connection. In addition, the Project’s operation would not result in a significant increa se in wastewater generation over the existing conditions. As the Project would not require the relocation of, or the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Storm Drainage
The Project proposes construction of new stormwater infrastructure, whose environmental impacts are addressed throughout this IS/M ND. Construction of the new storm drain improvements would be subject to compliance wi th all applicable local, State, and Federal 285
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-85
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
laws, ordinances, and regulations, as such Pr oject’s impacts associated with the proposed storm drain improvements would be less than significant.
As indicated previously, the Project proposes two stormwater diversion structures from two branches of the LACFCD East Compton Creek st orm drains, which would divert 25 cfs from Bullis Road and 20 cfs from Birch Street. The diverted and captured water on both Bullis Road and Birch Street would be filtered by a hydrodynamic separator known as a baffle box which provides primary treatment through phys ically separating out trash and sediment, then runoff would be directed to the subsurface storage and infiltration reservoir located below the northern portion of the site. The st ormwater would be infiltrated in a 10.7 AF underground storage reservoir. The infiltration chambers would require the construction of two access hatches, to be situated along the eastern and western edges. Except for the access hatches and stream inlet and outlet, all prop osed engineering infrastructure would be located underground. The stream infrastructure would be minimally vi sible at the surface, as the goal is to provide a naturalized surface condition.
A portion of the stormwater would also be diverted to the sediment basin for storage, located at the northern portion of the per minute (GPM infiltration facility, which would then be pumped up to the surface at the 150 GPM pump station, and continue towards the stream feature and bioswale. Through this interconnected system, the stream feature would recirculate pre-treated runoff. The proposed bioswale would include native shrubs.
Additionally, a portion of the captured runoff from the infiltration gallery would be pumped back via a wet well and pump towards a proposed outlet line located on the eastern portion of the site and through a 7. 84 cfs secondary treatment media filter. The pretreated stormwater would then be returned to the existing storm drain connection located in Bullis Road. No additional impacts beyond those identi fied in this IS/MND would result from the Project’s construction and operation. As a result, less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur, and no mitigation is required.
Dry Utilities
Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunication services are provided to the Project site by the Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, AT&T, respectively. The Project’s projected natural gas and electricity usage is not expected to change over the existing conditions as the Project consists of stormwater infrastructure and Park improvements. In addition, the Project’s construction would not require the relocation and construction of new, or expansion of existing lines as these dry utility lines would remain unaffected during Project construction. As a re sult, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No Impact. As discussed under Threshold 3.19(a) above, the Project would minimally increase demand for water during construction for dust suppression. However, this demand 286
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-86
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
would not result in insufficient water supplies su ch that the City would be unable to meet the Project’s demands and existing and foreseeable demands for potable water. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Pl an (UWMP), a normal, single dry year, or multiple dry years (five consecutive year dr ought period) will not compromise the City’s ability to provide a reliable supply of water to its customers (City of Lynwood 2021). Based on the nominal water use expected during construction, the Project’s demands would be met with existing supplies. As a result, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project result in a dete rmination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. The use of the recreation facilities on the site with Project implementation would be the same as in the existing condition. As discussed unde r Threshold 3.19(a) above, the Project would not generate additional wast ewater beyond existing conditions. The c o n s t r u c t i o n c r e w w o u l d b e s e r v e d b y p o r t a b l e toilets that would be brought to the site during construction activities and removed at the end of construction activities. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate wastewater treatment capacities. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 2.0, the Project’s demolition phase would result in the removal of approximatel y 5,000 cy of mixed demolition (concrete, asphalt, metal) debris and green waste, which would be exported over an approximate 8- to 9-week period. An estimated total of 20,800 cy of sediment would be excavated during the grading/excavation phase over approximatel y 26 weeks. An additional 37,000 cy of excavated earth would be stockpiled onsite for backfill purposes.
Construction and demolition debris including asphalt, concrete, soil, gravel, rocks, and metal would likely be transported to Construction & Demolition Recycling, Inc., located 1.95 miles to the northeast of the Project site at 9309 Rayo Avenue, in the City of South Gate, while green waste would likely be transported to the Greencycle Recycling facility located approximately 8 miles east of the Project site in the City of Santa Fe Springs. Haul trucks would access these facilities using locally designated truck routes , including Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Imperial Highway, and Firestone Boulevard (C ity of South Gate) to access I-710 to deposit any construction/demolition debris to the designated construction/demolition debris recycling facilities. Any materials generated during the Project’s construction that could not be recycled at any of the abovementioned facilities would be transferred to either the Frank R. Bowerman landfill (11002 Bee Canyon Road in the City of Irvine), which is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 11,500 tons, or to the Olinda Alpha Sanitary landfill located in the City of Brea, which is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 8,000 tons. As of 2024, the remaining capacity at the Frank R. Bowerman landfill is 205 million cubic yards and 17.5 million cubic yards at the Olinda Alpha Sani tary landfill (CalRecycle 2024). As such, the 287
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-87
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project’s finite construction waste stream represents a nominal portion of the two landfills’ remaining capacity.
Furthermore, all construction activities woul d be subject to conformance with relevant federal, State, and local requirements related to solid waste disposal. Specifically, the Project would be required to demonstrate complian ce with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires all California cities to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste genera ted in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted. The Project would also be required to demonstr ate compliance with the 2022 Green Building Code, which includes design and construction measures that act to reduce construction- related waste through material conservation and other cons truction-related efficiency measures. Compliance with these regulation s would ensure the Project’s construction- related solid waste impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation of the Project would be the same as in the existing condition and would not generate additional solid waste. As such, the Project is not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
e) Would the Project comply with fede ral, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, the proposed Project would comply with all federal, State, and local stat utes and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act an d City recycling programs. Specifically, the Project would be subject to AB 939, which re quires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted, and would be required to comply with Section
4.408 of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction an d demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Therefore, the Project would comply with all federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
288
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-88
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
a) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Pr oject substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The site and the surrounding areas are not located in desi gnated VHFHSZ, as identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Pr evention (CAL FIRE) (CAL FIRE 2024). The Project site is in a highly urbanized area of the City, and there are no areas of native vegetation found within the vicinity of the Project site. The lack of chaparral limits the area’s ability to provide fuel to ignite a wild land fire, as chaparral constitutes the most flammable type of vegetation fo und in the United States (NPS 2018). In addition, the Project site is located outside of any wildfire risk designation area. As a result, no risk from wildfire is anticipated with the approval and implementation of the proposed Project, and no impacts would occur.
During construction activities, all construction staging areas would occur on-site and would be prohibited from occurring on the street or within the public righ t-of-way. Construction equipment would be stored within the northern portion of the eastern parking lot, while parking for construction workers and vehicles would be located within the southern portion of the eastern parking lot. Access for construc tion workers, equipment, and vehicles would be located along the west side of Bullis Road and the south side of Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard. In addition, Project contractors woul d be required to adhere to the guidelines outlined in the WATCH should the Project’s construction require temporary road, lane, or shoulder closures and detours.
289
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-89
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Any temporary lane closures along Birch Str eet, Cesar E Chavez Lane, Bullis Road, and/or Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard would be done in accordance with the WATCH and all applicable City regulations governing construction traffic. As a result, the temporary closure of any lanes along the adjacent roadways would not result in a significant interference of emergency access during construction. Additionally, because Checklist Response thresholds
4.20a through 4.20d apply only to those proj ects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas or lands cla ssified as very high fire hazard severity zones”, no impacts related to these thresholds would occur, and no mitigation is required. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expo se project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The Project site is not located in VHFHSZ and is within a highly urbanized area of the City. Additionally, there are no large, undeveloped areas and/or steep slopes on or near the site that would exacerbate fire risk s such that would expo se the Project and its occupants to wildfire-related hazards. No impa cts related to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors would occur, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project require the install ation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerb ate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. As previously described, the proposed Project is not within a designated VHFHSZ as defined by CAL FIRE and is located in a hi ghly urbanized area of the City. The proposed Project would include the installation of su bterranean stormwater infrastructure. Other features include a butterfly garden and epheme ral stream. The installation of stormwater infrastructure would not exacer bate fire risk such that wo uld result in a significant temporary or ongoing impact as these appurtenances wo uld be installed below ground surface. As such, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As previously described, the proposed Project is not within a designated VHFHSZ as defined by CAL FIRE. The Project is in a high ly urbanized area that is in a generally flat topographical area away from downslope or landslide areas. Specifically, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structur es to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a resu lt of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As such, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. 290
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-90
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have the potential to substa ntially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustain ing levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plant or animal , or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human be ings, either directly or
indirectly?
a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop be low self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community , substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation . As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, there are no sensitive biological re sources on or near the Project site. However, there is potential for nesting birds and raptors to be present on and near the Project site; therefore, mitigation has been provided to reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors to less than significant leve ls (MM BIO-1).The Project would not degrade the quality of the environment; would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species; would not cause a fish or wildlife popu lation to drop below self-sustaining levels; would not threaten to elimin ate a plant or animal community; and would not reduce the number of or restrict the range of a Rare or Endangered plant or animal.
As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources and 3.7, Geology and Soils, no impacts would occur to known historic, archaeological, tribal cultural, and/or pale ontological resources.
Potential impacts to unknown archaeolog ical resources and human remains from implementation of the Project would be less th an significant through compliance with MM CUL-1. Potential impacts to un known paleontological resources would be reduced to a less 291
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-91
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
than significant level through implementation of MM GEO-1. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory with mitigation incorporated.
b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact. As shown in the analysis in Sections 2.1 through 2.20 above, all construction-related impacts would be eithe r less than significant or mitigated to a less than significant level. As demonstrated by th e analysis in this IS/M ND, there would be no long-term significant operational impacts. As such, there is no potential contribution to long- term cumulative impacts from the operation of the Project. The City is currently in the process of replacing the existing playground located on the northwest corner of Lynwood Park. However, this is expected to be comple ted June 2025, and would not overlap with the Project’s construction start date, slated for Spring 2027. As such, this would not contribute to cumulative impacts. Beyond the park repl acement, there are no known projects within approximately one mile of the Project site. Based on the small scale of the Project and limited impacts, only projects ongoing within this rela tively close distance could potentially result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As shown in the anal ysis in Sections 3.1 through 3.20 above, the Project would not ha ve environmental effe cts that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, eit her directly or indirectly. Potential adverse noise impacts during construction activities that may have a direct impact on humans would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of MM NOI-1 through NOI-4.
The Project would not displace any homes or divide an established community and would result in greater long-term water conservation . As such, the Project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings eit her directly or indire ctly with mitigation incorporated.
292
Environmental Checklist Form
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 3-92
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This page intentionally left blank
293
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 4-1
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
4.1.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of Lynwood
Acting City Engineer .......................................................................................... Ahmad R. Ansari, PE
4.1.2 CONSULTANTS
Psomas (Environmental Document Preparation)
Principial-in-Charge................................................................................................. Alia Hokuki, AICP Senior Project Manager .................................................................................................... Jillian Neary Project Manager ........................................................................................................ Jessica Hitchcock Environmental Planners ............................................... Bryan Hamilton and Chaise Lapierre Senior Acoustics Specialist ................................................................................... Farshad Farhang Air Quality, Climate Change, and Noise Specialist ........................................ Bryan Hamilton Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist .............................................. Jordan Werkmeister Cultural Resources Manager ................................................................................. Charles Cisneros Senior Arborist .................................................................................................................. Trevor Bristle GIS/Graphics ......................................................................................................................... Paul O’Brien Senior Word Processor .................................................................................................. Sheryl Kristal
294
Document Contributors
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 4-2
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This page intentionally left blank
295
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 5-1
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
5.0 REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Contro l Officers Association (CAPCO A). 2022 California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) TM Version 2022.1.1.20, Developed by Trinity Consultants.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021 . Emissions Factors EMFAC 2021. CARB Web database. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/.
———. 2016 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards.
California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2024 (June 19, last accessed). Ca lifornia Important Farmland Finder.
Sacramento, CA: FMMP. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP). 2024 (June 19, last accessed). California Willi amson Act Enrollment Finder. Sacramento, CA: DLRP. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR). 2024. SMARA Statues and Regulations. Sacramento, CA: DMR.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/lawsandregulations. ———. 2016. Mines Online. Sacramento, CA: DMR. https://maps.conser California Department of Conservation , Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2024 (June 19, last accessed). California Important Farmland Finder. Sacramento, CA:
FMMP. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Cons ervation, Geologic Energy Ma nagement Division (CalGEM). 2024. (June 20, last accessed). Well Finder. Sacramento, CA: CalGEM. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2024 (April 1, effective).
FHSZ Viewer. Sacramento, CA : CAL FIRE. https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b2 9d89597ab693d008.
California Department of Re sources Recycle and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024 (June 26, access date) SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - Salton City Solid Waste Site (13-AA- 0011). Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle. https://
www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search/.
California Division of Mines and Geology. 1982. Mineral Land Classification Map – Aggregate Resources Only. [map]. Sacramento, CA: Division of Mines and Geology. 296
References
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 5-2
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
———. 1981. SMARA MRZ Map. Sacramento, CA: DMG.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024 (June 19, last accessed). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d80 7c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
California Department of Water Resources – Di vision of Safety of Dams (DWR DSOD). 2024 (September 6, last accessed). Dam Breach Inundation Map. Sacramento, CA: DWR DSOD. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2024 (June 20, last accessed). Cortese List Data Resources. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024a (September 6, access date).
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Sacramento, CA: SWRCB. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater- Management.
———. 2024b (June 24, last acce ssed). California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Unmanaged Areas Map. Sa cramento, CA: SWRCB.
https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap =33be434cc60740d095f296c5d2432897.
Craftwater Engineering, Inc (Craftwater). 2023 (June 9). Lynwood Park Stormwater Capture Project - Stormwater Capture Study Tec hnical Memorandum. San Diego, CA:
Craftwater.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washin gton D.C.: USDOT – FTA.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta- report-no-0123_0.pdf.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Lynwood, City of. 2021 (July). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Lynwood, CA: the City.
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2 F8720472037%2FMKN%20Lynwood%20UWMP%202020_Final_06.18.21.pdf. ———. 2020 (December, last updated). Local Ha zard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Lynwood, CA:
the City. https://www.lynwoodca.gov/Docum entCenter/View/1497/Safety-Element-- Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-PDF-LARGE-FILE.
———. 2003 (August). City of Lynwood General Plan. Lynwood, CA: the City. https://www.lynwoodca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/157/City-of-Lynwood-General- Plan-PDF
297
References
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 5-3
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). 2023 . Lower Los Angeles River Watershed Management Program. Los Angeles, CA: LACDPW.
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wp/safecleanwaterla/lower-los-angeles-river- watershed-area/.
Lower Los Angeles River Watershed Manage ment Group (LLARWMG). 2015 (June 12).
Lower Los Angeles River Watershed Mana gement Program. Los Angeles, CA:
LLARWMG.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/stormwater/m unicipal/watershed_management/los_angeles/lower_losangeles/LowerLARiver_Fin alWMP.pdf.
National Oceanic and Atmosphe ric Administration (NOAA). 2024a (June 16, last updated).
What is Subsidence? Washington D.C.: NOAA.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/subsidence.html.
———. 2024b (June 16, last up dated). What is a Seiche? Washington D.C.: NOAA. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seiche.html.
Ninyo & Moore. 2023 (March 17). Geotechnical Evaluation, Lynwood Park Stormwater Capture Project, 11301 Bullis Road, Lynwood, California. Irvine, CA: Ninyo & Moore.
South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct (SCAQMD). 2023. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
———. 2022 (December). 2022 Air Quality Management Pl an. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022- aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=10
———. 2016 (April). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds . Diamond Bar, CA:
SCAQMD. scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf
———. 2009. Localized Significance Thre sholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook/localized-significance-thresholds.
———. 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
———. 2003 (September 5). Attachment to BOARD MEETING DATE: September 5, 2003, AGENDA NO. 29 . White Paper on Regulatory Opti ons for Addressing Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution Emissi ons. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/governing-board/agendas-minutes. 298
References
L YNWOOD PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT 5-4
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
———. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). 2024. Record Search Results.
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 2006. Mitigation of Highway Traffic-Induced Vibration. Ottawa, ON: TAC. http://conf.tac-
atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2006/docs/s016/haj ek.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (USEPA). 2019. Current Non-Attainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants. Washington, D.C.: USEPA. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. Assessing Lateral Spread Hazards in Areas Prone to Great and Long-Duration Earthquakes. Washington D.C.: USGS. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/external_grants/reports/G14AP00067.pdf.
United States National Park Service (NPS). 2018 (January 8, last updated). Wildland Fire in Chaparral: California and Southwestern United States. Washington, D.C.: NPS. https://home.nps.gov/articles/wildland-fire-in-chaparral.htm.
299
APPENDIX A
CALEEMOD DATA FOR AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
300
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 1 / 46
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2027) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2027) - Mitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated
3.4. Site Preparation (2027) - Mitigated
3.5. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated
3.6. Grading (2027) - Mitigated
301
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 2 / 46
3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated
3.11. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated
3.12. Paving (2028) - Mitigated
3.13. Paving (2029) - Unmitigated
3.14. Paving (2029) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
302
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 3 / 46
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
303
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 4 / 46
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
304
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 5 / 46
8. User Changes to Default Data
305
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 6 / 46
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3
Construction Start Date 3/1/2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 17.8
Location 33.9279433512161, -118.20263464703461
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Lynwood
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4293
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.28
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
City Park 29.0 Acre 29.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Parking Lot 74.0 1000sqft 1.70 0.00 0.00 — — —
306
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 7 / 46
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Water W-5 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.68 25.8 29.2 0.05 1.06 4.01 5.07 0.98 1.58 2.56 5,984 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.68 25.9 29.0 0.05 1.06 4.01 5.07 0.98 1.58 2.56 5,966 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.78 7.27 9.18 0.02 0.29 0.75 1.05 0.27 0.24 0.51 1,914 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.14 1.33 1.68 < 0.005 0.05 0.14 0.19 0.05 0.04 0.09 317
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.68 25.8 29.2 0.05 1.06 4.01 5.07 0.98 1.58 2.56 5,984 2028 0.97 9.04 11.4 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.29 0.00 0.29 2,669 307 Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 8 / 46
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.68 25.9 29.0 0.05 1.06 4.01 5.07 0.98 1.58 2.56 5,966 2028 0.97 9.04 11.4 0.02 0.32 0.10 0.32 0.29 0.02 0.29 2,669 2029 0.40 2.46 3.59 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.09 0.02 0.11 586 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.78 7.27 9.18 0.02 0.29 0.75 1.05 0.27 0.24 0.51 1,914 2028 0.63 5.71 7.27 0.02 0.20 0.01 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.19 1,667 2029 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.14 1.33 1.68 < 0.005 0.05 0.14 0.19 0.05 0.04 0.09 317 2028 0.12 1.04 1.33 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 276 2029 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.68 25.8 29.2 0.05 1.06 4.01 5.07 0.98 1.58 2.56 5,984 2028 0.97 9.04 11.4 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.29 0.00 0.29 2,669 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.68 25.9 29.0 0.05 1.06 4.01 5.07 0.98 1.58 2.56 5,966 2028 0.97 9.04 11.4 0.02 0.32 0.10 0.32 0.29 0.02 0.29 2,669 2029 0.40 2.46 3.59 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.09 0.02 0.11 586 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.78 7.27 9.18 0.02 0.29 0.75 1.05 0.27 0.24 0.51 1,914 308
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 9 / 46
2028 0.63 5.71 7.27 0.02 0.20 0.01 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.19 1,667 2029 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.14 1.33 1.68 < 0.005 0.05 0.14 0.19 0.05 0.04 0.09 317 2028 0.12 1.04 1.33 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 276 2029 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.41 13.5 15.1 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 2,660
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.56 2.56 — 1.31 1.31 —
Demolition — — — — — 0.92 0.92 — 0.14 0.14 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.41 13.5 15.1 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 2,660
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.56 2.56 — 1.31 1.31 —
Demolition — — — — — 0.92 0.92 — 0.14 0.14 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 309
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 10 / 46
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 1.66 1.87 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 328
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.32 0.32 — 0.16 0.16 —
Demolition — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.30 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 54.3
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 —
Demolition — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 202 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.13 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.06 790 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 191 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.18 0.56 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.06 790 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 97.4 310
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 11 / 46
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.96 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.1
3.2. Demolition (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.41 13.5 15.1 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 2,660
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.56 2.56 — 1.31 1.31 —
Demolition — — — — — 0.92 0.92 — 0.14 0.14 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.41 13.5 15.1 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 2,660
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.56 2.56 — 1.31 1.31 —
Demolition — — — — — 0.92 0.92 — 0.14 0.14 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 1.66 1.87 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 328
311
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 12 / 46
—0.160.16—0.320.32—————Dust From
Material
Movement
Demolition — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.30 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 54.3
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 —
Demolition — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 202 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.13 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.06 790 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 191 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.18 0.56 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.06 790 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 97.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.96 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 312
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 13 / 46
Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.1
3.3. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.16 11.1 12.0 0.02 0.47 — 0.47 0.44 — 0.44 2,197
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.16 11.1 12.0 0.02 0.47 — 0.47 0.44 — 0.44 2,197
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.14 1.37 1.48 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 271
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.25 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 44.8
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 135 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 313
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 14 / 46
———————————Daily, Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 127 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.4. Site Preparation (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.16 11.1 12.0 0.02 0.47 — 0.47 0.44 — 0.44 2,197
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.16 11.1 12.0 0.02 0.47 — 0.47 0.44 — 0.44 2,197
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
314
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 15 / 46
2710.05—0.050.06—0.06< 0.0051.481.370.14Off-Road
Equipment
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.25 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 44.8
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 135 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 127 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 315
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 16 / 46
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.87 7.33 10.8 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 1,671
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.05 0.05 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.87 7.33 10.8 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 1,671
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.05 0.05 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.31 2.63 3.89 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 600
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.48 0.71 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 99.3
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
316
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 17 / 46
———————————Daily, Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 169 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.79 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 578 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 159 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.83 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 577 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 58.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.30 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 207 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 34.3
3.6. Grading (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.87 7.33 10.8 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 1,671
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.05 0.05 —
317
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 18 / 46
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.87 7.33 10.8 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 1,671
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.05 0.05 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.31 2.63 3.89 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 600
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.48 0.71 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 99.3
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 169 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.79 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 578 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 159 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 318
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 19 / 46
Hauling 0.01 0.83 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 577 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 58.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.30 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 207 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 34.3
3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.01 9.61 11.4 0.02 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 2,668
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 1.13 1.34 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 313
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.21 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 51.9
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
319
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 20 / 46
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.01 9.61 11.4 0.02 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 2,668
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 1.13 1.34 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 313
320
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 21 / 46
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.21 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 51.9
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.97 9.04 11.4 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 2,669
321
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 22 / 46
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.97 9.04 11.4 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 2,669
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.58 5.42 6.84 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 1,598
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.11 0.99 1.25 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 265
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 322 Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 23 / 46
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.97 9.04 11.4 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 2,669
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.97 9.04 11.4 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 2,669
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.58 5.42 6.84 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 1,598
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.11 0.99 1.25 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 265
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 323 Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 24 / 46
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.28 2.50 3.26 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 493
Paving 0.10 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.29 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 57.9
Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
324
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 25 / 46
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 9.59 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 93.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.85 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. Paving (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
325
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 26 / 46
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.28 2.50 3.26 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 493
Paving 0.10 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.29 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 57.9
Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 9.59 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 93.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.85 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 326 Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 27 / 46
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Paving (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.28 2.44 3.26 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 493
Paving 0.10 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.97 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.16 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 92.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 327 Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 28 / 46
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.14. Paving (2029) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.28 2.44 3.26 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 493
Paving 0.10 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.97 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.16 328
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 29 / 46
Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 92.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
329
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 30 / 46
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
330
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 31 / 46
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
331
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 32 / 46
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
332
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 33 / 46
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 3/1/2027 5/1/2027 5.00 45.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/1/2027 5/1/2027 5.00 45.0 — Grading Grading 5/2/2027 11/1/2027 5.00 131 —
Building Construction Building Construction 11/2/2027 11/1/2028 5.00 262 — Paving Paving 11/2/2028 1/1/2029 5.00 43.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
333
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 34 / 46
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.42
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Site Preparation Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.42
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.42
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 334
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 35 / 46
Site Preparation Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.42
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 30.8 7.00 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — — 335
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 36 / 46
Grading Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 19.8 8.00 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 30.8 7.00 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
336
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 37 / 46
Grading Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 19.8 8.00 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Y ards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Y ards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
337
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 38 / 46
Demolition — 5,000 22.5 3,037 —
Grading — 20,800 131 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 1.70 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 338
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 39 / 46
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 6.58 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.40 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm 339
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 40 / 46
Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2 340
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 41 / 46
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 37.6
AQ-PM 80.4
AQ-DPM 83.1
Drinking Water 60.6
Lead Risk Housing 98.2
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 96.5
Traffic 87.7
Effect Indicators — 341
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 42 / 46
CleanUp Sites 60.1
Groundwater 32.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 58.8
Impaired Water Bodies 66.7
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 77.1
Cardio-vascular 83.7
Low Birth Weights 91.4
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 91.9
Housing 96.0
Linguistic 82.3
Poverty 91.1
Unemployment 77.1
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 6.711151033
Employed 14.35904016
Median HI 15.14179392
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 5.504940331
High school enrollment 9.29038881
Preschool enrollment 39.95893751
Transportation —
342
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 43 / 46
Auto Access 21.12151931
Active commuting 80.23867573
Social —
2-parent households 27.81983832
Voting 28.39727961
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 26.78044399
Park access 52.50866162
Retail density 71.85936096
Supermarket access 81.26523803
Tree canopy 41.26780444
Housing —
Homeownership 11.86962659
Housing habitability 3.875272681
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 17.73386372 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 22.69985885
Uncrowded housing 2.284101116
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 5.235467727
Arthritis 70.7
Asthma ER Admissions 35.2
High Blood Pressure 65.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 93.3
Asthma 23.6
Coronary Heart Disease 47.4
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 37.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 14.5
Life Expectancy at Birth 74.9
343
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 44 / 46
Cognitively Disabled 56.3
Physically Disabled 65.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 18.4
Mental Health Not Good 11.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 27.1
Obesity 8.0
Pedestrian Injuries 68.5
Physical Health Not Good 10.9
Stroke 34.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 58.7
Current Smoker 15.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 12.5
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 27.6
Elderly 93.3
English Speaking 10.7
Foreign-born 77.4
Outdoor Workers 33.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 17.4
Traffic Density 94.0
Traffic Access 66.6
Other Indices —
Hardship 96.2
Other Decision Support —
344
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 45 / 46
2016 Voting 17.2
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 98.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 9.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule provided by the Applicant.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Number and type of construction equipment provided by the Applicant.
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Information regarding quantities for hauling provided by Applicant.
Operations: Off-Road Equipment Pump assumed to operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. 345
Lynwood Park Stormwater Improvements v3 Detailed Report, 9/24/2024 46 / 46
Construction: Trips and VMT Construction and demolition debris including asphalt, concrete, soil, gravel, rocks, and metal would likely be transported to Construction & Demolition Recycling, Inc., located 1.95 miles to the northeast of the Project site at 9309 Rayo Avenue, in the City of South Gate, while green waste would likely be transported to the Greencycle Recycling facility located approximately eight miles east of the Project site in the City of Santa Fe Springs. To be conservative, an 8 mile one way haul trip was input for trip length in this screen. 346
APPENDIX B
TREE SURVEY REPORT
347
5 Hutton Centre Drive
Suite 300
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Tel 714.751.7373
www.Psomas.com
September 6, 2024
Mir Fattahi, MsCE, PE VIA EMAIL
Acting City Engineer [email protected]
City of Lynwood
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Tree Survey Report for the Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project in the City of Lynwood, California
Dear: Mir Fattahi
This Letter Report documents the results of a tree survey in support of the Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project (Project) in the City of Lynwood (City), County of Los Angeles, California. The survey area for this assessment was defined by the Project Boundary plus an additional 20-foot buffer area to document all trees that may be affected by the Project (Exhibit 1).
PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located within the northeastern portion of Lynwood Park, at 11301 Bullis Road within the City of Lynwood. Within a regional context, the Project site is located approximately 0.4 miles north of Interstate 105, 1.5 miles west of Interstate 710, 4.4 miles east of Interstate 110, and 1.7 miles south of State Route 42.
More specifically, the Project site is located in a portion of Lynwood Park and is bound on the north by Cesar E. Chavez Lane and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, on the east by Bullis Road and the Lynwood City Hall, on the south and southeast by Hosier Middle School and Spruce Street, and on the west by Birch Street and multi-family residential properties, as shown on Exhibit 1. Primary vehicular access to the Project site is provided at multiple ingress points, including Bullis Road located east of the site, Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard located northeast of the site, and Spruce Street, located south of the site.
METHODS
Psomas Certified Arborist Trevor Bristle (International Society of Arboriculture WE-10233A) visited the Project site on June 3, 2024, to document the type, quantity, and condition of trees present within the survey area. Each tree was individually numbered and assigned a metal tag, and the trunk, branches, and foliage were carefully examined. During the survey, the following data were recorded: tree species, number of trunks, trunk diameter at standard height (dsh), tree height, canopy diameter, and 348
Mir Fattahi, City of Lynwood
September 6, 2024
qualitative assessment ratings of aesthetics and health. Tree locations were recorded on an aerial photograph that was uploaded onto a hand-held tablet device.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Chapter 13-2 of the Lynwood Municipal Code addresses protection of trees within the City of Lynwood and defines the following regulated tree categories:
• Public trees are those located in a place or area under ownership or control of the city including streets, parkways, open space, and parkland areas. o Street trees are a subset of public trees whose trunks are located primarily within any parkway, street median, traffic island, or other right-of-way under the ownership of the City.
• Native trees include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), California walnut (Juglans californica), and Brisbane box (Tristania conferta) with a trunk more than 8 inches in dsh.
• Specimen trees include any tree meeting the criteria established by the City council to be an outstanding specimen of a desirable species.
• Landmark trees include any tree designated as a landmark under subsection 13-
2.10 as a tree of historic or cultural significance and of importance to the community.
RESULTS
A total of 127 trees were documented in the Project survey area. Tree locations are numbered from 101 to 221 with one location containing seven giant bird of paradise (Strelitzia nicolai) within a single concrete planter. This includes 83 on-site trees (i.e., within the boundaries of the Project area) and an additional 44 off-site trees. Off-site trees were documented because their roots and/or canopies are immediately adjacent to the boundary and may be subject to impacts including trimming, pruning, root disturbance, or removal during construction activities.
The various on-site trees are all located either in Lynwood park or along adjacent streets (within the public right-of-way). Therefore, all trees documented during this survey are regulated as either Public or Street trees by the City. No trees are present in the survey area that meet the City’s definition of Native, Specimen, or Landmark trees.
A summary of trees included in the survey and their regulated status is provided in Table 1.
Locations are shown on Exhibit 2.
349
Mir Fattahi, City of Lynwood
September 6, 2024
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF TREE SPECIES IN THE SURVEY AREA
Tree Species
Total
Regulation Status
Common Name Scientific Name Public Street* Native Specimen Landmark Trees Within Project Boundaries
eastern redbud Cercis canadensis 6 6 - - - -
red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 2 2 - - - -
Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 3 3 - - - -
jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 12 12 - - - -
American
sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 1 1 - - - -
southern
magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 2 2 - - - -
olive Olea europaea 1 1 - - - -
Canary Island
pine Pinus canariensis 3 3 - - - -
Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 3 3 - - - -
western
sycamore Platanus racemosa 1 1 - - - -
London plane
tree Platanus x hispanica 26 26 - - - -
holly oak Quercus ilex 2 2 - - - -
queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 3 3 2 - - -
tipu tree Tipuana tipu 13 13 - - - -
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 5 5 - - - -
Subtotal 83 83 2 0 0 0
Trees Adjacent to the Project Boundaries
king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 1 1 - - - -
Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 1 1 - - - -
Arizona cypress Hesperocyparis arizonica 1 1 - - - -
jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 4 4 - - - -
American
sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 1 1 - - - -
southern
magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 1 1 - - - -
avocado Persea americana 1 1 - - - -
pygmy date palm Phoenix roebelenii 1 1 - - - -
Canary Island
pine Pinus canariensis 1 1 - - - -
Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 1 1 - - - -
western
sycamore Platanus racemosa 2 2 - - - -
London plane
tree Platanus x hispanica 8 8 - - - -
guava Psidium guajava 1 1 - - - -
evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 1 1 - - - -
350
Mir Fattahi, City of Lynwood
September 6, 2024
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF TREE SPECIES IN THE SURVEY AREA
Tree Species
Total
Regulation Status
Common Name Scientific Name Public Street* Native Specimen Landmark giant bird of
paradise Strelitzia nicolai 7 7 - - - -
queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 9 9 2 - - -
tipu tree Tipuana tipu 2 2 - - - -
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 1 1 - - - -
Subtotal 44 44 2 0 0 0
Total 127 127 4 0 0 0
* Street trees are a subset of public trees so that the total of public and street trees are not to be added together.
DISCUSSION
Trees within the survey area are generally mature individuals that have been planted in a landscaped park setting along sidewalks, parking lots, and recreation areas. Additional documented trees are in hardscape areas along Birch Street to the west and Bullis Road to the east.
The majority of the trees are in good to fair health with minor signs of stress or decay, such as cavities, wounding on the trunk or branches, canopy dieback, anthracnose, or general lack of vigor. Trees with good to fair health are expected to improve or maintain their health for the foreseeable future. Several exceptions are present where trees are in poor health.
These include three London plane trees (No. 107, 129, and 196) with moderate canopy dieback and anthracnose observed on the leaves; one tipu tree (No. 120) with poor structure and branch attachments, and one eastern redbud (No. 201) with rot down the main trunk.
The conditions of these trees are expected to continue their health decline without additional care and/or maintenance.
Construction activities are expected to require the removal of five trees, consisting of three tipu trees and two London plane trees. These trees are mature individuals that are poor candidates for relocation due to their size, except for one of the London plane trees which is a sapling, likely planted within the last several years. Though this tree is smaller, it exhibits significant canopy dieback and anthracnose which also makes it a poor candidate for relocation and it is better replaced by appropriately sized nursery stock. A summary of trees to be removed for Project implementation is provided in Table 2.
351
Mir Fattahi, City of Lynwood
September 6, 2024
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF TREES TO BE REMOVED FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Tree
No.
Tree Species Trunk
DSH (in)
Height
(ft)
Canopy
Diameter
(ft)
Health Aesthetics
Common Name Botanical Name
114 tipu tree Tipuana tipu 27.0 60 40 3 4
116 London plane tree Platanus x
hispanica 15.1 55 35 3 4
118 tipu tree Tipuana tipu 21.0 55 45 4 4
120 tipu tree Tipuana tipu 15.7 25 25 2 2
154 London plane tree Platanus x
hispanica 2.5 15 6 3 3
DSH: diameter at standard height; in: inches; ft: feet
Aesthetics/Health Rating: 1=Very Poor, 2=Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good, and 5=Excellent
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Trees planted within the Project site occur in landscaped areas of the park or in areas with hardscape which limit root growth or canopy potential. The following measures are recommended for tree protection and maintenance during construction: Tree impacts (pruning, removal, dripline encroachment, etc.) should be identified as early in the design process as possible to allow for design updates, if necessary.
• Protective fencing should be placed at the dripline of the trees to be preserved within or adjacent to the construction area to minimize their disturbance during construction or grading activities.
• Any approved development, including grading or excavation, that encroaches within the dripline of trees to be preserved should be reviewed prior to implementation by a Certified Arborist.
• Place a four to six-inch layer of chip mulch over the soil surface within the dripline of trees to be protected to reduce compaction, improve aeration, enhance moisture retention, and reduce temperature extremes.
• Provide ongoing watering of trees to be protected during construction, either through hand watering or irrigation systems.
• Avoid heavy equipment, materials placement, spoils piles, or foot traffic within the tree dripline to prevent soil compaction.
• Avoid pruning or fertilizing trees until construction is completed as this may negatively affect a trees’ ability to respond to any incidental impacts. • Any tree(s) with impacts due to Project related activities should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a Certified Arborist. Further recommendations may be provided at that time.
352
Mir Fattahi, City of Lynwood
September 6, 2024
The following measures are recommended for tree establishment at the conclusion of Project activities:
• A Certified Arborist should be responsible for monitoring the health and establishment of replacement trees that may be required as part of the Project. • The largest possible planting basin that the Project site can accommodate should be provided for new trees. Larger planting basins are correlated with longer-lived trees, greater tree stability, and less hardscape damage.
• Once the new planting basins are constructed, soil samples should be collected from all planting locations and sent to a qualified soil laboratory for analysis. From each sampling location, one sample should be collected that represents the top 12 inches of the soil, along with a second sample that represents the soil from 12 to 24 inches deep. Any recommended soil amendments or treatments from the laboratory report should be implemented.
• Once planted, a one- to two-inch layer of mulch should be placed within the planting basin of each new tree. Mulch should not be allowed to be placed in contact with the trunk of the tree as this can lead to rot.
Psomas appreciates the opportunity to assist with this Project. If you have any questions, please contact Trevor Bristle at 626.204.6538 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jessica Hitchcock Trevor Bristle
Project Manager Certified Arborist WE-10233A
Registered Consulting Arborist #746
Attachments: Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
\\pprod.psomas.corp\panzuraenvir\OC_Envir\files\Projects\CRA\3CRA120300\Technical Reports\Tree Report\3CRA120300_Lynwood Park_Tree Rpt_090624.docx 353
²
0 2,0001,000
Feet
D:\Projects\3CRA\Lynwood\PRO\Lynwood.aprx\ex_Project_Location Exhibit 1Project Location
Tree Inventory - Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project (Rev: 8-21-2024 PLO) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120300\Graphics\Trees\ex_Project_Location.pdf Tweedy
Elementary
School
Hosler
Middle
School
Mayo Elementary
School
Abbott
Elementary
School
Bryson
Ave Elementary
School
St Emydius
Elementary
School
Jefferson
Elementary
School
Saint Helen
Elementary
School
St Pauls
Lutheran
Elem School
Saint
Philip Neri
School
Stanford
Avenue
Elementary SCH
Rogers
Elementary
School
Roosevelt
Elementary
School
San Miguel Ave
Elem-Magnet
SCH
Victoria
Elementary
School
Washington
Elementary
School
Twain
Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Lugo
Elementary
School
Montara
Ave Elem
SCH
Lindbergh
Elementary
School
Lynwood
High School
Wilson
Elementary
School Vista
High
School
South Gate
Middle
School
Lynwood
Middle
School
Whaley
Middle School
Foster
Elementary
School
Willard
Elementary
School
Leuders Park
South
Gate
Park
Lynwood
Park
Ralph
Dills Park
Oaks Park
Carnation
Park
Rose
Park
Sa
nta Fe Ave
Fernwood Ave
N Bullis Rd
Abbott Rd
Rayo Ave
E El Segundo Blvd
Southern Ave
Bullis Rd
Weber Ave
Southern PlTruba Ave
California Ave
HarrisAve
Alexande
rAve
Wright Rd
Norton Ave
Alpine Ave
Cedar Ave
San L
uisAve
Cortland St
Agnes St
Beechwood Ave
Otis St
Kauffman Ave
State St
Clark St
L y n w o o d
C o m p t o n
S o u t h G a t e
Long Beach Blvd
Atlantic Ave
N Long Beach Blvd
Imperial Hwy
E Rosecrans Ave
Firestone Blvd
S A
lame
da S
t
Saint
Francis
Medical Center
§¨710
§
¨
105
Carlin AveSanta Fe Ave
California Ave
Tweedy Blvd
Martin Luther King Junior Blvd
State St Otis St
South Gate Municipal
Golf Course
Los
AngelesRiver
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
UV10
UV110
UV91
UV60
UV2
§¨5
§
¨
105
§
¨
605
§¨110
§
¨
5 §¨10
§
¨
210
§
¨
405
§¨710
§¨405
UV22
£¤101
Pasadena
West
Hollywood
Palos Verdes Long Beach
Seal Beach
Carson
Buena Park
Hawthorne
Lakewood
Whittier
Project Boundary
Project Location
354
²
0 12060
Feet
D:\Projects\3CRA\Lynwood\PRO\Lynwood.aprx\ex_Tree_Locations Exhibit 2Tree Locations
Tree Inventory - Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project (Rev: 8-29-2024 PLO) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120300\Graphics\Trees\ex_Tree_Locations.pdf 101
102
103104
105
106
107
108
109110
111112
113114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126127
128
129 130
131132
133134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142143
144
145
146
147
148149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 173
174
176
177
178
179
180
181 182
183 184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193194195
196
197
198
199
200 201 203
202
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213 214
215
216
217218219220
221
175
Martin Luther King Junior Blvd
Bullis Rd
Cesar E Chavez Ln
Benwell Dr
Birch S
t
Carson Dr
Sanborn Ave
Beechwood Ave
Project Boundary
Survey Area - 20-ft Buffer
Tree Canopies
Tree Removal Plan
T
ree Species
king palm (Archontophoenix cunninghamiana)
eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis)
red ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon)
Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei)
Arizona cypress (Hesperocyparis arizonica)
jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia)
American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora)
olive (Olea europaea)
avocado (Persea americana)
pygmy date palm (Phoenix roebelenii)
Canary island pine (Pinus canariensis)
aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis)
western sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
London plane tree (Platanus x hispanica)
guava (Psidium guajava)
evergreen pear (Pyrus kawakamii)
holly oak (Quercus ilex)
giant bird of paradise (Strelitzia nicolai)
queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana)
tipu tree (Tipuana tipu)
Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia)
Aerial Source: Nearmap 2024
355
APPENDIX C
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORD SEARCH RESULTS
356
Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation Last Updated Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
N Christina Swindall Martinez,
Secretary
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
(844) 390-0787 [email protected] Gabrieleno 8/18/2023 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
N Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
(844) 390-0787 [email protected] Gabrieleno 8/18/2023 Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
N Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
(626) 483-3564 (626) 286-1262 [email protected] Gabrieleno 12/4/2023 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
N Christina Conley, Cultural
Resource Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
(626) 407-8761 [email protected]
u
Gabrielino 3/16/2023
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
N Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
(562) 761-6417 (562) 761-6417 [email protected] Gabrielino 3/16/2023 Gabrielino/Tongva Nation N Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., #231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
(951) 807-0479 [email protected] Gabrielino 3/28/2023 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Charles Alvarez, Chairperson 23454 Vanowen Street West Hills, CA, 91307
(310) 403-6048 [email protected] Gabrielino 5/30/2023 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resource Director
P.O. Box 3919
Seal Beach, CA, 90740
(909) 262-9351 [email protected] Gabrielino 5/30/2023 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Steven Estrada, Tribal Chairman P.O. Box 391820 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla 4/8/2024 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Vanessa Minott, Tribal Administrator
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla 4/8/2024 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-6261 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-5279 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed 3CRA120300 Project, Los Angeles County.
Record: PROJ-2024-002525
Report Type: AB52 GIS
Counties: Los Angeles
NAHC Group: All
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Los Angeles County
5/13/2024
Counties
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
05/13/2024 01:34 PM
1 of 1 357
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
May 13, 2024
Charles Cisneros
Psomas
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 3CRA120300 Project, Los Angeles County
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”)
Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano
COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla
COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
358
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.
3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
359
Research & Collections
e-mail: [email protected]
April 28, 2024
Psomas
Attn: Charles Cisneros
re: Paleontological resources for Project 3CRA120300
Dear Charles:
I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for proposed development at the 3CRA120300 project area as outlined on the portion of the South Gate USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on April 24, 2024. We do not have any fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project area, but we do have fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that may occur in the proposed project area, either at the surface or at depth.
The following table shows the closest known localities in the collection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA).
Locality
Number Location Formation Taxa Depth
LACM IP 7
near Compton
(more precise
locality not
available)
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Oysters on a fragment of
pecten
735 feet bgs
(collected
from well
excavations)
LACM VP
3365
Athens on the Hill,
Los Angeles (more
precise information
not available)
Unnamed formation
(Pleistocene) Mammoth (Mammuthus) Unknown
LACM VP
1225
354 W 99th St., Los
Angeles
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene) Mammoth (Mammuthus)
15-20 feet
bgs
LACM VP
3266
W Athens Blvd &
Menlo Ave
Unnamed formation
(Pleistocene,
calcareous
siltstone) Uncatalogued vertebrates
15-18 feet
bgs
LACM VP
1295, 1344,
4206
Harbor Freeway
excavations
between 112 St &
113 St.*
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Horse (Equus), Bison (Bison),
canine (Canis), birds (Mancalla,
Parapavo, Aves), rabbit
(Sylvilagus, Leporidae),
mammoth (Mammuthus),
rodent (Thomomys, Microtus,
Sciuridae, Rodentia), ground Unknown
360
Locality
Number Location Formation Taxa Depth
sloth (Paramylodon), antelope
(Breameryx), artiodactyl
(Pecora), turtle (Clemmys)
VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface *see Miller 1971; Bulletin of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, science: no.
10. This records search covers only the records of the NHMLA. It is not intended as a paleontological assessment of the project area for the purposes of CEQA or NEPA. Potentially fossil-bearing units are present in the project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. As such, NHMLA recommends that a full paleontological assessment of the project area be conducted by a paleontologist meeting Federal (43 Code of Federal Regulations Part 49.110) or Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Bell, Ph.D.
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
enclosure: invoice
361
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs 3CRA120300
LA-00078 1975 Evaluation of the Archaeological Resources and Potential Impact of the Proposed
Construction of Route 105 Freeway From El
Segundo to Norwalk
University of California, Los
Angeles Archaeological
Survey
Rosen, Martin D.
LA-07049 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment At&t Wireless Services Facility No. 04419a-04 Los Angeles
County, California
LSA Associates, Inc.Marvin, Judith and Curt
Duke
LA-07050 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment At&t Wireless Services Facility No. 04090a-04 Los Angeles,
California
LSA Associates, Inc.Marvin, Judith and Curt
Duke
LA-07060 2002 Results From the Archaeological Records
Search for South Gate Sewer Rehabilitation
Project, Los Angeles County
Discovery Works, Inc.Padon, Beth
LA-07663 2006 Fcc Form 621 (section 106) Submittal
Earthtouch Inc. (consultants on Behalf of
Royal Street Communications, Llc Dba Metro
Pcs) Sanborn Water Tank/la-0329a Lynwood,
Los Angeles County, California
EarthTouch Inc.Billat, Lorna 19-177470
LA-11014 2006 Collocation Submission Packet Form 621 -
11240 California Ave., Lynwood
URSHatoff, Brian 19-187066
362
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
3CRA120300
P-19-177470 OHP Property Number - 028148;
Resource Name - Lynwood
Pacific Electric RR Depot;
Other - Passenger Station
LA-07663Building Historic HP17 1974 (R. A. Swan, City of Lynwood, Department of Public Works)
P-19-187066 OHP Property Number - 132202;
Resource Name - California
Water Tank
LA-11014, LA-12917Building Historic HP11 2002 (J. Marvin & J. Michalsky, LSA);
2002 (B. Hatoff, URS)
P-19-187068 OHP Property Number - 100240;
Resource Name - Storage Bldg
Building Historic HP14 1995 (C. McAvoy, HRG)
P-19-187721 OHP Property Number - 132185;
Resource Name - Walnut Water
Tower;
Voided - 19-187067
LA-11349Structure Historic HP11 2002 (J. Marvin & J. Michalsky, LSA) P-19-187855 OHP Property Number - 148285;
Resource Name - Herman H
Bradley Residence;
Other - Vesenia Vedal Residence;
Other - Sprint
telecommunications Facility
LA60XC332A
Building Historic HP02 2004 (K. Crawford)
P-19-187856 OHP Property Number - 148276;
Resource Name - Richard & Vera
Robins Residence;
Other - Harold and Leeather
Wesley Residence
Building Historic HP02 2004 (K. Crawford)
P-19-187857 OHP Property Number - 148279;
Resource Name - Gustave &
Katherine Blun Residence;
Other - Benito & Maria Preciado
Residence;
Other - Sprint
Telecommunications Facility
LA60XC332A
Building Historic HP02 2004 (K. Crawford)
P-19-187858 OHP Property Number - 148288;
Resource Name - Robert
Ferguson Residence;
Other - Senavio & Gladys
Palomero Residence;
Other - Sprint
Telecommunications Facility
LA60XC332A
Building Historic HP02 2004 (K. Crawford)
363
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
3CRA120300
P-19-187859 OHP Property Number - 148273;
Resource Name - Sylvan &
Beulah Krsnak Residence;
Other - Diana L Harris Residence;
Other - Sprint
Telecommunications Facility
LA60XC332A
Building Historic HP02 2004 (K. Crawford)
P-19-187860 OHP Property Number - 148251;
Resource Name - Erich &
Rosemarie Rolko Residence;
Other - Alfred & Harriett Coleman
Residence;
Other - Sprint
Telecommunications Facility
LA60XC332A
Building Historic HP02 2004 (K. Crawford)
364
APPENDIX D
ENERGY CALCULATIONS
365
Energy Use Summary
Construction Phase (gallons/construction period)Gasoline Diesel Construction Vehicles 46 14,390
Worker Trips 2,407 6
Vendor Trips 0 0
Haul Trucks 5 4,589
Total 2,458 18,986
Operations Phase (gallons/year) Gasoline Diesel
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr) Electricity (kWh/yr)
City Park 0 0 0 0
Parking Lot 0 0 0 42,048
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
All Land Uses 0 0 0 42,048
366
Operations Offroad Equipment
Number Hours/Day Days/YearHorse PowerLoad FactorFuel Type Fuel consumption (gal/hr) Pumps 1 24 365 11 0.74 Diesel 2.380239 15,430
367
Offroad Construction Equipment Energy Use
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per DayHours Per DayHorsepower Load FactorHorsepower Category Num Days Year Fuel Consumption Rate
(gal/hour) Fuel Type
Total Fuel Consumption
(gal/construction period)
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1 8 36 0.38 50 45 2024 0.8 Diesel 108 Demolition Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2 8 71 0.37 75 45 2024 1.3 Diesel 359 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1 8 367 0.4 300 45 2024 4.6 Diesel 667 Demolition Other Construction EquipmentDiesel Average 2 8 82 0.42 75 45 2024 1.6 Diesel 471 Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2 8 71 0.37 75 45 2024 1.3 Diesel 359 Site Preparation Other Construction EquipmentDiesel Average 1 8 82 0.42 75 45 2024 1.6 Diesel 236 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1 8 367 0.4 300 45 2024 4.6 Diesel 667 Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1 8 71 0.37 75 131 2024 1.3 Diesel 522 Grading Graders Diesel Average 2 8 148 0.41 175 131 2024 3.2 Diesel 2,716 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2 8 36 0.38 50 131 2024 0.8 Diesel 627 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 2 7 367 0.29 300 262 2024 3.3 Diesel 3,479 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1 8 82 0.2 75 262 2024 1.2 Diesel 517 Building Construction Excavators Diesel Average 2 8 36 0.38 50 262 2024 0.8 Diesel 1,253 Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2 8 71 0.37 75 262 2024 1.3 Diesel 2,089 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1 8 81 0.42 75 43 2024 1.5 Diesel 220 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1 8 36 0.38 50 43 2024 0.8 Diesel 101 Paving Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1 8 8 0.43 25 43 2024 0.3 Gasoline 46 #N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A 2024 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Total Gasoline 46
Total Diesel 14,390
14,437
368
Onroad Construction Energy Use
Year 2024
Vehicle Types MPG by Fuel Type Population by Fuel Type
Gasoline Diesel Electricity Natural Gas Plug-in Hybrid Gasoline Diesel Electricity Natural Gas Plug-in Hybrid Total LDA 29.3 41.2 0.4 0.000 28.2 5,451,205 15,009 284,963 0 152,679 5,903,856 LDT1 24.4 23.4 0.4 0.000 28.0 505,255 186 1,243 0 739 507,423 LDT2 23.9 31.9 0.4 0.000 27.9 2,551,917 8,409 16,572 0 21,729 2,598,626 LHDT1 13.6 20.5 0.6 0.000 0.0 205,772 107,344 793 0 0 313,909 LHDT2 11.9 17.3 0.6 0.000 0.0 32,210 47,494 205 0 0 79,909 MCY 41.5 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 248,270 0 0 0 0 248,270
MDV 19.5 23.7 0.4 0.000 27.6 1,622,854 20,420 18,088 0 13,081 1,674,443 MH 4.9 10.1 0.0 0.000 0.0 30,227 12,282 0 0 0 42,510
MHDT 5.2 8.9 1.0 8.3 0.0 25,496 117,140 365 1,526 0 144,526 HHDT 4.0 6.1 1.8 6.0 0.0 66 101,735 317 10,386 0 112,504 OBUS 5.1 7.0 1.1 8.8 0.0 5,427 3,049 12 487 0 8,975
SBUS 8.9 7.3 1.2 4.2 0.0 2,859 3,436 23 3,247 0 9,564
UBUS 7.0 6.6 2.1 3.2 0.0 894 14 132 5,035 0 6,076
10,682,454 436,518 322,712 20,681 188,228 11,650,593
Daily Trips Gasoline Consumption Diesel Consumption
Phase Name Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip LengthWorker Vendor Haul Worker Vendor Haul Demolition 15 0 31 18.5 10.2 7
Site Preparation 10 0 0 18.5 10.2 0
Grading 13 0 20 18.5 10.2 8
Building Construction 0 0 0 18.5 10.2 0
Paving 8 0 0 18.5 10.2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Trips
Demolition 675 0 1395 18.5 10.2 7 512 0 1 1 0 1,459
Site Preparation 450 0 0 18.5 10.2 0 341 0 0 1 0 0
Grading 1703 0 2620 18.5 10.2 8 1,292 0 3 3 0 3,131
Building Construction 0 0 0 18.5 10.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paving 344 0 0 18.5 10.2 0 261 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2,407 0 5 6 0 4,589
369
APPENDIX E
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
370
Geotechnical Evaluation
Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture
Project
11301 Bullis Road
Lynwood , California
Craftwater Engineering, Inc.
45 South Arroyo Parkway, B6 | Pasadena, California 91105 March 17, 2023 | Project No. 212102001
Geotechnical | Environmental | Construction Inspection & Testing | Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness
Geophysics | Engineering Geology | Laboratory Testing | Industrial Hygiene | Occupational Safety | Air Quality | GIS
371
475 Goddard, Suite 200 | Irvine, California 92618 | p. 949.753.7070 | www.ninyoandmoore.com
Geotechnical Evaluation
Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture
Project
11301 Bullis Road
Lynwood, California
Ms. Courtney Semlow
Craftwater Engineering, Inc.
45 South Arroyo Parkway , B6 | Pasadena, California 91105 March 17, 2023 | Project No. 212102001
Jennifer R. Schmidt, PG, CEG
Senior Geologist
Soumitra Guha, PhD, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
Greg M. Corson, PG, CEG
Principal Geologist
RVC/JRS/GMC/SG/mlc
372
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 i
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
3 SITE DESCRIPTION 2
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRU CTION 2
5 PREVIOUS SITE EVALUA TION 3
6 SUBSURFACE EVALUATIO N AND LABORATORY TES TING 3
7 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURF ACE CONDITIONS 4
8 GROUNDWATER 5
9 FIELD PERCOLATION TE STING 5
10 FLOOD HAZARDS 7
11 FAULTING AND SEISMIC ITY 7
11.1 Surface Fault Rupture 8
11.2 Ground Motion 8
11.3 Liquefaction 9
11.4 Dynamic Settlement 9
12 CONCLUSIONS 10
13 RECOMMENDATIONS 11
13.1 Earthwork 11
13.1.1 Pre-Construction Conference 11
13.1.2 Clearing and Site Preparation 12
13.1.3 Excavation Characteristics 12
13.1.4 Subgrade Preparati on for the Infiltration Gallery 12
13.1.5 Treatment of Near -Surface Soils for Buried and At -Grade Structures and Site Pavements 13
13.1.6 Temporary Excavations 14
13.1.7 Shoring 15
13.1.8 Fill Material 16
13.1.9 Fill Placement and Compaction 16
13.2 Underground Utilities 17
13.2.1 Pipe Bedding 17
13.2.2 Trench Backfill 17
13.2.3 Modulus of Soil Reaction for Pipe Design 18
373
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 ii
13.3 Seismic Design Considerations 18
13.4 Foundations 18
13.4.1 Spread Footing 18
13.4.2 Mat Foundation 19
13.5 Lateral Earth Pressures for Underground Structures 19
13.6 Exterior Flatwork 20
13.7 Corrosivity 20
13.8 Concrete Placement 20
13.9 Stormwater Infiltra tion Gallery 21
13.10 Drainage 21
13.11 Landscaping 22
14 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PR OGRAM 22
14.1 Construction Vibrations 22
14.2 Ground Surface Settlement 23
14.3 Lateral Movement for Shoring Support System 23
15 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVA TION 23
16 LIMITATIONS 24
17 REFERENCES 26
TABLES
1 – Percolation Test Results 7
2 – 2022 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria 18
FIGURES
1 – Site Location
2 – Site Plan
3 – Boring, CPT, and Percolation Test Locations
4 – Regional Geology
5 – Fault Locations
6 – Seismic Hazard Zones
7 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Braced Excavation
8 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Cantilevered Shoring 9 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Underground Structures
374
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 iii
APPENDICES
A – Preliminary Infiltration Study by Albus-Keefe (2017) B – Boring Logs
C – CPT Soundings
D – Laboratory Testing
E – Drum Characterization Results
F – Liquefaction Analysis
375
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 1
1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project located at 11301 Bullis Road in Lynwood, California (Figure 1). We understand that the project will generally consist of the installation of a regional stormwater capture and infiltration facility within Lynwood City Park that will provide improved flood control, water treatment, infiltration of groundwater , and improved flood management for water from a 955-acre drainage area. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the subsurface soil and geologic conditions at the park , including the infiltration rates of the on - site soils, in order to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements . Our evaluation was performed in general accordance with our referenced p roposal dated July 11, 2022 . This report presents our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the project.
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services included the following:
• Project coordination and planning with subcontractor s and perso nnel from Craftwater Engineering, Inc. and the City of Lynwood.
• Review of readily available background materials, including published topographic maps, geologic maps, fault and seismic hazard maps, groundwater data, stereoscopic aerial photographs, in-house geotechnical information, and other reports provided by the client. • Acquisition of a Los Angeles County Environmental Health Department (LACEHD) permit for drilling deeper than 10 feet below the ground surface.
• Field reconnaissance to observe and documen t the site conditions, mark -out proposed hollow-stem-auger (HSA) boring and cone penetration test (CPT) sounding locations for underground utility clearance by Underground Service Alert. • Subsurface exploration consisting of the drilling, sampling, and logging of seven HSA borings, ranging in depths from approximately 6½ feet to 101½ feet, and two CPTs ranging in depths from approximately 60 feet to 100 feet.
• Field percolation testing in four of the HSA borings in general accordance with the 2021 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Work’s (CLADPW) Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration. • Geotechnical laboratory testing of representative soil samples to evaluate in -situ moisture content and dry density, percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve, Atterberg limits, consolidation, direct shear strength, and soil corrosivity. • Data compilation and engineering analysis of the information obtained from our background review, subsurface evaluation, percolation testing, and laboratory testing. • Preparation of this geotechnical report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the design and construction of the proposed improvements. 376
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 2
3 SITE DESCRIPTION
Lynwood City Park is situated in a mixed residential and commercial neighborhood in the City of Lynwood, approximately ½ mile northeast of Interstate 105 (I-105) and approximately 1½ miles west of I-710 (Figure 1). The park consists of a rectangular-shaped lot situated on the west side of the Lynwood Community Center. The park is bounded by Cesar Chavez Lane and Martin Luther King Boulevard on the north, Birch Street on the west, Spruce Street and administration buildings on the south, and the community center and Bullis Road on the east (Figures 2 and 3). The park is a relatively flat area ranging from approximately 85 to 90 feet above mean sea level with a gentle slope toward the south (United States Geological Survey, 2018) . The park generally consists of various gra ss-covered fields, including four baseball fields on the west approximate half of the park and three soccer field s on the east approximate half of the park. Other park improvements include a snack shack/restroom structure between the baseball fields, tennis courts and an asphalt-concrete (AC) paved parking lot on the south, a playground area and greenbelt area on the north, and Portland cement concrete (PCC) walkways . The east side of the park includes the community center building, basketball courts, skate park, maintenance and restroom building, and AC -paved parking lots adjacent to the buildings (Figures 2 and 3). According to Craftwood (2020), two storm drains associated with East Compton Creek are located within Bullis Road and Birch Street.
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROPOS ED CONSTRUCTION
Based on our review of the City of Lynwood request for proposal, dated June 23, 2022 , we understand that the project generally consist s of the installation of regional stormwater capture, infiltration, and treatment facility (Best Management Practice [BMP]) within the Lynwood City Park to improve the water quality within the Lower Los Angeles River Watershed . T he facility will provide improved flood control, water treatment and groundwater replenishment by diverting wet- weather flow from the two storm drains located in Bullis Road and Birch Street to the park. Two new diversion structures, one in Bullis Road (20 cubic feet per second [20cfs] ) and one in Birch Street (40cfs), will be constructed to divert water to the park through new pipelines to a new pre- cast concrete infiltration gallery. The gallery will have a storage capacity of approximately 11.2 - acre-feet (3.6 million gallons) and has a conceptual footprint of approximately 120 feet by 440 feet (Craft Water, 2020). It is anticipated that the gallery structure will have an invert depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface. New actuated valves and pretreatment hydrodynamic separators will be installed in-line prior to the structure. A second pipeline and valve will be installed to allow the treated water to return the storm drain within Bullis Road. Other site BMPs and park improvements include the installation of an ephemeral stream to the butterfly garden along the north side of the park. We unde rstand that previously proposed permeable 377
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 3
pavements and bioswales in the community center parking lot have been removed from the project.
5 PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATION
As part of our evaluation, we reviewed a preliminary infiltration study report for the subject project prepared by Albus-Keefe & Associates (Albus-Keefe, 2017). Their study was performed to evaluate the feasibility of using dry wells at the site for on-site stormwater infiltration. Their study included three exploratory borings (B-1, B-2, and B-3) to depths of approximately 51½, 12, and 12 feet, respectively, and percolation testing in the two shallower borings. Their borings and percolation testing were performed near the western end of the proposed underground structure as shown on Figures 2 and 3. We used their borings and percolation test data to supplement our report. Data from their report is included in our discussions below. A copy of their report, including their boring logs, is provided in Appendix A.
6 SUBSURFACE EVALUATIO N AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our subsurface evaluation was conducted on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2023, and consisted of the drilling, logging, and sampling of seven HSA borings (B -1, B-2, B-3, and P-1 through P-4) and two CPT soundings (CPT-1 and CPT-2). The borings were drilled using a truck- mounted drill rig with 8-inch diameter augers. Borings B-1, B-3, and P-1 through P-4 were drilled to proposed depths of approximately 31.5, 31.5, 6.5, 21.5, 21.5, and 21.5 feet, respectively. Boring B-2 was drilled to a depth of 101.5 as requested by the City. The borings were logged in the field by a representative of Ninyo & Moore and representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected from the borings at selected depths for laboratory testing. Logs of the exploratory borings are provided in Appendix B. Percolation testing was performed in borings P - 1 through P-4 as further discussed in Section 8 of this report. CPT soundings CPT-1 and CPT-2 were performed using a 30 -ton CPT rig to depths of approximately 60.3 and 100.2 feet, respectively. Continuous soil profiles, including cone tip resistance and sleeve friction, were recorded during the sounding s. Pore water dissipation test measurements were recorded from both CPT soundings and shear wave testing was performed in CPT-2. Logs of the CPT soundings, including the results of the dissipation and shear wave tests, are provided in Appendi x C. The approximate locations of the borings and CPTs are presented on Figures 2 and 3. The borings and CPTs were backf illed with cement -bentonite grout upon completion of the drilling and percolation testing in general accordance with the requirements of LACEHD.
Geotechnical laboratory testing of representative soil samples included tests to evaluate in -situ moisture content and dry density, percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve Atterberg 378
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 4
limits, consolidation potential, direct shear strength, and soil corrosivity. Moisture and density test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. The remaining test results are presented in Appendix D.
Soil cuttings from the borings and CPT s were placed in 55 -gallon drums, and composite soil samples of the drummed soil were collected in 8-ounce jar s for waste characterization. The samples were stored in a chilled cooler and delivered to a laboratory for analytical testing under chain-of-custody protocol. The sample s were tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons (gas and diesel range) per United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method 8015B, Title 22 metals per EPA Test Methods 6010B/7470/7471, and volatile organic compounds per EPA Test Method 8260B. Based on the characterization test results, the drums were disposed at an approved landfill by a licensed transportation subcontractor as non -hazardous material. The waste characterization test results are provided in Appendix E. 7 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURF ACE CONDITIONS
The project site is located within the Los Angeles Basin of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province (Norris and Webb, 1990). The basin has been divided into four blocks, the northeastern, northwestern, southwestern, and central blocks that are separated by prominent fault systems.
The project site is locat ed within the central block, which is underlain by up to approximately 35,000 feet of Cretaceous to Pleistocene -age marine and non -marine sedimentary rock. The sedimentary rock is overlain by late Pleistocene to Holocene-age alluvial deposits associated with the ancestral Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. According to Saucedo, et al. (2016), the project site is generally underlain by Holocene to late Pleistocene-age young alluvium consisting of poorly consolidated, poorly sorted, permeable floodplain deposits of soft , clay and silt, and loose to moderately dense , sand and silty sand (Figure 4 ). The California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG, 1998) has also mapped the site as being underlain by young alluvium deposits consisting of loose to medium dense, very coarse- to very fine-grained sand, gravel, and silt that interfinger and grade laterally into each other. Various fills are anticipated at the site associated with past earthwork, including building construction and underground utility installation.
Materials encountered during our subsurface exploration generally consisted of undocumented fill underlain by young alluvium. Undocumented fill was encountered in our borings B-2 and P-1 to depths ranging from approximately ½ and 1 foot, respectively. The undocumented fill generally consists of brown, moist, medium dense, silty gravel with sand and silty sand with few gravel.
Documentation regarding the limits of fill or the placement and compaction of the fill soils was not available for our review. Young alluvium was encountered beneath the undocumented fill in borings B -2 and P -1 and a t the ground surface in the remaining borings to the total depth s 379
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 5
explored of up to approximately 100 feet. The young alluvium generally consists of approximately 4 to 10 feet of light brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty sand underlain be predominan tly fine deposits to depths of approximately 28 to 40 feet. The fine deposits generally consist of light brown, brown, dark brown, grayish brown, olive gray, and gray, moist, loose to very dense and stiff to hard, silt with variable amounts of sand with interbeds of dark brown, moist, very stiff, clay.
Below depths of approximately 28 to 40 feet, the alluvium generally consists of interbedded light brown and gray, moist to wet, medium dense to very dense, silty sand and silt with variable amounts of sand with occasion thin clay layers. Similar alluvial deposits were encountered in the previous borings by Albus-Keefe (2017). More detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered during our subsurface exploration are presented on the boring logs an d CPT soundings in Appendices B and C, respectively.
8 GROUNDWATER
During our subsurface exploration, groundwater was encountered in boring B-2 at a depth of approximately 44.3 feet and in our CPT-1 and CPT-2 at depths of approximately 43.4 and 55.5 feet, respectively. Albus-Keefe (2017) encountered groundwater at a depth of approximately 43 feet in their boring B-1. The historic high depth to groundwater is mapped at approximately 8 feet by CDMG, (1998). As part of our evaluation, we reviewed depth to groundwater data available on the State of California Water Resources Control Board ’s GeoTracker website (2023) for three sites located approx imately ½ mile west, ½ mile southwest, and 1 mile east of the site. Similar depths to groundwater were recorded in numerous groundwater monitoring wells at each site. In general, the groundwater depths ranged from approximately 16 to 40 feet between approximately 1988 to 2019 . Fluctuations in the level of groundwater will occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, irrigation practices, groundwater pumping, and other factors that were not evident at the time of our field evaluation. 9 FIELD PERCOLATION TE STING
Percolation testing was performed in our borings P-1 through P-4 in general accordance with the 2021 CLADPW Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration. The testing was performed to evaluate the infiltration rate s of the on -site soils for use in design of project BMPs. Boring P -1 was d rilled to a depth of approximately 6½ feet and borings P-2, P-3, andP-4 were drilled to depths of approximately 21½ feet. The purpose of borings P -2, P -3, and P-4 was to evaluate the infiltration rate at the approximate invert depth of the proposed infiltration gallery and the purpose of boring P-1 was to evaluate the infiltration rate of shallower soils in the event that additional BMPs, such as 380
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 6
bioswales, permeable pavements, etc ., are added to the project. The approximate locations of the percolation test borings are shown on Figures 2 and 3.
Preparation of each boring for percolation testing included the installation of a 2 -inch-diameter slotted polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe in each boring and backfilling the bottom approximately 5 feet of annular space between the borehole wall and pipe with clean gravel. The infiltration zones were pre-soaked with water for at least one hour prior to performing percolation testing. After the borings were pre-soaked, falling-head percolation testing was performed in the borings.
The falling-head test method involved placing clean water into the PVC pipe to establish a head of water and measuring the rate at which the water level dropped in the pipe at consecutive time intervals (approximately 30 minutes). The test was repeated until three consecutive tests provided similar results and a stabilized rate was obtained. The field percolation rate was calculated by measuring the total volume of water infiltrated during the time interval and dividing by the surface area of the tested zone of the boring. The measured field percolation rates are presented in Table
1. The Albus -Keefe (2017) percolation test results , which were performed using the Well Permeameter test method USBR-7300-89, are also provided in Table 1 for informative purposes regarding materials above the tank’s proposed invert depth.
The 2021 C LADPW guidelines indicate that the measured field percolation rates should be reduced to account for the long -term performance of the proposed BMPs by dividi ng the field rates by the “Total Reduction Factor (RF).” They define the RF as the sum of the "test-specific" reduction factor (RF t), the "site variability" reduction factor (RF v), and the "long -term siltation, plugging, and maintenance" reduction factor ( RFs) (i.e., RF=RF t+RFv+RFs). The guidelines (CLADPW, 2021) indicate that the RF t is applied to account for variations in the direction of flow during the test and the reliability of the different test methods and ranges from 1 to 3 . We recommend using an RFt value of 2 for the small dimeter boring test method used in this evaluation. The RF v value is applied to account for site variability, number of tests, and thoroughness of the subsurface investigation and ranges from 1 to 3. Based on our explorations and relative consistency of materials encountered between borings and CPTs, we recommend using an RF v value of 1 . The long -term siltation, plugging, and maintenance value (RF s) also ranges from 1 to 3 and will generally vary on the level of pre -treatment per formed prior to infiltration and the level of future maintenance of the system. For the purposes of this evaluation, we have assumed a n RFs value of 1; however, the RF s value should be provided by the BMP designer. The RFt, RFv, RFs, and resulting RF values used in our analysis are presented in Table
1. The adjusted percolation rates based on these values are also presented in Table 1. 381
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 7
Table 1 – Percolation Test Results
Test
Boring Test Type
Approximate
Depth of
Tested Zone
(feet)
Field Percolation
Rate (inches/hour)
Reduction Factor Adjusted
Percolation
Rate
(inches/hour)
RFt RFv RFs RF
P-1 Falling Head 3 – 5 2.45 2 1 1 4 0.61
P-2 Falling Head 15 – 20 0.04 2 1 1 4 0.01
P-3 Falling Head 15 – 20 1.27 2 1 1 4 0.32
P-4 Falling Head 15 – 20 1.34 2 1 1 4 0.34
P-1 (AK) Well Permeameter 7-12 0.83 - - - - -
P-2 (AK) Well Permeameter 7-12 1.03 - - - - -
Notes:
RFt – Test Specific Reduction Factor
RFv – Site Variability Reduction Factor
RFs – Long-Term Siltation, Plugging, and Maintenance Reduction Factor (To be adjusted by the BMP designer) RF – Total Reduction Factor
Based on our evaluation and the presence of clay layers at the proposed invert depth of the gallery, we recommend that an adjusted percolation rate of 0.01 inch per hour, following adjustments by the BMP designer for RF s, be used for design of the infiltration gallery. A preliminary design value of 0.6 inch per hour can be used for shallower site BMPs , such as bioswales. If shallow BMPs are added to the project, additional shallow percolation tests may be warranted for the design of shallow BMPs.
In addition, we recommend that new or existing buildings be set -back from the proposed infiltration gallery a minimum of 15 feet or a distance where the bottom of the lowest foundation element of the structure is at least 10 horizontal feet outside of an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward and outward from the zone of infiltration. 10 FLOOD HAZARDS
Based on our review of flood insurance rate maps for the project area (Feder al Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2008), the project site is not located in the 100-year Flood Hazard Area. The site is located within “Other Flood Areas – Zone X,” which includes areas potentially subject to 500-year floods, areas of 100-year floods with average depths of less than one foot , and areas protected by levees.
11 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The site is in a seismically active area, as is the majority of southern California, and the potential for strong ground motion in the project area is consid ered significant during the design life of the proposed project. Figure 5 shows the approximate site location relative to the major faults in the region. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) (formerly known as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) ( California Geological Survey [CGS], 2018). 382
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 8
The nearest mapped active fault to the site is the Newport Inglewood fault located approximately
3.7 miles southwest of the site (Jennings and Bryant, 2010) (Figure 5).
The principal seismic hazards evalua ted at the subject site are surface fault rupture, ground motion, and liquefaction. A brief description of these principal seismic hazards is discussed in the following sections.
11.1 Surface Fault Rupture
Surface fault rupture is the offset or rupturing of the ground surface by relative displacement across a fault during an earthquake. Based on our review of referenced geologic and fault hazard data, the project site is not transected by known active faults. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture is relatively low. However, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.
11.2 Ground Motion
Considering the proximity of the site to active faults capable of producing a maximum moment magnitude of 6.0 or more, the projec t area has a high potential for experiencing strong ground motion. The 2022 California Building Code (CBC) specifies that the risk -targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCE R) ground motion response accelerations be used to evaluate seismic loads for desi gn of buildings and other structures. Based on the shear wave velocity measurements performed at CPT-2, we calculated that that the average shear wave velocity in the upper 100 feet (30 meters) of the subsurface profile (V S30) is approximately 850 feet per second (259 meters per second). In accordance with Chapter 20 of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Publication 7-16 (2016) for the Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Building and Other Structures, the site classification is Site Class D.
In accordance with ASCE 7-16, the mapped MCER ground motion response accelerations were determined using the 2023 Applied Technology Council (ATC) seismic design tool (web -based).
The MCE R ground motion response accelerations are based on the sp ectral response accelerations for 5 percent damping in the direction of maximum horizontal response and incorporate a target risk for structural collapse equivalent to 1 percent in 50 years with deterministic limits. Spectral response acceleration paramete rs, consistent with the 20 22 CBC, are provided in Section 13.3 for the evaluation of seismic loads on buildings and other structures.
ASCE 7-16 specifies that the potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss be evaluated, where applicable, for the max imum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCE G) peak ground acceleration adjusted for site effects (PGA M). The PGA M is based on the geometric mean peak 383
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 9
ground acceleration with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The PGA M was calculated as 0.878g using the 2023 ATC seismic design tool.
11.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited granular soils with silt and clay contents of less than approximately 35 percent and non-plastic silts located below the water table undergo rapid loss of shear strength when subjected to strong earthquake -induced ground shaking. Ground shaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to-grain contact due to a rapid rise in pore water pressure and causes the soil to behave as a f luid for a brief period of time. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in saturated or near saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than 50 feet. Factors known to influence liquefaction potential include composition and thickness of soil layers, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking.
The State of California Hazard Zones map (CDMG, 1999) indicates that the subject site is located in an area mapped as being potentia lly susceptible to liquefaction (Figure 6). Accordingly, we evaluated the liquefaction potential of the subsurface soils at the site. Our analysis was performed using the CPT data collected from CPT-1 and CPT-2. The liquefaction analysis was based on the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research procedure (Youd, et al., 2001) using the computer program LiquefyPro (CivilTech Corporation, 2008). A historic high depth to groundwater of 8 feet below the existing ground surface , a PGA m of 0. 878g, and a design earthquake magnitude of 7.3 were used in our analyses. Our analysis indicates that the granular soil layers occurring below the historic high groundwater level of 8 feet, in the event that the groundwater was to rise from its current depth of appro ximately 50 feet, are susceptible to liquefaction during the design seismic event.
11.4 Dynamic Settlement
As a result of liquefaction, the proposed improvements may be subject to liquefaction -induced settlement. In order to estimate the amount of dynamic settlement of saturated soils, the method proposed Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) was used. Based on our analysis, post -earthquake settlements of up to approximately 4½ inches were calculated at both CPT locations. Based on the guidelines presented in CGS Special Publication 117A (2008) and assuming relatively uniform subsurface stratigraphy across the site, we estimate a differential dynamic settlement on the order of 2 inches over a horizontal distance of about 60 feet. 384
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 10
12 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed project and associated improvements at Lynwood City Park are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. In general, the following conclusions were made:
• The subject site is generally underlain by up to approximately 1 foot of undocumented fill .
The fill is underlain by young alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded moist, loose to very dense, poorly graded sand with silt, silty sand, and silt with variable amounts of sand , and stiff to very stiff, silt and sandy lean clay.
• Our percolation testing indicates that the on-site soils at the approximate invert depth of the infiltration gallery (approximately 20 feet) have an adjusted percolation rate of 0. 01 inch per hour. We recommend using this value for design of the gallery; however, this rate should be adjusted as needed in accordance with the 2021 CLADPW guidelines. For planning purposes, shallow infiltration BMPs , if included with the project, can be designed using an adjusted percolation rate of ½ inch per hour.
• In general, excavations and drilling in the existing fill soil and young alluvium should be feasible with earthmoving equipment in good working condition. • We anticipate that the on -site excavated materials should be suitable for re -use as engineered fill and trench backfill provided, they are free of trash, debris, roots, contamination, deleterious materials, and cobbles or hard lumps of material in excess of 4 inches in diameter. Processing of the materials to bring them near the laboratory optimum moisture content (i.e., drying and/or wetting) prior to use as fill should be planned by the contractor. In-situ moisture contents of collected soil samples ranged from approximately 8.6 to 36.3 percent.
• The on-site soils should be considered as Type C soils in accordance with United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.
Accordingly, temporary excavations deeper than 4 feet in depth should be shored or laid back at inclinations of 1½ to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. • Where excavations cannot be laid back, temporary shoring is anticipated. Shoring should be designed by the contract or to support the excavation sidewalls and to reduce the potential for settlement of adjacent structures, roadways and other site improvements. Shoring should be designed in accordance with OSHA regulations.
• Groundwater was encountered in one of our exploratory borings at a depth of approximately
43.3 and in our CPTs at depths of approximately 43.4 and 55.5 feet. These depths are similar to groundwater monitoring data reviewed from three other sites within approximately 1 mile of the project site. The historic high depth to groundwater is mapped as being approximately 8 feet (CDMG, 1998). Fluctuations in the level of groundwater will occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, irrigation practices, groundwater p umping, and other factors that were not evident at the time of our field evaluation.
• The site is located within a mapped Seismic Hazards Zone considered susceptibl e to liquefaction (CDMG, 1999). Based on our liquefaction analysis, the site is considered t o be potentially liquefiable during a seismic event. A total dynamic settlement of approximately 4½ inches was calculated for the site. In addition, we estimated the differential dynam ic settlement is approximately 2 inches over a horizontal span of 60 feet. 385
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 11
• The site is not located within an EFZ with the potential for fault rupture as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (CGS, 2018 ). The probability of surface fault rupture at the site is considered to be low.
• Based on the results of our laborator y testing, hydro-collapse of the on -site soils resulting from on-site infiltration is not considered a design issue. • The site is not located within a designated flood inundation zone from the 100 -year flood event (FEMA, 2008).
• Based on our laboratory corrosion testing, the on-site soil can be classified as corrosive per the 2021 Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines.
13 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present our geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project. This project is in prelim inary design phase and some aspects of the design will be subject to change. Ninyo & Moore should review the final plans and develop additional geotechnical recommendations as appropriate. These recommendations are based on our evaluation of the site geotechnical conditions, our understanding of the planned construction, and experience in the vicinity of the project. The work should be performed in conformance with the recommendations presented in this report, project specifications, and appropriate agency standards.
13.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of cuts and fills associated with the construction of the proposed BMP gallery and associated improvements, including the diversion structures, actuated valve s, hydrodynamic separa tors, pump station, and pre-cast concrete subsurface structure, , and trenching and backfilling of underground utilities and pipelines. Based on our understanding of the project, we anticipate that excavations for the proposed BMP gallery and associated im provements/pipelines will have an invert dept of approximately 20 feet below the ground surface . Earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of applicable governing agencies and the recommendations presented in the following sections.
13.1.1 Pre-Construction Conference
We recommend that grading and foundation plans be submitted to Ninyo & Moore for review to check for conformance to the recommendations provided in this report. We further recommend that a pre -construction conference be held to discuss the grading recommendations presented in this report. The owner and/or their representative, the governing agencies’ representatives, the civil engineer, Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor 386
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 12
should be in attendance to discuss the work plan , project schedule, and earthwork requirements.
13.1.2 Clearing and Site Preparation
Prior to performing excavations or other earthwork, the site should be cleared of existing site improvements and foundations, gravel, debris, vegetation, and loose or otherwise unsuitable soils. Materials generated from the clearing/demolition operations should be removed from the project site and disposed of at a legal dump site. Existing utilities to remain in-place should be located and protected from damage by construction activities. Excavations resulting from the removal of foundations, underground utilities, and/or other underground improvements, should be backfilled with compacted fill in general accordance with the fill and compaction recommendations presented below.
13.1.3 Excavation Characteristics
We anticipate that excavations in the undocumented fill and young alluvium should be feasible with earthmoving equipment in good working order. The undocumented fill and young alluvial materials generally consisted of moist, loose to very dense, poorly graded sand with silt, silty sand, and silt with variable amounts of sand, and stiff to very stiff, silt and sandy lean clay. Oversize material is not considered suitable for use as backfill. In the event that oversize material, includin g cobbles and/or construction debris is encountered during excavation operations, the oversized material should be disposed of off-site. Processing of the excavated materials to bring them near the laboratory optimum moisture content (i.e., drying and/or wetting) prior to use as fill should be planned by the contractor. In-situ moisture contents of on-site soils ranged from approximately 8.6 to 36.3 percent. Contractors should make their own independent evaluation of the excavatability of the on -site materials prior to submitting their bids, including allowances for processing the soils.
13.1.4 Subgrade Preparation for the Infiltration Gallery Based on our exploratory borings and CPTs, alluvial deposits are anticipated to be encountered at the bottom of the planned infiltration gallery that should be suitable for support of the gallery and compacted fill placed to bury the gallery. The excavation bottom should be evaluated by our representative during the excavation work. In the event that unsuitable material is encountered along the bottom of the excavation, including undocumented fill, the unsuitable material should be removed and replaced with loosely packed clean sand or gravel, such as drainage rock. The actual recommendations for removal and replacement should be based on our field observations. We recommend that minimal compaction be performed on the exposed subgrade, materials used to replace unsuitable materials (if 387
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 13
needed), and/or rock blanket placed beneath the gallery. Compaction of the subgrade could potentially reduce the infiltration rate of the gallery. If the subgrade of the infiltration gallery is compacted, we recommend that additional percolation testing be performed. If a rock blanket is used beneath the gallery, we recommend that it consist of ¾ -inch to 1½ -inch diameter, open-graded gravel underlain by filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N or equivalent.
If foundations are to be installed along the bottom of the gallery, such as strip footings, the upper approximately 8 inches of subgrade, only beneath the foundations, should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM International (ASTM) test method D 1557.
If unsuitable materials, including undo cumented fill, loose/soft, and/or wet materials, are encountered along the excavation bottom that extend beneath the proposed footings, specific recommendations for removal and replacement of these materials, if warranted, will be provided by our firm base d on field observations. The excavation bottoms should be evaluated by our representative during the excavation work.
13.1.5 Treatment of Near -Surface Soils for Buried and At-Grade Structures and Site Pavements
In order to provide suitable support and reduce the potential for settlement of proposed buried structures (i.e., the diversion structures, hydro-dynamic separators, valves, etc.) and at-grade structures, if any, we recommend that the existing undocumented fill and upper loose alluvial deposits be removed and recompacted from beneath the footprints of these structures. The excavations should extend deep enough to provide 2 feet or more of newly compacted fill material beneath the proposed foundations . The overexcavation should expose relatively dense alluvial deposits. Additional overexcavation of loose, soft, and/or wet areas may be appropriate. The excavation bottom s should be evaluated by our representative during the excavation work and additional recommendations, if needed, will be based on field observations. The limits of removal should extend approximately 2 feet beyond the footprint of the foundations for the buried structures and 5 feet for the at-grade structures, or a distance equal to the depth of the overexcavations beneath the foundations, whic hever is farther. If drainage rock is placed beneath the foundations for the buried structures , the rock can be considered part of the 2-foot-thick layer of compacted fill beneath the foundations. Prior to placing compacted fill and/or drainage rock, the upper approximately 8 inches of the exposed bottom should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. 388
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 14
In order to provide suitable support and reduc e the potential settlements of hardscape (i.e., sidewalks, curbs and gutters, ribbon drains, etc.), we recommend that the subgrade materials beneath the proposed hardscape areas be scarified to a depth of approximately 1 foot, moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted. The limits of the scarification should extend laterally 2 feet beyond the outside edge of hardscape. The exposed subgrade should be evaluated by our representative during the excavation work.
Loose, soft, and/or wet areas may need to be overexcavated, depending on our observations during construction. Prior to placing new compacted fill in areas that are overexcavated and/or in areas where the existing subgrade will be raised with new fill, the exposed bottom should be scarified, moisture -conditioned, and recompacted to a depth of approximately 8 inches.
13.1.6 Temporary Excavations
We recommend that excavations be designed and constructed in accordance with OSHA regulations. These regulations provide shoring design param eters for excavations and trenches up to 20 feet deep based on the soil types encountered. Trenches over 20 feet deep should be designed by the contractor ’s engineer based on site -specific geotechnical analyses. For planning purposes, we recommend that the undocumented fill and alluvial soils be considered as OSHA Type C soil.
For trench or other excavations, OSHA requirements regarding personnel safety should be met by using appropriate shoring or by laying back the slopes no steeper than 1½:1 (horizontal to vertical). Temporary excavations that encounter seepage may need shoring or may be mitigated by placing sandbags or gravel along the base of the seepage zone.
Excavations encountering seepage should be evaluated on a case -by-case basis. On-site safety of personnel is the responsibility of the contractor.
Care should be taken by the contractor to avoid undermining adjacent existing foundations and improvements. New excavations should not extend within the “zone of influence ” of existing foundations, whic h is defined as a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projecting out from the bottom outside edge of the foundations. In the event that excavations will extend within the “zone of influence ” of existing foundations, our office should be notified, and appropriate recommendations provided, such as temporary underpinning of impacted foundations and/or temporary shoring.
389
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 15
13.1.7 Shoring
Where temporary slopes are not possible, shoring will be appropriate. The design of the shoring system should consider the excavation c haracteristics of the onsite soil, temporary excavation stability, and the impact of construction on existing structures.
Shoring systems will be constructed through fill and alluvial deposits. We anticipate that braced driven sheet pile shoring systems w ill be appropriate for the project to depths up to approximately 30 feet. Cantilevered shoring systems (if used) should be limited to heights of up to about 10 feet. Braced and cantilevered shoring systems should be designed using the lateral earth pressure values presented on Figures 7 and 8, respectively. The recommended design pressures are based on the assumptions that the shoring system is constructed without raising the ground surface elevation behind the shoring wall , that there are no surcharge loads, such as soil stockpiles and construction materials, and that no loads act above a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane extending up and back from the base of the shoring system. For shoring walls subjected to the above-mentioned surcharge loads, the contractor should include the effect of these loads on the lateral pressures against the shoring system.
The shoring systems planned for the project should be reviewed by our office to evaluate the design considerations and geotechnical parameters used. Ground settlement may occur behind the shoring system wall during excavation. The amount of settlement depends on the type of shoring system, the contractor ’s workmanship, and soil conditions. We recommend that structures/improvements in the vicinity of the plann ed shoring installation be reviewed with regard to foundation support and tolerance to settlement. To reduce the potential for distress to adjacent structures, we recommend that the shoring system be designed to limit the ground settlement behind the shori ng system to ½ inch or less, which would equal approximately ½ inch of deflection. Potential causes of settlement that should be addressed include settlement during installation of the shoring, excavation for structure construction, construction vibrations, and removal of the support system. The vibrations from the driving of sheet piles, if used, may result in some dynamic settlement of granular soils that may affect the adjacent structures. We recommend that shoring installation be evaluated carefully by the contractor prior to construction and that ground vibration and settlement monitoring be performed during construction. Vibration and settlement monitoring should be performed during sheet pile driving , if used . If settlement is detected or peak particl e velocities of approximately 0.4 inch per second (ips) or more are measured adjacent to existing improvements, the sheet pile driving should be stopped and evaluated. The evaluation may include changing the hammer vibration frequency and monitoring for se ttlement and vibrations. To reduce the potential for settlement associated with sheet pile removal, sheet 390
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 16
piles may be left in place. In the event excessive settlement or other damage occurs associated with the pile driving operations, it may be appropriate to perform grouting beneath nearby structure(s) to mitigate the pile driving effects. We recommend that shoring installation be evaluated carefully by the contractor prior to construction.
The contractor should retain a licensed, qualified and experienc ed engineer to design the shoring system. The shoring parameters presented in this report are minimum requirements, and the contractor should evaluate the adequacy of these parameters and make the modifications as needed for their design. We recommend that the contractor take appropriate measures to protect workers. OSHA requirements pertaining to worker safety should be observed.
13.1.8 Fill Material
In general, the on -site soils should be suitable for reuse as fill materials , provided they are free of trash, debris, oversize material, or other deleterious materials. Fill should generally be free of rocks or lumps of material in excess of 4 inches in diameter. Rocks or hard lumps larger than approximately 4 inches in diameter should be broken into smaller pieces or should be removed from the site.
Fill used as backfill against the gallery structure and other buried structures should consist of free-draining, granular, non-expansive soil that conforms with the latest edition of Greenbook for structure backfill. “Non-expansive” can be defined as soil having an expansion index (EI) of 20 or less in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4829 (CBC, 2022).
Imported fill material should consist of clean, non-expansive, granular material which also conforms to the latest addition of Greenbook for structure backfill . The soil should also be tested for corrosive properties prior to importing. We recommend that the imported materials meet the 2021 Caltrans criteria for non -corrosive soils (i.e., soils having a chloride concentration of 500 parts per million [ppm] or less, a soluble sulfate content of approximately
0.15 percent (1,500 ppm) or less, a pH value of 5.5 or higher, or an electrical resistivity of 1,500 ohm-centimeters or more). Materials for use as fill should be evalua ted by Ninyo & Moore prior to importing. The contractor should be responsible for the uniformity of import material brought to the site.
13.1.9 Fill Placement and Compaction
Fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with project specifications, the requirements of the City of Lynwood, and sound construction practices. Fill materials should 391
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 17
be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum laboratory moisture content. The lift thickness for fill soils will vary depending on the type of compaction equipm ent used, but should generally be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Fill materials should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade material s should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Special care should be taken to avoid pipe damage when compacting trench backfill above pipes. Fill should be tested for specified compaction level by Ninyo & Moore.
13.2 Underground Utilities
We anticipate that underground pipelines will be supported on native alluvial deposits. Based on our understanding of the project, pipeline inverts may be on the order of 20 feet in depth.
13.2.1 Pipe Bedding
We recommend that pipes be supp orted on 6 inches or more of granular bedding material , such as sand, with a sand equivalent (SE) value of 30 or more. Bedding material should be placed around the pipe and 12 inches or more above the top of the pipe in accordance with the current Greenboo k. Special care should be taken not to allow voids beneath the pipe.
Compaction of the bedding material and backfill should proceed up both sides of the pipe.
Trench backfill, including bedding material, should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Earthwork section of this report.
13.2.2 Trench Backfill
Based on our subsurface evaluation, the on-site soils should generally be suitable for re-use as trench backfill provided, they are free of organic material, clay lumps, debris, and roc ks more than approximately 4 inches in diameter. We recommend that trench backfilling be in general conformance with the Greenbook standard specifications for structure backfill. Fill should be moisture -conditioned to at or slightly above the laboratory op timum. Wet soils should be allowed to dry to a moisture content near the optimum prior to their placement as trench backfill. Trench backfill should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent or more as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Lift thickness for trench backfill will depend on the type of compaction equipment utilized but should generally be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Special care should be exercised to avoid damaging the pipelines during compaction of the backfill.
392
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 18
13.2.3 Modulus of Soil Reaction for Pipe Design
The modulus of soil reaction is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed along the sides of buried flexible pipelines for the purpose of evaluating deflection caused by the weight of the backfill above the pipe. We recommend that a modulus of soil reaction of 1,000 pounds per square inch be used for design, provided that granular bedding material is placed adjacent to the pipe, as recommended in the previous section.
13.3 Seismic Design Consi derations
Design of the proposed improvements should be performed in accordance with the requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. Table 2 presents the spectral response acceleration parameters in accordance with the CBC (2022) guidelines.
Table 2 – 2022 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria Site Coefficients and Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Values Site Class D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, Ss 1.713 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, S1 0.611 Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, SMS 2.056 Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, SM1 1.039 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, SDS 1.371 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, SD1 0.692 Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.878g
13.4 Foundations
Our evaluation indicated a liquefaction -induced total settlement up to 4½ inches and a liquefaction-induced differential settlement of 2 inches over a horizontal span of about 60 feet are anticipated on-site during the design seismic event. Based on the differential settlement threshold provided in ASCE 7-16 Table 12.13-3 (ASCE, 2016) for a Risk Category III single-story structure such as the proposed improvements, the threshold differential settlement is 2.4 inches over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the proposed infiltration gallery may be supported on spread footings (i.e., strip footings) and that other underground structures (i.e., diversion structures, pre-treatment unit, etc.) may be supported on mat foundations. The following are our recommendations for project foundations:
13.4.1 Spread Footing
Spread footings for the infiltration gallery (i.e., strip footings) should be placed directly on low expansion alluvial materials and/or compacted fill in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Earthwork section of this report. Continuous and isolated footings should have a width of 24 inches or more. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footings, and further detailed in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. 393
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 19
Footings, as described above and bearing on dense alluvial materials or compacted fill, may be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
Total and differential settlements for footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations are estimated to be less than approximately 1 inch and ½ inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet, respectively.
Footings bearing on dense alluvial materials or compacted fill may be designed us ing a coefficient of friction of 0.35, where the total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction times the dead load. Footings may be designed using a passive resistance value of 350 psf per foot of depth, with a maximum value of 3,500 psf. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed one -half of the total allowable resistance. The passive resistance (including the maximum value) m ay be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.
13.4.2 Mat Foundation
Mat foundations for other underground structures (i.e., diversion structure, hydro-dynamic separator, pump station, valves, filtration unit , etc.) may be supported on compacted fill in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Earthwork section of this report.
Foundations should be designed in accordance with the structural considerations and the following recommendations. In addit ion, requirements of the appropriate governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes should be considered in the design of the structures.
The mat foundations may be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf.
The total and differen tial settlement corresponding to this allowable bearing load are estimated to be less than approximately 1 inch and ½ inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet, respectively.
Mat foundations typically experience some deflection due to loads placed on the mat and the reaction of the soils directly underlying the mat. A design modulus of subgrade reaction (K) of 100 tons per cubic foot may be used for the compacted subgrade soils in evaluating such deflections.
13.5 Lateral Earth Pressures for Underground Structures Walls for below-grade structures when constructed as recommended above may be designed for lateral earth pressures represented by the earth pressure diagram on Figure 9. To reduce the potential for pipe -to-wall differential settlement caused by dynamic lo ading, which could cause 394
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 20
pipe shearing, we recommend that a flexible pipe joint be located close to the exterior of the wall.
The type of joint should be such that minor relative movement can be accommodated without distress. The pipe connections should be sufficiently flexible to withstand differential settlement of approximately 2 inches.
13.6 Exterior Flatwork
We recommend that new exterior concrete sidewalks and flatwork (hardscape) have a thickness of 4 inches. The hardscape should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand and installed with crack- control joints at an appropriate spacing as designed by the structural engineer to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Positive drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to flatwork. To reduce the potential for differential offset, joints between the new hardscape and adjacent curbs, existing hardscape, building walls, and/or other structures, and between sections of new hardscape, should be doweled.
13.7 Corrosivity
Laboratory testing was performed o n two representative soil samples collected from boring B-1 at a depth of approximately 4½ to 5 feet and from boring B-2 at a depth of approximately 8 to 9½ feet to evaluate soil pH, electrical resistivity, water -soluble chloride content, and water -soluble sulfate content. The soil pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed in general accordance with CT 643. Chloride content tests were performed in general accordance with CT 422. Sulfate testing was performed in general accordance with CT 417.
The soil pH of the samples tested from borings B-1 and B-2 was measured to be 7.4 and 7.3 and the electrical resistivity was measured to be 8,745 and 580 ohm-centimeters, respectively. The chloride content of the samples was measured to be 60 and 650 ppm. The sulfate content of the samples was measured to be 0.007 and 0.018 percent by weight (i.e., 70 and 180 ppm). Based on the laboratory test results and 2021 Caltrans corrosion criteria, the soils at the project site can be classified as corrosive, which is de fined as having earth materials with more than 500 ppm chlorides, more than 0.15 percent sulfates (i.e., 1,500 ppm), a pH of 5.5 or less, or an electrical resistivity of 1,500 ohm-cm or less. The corrosivity test results are presented in Appendix D.
13.8 Concrete Placement
Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of water -soluble sulfates can be subject to premature chemical and/or physical deterioration. Based on the CBC ( 2022), the potential for sulfate attack is negligible for water-soluble sulfate contents in soil ranging from
0.00 to 0.10 percent by weight, moderate for water -soluble sulfate contents ranging from 0.10 to
0.20 percent by weight, severe for water -soluble sulfate contents ranging from 0.20 to 395
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 21
2.00 percent by weight, and very severe for water -soluble sulfate contents over 2.00 percent by weight. The soil samples tested for this evaluation, using CT 417, indicate water -soluble sulfate contents of approximately 0.007 and 0.018 percent by weight (i.e., 70 and 180 ppm). Accordingly, the on-site soils are considered to have a negligible to moderate potential for sulfate attack. Per ACI (2019b), Type II cement is appropriate for the site improvements. However, due to the potential variability of the soils on site, conside ration should be given to using Type II/V cement for the project.
To reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks in the concrete during curing, we recommend that the concrete for the proposed improvements be placed with a slump of 4 inches based on ASTM C 143. The slump should be checked periodically at the site prior to concrete placement.
We further recommend that concrete cover over reinforcing steel for foundations be provided in accordance with CBC (2022). The structural engineer should be consulted for additional concrete specifications.
13.9 Stormwater Infiltration Gallery
Based on our subsurface evaluation, the park is generally underlain by undocumented fill over young alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded sandy silt, silt with sand, and clay in the upper approximately 19 to 38 feet and silty sand with interbeds of silt and clay below these depths. Since the gallery invert is located within the upper zone of finer deposits, w e recommend that an infiltration rate of 0.01 inch per hour, following adjustments by the BMP designer for RFs, be used for design at Lynwood City Park for the infiltration gallery. We recommend that the bottom of the infiltration gallery be further evaluated during construction.
Based on our evaluation, the potential for hydro-collapse settlement associated with infiltration is generally low due to the proposed depth of infiltration. However, we generally recommend a setback of 15 feet or more between settlement sensitive structures and proposed infiltration areas.
13.10 Drainage
Appropriate surface drainage is imperative for satisfactory site performance. Positive drainage should be provided and maintained to direct surface water away from existing foundations.
Positive drainage is defined as a slope of 2 percent or more for a distance of 5 feet or more away from foundations and tops of slopes. Runoff should then be directed by the use of swales or pipes into a collective drainage system. Area drains for landscaped and paved areas are recommended.
Surface waters should not be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. We recommend that above - ground structures, if constructed, have roof drains and downspouts installed to collect runoff. 396
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 22
13.11 Landscaping
Project landscaping should consist of drought tolerant plants. Landscape irrigation should be kept to a level just sufficient to maintain plant vigor. Overwatering should not be permitted. 14 CONSTRUCTION MONITOR ING PROGRAM
We recommend that pre -construction condition surveys be performed on structures and improvements within approximately 50 feet of the proposed excavations prior to construction. This distance should be extended to 100 feet adjacent to proposed excavations if driven and/or vibratory sheet or soldier piles are installed. This survey should include locating existing cracks and measuring wi dths of cracks, in combination with videotape documentation of existing conditions. In addition, interviews should be conducted with utility owners so that existing knowledge about the age, type, and maintenance history of affected utilities is available p rior to construction.
14.1 Construction Vibrations
People can perceive vibrations from construction activities at significantly lower levels than might cause cosmetic damage to structures. Jones & Stokes (2004) indicate that transient vibrations, such as from pile driving or construction activities, may be noticeable, and therefore may result in complaints, at peak particle velocities as low as 0.02 to 0.06 inch per second (ips). The vibrations may be disturbing and result in complaints and/or damage claims at p eak particle velocities as low as 0.2 to 0.4 ips. However, these vibration levels are well below the level considered to cause cosmetic damage to residential construction.
There is also the possibility of settlement of the soil during construction activities due to vibrations.
This settlement may result in damage to structures. If the construction vibrations can be maintained below a peak particle velocity of 0.2 ips, it is anticipated the settlement can be limited to acceptable levels based on past projects in similar conditions.
For the above stated reasons, we recommend that seismographs be used in the early stages of construction to monitor the vibrations. Seismographs should be located near structures and improvements next to the construction activities . Additional seismographs should be located at various structures and improvements farther from construction activities to monitor vibrations as a function of distance from the sites. Periodic vibration monitoring is recommended during other construction activities. After review of the data obtained, the number of seismographs may be reduced at the discretion of the client and the geotechnical consultant. 397
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 23
14.2 Ground Surface Settlement
We recommend that arrays of ground surface settlement points be installed around the proposed excavations and trenchless pipeline sections. The contractor should submit a monitoring plan showing the proposed locations of settlement points for review and approval by the project engineer. We recommend that the contractor be responsib le for maintaining total settlement at any survey point to less than ½ inch. If the settlements reach this limit, we recommend that a further review of construction methodologies be performed and appropriate changes be made.
14.3 Lateral Movement for Shoring S upport System
We recommend that survey points be established behind excavations located in areas where existing structures are located above a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected from the bottom of the proposed excavations to the ground surface. T he survey points should be monitored and evaluated daily during excavation activities to provide an advanced warning system of potential problems. As discussed previously, we recommend that the shoring system be designed to limit the ground settlement behi nd the shoring system to ½ inch or less to reduce the potential for distress to adjacent structures and improvements. If settlement values reach ¼ inch, we recommend that a review of the contractor’s methods be performed and appropriate changes be made, if needed.
15 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVA TION
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed project and our evaluation of the data collected based on subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced exploratory borings. It is imperative that the geotechnical consultant checks the interpolated subsurface conditions during construction. We recommend that Ninyo & Moore review the project plans and specifications prior to construction. It should be noted that, upon review of these documents, some recommendations presented in this report may be revised or modified.
During construction we recommend that the duties of the geotechnical consultant include, but not be limited to:
• Observing site clearing, grubbing, and removals.
• Observing excavation bottoms, including the bottom of the proposed infiltration gallery. • Observing preparation of pavement and foundation subgrades. • Observing placement and compaction of fill, including trench backfill. • Evaluating imported materials prior to their use as fill (if used). 398
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 24
• Performing field tests to evaluate fill compaction.
• Observing foundation excavations for bearing materials and cleaning prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
• Performing material testing services including concrete c ompressive strength and steel tensile strength tests and inspections.
The recommendations provided in this report assume that Ninyo & Moore will be retained as the geotechnical consultant during the construction phase of this project. If another geotechnic al consultant is selected, we request that the selected consultant indicate to the owner and to our firm in writing that our recommendations are understood and that they are in full agreement with our recommendations.
16 LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analysis presented in this geotechnical report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or desc ribed in this report may be encountered during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant perform an in dependent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration an d laboratory testing.
399
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 25
Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.
This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties’ sole risk.
400
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 26
17 REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J. and Kamai, R., 2014, Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation for Active Crustal Regions, Earthquake Spectra: Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1025 -1055, dated August.
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., 2017, Preliminary Infiltration Study for Proposed Water Quality Improvements, Lynwood Park, City of Lynwood, California, dated January 10.
American Concrete Institute, 2019a, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice.
American Concrete Institute, 2019 b, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19).
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016, Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, Standard 7-16.
Applied Technology Council, 2022, Hazards by Location, https://hazards.atcouncil.org/.
ASTM International, 2021, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Boore, D.M., Stewart, J.P ., Seyhan, E., and Atkinson, G.M., 2014, NGA -West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1057-1085, dated August.
Bowles, J.E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Building Seismic Safety Council, 2009, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recomm ended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750).
California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code: California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, based on the 2021 International Build ing Code.
California Department of Transportation, 2021, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch, dated May.
California Department of Conservation, Divisio n of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the South Gate 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California:
Seismic Hazard Zone Report 034.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones Official Map, South Gate Quadrangle, 7.5 -Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000, dated March 25.
California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, CDMG Special Publication 117A, dated September 11.
California Geological Survey, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California: Special Publication 42.
California Geological Survey, 202 3, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, South Gate Quadrangle, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app, date accessed January.
Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2014, NGA -West2 G round Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped Linear Acceleration Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1087-1115, dated August. 401
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 27
Chiou, B. S. -J., and Youngs, R.R., 2014, Update of the Chiou and Youn gs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra, August 2014, Vol. 30, No. 3, dated August.
CivilTech Corporation, 2008, LiquefyPro, Version 5.5, Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis, dated March.
City of Lynwood, 2022, Request for Proposal for Engineering Services for Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project (CIP No. 4011.68.112), dated June 23.
County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Geotechnical and Materials En gineering Division, 2021, Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting, Low Impact Stormwater Infiltration, dated June 30.
Craftwater Engineering, Inc., 2020, Lynwood Park Stormwater Capture Project, Project Fact Sheet, Lower Los Angeles River Management Program, City of Lynwood, dated July 22.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008, Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of Lynwood, California, Map Number 06037C1815F.
Google, 2023, Website for Viewing Aerial Photographs, http://maps.google.com/.
Historical Aerials, 2023, Website for Viewing Aerial Photographs, www.historicaerials.com.
Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., 1992, “Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes,” Soils and Foundations, 32 (1), 173-188.
Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey; 150 th Anniversary, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
Jones and Stokes, 2004, Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Ma nual, California Department of Transportation, Environmental Program, Environmental Engineering, Noise, Vibrations, and Hazardous Waste Management Office, dated June.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1982, Foundations and Earth Structures Design Manuals, dated May
Ninyo & Moore, 2022, Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation, Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, 11301 Bullis Road, City of Lynwood, California, Proposal No. P04-03725; dated January 11.
Norris, R.M. and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California: John Wiley & Sons.
Public Works Standard, Inc., 2018, The “Greenbook”: Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, with Errata No. 1, dated 2019: BNI Building News, Vista, California.
Saucedo, G.J., Greene, H.G., Kennedy, M.P ., and Bezore, S.P ., 2016, Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30 x 60 Quadrangle, California, version 2.0.
Seyhan, E, 2014, Weighted Average 2014 NGA West -2 GMPE, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center, 2011, SCEC/Har vard Community Velocity Model, Version 11.9.0.
State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, 2022, GeoTracker Database System, http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/.
Structural Engineers Association of California and California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2020, Web Based Seismic Design Maps Tool; https://seismicmaps.org.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of the Geot echnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878.
402
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023 28
United States Department of Agriculture, Aerial Photograph, Date 8-31-54, Flight AXJ-7K, Numbers 14 and 15, Scale 1:20,000.
United States Geological Survey, 2018, South Gate, California, Qu adrangle Map, 7.5 Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.
United States Geological Survey, 202 3, U nified Hazard Tool; https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/.
Wills, C.J., and Clahan, L.B., 2006, Developing a Map of Geologically Defined Site -Condition Categories for California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 96, no. 4A, p. 1483–1501.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Eval uation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124(10), 817-833.
Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K., and Brachman, R.W.I., 2002, “Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level gro und”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39(5): 1168– 1180.
403
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023
FIGURES
404
LYNWOOD PARK
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
212102001_SL.dwg 03/09/2023 JDP
SITE LOCATION
FIGURE 1
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: USGS, 2021. 0 FEET
2,000 4,000
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 I 3/23
N
405
TD=100.2
CPT-2
B-3
TD=31.5
B-2
TD=101.5
P-4
TD=21.5
TD=21.5
P-3
P-2
TD=21.5
TD=6.5
P-1B-1
TD=31.5
CPT-1
TD=60.3
B-3/P-2
TD=12.0
B-2/P-1
TD=12.0
B-1
TD=51.5
REMOVED
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
SITE PLAN
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: CRAFTWATER ENGINEERING, 2020. 212102001_SP.dwg 03/17/2023 JDP
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 I 3/23
FIGURE 2
N
0 FEET
250 5000
LEGEND
BORING;
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
CPT-2
TD=100.2
CONE PENETRATION TEST;
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
PERCOLATION TEST;
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
P-4
TD=21.5B-3
TD=31.5
BORING (ALBUS-KEEFE, 2017);
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
B-1
TD=51.5
BORING/PERCOLATION TEST
(ALBUS-KEEFE, 2017);
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
B-3/P-2
TD=12.0
406
B-1
TD=31.5
B-3
TD=31.5
B-2
TD=101.5
CPT-1
TD=60.3
TD=21.5
P-4
TD=21.5
P-2
TD=21.5
TD=6.5
P-1
P-3
BULLIS ROAD
BIRCH STREET
CESAR E CHAVEZ LANE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BOULEVARD
TD=100.2
CPT-2
B-2/P-1
TD=12.0
B-1
TD=51.5
B-3/P-2
TD=12.0
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
BORING, CPT, AND PERCOLATION TEST LOCATIONS
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2023. 0 FEET
212102001_BCPTL.dwg 03/17/2023 JDP
200 4000
LEGEND
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 I 3/23
FIGURE 3
N
BORING;
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
CPT-2
TD=100.2
CONE PENETRATION TEST;
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
PERCOLATION TEST;
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
P-4
TD=21.5B-3
TD=31.5
BORING (ALBUS-KEEFE, 2017);
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
B-1
TD=51.5
BORING/PERCOLATION TEST
(ALBUS-KEEFE, 2017);
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
B-3/P-2
TD=12.0
407
LYNWOOD PARK
212102001_RG.dwg 03/09/2023 JDP
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
0 Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 I 3/23
YOUNG ALLUVIUM
LEGEND
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: SAUCEDO, ET AL., 2016.
FIGURE 4
FEET
4,000 8,000
Qya
Qyf
NOLD ALLUVIUMQoa
YOUNG ALLUVIAL
FAN DEPOSITS
2 408
OFFSHORE ZONEOF DEFORMATION
CHINO - CENTRAL
AVENUE FAULT
CUCAMONGA FAULT
Thousand Oaks
10 10
110
105
405
405
5 5
5 405
91 91
605710 57
210
210
60 22
101
27 42
2 39
90 1
1 55
71 66
90 19
72 NEWPORT INGLEWOOD FAULT ZONE
Orange
C ounty
Los A ngeles
C ounty
Irvine
Anaheim
Torrance
Glendale
Long
Beach
Los Angeles
Dana
Point
PELICANHILL FAULT
HOLLYWOODFAULT
CHATSWORTHFAULT
EAGLE ROCKFAULT
SAN GABRIELFAULT ZONESIE RRA MADRE
FA ULT ZONE
RAYMOND
FAULT
OVERLANDAVENUE FAULT
ELSINOREFAULT ZONE
CHARNOCK
FAULT
VERDUGOFAULT
CABRILLO
FAULT
LOSALAMITOS
FAULT
SAN JOSE FAULT
NORTHRIDGEHILLS FAULT
PERALTA HILLSSTRUCTURE
WALNUTCREEK FAULT
SANTA MONICA
FAULT
NORTHRIDGE
BLIND THRUST
LOWER ELYSIAN
PARK THRUST
PUENTE HILLS BLINDTHRUST SYSTEM
THUMS-HUNTINGTONBEACH
COMPTON THRUST FAULT
212102001_FL.mxd 2/28/2023 JDPNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FAULT LOCATIONS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
0 8 16
MILES
FIGURE 5
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
SOURCE: ESRI, 2023.
QUATERNARY FAULTS
BASED ON TIME OF MOST RECENT SURFACE DEFORMATION
LEGEND
MODERATELY CONSTRAINED
INFERRED
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY(<1.6 MILLION YEARS)
WELL CONSTRAINED
WELL CONSTRAINED
MODERATELY CONSTRAINED
INFERRED
HISTORICAL (<150 YEARS)
LATEST QUATERNARY (<15,000 YEARS)
WELL CONSTRAINED
MODERATELY CONSTRAINED
INFERRED
LATE QUATERNARY (<130,000 YEARS)
MODERATELY CONSTRAINED
INFERRED
WELL CONSTRAINED
SITE
409
LYNWOOD PARK
212102001_SHZ.dwg 03/09/2023 JDP
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: CDMG, 1999. 0 FEET
4,000 8,000
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 I 3/23
LIQUEFACTION
LEGEND
Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.
FIGURE 6
N
410
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 7
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 I 3/23
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
FOR BRACED EXCAVATION
pP
D
H
5. 4. ASSUMES GROUNDWATER IS NOT PRESENT
3. PASSIVE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE, P
P = 350D psf
2. P = 120 psf
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC INDUCED SURCHARGE PRESSURE, P
1. P = 26H psf
APPARENT LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE, P
Pa
12 INCHES OR MORE 12 INCHES OR MORE
Ps
GROUND SURFACE
a
a
s
s
p
p
6. H AND D ARE IN FEET
+
SHORING
BRACES
NOT TO SCALE
THE EMBEDMENT DEPTH OF SHORING
SHOULD BE EVALUATED BASED ON
FORCE AND MOMENT EQUILIBRIUM,
A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.5, AND
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL
JURISDICTION, IF ANY.
NOTES:
SURCHARGES FROM EXCAVATED SOIL OR
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ARE NOT INCLUDED
212102001_LEP-BE(GS)p.dwg 03/17/2023 JDP
411
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR
TEMPORARY CANTILEVERED SHORING
FIGURE 8
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 I 3/23
NOT TO SCALE
pP
D
H
Pa
ACTIVE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE, P
P = 40H psf
1. 3.
P = 350D psf
PASSIVE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE, P
12 INCHES OR MORE 12 INCHES OR MORE
5. H AND D ARE IN FEET
GROUND SURFACE
a
a
p
p
SHORING
Ps
2. s
s
P = 79 psf
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC INDUCED SURCHARGE PRESSURE, P
ASSUMES GROUNDWATER IS NOT PRESENT4.
+
THE EMBEDMENT DEPTH OF SHORING
SHOULD BE EVALUATED BASED ON
FORCE AND MOMENT EQUILIBRIUM,
A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.5, AND
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL
JURISDICTION, IF ANY.
NOTES:
212102001_LEP-CS.dwg 03/17/2023 JDP
412
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 9
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 I 3/23
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR
UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES
1. GROUNDWATER TABLE
4. 2
h
h
H
UPLIFT PRESSURE
1 +
WATER PRESSURESTATIC PRESSURE
FINISHED GRADE
5. H, h AND h ARE IN FEET1 2
WP 02P
UP
P 01
2. 6.
3. NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
SURCHARGE PRESSURES CAUSED BY VEHICLES
OR NEARBY STRUCTURES ARE NOT INCLUDED
BACKFILL
UNDERGROUND
STRUCTURE
01 02
01 1
1 02 2
w 2
w
2u
u
APPARENT LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES, P AND P
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE, P
P = 62.4h psf
UPLIFT PRESSURE, P
P = 62.4h psf
P = 60h psf
P = 60h + 29h psf
212102001_LEP-US.dwg 03/17/2023 JDP
413
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023
APPENDIX A
Preliminary Infiltration Study Report by Albus -Keefe (2017) 414
January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
Mr. John Hunter
John L. Hunter & Associates, Inc.
6131 Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 350
Buena Park, CA 90620
Subject: Preliminary Infiltration Study for Proposed Water Quality Improvements, Lynwood Park, City of Lynwood, California
Dear Mr. Hunter,
Pursuant to your request, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc . has completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site for evalua tion of the percolation characteristics of the site soils. The scope of this investigation consisted of the following:
Exploratory drilling, soil sampling and test well installation Field percolation testing
Laboratory testing of selected soil samples
Engineering analysis of the data
Preparation of this report
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Site Location and Description
The site is located at Lynwood Pa rk, west of the intersection of Bullis Rd. and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., within the city of Lynwood, California. The site is bordered by Cesar E. Chavez Ln. to the north, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. to the northeast, Bullis Rd. to the east, Hosler Middle School to the southeast, Spruce St. to the south, and by Birch St. to the west. The locat ion of the site and its relationship to the surrounding areas is shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map.
The specific area of our study is located within the center portion of Lynwood Park and is currently being utilized as soccer fields. The area is c overed by grass with ch ain-link fencing bounding the limits of the soccer fields. Based on GoogleEart h, existing surface elevations within the property measure approximately 90 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Drainage is generally directed as a sheet flow from the center of the field toward the north and south.
Proposed Development
We understand the proposed site improvements will likely consist of constructing a storm water infiltration system within the existing soccer field.
415
John L. Hunter & Assoc. January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
© 2016 Google
N
SITE LOCATION MAP
John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc.
Lynwood Park
West of Intersection of Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. and Bullis Rd.
Lynwood, California
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 1
SITE
Area of study
416
John L. Hunter & Assoc. January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK
Subsurface Investigation
Subsurface exploration for this investigation was conducted on October 6, 2016. Our exploration consisted of drilling three (3) exploratory borings ranging in depth from 12 feet to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface utilizing a truck-mounte d, hollow-stem-auger drill rig. Representatives of Albus-Keefe & Associates, In c. logged the exploratory exca vation. Visual and tactile identifications were made of the materials encount ered, and their descriptions are presented in the Exploration Logs in Appendix A. The locations of the borings are depicted the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.
Bulk, relatively undisturbed and Standard Penetrati on Test (SPT) samples were obtained at selected depths within the exploratory borings for subse quent laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch O.D., 2.5-inch I.D., California split- spoon soil sampler lined with brass rings. SPT samples were obtained from the boring using a standard, unlined SPT soil sampler. During each sampling interval, the sample r was driven 12 or 18 inches with successive drops of a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 in ches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler was recorded for each six inches of advancement. The total blow count for the lower 12 inches of advancement per soil sample is recorded on the exploration log. Samples were placed in sealed containers or plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for analyses.
Upon completion of sampling, 2-inch -diameter casings were installed in borings B-2 and B-3 (P-1 and P-2) for percolation testing. Well screens were installed from near the bottom of the borings to ground surface. The annular space of the well scre en sections were filled with sand for depths covering the extent of our testing. The remaining annular space was then backfilled with native soils.
Subsequent to completion of well installations, the casings were then filled with water until the minimum volume of water was achieved for presoa king the test wells as required by test method USBR 7300-89.
Percolation Testing
Percolation testing was performed on October 6, 2016, in general conformance with the constant- head test procedures outlined in the refere nced Well Permeameter Method (USBR 7300-89). A water hose attached to a water source on site was connected to an inline flow meter to measure the water flow. The flow meter is capable of measur ing flow rates up to 10 gallons per minute and as low as 0.1 gallons per minute. A valve was connected in line with the flow meter to control the flow rate. A filling hose was used to connect the flow meter and the test wells. Water was introduced by the filling hose near the bottom of the test wells. A water level meter with 1/100-foot divisions was used to measure the depths to water surface from the top of well casings.
Flow to the wells was terminated upon either comp letion of testing of all the pre-determined water levels or the flow rate exceeded the maximum capacity of the flow meter. In the case where the flow was less than the ability to measur e the rate with our meter, a falling head test was performed.
Falling head tests were performed in general conformance with the test procedures outlined in the referenced Naval Facilities Engineering Co mmand (NAVFAC) P-418 Dewa tering and Groundwater Control. Measurements obtained during the percolation testing are provided on Plates C-1 and C-2. 417
John L. Hunter & Assoc. January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Laboratory Testing
Selected soil samples of representative earth materi als were tested to assist in the formulation of conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. Tests consisted of in-situ moisture content and dry density, grain-si ze analysis. Laboratory tes ting relevant to percolation characteristics are presented in Appendix B.
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Subsurface Conditions
Soil materials encountered at the site consist of alluvial deposits to the maximum depth explored,
51.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The alluvi al soils encountered are generally comprised of fine grained deposits in the near surface with interl ayered fine- and coarse-grained deposits at depth.
The fine grained deposits typically consist of silt, sandy silt, and clayey silt with occasional clay layers/lenses. These materials are range from damp to wet and medium stiff to stiff. The coarse- grained deposits generally consist of silty sands that are moist to wet and loose to medium dense.
Although not encountered, artificial fill materials ar e anticipated beneath portions of the site in association with underground utility lines.
A more detailed description of the interpreted soil profile at each of the boring locations, based upon the borehole cuttings and soil samples, are presente d in Appendix A. The stratigraphic descriptions in the logs represent the predominant materials en countered and relatively thin, often discontinuous layers of different material may occur within the major divisions.
Ground Water
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 43 feet below the ex isting ground surface during this firm’s exploration. A review of the CDMG Seismic Hazard Zone Report 034 indicates that historical high groundwater levels for the general site area are as shallow as 8 feet below the existing ground surface.
Additional review of the CDMG Seismic Hazard Repor t 034 makes mention to th e fact that historic high ground water was determined from turn-of-the-century water-well logs, namely 1905 ground- water contour maps (Mendenhall, 1905, Conkl ing 1927), and 1952 ground-water contour maps (State Water Resources Board, 1952).
After review of historic ground water data made available by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works through online se rvices, ground water depths in pr oximity to the site could be established from the 1920’s to 2010. A graph of the data from the wells located near the site can be found below in Figure 2. Well 3S13W11K01 is located about 3500 feet southwest of the site while well 3S13W12E04 is located a bout 550 feet northeas t of the site. The data indicates that regional groundwater has remained near a depth of approxi mately 90 feet since ab out 1990. The occurrence of groundwater at a depth of 43 f eet in our boring appears to repr esent a localized perched condition within a more granular layer starting at a depth of about 42 feet.
418
John L. Hunter & Assoc. January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Figure 2 – Historic Ground Water
Percolation Data
Analyses were performed to evaluate permeability using the data obtained from P-1 and P-2 based on a falling-head test. The drop in water level within the initial fe w readings was used to calculate the volume of water infiltrated dur ing the associated reading period. The volume of water consists of water contained in the pore space of the sand outside the pipe and water contained inside the pipe.
The sand was assumed to have a void ratio of 0.4 for determination of the water volume. Taking the volume divided by the duration, we obtain a flow rate. The calculation for th e volume and flow rate is summarized in Table 1.
Using the equations presented in the USBR 7300- 89 method, we then obtain an estimate of the permeability. The flow rate from Table 1 was used in combination with the average height of water within the well during the readings used. The re sults are included on Table 1 and summaries of the analyses are provided in Appendix C, Plates C-3 and C-4. Using corr elations of grain-size tests to permeability based on the Kozemy-Carmen equation (
Chapuis, R.P., and Aubertin, M 2003), we obtain
an estimated permeability of 1.4 in./hr. for the predominat e silt material we tested. This correlation confirms the values obtained by field testing.
TABLE 1
Summary of Permeabilities from Test Wells
Location
Total
Depth
of Well
(ft)
Initial
Depth of
Water
(ft)
Final
Depth of
Water
(ft)
Volume of
Water
Used
(gal)
Duration
(min)
Flow Rate
(gal/min)
Estimated
Permeability
(in./hr.)
P-1 12 7 8.2 1.38 3 0.43 0.83
P-2 12 7 8.8 2.04 4 0.51 1.03
419
John L. Hunter & Assoc. January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Design of Dry Well
Infiltration in a dry well was modeled using th e software Seep/W, version 2007, by Geo-Slope International. The program allows for modeling of both partially-saturate d and saturated porous medium using a finite element approach to solv e Darcy’s Law. The program can evaluate both steady-state and transient flow in planer and axisymmetric cases. Boundaries of the model can be identified with various conditions including fix total head, fix pressure head, fix flow rate, and head as a function of flow. Soil conductivity properties can be modeled with either Fredlund et al (1994), Green and Corey (1971), Van Ge nuchten (1980), or Saxton et al. (1986). The Van Genuchten parameters suggested by Saxton et al. (1986) were selected for use in our model and were based on test results of particle-size analyses and estimated in-place densities.
A Seep/W model was setup with the bottom of th e dry well at a depth of 30 feet below ground surface. The upper 10 feet was assumed to have a sh aft that is 6 feet in diameter and contains a settling chamber having an inside diameter of 4 feet and outside diameter of 4.5 feet. Below 10 feet, the shaft is assumed to be 4 feet in diameter. The annular space around the chamber and below the chamber is assumed to consist of gravel. A more detailed model of the dry well design can be found on Plate 2.
The model consisted of one (1) zone of material to represent the general soil profile. This zone (Soil #1) represents the infiltration zone and the satu rated conductivity was based on the rates obtained during the percolation testing. A summary of th e well model parameters are provided in Table 2.
Groundwater was assumed to be present at a depth of 43 feet. The presence of the groundwater was modeled by placing a boundary fixed-head condition with a head set equiva lent to a groundwater depth of 43 feet (elev. 57’ in model). Water in th e well was conservatively assumed to be held at a depth of 5 feet (elev. 95’ in model) although we anticipate the well will likely be filled to the ground surface during a rain event and therefore increase the flow rate.
TABLE 2
Summary of Characteristic Curve Parameters
Zone
No.
Material
No. USCS Depth
(ft)
Ks
(in/hr)
Van Genuchten Parameters
a
(1/cm) n m
Sat.
Water
Content
Residual
Water
Content
1 1 ML 0-50 0.8 0.015 1.25 0.20 0.44 0.01
A steady state analysis was performed to estimate the maximum inflow that the well can accommodate. Using a well as described above, we obtain a static total flow of 0.03 ft³/sec. A plot depicting the resulting pressure head contours and flow vectors for the model is provided on Plate C-5.
To evaluate the time required to empty the well once no more water is introduced, the model was reanalyzed with a variable head condition that was dependent upon the volume of water leaving the well. As water infiltrates into the surrounding soil, the volume of water re maining in the well is 420
John L. Hunter & Assoc. January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
reduced as well as the resulting water head. A gra ph of the well head versus exit volume for a depth of 30 feet is provided in Figure 3. The functi on assumes a void ratio of 0.4 within the zones occupied by gravel. If some other well confi guration is used, then th e analyses may require updating.
The analysis was performed as a transient case over a total time of approximately 13 hours. The conditions in the model were evaluated in 90 minute increments of time over the total duration.
From our analyses, the water is evacuated from the upper chamber in approximately 1.5 hours and is completely evacuated in approximately 11 hours. Plots depicting the resulting pressure head contours and flow vectors at selected times are provided in Appendix C on Plate C-6 through C-9. A plot of time versus water height in the well is shown on Figure 4.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
421
John L. Hunter & Assoc. January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Results of our work indicate a storm water disposal system consisting of dry wells is feasible at the site. The use of dry wells is not anticipated to re sult in worsening any adverse conditions or hazards that may be present for the proposed site developm ent or adjacent properties including subsidence, landsliding, or liquefaction. Historical shallowest groundwater ha s been estimated to occur below a depth of 43 feet. Therefore, a dry well having a to tal depth of 30 feet will maintain the minimum clearance of 10 feet above groundwater as required by the Technical Guidance Document.
Based on results of percolation testing and analyses, the percolation rate for a well configuration as depicted on Plate 2 may utilize an unfactored peak flow rate of 0.03 ft³/sec. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the flow rate as required by the appropriate governmental authority.
Should you require multiple dry wells across the site, the wells should be spaced at least 50 feet, center to center, to avoid cross in fluence. The wells should be loca ted at least 10 feet horizontally from any habitable structure or property line.
The actual flow capacity of the dry well could be more or less than the estimated value. As such, provisions should be made to accommodate excess fl ow quantities in the event the dry well does not infiltrate the anticipated amount. The design also assumes that sediments will be removed from the inflowing water through an upper chamber or other de vice. Sediments that are allowed to enter the dry well will tend to degrade the flow capacity by plugging up the infiltration surfaces.
In general, the dry well may consist of a concre te inner chamber surrounded by ½-inch open graded gravel. The concrete chamber should have perforat ions to allow the well to drain. The holes should be sized to prevent piping of the gravel into the chamber. A general diagram of the dry well is provided on Plate 2.
In general, the dry well shaft is anticipated to be adequately stable under temporary construction conditions for uncased drilling. However, occasional layers or lenses of granular materials are likely to occur and may be prone to sloughing and caving. In the event of caving, casing will be required to install the well. Workers should not enter the shaft unless the excavat ion is laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements. The placem ent and compaction of backfill materials, including the gravel, should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant.
LIMITATIONS
This report is based on the geotechnical data as de scribed herein. The materials encountered in our boring excavations and utilized in our laborator y testing for this investigation are believed representative of the project area, and the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil and bedrock materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variati ons could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observations by a geotechnical consultant during the construction phase of the storm water infiltrati on systems are essential to confirming the basis of this report.
422
John L. Hunter & Assoc. January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty.
This report should be reviewed a nd updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of John L. Hunter & Assoc. to assist the project consultants in the design of the proposed development. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes.
This report is subject to review by the controlling governmental agency.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you should have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Reviewed by:
Andrew J. Atry David E. Albus
Project Engineer Principal Engineer
P.E. C84728 G.E. 2455
Enclosures: Plate 1- Geotechnical Map
Plate 2- Dry Well Design
Appendix A - Exploratory Logs
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing
Appendix C - Percolation Testing and Analyses
423
John L. Hunter & Assoc. January 10, 2017
J.N.: 2545.00
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
REFERENCES
Publications and Reports
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Report 034, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange 7. 5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California”, 1998.
California State Water Resources Board, 1952, Cent ral Basin Investigation, Lower Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Area, County of Los Angeles: Bulletin 8, 27 p.
Chapuis, R.P., and Aubertin, M (2003). "On the use of the Kozeny-Carman equation to predict the hydraulic conductivity of soils." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40, 616-628.
Conkling, H., 1927, San Gabriel investigation: California Division of Water Resources Bulletin 5, 640p.
Dewatering and Groundwater Control, by the Departments of The Army, The Navy, and The Air Force, TM 5-818-5/AFM 88-5, Chap 6/NAVFAC P-418, November 1983.
Mendenhall, W.C., 1905, Development of underground waters in the central coastal plain region of southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 138, 160 p.
Procedure for Performing Field Permeability Testing by the Well Permeameter Method, by United States Department of The Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR 7300-89).
Saxton, K.E., W.J. Rawls, J.S. Romberger, and R.I. Papendick. 1986. Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50(4):1031-103
424
B-1
B-2/P-1
B-3/P-2
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD
BULLIS ROAD
CESAR E CHAVEZ LN.
1/10/16Plate: 2545.00 Job No.:
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Date:1
B-1
(LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE)
EXPLANATION
- Exploratory Boring
B-3/P-2- Exploratory Boring and
Percolation Test Well
0 50 100 200
APPROXIMATE SCALE : 1" = 100'
425
CALCULATING MAXWELL IV REQUIREMENTS
The type of property, soil permeability, rainfall intensity and local drainage ordinances determine the number and design of MaxWell Systems. For general applications draining retained stormwater, use one standard MaxWell IV per the instructions below for up to 3 acres of landscaped contributory area, and up to 1 acre of paved surface. For larger paved surfaces, subdivision drainage, nuisance water drainage, connecting pipes larger than 4" Ø from catch basins or underground storage, or other demanding applications, refer to ourMaxWell ® Plus System. For industrial drainage, including gasoline service stations, ourEnvibro® System may be recommended. For additional considerations, please refer to“Design Suggestions For Retention And Drainage Systems” or consult our Design Staff.
COMPLETING THE MAXWELL IV DRAWING
To apply theMaxWell IV drawing to your specific project, simply fill in the blue boxes per instructions below. For assistance, please consult our Design Staff.
ESTIMATED TOTAL DEPTH
The Estimated Total Depth is the approximate depth required to achieve 10 continuous feet of penetration into permeable soils. Torrent utilizes specialized “crowd” equipped drill rigs to penetrate difficult, cemented soils and to reach permeable materials at depths up to 180 feet. O ur extensive database of drilling logs and soils information is available for use as a reference. Please contact our Design Staff for site-specific information on your project.
SETTLING CHAMBER DEPTH
On MaxWell IV Systems of over 30 feet overall depth and up to 0.25cfs design rate, the standard Settling Chamber Depth is 18 feet . For systems exposed to greater contributory area than noted above, extreme service conditions, or that require higher design rates, chamber depths up to 25 feet are recommended.
OVERFLOW HEIGHT
The Overflow Height and Settling Chamber Depth determine the effectiveness of the settling process. The higher the overflow pipe, the deeper the chamber, the greater the settling capacity. For normal drainage applications, an overflow height of13 feet is used with the standard settling chamber depth of18 feet. Sites with higher design rates than noted above, heavy debris loading or unusual service conditions require greater settling capacities
DRAINAGE PIPE
This dimension also applies to thePureFlo® Debris Shield, theFloFast® Drainage Screen, and fittings. The size selected is based upon system design rates, soil conditions, and the need for adequate venting. Choices are 6 ", 8 ",or 12" diameter. Refer to “Design Suggestions for Retention and Drainage Systems” for recommendations on which size best matches your application.
BOLTED RING & GRATE
Standard models are quality cast iron and available to fit 24" Ø or 30" Ø manhole openings. All units are bolted in two locations with wording “Storm Water Only” in raised letters. For other surface treatments, please refer to “Design Suggestions for Retention and Drainage Systems. ”
INLET PIPE INVERT
Pipes up to 4" in diameter from catch basins, underground storage, etc. may be connected into the settling chamber. Inverts deeper than 5 feet will require additional settling chamber depth to maintain effective overflow height.
' "Ø
"Ø
"Ø
®
TORRENT RESOURCES (CA) INCORPORATED
phone 661~947~9836
CA Lic.886759 A, C-42
www.TorrentResources.com
An evolution of McGuckin Drilling
TORRENT RESOURCES INCORPORATED
1509 East Elwood Street, Phoenix Arizona 85040~1391
phone 602~268~0785 fax 602~268~0820
Nevada 702~366~1234
AZ Lic.ROC070465 A, ROC047067 B-4; ADWR 363
CA Lic.528080 A, C-42, HAZ ~ NV Lic. 0035350 A ~ NM Lic. 90504 GF04 The referenced drawing and specifications are available on CAD either through our office or web site. This detail is copyrighted (2004)
but may be used as is in construction plans without further release. For information on product application, individual project specifications or site evaluation, contact our Design Staff for no-charge assistance in any phase of your planning.
1. Manhole Cone - Modified Flat Bottom.
2. Moisture Membrane - 6 Mil. Plastic. Applies only when native material is used for backfill. Place membrane
securely against eccentric cone and hole sidewall.
3. Bolted Ring & Grate- Diameter as shown. Clean cast iron with wording “Storm Water Only” in raised letters.Bolted in 2 locationsand secured to cone with mortar. Rim elevation ±0.02' of plans.
4. Graded Basin or Paving(by Others).
5. Compacted Base Material - 1-Sack Slurry except in
landscaped installtions with no pipe connections.
6. PureFlo® Debris Shield- Rolled 16 ga. steel X 24" length with vented anti-siphon and Internal .265" Max. SWO
flattened expanded steel screen X 12" length. Fusion
bonded epoxy
coated.
7. Pre-cast Liner- 4000 PSI concrete 48" ID. X 54" OD.Center in holeand align sectionsto maximize bearing surface.
8. Min. 6' Ø Drilled Shaft.
9. Support Bracket- Formed 12 Ga. steel.Fusion bonded
epoxy coated.
10. Overflow Pipe - Sch. 40 PVC mated to drainage pipe at base seal.
11. Drainage Pipe- ADS highway grade with TRI-A coupler.
Suspend pipe during backfill operations to prevent
buckling or breakage. Diameter as noted.
12. Base
Seal - Geotextile or concrete slurry.
13. Rock - Washed, sized between 3/8" and 1-1/2" tobest complement soil conditions.
14. FloFast® Drainage Screen - Sch. 40 PVC 0.120" slotted well screen with 32 slots per row/ft.Diameter varies 120" overall length with TRI-B coupler.
15. Min. 4' Ø Shaft- Drilled tomaintain permeability of drainage soils.
16. Fabric Seal- U.V. resistant geotextile -to be removed by customer at project completion.
17. Absorbent –Hydrophobic P etrochemical Sponge.
Min. to 128 oz. capacity.
18. Freeboard Depth Varies with inlet pipe elevation. Increase settling chamber depth as needed to maintain all inlet
pipe elevations above overflow pipe inlet.
19. Optional Inlet Pipe(Maximum 4" , by Others). Extend moisture membrane and compacted base material or
1 sack slurry backfill below pipe invert.
ITEM NUMBERS
MAXWELL
®
IV DRAINAGE SYSTEM DETAIL AND SPECIFICATIONS
The watermark for drainage solutions.®1/12
Manufactured and Installed by
TORRENT RESOURCES
An evolution of McGuckin Drilling
www.torrentresources.com
ARIZONA 602/268-0785
NEVADA 702/366-1234
CALIFORNIA 661/947-9836
®Manufactured and Installed by
TORRENT RESOURCES
An evolution of McGuckin Drilling
www.torrentresources.com
ARIZONA 602/268-0785
NEVADA 702/366-1234
CALIFORNIA 661/947-9836
AZ Lic. ROC070465 A, ROC047067 B-4, ADWR 363
CA Lic. 528080, C-42, HAZ.
NV Lic. 0035350 A - NM Lic. 90504 GF04
U.S. Patent No. 4,923,330 - TM Trademark 1974, 1990, 2004 ®
114188a:084318a1 1/10/12 8:17 AM Page 2
426
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPENDIX A
EXPLORATORY LOGS
427
Project:
Address:
Job Number:
Drill Method:
Client:
Driving Weight:
Location:
Elevation:
Date:
Logged By:
Depth
(feet)
Lith-
ology
Blows
Per
Foot
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
Laboratory TestsSamples
Material Description
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Water
Core
Bulk
5 10
15 20
EXPLANATION
Solid lines separate geologic units and/or material types.
Dashed lines indicate unknown depth of geologic unit change or material type change.
Solid black rectangle in Core column represents California Split Spoon sampler (2.5in ID, 3in OD).
Double triangle in core column represents SPT sampler.
Solid black rectangle in Bulk column respresents large bag sample.
Other Laboratory Tests:
Max = Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content
EI = Expansion Index
SO4 = Soluble Sulfate Content
DSR = Direct Shear, Remolded
DS = Direct Shear, Undisturbed
SA = Sieve Analysis (1" through #200 sieve)
Hydro = Particle Size Analysis (SA with Hydrometer)
200 = Percent Passing #200 Sieve
Consol = Consolidation
SE = Sand Equivalent
Rval = R-Value
ATT = Atterberg Limits
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. Plate A-1
428
Project:
Address:
Job Number:
Drill Method:
Client:
Driving Weight:
Location:
Elevation:
Date:
Logged By:
Depth
(feet)
Lith-
ology
Blows
Per
Foot
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
Laboratory TestsSamples
Material Description
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Lynwood City Park
Cesar E Chavez Ln, Lynwood, CA 90262
2545.00 10/6/2016
MPHollow-Stem Auger
John L. Hunter & Assoc.
B-1
89.1 Water
Core
Bulk
140 lbs / 30 in
5 10
15 20
Silt (ML): brown, damp, trace mica
Silty Sand / Sandy Silt (SM/ML): light grayish brown, damp, fine grained sand, trace mica, rootlets
Silt (ML): light bluish gray, moist, medium stiff, little fine grained sand, trace clay
@ 8 ', few clay nodules in cuttings
@ 10 ', some orange oxidation
@ 15 ', medium grayish brown, stiff, some clay lenses
@ 20 '
, trace fine grained sand
7 7
7 9
14.2 15.4
80.1 81.5
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. Plate A-2
429
Project:
Address:
Job Number:
Drill Method:
Client:
Driving Weight:
Location:
Elevation:
Date:
Logged By:
Depth
(feet)
Lith-
ology
Blows
Per
Foot
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
Laboratory TestsSamples
Material Description
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Lynwood City Park
Cesar E Chavez Ln, Lynwood, CA 90262
2545.00 10/6/2016
MPHollow-Stem Auger
John L. Hunter & Assoc.
B-1
89.1 Water
Core
Bulk
140 lbs / 30 in
30 35
40 45
@ 25 ', wet, very stiff, trace fine gravel, little fine grained sand Silty Sand / Sandy Silt (SM/ML): light grayish brown, wet, medium dense / very stiff, fine sand
Silty Sand (SM): gray, wet, loose, fine grained sand
Clayey Silt (ML): gray, moist, medium stiff, trace mica, trace pockets pf silty sand/sandy silt nodules
@ 41.5 ', Very stiff, Some fine grained sand
Silty Sand (SM): gray, wet, medium dense, fine grained sand 13 21
21 N.R.
8 11
14 33.7
22.5 85.6
96.6 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. Plate A-3
430
Project:
Address:
Job Number:
Drill Method:
Client:
Driving Weight:
Location:
Elevation:
Date:
Logged By:
Depth
(feet)
Lith-
ology
Blows
Per
Foot
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
Laboratory TestsSamples
Material Description
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Lynwood City Park
Cesar E Chavez Ln, Lynwood, CA 90262
2545.00 10/6/2016
MPHollow-Stem Auger
John L. Hunter & Assoc.
B-1
89.1 Water
Core
Bulk
140 lbs / 30 in
End of Boring at 51.5 ft. Groundwater measured at 43 ft after half an hour. Backfilled with soil cuttings.
13 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. Plate A-4
431
Project:
Address:
Job Number:
Drill Method:
Client:
Driving Weight:
Location:
Elevation:
Date:
Logged By:
Depth
(feet)
Lith-
ology
Blows
Per
Foot
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
Laboratory TestsSamples
Material Description
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Lynwood City Park
Cesar E Chavez Ln, Lynwood, CA 90262
2545.00 10/6/2016
MPHollow-Stem Auger
John L. Hunter & Assoc.
B-2
89.1 Water
Core
Bulk
140 lbs / 30 in
5 10
Silt (ML): tan brown, damp to moist, medium stiff, micacious Clay (CL): grayish brown, moist, stiff
End of boring at 12 feet. No groundwater encountered. Boring converted in percolation test well (P-1).
11 37.4 81.8 SA Hydro
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. Plate A-5
432
Project:
Address:
Job Number:
Drill Method:
Client:
Driving Weight:
Location:
Elevation:
Date:
Logged By:
Depth
(feet)
Lith-
ology
Blows
Per
Foot
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
Laboratory TestsSamples
Material Description
E X P L O R A T I O N L O G
Lynwood City Park
Cesar E Chavez Ln, Lynwood, CA 90262
2545.00 10/6/2016
MPHollow-Stem Auger
John L. Hunter & Assoc.
B-3
89.1 Water
Core
Bulk
140 lbs / 30 in
5 10
Silt (ML): Brown, damp to moist, medium stiff, micacious @ 11 ', Light grayish brown, moist, very stiff, trace fine sand, trace clay
End of boring at 12 feet. No groundwater encountered. Boring converted in percolation test well (P-2).
17 11.3 84.2 SA Hydro
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. Plate A-6
433
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
434
6" 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 Plate No: B-1
Job No:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAVEL SAND SILT AND CLAYCOARSE FINE MEDIUM
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION
COARSE FINE
COBBLES
CLASSIFICATIONPILLSYMBOLSAMPLELOCATION
0.0010.010.1110
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
PERCENT RETAINED
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 PERCENT PASSING
435
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPENDIX C
PERCOLATION TESTING AND ANALYSES
436
ALBUS-KEEFE ASSOCIATES, INC. Plate C-1
Client
: Job. No.:
Date Tested: Test by:
Location:
Top of Casing to Bottom of Well (ft): 12
Elev. of Ground Surface (ft): 89.1
Diam. of Test Hole (in): 8
Diam. of Casing (in): 2
Ht. to Top of Casing (ft): 0
Water Tempurature (C°): 21
Elapsed Time Depth to H2O Flow Rate Elapsed Time Depth to H2O (minutes) (ft) (gal./min.) (minutes) (ft)
0.0 12:32 7.00 2.50 0.0 12:36:00 7.00
1.0 12:33 7.00 2.00 1.0 12:37:00 7.40
2.0 12:34 7.00 1.10 2.0 12:38:00 7.80
3.0 12:35 7.00 0.50 3.0 12:39:00 8.20
4.0 12:36 7.00 <0.1 4.0 12:40:00 8.60
5.0 12:41:00 9.00
7.0 12:43:
00 7.00
8.0 12:44:00 7.40
9.0 12:45:00 7.80
10.0 12:46:00 8.20
Time Time
Field Percolation Testing
John L. Hunter & Assoc. 2545.00
10/6/2016 MP
Lynwood City Park
Constant Head Falling Head
437
ALBUS-KEEFE ASSOCIATES, INC. Plate C-2
Client: Job. No.:
Date Tested: Test by:
Location:
Top of Casing to Bottom of Well (ft): 12
Elev. of Ground Surface (ft): 89.1
Diam. of Test Hole (in): 8
Diam. of Casing (in): 2
Ht. to Top of Casing (ft): 0
Water Tempurature (C°): 21
Elapsed Time Depth to H2O Flow Rate Elapsed Time Depth to H2O (minutes) (ft) (gal./min.) (minutes) (ft)
0.0 1:04 7 4 0.0 1:10:00 7
2.0 1:06 7 2.25 1.0 1:11:00 7.6
3.0 1:07 7 1.5 2.0 1:12:00 8.2
4.0 1:08 7 <1.0 3.0 1:13:00 8.65
5.0 1:09 7 0.3 4.0 1:14:00 9.1
5.0 1:09 7 <0.1 5.0 1:15:00 9.55
6.0 1:16:00 10
8.0 1:18:
00 7
9.0 1:19:00 7.45
10.0 1:20:00 7.9
11.0 1:21:00 8.35
12.0 1:22:00 8.8
Field Percolation Testing
MP
2545.00John L. Hunter & Assoc.
10/6/2016
Lynwood City Park
TimeTime
Falling HeadConstant Head
438
J.N.: 2438
Client: HQT Homes
Well No.: P-1
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
Units:
1 12 feet
7.6 feet
4.4 feet
4.0 Inches
Minimum Volume Required: 1089.7 Gal.
0.46 Gal/min.
21 Celsius
0.9647 ft^3/min.
Ignore Tᵤ
1 1.16E-03 ft/min.
0.83 in./hr.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Plate C-3
High water Table with Water Above the Well Bottom
High Water Table & Water Below Bottom of Well
Low Water Table
INFILTRATION WELL DESIGN
Constant Head
USBR 7300-89 Method
The presence or absence of a water table or
impervious soil layer within a distance of less than
three times that of the water depth in the well
(measured from the water surface) will enable the
water table to be classified as Condition I,
Condition II, Condtion III.
Low Water Table-When the distance from the
water surface in the test well to the ground water
table, or to an impervious soil layer which is
considered for test puposes to be equivalent to a
water table, is greater than three times the depth
of water in the well, classify as Condition I.
High Water Table-When the distance from the
water surface in the test well to the ground water
table or to an impervious layer is less than three
times the depth of water in the well, a high water
table condition exists. Use Condition II when the
water table or impervious layer is below the well
bottom. Use Condition III when the water table or
impervious layer is above the well bottom.
(Viscosity of Water @ Temp. T) / (Viscosity of water @ 20° C) (V):
Unsaturated Distance Between the Water Surface in the Well and the Water table (Tᵤ):
Factor of Safety:
Coefficient of Permeability @ 20° C (k₂₀):
Design k₂₀:
Temperature (T):
Depth to Water (h₂):
Enter Condition (1, 2 or 3):
Ground Surface to Bottom of Well (h₁):
Height of Water in the Well (h₁-h₂=h):
Radius of Well (r):
Discharge Rate of Water Into Well for Steady-State Condition (q):
439
J.N.: 2438
Client: HQT Homes
Well No.: P-1
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
Units:
1 12 feet
7.9 feet
4.1 feet
4.0 Inches
Minimum Volume Required: 924.2 Gal.
0.51 Gal/min.
21 Celsius
0.9647 ft^3/min.
Ignore Tᵤ
1 1.44E-03 ft/min.
1.03 in./hr.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Plate C-4
Discharge Rate of Water Into Well for Steady-State Condition (q):
INFILTRATION WELL DESIGN
Constant Head
USBR 7300-89 Method
Low Water Table
High Water Table & Water Below Bottom of Well
High water Table with Water Above the Well Bottom
Enter Condition (1, 2 or 3):
Ground Surface to Bottom of Well (h₁):
Depth to Water (h₂):
Height of Water in the Well (h₁-h₂=h):
Radius of Well (r):
The presence or absence of a water table or
impervious soil layer within a distance of less than
three times that of the water depth in the well
(measured from the water surface) will enable the
water table to be classified as Condition I,
Condition II, Condtion III.
Low Water Table-When the distance from the
water surface in the test well to the ground water
table, or to an impervious soil layer which is
considered for test puposes to be equivalent to a
water table, is greater than three times the depth
of water in the well, classify as Condition I.
High Water Table-When the distance from the
water surface in the test well to the ground water
table or to an impervious layer is less than three
times the depth of water in the well, a high water
table condition exists. Use Condition II when the
water table or impervious layer is below the well
bottom. Use Condition III when the water table or
impervious layer is above the well bottom.
Temperature (T):
(Viscosity of Water @ Temp. T) / (Viscosity of water @ 20° C) (V):
Unsaturated Distance Between the Water Surface in the Well and the Water table (Tᵤ):
Factor of Safety:
Coefficient of Permeability @ 20° C (k₂₀):
Design k₂₀:
440
Soil #2 -Silt (ML)
-30
-20
-10
0 10
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PLATE C-5
Contours are Pressure Head in Feet.
STEADY STATE
FLOW ANALYSIS OF 30 ft DEEP, 4 ft DIAMETER DRY WELL
Arrows indicate direction of flow and relative magnitude of velocity.
Radius (ft)
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
Elevation (ft)
50 60
70 80
90 100
441
Soil #2 -Silt (ML)
-30
-20
-10
0 10
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PLATE C-6
Contours are Pressure Head in Feet.
TRANSIENT @ 1 hours
FLOW ANALYSIS OF 30 ft DEEP, 4 ft DIAMETER DRY WELL
Arrows indicate direction of flow and relative magnitude of velocity.
Radius (ft)
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
Elevation (ft)
50 60
70 80
90 100
442
Soil #2 -Silt (ML)
-30
-20
-10
0 10
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PLATE C-7
Contours are Pressure Head in Feet.
TRANSIENT @ 2.5 hours
FLOW ANALYSIS OF 30 ft DEEP, 4 ft DIAMETER DRY WELL
Arrows indicate direction of flow and relative magnitude of velocity.
Radius (ft)
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
Elevation (ft)
50 60
70 80
90 100
443
Soil #2 -Silt (ML)
-30
-20
-10
0 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PLATE C-8
Contours are Pressure Head in Feet.
TRANSIENT @ 7 hours
FLOW ANALYSIS OF 30 ft DEEP, 4 ft DIAMETER DRY WELL
Arrows indicate direction of flow and relative magnitude of velocity.
Radius (ft)
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
Elevation (ft)
50 60
70 80
90 100
444
Soil #2 -Silt (ML)
-30
-20
-10
0 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PLATE C-9
Contours are Pressure Head in Feet.
TRANSIENT @ 11.5 hours
FLOW ANALYSIS OF 30 ft DEEP, 4 ft DIAMETER DRY WELL
Arrows indicate direction of flow and relative magnitude of velocity.
Radius (ft)
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0
Elevation (ft)
50 60
70 80
90 100
445
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023
APPENDIX B
Boring Logs
446
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods.
Bulk Samples
Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings.
The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler
Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetration Test sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1 3/8 inches. The sampler was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer falling freely from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.
The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler
The sampler, with an external diameter of 3 inches, was lined with 1 -inch-long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a h ammer in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
447
Soil Classification Chart Per ASTM D 2488
Primary Divisions
Secondary Divisions
Group Symbol Group Name
COARSE-
GRAINED
SOILS
more than
50% retained
on No. 200
sieve
GRAVEL
more than
50% of
coarse
fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve
CLEAN GRAVEL
less than 5% fines
GW well-graded GRAVEL
GP poorly graded GRAVEL
GRAVEL with
DUAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt
GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt
GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay
GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with clay
GRAVEL with
FINES
more than
12% fines
GM silty GRAVEL
GC clayey GRAVEL
GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL
SAND
50% or more
of coarse
fraction
passes
No. 4 sieve
CLEAN SAND
less than 5% fines
SW well-graded SAND
SP poorly graded SAND
SAND with
DUAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt
SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt
SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay
SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay
SAND with FINES
more than
12% fines
SM silty SAND
SC clayey SAND
SC-SM silty, clayey SAND
FINE-
GRAINED
SOILS
50% or
more passes
No. 200 sieve
SILT and
CLAY
liquid limit
less than 50%
INORGANIC
CL lean CLAY
ML SILT
CL-ML silty CLAY
ORGANIC
OL (PI > 4) organic CLAY
OL (PI < 4) organic SILT
SILT and
CLAY
liquid limit
50% or more
INORGANIC
CH fat CLAY
MH elastic SILT
ORGANIC
OH (plots on or
above “A”-line) organic CLAY
OH (plots
below “A”-line) organic SILT
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat
USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultant s
Apparent Density - Coarse-Grained Soil
Apparent
Density
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5
Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14
Medium
Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42
Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70
Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70
Consistency - Fine-Grained Soil
Consis-
tency
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2
Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3
Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6
Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13
Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26
Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26
LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI), %
0 10
10 7
4 20
30 40
50 60
70 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MH or OH
ML or OLCL - ML
Plasticity Chart
Grain Size
Description Sieve
Size Grain Size Approximate
Size
Boulders > 12” > 12” Larger than
basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12” 3 - 12” Fist-sized to
basketball-sized
Gravel
Coarse 3/4 - 3” 3/4 - 3” Thumb-sized to
fist-sized
Fine #4 - 3/4” 0.19 - 0.75” Pea-sized to
thumb-sized
Sand
Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19” Rock-salt-sized to
pea-sized
Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079” Sugar-sized to
rock-salt-sized
Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 -
0.017”
Flour-sized to
sugar-sized
Fines Passing
#200 < 0.0029” Flour-sized and
smaller
CH or OH
CL or OL
448
;;;;
SM
CL
%XONVDPSOH
0RGLILHGVSOLWEDUUHOGULYHVDPSOHU
1RUHFRYHU\ZLWKPRGLILHGVSOLWEDUUHOGULYHVDPSOHU
6DPSOHUHWDLQHGE\RWKHUV
6WDQGDUG3HQHWUDWLRQ7HVW
637
1RUHFRYHU\ZLWKD637
6KHOE\WXEHVDPSOH'LVWDQFHSXVKHGLQLQFKHVOHQJWKRIVDPSOHUHFRYHUHGLQLQFKHV 1RUHFRYHU\ZLWK6KHOE\WXEHVDPSOHU
&RQWLQXRXV3XVK6DPSOH
6HHSDJH
*URXQGZDWHUHQFRXQWHUHGGXULQJGULOOLQJ
*URXQGZDWHUPHDVXUHGDIWHUGULOOLQJ
0$-250$7(5,$/7<3(
62,/
6ROLGOLQHGHQRWHVXQLWFKDQJH
'DVKHGOLQHGHQRWHVPDWHULDOFKDQJH
$WWLWXGHV
6WULNH'LS
E
%HGGLQJ
F
&RQWDFW
M
-RLQW
I
)UDFWXUH
)
)DXOW
FV
&OD\6HDP
V
6KHDU
EVV
%DVDO6OLGH6XUIDFH
VI
6KHDU)UDFWXUH
V]
6KHDU=RQH
VEV
6KHDU%HGGLQJ6XUIDFH
7KHWRWDOGHSWKOLQHLVDVROLGOLQHWKDWLVGUDZQDWWKHERWWRPRIWKHERULQJ DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven
BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)
DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL
CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.
BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET
BORING LOG
20 449
0 10
20 30
40 111817
17 1525
13.1 27.6
98.2 98.3
SM ML
CL
ML
SM
ALLUVIUM :Light brow n, moist, loose, silty SAND. Brow n, moist, loose, sandy SILT; trace w ood fragments.Medium dense.With sand.
Dark brow n, moist, very stiff, lean CLAY; trace gravel.
Olive gray, moist, medium dense, sandy SILT.Brow n; oxidation staining.
Light brow n, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.
Total Depth = 31.5 feet.Groundw ater w as not encountered during drilling.Backfilled w ith cement-bentonite grout on 1/31/23.Notes :Groundw ater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level dueto seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.The ground elevation show n above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretationsof published maps and other documents review ed for the purposes of this evaluation. It isnot sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE B- 1
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECTLYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA212102001 |3/23 DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATIONDATE DRILLED1/31/23BORING NO.B-1GROUND ELEVATION90' ± (MSL)SHEET1OFMETHOD OF DRILLING8" Hollow -Stem Auger (MR Drilling)DRIVE WEIGHT140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP30"SAMPLED BYANPLOGGED BYANPREVIEWED BYJRS/GMC1 450
0 10
20 30
40 17181717101813
15.025.620.4
87.896.3104.1
GM SP-SM ML
SM
FILL :Brow n, moist, medium dense, silty GRAVEL w ith sand. ALLUVIUM :Light brow n, moist, loose, poorly graded SAND w ith silt. Brow n, moist, very stiff, SILT; few sand.Light brow n.Brow n; few to little sand.Stiff.Light brow n; medium dense; sandy.Grayish brow n; oxidation staining.
Gray, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.
FIGURE B- 2
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECTLYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA212102001 |3/23 DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATIONDATE DRILLED2/1/23BORING NO.B-2GROUND ELEVATION85' ± (MSL)SHEET1OFMETHOD OF DRILLING8" Hollow -Stem Auger (MR Drilling)DRIVE WEIGHT140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP30"SAMPLED BYRAF/ANPLOGGED BYANPREVIEWED BYJRS/GMC3 451
40 50
60 70
80 28 35
10 2855
2022
29 18.7 103.2 SM ML SM ML
SM
ML
SM
ALLUVIUM : (Continued)Gray, moist, medium dense, silty SAND. Gray, moist, very dense, sandy SILT.@ 44.3': Groundw ater measured. Gray, moist, very dense, silty SAND. Gray, w et, medium dense, sandy SILT.
Gray, w et, dense, silty SAND.Very dense.
Gray, w et, medium dense, SILT w ith sand.
Gray, w et, dense, silty SAND.
FIGURE B- 3
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECTLYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA212102001 |3/23 DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATIONDATE DRILLED2/1/23BORING NO.B-2GROUND ELEVATION85' ± (MSL)SHEET2OFMETHOD OF DRILLING8" Hollow -Stem Auger (MR Drilling)DRIVE WEIGHT140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP30"SAMPLED BYRAF/ANPLOGGED BYANPREVIEWED BYJRS/GMC3 452
80 90
100
110
120
27 1511
2818
SM ML
SM
ML
ALLUVIUM : (Continued)Gray, w et, dense, silty SAND; interbedded w ith silt beds. Gray, w et, medium dense, SILT w ith sand.
Gray, w et, medium dense, silty SAND.
Gray, w et, dense, sandy SILT.Medium dense; piece of w ood.
Total Depth = 101.5 feet.Groundw ater w as encountered during drilling at approximately 44.3 feet.Backfilled w ith cement-bentonite grout on 2/1/23.Notes :Groundw ater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonalvariations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.The ground elevation show n above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretationsof published maps and other documents review ed for the purposes of this evaluation. It isnot sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE B- 4
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECTLYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA212102001 |3/23 DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATIONDATE DRILLED2/1/23BORING NO.B-2GROUND ELEVATION85' ± (MSL)SHEET3OFMETHOD OF DRILLING8" Hollow -Stem Auger (MR Drilling)DRIVE WEIGHT140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP30"SAMPLED BYRAF/ANPLOGGED BYANPREVIEWED BYJRS/GMC3 453
0 10
20 30
40 9
91291128
8.6 36.323
90.1 82.4100.6
GM SM SP-SM
ML
ASPHALT CONCRETE :Approximately 3 inches thick. AGGREGATE BASE :Brow n, moist, medium dense, silty GRAVEL; approximately 6 inches thick. ALLUVIUM :Light brow n, moist, medium dense, silty SAND. Brow n, moist, loose, poorly graded SAND w ith silt.
Brow n, moist, stiff, SILT; few sand; oxidation staining; pinhole porosity.Dark brow n.Very stiff.Grayish brow n; hard.
Total Depth = 31.5 feet.Groundw ater w as not encountered during drilling.Backfilled w ith cement-bentonite grout and capped w ith rapid-set concrete on 1/30/23.Notes :Groundw ater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level dueto seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.The ground elevation show n above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretationsof published maps and other documents review ed for the purposes of this evaluation. It isnot sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE B- 5
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECTLYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA212102001 |3/23 DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATIONDATE DRILLED1/30/23BORING NO.B-3GROUND ELEVATION85' ± (MSL)SHEET1OFMETHOD OF DRILLING8" Hollow -Stem Auger (MR Drilling)DRIVE WEIGHT140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP30"SAMPLED BYANPLOGGED BYANPREVIEWED BYJRS/GMC1 454
0 10
20 30
40 7 24.0 94.3 SM ML FILL :Brow n, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; few gravel. ASPHALT CONCRETE :Approximately 2 inches thick; approximately 10 inches below surface. ALLUVIUM :Brow n, moist, loose, sandy SILT. Total Depth = 6.5 feet.Groundw ater w as not encountered during drilling.In-situ percolation test performed on 1/31/23.Backfilled w ith on-site soil on 1/31/23.Notes :Groundw ater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level dueto seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.The ground elevation show n above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretationsof published maps and other documents review ed for the purposes of this evaluation. It isnot sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE B- 6
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECTLYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA212102001 |3/23 DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATIONDATE DRILLED1/31/23BORING NO.P-1GROUND ELEVATION85' ± (MSL)SHEET1OFMETHOD OF DRILLING8" Hollow -Stem Auger (MR Drilling)DRIVE WEIGHT140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP30"SAMPLED BYRAF/ANPLOGGED BYRAF/ANPREVIEWED BYJRS/GMC1 455
0 10
20 30
40 10111820
24.218.9
94.1100.6
ML SM ML ALLUVIUM :Brow n, moist, medium dense, sandy SILT; roots. Light brow n, moist, medium dense, silty SAND. Brow n and dark brow n, moist, loose, sandy SILT.Light brow n; few to little sand; oxidation staining.Brow n; very stiff.
Total Depth = 21.5 feet.Groundw ater w as not encountered during drilling.In-situ percolation test performed on 1/31/23.Backfilled w ith cement-bentonite grout on 1/31/23.Notes :Groundw ater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level dueto seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.The ground elevation show n above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretationsof published maps and other documents review ed for the purposes of this evaluation. It isnot sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE B- 7
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECTLYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA212102001 |3/23 DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATIONDATE DRILLED1/30/23BORING NO.P-2GROUND ELEVATION85' ± (MSL)SHEET1OFMETHOD OF DRILLING8" Hollow -Stem Auger (MR Drilling)DRIVE WEIGHT140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP30"SAMPLED BYANPLOGGED BYANPREVIEWED BYJRS/GMC1 456
0 10
20 30
40 15101315
14.126.3
99.896.8
ML SM ML ALLUVIUM :Brow n, moist, medium dense, sandy SILT; roots. Light brow n, moist, medium dense, silty SAND. Brow n, moist, medium dense, SILT w ith sand.Light brow n; pinhole porosity; oxidation staining.Brow n; loose.Dark brow n; medium dense; oxidation staining.
Total Depth = 21.5 feet.Groundw ater w as not encountered during drilling.In-situ percolation test performed on 1/30/23.Backfilled w ith cement-bentonite grout on 1/30/23.Notes :Groundw ater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level dueto seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.The ground elevation show n above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretationsof published maps and other documents review ed for the purposes of this evaluation. It isnot sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE B- 8
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECTLYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA212102001 |3/23 DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATIONDATE DRILLED1/30/23BORING NO.P-3GROUND ELEVATION85' ± (MSL)SHEET1OFMETHOD OF DRILLING8" Hollow -Stem Auger (MR Drilling)DRIVE WEIGHT140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP30"SAMPLED BYANPLOGGED BYANPREVIEWED BYJRS/GMC1 457
0 10
20 30
40 10
91518
29.930.1
91.189.3
SM ML SM
ML
ALLUVIUM :Brow n, moist, medium dense, silty SAND. Brow n, moist, medium dense, sandy SILT. Brow n, moist, loose, silty SAND.
Brow n, moist, stiff, SILT; oxidation staining.Very stiff; few to little sand.
Total Depth = 21.5 feet.Groundw ater w as not encountered during drilling.In-situ percolation test w as performed on 1/31/23.Backfilled w ith cement-bentonite grout on 1/31/23.Notes :Groundw ater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level dueto seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.The ground elevation show n above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretationsof published maps and other documents review ed for the purposes of this evaluation. It isnot sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE B- 9
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECTLYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA212102001 |3/23 DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATIONDATE DRILLED1/31/23BORING NO.P-4GROUND ELEVATION85' ± (MSL)SHEET1OFMETHOD OF DRILLING8" Hollow -Stem Auger (MR Drilling)DRIVE WEIGHT140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP30"SAMPLED BYANPLOGGED BYANPREVIEWED BYJRS/GMC1 458
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023
APPENDIX C
CPT Soundings
459
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023
APPENDIX C
CPT SOUNDINGS
Field Procedure for Cone Penetration Testing
The cone penetration testing (CPT) described in this report was conducted by Kehoe Testing and Engineering in general accordance with ASTM D 5778. The cone penetrometer assembly used for this project consisted of a conical tip and a cylindrical friction sleeve. The con ical tip had an apex angle of 60 degrees and a cross-section area of approximately 15 square centimeters. The interior of the CPT probe was instrumented with strain gauges that allowed simultaneous measurement of cone tip resistance and friction sleeve res istance during penetration. The cone hydraulically pushed into the soil using the reaction mass of a specially designed 30 -ton truck at a constant rate while the cone tip resistance and sleeve friction were recorded at an approximately 1-inch interval and stored in digital form. The computer-generated logs presented in the following pages include cone resistance, sleeve friction, pore pressure, and soil behavior type.
460
SUMMARY
OF
CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
Prepared by:
KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
5415 Industrial Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1518
Office (714) 901-7270 / Fax (714) 901-7289
www.kehoetesting.com
Project:
Lynwood Stormwater Capture
11301 Bullis Road
Lynwood, CA
January 30, 2023
Prepared for:
Ms. Aura Scharf
Ninyo & Moore
475 Goddard, Ste 200
Irvine, CA 92618-4605
Office (949) 753-7070 / Fax (949) 753-7071
461
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK
3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES
4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION
APPENDIX
• CPT Plots
• CPT Classification/Soil Behavior Chart
• Summary of Shear Wave Velocities
• Pore Pressure Dissipation Graphs
• CPT Data Files (sent via email)
462
SUMMARY
OF
CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Cone Penetration Test (CPT) program carried out for the Lynwood Stormwater Capture project located at 11301 Bullis Road in Lynwood, California. The work was performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering (KTE) on January 30, 2023. The scope of work was performed as directed by Ninyo & Moore personnel.
2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK
The fieldwork consisted of performing CPT soundings at two locations to determine the soil lithology. A summary is provided in TABLE 2.1.
LOCATION
DEPTH OF
CPT (ft)
COMMENTS/NOTES:
CPT-1 60
CPT-2 100
TABLE 2.1 - Summary of CPT Soundings
3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES
The CPT soundings were carried out by KTE using an integrated electronic cone system manufactured by Vertek. The CPT soundings were performed in accordance with ASTM standards (D5778). The cone penetrometers were pushed using a 30-ton CPT rig. The cone used during the program was a 15 cm^2 cone with a cone net area ratio of 0.83. The following parameters were recorded at approximately 2.5 cm depth intervals:
• Cone Resistance (qc) • Inclination
• Sleeve Friction (fs) • Penetration Speed
• Dynamic Pore Pressure (u) • Pore Pressure Dissipation (at selected depths)
At location CPT-2, shear wave measurements were obtained at approximately 5-foot intervals.
The shear wave is generated using an air-actuated hammer, which is located inside the front jack of the CPT rig. The cone has a triaxial geophone, which recorded the shear wave signal generated by the air hammer.
463
The above parameters were recorded and viewed in real time using a laptop computer. Data is stored at the KTE office for up to 2 years for future analysis and reference. A complete set of baseline readings was taken prior to each sounding to determine temperature shifts and any zero load offsets. Monitoring base line readings ensures that the cone electronics are operating properly.
4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION
The Cone Penetration Test data is presented in graphical form in the attached Appendix. These plots were generated using the CPeT-IT program. Penetration depths are referenced to ground surface. The soil behavior type on the CPT plots is derived from the attached CPT SBT plot (Robertson, “Interpretation of Cone Penetration Test…”, 2009) and presents major soil lithologic changes. The stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and penetration pore pressure (u). The friction ratio (Rf), which is sleeve friction divided by cone resistance, is a calculated parameter that is used along with cone resistance to infer soil behavior type. Generally, cohesive soils (clays) have high friction ratios, low cone resistance and generate excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils (sands) have lower friction ratios, high cone bearing and generate little (or negative) excess pore water pressures.
The CPT data files have also been provided. These files can be imported in CPeT-IT (software by GeoLogismiki) and other programs to calculate various geotechnical parameters.
It should be noted that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based on qc, fs and u. In these situations, experience, judgement and an assessment of the pore pressure data should be used to infer the soil behavior type.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call our office at (714) 901-7270.
Sincerely,
KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
Steven P. Kehoe
President
02/03/23-aga-4934
464
APPENDIX
465
Project:
Ninyo & Moore / Lynwood Stormwater Capture
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 60.31 ft, Date: 1/30/2023
11301 Bullis Rd, Lynwood, CA
CPT-1
Location:
Cone resistance
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
500
400
300
200
100
0 Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance
Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
0 Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Sleeve friction
Pore pressure u
HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
100
80 60
40 20
0 -20
Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Pore pressure u
Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
8 6
4 2
0 Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction ratio
Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 1/31/2023, 9:10:33 AM 1 Project file:
466
Project:
Ninyo & Moore / Lynwood Stormwater Capture
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 100.20 ft, Date: 1/30/2023
11301 Bullis Rd, Lynwood, CA
CPT-2
Location:
Cone resistance
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
500
400
300
200
100
0 Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance
Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
0 Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Sleeve friction
Pore pressure u
HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
100
80 60
40 20
0 -20
Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Pore pressure u
Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
8 6
4 2
0 Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction ratio
Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Depth (ft)
100
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 1/31/2023, 9:10:34 AM 2 Project file:
467
468
Ninyo & Moore
Lynwood Stormwater Capture
Lynwood, CA
CPT Shear Wave Measurements
S-Wave Interval
Tip Geophone Travel S-Wave Velocity S-Wave
Depth Depth Distance Arrival from Surface Velocity
Location (ft) (ft) (ft) (msec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec)
CPT-2 4.99 3.99 4.46 8.76 509
10.04 9.04 9.26 16.28 569 638
15.03 14.03 14.17 26.56 534 478
20.05 19.05 19.15 34.88 549 599
25.10 24.10 24.18 42.84 564 632
30.15 29.15 29.22 49.24 593 787
35.04 34.04 34.10 57.16 597 616
40.12 39.12 39.17 62.96 622 875
45.05 44.05 44.10 69.26 637 782
50.10 49.10 49.14 75.26 653 841
55.12 54.12 54.16 81.70 663 779
60.10 59.10 59.13 86.52 683 1033
65.12 64.12 64.15 91.74 699 961
70.08 69.08 69.11 98.28 703 758
75.13 74.13 74.16 103.34 718 998
80.02 79.02 79.05 108.76 727 902
85.04 84.04 84.06 114.76 733 836
90.09 89.09 89.11 119.68 745 1026
95.05 94.05 94.07 125.04 752 925
100.16 99.16 99.18 130.40 761 953
Shear Wave Source Offset - 2 ft
S-Wave Velocity from Surface = Travel Distance/S-Wave Arrival Interval S-Wave Velocity = (Travel Dist2-Travel Dist1)/(Time2-Time1) 469
TEST ID: CPT-1
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME
: (MINUTES)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 -3
-2
-1
0 1
DEPTH (ft)
43.352
470
TEST ID: CPT-2
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME
: (MINUTES)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
DEPTH (ft)
55.476
471
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023
APPENDIX D
Laboratory Testing
472
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were visually and texturally c lassified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix B.
In-Place Moisture and Density Tests
The moisture con tent and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix B. 200 Wash
An evaluation of the percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve in selected soil samples was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1140. The results of the tests are presented on Figures D-1 through D-3.
Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on a selected representative fine-grained soil sample to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the USCS. The test results and classification are shown on Figure D-4.
Consolidation Tests
Consolidation testing was performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil sample s in general accordance with ASTM D 2435. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. The results of the test s are summarized on Figures D-5 and D-6.
Direct Shear Tests
Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent the adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figures D-7 and D-8.
Soil Corrosivity Tests
Soil pH and resistivity tests were performed on representative samples in general accordance with CT 643. The soluble sulfate and chloride content of the selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively. The test results are presented on Figure D-9.
473
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140
SANDY SILT
SILT WITH SAND
ML
ML
ML
58 91
ML
100
53 15
100
SANDY SILT
SILT
SILT
5.0-6.5
15.0-16.5
100
ML
SM
63 ML87
100
100
100
B-1
B-1
SANDY SILT
SILTY SAND
B-1
B-2
B-2
99 71
ML
25.0-26.5
10.0-11.5
B-2
30.0-31.5B-2
USCS
SAMPLE
LOCATION
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft)
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 200
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 4
DESCRIPTION (TOTAL
SAMPLE)
100 63
40.0-41.5
20.0-21.5
50.0-51.5
B-2
51 ML
45.0-45.5
B-2
SANDY SILT
100SANDY SILT
NO. 200 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
FIGURE D-1
212102001 Fig D-1_200-WASH @ B-1, B-2
474
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140
SILTY SAND
SILT WITH SAND
ML
SM
ML
35 82
ML
100
91 46
100
SILTY SAND
SILT WITH SAND
SILT
60.0-61.5
70.0-71.0
100
ML
SM
52 ML92
100
92 99
B-2
B-2
SILT
SILTY SAND
B-2
B-2
P-1
100 85
SM
80.0-81.5
90.0-91.0
B-3
20.0-21.5B-3
USCS
SAMPLE
LOCATION
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft)
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 200
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 4
DESCRIPTION (TOTAL
SAMPLE)
100 16
0.0-1.0
10.0-11.5
0.5-5.0
P-1
41 SM
5.0-6.5
P-2
SANDY SILT
100SILTY SAND
NO. 200 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
FIGURE D-2
212102001 Fig D-2_200-WASH @ B-2, B-3, P-1, P-2
475
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140
USCS
SAMPLE
LOCATION
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft)
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 200
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 4
DESCRIPTION (TOTAL
SAMPLE)
100 87
15.0-16.5
100 50
ML
20.0-21.5
5.0-6.5
P-4
P-2
P-3
P-3
P-4
SILT WITH SAND
SILTY SAND
SILT
15.0-16.5
0.0-1.0
100
ML89
SILT
SANDY SILT
ML
SM
84 17
ML
100
100
NO. 200 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
FIGURE D-3
212102001 Fig D-3_200-WASH @ P-2, P-3, P-4
476
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318
SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH (ft) LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
CL
CL
19 No. 40 Sieve)
PLASTICITY
INDEX
CLASSIFICATION
20.0-21.5 1534
USCS
B-1
USCS
(Fraction Finer Than
CH or OH
CL or OL MH or OH
ML or OLCL - ML
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PLASTICITY INDEX, PI
LIQUID LIMIT, LL
FIGURE D-4
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
212102001 Fig D-4_ATTERBERG @ B-1
477
Seating Cycle Sample Location P-1
Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft) 5.0-6.5
Loading After Inundation Soil Type ML
Rebound Cycle
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 9.0
10.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
CONSOLIDATION IN PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%) EXPANSION (%)
STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
FIGURE D-5
212102001 Fig D-5_CONSOLIDATION @ P-1 5.0-6.5 478
Seating Cycle Sample Location P-2
Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft) 5.0-6.5
Loading After Inundation Soil Type ML
Rebound Cycle
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 9.0
10.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
CONSOLIDATION IN PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%) EXPANSION (%)
STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
FIGURE D-6
212102001 Fig D-6_CONSOLIDATION @ P-2 5.0-6.5 479
10.0-11.5SILT B-2 Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees) Soil Type
ML33
33 42
ML
Description Symbol Sample
Location
42 Depth
(ft)
Shear
Strength
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080
SILT X Ultimate10.0-11.5B-2
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
FIGURE D-7
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
212102001 Fig D-7_DIRECT SHEAR @ B-2 10.0-11.5 480
20.0-21.5SILT B-2 Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees) Soil Type
ML32
32 150
ML
Description Symbol Sample
Location
246
Depth
(ft)
Shear
Strength
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080
SILT X Ultimate20.0-21.5B-2
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
FIGURE D-8
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
212102001 Fig D-8_DIRECT SHEAR @ B-2 20.0-21.5 481
1 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 643 2 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417 3 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422
8.0-9.5 7.3
pH 1SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)
SAMPLE
LOCATION
RESISTIVITY 1
(ohm-cm)
7.4 60
650
8,745 70 0.007
0.018
SULFATE CONTENT 2
B-1 4.5-5.0
580B-2
(ppm) (%)
180
CHLORIDE
CONTENT 3
(ppm)
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
LYNWOOD CITY PARK STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
212102001 | 3/23
FIGURE D-9
212102001 Fig D-9_CORROSIVITY @ B-1, B-2
482
Ninyo & Moore | Lynwood City Park Stormwater Capture Project, Lynwood, California | 212102001 | March 17, 2023
APPENDIX E
Drum Characterization Test Results
483
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Ninyo & Moore
RE: Lynwood Park
Irvine, CA 92618
475 Goddard, Ste. 200
Jennifer Schmidt
Joann Marroquin
Director of Operations
Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 02/03/23 12:26. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
09 February 2023