11 & 12 - Attachment A - Exhibit C-J - Housing Element Update (2008-2014) - Addendums 1-8 — Newport Beach City Council, April 9, 2024 (part 31 of 33)

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
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
X
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report, included as Appendix G of this Addendum:
■ 1401 Quail Street BesidentialApartments Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, September 12, 2023.

Comments
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR.

Operational Noise
Stationary Noise
The proposed project would change the land use designation of the site from CO-G to MU-142. The site is currently developed as office uses. The Noise Impact Analysis analyzed the potential stationary -source operational noise impacts at four nearby receptor locations. The receptors included the closest commercial use to the site, approximately 49 feet northwest of the project site at 1451 Bristol Street, and the closest residential receptor to the project site, approximately 968 feet southwest of the project site at 20051 Orchid Street. The proposed project's on -site operational noise sources are expected to include rooftop mechanical equipment, outdoor activity, pool activity, and parking lot activity.

To estimate the proposed project's operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels for the proposed project. Projected noise levels assumed the worst -case noise environment. The analysis is also conservative because the total operational noise is considered instead of a net increase over the existing office use on the project site. Tables 7-2 and 7-3 of the Noise Impact Analysis show the proposed project's operational noise level exposure during the daytime hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and the nighttime hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am at the four receptors. The daytime

Page 156 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
hourly noise level exposure is expected to range from 36.1 to 57.2 dBA equivalent level (Leq),22 and the nighttime hourly noise level exposure is expected to range from 23.5 to 35.2 dBA Leq.

The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control, establishes the permissible exterior noise levels that may intrude into a neighboring property. According to Section

10.26.025(A), exterior noise levels at single-, two-, or multiple -family residential land uses (Noise Zone 1) shall not exceed 55 dBA Leq during the daytime hours and 50 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours. For commercial uses, exterior noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA Leq during the daytime hours and 60 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours. The operational noise levels associated with the proposed project would satisfy the City of Newport Beach's exterior noise level standards at all the nearest receptors. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Transportation Noise
Policy N 1.8 of the General Plan Noise Element requires noise mitigation measures when a significant noise impact is identified for new development impacting existing sensitive uses, as presented in Table 13.

Table 13 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise
Impact Criteria for Noise -Sensitive Uses dBA CNEL
No Project Noise Exposure
Allowable Noise Exposure Increment
55 3
60 2
65 1
70 1
75 0
Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006.

The redesignation of the project site from CO-G to MU-142 would result in a small increase in regional and local traffic volumes. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a net increase of 105 average daily weekday trips (see Appendix C), which would represent an incremental increase to the existing roadway volumes and is not expected to generate a perceptible noise level increase (i.e., less than 3 dBA CNEL) at nearby sensitive land uses. Buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in traffic noise compared to what was previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information requiring the preparation of an EIR. 22 Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in dBA. The Leq represents a steady state sound level commonly used to describe the "average" noise levels within the environment.

March 2024D3 Page 157

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Operational Noise Level Increase
To describe the proposed project's operational noise level increases to sensitive receptors, the proposed project's operational noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels at the nearest residence impacted by the proposed project's operational noise sources. The difference between the combined noise level and the ambient noise level describes the proposed project's noise level increase.23 The project site is approximately 400 feet north of SR-73 and the project site is within the 60 dBA to 65 dBA CNEL noise level contour of the JWA. According to the 2021 Caltrans traffic census data, in the vicinity of the project site, SR-73 has average daily traffic volumes ranging from 120,000 to 130,000, which would expose the area to traffic noise levels up to 74 to 76 dBA Leq. Therefore, ambient noise levels in the project area are anticipated to range from 60 to 76 dBA Leq. The project generated noise levels intruding into the nearest residence are anticipated to range from 23.5 to 38.8 dBA Leq (see Table 7-4 of Appendix G). To account for the most conservative increase, the lowest ambient noise level of 60 dBA is combined with the proposed project's largest operational noise level. Since the residential receptor nearest to the project site is approximately 968 feet southwest, the proposed project's 38.8 dBA Leq contribution would not result in any increase to the ambient noise level at the residence. Therefore, operational noise level increases associated with the proposed project would satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Table 13. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information requiring the preparation of an EIR.

Construction Noise
When compared to the land uses for the project site under the 2006 GPU, the proposed project would accommodate land uses that would require similar construction processes and intensities. Though the GPU EIR does not include residential uses for the proposed project area, overall it is anticipated that the required construction processes and activities needed to develop the land uses accommodated under both the proposed project and the 2006 GPU would be similar.

The Noise Impact Analysis included a construction noise analysis using reference noise level measurements taken to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of project construction. Table 8-2 of the Noise Impact Analysis provides a summary of the construction noise levels at the nearest noise -sensitive receptors. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040, construction activities are considered exempt from the noise standards of the noise ordinance if limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 6:30 pm on Mondays to Fridays, and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays or national holidays. Neither the GPU Noise Element nor the municipal code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receptors. Therefore, a numerical comparison based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual was used in the Noise Impact Analysis. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq reasonable for noise -sensitive residential land uses. The highest construction noise levels at the four potentially impacted receptors are estimated to range from 53.1 to 71.5 dBA Leq. The highest construction 23 Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the project -operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) Instead, they must be logarithmically added

Page 158 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
noise level is associated with the demolition phase. The demolition phase is anticipated to only last one month and therefore would be temporary. Therefore, noise impact due to construction is considered less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR. When compared to the land uses for the project site under the 2006 GPU, the proposed project would accommodate similar types of land uses, although the 2006 GPU does not include residential uses for the proposed project area. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the required construction processes and activities needed to develop the land uses accommodated under both the proposed project and the 2006 GPU would be similar. Table 8-5 of the Noise Impact Analysis shows the highest construction vibration levels for the proposed project are estimated to range from 10.4 to 78.2 vibration decibels (VdB) (see Appendix G). Using the construction vibration assessment methods provided by the FTA, project construction vibration levels would not exceed the 78 VdB threshold at the nearest residential receptors or the 84 VdB threshold at any commercial receptor.

The GPU EIR states that construction -related vibration levels could be problematic if sensitive uses are located within about 150 feet of potential project construction sites. There are no sensitive receptors (residents, school children, hospitals) within 100 feet of the project site. Given the potential that other sites may not be able to be adequately mitigated for construction -related vibration, this impact was concluded to be potentially significant in the GPU EIR. Vibration impacts for the proposed project would be anticipated to be less than the potential impacts anticipated overall for the GPU. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR. 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? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR. The project site is within the 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise level contour (see Figure 20). Therefore, according to the AELUP, the project's residential land use is considered conditionally inconsistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility threshold, which requires sound attenuation (as required by the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations) to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB (ALUC 2008).

Additionally, the AELUP identifies noise impact zones based on the airport noise contour projections:
■ Noise Impact Zone "1" is the high noise impact that would occur in areas within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Residential units are inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposures, which shall be the energy sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL, with an accompanying dedication of an aiigation easement for noise to the airport proprietor applicable to single March 2024D3 Page 159

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
family residences, multi -family residences and mobile homes.24 Furthermore, all residential units are to be sufficiently indoor oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living areas. ■ Noise Impact Zone "2" is the moderate noise impact zone that would occur in areas within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Even though residential units are not incompatible in this area, the ALUC strongly recommends that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated, that is, with a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dBA. Noise impact in this area is sufficient to require sound attenuation as described in the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations. In addition, it is recommended that designated outdoor common or recreational areas within Noise Impact Zone 2 provide outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft.

The project site is in Noise Impact Zone 2. Consistent with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations and Title 20 Chapter 20.30.080.F of the City's municipal code project -level design review would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit, which demonstrates to the City per General Plan N 2.2 that the proposed residential units would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level. Policy N 2.2 requires the use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, advanced insulation systems, or other noise measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential developments to attenuate interior noise levels to less than 45 dBA CNEL. As shown in the Noise Study for the proposed project, the interior noise levels would range from 35 dBA to 38 dBA CNEL (see Appendix G). The Applicant would also notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft noise and would post signs in outdoor common areas or recreational areas notifying users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and the presence of operating aircraft and noise as required by Policy N

3.2. In addition, the County of Orange has adopted the General Aviation Noise Ordinance that prohibits commercial aircraft departures between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am and arrivals between the hours of 11:00 pm and 7:00 am These restrictions substantially reduce the aircraft noise levels impacts during the noise - sensitive nighttime hours for residential use. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR.

6.13.3 Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, all construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Construction noise impacts are localized by nature. The distance separating the proposed project and other cumulative projects would be such that the temporary noise and vibration effects of the proposed project would not be compounded or increased by similar noise or vibration effects from other cumulative projects. As discussed above, operational noise caused by the proposed project would be less than significant. Due to site distance and intervening land uses, cumulative stationary noise impacts would not occur. No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would compound or increase the operational noise levels generated by the 24 The dedication of an avigation easement in favor of an airport proprietor is designated as a method which may be employed by airport proprietors for controlling and reducing noise problems surrounding airports, pursuant to Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Section 5037.

Page 160 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
proposed project. Therefore, cumulative impacts relative to temporary and permanent noise generation associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

6.13.4 Standard Conditions of Approval
No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed project.

March 2024D3 Page 161

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis

6.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

6.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2006 General Plan EIR The 2006 GPU EIR projected that buildout of the 2006 GPU would add 31,131 residents and 14,215 residential units to the City —at buildout the population would be 103,753 and the number of residential units 54,394. In 2004, SCAG forecast that the city would have 94,167 residents and 43,100 residential units in regional projections. General Plan buildout added 8,192 more residents and 8,810 more households to the city in 2030 than the regional forecasts. Implementation of the General Plan was therefore concluded to result in a significant and unavoidable population growth impact. No mitigation measures were identified to reduce or eliminate this significant impact.

The 2006 GPU primarily planned development 1) on the sparse developable land the city had left, 2) by intensifying current land uses, and 3) through the conversion of land uses of economically underperforming and obsolete development. Also, new development could take place on the vacant Banning Ranch area if it could not be retained for open space. No substantial demolition of residential uses was proposed under the 2006 GPU. Since the 2006 GPU did not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, the GPU EIR found no impact.

6.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:

Page 162 ends

PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Comments
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact.

Population and Housing
As detailed in Chapter 4, Pr ject Description, buildout of the proposed project would result in 67 residential dwelling units-59 market value units and 8 lower -income units (see Table 3). Based on the 2022 average household of 2.20 for the city, this would result in an additional 148 persons on the project site (Census Bureau 2022). The proposed 67 units would be introduced to the project site under the proposed MU-H2 land use classification in the Airport Area. As shown in Table 1, the Airport Area can still accommodate 353 residential units as replacement units in the MU-H2 land use designation. A total of 2,200 units are allowed in the Airport Area, and the proposed project would involve a redistribution of these future units, not a net increase.

Additionally, the proposed project does not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to unserved areas, which could induce indirect growth. Since the proposed project would not result in an increase in population compared to the 2006 GPU, there would not be substantial unplanned population growth.

Therefore, there are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Employment
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a decrease of 22,956 square feet of nonresidential space. Using the employment density factor of one retail and service -use job per 617 square feet, the proposed project would result in a decrease of 37 jobs (Natelson 2001).25 Therefore, the proposed project would not induce population growth through job creation.

Since the proposed project would result in a decrease in the number of employees, there would not be substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, there are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. There was no housing on the site at the time the 2006 General Plan was adopted. As with existing conditions for the GPU EIR, there are no residential units currently on the project site, and project development would not displace any existing housing. Therefore, there are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 25 Since the existing commercial square footage onsite is consistent with the square footage allowed for the site per the GPU, the 22,956 square feet commercial office building on the site is used conservatively as baseline conditions.

March 2024D-3 Page 163

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis

6.14.3 Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed project would not cause impacts to population and housing to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a new cumulative impact to occur nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed.

6.14.4 Standard Conditions of Approval
No City of Newport Beach standard conditions are applicable to Population and Housing for the proposed project.

Page 164 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis

6.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

6.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2006 General Plan EIR Fire Protection
The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. The GPU EIR noted that new Airport Area residential uses would increase demands for 24-hour medical service and that an increase in density by both infill and conversion of low-rise properties to mid and high rise would necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company to the Santa Ana Heights fire station. To support the needs of future growth, the GPU included policies that ensure development would only occur with the provision of adequate infrastructure. Thus, fire staffing and facilities would expand commensurately to serve the needs of new development and maintain response times. The GPU FIR found that buildout of the GPU would have a less than significant impact on fire services.

Police Protection
Buildout of the 2006 GPU was determined to have a less than significant impact on police services. To maintain acceptable levels of service, the GPU includes policies to ensure adequate law enforcement is provided as the city experiences future development (Policy LU 2.8). Furthermore, to maintain the ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents (148 officers and 85,120 residents) at the time the GPU EIR was prepared, the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) would have had to provide an additional 53 officers upon GPU buildout.

Maintaining NBPD's ratio of 0.60 nonsworn personnel per sworn officer would result in the addition of 32 nonsworn personnel. The addition of 85 police personnel would require NBPD to expand police facilities.

However, since NBPD did not have near -term plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory, it was speculative to determine whether a new substation would be considered. Furthermore, all new development would be subject to the City's project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Thus, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Schools
The GPU EIR analyzed school capacity in Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), and Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD), comparing existing enrollment to projected enrollment at GPU buildout. At buildout, the student population in the City was estimated to increase by approximately 6,230 students. The Airport Area is served by the SAUSD, and the GPU EIR projected that the Airport Area would experience an increase of 4,300 residential units and contribute approximately 1,883 students (of the total 6,230 students generated City-wide under GPU buildout). The GPU EIR also noted that anticipated growth within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) would have the potential to cumulatively impact Airport Area schools.

The 2006 GPU included goals and policies to address capacity issues for NMUSD and SAUSD. Buildout would likely require construction of new school facilities; however, the EIR concluded that compliance with 2006 General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

March 2024D3 Page 165

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Parks
(Note that the following information is excerpted from the GPU EIR Section 4.12, Parks and Open Space.

Inclusion of this analysis is included under Public Services in this Addendum for consistency with the updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, as adopted December 2018.) The 2006 GPU EIR found that there was an existing deficit of approximately 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide, with 7 of the 12 service areas experiencing the deficit. An increase in population in accordance with buildout of the GPU would potentially generate a higher demand on recreational facilities.

The 2006 GPU includes goals and policies to address the potential increase in demand and accelerated deterioration of existing facilities. The GPU EIR concludes that these goals and policies would ensure that increased demand from the larger population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing recreational facilities, and new parks and facilities would be constructed to meet the needs of the growing population.

Based on the 2006 GPU EIR, future development of parks and recreational facilities to meet the parkland ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents may adversely impact the existing environment. For example, lighted sports fields may cause light and glare impacts in communities, biological habitats may be impacted, or hydrology and drainage may be altered due to new park development. Nevertheless, significant new development would be subject to the City's environmental review process, which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Thus, future provisions of new or improved parks and recreational facilities would not result in substantial adverse impacts and would be less than significant.

6.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Page 166 ends

PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The proposed project would replace the commercial office buildings with 67 condominiums (including density bonus units) on the project site with a subterranean level parking garage, surrounding landscape, and hadscape improvements. This would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services and emergency medical services from the NBFD as well as potentially increase the NBFD's response time to the project site.

At the time of preparation of the GPU EIR, it was forecast that the addition of a ladder truck company to the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station would be needed due to the increase in both infill and conversion of low-rise properties within the Airport Area to mid- and high-rise properties. However, General Plan Policy LU 2.8 and

6.1.1 would ensure that fire staffing and stations would expand commensurately to serve the needs of new development and maintain current response times for Newport Beach's residents. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project, the applicant would pay the required Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport Beach, as set forth in its municipal code (Chapter 3.12, Property Development Tax) for public improvements and facilities associated with the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. Implementation of SC PS-1 would also ensure appropriate levels of service from the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station to the project site.

The proposed project would also be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing fire protection services, such as adequate fire and emergency access, fire flows, and number of fire hydrants. For example, the proposed project would be subject to the City's municipal code Section 9.04.060 Amendment to Section 305 Ignition Sources, that permits the fire code official to regulate uncontrolled or high weeds, brush, plant material, or other fire hazards within the City to reduce potential fire hazards. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the GPU EIR, would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The proposed project would result in an increase of 67 residential dwelling units, including density bonus units, on the project site and would increase population in the city. Although the proposed project would incrementally increase demand for police protection services, this demand would not require the construction of new police facilities, nor would it require the expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the number of residential units in the Airport Area would not increase in comparison to the 2006 GPU.

To maintain acceptable levels of service, the 2006 General Plan included policies to ensure adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences development (Policy LU 6.1.1). Furthermore, property and sales tax revenue from the proposed project would provide more funding for the City's general funds, which would allocate funding to NBPD. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the NBPD would review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services.

Public safety planning recommendations would be incorporated into the project plans and the applicant would prepare a list of project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. The NBPD would review and approve all defensible space design features incorporated into March 2024D3 Page 167

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
the proposed project prior to initiating the building plan check process. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the GPU EIR analysis, would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. c) Schools?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The proposed project is within the service area of SAUSD, which services the entire Airport Area (CSCD 2023). The proposed project would result in an increase of 67 dwelling units at the project site within the Airport Area.

Table 14 shows the estimated student generation (K-12) from an additional maximum allowed 67 dwelling units in accordance with the proposed project. Student generation rates are used by school districts to estimate the number of students generated by new development to determine whether or not existing school facilities would be adequate for future student enrollment. The estimates use student generation rates specific to SAUSD.

According to Table 14, buildout of the proposed project would generate 31 more students into the attendance area of SAUSD.

Table 14 Projected Student Population in SAUSD
Grade Level
Student Generation Rate
Pro osed Project Buildout
Estimated Buildout Generated
Students
K-5

0.194
67 DU
13 6-8

0.111
8 9-12

0.143
10 Project Total
31 Source: Santa Ana General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, 2021.

The need for additional services is addressed through compliance with the school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) set a state school facilities construction program that restricts a local jurisdiction's ability to condition a project on mitigation of school impacts in excess of fees in Education Code Section 17620. These fees are collected by school districts at the time building permits are issued for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. SAUSD charges $4.79 per square foot of residential development greater than 500 square feet, and $0.78 per square foot of commercial development. It would collect these fees from individual developers, pursuant to SB 50 (SAUSD 2023). The State Legislature has declared that the payment of school impact fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts of new development, per Government Code Section 65995. Thus, payment of these fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school services associated with buildout of the residential development, and overall the SAUSD would be able to provide adequate school facilities for the projected 31 student residents from the proposed project.

Furthermore, the City's municipal code Chapter 19.48, School Sites and Fees, may require, as a condition of approval, dedication of land within a subdivision development for the construction of elementary and high schools necessary to ensure that residents of the subdivision have adequate public school service. Therefore,

Page 168 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
impacts from implementation of the proposed project on school services would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Refer to Section 6.16.2. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
e) Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The proposed project would reduce nonresidential development by 22,956square feet and would not increase the number of projected residential units within the Airport Area or city. The project applicant proposes to redesignate the project site to allow up to 67 residential units on the project site. As shown in Table 1, the Airport Area can still accommodate 353 residential units as replacement units out of the total 1,650 replacement units and 550 additive units that have already been approved in the 2006 GPU. The proposed project, therefore, would not increase the demand on other public facilities, including library services.

Residents of the proposed project would be mainly served by the Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL); the nearest NBPL facility to the project site is the Mariners Library at 1300 Irvine Avenue, approximately three miles southwest of the project site. However, the future residents would have access to all libraries within the City's library system and would have a nominal impact on the City's library services.

The proposed project would pay a property excise tax per municipal code Chapter 3.12, Property Development Tax, part of which is designated for libraries and would generate additional tax revenues supporting the City's General Fund. Therefore, impacts on library facilities and services would be less than significant, and no changes or new significant information would require preparation of an FIR.

6.15.3 Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed project would not cause a new public services impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any public services previously disclosed in the GPU EIR, with implementation of the regulatory requirements and General Plan policies discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed project would not alter the conclusions of the GPU EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative public services impact than those already analyzed.

6.15.4 Standard Conditions of Approval
SC PS-1 In compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.8 and Policy 6.1.1, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the residential structure, the Applicant, or any successors in interest, shall provide payment to the City of Newport Beach for the project's pro-rata share of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transportation and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities to be located at the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. This Standard Condition will be satisfied through the Applicant's payment of a Public Safety Fee.

March 2024D3 Page 169

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis

6.16 RECREATION

6.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2006 General Plan EIR Although impacts related to physical deterioration of recreational facilities were considered less than significant for the majority of the city, there was a greater possibility for impacts in the Airport Area. At the time of the 2006 GPU, the Airport Area had no residential units and no park facilities. The GPU EIR added up to 4,300 multifamily residential units to this area. Policy LU 6.15.13 of the 2006 GPU required the first phase of development of residential neighborhoods in the Airport Area to dedicate at least 8 percent of the gross land area (or half an acre, whichever is greater) as a neighborhood park. This requirement could be waived when development is inappropriately located to serve the needs of the residents and when in -lieu fees were paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. This is in addition to the private recreational facilities that would be required in General Plan Update Policy LU

6.15.16 for multifamily residential development on parcels 8 acres or larger. The recreational facilities provided by these policies was at the neighborhood level, and there was the potential for additional use and deterioration of existing sports fields at Bonita Creek and Bonita Canyon Sports Park. However, the policies under Goal R 2 helped ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities were maintained and preserved. Implementation of Policy R 2.1 would maintain existing facilities, thereby reducing impacts related to deterioration, by using funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and facilities such as Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Policy R 1.1 required developers of new residential subdivisions to provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as stated in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or to contribute in -lieu fees for the development of public recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the development's resident population.

With implementation these policies, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities in the Airport Area were less than significant. Through the environmental review process, the future provision of new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts and this impact was found to be less significant.

6.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
X
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?

Page 170 ends

PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

The deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities caused by new residential development in the Airport Area would be mitigated through the park dedication requirements and/or in -lieu payment per the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, and General Plan policies LU 6.16.13, LU 6.15.16, R 1.1, and R 2.1.

General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.13 requires a public park equal to eight percent of the gross land area of the development, or a minimum of '/z-acre, whichever is greater, be provided. Therefore, the proposed project is required to provide a 1/2-acre public park. The 1.71-acre project site is too small to feasibility accommodate the required 0.50-acre park and if it were dedicated, the resulting smaller site could not physically accommodate the proposed affordable housing development. The applicant is applying for incentives pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(de)(1) and Section 20.32.070 of the City's Zoning Code by requesting to waive the park land dedication requirement and instead pay reduced in -lieu fees that makes the development of the affordable housing units financially feasible. These fees would be used for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area.

General Plan Recreation Policy R 1.1 requires future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. However, the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, as implemented in Sections 19.52.040 (Parkland Standard) and 19.52.050 (Determination of Land or Fee) of the NBMC only allows for the subdivider to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication if the proposed subdivision contains 50 parcels or less. Since the project includes 67 condominium units, a dedication of land is required. The applicant is applying for a waiver to the development standards by requesting an exemption from the park dedication requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(de)(1) and Section 20.32.080 of the City's Zoning Code. The proposed project is compliant with procedures for obtaining a waiver per State and City affordable housing and density bonus laws.

March 2024D3 Page 171

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Per the Section 20.32.070 of the NBMC, any reduction or waiver of any City imposed fee or dedication of land is at the sole discretion of the City Council. The City Council would review the waiver request prior to the approval of the project. The proposed development would also provide on -site recreational amenities for its residents including a pool and spa on the upper podium level (see Figure 11) and a shared amenity rooftop deck and club room. Pursuant to Policy R 2.1, the City would maintain existing facilities, thereby reducing impacts related to deterioration, by using funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and facilities.

Additionally, the proposed project would include 67 residential units and would result in the addition of 148 residents. Pursuant to Section 19.52.040 of NBMC, Newport Beach's parkland standard is five acres per 1,000 residents. The City provides approximately 648 acres of park and beach amenities (Newport Beach 2023b).

Based on the City's estimated 2022 population of 83,993 (Census Bureau 2022), the existing park -to -population ratio is 7.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City's available parkland, therefore, currently exceeds the standard.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project includes a pool and spa at the upper podium level, a shared amenity rooftop deck on the sixth floor, and club room on the first floor. The physical effects on the environment associated with these recreational amenities are analyzed throughout this Addendum as part of the project development.

Additionally, the proposed project would introduce up to 67 new residential units to the project site, but these units are already accommodated within the Airport Area under the GPU EIR analysis of up to 4,300 units. The proposed project, therefore, would not have the potential to require recreational facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Thus, the future provision of new or expanded parks or recreational facilities associated with the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would result in no impact, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

6.16.3 Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the proposed project would not cause impacts to recreation to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the GPU EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the GPU EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project or cumulative recreation impact than those already analyzed.

6.16.4 Standard Conditions of Approval
No City of Newport Beach standard conditions are applicable Recreation for the proposed project.

Page 172 ends

PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis

6.17 TRANSPORTATION

6.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR With respect to transportation/circulation impacts, the 2006 General Plan EIR concluded:
• Implementation of the 2006 General Plan would contribute to a substantial impact at freeway ramps that exceeds thresholds and would result in operational deficiencies. This would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

Implementation of the 2006 General Plan would result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume -to -capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections compared to existing conditions.

With improvements proposed in the Circulation Element, growth related to buildout of the proposed 2006 General Plan alone would be reduced to less than significant levels. The improvements in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element are detailed in the GPU EIR. • The 2006 General Plan would not result in a substantial impact to Congestion Management Plan arterials in Newport Beach. Impacts related to Congestion Management Plan facilities would be less than significant. • Circulation improvements would be implemented, and no improvements would introduce new safety hazards at intersections or along roadway segments. Implementation of Circulation and Land Use policies in the 2006 General Plan would provide for increasing safety of roadways, balancing safety, quality of life, and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. Impacts would be less than significant. • The 2006 General Plan would provide adequate emergency access to the project area, and impacts would be less than significant.
• The 2006 Circulation Element contained new policies to encourage alternatives modes of transportation, use of intelligent transportation systems, and the development of waterfront walkways. Intersection improvements would not affect implementation of these policies. The 2006 General Plan did not conflict with existing policies regarding alternative transportation, and impacts would be less than significant.

March 2024D-3 Page 173

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis

6.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
X
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
X
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
The analysis in this section is based in part on the information included in Appendix C of this Addendum:
■ Trip Generation Calculations, P1aceWorks, 2023.

Comments
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Vehicle Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the existing office building and the proposed project, shown in Appendix C, were based on published trip generation rates in the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th edition) (ITE 2023). As shown in Table 15, the existing office building generates a maximum of 34 AM peak hour trips, 32 PM peak hour trips, and 244 weekday daily trips.26 The proposed project would eliminate office uses and introduce up to 67 residential units. Table 15 compares the trip generation for the proposed project in comparison to the 2006 General Plan land uses for the site, considered as existing conditions in this Addendum.
26 Modeling is conservative since at the time of the analysis modeling was based on 78 residential dwelling units compared to the current proposed 67 residential dwelling units.

Page 174 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Table 15 Proiect Site Trip Generation — Existinq vs. Proposed Proiect Weekdays Saturday Sunda
AM Peak PM Peak
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Total Hour Hour Total Peak Hour Total Peak Hour Existing Conditions'
General Office Building 710 1 22.956 TSF I 249 35 33 51 12 16 I 5 Multifamilv Housing 1 221 1 78 DUz 1 354 1 29 30 1 356 1 30 1 294 1 25 Differencel 105 1 -6 1 -3 1 305 1 18 1 278 1 20
Notes: DU = dwelling unit; TSF = thousand square feet
Since the existing commercial square footage onsite is consistent with the square footage allowed for the site per the GPU, the 22,956 square feet commercial office building on the site is used conservatively as baseline conditions. 2 Modeling is conservative since at the time of the analysis modeling was based on 78 residential dwelling units compared to the current proposed 67 residential dwelling units.

In comparison to the 2006 GPU land uses for the project site, the proposed project would increase daily trips for both weekdays and weekends, by 105 and 305 daily trips, respectively. The proposed project would reduce weekday peak hour trips and would increase weekend peak trips by a maximum of 20 peak hour trips.

The traffic impact assessment for the Residences at 1300 Bristol Street project, a similarly situated project

0.1 mile south of the project site, analyzed peak -hour intersection volumes for 13 intersections in the surrounding area at the project's 2026 buildout year (refer to Residences at 1300 Bristol Street, Appendix F, Figure 25 and 26) (Ganddini 2021). The analysis included trips associated with a list of approved and reasonably foreseeable projects27 in the City of Newport Beach and Irvine and an ambient growth factor superimposed on existing traffic volumes. The traffic impact analysis concluded that there was no level of service impact at the study intersections. The proposed project's net increase in peak hour trips is nominal when compared to the peak hour intersection volumes studied in the traffic impact assessment. The proposed project, therefore, would not be anticipated to adversely affect roadway circulation.

Construction Traffic
Construction of the proposed project would add construction -related trips to and from the site during construction activities. These trips are associated with construction activities, including construction workers, grading, and construction of structures and site features.

Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and pavers would be required during various construction phases. Large equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the construction phase and kept onsite until its term of use ends. A staging area would be designated onsite to store construction equipment and supplies during construction.

Throughout construction, the size of the work crew reporting to the site each day would vary depending on the construction phase and the different activities taking place at the time. Parking for workers would be 27 Reasonably foreseeable projects include pending projects that were in various stages of the application and approval process but were not yet approved at the time the Traffic Impact Analysis for the 1300 Bristol Street project was prepared.

March 2024D3 Page 175

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
provided onsite during all phases of construction. Construction workers would not be allowed to park on local streets. If needed during the peak construction periods, offsite parking would be provided, and workers would carpool or be shuttled to the worksite.

The Applicant would be required to provide a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles. The haul route to and from the project site for all dirt haul -off operations would be from SR-73. Trucks would enter the site from Spruce Street; trucks would exit the site from Quail Street onto Spruce Street and continue to Bristol Street. The contractor would be required to obtain a Haul Route Permit from the City of Newport Beach.

Impacts from construction traffic would be limited to occasional and temporary delays to traffic during the movement of heavy equipment or transport of heavy loads to and from the site. The arrivals and departures of dirt -hauling trucks and other heavy trucks will be scheduled outside of the AM and PM peak hours. The CMP would identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The CMP would also identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the project site.

Construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flaggers for short-term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures would be required. Construction -related transportation impacts would comply with applicable programs, plans and policies and be less than significant. No new significant impacts result from project modification or changed circumstances, and no changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR.

Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project site include a crosswalk at the intersection of Spruce Street and Bristol Street and sidewalks along both sides on Spruce Street and Quail Street and the north side of Bristol Street. Bristol Street has a Class II Bike Lane (On -Road Striped) and also is classified as a Class I (Off -Road Paved) Bikeway (sidewalk riding is permitted). Roadways that provide on -street bicycle facilities near the project site include Birch Street and intermittent areas of Jamboree Road and Campus Road. A bus stop within a 0.1- mile walking distance from the project site is located along Bristol Street at the northwest corner of the Spruce Street and Bristol Street intersection.

The introduction and subsequent integration of a residential development into a well -established neighborhood of primarily commercial, retail, and office uses would provide a greater balance between housing, employment, and retail opportunities within the Airport Area. Potential employment opportunities for future residents of the proposed project that may arise in the surrounding area would be within walking/bicycle riding distance and bus stops of the proposed homes. In addition, those who are currently employed in the area would be afforded a housing opportunity within walking/bicycle riding/transit distance of their place of employment.

Therefore, the proposed project would comply with General Plan policies and ordinances, as well as regional programs addressing the alternative modes of transportation, and no changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR.

Page 176 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines S 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact. This Appendix G checklist question and the referenced CEQA Guidelines section were added to the CEQA Guidelines updates in 2018, and therefore were not addressed in the 2006 GPU EIR.

The legislature found that with the adoption of the SB 375, the state had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Additionally, AB 1358, Complete Streets Act, requires local governments to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users.

On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process that could fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. On January 20, 2016, OPR released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allows agencies an opt -in period to adopt the guidelines, and they become mandatory on July 1, 2020.

As of December 28, 2018, "automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects (Citi.Zens vs City of Sacramento). Thus, the former obligation under CEQA to address LOS in transportation analyses ceased to exist as of that date, except (at agencies' discretion) with respect to transportation projects.

The City's Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act (Policy K-3) provide a framework for "screening thresholds" for certain projects that are expected to cause a less than significant impact without the need for conducting a detailed VMT study. Land use projects in areas with less than 85 percent of the countywide average VMT per capita trips for residential projects are considered projects with a less than significant VMT impact.

Figure 2 of the City's SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide contains a map of VMT per capita for all existing Newport Beach residential areas (LSA 2020). VMT per capita in each area is compared to the regional average VMT per capita for Orange County. The proposed project is in Traffic Analysis Zone 1366 and an area with low residential VMT per capita. Therefore, the proposed project has no impact on VMT and it does not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b). Impacts would be less than significant and no changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project site is already developed, and the proposed development would be accessed from existing Spruce Avenue. The proposed project would not introduce roadway hazards or incompatible uses. It would not increase transportation hazards in comparison to the 2006 GPU. Impacts would be less than significant.

March 2024D3 Page 177

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project would not modify any public road or introduce features that would affect vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle circulation in the vicinity of the site. In addition, project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area compared to the 2006 General Plan EIR because the project would reduce the total number of onsite trips.

The proposed project would not result in new impacts in comparison to the 2006 GPU EIR.

6.17.3 Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the proposed project would not cause a transportation impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any transportation impacts previously disclosed in the GPU EIR, with implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan polices discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed project would not alter the conclusions of the GPU EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative transportation impact than those already analyzed.

6.17.4 Standard Conditions of Approval
No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed project.

Page 178 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis

6.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The City of Newport Beach has a long cultural history and is known to have been home to Native American groups prior to settlement by Euro-Americans. Archaeological materials associated with occupation of the city are known to exist and have the potential to provide important scientific information regarding history and prehistory. Archaeological resources are often of cultural or religious importance to Native American groups, particularly if the resource includes human and/or animal burials. Consequently, ground -disturbing activities, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses, have the potential to damage or destroy Native American resources that may be present on or below the ground surface.

AB 52, which took effect July 1, 2015, requires analysis of tribal cultural resources (TCR) in CEQA documents.

Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included in a local register of historical resources. Or the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.

AB 52 requires consultation with tribes at an early stage to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on TCRs. Consultation concludes when both parties have agreed on measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, or a party, after a reasonable effort in good faith, decides that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Consultation only applies to CEQA documents that require public circulation therefore this Addendum does not require tribal consultation per AB 52.. However, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of California Native Americans tribes in the land planning process for projects that require general plan amendments. Therefore, the City did consult with applicable tribes pursuant to SB 18.

Although this Addendum does not require public review and therefore does not require consultation with Native American tribes pursuant to AB 52, impacts to TCRs are analyzed in this section for consistency with the updated CEQA Guidelines, adopted December 2018, and includes the process and findings of the SB 18 consultation process.

6.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were not analyzed in the GPU EIR because it was not required in environmental documents until AB 52 became effective in 2015, and the GPU EIR was certified in 2006.

6.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

March 2024'� -gin

Page 179 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Substantial
Substantial
New Information
Changes or New
Change in
Change in
Showing New or
Information
Project Requiring
Circum-stances
Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Requiring Major
Significant
Preparation of
Issues
Revisions
EIR Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 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
X
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 § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
X
in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Comments
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change 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)? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

See Impact 6.5 (a). The proposed project would alter land uses and intensities on the project site. The entire site, however, was previously developed, and project implementation would not disturb new areas. In case future development requires ground -disturbing activities that may impact previously undisturbed ground, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would adhere to the GPU policies under Goals HR 2 and NR 18 to protect important archaeological and paleontological resources in the city.

Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with the City's "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" to ensure preservation of significant archaeological resources (Newport Beach 2017).

Page 180 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
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 § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The City requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search to determine whether there are sensitive or sacred Native American resources in the vicinity of the project site that could be affected by the proposed project. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) responded on March 8, 2023, with a negative SLF search, indicating no record for the presence of Native American sacred land within the project site.

NAHC provided a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the City. Pursuant to SB 18, the City contacted all 12 tribes on the list on March 15, 2023. The City received responses from the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California and the Pala Band of Mission Indians indicating that they have no concerns with the development of the proposed project. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians — Acjachemen Nation both indicated that the project area is of high importance to the tribes and that there is the potential for unknown and/or buried tribal cultural resources to be encountered during construction activities. SC TCR 1 through TCR3 include the measures requested by the tribes to ensure impacts to tribal cultural resources are reduced to less than significant.

6.18.3 Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe project or cumulative tribal cultural resources impact.

6.18.4 Standard Conditions of Approval
SC TCR-1 A qualified monitor, one from each consulting tribe (the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians - Acjachemen Nation and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation), shall be retained and compensated as Native American Monitors for the project site prior to the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity to the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation activities. A rotation schedule between the two tribes shall be established with the applicant. Voluntary monitoring by each consulting tribe is permitted on days that the tribe(s) is not scheduled to monitor.

SC TCR-2 The rotating monitors, one from each consulting tribe, shall be retained prior to the commencement of any "ground -disturbing activity" for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on -site and any off -site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, including as public improvement work undertaken by the applicant). "Ground -disturbing activity" shall include, but is not limited to, any demolition that includes subterranean impacts, potholing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

March 2024D3 Page 181

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
SC TCR-3 A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground -disturbing activity.

SC TCR-4 Both monitors shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground -disturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or "TCR"), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be shared between the two monitors and provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the monitors.

SC TCR-5 On -site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the consulting tribes from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground -disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground - disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the consulting tribes to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs of the consulting tribes.

SC TCR-6 Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., within the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the monitor and/or archaeologist. The monitors will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the tribes deem appropriate, in the tribes' sole discretion in coordination with the applicant, and for any purpose the tribes deem appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

SC TCR-7 Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

SC TCR-8 If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

SC TCR-9 Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

SC TCR-10 Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

Page 182 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
SC TCR-11 Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

March 2024D-3 Page 183

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis

6.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS

6.19.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2006 General Plan EIR Wastewater Treatment and Collection
The GPU EIR concluded that the 2006 GPU would have no impact on wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB because the City requires NPDES permits. The permits set limits on allowable concentrations and mass discharge of pollutants from point sources. Development in accordance with the 2006 GPU would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program as enforced by RWQCB. In addition, the City's municipal code mandates dwelling units and businesses to connect to the City's public sewer and prohibits the discharge of polluting substances into public sewers. Furthermore, the NPDES Phase I and Construction General Permit requirements regulate discharge from construction sites. Policies in the 2006 GPU also specify minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows (Policies HB 7.6, NR 4.1, NR 5.1, NR

5.3, NR 5.4). Thus, no impact to the City's wastewater treatment quality would occur.

Using the City's 1996 Master Plan of Sewer's wastewater generation factors, buildout of the 2006 GPU was estimated to produce an additional 4.12 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater, which would be distributed between Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Reclamation Plants Nos. 1 and 2. Reclamation Plant No. 1 was found to have a capacity of 174 mgd and treated an average flow of 90 mgd, approximately 52 percent of its design capacity. Reclamation Plant No. 2 was found to have a capacity of 276 mgd and treated an average of 153 mgd, approximately 55 percent of its design capacity. The additional 4.12 mgd from buildout of the 2006 GPU was nominal compared to the capacities of the two plants. In addition, policies in the 2006 General Plan require adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to city residents through renovations, installations, and improvements when needed. Thus, impacts were determined less than significant.

Lastly, according to the GPU EIR, the City served approximately 1,200 acre-feet per year (afy) of irrigation demand using potable recycled water. Policy NR 2.1 of the 2006 General Plan encourages the use of recycled water by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers and expanding recycled water infrastructure and programs when feasible. Future recycled water infrastructure developments, if necessary, would require further environmental review when project -level details are known.

Thus, impacts associated with the construction of new recycled water conveyance systems in the city were considered less than significant.

Water Supply and Distribution
The cty's surface water supply comes from the City, the Mesa Consolidated Water District, and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), which source their imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). In addition, all three service providers use groundwater and recycled water to supplement their supply. Development in accordance with the 2006 GPU would increase water demand in the city; however, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts to existing water supply and infrastructure would be less than significant.

Page 184 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
The 2006 General Plan buildout would increase the city's water demands by approximately 998 afy; however, MWDOC, the City's imported water supplier, indicated that its 2030 projected availability of imported water supply exceeds the 2030 projected regionwide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 acre-feet.

Thus, MWDOC would be able to meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs through 2030. Beyond 2030, additional water transfers, local projects, conservation efforts, and State Water Project improvements may be necessary to meet Newport Beach's demand. Groundwater supplies were also identified to meet demands through 2030. Various policies in the 2006 General Plan Natural Resource Element aimed to increase the use of recycled water, provide financial incentives for reduced water use, offer alternative water resources through advance water treatment processes, and implement water conservation measures.

Furthermore, the 2006 General Plan buildout would increase water demand by 270 afy in the IRWD service area. The additional water demand, however, would not change IRWD's urban water management plan (UWMP) conclusions with respect to projected water supply reliability. IRWD identified surplus water supplies under normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios for both imported and groundwater supplies.

The Mesa Consolidated Water District's service area would experience an increase in water demand by approximately 58.6 afy. However, Mesa indicated that it had adequate water sources to supply the additional demand.

In addition, any new development would be subject to site -specific evaluation of existing water system's capacity to service the development. If improvements are required, developers are required to pay its share of costs of all or portions of the needed improvements. Environmental impacts associated with these improvements would be evaluated at a project -level. Policy LU 2.8 of the 2006 General Plan also directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. Thus, overall impacts to the three water suppliers were found to be less than significant.

Storm Drainage Systems
The GPU EIR found that development would have a less than significant impact on Newport Beach's storm drainage system capacity. Buildout would generally result in infill development or redevelopment, which would not substantially alter drainage patterns because these areas are already developed with existing uses and impervious surfaces. The City's Storm Drain Master Plan was completed in 2000 and addressed drainage deficiencies. However, no upgrades were considered necessary with implementation of the 2006 GPU. Several GPU policies addressed stormwater, and Section 15.50.160 of the City's municipal code regulates flood hazards resulting from drainage alterations. By complying with the General Plan policies and City's municipal code, impacts to existing drainage system capacities were less than significant.

Solid Waste
The GPU EIR found that impacts on existing solid waste facilities from project -generated solid waste were less than significant. Development of the 2006 GPU would result in an additional 21,659 tons per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which represented approximately 0.68 percent of the amount of solid waste the landfill accepts annually. Given the landfill's 16-year lifespan and March 2024D3 Page 185

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons at the time the 2006 EIR was prepared, the increase in solid waste generated from buildout of the 2006 GPU was considered less than significant.

Other Utilities
The projected electrical demand for buildout under the GPU was found to be within the SCE's 2016 load forecast. Though SCE's total system demand was expected to continue to increase annually, excluding any unforeseen problems, SCE's plans for new distribution resources would be adequate to serve all existing and new customer loads throughout the coming decade. However, to reduce any potential impacts associated with buildout of the proposed GPU, SCE recommended the use of energy efficient and high-performance design for nonresidential and residential building design and construction. SoCalGas also indicated that the natural gas level of service provided to the City would not be impaired by buildout under the 2006 General Plan.

6.19.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
wastewater treatment the construction or
X
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) 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
X
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
c) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water
facilities, the construction or relocation of
X
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
X
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
e) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded storm
water drainage facilities, the construction or
X
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

Page 186 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
f) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
X
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
X
regulations related to solid waste?
h) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of
X
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical reports included as Appendices H and I of this Addendum:
■ Seaver Capaeity Study, Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, October 20, 2023. ■ Assessment of Water Availability for Proposed Residential Development, Adams -Streeter Civil Engineers, April 18, 2023.

Comments
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The proposed project would include the redesignation of the project site from CO-G to MU-142, thus expanding the overall geographic area designated MU-142 in the Airport Area. The proposed project would include 67 residential units. In comparison to the GPU EIR, the proposed project reduces commercial square footage and adds 67 units to the project site that are within the residential units analyzed for the Airport Area.

Per the Sewer Study, the proposed project would generate 12,480 gallons per day (gpd), as shown in Table 16.28 The net change in wastewater generation for the project site compared to the existing commercial building on site is also shown in Table 16. Additionally, even though 67 units were accommodated within the airport MU-142 28 Modeling is conservative since at the time of the analysis modeling was based on 78 residential dwelling units compared to the current proposed 67 residential dwelling units.

March 2024D3 Page 187

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
area in the 2006 GPU, these units were considered new for purposes of this analysis to provide a conservative estimate of impacts.

Table 16 Net Increase in Wastewater Generation
Land Use Unit Wastewater Generation Factor Wastewater Generation (gpd) Existing Uses
Commercial Office 1.71 ac 2,500 gpd/ac 4,275
Proposed Uses
Residential — Multifamily 78 du' 160 gpd/du 12,480
Difference 8,205
Source: Adams Streeter 2023.

Notes: ac = acres; du = dwelling unit; gpd = gallons per day Modeling is conservative since at the time of the analysis modeling was based on 78 residential dwelling units compared to the current proposed 67 residential dwelling units.

Wastewater collected by the City is treated at OCSD's two reclamation plants, and a small portion is treated at IRWD's treatment plant. OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 208 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 120 mgd. Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a capacity of 168 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 59 mgd (OCSD 2022). Collectively, the two plants have a residual capacity of 197 mgd. Given that the proposed project would generate an additional 8,205 gpd (0.008 mgd) of wastewater, this increase is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of both treatment plants. Thus, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodate the project -generated wastewater and maintain a substantial remaining capacity for future wastewater treatment. Furthermore, if development under the proposed project requires new sewer flow connections through OCSD, all connections are required to comply with current OCSD design guidelines and pay a sewer connection fee.

Additionally, the sewer lines proposed to accommodate wastewater from the proposed project are the same sewer lines utilized by the existing building on the project site. The proposed project would be connected to an existing 8-inch sewer lateral off Spruce Street that extends northeast to a 10-inch sewer main in Quail Street.

This line continues southeast to the intersection of Quail Street and Dove Street. The 10-inch line in Dove Street extends to Newport Place, where it increases to 15 inches. The 15-inch line continues east to McArthur Boulevard and then north, where it increases to an 18-inch line before discharging into OCSD's sewer main.

The sewer study conducted for the proposed project (see Appendix I) concluded that all existing sewer lines have adequate capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flow from the proposed project. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Page 188 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

As mentioned above, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in wastewater that cannot be accommodated by OCSD's treatment plants. Furthermore, the City requires NPDES permits, which set limits on allowable concentrations in any wastewater discharge. The City's municipal code also requires dwelling units to connect to the City's public sewer network and prohibits certain polluting substances from being discharged into a public sewer. The proposed project, similar to development in accordance with the 2006 GPU, would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and the municipal code and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. c) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The projected water demand is shown in Table 17 and is estimated to be approximately 13,093 gpd, or 14.66 afy.29 It should be noted that the water demand calculations in the Assessment of Water Availability Study (see Appendix I) are less conservative than the wastewater generation calculations in the Sewer Study. Therefore, for the purpose of this addendum, a more conservative water demand is analyzed in line with the Sewer Study.

It is assumed that the projected indoor water demand for the existing and proposed development is 100 percent of the wastewater generation. Outdoor water demand is calculated using the Department of Water Resource's Water Budget Workbook for New and Rehabilitated Non -Residential and Residential Landscapes. The net change in water demand for the project site compared to the existing commercial building on site is also shown in Table 17. Even though the proposed 67 units were accommodated within the airport MU-112 area in the 2006 GPU, these units were considered new for purposes of this analysis to provide a conservative estimate of impacts.
29 Modeling is conservative since at the time of the analysis modeling was based on 78 residential dwelling units compared to the current proposed 67 residential dwelling units.

March 2024D3 Page 189

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Table 17 Net Increase in Water Demand
Indoor Water Demand Factor Outdoor Water Demand
Land Use Unit (gpd/aIndoor Water Demand (gpd) (gpd)
Existing Uses
Commercial 1.71 ac 2,500 gpd/ac (4,275)
Landscaping 13,940 SP (511)2
Proposed Uses
Residential — Multifamily
78 du3
160 gpd/du
12,480
-
Landscaping
13,690 SF
-
613
Difference
-
8,205
102
Source: DWR 2017a and b; CIMIS 2023.

Notes: SF — square feet; ac— acres; du — dwelling Units; gpd — gallons per day 1 Landscaping for the existing commercial building was estimated using Google Maps. 2 DWR's Water Budget Workbook for New and Rehabilitated Residential and Non -Residential Landscapes was used to calculate the maximum allowed water allowance (MAWA). This is a conservative outdoor water demand. It was assumed that all landscaped areas would be overhead irrigation. The annual precipitation and reference evapotranspiration (Eto) for Irvine were used. An annual precipitation of 6.6 inches per year was used per CIMIS. 3 Modeling is conservative since at the time of the analysis modeling was based on 78 residential dwelling units compared to the current proposed 67 residential dwelling units.

MWDOC is a wholesale water supplier that provides water to 28 retail water suppliers in Orange County, including the City of Newport Beach, using imported water supplies obtained from its regional wholesaler, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. According to the MWDOC's 2020 UWMP, the 2045 projected availability of water supply meets the 2045 projected water demand for its residents during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. The 2045 projected water demand for normal years is 171,837 afy. The 8,307 gpd (9.3 afy) net increase in water demand for the project site is less than 1 percent of the total water demand for MWDOC. Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply is able to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed project.

Additionally, the proposed project would utilize new domestic water, fire water, and irrigation water service laterals, which would connect to the existing 16-inch water main on Spruce Street (see Figure 12). This water main extends northeast to a water main in Quail Street. The Assessment of Water Availability report concludes that the existing conditions for both domestic water mains on Spruce Street and Quail Street have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in the proposed project's water demand. Thus, overall impacts to the water supply are less than significant. Overall, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts to the water service. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

As detailed above, the proposed project would generate an increase in water demand of 4.15 afy for the project site. MWDOC's 2020 UWMP found that water supplies are sufficient to meet the 2045 projected water demand for its residents during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. The proposed project's net increase in water demand for the project site equates to less than 1 percent of the total water demand for

Page 190 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
MWDOC. Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply is able to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed project. Impacts are less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. e) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Development of the proposed project would alter the on -site drainage patterns with the development of the buildings, roadways, and associated site improvements. However, the proposed project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would implement BMPs in accordance with the WQMP. The WQMP would reduce discharge of stormwater into urban runoff from the operational phase by managing site runoff volumes and flow rates through application of appropriate best management practices (see Impact

6.10(a)). BMPs would be designed in accordance with the NPDES requirements. Any drainage facilities would also be designed in accordance with Section 19.28.080 of the City's municipal code. Thus, stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the proposed project would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
f) 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 Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

As shown in Table 18, Net Decrease in Solid Wlaste Generation, the estimated solid waste generation of the proposed project would lead to a net decrease of 1,109 pounds per day (ppd) or 202 tons per year (tpy). Therefore, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill and Olinda Alpha Landfill would not be impacted by the proposed project.

Table 18 Net Decrease in Solid Waste Generation
Land Use
Unit
Solid Waste
Generation Factor
Solid Waste Generation
d
Solid Waste Generation
t
Existing Uses
Commercial Office
22,956 SP

0.084 Ibs/SF/day
1,928
352
Proposed Uses
Residential — Multifamily
67 du

12.23 Ibs/du/day
819
149
Difference
I-
-
-1,109
-202
Source: CalRecycle 2023a.

SF — square feet; du — dwelling unit; ppd — pounds per day; tpy — tons per year 1 Since the existing commercial square footage onsite is consistent with the square footage allowed for the site per the GPU, the 22,956 square feet commercial office building on the site is used conservatively as baseline conditions.

The proposed project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would comply with the current CALGreen and AB 341. The 2022 CALGreen requires that all newly constructed buildings and demolition projects divert at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition materials generated at the project site from landfills. AB 341 mandates a solid waste diversion rate of 75 percent by 2020.

March 2024D3 Page 191

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Overall, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Solid waste would be generated during construction and operation of the proposed project. AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code Sections 40000 et seq.) requires all local governments to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills (CalRecycle 2023c). This legislation requires cities to divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste generation into recycling every year. Compliance with AB 939 is measured for each jurisdiction, in part, as actual disposal amounts compared to target disposal amounts.

The target disposal rate for the City is 9.6 ppd per resident. Actual disposal rates for the latest year of data (2021) were 8.6 ppd per resident (CalRecycle 2023d). Thus, solid waste diversion in Newport Beach is consistent with AB 939, and the project's solid waste generation would be consistent with AB 939.

The proposed project, similar to all projects pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would recycle construction waste in compliance with the 2022 CALGreen, collect recycle materials in compliance with AB 1327, and handle green waste in accordance with AB 1826. AB 1327, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code Sections 42900 et seq.) required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance requiring adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Local agencies were required to adopt and enforce either the model ordinance or an ordinance of their own by September 1, 1993. The City's municipal code Chapter 6.06, State Mandated Municipal Solid Waste Diversion Programs, includes waste recycling requirements in conformance with AB 1327. Overall, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. h) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Buildout of the proposed project is expected to use approximately 561,600 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity per year and a PV system would provide 55 percent of the total electricity demand (equivalent to 308,880 kWh per year), resulting in an electricity demand of 252,720 kWh per year (see Table 8).30 While the proposed project would generate additional energy demand at the site, SCE already provides electrical service to the current office uses, and the proposed project would be required to comply with the Energy Code (24 CCR Part 6).

Total residential electricity consumption in SCE's service area is forecast to increase by approximately 10,114 gigawatt-hours between 2015 and 2026 (CEC 2022). Thus, the proposed project's electricity consumption 30 Modeling is conservative since at the time of the analysis modeling was based on 78 residential dwelling units compared to the current proposed 67 residential dwelling units.

Page 192 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
would represent an insignificant percentage compared to the overall demand in the SCE's service area, and the projected electrical demand would not require SCE to obtain new or expanded electric power supplies.

For natural gas, the proposed project is estimated to use about 866,334 kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) annually, which represents a worst -case assumption since it does not account for any existing natural gas use associated with the office building (see Table 9).31 SoCalGas provides natural gas service to the area, and the increased natural gas demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities in the city.

SoCalGas's gas demand for the entire state was forecast to decrease from 5,298 million cubic feet of gas per day (MMcf/d) in 2022 to 4,857 MMcf/d by 2035, a decline of 0.67 percent per year (CGEU 2022). Therefore, natural gas demand from the proposed project would represent a nominal percentage of overall demand in SoCalGas' service area, and the proposed project would not require SoCalGas to obtain new or expanded gas supplies.

Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the current Energy Code and CALGreen. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable development, energy efficiency, water conservation, and material conservation to create a positive environmental impact.

Additionally, the proposed project would not interfere with the achievement of the 50 percent RPS in SB 100 for 2026 and 60 percent standard for 2030. As discussed in Section 6.6, Energy, statewide RPS goals apply to utilities and energy providers, such as SCE, to ensure the State is meeting its objective in transition to renewable energy. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

6.19.3 Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the proposed project would not cause a utilities impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any utilities impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project or cumulative utility impact than those already analyzed.

6.19.4 Standard Conditions of Approval
No City of Newport Beach standard conditions are applicable to Utilities and Service Providers for the proposed project.
31 Modeling is conservative since at the time of the analysis modeling was based on 78 residential dwelling units compared to the current proposed 67 residential dwelling units.

March 2024D-3 Page 193

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis

6.20 WILDFIRE

6.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2006 General Plan EIR Impacts related to wildfire were not analyzed in the GPU EIR because the requirement to analyze wildfire in CEQA documents did not become effective until January 1, 2019, after certification of the 2006 GPU EIR by the Newport Beach City Council (July 25, 2006). However, the 2006 General Plan identified areas with high and moderate fire susceptibility (Newport Beach 2006) (see Figure 21, jildfire Ha.Zards). Nonetheless, the analysis of wildfire impacts is new in this Addendum.

6.20.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Substantial
Substantial
New Information
Changes or New
Change in
Change in
Showing New or
Information
Project Requiring
Circum-stances
Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Requiring Major
Significant
Preparation of
Issues
Revisions
EIR Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
X
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
X
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
X
instability, or drainage changes?
Comments
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a significant effect on the environment if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.

Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of the state, local, and federal governments. In state responsibility areas (SRA), the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. SRAs cover over 31 million acres, for which the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services.

Page 194 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
Fire protection for local responsibility areas (LRA) is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government (CAL FIRE 2022a). CAL FIRE uses an extension of the SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis for evaluating fire hazard in LRAs. The local responsibility area hazard rating reflects flame and ember intrusion from adjacent wildlands and from flammable vegetation in the urban area. The Orange County Fire Authority currently provides fire protection and emergency medical services to Orange County.

CAL FIRE is mandated by California Public Resources Code Sections 4201 to 4204 and California Government Code Sections 51175 to 51189 to identify fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) for all communities in California.

Local governments accept CAL FIRE's determination or make other, local determinations. FHSZs are identified by moderate, high and very high in an SRA, and very high in an LRA.

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? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the proposed project consists mainly of infill and intensification of development on the project site. New development would occur in urbanized and developed areas far from the city's eastern grassy hillsides and brush -covered areas, which are more susceptible to wildfire. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for Orange County, the project site is not within or near a Very High FHSZ or areas designated High or Moderate fire susceptibility per the 2006 General Plan (CAL FIRE 2022b; Newport Beach 2006) (see Figure 21, Wildfire Ha.Zards). Therefore, there are no impacts, and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 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?
No Impact. The project site is not in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high FHSZ.

Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impacts would arise, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 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? No Impact. The project site is not in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high FHSZ.

Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impacts would arise, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

March 2024D3 Page 195

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Costa Mesa
Wayne Airport L
• Project Site
E` 9
qF .F
UPPER

NEWPORT
ti BAY
Newport Beach
R°
eE.
z
_,, '

FASHION
o�rves £° ISLAND
r
LIDO
ISLE isurvo - ,B-rT— o t
Nr WPO2T
I'!ER

BALBOA ISLAND
BALBOA
PIER
PACIFIC OCEAN wEpGE
Irvine
'1
;kRtT 1

CRYSTAL COVE
STATE PARK —
L

CRYSTAL COVE

STATE PARK

6. Environmental Analysis
Figure 21 - Wildfire Hazards

FIRE SUSCEPTIBILITY
High*
Moderate
Low/None
*Contains no "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones"
persuant to Government Code 51179.
0 1
Scale (Miles)
Source: EIP Architects 2006.

PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.

March 2024D3 Page 197

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
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? No Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility per the 2006 General Plan (see Figure 21, Wildfire Ha.Zards). Therefore, the proposed project would not 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 impacts would arise, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

6.20.3 Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the project site is not within a very high FHSZ. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur nor cumulatively contribute to wildfire impacts.

6.20.4 Standard Conditions of Approval
No City of Newport Beach standard conditions are applicable to Wildfire for the proposed project.

Page 198 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.

March 2024D3 Page 199

7. Summary
This document is Addendum No. -7-8 to the previously certified City of Newport Beach General Plan EIR. As such, this Addendum analyzes the potential differences between the environmental impacts identified in the previous Program EIR and the impacts anticipated for the proposed project (1401 Quail Street Residential Project).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a) states that a Program EIR is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:

1. Geographically,

2. A logical part in the chain of contemplated actions,

3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or

4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing or statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) states that subsequent activities undertaken pursuant to a Program EIR must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4), where the subsequent activities involve site -specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the Program EIR."
This EIR Addendum provides the environmental information necessary for the City to make an informed decision about the proposed project, as more fully described in Section 4, Project Descri�ition. The City has determined that an Addendum to the above -referenced Program EIR is appropriate, rather than a Supplement or Subsequent EIR, based on the following:
a. As demonstrated in Section 6, Environmental Analysis, the proposed project would not require major revisions to the previously certified EIR because the project would not result in any new significant impacts to the physical environment nor would it create substantial increases in the severity of the environmental impacts previously disclosed in the programmatic EIR.

March 2024D3 Page 200

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
b. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances subsequent to the certification of the 2006 GPU EIR that would require major EIR revisions. The topical analysis in Section 6 of this Addendum describes updated regulatory requirements and conditions that could affect the potential significance of impacts associated with the proposed project. Existing, surrounding land uses have been described. Moreover, the project - related land use changes in comparison to the previous Program EIR (square footage by use and number of residential uses) have been quantified, and the analysis for these changes, quantified as applicable. The incremental environmental impact due to the project would not combine with other related projects to result in new significant cumulative impacts.
c. There is no known new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR that would result in increased significant impacts.

March 2024D3 Page 201

8. References
Arcadis. 2021, April 1. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.mwdoc.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/04/1 -Draft-2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2023, April. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baagmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental- quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, March 14. Final proposed Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm . 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/cif` f/.
2023, June (accessed). Report and Statistics.
https: / / www.conservation . ca.gov/ dlrp/wa/Pages / stats_reports. aspx.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022a, December. Frequently Asked Questions. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/winfmowp/2022-fhsz-faqs-dec-2022-_final.pdf . 2022b. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Orange County. https: / /osfm. fire.ca.gov/media/4gvlvwdg/fhsz_county_sra_l l xl 7_2O22_orange_ada.pdf.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates . 2023b. SWIS Facility/Site Search. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search . 2023c. Enforcement. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/enforcement/ . 2023d. Jurisdiction Review Reports.
https: / /www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports/PerCapitaDisposalTr ends.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022, January. SCE Planning Area, California Energy Demand Forecast, 2021-2035 Baseline Forecast. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated- energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-1.

March 2024D3 Page 202

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

8. References
California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU). 2022. 2022 California Gas Report. https: / / www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files /Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_California_Ga s_Report_2022.pdf.

California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS). 2023. CIMIS Station Report. https://cin-iis.water.ca.gov/WSNReportCriteria.aspx .

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2018, November. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action.
https: / /resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_Statement_of%2OReas ons_111218.pdf.

California School Campus Database (CSCD). 2023, May 18 (accessed). http: / / www.mapcollaborator . org/mapcoUab_c scd/?base=map&y= 33.72320&x=- 117.89566&z=12&layers=notes%2Cpolygons%2Cschoolboundaries%2Cdistricts_uni%2Cdistricts_e lem%2Cdistricts_sec%2Ccities&opacs=100%2C25%2C100%2C100%2C100%2C100%2C100.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/pubfic/ .

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). June 13, 2017a. Water Budget Workbook for New and Rehabilitated Residential Landscapes.

June 13, 2017b. Water Budget Workbook for New and Rehabilitated Non -Residential Landscapes.

Ganddini. 2021, November 23. Picerne Residential (1300 Bristol Street North) Traffic Impact Analysis. https: / /newportbeachca.gov/pin/ CEQA_REVIEW /Residences_at_1300_Bristol_St/Appendix%20 F_Traffic%20Impact%2OAssessment.pdf
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through CEQA Review. Technical Advisory. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08- ceqa.pdf.

HMMH. 2022. John Wayne Airport Orange County 2022 Annual Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours. https://files.ocair.com/media/2023-
03/311880 JWA_2022_Annual_CNEL_Contour.pdf?Versionld=grgr4FggOeVvg9UJzJOatnWHgb cdOsUK.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2023, June 6 (accessed). Trip and Parking Generation. https: / / www.ite.org/technical-resources /topics/trip-and-parking-generation/.

Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2022, February. Residences at 1300 Bristol Street, Addendum No. 5 (ER2022- 011) to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006011119) PA2021-161.

March 2024D-3 Page 203

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

8. References
Natelson Company, The. 2001, October 31. Employment Density Study Summary Report. https: / / www.mwcog . org/ file. aspx?A= QTTITR24P000UIw5mPNzK8F4d8dj dje4LF9Exj 61XOU% 3D.

Newport Beach, City of. 2006, July 25. City of Newport Beach General Plan. https: / / www.newportbeachca.gov/government/ departments / community-development/planning- division/general-plan-code s-and-regulations /general -plan. 2014. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan.
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=19735 . 2017, May. Archaeological Guidelines K-5.
https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=771012&page= l &cr=1. 2021, November 30. Planned Community Development Standards Newport Place. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/MAP— DOCUMENTS/PC—TEXT/PC—1 1—Newport—Plac e.pdf.
2022, September 13. 6th Cycle Housing Element.
https: / / www.newportbeachca.gov/government/ departments / community-development/planning- division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/general-plan-update/housing-element-screencheck- draft-march-10-2020.
2023a, May 8 (accessed). Map Viewer Newport Beach — GIS. https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/NewportHTN L5Viewer/?viewer=publicsite. 2023b, June 14 (accessed). Recreation & Senior Services - Parks and Facilities. http: / /nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/recreation/ facilities/default.aspx.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot— spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.

Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2008, April 17. Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. https://files.ocair.com/media/2021-02/JWA— AELUP-April-l7- 2008.pdf?VersionId=cBObyJjdad9OuY5im7Oaj 5aWaT1 FS.vD.

Orange County Sanitary District (OCSD). 2022, June 22. Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24. https: / / www.ocsan.gov/home/ showpublisheddocument/ 32895 / 637920994536470000.

Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015, June 17. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan. https://wwwocwd.com/wp-
content/uploads /groundwatermanagementplan20l 5update-20150624.pdf.

Page 204 ends

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

8. References
2017, January 1. Basin 8-1 Alternative. https://www.ocwd.com/wp-content/uploads/basin-8-1- alternative-final-report-1.pdf.

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2008. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin.
https: / / www.waterboards.ca.gov/ santaana/water_issues/programs/basin plan/index.html.

Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). 2023, June (accessed). SAUSD Developer Fees. https://www.sausd.us/page/1133 .

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020, September. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the SCAG, Connect SoCal, https: / / scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf? 1606001176.

Southern California Edison (SCE). 2019, November. Pathway 2045, Update to the Clean Power and Electrification Pathway.
https://download.newsroom.edison.com/create_memory_file/?f id=5dc0be0b2cfac24b300fe4ca&c ontent verified=True.
2021. 2021 Power Content Label. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/custom- files/Web%20files /2021 %20Power%20Content%20Label.pdf
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ .

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds /final-1st-methodology-document.pdf.

US Census Bureau (Census Bureau). 2022, July 1. QuickFacts, Newport Beach city, California. https: / / www.census.gov/quickfacts/ fact/table/newportbeachcitycahfornia/HSD310221.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023, June 12 (accessed). EnviroMapper for EnviroFacts. https://geopub.epa.gov/myem/efmap//index.htn-il?ve=l 3,47.236778259277344,- 122.35669708251953&pText=Fife,%20WA.

March 2024D3 Page 205

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Appendix A Parcel Reports for Anomaly Area 1-4-16
PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

Marcb 2024'��

4/29/23, 2:57 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
3880 BIRCH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Assessor Parcel Number:
427 231 01
City Property:

NO
Approximate Lot Size:
52,531 SQUARE FEET
Council District:
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Community Association:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Refuse Collection Day:

Water District:

NB
Refuse Collection Agency:

Water Meter Zone:
2-295
Sanitation District Area:

CNB
Cable Provider:

COX
School District:

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL

FLOOD HAZARD
Document Information
Lot:

PCL 1 Block:

Map Source:

RESUB_0383
Document:

PM 054 08
Date:
8/02/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-1
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=36303 L4R_034 1/1

4/29/23, 2:57 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
1811 QUAIL ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Assessor Parcel Number:
427 231 02
City Property:

NO
Approximate Lot Size:
30,001 SQUARE FEET
Council District:
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Community Association:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Refuse Collection Day:

Water District:

NB
Refuse Collection Agency:

Water Meter Zone:
2-295
Sanitation District Area:

CNB
Cable Provider:

COX
School District:

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL

FLOOD HAZARD
Document Information
Lot:

PCL 1 Block:

Map Source:

RESUB_0350
Document:

PM 045 46
Date:
9/08/1972
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
fining Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-2
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=39403 L4R_032 1/1

4/29/23, 2:58 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
1701 QUAIL ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Assessor Parcel Number:
427 231 03
City Property:

NO
Approximate Lot Size:
53,152 SQUARE FEET
Council District:
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Community Association:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Refuse Collection Day:

Water District:

NB
Refuse Collection Agency:

Water Meter Zone:
2-295
Sanitation District Area:

CNB
Cable Provider:

COX
School District:

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL

FLOOD HAZARD
Document Information
Lot:

PCL 1
Block:

Map Source:

RESUB_0500
Document:

PM 075 38-39
Date:
1/22/1976
Previous Map Source:

RESUB_0383
Document:

PM 054 08
Date:
8/02/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
,nning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-3
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=39576 L4R_030 1/1

4/29/23, 3:03 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
1550 BRISTOL ST N
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Assessor Parcel Number:
427 231 08
City Property:

NO
Approximate Lot Size:
37,312 SQUARE FEET
Council District:
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Community Association:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Refuse Collection Day:

Water District:

NB
Refuse Collection Agency:

Water Meter Zone:
2-295
Sanitation District Area:

CNB
Cable Provider:

COX
School District:

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL

FLOOD HAZARD
Document Information
Lot:

PCL 2 Block:

Map Source:

RESUB_0371
Document:

PM 050 45
Date:
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
fining Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-4
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=34608 L4R_018 1/1

4/29/23, 3:05 PM
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
427 231 17
7,911 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
CNB

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
2 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
City Property:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 2
RESUB_0631
PM 139 32-33
10/10/1997
LLA_95-13
OR_19960097040
2/29/1996
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0500
PM 075 38-39
1/22/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
RESUB_0371
PM_050_45
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

Water Meter Zone:

Cable Provider:

Document Information
Block:

NO
NB
2-295
COX
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
A-5
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38301 L4R_010 1/2

4/29/23, 3:05 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area: L4
Charter Section 423: L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO Zoning District: PC11 Newport Place
PC Land Use: NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone: NO
Categorical Exclusion Area: NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-6
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38301 L4R_010 2/2

4/29/23, 2:59 PM
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
427 231 21
10,188 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
CNB

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
6 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
City Property:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 6
RESUB_0631
PM 139 32-33
10/10/1997
LLA_95-13
OR_19960097040
2/29/1996
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0500
PM 075 38-39
1/22/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
RESUB_0371
PM_050_45
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

Water Meter Zone:

Cable Provider:

Document Information
Block:

NO
NB
2-295
COX
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
A-7
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38305 L4R_026 1/2

4/29/23, 2:59 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-8
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38305 L4R_026 2/2

4/29/23, 2:58 PM
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
427 231 22
7,777 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
CNB

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
0 NO SITE ADDRESS
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
City Property:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 7
RESUB_0631
PM 139 32-33
10/10/1997
LLA_95-13
OR_19960097040
2/29/1996
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0500
PM 075 38-39
1/22/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
RESUB_0371
PM_050_45
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

Water Meter Zone:

Cable Provider:

Document Information
Block:

NO
NB
2-295
COX
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
A-9
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38306 L4R_024 1/2

4/29/23, 2:58 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-10
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38306 L4R_024 2/2

4/29/23, 3:03 PM
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
427 231 23
13,424 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
CNB

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
7 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
City Property:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 8
RESUB_0631
PM 139 32-33
10/10/1997
LLA_95-13
OR_19960097040
2/29/1996
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0500
PM 075 38-39
1/22/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
RESUB_0371
PM_050_45
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

Water Meter Zone:

Cable Provider:

Document Information
Block:

NO
NB
2-295
COX
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
A-11
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38302 L4R_022 1/2

4/29/23, 3:03 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-12
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38302 L4R_022 2/2

4/29/23, 2:59 PM
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
427 231 24
99,236 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
CNB

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
0 NO SITE ADDRESS
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
City Property:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 9
RESUB_0631
PM 139 32-33
10/10/1997
LLA_95-13
OR_19960097040
2/29/1996
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0500
PM 075 38-39
1/22/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
RESUB_0371
PM_050_45
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

Water Meter Zone:

Cable Provider:

Document Information
Block:

NO
NB
2-295
COX
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
A-13
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=36305 L4R_028 1/2

4/29/23, 2:59 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-14
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=36305 L4R_028 2/2

4/29/23, 3:04 PM
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
427 231 19
23,624 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
CNB

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
4 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
City Property:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 4
RESUB_0631
PM 139 32-33
10/10/1997
LLA_95-13
OR_19960097040
2/29/1996
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0500
PM 075 38-39
1/22/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
RESUB_0371
PM_050_45
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

Water Meter Zone:

Cable Provider:

Document Information
Block:

NO
NB
2-295
COX
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
A-15
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=39575 L4R_016 1/2

4/29/23, 3:04 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-16
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=39575 L4R_016 2/2

4/29/23, 2:57 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
3636 BIRCH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
427 231 25
City Property:

NO
103,722 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

NB
Water Meter Zone:
2-295
CNB
Cable Provider:

COX

SANTA ANA UNIFIED

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 1
LLA 88-05 AMENDED
OR 88-522754
10/13/1988
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Document Information
Block:

Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area: L4
Charter Section 423: L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO Zoning District: PCII Newport Place
PC Land Use: NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone: NO
Categorical Exclusion Area: NO
A-17
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=41822 L4R_036 1/2

4/29/23, 2:57 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-18
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=41822 L4R_036 2/2

4/29/23, 2:55 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
3610 BIRCH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
427 231 28
City Property:

NO
49,439 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

NB
Water Meter Zone:
2-295
CNB
Cable Provider:

COX

SANTA ANA UNIFIED

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 2
RESUB_0867
PM 246 16-17
9/18/1989
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works
Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Document Information
Block:

Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
Limits, See Table LU2:

ANOMALY 16
Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

I A-19 1
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=36872 L4R_040 1/2

4/29/23, 2:55 PM
Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
A-20
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=36872 L4R_040 2/2

4/29/23, 3:05 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
1501 QUAIL ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Assessor Parcel Number:
427 332 01
City Property:

NO
Approximate Lot Size:
96,511 SQUARE FEET
Council District:
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Community Association:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Refuse Collection Day:

Water District:

NB
Refuse Collection Agency:

Water Meter Zone:
2-295
Sanitation District Area:

CNB
Cable Provider:

COX
School District:

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL

FLOOD HAZARD
Document Information
Lot:

PCL 1 Block:

Map Source:

RESUB_0385
Document:

PM 054 11
Date:
8/07/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
fining Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-21
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=45146 L4R_008 1/1

4/29/23, 3:06 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
1400 BRISTOL ST N
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Assessor Parcel Number:
427 332 02
City Property:

NO
Approximate Lot Size:
103,503 SQUARE FEET
Council District:
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Community Association:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Refuse Collection Day:

Water District:

NB
Refuse Collection Agency:

Water Meter Zone:
2-295
Sanitation District Area:

CNB
Cable Provider:

COX
School District:

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
Document Information
Lot:

PCL 2 Block:

Map Source:

RESUB_0385
Document:

PM 054 11
Date:
8/07/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
fining Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-22
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=33398 L4R_002 1/1

4/29/23, 3:05 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
1451 QUAIL ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Assessor Parcel Number:
427 332 03
City Property:

NO
Approximate Lot Size:
61,620 SQUARE FEET
Council District:
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Community Association:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Refuse Collection Day:

Water District:

NB
Refuse Collection Agency:

Water Meter Zone:
2-295
Sanitation District Area:

CNB
Cable Provider:

COX
School District:

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL

FLOOD HAZARD
Document Information
Lot:

PCL 2 Block:

Map Source:

RESUB_0341
Document:

PM 044 38
Date:
7/18/1972
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
fining Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-23
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=39402 L4R_006 1/1

4/29/23, 3:07 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
1401 QUAIL ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Assessor Parcel Number:
427 332 04
City Property:

NO
Approximate Lot Size:
74,210 SQUARE FEET
Council District:
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Community Association:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Refuse Collection Day:

Water District:

NB
Refuse Collection Agency:

Water Meter Zone:
2-295
Sanitation District Area:

CNB
Cable Provider:

COX
School District:

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL

FLOOD HAZARD
Document Information
Lot:

PCL 1 Block:

Map Source:

RESUB_0341
Document:

PM 044 38
Date:
7/18/1972
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
fining Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-24
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=45145 L4R_004 1/1

4/29/23, 2:52 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
3600 BIRCH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
427 231 27
City Property:

NO
40,326 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

NB
Water Meter Zone:
2-295
CNB
Cable Provider:

COX

SANTA ANA UNIFIED

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 1
RESUB_0867
PM 246 16-17
9/18/1989
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works
Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Document Information
Block:

Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
Limits, See Table LU2:

ANOMALY 16
Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

I A-25 I
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38307 L4R_042 1/2

4/29/23, 2:52 PM
Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
A-26
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38307 L4R_042 2/2

4/29/23, 2:56 PM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
3620 BIRCH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
427 231 29
City Property:

NO
39,058 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

NB
Water Meter Zone:
2-295
CNB
Cable Provider:

COX

SANTA ANA UNIFIED

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 3
RESUB_0867
PM 246 16-17
9/18/1989
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Planning Cases:

VIEW PLANNING CASES
Building and Public Works
Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Document Information
Block:

Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
Additional Specific Development
Limits, See Table LU2:

ANOMALY 16
Statistical Area:

L4
Charter Section 423:

L4 TRACKING TABLE - ADDITIONAL INFO
Zoning District: PC11 Newport
Place
PC Land Use:

NEWPORT PLACE (INDUST. SITE 3A)
Local Coastal Program
Coastal Zone:

NO
Categorical Exclusion Area:

NO
Coastal Land Use:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

I A-27 I
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38205 L4R_038 1/2

4/29/23, 2:56 PM
Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
A-28
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38205 L4R_038 2/2

5/10/23, 10:39 AM
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
427 231 20
5,919 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
CNB

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
5 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
City Property:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 5
RESUB_0631
PM 139 32-33
10/10/1997
LLA_95-13
OR_19960097040
2/29/1996
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0500
PM 075 38-39
1/22/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
RESUB_0371
PM_050_45
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

Water Meter Zone:

Cable Provider:

Document Information
Block:

NO
NB
2-295
COX
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
A-29
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38204 L4R_020 1/2

5/10/23, 10:39 AM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-30
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38204 L4R_020 2/2

5/10/23, 10:40 AM
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
427 231 18
8,881 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
CNB

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
3 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
City Property:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 3
RESUB_0631
PM 139 32-33
10/10/1997
LLA_95-13
OR_19960097040
2/29/1996
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0500
PM 075 38-39
1/22/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
RESUB_0371
PM_050_45
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

Water Meter Zone:

Cable Provider:

Document Information
Block:

NO
NB
2-295
COX
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
A-31
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38304 L4R_014 1/2

5/10/23, 10:40 AM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-32
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38304 L4R_014 2/2

5/10/23, 10:40 AM
Assessor Parcel Number:

Approximate Lot Size:

Council District:

Community Association:

Refuse Collection Day:

Refuse Collection Agency:

Sanitation District Area:

School District:

Special Fire Protection Area:

Fire Hazard Severity Zone:

Flood Zone:

Lot:

Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:

Previous Map Source:

Document:

Date:
427 231 16
9,099 SQUARE FEET
3 - ERIK WEIGAND
CNB

SANTA ANA UNIFIED
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
1 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
City Property:

X - AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
PCL 1
RESUB_0631
PM 139 32-33
10/10/1997
LLA_95-13
OR_19960097040
2/29/1996
RESUB_0529
PM 086 33-34
10/15/1976
RESUB_0500
PM 075 38-39
1/22/1976
RESUB_0406
PM_057_02
11/21/1973
RESUB_0383
PM_054_08
8/02/1973
RESUB_0371
PM_050_45
4/05/1973
Previous Map Source:

IRV SUB
Document:

MM 001 88
Date:
4/13/1899
Planning Documents
Building and Public Works Permits
Permits:

CHECK FOR PERMITS
Business Improvement District:

Leaf Blower Exempt:

Water District:

Water Meter Zone:

Cable Provider:

Document Information
Block:

NO
NB
2-295
COX
Planning Information
General Plan Land Use: CO-G General Commercial Office
A-33
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38303 L4R_012 1/2

5/10/23, 10:40 AM
Parcel Report - Newport Beach GIS
Additional Specific Development ANOMALY 16
Limits, See Table LU2:

Coastal Zoning District:

Overlay District:

First Public Road and the Sea:

Additional Parcel Related Information
Census Tract: 626.10
A-34
https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/gispub/ParcelReportPublic/default.aspx?UNIQUE_TAG=38303 L4R_012 2/2

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendix A
Figure 1 - Assessor Parcel Number Map
427-231-01
427-231-0
427-231-25
427-231-29 427-231-03
7-231-
427-231-28 427-231-
2 231- -231-1
` 7-231-
427-231-27 4 -231- 2
4-231-
41 @� 427-231-19
's� 427-231-
o�
S�
427-231-08 427-332-01 427-332-03
e,
,, sr
s °a9 L 427-332-04
°;o
y%
s�
s
427-332-02 v
Q�.
y
% m6
Q
S �
S'
s�
o�
S
Project Boundary
0 Parcels o 250
Source: Generated using Arc Map, 2023; wwwocgis.corn, 2023. Scale (Feet) PLaceWl'orks
A-35

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Appendix B General Plan Goals and Policies
PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

Marcb 2024'��

General Plan Policies

AESTHETICS
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that relate specifically to potential aesthetics and visual character impacts of the proposed project.

Goal LU 5.6: Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment. ■ LU 5.6.2: Form and Environment: Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. ■ LU 5.6.3: Ambient Lighting: Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location.

Goal LU 6.15: A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. ■ LU 6.15.1 - Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods: Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses.

LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the (Airport height restrictions set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration Compatibility); (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Pg 3-101 Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development shall be allowed only on parcels with noise levels of less than the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area as shown in Figure NS of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour shown in Figure NS are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate.

Nonresidential uses are, however, encouraged on parcels located wholly within the 65 dBA CNEL contour area.

LU 6.15.7 - Overall Density and Housing Types: Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights -of -way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote diversity of building masses and scales.

Page 1 ends

B-1

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
There are no relevant General Plan policies in the GPU for potential agricultural or forest resources.

AIR QUALITY
The General Plan includes several policies that would reduce air quality emissions associated with development projects in the city.

Goal NR 6: Reduce mobile emissions.
■ NR 6.1— Walkable Neighborhoods: Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. ■ NR 6.2 — Mixed -Use Development: Support mixed -use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. ■ NR 6.3 — Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures: Support measures to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care facilities, and on -site automated banking machines. ■ NR 6.4 — Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: Implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes. ■ NR 6.5 — Local Transit Agency Collaboration: Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit mechanisms for the reduction of work -related and non -work -related vehicle trips; promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations, and types of vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle lanes, and other bicycle facilities. ■ NR 6.6 — Traffic Signal Synchronization: Encourage synchronization of traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties to allow free flow of traffic. ■ NR 6.7 — City Fleet Vehicles: Implement the program to replace existing vehicles in the City fleet with clean vehicles that are commercially available and will provide needed services. ■ NR 6.8 — Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure: Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is available and accessible to the public, and provide incentives for alternative fuel vehicles.
■ NR 6.9 — Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques: Provide education to the public on mobile source emission reduction techniques such as using alternative modes of transportation.

Goal NR7: Reduced air pollutant emissions from stationary sources. ■ NR 7.1 — Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other appliances.

Page 2 ends

B-2

■ NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. ■ NR 7.3 — Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction: Provide incentives to promote siting or to use clean air technologies and building materials (e.g., fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources, UV coatings, hydrogen fuel).

Goal NR 8: Reduced air pollutant emissions from construction activities. ■ NR 8.1— Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants.

Goal NR 24: Increased energy efficiency in City facilities and operations and in private developments. ■ NR 24.1 — Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. ■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy -efficient design features. ■ NR 24.3 — Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation: Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status.
■ NR 24.4 — Incentives for Provision of LEED Certified Buildings: Provide incentives for implementing Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certified building such as fee waivers, bonus densities, and/or awards recognition programs.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to biological resources.

Goal NR 10: Protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development. ■ NR 10.2 - Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan: Comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan. ■ NR 10.5 - New Development Siting and Design Require: that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values.
■ NR 10.7 - Use of Buffers: Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources, if present, to ensure the protection of these resources. Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within these buffer areas. ■ NR 10.8 - Exterior Lighting: Shield and direct exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources to minimize impacts to wildlife.

Page 3 ends

B-3

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to cultural resources.

Goal HR 2: Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City.
■ HR 2.1 - New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
■ HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. ■ HR 2.3 - Cultural Organizations: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources.

Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. ■ HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible.

Goal NR 18: Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources. ■ NR 18.1 - New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
■ NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.

Require new development, where on site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.

Page 4 ends

B-4

ENERGY
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to energy.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to geology and soils.

Goal NR 3: Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands.
■ NR 3.5 - Storm Sewer System Permit: Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
■ NR 3.10 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction.
■ NR 3.11 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. ■ NR 3.12 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. ■ NR 3.13 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards.

Page 5 ends

B-5

NR 3.16 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies.
■ NR 3.18 - Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way: Require that parking lots and public and private rights -of - way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. ■ NR 3.21 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible.

Goal NR 4: Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards.
■ NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMWs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas.

Goal NR 18 Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources.

NR 18.1 - New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
■ NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Require new development, where on site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.

Goal HR 2: Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City.

HR 2.1 - New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.

HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department.

Page 6 ends

B-6

■ HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The General Plan includes several policies that would reduce GHG emissions associated with future development projects in the City, including:
■ NR 6.1— Walkable Neighborhoods: Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. ■ NR 6.2 — Mixed -Use Development: Support mixed -use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. ■ NR 6.3 — Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures: Support measures to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care facilities, and on -site automated banking machines. ■ NR 6.4 — Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: Implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes. ■ NR 6.5 — Local Transit Agency Collaboration: Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit mechanisms for the reduction of work -related and non -work -related vehicle trips; promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations, and types of vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle lanes, and other bicycle facilities. ■ NR 6.6 — Traffic Signal Synchronization: Encourage synchronization of traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties to allow free flow of traffic. ■ NR 6.7 — City Fleet Vehicles: Implement the program to replace existing vehicles in the City fleet with clean vehicles that are commercially available and will provide needed services. ■ NR 6.8 — Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure: Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is available and accessible to the public, and provide incentives for alternative fuel vehicles.
■ NR 7.1 — Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other appliances.
■ NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. ■ NR 8.1— Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants.

Page 7 ends

B-7

■ NR 24.1 — Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. ■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy -efficient design features. ■ NR 24.3 — Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation: Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials.

Goal LU 6.15: A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability. ■ LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan.

Goal S 7: Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators is minimized.
■ S 7.1 - Known Areas of Contamination: Require proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). ■ S 7.4 - Implementation of Remediation Efforts: Minimize the potential risk of contamination to surface water and groundwater resources and implement remediation efforts to any resources adversely impacted by urban activities.
■ S 7.5 - Siting of Sensitive Uses: Develop and implement strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, day care facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses that generate or use hazardous materials.
■ S 7.6 - Regulation of Companies Involved with Hazardous Materials: Require all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, County, State and Federal agencies in the event of a violation.

Page 8 ends

B-8

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to hydrology and water quality.

Goal NR 3: Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands.
■ NR 3.2 - Chemical Use Impacts: Support regulations limiting or banning the use insecticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals which are shown to be detrimental to water quality. ■ NR 3.4 - Ground Water Contamination: Suspend activities and implement appropriate health and safety procedures in the event that previously unknown groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation strategy that is approved by the City and the state agency with appropriate jurisdiction. ■ NR 3.5 - Storm Drain Sewer System Permit: Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
■ NR 3.6 - Natural Water Bodies: Require that development does not degrade natural water bodies. ■ NR 3.10 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction.
■ NR 3.11 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. ■ NR 3.12 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. ■ NR 3.13 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. ■ NR 3.16 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies.
■ NR 3.17 - Siting of New Development: Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. ■ NR 3.18 - Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way: Require that parking lots and public and private rights -of - way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue.

Page 9 ends

B-9

NR 3.20 - Natural Drainage Systems: Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge.
■ NR 3.21 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible.

Goal NR 4: Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards
■ NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMWs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas.

Goal NR 5: Sanitary Sewer Outflows —Minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows
■ NR 5.2 - Waste Discharge Permits: Require waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Relevant General Plan goals and policies are reviewed in detail in Section 6.11, Table 12, Nenport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis. Applicable General Plan policies for specific environmental topics are listed in this Appendix.

MINERAL RESOURCES
The General Plan does not include any mineral resources goals or policies that are relevant to the proposed project.

NOISE
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that relate specifically to potential noise impacts of the proposed project.

Goal N 1: Noise Compatibility: Minimized land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities.
■ N 1.1 - Noise Compatibility of New Development: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2 of the Noise Element, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3 of the Noise Element. ■ N 1.2 - Noise Exposure Verification for New Developnment. Applicants for proposed residential or mixed -use projects located in areas projected to be exposed to 65-70 dBA CNEL or greater, as shown on Figure N5, must conduct a noise study to provide evidence that the depicted noise contours do not adequately account for local noise exposure circumstances due to such factors as, topography, variation in

Page 10 ends

B-10

traffic speeds, and other applicable conditions. These findings shall be used to determine the level of exterior or interior noise, attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such measures when other planning considerations are taken into account, consistent with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations.

N 1.4 - New Developments in Urban Areas: Require that applicants of residential portions of mixed - use projects and high density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code.

N 1.5 - Infill Projects: Allow a higher (above 65 dBA CNEL) exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if it can be shown that there are no feasible mechanisms to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any new residential project or mixed -use project containing a residential component, consistent with Title 21 of California Code of Regulations.

N 1.5 — Airport Area Infill Projects: Allow infill residential projects proximate to John Wayne Airport to have a higher exterior noise level standard (65- 70 dBA CNEL) if it can be shown that there are no practical mechanisms or designs to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any residential component of projects. No residential units may be located on parcels wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area as shown in Figure N5, of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate.

Nonresidential uses are encouraged on parcels located wholly within the 65 dBA CNEL contour area, shown in Figure N5.
■ N 1.8 - Significant Noise Impacts: Require the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase is shown in the table below.

No Project Noise Exposure
Allowable Noise Exposure Increment
55 3
60 2
65 1
70 1
75 0
Goal N 2: Minimized motor vehicle traffic and boat noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors N 2.1 - New Development: Require that proposed noise -sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels.

N 2.2 - Design of Sensitive Land Uses: Require the use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double - paned windows, advanced insulation systems, or other noise measures, as appropriate, in the design of new

Page 11 ends

B-11

residential developments to attenuate noise levels to not exceed 45 dBA CNEL interior. Other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads arterials and located proximate to John Wayne Airport (e.g., infill residential) and within the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour area are required to be indoor - oriented to reduce noise impacts on outdoor living or recreational areas. Application of the Noise Standards in Table -N2 shall govern this requirement.

Goal N 3: Protection of Newport Beach residents from the adverse noise impacts of commercial air carrier operations at John Wayne Airport as provided in the City Council Airport Policy. ■ N 3.1 - New Development: Ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment proximate to John Wayne Airport by not allowing residential units on parcels located wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, as shown in Figure N5 of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate.. ■ N 3.2 - Residential Development: Require that residential development proximate to John Wayne Airport shall not be located outside on parcels wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA of CNEL noise contour shown in Figure N5 of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate. Require developers of residential or mixed -use land uses with a residential component to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft noise. Additionally, require outdoor common areas or recreational areas of residential or mixed -used developments to be posted with signs notifying users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and the presence of operating aircraft and noise.

Goal N 4: Minimization of Nontransportation-Related Noise: Minimized nontransportation-related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors.
■ N 4.1 - Stationary Noise Sources: Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3 of the Noise Element and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.
■ N 4.6 - Maintenance or Construction Activities: Require the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work related activities.

Goal N 5: Minimized excessive construction -related noise. ■ N 5.1 - Limiting Hours of Activity: Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity.

Goal LU 6.15: A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. ■ LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan.

Page 12 ends

B-12

■ LU 6.15.15 - Aircraft Notification: Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
The City of Newport Beach's General Plan Certified 6th Cycle Housing Element was updated in September 2022 (Newport Beach 2022). This is in accordance with the state's requirement to update housing elements every five years in response to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Goals and policies particularly relevant to the proposed project, including affordable housing and airport -area -related policies, are reproduced below.

Goal H1: Provision of adequate sites to accommodate projected housing unit growth needs. ■ Housing Policy 1.1- Identify a variety of sites to accommodate housing growth need by income categories to serve the needs of the entire community.

Goal HI A variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments. ■ Housing Policy 3.1 - Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households. ■ Housing Policy 3.2 - Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of housing choices, designs, and configurations.

Goal H4: Housing opportunities for as many renter- and owner -occupied households as possible in response to the market demand and RHNA obligations for housing in the City. ■ Housing Policy 4.2 - Enable construction of new housing units sufficient to meet City quantified goals by identifying adequate sites for their construction.

PUBLIC SERVICES
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to public services. ■ LU 2.8 — Adequate Community Supporting Uses: Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on).
■ LU 6.1.1 —Adequate Community Supporting Uses: Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses.

Goal LU 6.15: A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability.

Page 13 ends

B-13

■ LU 6.15.15 - Aircraft Notification: Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise.

Goal R 1: Provision of Facilities —Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. ■ R 1.4 - Density Bonuses: Consider development of incentives such as density bonuses for private commercial, office, and other developments to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts, pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails. ■ R 1.12 - Aircraft Overflight and Noise: Require that all public parks located within the noise impact zones as defined in the 1985 JWA Master Plan for John Wayne Airport be posted with a notification to users regarding aircraft overflight and noise.

RECREATION
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to recreation.

Goal LU 6.15: A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. ■ LU 6.15.13 Neighborhood Parks Standards: To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or 1/2 acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area.

In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan.
■ LU 6.15.16 On - Site Recreation and Open Space Standards: Require developers of multi -family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.

Page 14 ends

B-14

The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights - of -way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on -site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements.

Goal R 1: Provision of Facilities —Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. ■ R 1.1 - Provision of Parkland: Require future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons.
■ R 1.4. Density Bonuses. Consider development of incentives such as density bonuses for private commercial, office, and other developments to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts, pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails.

Goal R 2: Maintenance and Preservation —Maintenance and preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities.
■ R 2.1 - Enhancement of Facilities: Use funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreation facilities.

TRANSPORTATION
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies from the updated Circulation Element that are relevant to transportation/traffic impacts of the proposed project.

Goal CE 1.1: An overall transportation system that facilitates the movement of people and goods within and through the City of Newport Beach and accommodates conservative growth within the City of Newport Beach, but is not expanded primarily to accommodate growth in the surrounding region.
■ CE 1.1.1 - Comprehensive Transportation System: Provide a diverse transportation system that provides mobility options for the community.
• CE 1.1.2 - Integrated System of Multiple Modes: Provide an integrated transportation system that supports the land use plan set forth in the Land Use Element. • CE 1.1.3 - Levels of Service Related to Community Character: Establish level of service standards that reflect the character of the various unique districts and neighborhoods of Newport Beach.

Goal CE 1.2: Reduced summertime visitor traffic impacts. • CE 1.2.4 - Public Transit: Support and encourage OCTA efforts to provide/fund summertime expanded bus service and/or local shuttle services to reduce visitor traffic.

Goal CE 2.1: A roadway system that provides for the efficient movement of goods and people in the City of Newport Beach, while maintaining the community's character and its residents' quality of life.

Page 15 ends

B-15

• CE 2.1.2 - Street and Highway Network: Construct the circulation system described on the map entitled Newport Beach Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highways shown in Figure CE1 and Figure CE2 (cross-section).
• CE 2.1.4 - Roadway Improvements: Pursue construction of intersection improvements shown on Figure CE3 or alternate improvements that achieve an acceptable level of service. • CE 2.1.6 - Protection of Right -of -Way: Protect right-of-way for designated future streets and highways through all practicable means.

Goal CE 2.3: Optimal roadway system operation.
• CE 2.3.4 - Improvements to Reflect Changing Traffic Conditions: Based on the monitoring of traffic conditions, consider additional improvements in areas with operations issues, such as intersections with heavy turn volumes (e.g. additional turn lanes, traffic signal progression, etc.).

Goal CE 5.1: Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs. ' CE 5.1.2 - Pedestrian Connectivity: Link residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving. • CE 5.1.3 - Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects: Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails.
• CE 5.1.4 - Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods: Require developers to construct links to the planned trail system, adjacent areas, and communities where appropriate. • CE 5.1.5 - Bikeway System: Cooperate with state, federal, county, and local agencies to coordinate bikeways and trails throughout the region.
• CE 5.1.6 - Bicycle Supporting Facilities: Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design plans for new streets and highways and, where feasible, in the plans for improving existing roads. • CE 5.1.7 - Bicycle Safety: Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to current national standards and uniform practices.
• CE 5.1.8 - Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians: Minimize conflict points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic.
• CE 5.1.9 - Integrated Bicycle Improvements: Coordinate community bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a citywide network for continuity of travel.

Goal CE 6.2: Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies.

Page 16 ends

B-16

• CE 6.2.1 - Alternative Transportation Modes: Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternate modes.
• CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes: Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements. • CE 6.2.3 - Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes: Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking.

Goal CE 8.1: Adequate funding for needed transportation infrastructure and operations. • CE 8.1.9 - Right -of -Way Dedication: Require the dedication of needed right-of-way in conjunction with approval of subdivision maps or other discretionary approvals. • CE 8.1.10 - Development Requirements: Require development to provide the needed roadway improvements adjacent to a site, commensurate with project impact and in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways.
• CE 8.1.11-joint Funding with Adjoining Jurisdictions: Pursue joint funding of improvements in areas (such as the Airport Area) where traffic growth and/or needed improvements are demonstrably based upon traffic contributions or improvements that are a joint responsibility of Newport Beach and one or more adjacent jurisdictions/agencies.
• CE 8.1.12 - Measure M Restrictions: Measure M sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has been committed for any project or normal subdivision obligations. • CE 8.1.13 - Transportation Improvement or Special Assessment District: Establish a transportation improvement or special assessment district to fund improvements needed in the Airport Area.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to tribal cultural resources.

Page 17 ends

B-17

resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department.

HR 2.3 - Cultural Organizations: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources.

Goal NR 18: Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources.

NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
The General Plan includes several policies that would reduce impacts to utilities and service providers associated with future development projects in the City, including:

Goal HB 8: Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors and wetlands.

HB 8.4 - Storm Drain Sewer System Permit: Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
■ HB 8.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction.
■ HB 8.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Elimination System, structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures.

Page 18 ends

B-18

HB 8.14 - Runoff Reduction on Private Property: Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into recreational waters, to the maximum extent practicable. ■ HB 8.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible.

Goal NR 1: Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques. ■ NR 1.1 - Water Conservation in New Development: Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water —efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects.

WILDFIRE
The General Plan does not include any wildfire goals or policies that are relevant to the proposed project.

Page 19 ends

B-19

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Appendix C Trip Generation Calculations
PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

Marcb 2024'��

Existing Conditions
General Office Building (Land Use
Code:710)
Sq. Ft.

Weekdays
Saturday
Sunday
Total
AM Peak Hour
of Adjacent
Street Traffic
PM Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street
Traffic
Total
Peak Hour
Total
Peak Hour
ITE Average Daily Rate (per 1000 sq. ft.)*
22,956

10.84 1.52

1.44 2.21

0.53 0.70

0.21 Total Average Trip Rate
-
249
35 33
51 12
16 5
Entering/Exiting
-
124/125
1 31/4
6/27
25/26
7/5
8/8
1 3/2
Proposed Project
Multifamily Housing (Land Use Code: 221)
NOT close to rail transit
D.U.

Weekdays
Saturday
Sunday
Total
AM Peak Hour
of Adjacent
Street Traffic
PM Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street
Traffic
Total
Peak Hour
Total
Peak Hour
ITE Average Daily Rate (per unit)
78 4.54

0.37 0.39

4.57 0.39

3.77 0.32
Total Average Trip Rate
-
354
29 30
356
30 294
25 Entering/Exiting
-
1 177/177
1 7/22
1 19/11
1 178/178
1 16/14
1 147/147
1 14/11
Source: ITETripGen Web -based App, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition h ttps.Ilitetripgen. orgl?status=Success
* Since the existing commercial square footage onsite is consistent with the square footage allowed for the site per the GPU the 22,536 square feet commercial office building on the site is used conservatively as baseline conditions.

C-1

General Office Building
(710)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Weekday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 59
Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 163
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Average Rate Range of Rates

10.84 3.27 - 27.56
Data Plot and Equation
6,000
5,000
U
C 4,000
w
Q
�� XX
3,000
I-E
2,000 *X X
X X X
XX
1,000 XXK Xn
X
X
0 —miza
0 200 400
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
X Study Site Fitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.87 Ln(X) + 3.05
Standard Deviation

4.76 600
Average Rate
R2= 0.78
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers C-2

General Office Building
(710)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.

Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 221
Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 201
Directional Distribution: 88% entering, 12% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Average Rate Range of Rates

1.52 0.32 - 4.93
Data Plot and Equation
Standard Deviation

0.58 1,500--=------------- - - - - -- X
X
LJJ
X
1,000
X
X
X X
X
X I < XX X
X X
50o X X XXX X X X
X
X � XX X X X

X X X X
!P X X
X
X X
X X
00 200 400 600 800 1,000
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
X Study Site Fitted Curve - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.86 Ln(X) + 1.16 R2= 0.78 Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers C-3

General Office Building
(710)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.

Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 232
Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 199
Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

1.44 0.26 - 6.20 0.60
Data Plot and Equation
1,400
1,200 x
X
X
1,000 X X, '
X
W
w XX X
800 X
H
XX
� �x
600 X x Xx x x
X XX X
X X
X "X A x, X �( x
X X
400 � x x x X X x x
X
X
X 'fC
200 XX XX
xx
x
00 200 400 600 800 1,000
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 1.29 R2= 0.77 Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers C-4

General Office Building
(710)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Saturday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 5
Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 94
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Average Rate Range of Rates

2.21 1.24 - 7.46
Standard Deviation

1.70 Data Plot and Equation Caution — Small Sample Size 400
X
300
U)
c
w
Q
200 X X
X
X
100
51 00 50 100 150 200
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
X Study Site - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given Rz= "**"
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers C-5

General Office Building
(710)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 3
Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 82
Directional Distribution: 54% entering, 46% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Average Rate Range of Rates

0.53 0.30 - 1.57
Data Plot and Equation Caution — Small Sample Size
Standard Deviation

0.52 60
X
50 '
X
40 U)
w
Q
� 30 X
i
20 12
10 i
i
i
023
0 50 100 150 200
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
X Study Site - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given Rz= "**"
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers C-6

General Office Building
(710)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Sunday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 5
Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 94
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Average Rate Range of Rates

0.70 0.19 - 3.05
Standard Deviation

0.77 Data Plot and Equation Caution — Small Sample Size 200
150
U)
w
Q
� X
100 X
X
50 16 XX
�3
00 50 100 150 200
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
X Study Site - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given Rz= ****
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers C-7

General Office Building
(710)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Sunday, Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 3
Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 82
Directional Distribution: 58% entering, 42% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Average Rate Range of Rates

0.21 0.11 - 0.68
Data Plot and Equation Caution — Small Sample Size
Standard Deviation

0.24 30
25 X
20 X
U)
w
Q
15 i
i
i
10 X
5-5 ----
i
i
i
i
00 I 50 100 150 200
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
X Study Site - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given Rz= ****
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers C-8

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Appendix D Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy,
and Natural Gas Calculations
PlaceWlork.r

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

Marcb 2024'��

CalEEMod Inputs - Addendum to 1401 Quail Street Residential EIR Project, Construction Name:

Addendum to 1401 Quail Street Residential EIR Project, Construction Project Number:

CNB-24
Project Location:
1401 Quail St Newport Beach, CA 92660
County/Air Basin:

Orange County
Climate Zone:
8 Land Use Setting:

Urban
Operational Year:
2026
Gas Utility:

Southern California Gas
Electric Utility:

Southern California Edison
Air Basin:

South Coast Air Basin
Air District:

South Coast AQMD
SRA:
18 - North Orange County Coastal
Project Site Acreage 1.71
Disturbed Site Acreage 1.71
Project Components
Demolition
Building Demolition (Tons)'
Asphalt Demolition (Tons)'
SQFT
Amount of Debris to be
Hauled Offsite
22,536 1,126
22,536 648
Notes
1 Does not account for 629 tons that will be recycled/reprocessed onsite.

Z Does not account for 420 tons that will be recycled/reprocessed onsite.

Project Components
SQFT
Building Footprint
Acres
Construction
Residential Podium Building
137,693
20,488

0.47 Surface Work
SQFT
Footprint
Acres
Parking Garage
32,150
32,150

0.74 Surface Parking Lot
1,135
1,135

0.03 Other Hardscape
7,171
7,171

0.16 Landscaping
13,690
13,690

0.31 Notes
1 Total parking stalls.

Land Use Type
Land Use Subtype
Land Use Square Landscape Area
Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Feet Square Feet
Residential
Apartments Mid -Rise
78 Dwelling Units

0.78 Parking
Enclosed Parking with Elevator

32.15 1000 sqft

0.74 Parking
Parking Lot

1.14 1000 sqft

0.03 Parking
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces

7.17 1000 sqft

0.16 1.71
137,693 13,690
32,150 0
1,135 0
7,171 0
ME

Demolition
Amount to be Demolished and Hauled Haul Truck Capacity Haul Distance Component Offsitel (Ton)2 (miles)2 Total Trip Ends Duration (days) Trip Ends Per Day Asphalt Demo (Tons) 648 9 20 144 6 24
Building Demo (Tons) 1,126 9 20 251 5 51
Notes
1 Amount to be hauled offsite provided by Applicant.

Z Haul truck capacity and haul distance provided by Applicant. 18 CY converted to 9 tons.

Soil Haul'
Haul Truck Capacity Haul Distance
Construction Activities Export Volume (CY) (CY)' (miles)2 Total Trip Ends Trip Ends per Day Duration (days) Site Preparation Export 2,690 16 23 336 56 6
Rough Grading Export 6,500 16 23 813 68 12
Fine Grading Export 110 16 23 14 3 5
Notes
1 Based on CalEEMod default.

Z Based on Applicant information.

Architectural Coating
Percent Painted
Parking Structure Interior Painted: 1 83%
Parking Structure Exterior Painted: 1 62%
Residential Interior Painted:
100%
Residential Exterior Painted:
100%
Condition of Approval AQ-1
Interior Paint VOC content: 1
9 grams per liter
Residential Exterior Paint VOC content: 2
50 grams per liter
Notes
1 Based on South Coast AMQUs super compliant paints (<10 g/Q.

Z
Based on Applicant information.

Total Paintable
Paintable Interior
Paintable Exterior
Structures
Land Use Square Feet
CaIEEMod Factor
Surface Area
Area'
Areal
Residential Structures
Apartments Mid -Rise
137,693

2.7 371,771
278,828
92,943
Non -Residential Structures
Non -Residential Interior Area
32,150

0.05 1,608
1,451
161
Parking
Enclosed Parking with Elevator
32,150
6%
1,929
1,441
120
Parking Lot
1,140
6%
68 -
68 Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces
7,171
6%
430
-
430
2,059
Notes
1 CaIEEMod methodology calculates the paintable interior and exterior areas by multiplying the total paintable surface area by 75 and 25 percent, respectively.

Z The program assumes the total surface for painting equals 2.7 times the floor square footage for residential square footage defined by the user. 3 Assumes that all parking garage, parking lot, and hardscape will be striped. CaIEEMod methodology assumes 6% of surface area is striped. CalEEMod assumes 90%for interior surfaces and 10%for the exterior shell for parking structures.

D-2

Construction Mitigation
SCAQMD Rule 403
Replace Ground Cover
PM10:
5 PM25:
5 Water Exposed Area
Frequency:
2 P M 10:
61 PM25:
61 Unpaved Roads
Vehicle Speed:
25 SCAQMD Rule 1186
Clean Paved Road
9 % Reduction
% Reduction
per day
% Reduction
% Reduction
mph
% PM Reduction
D-3

Pavement Volume to Weight Conversion
Component AC Mass (tons)' AC Mass (Cy)2
Asphalt Demolition 648.00 1296
Total
N otes
1 Amount to be hauled offsite as provided by Applicant.

Z Utilized CalEEMod v 2022 assumption of 2 CY/ton conversion factor.

D-4

Building Demolition Haul Trip Calculation
Conversion factors s

0.046 ton/SF

2.0 CY/ton

1.2641662 tons/cy
20 tons
18 CY

0.9 CY/ton
Building Tons'
Building Debris
Building Debris
Soil
Truck Capacity in tons
Truck Capacity in CY
Soil
CY of Building
Materials Haul Truck (CY)2 Round Trips Total Trip Ends
Building Demolition 1,126 2,252
9 251 502
Notes
1 Amount to be hauled offsite as provided by Applicant.

Z Haul truck capacity provided by Applicant. Converted 18 CY to 25 tons. 3 CalEEMod User's Guide Version 2022, Appendix C
D-5

CalEEMod Construction Off -Road Equipment Inputs
Based on information from Applicant where indicated. CalEEMod default worker and vendor trips have been used for all construction activities. Where information has not been provided by the Applicant, CalEEMod defaults have been used.

Construction Equipment Details'
IEquipment Given ICalEEMod Equipment I # of Equipment
Asphalt Demolition (includes equipment used for onsite asphalt debris recycling/reprocessing) Backhoe or front end loader Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 Skid steer Skid Steer Loaders 1
Track Excavator Excavators 1
Front End Loader Rubber Tired Loaders 1
Worker Trips
Vendor Trips
Hauling Trips
Building Demolition
Built
Site
Rou
total trips per
hr/day hp day
8 84
8 71
8 314
8 249
10 0
64 On -Site Water Truck
Travel Distance
(miles/day)6
Water Trucks Acres Disturbed: 0.50
4 0.41
Excavator
lExcavators
2 1 8
1 314
Front End Loader
Rubber Tired Loaders
1 1 8
249
Worker Trips
8 Vendor Trips
0 Hauling Trips
91 Water Trucks Acres Disturbed: 0.00
0 0
ling Demolition Debris Recycling/Reprocessingz
Excavator
lExcavators
2 8
314
Front End Loader
Rubber Tired Loaders
1 8
249
Worker Trips
8 Vendor Trips
0 Hauling Trips
0 Water Trucks Acres Disturbed: 0.00
0 Preparation
Backhoe/Skip Loader
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 1
1 8
1 84
Worker Trips
3 Vendor Trips
0 Hauling Trips
56 Water Trucks Acres Disturbed: 0.50
4 0.41
;h Grading
Front end loader
Rubber Tired Loaders
1 8
249
Tracked Dozer
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8
367
Grading tractor
Graders
1 8
148
Excavator
Excavators
1 8
314
Worker Trips
10 Vendor Trips
0 Hauling Trips
Water Trucks
Fine Grading
Grading tractor
Skid steer
Mini Excavator
Worker Trips
Vendor Trips
Hauling Trips
Water Trucks
Utility Trenching
Graders 1
Skid Steer Loaders 1
Excavators 1
108
Acres Disturbed: 1.00
6 0.83
8 148
8 71
8 36
8 0
43 Acres Disturbed: 0.50
4 0.41
Back hoe
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8
84 Excavator/track hoe
Excavators
1 8
314
Skid Steer
Skid Steer Loaders
1 8
49 Worker Trips
8 Vendor Trips
0 Hauling Trips
0 Water Trucks Acres Disturbed: 0.50
4 0.41
Building Construction-'
Rough terrain forklift/telehandler
Rough Terrain Forklift
1 8
160
Concrete Boom Pump
Paving Equipment
1 8
425
Worker Trips
70 Vendor Trips
14 Hauling Trips
82 Paving
Vibratory roller
lRollers
1 8 1
142
Skid Steer
ISkid Steer Loaders
1 8
1 71
Worker Trips
5 Vendor Trips
0 Hauling Tripss
40 D-6

Arch
Finis
itectural Coating
Forklift
Forklifts
1 8
160
Worker Trips
14 Vendor Trips
0 Hauling Trips
0 hing/Landscaping
Skid steer
ISkid Steer Loaders
I 1
8 71
Backhoe
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
I 1
8 1 84
Worker Trips
5 Vendor Trips
0 Hauling Trips
40 Notes
1 Included dump/semi/box trucks as hauling trips.

Z Assume same equipment mix as provided for Building Demolition phase. 3 Included concrete boom pump for parking garage.
4 Utilized HP provided by Applicant, unless default HP is higher. 5 Included 20 concrete trucks as as daily hauling trips. 6 Onsite water truck travel distanced calculated based on spray width of 20 ft for 0.4125 mi/ac/watering rate.

Water Truck Vendor Trip Calculation
Water Truck
Amount of Water
Capacity
(gal/acre/day)1
(gallons)z
10,000
4,000
Notes:
1 Based on data provided in Guidance for Application for Dust Control Permit Maricopa County Air Quality Department. 2005, June. Guidance for Application of Dust Control Permit. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-04/documents/mr_guidanceforapplicationfordustcontrolpermit.pdf) . 2 Based on standard water truck capacity:

McLellan Industries. 2022, January (access). Water Trucks. https://www.mclellanindustries.com/trucks/water-trucks/ Assumes that dozers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, and graders can disturb 0.50 acres per day and scrapers can disturb 1 acre per day.

D-7

Construction Activities and Schedule Assumptions
* based on schedule provided by the Applicant
Construction Schedule
Construction Activities
Start Date
End Date
CalEEMod Duration
(Workday)
Asphalt Demolition
3/1/2024
3/9/2024
6 Building Demolition
3/12/2024
3/18/2024
5 Building Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling
3/19/2024
3/29/2024
9 Site Preparation
4/2/2024
4/9/2024
6 Rough Grading
4/12/2024
4/29/2024
12 Fine Grading
5/3/2024
5/9/2024
5 Utility Trenching
5/11/2024
5/25/2024
10 Building Construction
6/2/2024
12/5/2025
395
Paving
9/6/2024
9/23/2024
12 Architectural Coating
9/27/2025
10/22/2025
18 Finishing/Landscaping
11/13/2025
11/28/2025
12 Notes
1 Include asphalt demolistion onsite processing/recycling duration.

Overlapping Construction Schedule
Construction Activities
Start Date
End Date
CalEEMod Duration
(Workday)
Asphalt Demolition
3/1/2024
3/9/2024
6 Building Demolition
3/12/2024
3/18/2024
5 Building Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling
3/19/2024
3/29/2024
9 Site Preparation
4/2/2024
4/9/2024
6 Rough Grading
4/12/2024
4/29/2024
12 Fine Grading
5/3/2024
5/9/2024
5 Utility Trenching
5/11/2024
5/25/2024
10 Building Construction
6/2/2024
9/5/2024
69 Building Construction and Paving
9/6/2024
9/23/2024
12 Building Construction
9/24/2024
9/26/2025
264
Building Construction and Architectural Coating
9/27/2025
10/22/2025
18 Building Construction
10/23/2025
11/12/2025
15 Building Construction and Finishing/Landscaping
11/13/2025
11/28/2025
12 Building Construction
11/29/2025
12/5/2025
5 D-8

Construction Trips
Phase Name
Worker Trip Ends Vendor Trip Ends Haul Truck Trip Start Date End Date Workdays Per Day Per Day Ends Per Day
Asphalt Demolition
10 4 64
8 0 91
8 0 0
3 0 56
10 0 108
8 0 43
8 0 0
70 14 82
5 0 40
14 0 0
5 0 40
3/1/2024
3/9/2024
6 Building Demolition
3/12/2024
3/18/2024
5 Building Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling
3/19/2024
3/29/2024
9 Site Preparation
4/2/2024
4/9/2024
6 Rough Grading
4/12/2024
4/29/2024
12 Fine Grading
5/3/2024
5/9/2024
5 Utility Trenching
5/11/2024
5/25/2024
10 Building Construction
6/2/2024
12/5/2025
395
Paving
9/6/2024
9/23/2024
12 Architectural Coating
9/27/2025
10/22/2025
18 Finishing/La ndsca ping
11/13/2025
11/28/2025
12 Construction Activity (Overlapping)
Asphalt Demolition
Building Demolition
Building Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling
Site Preparation
Rough Grading
Fine Grading
Utility Trenching
Building Construction
Building Construction and Paving
Building Construction
Building Construction and Architectural Coating
Building Construction
Building Construction and Finishing/Landscaping
Building Construction
Worker Trip Ends Vendor Trip Ends Haul Truck Trip
Per Day Per Day Ends Per Day
10 4
64 8
0 91
8 0
0 3
0 56
10 0
108
8 0
43 8
0 0
70 14
82 75
14 122
70 14
82 84
14 82
70 14
82 75
14 122
70 14
82 84
14 122
Start Date End Date Workdays
3/1/2024
3/9/2024
6 3/12/2024
3/18/2024
5 3/19/2024
3/29/2024
9 4/2/2024
4/9/2024
6 4/12/2024
4/29/2024
12 5/3/2024
5/9/2024
5 5/11/2024
5/25/2024
10 6/2/2024
9/5/2024
69 9/6/2024
9/23/2024
12 9/24/2024
9/26/2025
264
9/27/2025
10/22/2025
18 10/23/2025
11/12/2025
15 11/13/2025
11/28/2025
12 11/29/2025
12/5/2025
5 w

CalEEMod Inputs - Addendum to 1401 Quail Street Residential EIR Project, Operation Name:

Project Number:

Project Location:

County/Air Basin:

Climate Zone:

Land Use Setting:

Operational Year:

Gas Utility:

Electric Utility:

Air Basin:

Air District:

SRA:

Project Site Acreage
Disturbed Site Acreage
CaIEEMod Land Use Inputs
Land Use Type
Addendum to 1401 Quail Street Residential EIR Project, Operation C N B-24
1401 Quail St Newport Beach, CA 92660
Orange County
8 Urban
2026
Southern California Gas
Southern California Edison
South Coast Air Basin
South Coast AQMD
18 - North Orange County Coastal

1.71 1.71
Land Use Subtype
Landscape Area Square
Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Land Use Square Feet Feet Residential
Apartments Mid -Rise
78 Dwelling Units

0.78 137,693
13,690
Parking
Enclosed Parking with Elevator

32.15 1000 sqft

0.74 32,150
0 Parking
Parking Lot

1.14 1000 sqft

0.03 1,135
0 Parking
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces

7.17 1000 sqft

0.16 7,171
0 1.71
Net Trips
Land Use Type
Average Daily Trips
CalEEMod Trip Rate
Saturday Trips
CalEEMod Trip Rate
Sunday Trips
CalEEMod Trip Rate
Apartments Mid -Rise
110

1.41 306

3.92 278

3.56 Source: Based on ITE Trip rates (11th edition) for multi -family housing not close to rail for weekday and weekend rates.

Net Increase in Water Use 1,2
Indoor (gals/year) Outdoor (gals/year) Total
Apartments Mid -Rise 8,205 102 8,307
Notes:
1 Assumes 100% aerobic treatment.
z Net increase in water demand calculated in Chapter 6.19, Utilities and Service Providers, assuming projected indoor water demand is 100% of wastewater generation as conservative estimate.

D-10

Net chanee in Solid Waste 1
Land Use Total Solid Waste (tons/yr)
Apartments Mid -Rise 0.00
Notes:
1 Based on Chapter 6.19, Utilities and Service Providers, there would be a net decrease in solid waste generation and therefore modeled 0 tons/yrs.

Electricity (Buildings)
Default CalEEMod Energy Use
Nontitle-24 Electricity Nontitle-24 Natural Gas
Total Annual Electricity Consumption Total Annual Natural Gas Title-24 Electricity Energy Title-24 Natural Gas Energy Energy Intensity Energy Intensity Land Use Subtype (kWh/year) Consumption (kBTU/year) Intensity (kWhr/size/year)* Intensity (KBTU/size/year)* (kWhr/size/year) (KBTU/size/year) Apartments Mid -Rise
285,935.06
866,333.75
81,044.18
754,800.80
204,890.88
111,532.95
Enclosed Parking with Elevator
118,679.52

0.00 112,571.02

0.00 6,108.50

0.00 Parking Lot
998.64

0.00 998.64

0.00 0.00

0.00 Updated CalEEMod Energy Use
Land Use Subtype
Nontitle-24 Electricity Nontitle-24 Natural Gas
Total Annual Electricity Consumption Total Annual Natural Gas Title-24 Electricity Energy Title-24 Natural Gas Energy Energy Intensity Energy Intensity (kWh/year)' Consumption (kBTU/year) Intensity (kWhr/size/year) Intensity (KBTU/size/year) (kWhr/size/year) (KBTU/size/year) Apartments Mid -Rise
252,720.00
866,333.75
71,629.85
754,800.80
181,089.68
111,532.95
Enclosed Parking with Elevator

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Parking Lot

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Notes:
1 Total electricity consumption of 561,600 kWh/yr provided by Applicant and PV system would provide 55% of solar/renewable electricity (equivalent to 308,880 kWh/year). Used as a conservative analysis, rather than net increase in energy use.

Architectural Coating
*see Construction Assumptions Tab
Southern California Edison Carbon Intensity Factors'
Forecasted 2024-2025
CO2: 348.64
CH4: 0.033
N 20: 0.004
Notes:
1 CaIEEMod default values.
pounds per megawatt hour
pound per megawatt hour
pound per megawatt hour
BE

Changes to the CalEEMod Defaults - Fleet Mix 2025 Apartments Mid -Rise Trips 110
Default
I
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MCY
MDV
FleetMix (Model Default)

0.551820919

49.96943474

4.144940525

23.15265536

2.737983689

0.701154303

2.182420343

14.45773691

0.377403805

1.531488355

0.060485001

0.0966219

0.0358555
FleetMix (Model Default) adjusted

0.005518209

0.499694347

0.041449405

0.231526554

0.027379837

0.007011543

0.021824203

0.144577369

0.003774038

0.015314884

0.00060485

0.000966219

0.000358555
100%
Trips
1 55
5 25
3 1
2 16
0 2
0 0
0 110
Percent
79%
14%
100%
without buses/MH

0.005518

0.499694

0.041449

0.231527

0.027380

0.007012

0.021824

0.144577

0.003774

0.015315
0 0.000966
0 100%
Percent
79%
14%
100%
Adjusted without buses/MH

0.005607

0.499694

0.041449

0.231527

0.027820

0.007124

0.022175

0.144577

0.003835

0.015561

0.000000

0.000982

0.000000
Percent adjusted
79%
14%
100%
Assumed Mix

97.0%

2.00%
100%

0.000920

0.609809

0.050583

0.282547

0.004566

0.001169

0.027061

0.020000

0.000629

0.002554

0.000000

0.000161

0.000000
100%
adjusted with Assumed

0.092024

60.980874

5.058334

28.254656

0.456599

0.116928

2.706136

2.000000

0.062938

0.255398

0.000000

0.016113

0.000000
Percent Check:
97%
A
2%
Trips
0 67
6 31
1 0
3 2
0 0
0 0
0 110
107
q
2 CalEEMod Construction Model
D-13

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
CNB-24 Custom 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 Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.9. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.11. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
D-14
1 / 33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023

3.13. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.15. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.17. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.19. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.21. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated

3.23. Trenching (2025) - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off -Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
D-15
2/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

8. User Changes to Default Data
D-16
3/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Project Name
Construction Start Date
Operational Year
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale
Analysis Level for Defaults
Windspeed (m/s)
Precipitation (days)
Location
County
City
Air District
Air Basin
TAZ
EDFZ
Electric Utility
Gas Utility
App Version

1.2. Land Use Types
CNB-24
3/1 /2024
2025
Project/site
County

2.50 19.6
1401 Quail St, Newport Beach, CA 92660, USA
Orange
Newport Beach
South Coast AQMD
South Coast
5995
7 Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
2022.1.1.14
D-17
4/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Apartments Mid Rise 78.0
Dwelling Unit 0.78
137,693
13,690 - 232 -
Enclosed Parking 32.1
1000sgft 0.74
32,150

0.00 - -
with Elevator
Parking Lot 1.14
1000sgft 0.03

0.00 0.00
Other Non -Asphalt 7.17
1000sgft 0.16

0.00 0.00 - - -
Surfaces

1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by
Emissions Sector
Energy E-10-B

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) Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 3.22 19.8 28.1 21.0 0.09 0.90 5.20 6.10 0.84 1.96 2.79 - Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 1.91 19.8 17.0 17.9 0.08 0.35 4.86 5.15 0.33 0.96 1.23 - Average - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 0.97 1.50 7.92 8.83 0.04 0.19 1.68 1.85 0.18 0.44 0.61 - Annual - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Max)
Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power
12,875 12,875 0.84 1.50 23.4 13,365
12,441 12,441 0.83 1.49 0.59 12,908
6,148 6,148 0.39 0.70 4.91 6,372
D-18
5/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Unmit. 0.18 0.27 1.44 1.61 0.01 0.03 0.31 0.34 0.03 0.08 0.11 -

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/dav for dailv. ton/vr for annual) and GHGs (lb/dav for dailv. MT/vr for annual) Daily -
Summer
(Max)
2024

3.22 2.21

28.1 21.0

0.09 0.90

5.20 6.10

0.84 1.96

2.79 -
2025

1.63 19.8

12.2 15.8

0.06 0.30

2.69 2.99

0.28 0.70

0.98 -
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
2024

1.65 0.98

14.6 13.1

0.07 0.32

4.86 5.15

0.30 0.96

1.23 -
2025

1.91 19.8

17.0 17.9

0.08 0.35

3.30 3.65

0.33 0.88

1.21 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
2024

0.91 0.57

7.79 7.25

0.03 0.19

1.39 1.58

0.18 0.38

0.56 -
2025

0.97 1.50

7.92 8.83

0.04 0.17

1.68 1.85

0.16 0.44

0.61 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
2024

0.17 0.10

1.42 1.32

0.01 0.03

0.25 0.29

0.03 0.07

0.10 -
2025

0.18 0.27

1.44 1.61

0.01 0.03

0.31 0.34

0.03 0.08

0.11 -

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1,018 1,018 0.07 0.12 0.81 1,055
12,875
12,875

0.84 1.50

23.4 13,365
9,578
9,578

0.59 1.04

17.4 9,921
9,606
9,606

0.64 1.06

0.45 9,938
12,441
12,441

0.83 1.49

0.59 12,908
4,852
4,852

0.31 0.54

3.69 5,023
6,148
6,148

0.39 0.70

4.91 6,372
803
803

0.05 0.09

0.61 832
1,018
1,018

0.07 0.12

0.81 1,055
Onsite - - - - - - - - -
D-19
6/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.88

0.74 6.65

7.47 0.02

0.23 -

0.23 0.22
-

0.22 -
2,477
2,477

0.10 0.02
- 2,485
Equipment
Demolitio -
-
-
-
-
-

1.49 1.49
-

0.23 0.23 -
-
- -
n
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.14 0.14
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -

3.08 3.08
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 3.26
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Off -Road 0.01

0.01 0.11

0.12 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -

40.7 40.7
< 0.005
< 0.005
- 40.9
Equipment
Demolitio -
-
-
-
-
-

0.02 0.02
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
-
-
-
-
- -
n
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.05 0.05
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 0.05
truck
Annual
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -

6.74 6.74
< 0.005
< 0.005
- 6.76
Equipment
Demolitio -
-
-
-
-
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
-
-
-
-
- -
n
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 0.01
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
D-20
7/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Worker

0.04 0.04

0.04 0.52

0.00 0.00

0.13 0.13

0.00 0.03

0.03 -
Vendor

0.01 < 0.005

0.14 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 0.04
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
Hauling

0.46 0.09

5.83 2.48

0.03 0.06

1.16 1.21

0.06 0.32

0.38 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.01 < 0.005

0.10 0.04
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.02
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

3.3. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria
Pollutants (lb/day for daily,
ton/yr for annual) and
GHGs (lb/day
for
daily, MT/yr for
annual)
Onsite
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.97 0.81 6.29 6.25 0.03 0.21 - 0.21 0.20 - 0.20 - Equipment
Demolitio - - - - - - 3.11 3.11 - 0.47 0.47
n
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - truck
129
129
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 130
130
130

0.01 0.02

0.01 135
4,543
4,543

0.36 0.72

0.25 4,768

2.15 2.15
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.18 2.13

2.13 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.22 74.7

74.7 0.01

0.01 0.07

78.4 0.36

0.36 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.36 0.35

0.35 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.37 12.4

12.4 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 13.0
3,051
3,051

0.12 0.02 -
3,061

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 D-21
8/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
Daily
Off -Road

0.01 0.01

0.09 0.09
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Demolitio
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.04 0.04
-

0.01 0.01 -
n
Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Demolitio
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.01 0.01
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
n
Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.03 0.03

0.03 0.39

0.00 0.00

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.02

0.02 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.65 0.13

8.29 3.52

0.04 0.08

1.65 1.73

0.08 0.46

0.54 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.01 < 0.005

0.11 0.05
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.02
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
D-22
9/33

41.8 41.8
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

41.9 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 6.92

6.92 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

6.94 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 96.7

96.7 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 97.9

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
6,459
6,459

0.52 1.03

0.35 6,779

1.34 1.34
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

1.36 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 88.5

88.5 0.01

0.01 0.08

92.9 0.22

0.22 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.23 CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
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 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 -

3.5. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.97

0.81 6.29

6.25 0.03

0.21 -

0.21 0.20 -

0.20 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
- -
-
-
Daily
Off -Road 0.02

0.02 0.16

0.15 < 0.005

0.01 -

0.01 < 0.005 -
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 0.03
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
Summer
(Max)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 15.4
3,051
3,051

0.12 0.02 -
3,061

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 75.2

75.2 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

75.5 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 12.5

12.5 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

12.5 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 D-23
10/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.03 0.03

0.03 0.39

0.00 0.00

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.02

0.02 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

3.7. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite - - - -
- - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - -
- - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 0.14 0.12 1.20 1.92
< 0.005 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 - 0.05 -
Equipment
Dust -
- - 0.01 0.01 - < 0.005 < 0.005 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -
truck
D-24
11 / 33

96.7 96.7
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 97.9

0.00 0.00

2.42 2.42
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.45 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.40

0.40 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.41 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 - 291

3.06 3.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.23

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Daily, -
-
Winter
(Max)
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.03
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Dust -
-
-
-
-
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Dust -
-
-
-
-
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.15 0.00

0.00 0.03

0.03 0.00

0.01 0.01 -
Vendor 0.01
< 0.005

0.14 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 0.04
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
Hauling 0.40

0.08 4.94

2.16 0.03

0.05 1.02

1.07 0.05

0.29 0.33 -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
D-25
12/33

4.78 4.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 4.79

0.05 0.05
< 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.05 0.79

0.79 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.79 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01

33.9 33.9
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.14 34.4
130
130

0.01 0.02

0.35 135
3,985
3,985

0.32 0.63

8.32 4,191

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 -
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

3.9. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day
for
daily, MT/yr for
annual)
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 2.38 2.00 18.3 16.1

0.04 0.80 - 0.80

0.74 - 0.74 -
Equipment
Dust - - - -
- - 2.77 2.77
- 1.34 1.34 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 -
truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average - - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Daily
Off -Road 0.08 0.07 0.60 0.53
< 0.005 0.03 - 0.03

0.02 - 0.02 -
Equipment

0.54 0.54
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.54 2.13

2.13 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.22 65.5

65.5 0.01

0.01 0.06

68.8 0.09

0.09 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.09 0.35

0.35 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.37 10.8

10.8 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 11.4
3,887 3,887 0.16 0.03 - 3,900

4.52 4.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.76
128 128 0.01 < 0.005 - 128
D-26
13/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Dust
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.09 0.09
-

0.04 0.04 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
truck
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road

0.01 0.01

0.11 0.10
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Dust
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.02 0.02
-

0.01 0.01 -
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
truck
Offsite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker

0.04 0.04

0.04 0.60

0.00 0.00

0.13 0.13

0.00 0.03

0.03 -
Vendor

0.02 0.01

0.21 0.10
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.05 0.05
< 0.005

0.01 0.02 -
Hauling

0.78 0.16

9.50 4.15

0.05 0.10

1.95 2.05

0.10 0.55

0.64 -
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.03 0.01

0.33 0.14
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.06 0.07
< 0.005

0.02 0.02 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
D-27
14/33

0.15 0.15
< 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.16 21.2

21.2 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

21.2 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03
136
136
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.56 138
194
194

0.01 0.03

0.52 203
7,663
7,663

0.61 1.22

16.0 8,058

4.30 4.30
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 4.36

6.39 6.39
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 6.67
252
252

0.02 0.04

0.23 265

0.71 0.71
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.72 1.06

1.06 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

1.10 CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 -

3.11. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/dav for dailv. ton/vr for annual) and GHGs (lb/dav for dailv. MT/vr for annual) Onsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 0.66

0.55 5.13

6.16 0.01

0.24 -

0.24 0.22
-

0.22 -
Equipment
Dust -
-
-

0.21 0.21
-

0.02 0.02 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.14 0.14
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Off -Road 0.01

0.01 0.07

0.08 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Dust -
-
-
-
-
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
D-28
15/33

41.7 41.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 43.8
954 954 0.04 0.01 - 957

3.06 3.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.23

13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 13.1

0.04 0.04
< 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.04 2.16

2.16 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

2.17 CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Dust - - - -
- -
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
truck
Offsite - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.45

0.00 0.00

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.02

0.02 -
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.07
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.03 0.04
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
Hauling 0.31 0.06 3.78 1.65

0.02 0.04

0.78 0.82

0.04 0.22

0.26 -
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Annual - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

3.13. Building Construction (2024)
- Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr
for annual) and GHGs (lb/day
for
daily, MT/yr for
annual)
Onsite - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
D-29
16/33

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
102
102
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.42 103
130
130

0.01 0.02

0.35 135
3,051
3,051

0.24 0.49

6.37 3,208

1.34 1.34
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

1.36 1.78

1.78 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

1.85 41.8

41.8 < 0.005

0.01 0.04

43.9 0.22

0.22 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.23 0.29

0.29 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.31 6.92

6.92 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 7.27

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 0.71

0.60 5.44

6.09 0.02

0.24 -

0.24 0.22
-

0.22 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.71

0.60 5.44

6.09 0.02

0.24 -

0.24 0.22
-

0.22 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Off -Road 0.30

0.25 2.27

2.54 0.01

0.10 -

0.10 0.09
-

0.09 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.05

0.05 0.41

0.46 < 0.005

0.02 -

0.02 0.02
-

0.02 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.29

0.26 0.27

4.19 0.00

0.00 0.91

0.91 0.00

0.21 0.21 -
Vendor 0.04

0.01 0.47

0.23 < 0.005

0.01 0.12

0.12 < 0.005

0.03 0.04 -
Hauling 0.59

0.12 7.21

3.15 0.04

0.07 1.48

1.56 0.07

0.42 0.49 -
D-30
17/33
2,019
2,019

0.08 0.02
- 2,026

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,019
2,019

0.08 0.02
- 2,026

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
841
841

0.03 0.01
- 844

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
139
139

0.01 < 0.005 -
140

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 944
944

0.01 0.03

3.87 958
441
441

0.02 0.06

1.19 461
5,818
5,818

0.46 0.93

12.2 6,118

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.29 0.26

0.31 3.61

0.00 0.00

0.91 0.91

0.00 0.21

0.21 -
Vendor

0.04 0.01

0.49 0.24
< 0.005

0.01 0.12

0.12 < 0.005

0.03 0.04 -
Hauling

0.58 0.12

7.47 3.17

0.04 0.07

1.48 1.56

0.07 0.42

0.49 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker

0.12 0.11

0.13 1.58

0.00 0.00

0.37 0.37

0.00 0.09

0.09 -
Vendor

0.02 < 0.005

0.20 0.10
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.05 0.05
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
Hauling

0.24 0.05

3.15 1.32

0.02 0.03

0.61 0.64

0.03 0.17

0.20 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker

0.02 0.02

0.02 0.29

0.00 0.00

0.07 0.07

0.00 0.02

0.02 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.04 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.04 0.01

0.57 0.24
< 0.005

0.01 0.11

0.12 0.01

0.03 0.04 -

3.15. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 0.56 0.47 3.55 6.02 0.02 0.17 - 0.17 0.16 - 0.16 - Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - truck
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
898
898

0.01 0.03

0.10 909
441
441

0.02 0.06

0.03 460
5,820
5,820

0.46 0.93

0.32 6,108
380
380

0.01 0.01

0.70 385
184
184

0.01 0.03

0.21 192
2,426
2,426

0.19 0.39

2.18 2,548

62.8 62.8
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.12 63.7

30.4 30.4
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.04 31.7
402
402

0.03 0.06

0.36 422
2,018
2,018

0.08 0.02
- 2,025

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
D-31
18/33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Off -Road 0.56

0.47 3.55

6.02 0.02

0.17 -

0.17 0.16
-

0.16 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Off -Road 0.37

0.31 2.35

4.00 0.01

0.12 -

0.12 0.11
-

0.11 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
Off -Road 0.07

0.06 0.43

0.73 < 0.005

0.02 -

0.02 0.02
-

0.02 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.28

0.25 0.24

3.90 0.00

0.00 0.91

0.91 0.00

0.21 0.21 -
Vendor 0.03

0.01 0.45

0.22 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.12 0.12
< 0.005

0.03 0.04 -
Hauling 0.55

0.12 6.95

3.08 0.04

0.07 1.48

1.56 0.07

0.42 0.49 -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.28

0.25 0.27

3.37 0.00

0.00 0.91

0.91 0.00

0.21 0.21 -
Vendor 0.03

0.01 0.47

0.23 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.12 0.12
< 0.005

0.03 0.04 -
Hauling 0.55

0.12 7.21

3.10 0.04

0.07 1.48

1.56 0.07

0.42 0.49 -
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker 0.18

0.16 0.18

2.34 0.00

0.00 0.60

0.60 0.00

0.14 0.14 -
Vendor 0.02

0.01 0.31

0.15 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.08 0.08
< 0.005

0.02 0.02 -
D-32
19/33
2,018
2,018

0.08 0.02 -
2,025

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 1,339
1,339

0.05 0.01 -
1,343

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 222
222

0.01 < 0.005 -
222

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 925
925

0.01 0.03

3.50 938
434
434

0.02 0.06

1.18 454
5,719
5,719

0.46 0.93

12.0 6,018
880
880

0.01 0.03

0.09 890
434
434

0.02 0.06

0.03 453
5,721
5,721

0.46 0.93

0.31 6,008
592
592

0.01 0.02

1.00 600
288
288

0.02 0.04

0.34 301

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Hauling

0.36 0.08

4.84 2.05

0.03 0.05

0.97 1.02

0.05 0.27

0.32 -
Annual
-
-
- -
Worker

0.03 0.03

0.03 0.43

0.00 0.00

0.11 0.11

0.00 0.03

0.03 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.06 0.03
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.07 0.01

0.88 0.37
< 0.005

0.01 0.18

0.19 0.01

0.05 0.06 -

3.17. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/dav for dailv. ton/vr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/dav for dailv. MT/vr for annual) Onsite -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 0.24

0.20 2.15

4.28 0.01

0.08 -

0.08 0.08 -

0.08 -
Equipment
Paving -

0.17 -
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Winter
(Max)
Average -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
Daily
Off -Road 0.01

0.01 0.07

0.14 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Paving -

0.01 -
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.03
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005 -
Equipment
D-33
20 / 33
3,794
3,794

0.31 0.61

3.46 3,988

98.0 98.0
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.17 99.3

47.7 47.7
< 0.005

0.01 0.06

49.8 628
628

0.05 0.10

0.57 660
747
747

0.03 0.01
- 749

0.00 0.00

24.5 24.5
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

24.6 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 4.06

4.06 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

4.08 CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Paving
-
< 0.005
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker

0.02 0.02

0.02 0.30

0.00 0.00

0.07 0.07

0.00 0.02

0.02 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.29 0.06

3.52 1.54

0.02 0.04

0.72 0.76

0.04 0.20

0.24 -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Average
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.01 < 0.005

0.12 0.05
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.02
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

3.19. Architectural Coating
(2025)
- Unmitigated
Criteria
Pollutants (lb/day for daily,
ton/yr for annual) and
GHGs (lb/day
for
daily, MT/yr for
annual)
Onsite - - - -
Daily, - - - -
Summer
(Max)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

67.8 67.8
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.28 68.8

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,838
2,838

0.23 0.45

5.93 2,984

2.15 2.15
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.18 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 93.3

93.3 0.01

0.01 0.08

98.0 0.36

0.36 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.36 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 15.5

15.5 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 16.2
D-34
21 / 33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Off -Road 0.14

0.12 0.94

1.79 < 0.005

0.05 -

0.05 0.04
-

0.04 -
Equipment
Architect -

18.8 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.14

0.12 0.94

1.79 < 0.005

0.05 -

0.05 0.04
-

0.04 -
Equipment
Architect -

18.8 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
Daily
Off -Road 0.01

0.01 0.05

0.09 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Architect -

0.92 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Architect -

0.17 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- D-35
22 / 33
298 298 0.01 < 0.005 - 299

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
298 298 0.01 < 0.005 - 299

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 14.7

14.7 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

14.7 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 2.43

2.43 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker

0.06 0.05

0.05 0.78

0.00 0.00

0.18 0.18

0.00 0.04

0.04 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.06 0.05

0.05 0.67

0.00 0.00

0.18 0.18

0.00 0.04

0.04 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.01 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

3.21. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
185
185
< 0.005

0.01 0.70
188

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
176
176
< 0.005

0.01 0.02
178

0.00 0.00

8.80 8.80
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 8.91

0.00 0.00

1.46 1.46
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

1.48 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 D-36
23 / 33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Off -Road 0.52

0.44 3.83

5.63 0.02

0.14 -

0.14 0.13
-

0.13 -
Equipment
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.14 0.14
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Off -Road 0.01

0.01 0.10

0.15 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.03
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Onsite < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.03

0.03 0.03

0.45 0.00

0.00 0.10

0.10 0.00

0.02 0.02 -
Vendor 0.01
< 0.005

0.14 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 0.04
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
D-37
24 / 33
1,644
1,644

0.07 0.01
- 1,650

3.06 3.06
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 3.23

45.0 45.0
< 0.005
< 0.005
-

45.2 0.08

0.08 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.09 7.46

7.46 < 0.005
< 0.005
-

7.48 0.01

0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 102
102
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.42 103
130
130

0.01 0.02

0.35 135

0.00 0.00

2.69 2.69
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.72 3.55

3.55 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

3.70 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Annual
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

3.23. Trenching (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.20

0.17 1.96

3.41 < 0.005

0.07 -

0.07 0.06 -

0.06 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
Daily
Off -Road 0.01

0.01 0.06

0.11 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Off -Road < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
D-38
25 / 33

0.44 0.44
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.45 0.59

0.59 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.61 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 535
535

0.02 < 0.005 -
537

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 17.6

17.6 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

17.7 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 2.91

2.91 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

2.92 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Daily,
-
-
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
-
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.02 0.02

0.02 0.24

0.00 0.00

0.07 0.07

0.00 0.02

0.02 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.27 0.06

3.52 1.51

0.02 0.04

0.72 0.76

0.04 0.20

0.24 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling

0.01 < 0.005

0.12 0.05
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.02
< 0.005

0.01 0.01 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Asphalt Demolition
Demolition
Building Demolition
Demolition
Building Debris Onsite
Demolition
Processing/Recycling
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Rough Grading
Grading
3/1 /2024
3/9/2024
3/12/2024
3/18/2024
3/19/2024
3/29/2024
4/2/2024 4/9/2024
4/12/2024 4/29/2024
D-39
26 / 33

63.2 63.2
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 63.9

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,791
2,791

0.23 0.45

0.15 2,931

2.11 2.11
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.13 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 91.7

91.7 0.01

0.01 0.08

96.4 0.35

0.35 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.35 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 15.2

15.2 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 16.0

5.00 6.00 -

5.00 5.00 -

5.00 9.00 -

5.00 6.00 -

5.00 12.0 -

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Fine Grading
Grading
Building Construction
Building Construction
Paving
Paving
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Utility Trenching
Trenching
Finishing/Landscaping
Trenching

5.2. Off -Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Asphalt Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
Diesel
oes
Asphalt Demolition
Skid Steer Loaders
Diesel
Asphalt Demolition
Excavators
Diesel
Asphalt Demolition
Rubber Tired Loaders
Diesel
Building Demolition
Excavators
Diesel
Building Demolition
Rubber Tired Loaders
Diesel
Building Debris Onsite
Excavators
Diesel
Processing/Recycling
Building Debris Onsite
Rubber Tired Loaders
Diesel
Processing/Recycling
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
Diesel
oes
Rough Grading
Graders
Diesel
Rough Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
Diesel
Rough Grading
Rubber Tired Loaders
Diesel
Rough Grading
Excavators
Diesel
Fine Grading
Graders
Diesel
5/3/2024
5/9/2024

5.00 5.00 -
6/2/2024
12/5/2025

5.00 395 -
9/6/2024
9/23/2024

5.00 12.0 -
9/27/2025
10/22/2025

5.00 18.0 -
5/11 /2024
5/25/2024

5.00 10.0 -
11 /13/2025
11 /28/2025

5.00 12.0 -
Average

1.00 8.00

84.0 0.37
Average

1.00 8.00

71.0 0.37
Average

1.00 8.00
314

0.38 Average

1.00 8.00
249

0.36 Average

2.00 8.00
314

0.38 Average

1.00 8.00
249

0.36 Average

2.00 8.00
314

0.38 Average

1.00 8.00
249

0.36 Average

1.00 8.00

84.0 0.37
Average

1.00 8.00
148

0.41 Average

1.00 8.00
367

0.40 Average

1.00 8.00
249

0.36 Average

1.00 8.00
314

0.38 Average

1.00 8.00
148

0.41 D-40
27 / 33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Fine Grading
Skid Steer Loaders
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

71.0 0.37
Fine Grading
Excavators
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

36.0 0.38
Building Construction
Rough Terrain Forklifts
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00
160

0.40 Building Construction
Paving Equipment
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00
425

0.36 Paving
Rollers
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00
142

0.38 Paving
Skid Steer Loaders
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

71.0 0.37
Architectural Coating
Forklifts
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00
160

0.20 Utility Trenching
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

84.0 0.37
oes
Utility Trenching
Excavators
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00
314

0.38 Utility Trenching
Skid Steer Loaders
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

71.0 0.37
Finishing/Landscaping
Skid Steer Loaders
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

71.0 0.37
Finishing/Landscaping
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

84.0 0.37
oes

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
One -Way
Trips per Day
Asphalt Demolition
-
-
-
-
Asphalt Demolition
Worker

10.0 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Asphalt Demolition
Vendor

4.00 10.2

HHDT,MHDT
Asphalt Demolition
Hauling

64.0 20.0
HHDT
Asphalt Demolition
Onsite truck

1.00 0.41
HHDT
Site Preparation
-
-
-
Site Preparation
Worker

2.50 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation
Vendor

4.00 10.2

HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation
Hauling

56.2 20.0
HHDT
D-41
28 / 33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Site Preparation
Onsite truck

1.00 0.41
HHDT
Rough Grading
-
-
-
-
Rough Grading
Worker

10.0 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Rough Grading
Vendor

6.00 10.2

HHDT,MHDT
Rough Grading
Hauling
108

20.0 HHDT
Rough Grading
Onsite truck

1.00 0.83
HHDT
Building Construction
-
-
-
-
Building Construction
Worker

69.7 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction
Vendor

13.6 10.2

HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction
Hauling

82.0 20.0
HHDT
Building Construction
Onsite truck
-
-
HHDT
Paving
-
-
-
-
Paving
Worker

5.00 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving
Vendor

0.00 10.2

HHDT,MHDT
Paving
Hauling

40.0 20.0
HHDT
Paving
Onsite truck
-
-
HHDT
Architectural Coating
-
-
-
-
Architectural Coating
Worker

13.9 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating
Vendor
-

10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating
Hauling

0.00 20.0
HHDT
Architectural Coating
Onsite truck
-
-
HHDT
Building Demolition
-
-
-
-
Building Demolition
Worker

7.50 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Demolition
Vendor
-

10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Demolition
Hauling

91.0 20.0
HHDT
Building Demolition
Onsite truck
-
-
HHDT
Building Debris Onsite
-
-
-
-
Processing/Recycling
D-42
29 / 33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Building Debris Onsite
Worker
Processing/Recycling
Building Debris Onsite
Vendor
Processing/Recycling
Building Debris Onsite
Hauling
Processing/Recycling
Building Debris Onsite
Onsite truck
Processing/Recycling
Fine Grading
—
Fine Grading
Worker
Fine Grading
Vendor
Fine Grading
Hauling
Fine Grading
Onsite truck
Utility Trenching
—
Utility Trenching
Worker
Utility Trenching
Vendor
Utility Trenching
Hauling
Utility Trenching
Onsite truck
Finishing/Landscaping
—
Finishing/Landscaping
Worker
Finishing/Landscaping
Vendor
Finishing/Landscaping
Hauling
Finishing/Landscaping
Onsite truck

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

7.50 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
—

10.2 HHDT,MHDT

0.00 20.0
HHDT
—
—
HHDT

7.50 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

4.00 10.2

HHDT,MHDT

43.0 20.0
HHDT

1.00 0.41
HHDT

7.50 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

4.00 10.2

HHDT,MHDT

0.00 20.0
HHDT

1.00 0.41
HHDT

5.00 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
—

10.2 HHDT,MHDT

40.0 20.0
HHDT
—
—
HHDT
Water unpaved roads twice daily
55% 55%
D-43
30 / 33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44%
Sweep paved roads once per month 9%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
44%
9%
(Architectural Coating 278,828 92,943
1,451
1161 2,059

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)Material
Asphalt Demolition 0.00 0.00

0.00 648 —
Building Demolition 0.00 0.00

0.00 1,126
Site Preparation — 2,690

0.00 0.00 —
Rough Grading — 6,500

12.0 0.00 —
Fine Grading — 110

2.50 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.93

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
31 / 33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Apartments Mid Rise —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.74
Parking Lot 0.03
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.16

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (Ib/MWh)
2024 0.00 349
2025 0.00 349

0.03 < 0.005

0.03 < 0.005
Based on Applicant info., see PD
Based on applicant info., see assumptions file
Based on equipment provided by applicant, see assumptions file Based on applicant info., included calculated water truck trips as vendor trips, calculated onsite water truck trip length, see assumptions file
Condition of Approval to use low VOC paint for interior, residential exterior paint VOC content provided by applicant, see assumptions file,
ITE Trip rates, see assumptions file
Adjusted fleet mix, see assumptions file
South Coast AQMD's super compliant paint (<10g/L), see assumptions file assume 100% aerobic treatment, see assumptions file
Provided by applicant, see assumptions file
assume no fireplaces or wood stoves
Assume building debris onsite process/reprocessing will not be hauled offsite, see assumptions file D-45
32 / 33

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/29/2023
Operations: Solid Waste Net decrease in solid waste generation, see assumptions file D-46
33 / 33

CalEEMod Operations Model
D-47

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
CNB-24 Custom 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
D-48
1 / 20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
D-49
2/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.17. User Defined

8. User Changes to Default Data
D-50
3/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types
CNB-24
3/1 /2024
2025
Project/site
County

2.50 19.6
1401 Quail St, Newport Beach, CA 92660, USA
Orange
Newport Beach
South Coast AQMD
South Coast
5995
7 Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
2022.1.1.14
D-51
4/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
Apartments Mid Rise

78.0 Dwelling Unit

0.78 137,693
13,690
Enclosed Parking

32.1 1000sgft

0.74 32,150

0.00 with Elevator
Parking Lot

1.14 1000sgft

0.03 0.00

0.00 Other Non -Asphalt

7.17 1000sgft

0.16 0.00

0.00 Surfaces

1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual 232 -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Summer
(Max)
Unmit.

1.83 4.72

0.86 16.4

0.02 0.03

2.47 2.51

0.03 0.63

0.66 0.02
2,893
2,893

0.14 0.07

10.1 2,926
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Winter
(Max)
Unmit.

1.16 4.09

0.87 9.74

0.02 0.03

2.47 2.50

0.03 0.63

0.65 0.02
2,765
2,765

0.15 0.07

1.22 2,791
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Daily
(Max)
Unmit.

1.08 4.03

0.60 9.32

0.01 0.03

1.31 1.34

0.03 0.33

0.36 0.02
1,736
1,736

0.10 0.04

3.06 1,754
Annual-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(Max)
Unmit.

0.20 0.74

0.11 1.70
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.24 0.24
< 0.005

0.06 0.07
< 0.005
287
287

0.02 0.01

0.51 290
D-52
5/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/dav for daily. ton/vr for annual) and GHGs Daily,
-
-
Summer
(Max)
Mobile

1.14 1.04
Area

0.67 3.67
Energy

0.03 0.01
Water
-
-
Waste
-
-
Refrig.
-
-
Total

1.83 4.72
Daily,
-
-
Winter
(Max)
Mobile

1.14 1.04
Area

0.00 3.04
Energy

0.03 0.01
Water
-
-
Waste
-
-
Refrig.
-
-
Total

1.16 4.09
Average
-
-
Daily
Mobile

0.60 0.54
Area

0.46 3.47
Energy

0.03 0.01
Water
-
for daily. MT/vr for annual

0.58 10.5

0.02 0.01 2.47

2.49 0.01 0.63

0.64 -
2,356
2,356

0.10 0.06 9.08
2,387

0.06 5.81
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005

0.00 17.6

17.6 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

17.6 0.22

0.09 < 0.005

0.02 -

0.02 0.02 -

0.02 -
519
519

0.05 < 0.005 -
521
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-

0.02 0.05

0.07 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.08 -
-
-
- -
-
- -
-

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 -
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- 0.99

0.99 0.86
-

16.4 -

0.02 -

0.03 2.47
- -

2.51 -

0.03 0.63
- -

0.66 -

0.02 -
2,893
-
2,893
-

0.14 -

0.07 10.1
- -
2,926
-

0.65 9.65

0.02 0.01 2.47

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.22 0.09
< 0.005

0.02 -

0.87 9.74

0.02 0.03 2.47

0.35 5.24

0.01 0.01 1.31

0.04 3.98
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.22 0.09
< 0.005

0.02 -

2.49 0.01 0.63

0.00 0.00 -

0.02 0.02 -

2.50 0.03 0.63

1.32 0.01 0.33
< 0.005 < 0.005 -

0.02 0.02 -
D-53
6/20

0.64 -
2,246
2,246

0.10 0.07

0.24 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.02 -
519
519

0.05 < 0.005
-
-

0.02 0.05

0.07 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
-

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.99 0.65

0.02 2,765
2,765

0.15 0.07

1.22 0.34
-
1,205
1,205

0.05 0.04

2.08 < 0.005

0.00 12.0

12.0 < 0.005
< 0.005
-

0.02 -
519
519

0.05 < 0.005
-
-

0.02 0.05

0.07 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
2,269

0.00 521

0.08 0.00

0.99 2,791
1,219

12.1 521

0.08 CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
Waste
-
-
-
-
-
- -

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 Refrig.
-
-
-
-

0.99 0.99
Total

1.08 4.03

0.60 9.32

0.01 0.03 1.31

1.34 0.03 0.33

0.36 0.02
1,736
1,736

0.10 0.04

3.06 1,754
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mobile

0.11 0.10

0.06 0.96
< 0.005
< 0.005 0.24

0.24 < 0.005 0.06

0.06 -
199
199

0.01 0.01

0.34 202
Area

0.08 0.63

0.01 0.73
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005

0.00 1.99

1.99 < 0.005
< 0.005
-

2.00 Energy
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.04 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
-

85.9 85.9

0.01 < 0.005
-

86.3 Water
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
-

0.01 Waste
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 Refrig.

0.16 0.16
Total

0.20 0.74

0.11 1.70
< 0.005
< 0.005 0.24

0.24 < 0.005 0.06

0.07 < 0.005
287
287

0.02 0.01

0.51 290

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Apartme 1.14 1.04 0.58 10.5 0.02 0.01 2.47 2.49 0.01 0.63 0.64 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Parking
with
Elevator
2,356 2,356 0.10 0.06 9.08 2,387

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D-54
7/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
Parking 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Lot
Other 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 1.14

1.04 0.58

10.5 0.02

0.01 2.47

2.49 0.01

0.63 0.64 -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Apartme 1.14

1.04 0.65

9.65 0.02

0.01 2.47

2.49 0.01

0.63 0.64 -
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Parking
with
Elevator
Parking 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Lot
Other 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 1.14

1.04 0.65

9.65 0.02

0.01 2.47

2.49 0.01

0.63 0.64 -
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Apartme 0.11

0.10 0.06

0.96 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.24 0.24
< 0.005

0.06 0.06 -
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Parking
with
Elevator
Parking 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Lot
Other 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Non -Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,356
2,356

0.10 0.06

9.08 2,387
2,246 2,246 0.10 0.07 0.24 2,269

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,246
2,246

0.10 0.07

0.24 2,269
199
199

0.01 0.01

0.34 202

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
D-55
8/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
Total 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 - 199 199 0.01 0.01 0.34 202

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/dav for dailv. ton/vr for annual) and GHGs (lb/dav for dailv. MT/vr for annual) Daily, - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
-
-
- -
-
Summer
(Max)
Apartme - - - - - -
- - - - - - 241
241

0.02 < 0.005 -
243
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
Parking - - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 Lot
Other - - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total - - - - - -
- - - - - - 241
241

0.02 < 0.005 -
243
Daily, - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
-
-
- -
-
Winter
(Max)
Apartme - - - - - -
- - - - - - 241
241

0.02 < 0.005 -
243
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
D-56
9/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
Parking - - -
Lot
Other - - - - - - - - - - -
Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total - - - - - - - - - - -
Annual - - - - - - - - - - -
Apartme - - - - - - - - - - -
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - - - - -
Parking
with
Elevator
Parking - - - - - - - - - - -
Lot
Other - - - - - - - - - - -
Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total - - - - - - - - - - -

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
- 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 - 241
241

0.02 < 0.005 -
243
- 40.0

40.0 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

40.2 - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 40.0

40.0 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

40.2 Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Consum - 2.95 - - - - - - - - - - - -
er
Products
MR
D-57
10/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
Architect
-

0.09 -
-
-
- -
-
Coatings
Landsca

0.67 0.63

0.06 5.81
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
-

17.6 17.6
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

17.6 pe
Equipme
nt
Total

0.67 3.67

0.06 5.81
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005

0.00 17.6

17.6 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

17.6 Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
Winter
(Max)
Hearths

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Consum
-

2.95 -
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
er
Products
Architect
-

0.09 -
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
ural
Coatings
Total

0.00 3.04

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Annual
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
Hearths

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Consum
-

0.54 -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
er
Products
Architect
-

0.02 -
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
ural
Coatings
Landsca

0.08 0.08

0.01 0.73
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
-

1.99 1.99
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

2.00 pe
Equipme
nt
Total

0.08 0.63

0.01 0.73
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005

0.00 1.99

1.99 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

2.00 4.4. Water Emissions
by Land Use
D-58
11 / 20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Daily, - - - - -
- - - - - - -
-
-
-
- -
-
Summer
(Max)
Apartme - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.02

0.05 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.08 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
Parking - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Lot
Other - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.02

0.05 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.08 Daily, - - - - -
- - - - - - -
-
-
-
- -
-
Winter
(Max)
Apartme -
- - - - - - 0.02

0.05 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.08 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
Parking

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 Lot
Other - - - - -
- - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
D-59
12/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
Total
Annual
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
Parking
Lot
Other - - - - - - - - - - -
Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - -
Parking
with
Elevator
Parking - - - -
Lot

0.02 0.05

0.07 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 0.00

0.00 -

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005 -

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.08 0.01
RIN

0.01 N M
$ We
N M
D-60
13/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
Other - - - - -
- - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total - - - - -
- - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Daily, - - - - -
- - - - - - -
-
-
-
- -
-
Winter
(Max)
Apartme - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
Parking - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Lot
Other - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total -
- - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Annual - - - - -
- - - - - - -
-
-
-
- -
-
Apartme - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
Parking - - - - -
- - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Lot
Other - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
Total - - - - -
- - - - - - 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

0.00 D-61
14/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
nts
Mid Rise
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)

0.99 0.99
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.99 0.99
nts
Mid Rise
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — —
nts
Mid Rise
Total— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) D-62
15/20

0.99 0.99

0.16 0.16

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
Total —
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Total —
Annual —
Total —
D-63
16/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — —
Daily, — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — —
Annual — — — —
Total — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Apartments Mid Rise
110
306
278
59,096
1,271
3,533
3,208
682,784
Enclosed Parking

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
with Elevator
Parking Lot

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Other Non -Asphalt

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Surfaces
D-64
17/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
278828 92,943 1,451 161 2,059

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N20 and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise
252,720
349

0.0330

0.0040
866,334
Enclosed Parking with Elevator

0.00 349

0.0330

0.0040

0.00 Parking Lot

0.00 349

0.0330

0.0040

0.00 Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces

0.00 349

0.0330

0.0040

0.00 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Apartments Mid Rise 8,205 102
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation
D-65
18/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Apartments Mid Rise 0.00 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 and/or freezers

5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.17. User Defined
D-66
19/20

CNB-24 Custom Report, 6/30/2023

8. User Changes to Default Data
Land Use
Construction: Construction Phases
Construction: Off -Road Equipment
Construction: Trips and VMT
Construction: Architectural Coatings
Operations: Vehicle Data
Operations: Fleet Mix
Operations: Architectural Coatings
Operations: Water and Waste Water
Operations: Energy Use
Operations: Hearths
Construction: Demolition
Operations: Solid Waste
Based on Applicant info., see PD
Based on applicant info., see assumptions file
Based on equipment provided by applicant, see assumptions file Based on applicant info., included calculated water truck trips as vendor trips, calculated onsite water truck trip length, see assumptions file
Condition of Approval to use low VOC paint for interior, residential exterior paint VOC content provided by applicant, see assumptions file,
ITE Trip rates, see assumptions file
Adjusted fleet mix, see assumptions file
South Coast AQMD's super compliant paint (<10g/L), see assumptions file assume 100% aerobic treatment, see assumptions file
Provided by applicant, accounts for solar/renewable electricity, see assumptions file assume no fireplaces or wood stoves
Assume building debris onsite process/reprocessing will not be hauled offsite, see assumptions file Net decrease in solid waste generation, see assumptions file D-67
20 / 20

Emissions Worksheet
D-68

Regional Construction Emissions Worksheet - Unmitigated with SC AQ-2:

3.1 Asphalt Demolition (2024)
ROG NOx CO S02
Onsite
Offsite
TOTAL

3.3 Building Demolition (2024)
Onsite
Offsite
TOTAL
Off -Road Equipment

0.74 6.65

7.47 0.02
Demolition
Onsite truck

0.01 0.02

0.01 0.01
Total

0.75 6.67

7.48 0.03
Worker

0.04 0.04

0.52 0.00
Vendor

0.01 0.14

0.07 0.01
Hauling

0.09 5.83

2.48 0.03
Total

0.14 6.01

3.07 0.04

0.88 12.68

10.55 0.06
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

0.23 0.22

1.49 0.23

0.14 0.01

1.86 0.46

0.13 0.03

0.04 0.01

1.21 0.38

1.38 0.42

3.24 0.88
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Off -Road Equipment

0.81 6.29

6.25 0.03

0.21 0.20
Demolition

3.11 0.47
Onsite truck

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Total

0.81 6.29

6.25 0.03

3.32 0.67
Worker

0.03 0.03

0.39 0.00

0.10 0.02
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Hauling

0.13 8.29

3.52 0.04

1.73 0.54
Total

0.16 8.32

3.91 0.04

1.83 0.56

0.97 14.61

10.16 0.07

5.15 1.23

3.5 Building Demo Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling (2024) ROG
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

0.81 Onsite truck

0.00 Total

0.81 Offsite
Worker

0.03 Vendor

0.00 Hauling

0.00 Total

0.03 TOTAL

0.84 3.7 Site Preparation(2024)
Onsite
Offsite
TOTAL
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

6.29 6.25

0.03 0.21

0.20 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.29 6.25

0.03 0.21

0.20 0.03

0.39 0.00

0.10 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.03 0.39

0.00 0.10

0.02 6.32

6.64 0.03

0.31 0.22
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Off -Road Equipment

0.12 1.20

1.92 0.01

0.05 0.05
Dust from Material Movement

0.01 0.01
Onsite truck

0.01 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.14 0.01
Total

0.13 1.22

1.93 0.01

0.20 0.07
Worker

0.01 0.01

0.15 0.00

0.03 0.01
Vendor

0.01 0.14

0.07 0.01

0.04 0.01
Hauling

0.08 4.94

2.16 0.03

1.07 0.33
Total

0.10 5.09

2.38 0.04

1.14 0.35

0.22 6.31

4.31 0.05

1.34 0.42
D-69

3.9 Rough Grading (2024)
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment
Dust from Material Movement
Onsite truck
Total
Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total
TOTAL

3.11 Fine Grading (2024)
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment
Dust from Material Movement
Onsite truck
Total
Offsite
TOTAL

3.13 Building Construction (2024)
Onsite
Offsite
TOTAL

3.15 Building Construction (2025)
Onsite
Offsite
TOTAL

3.17 Paving (2024)
Onsite
Offsite
TOTAL
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

2.00 18.30

16.10 0.04

0.80 0.74

2.77 1.34

0.01 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.29 0.03

2.01 18.32

16.11 0.05

3.86 2.11

0.04 0.04

0.60 0.00

0.13 0.03

0.01 0.21

0.10 < 0.005

0.05 0.02

0.16 9.50

4.15 0.05

2.05 0.64

0.21 9.75

4.85 0.05

2.23 0.69

2.22 28.07

20.96 0.10

6.09 2.80
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

0.55 5.13

6.16 0.01

0.24 0.22

0.21 0.02

0.01 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.14 0.01

0.56 5.15

6.17 0.02

0.59 0.25

0.03 0.03

0.45 0.00

0.10 0.02

0.01 0.14

0.07 0.01

0.04 0.01

0.06 3.78

1.65 0.02

0.82 0.26

0.10 3.95

2.17 0.03

0.96 0.29

0.65 9.10

8.34 0.04

1.55 0.54
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Off -Road Equipment

0.60 5.44

6.09 0.02

0.24 0.22
Onsite truck

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Total

0.60 5.44

6.09 0.02

0.24 0.22
Worker

0.26 0.27

4.19 0.00

0.91 0.21
Vendor

0.01 0.47

0.23 0.01

0.12 0.04
Hauling

0.12 7.21

3.15 0.04

1.56 0.49
Total

0.39 7.95

7.57 0.05

2.59 0.74

0.99 13.39

13.66 0.07

2.83 0.96
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Off -Road Equipment

0.47 3.55

6.02 0.02

0.17 0.16
Onsite truck

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Total

0.47 3.55

6.02 0.02

0.17 0.16
Worker

0.25 0.24

3.90 0.00

0.91 0.21
Vendor

0.01 0.45

0.22 0.01

0.12 0.04
Hauling

0.12 6.95

3.08 0.04

1.56 0.49
Total

0.38 7.64

7.20 0.05

2.59 0.74

0.85 11.19

13.22 0.07

2.76 0.90
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Off -Road Equipment

0.20 2.15

4.28 0.01

0.08 0.08
Paving

0.17 Onsite truck

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Total

0.37 2.15

4.28 0.01

0.08 0.08
Worker

0.02 0.02

0.30 0.00

0.07 0.02
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Hauling

0.06 3.52

1.54 0.02

0.76 0.24
Total

0.08 3.54

1.84 0.02

0.83 0.26

0.45 5.69

6.12 0.03

0.91 0.34
D-70

3.19 Architectural Coating (2025)
ROG
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

0.12 Architectural Coating

18.80 Onsite truck

0.00 Total

18.92 Offsite
Worker

0.05 Vendor

0.00 Hauling

0.00 Total

0.05 TOTAL

18.97 3.21 Trenching (2025) - Utility Trenching
ROG
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

0.44 Onsite truck

0.01 Total

0.45 Offsite
Worker

0.03 Vendor

0.01 Hauling

0.00 Total

0.04 TOTAL

0.48 3.23 Trenching (2025) - Finishing and Landscaping
ROG
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

0.17 Onsite truck

0.00 Total

0.17 Offsite
Worker

0.02 Vendor

0.00 Hauling

0.06 Total

0.08 TOTAL

0.25 NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

0.94 1.79

0.01 0.05

0.04 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.94 1.79

0.01 0.05

0.04 0.05

0.78 0.00

0.18 0.04

0.00 0.00

0.05 0.78

0.00 0.18

0.04 0.99

2.57 0.01

0.23 0.08
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

3.83 5.63

0.02 0.14

0.13 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.14 0.01

3.85 5.64

0.03 0.28

0.14 0.03

0.45 0.00

0.10 0.02

0.14 0.07

0.01 0.04

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.17 0.52

0.01 0.14

0.03 4.02

6.16 0.03

0.42 0.17
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

1.96 3.41

0.01 0.07

0.06 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.96 3.41

0.01 0.07

0.06 0.02

0.24 0.00

0.07 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 3.52

1.51 0.02

0.76 0.24

3.54 1.75

0.02 0.83

0.26 5.50

5.16 0.03

0.90 0.32
D-71

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Asphalt Demolition
1 13
11 0
3 1
Building Demolition
1 15
10 0
5 1
Building Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling
1 6
7 0
0 0
Site Preparation
0 6
4 0
1 0
Rough Grading
2 28
21 0
6 3
Fine Grading
1 9
8 0
2 1
Utility Trenching
0 4
6 0
0 0
Building Construction (2024)
1 13
14 0
3 1
Building Construction and Paving
1 19
20 0
4 1
Building Construction (2025)
1 13
14 0
3 1
Building Construction and Architectural Coating (2025)
20 12
16 0
3 1
Building Construction and Finishing/Landscaping
1 17
18 0
4 1

MAX DAILY
20 28
21 0
6 3
Regional Thresholds
75 100
550
150
150
55 Exceeds Thresholds?
No
No
No
No
No
No
D-72

Construction LST Worksheet:

3.1 Asphalt Demolition (2024)
NOx
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

6.65 Demolition
Onsite truck

0.02 Total

6.67 Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total

0.00 TOTAL

6.67 3.3 Building Demolition (2024)
NOx
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

6.29 Demolition
Onsite truck

0.00 Total

6.29 Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total

0.00 TOTAL

6.29 3.5 Building Demo Debris Onsite
Processing/Recycling (2024)
NOx
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

6.29 Onsite truck

0.00 Total

6.29 Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total

0.00 TOTAL

6.29 3.7 Site Preparation(2024)
NOx
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

1.20 Dust from Material Movement
Onsite truck

0.02 Total

1.22 Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total

0.00 CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

7.47 0.23

0.22 1.49

0.23 0.01

0.14 0.01

7.48 1.86

0.46 0.00

0.00 0.00

7.48 1.86

0.46 CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

6.25 0.21

0.20 3.11

0.47 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.25 3.32

0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

6.25 3.32 0.67
CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

6.25 0.21

0.20 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.25 0.21

0.20 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.25 0.21

0.20 CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

1.92 0.05

0.05 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.14 0.01

1.93 0.20

0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00
D-73

TOTAL

1.22 3.9 Rough Grading (2024)
NOx
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

18.30 Dust from Material Movement
Onsite truck

0.02 Total

18.32 Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total

0.00 TOTAL

18.32 3.11 Fine Grading (2024)
NOx
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

5.13 Dust from Material Movement
Onsite truck

0.02 Total

5.15 Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total

0.00 TOTAL

5.15 3.13 Building Construction (2024)
NOx
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

5.44 Onsite truck

0.00 Total

5.44 Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total

0.00 TOTAL

5.44 3.15 Building Construction (2025)
NOx
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

3.55 Offroad Equipment

0.00 Total

3.55 Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total

0.00 TOTAL

3.55 3.17 Paving (2024)
NOx
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment

2.15 Paving
Onsite truck

0.00 Total

2.15 Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total

0.00 TOTAL

2.15 1.93

0.20 0.07
CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

16.10 0.80

0.74 2.77

1.34 0.01

0.29 0.03

16.11 3.86

2.11 0.00

0.00 0.00

16.11 3.86

2.11 CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

6.16 0.24

0.22 0.21

0.02 0.01

0.14 0.01

6.17 0.59

0.25 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.17 0.59

0.25 CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

6.09 0.24

0.22 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.09 0.24

0.22 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.09 0.24

0.22 CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

6.02 0.17

0.16 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.02 0.17

0.16 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.02 0.17

0.16 CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

4.28 0.08

0.08 0.00

0.00 0.00

4.28 0.08

0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.28 0.08 0.08
D-74

3.19 Architectural Coating (2025)
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment
Architectural Coating
Onsite truck
Total
Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total
TOTAL

3.21 Trenching (2025) - Utility Trenching
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment
Onsite truck
Total
Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total
TOTAL

3.23 Trenching (2025) - Finishing and Landscaping
Onsite
Off -Road Equipment
Onsite truck
Total
Offsite
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Total
TOTAL
NOx
CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

0.94 1.79

0.05 0.04

0.00 0.00

0.94 1.79

0.05 0.04

0.00 0.00

0.94 1.79

0.05 0.04
NOx
CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

3.83 5.63

0.14 0.13

0.02 0.01

0.14 0.01

3.85 5.64

0.28 0.14

0.00 0.00

3.85 5.64

0.28 0.14
NOx
CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total

1.96 3.41

0.07 0.06

0.00 0.00

1.96 3.41

0.07 0.06

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.96 3.41 0.07 0.06
D-75

Asphalt Demolition
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Building Demolition
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Building Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Site Preparation
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Rough Grading
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Fine Grading
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Utility Trenching
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Building Construction (2024)
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Building Construction and Paving
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Building Construction and Architectural Coating (2025)
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
Building Construction and Finishing/Landscaping
< 1.00 Acre LST
Exceeds LST?
NOx
CO
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
7 7

1.86 0.46
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
6 6

3.32 0.67
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
6 6

0.21 0.20
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
1 2

0.20 0.07
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
18 16

3.86 2.11
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
5 6

0.59 0.25
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
4 6

0.28 0.14
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
5 6

0.24 0.22
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
8 10

0.32 0.30
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
4 8

0.22 0.20
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
6 9

0.24 0.22
92 647

31.68 11.26
no
no
no
no
D-76

Regional Operation Emissions Worksheet:
1 CalEEMOd, Version 2022.1.1.14
Z Conservative analysis due to total increase, rather than net increase, in electricity and area sources modeled and smaller existing building square footage modeled. At the time of this analysis, 78 residential units and 22,536 square feet for the existing building
was used.

Proposed Project
Summer
ROG NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Mobile 1.0 0.6

10.5 0.0

2.5 0.6
Area 3.7 0.1

5.8 0.0

0.0 0.0
Energy 0.0 0.2

0.1 0.0

0.0 0.0
Total 4.7 0.9

16.4 0.0

2.5 0.7
Winter
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Mobile

1.0 0.7

9.7 0.0

2.5 0.6
Area

3.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
Energy

0.0 0.2

0.1 0.0

0.0 0.0
Total

4.1 0.9

9.7 0.0

2.5 0.7
Max Daily
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10 Total
PM2.5 Total
Mobile
1 1
11 0
2 1
Area
4 0
6 0
0 0
Energy
0 0
0 0
0 0
Total
5 1
16 0
3 1
Regional Thresholds (lb/day)
55 55
550
150
150
55 Exceeds Thresholds?
No
No
No
No
No
No
D-77

GHG Emissions Inventory
Proposed Project Buildout
Construction'
MTCOze
2024 832
2025 1,055
Total Construction 1,887
30-Year Amortization 63
1 CaIEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.14
Z Total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology; SCAQMD. 2009, November 19. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting 14. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-14/ghg-meeting-14-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2 .

Net Operations'
Mobile
Area
Energy
Water
Solid Waste
Refrigerants
30-Year Construction Amortization
South Coast AQMD Bright -Line Screening Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
MTCO2e/Year2
Operations
%
202
57%
2 1%
86 24%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
63 18%
353
100%
3,000
No
1 CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.14. A total of 2,200 units are allowed in the Airport Area, and the project would involve a redistribution of these future units, not a net increase. z MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Conservative estimate since at the time of the analysis 78 residential units, 22,536 square feet was used for the existing building, and total usage for area sources, energy, and refrigerants were used. In addition, modeled solid waste as 0 tons/year due to net decrease compared to existing conditions as conservative estimate.

D-78

LST Worksheets
D-79

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Asphalt Demolition NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 0.50
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
8 1

0.5 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
0 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
0 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

0.50 Acres
25 50
100
200
500
NOx
1 92
93 108
140
219
1 92
93 108
140
219
92 93
108
140
219
CO
1 647
738
1090
2096
6841
1 647
738
1090
2096
6841
647
738
1090
2096
6841
PM10
1 4
13 27
54 135
1 4
13 27
54 135
4 13
27 54
135
PM2.5
1 3
5 9
22 76
1 3
5 9
22 76
3 5
9 22
76 North Coastal Orange County

0.50 Acres
25 50
100
200
500
NOx 92
93 108
140
219
CO 647
738
1090
2096
6841
PM10 4
13 27
54 135
PM2.5 3
5 9
22 76
Acre Below Acre Above
SRA No. Acres SRA No. Acres
18 1 18 1
Distance Increment Below
25 Distance Increment Above
25 Updated: 1012112009 - Table C-1. 2006 — 2008
D-80

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Building Demolition/Recycling/Reprocessing NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 0.00
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
0 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
0 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
0 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

0.00 Acres
25 50
100
200
500
NOx
1 92
93 108
140
219
1 92
93 108
140
219
92 93
108
140
219
CO
1 647
738
1090
2096
6841
1 647
738
1090
2096
6841
647
738
1090
2096
6841
PM10
1 4
13 27
54 135
1 4
13 27
54 135
4 13
27 54
135
PM2.5
1 3
5 9
22 76
1 3
5 9
22 76
3 5
9 22
76 North Coastal Orange County

0.00 Acres
25 50
100
200
500
NOx 92
93 108
140
219
CO 647
738
1090
2096
6841
PM10 4
13 27
54 135
PM2.5 3
5 9
22 76
Acre Below Acre Above
SRA No. Acres SRA No. Acres
18 1 18 1
Distance Increment Below
25 Distance Increment Above
25 Updated: 1012112009 - Table C-1. 2006 — 2008
as

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Site Preparation NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 0.50
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
8 1

0.5 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
0 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
0 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Rough Grading NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 1.00
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
0 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
8 1

0.5 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
8 1

0.5 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

1.00 Acres
25 50
100
200
500
NOx
1 92
93 108
140
219
1 92
93 108
140
219
92 93
108
140
219
CO
1 647
738
1090
2096
6841
1 647
738
1090
2096
6841
647
738
1090
2096
6841
PM10
1 4
13 27
54 135
1 4
13 27
54 135
4 13
27 54
135
PM2.5
1 3
5 9
22 76
1 3
5 9
22 76
3 5
9 22
76 North Coastal Orange County

1.00 Acres
25 50
100
200
500
NOx 92
93 108
140
219
CO 647
738
1090
2096
6841
PM10 4
13 27
54 135
PM2.5 3
5 9
22 76
Acre Below Acre Above
SRA No. Acres SRA No. Acres
18 1 18 1
Distance Increment Below
25 Distance Increment Above
25 Updated: 1012112009 - Table C-1. 2006 — 2008
D-83

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Fine Grading NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 0.50
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
0 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
8 1

0.5 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
0 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Utility Trenching NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 0.50
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
8 1

0.5 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
0 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
0 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Building Construction NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 0.00
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
0 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
0 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
0 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Building Construction and Paving NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 0.00
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
0 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
0 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
0 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Building Construction and Architectural Coating NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 0.00
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
0 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
0 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
0 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

Construction Localized Significance Thresholds: Building Construction and Finishing/Landscaping NOx & CO
PM10 & PM2.5
Source
Source
Source
Receptor
Source
Receptor
Receptor
Construction
SRA No.

Acres
Distance
Receptor
Distance
Distance
/ Project Site
(meters)
Distance (Feet)
(meters)
(Feet)
Size (Acres)
18 0.50
25 82
309
1015

1.69 Source Receptor
North Coastal Orange Count Equipment
Acres/8-hr Day
Daily hours
Equipment Used
Acres
Distance (meters)
25 NOx
92 Tractors

0.5 0.0625
8 1

0.5 CO
647
Graders

0.5 0.0625
0 PM10

83.53 Dozers

0.5 0.0625
0 PM2.5

41.69 Scrapers
1 0.125
0 Acres

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Appendix E Geotechnical Exploration Report
PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

Marcb 2024'��

f111 Lei g Mon

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1401 QUAIL STREET

NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
Prepared for INTRACORP SOCAL 1, LLC
895 DOVE STREET, SUITE 400
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
Prepared by LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
17781 COWAN
RVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
Project Number 13542.001
June 23, 2022
E-1

f111 Lei g hto n
// Anniversary
25V
June 23, 2022
Leighton and Associates, Inc.

A Leighton Group Company
Project No. 13542.001
Intracorp SoCal 1, LLC
895 Dove Street, Suite 400
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attention: Mr. Rick Puffer, Vice President Development
Subject: Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi -Family Residential Development
1401 Quail Street
Newport Beach, Orange County, California
In accordance with our April 29, 2022 proposal, authorized on May 25, 2022, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has completed geotechnical exploration for the subject project. We understand from review of BSB Concept Site Plan 30 Units Quail Street SFD, dated April 25, 2022, that one option for site development consists of 30 at grade multi- family, 3-story residential buildings with rooftop decks, surface parking and drive aisles connecting Quail Street and Spruce Avenue. Review of RHA Quail Street Podium, dated May 5, 2022 indicates a second option for site development consists of a podium concept with 70 units (5 over 2) with one level subterranean parking. In addition, we understand that drywells are being considered at the project site for stormwater BMPs. Ancillary improvements are anticipated to consist of utility infrastructure, flatwork, and landscaping.

The purpose of our geotechnical exploration was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site, identify potential geologic and seismic hazards that may impact the project, and provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed project as currently planned.

The project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The results of our exploration, conclusions and recommendations are presented in this report. Once the design concept is identified and building loads are know they should be provided to Leighton for review to ensure the recommendations contained herein remain applicable for the proposed concept.
17781 Cowan, Irvine, CA 92614 T: 949.250.1421
www.leightongroup.com E_2

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please contact us at (866) LEIGHTON; or specifically at the phone extensions or e-mail addresses listed below. �ttNG1N��R1'1'G
JOE A. c'
ROE
* No.OFC
2456
JAR/RAR/Ir
Distribution: (1) Addressee
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

L-e-
Joe : Roe, PG, CEG 2456
Senior Principal Geologist
Extension 4263, Iroe(a�leightongroup.com
4n,'d Z? W
Ronald A. Reed, PE, GE
Associate Engineer
Extension 4256, rreed leightongroup.com
All Lei hton
E-3
3 Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

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

1.1 Site Description and Proposed Development ............................................ 1

1.2 Purpose and Scope................................................................................... 2

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS............................................................................... 5

2.1 Regional Geologic Setting......................................................................... 5

2.2 Subsurface Conditions............................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Expansive Soil Characteristics........................................................ 6

2.2.2 Soil Corrosivity................................................................................ 7

2.2.3 Soil Compressibility......................................................................... 7

2.2.4 Shear Strength................................................................................ 7

2.2.5 Excavation Characteristics.............................................................. 8

2.3 Groundwater Conditions............................................................................ 8

2.3.1 Infiltration........................................................................................ 8 2.4
Surface Fault Rupture.............................................................................. 10 2.5
Strong Ground Shaking........................................................................... 10 2.6
Liquefaction Potential............................................................................... 11 2.7
Seismically -Induced Settlement............................................................... 12 2.8
Lateral Spreading.................................................................................... 12 2.9
Earthquake -Induced Landsliding............................................................. 12 2.10
Storm -Induced Flooding........................................................................... 12 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 13

3.1 Site Grading............................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 Site Preparation............................................................................ 14 3.1.2
Removals and Overexcavations.................................................... 14 3.1.3
Excavation Bottom Preparation..................................................... 14 3.1.4
Subgrade Stabilization.................................................................. 15 3.1.5
Fill Materials.................................................................................. 16 3.1.6
Fill Placement and Compaction..................................................... 16 3.1.7
Shrinkage......................................................................................17

3.2 Foundation Design................................................................................... 17 3.2.1
Minimum Embedment and Width .................................................. 17 3.2.2
Post -Tension Foundation Design Parameters .............................. 18 3.2.3
Conventional Spread Footings...................................................... 19 3.3 Slabs-on-Grade....................................................................................... 20

3.4 Sulfate Attack and Ferrous Corrosion Protection ..................................... 21 flo Lei g hto n TOC Page i
E-4

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

3.4.1 Sulfate Exposure........................................................................... 21 3.4.2 Ferrous Corrosivity........................................................................ 22 3.4.3 Corrosivity Test Results................................................................ 22 3.5
Retaining Walls........................................................................................ 23 3.5.1 Sliding and Overturning................................................................. 24 3.5.2 Drainage....................................................................................... 24 3.6
Pavements...............................................................................................25

3.6.1 Asphalt Concrete........................................................................... 25 3.6.2 Portland Cement Concrete Paving ................................................ 26 3.6.3 Paving Materials............................................................................ 27 3.7
Temporary Excavations........................................................................... 27 3.7.1 Temporary Shoring....................................................................... 28 3.8
Trench Backfill......................................................................................... 30 3.9
Drainage and Landscaping...................................................................... 31 3.10
Additional Geotechnical Services............................................................ 31 4.0 LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................32

5.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................33 Tables
Table 1
— Measured (Unfactored) Infiltration Rate.......................................................... 9 Table 2
— 2019 CBC Based Ground Motion Parameters (Mapped Values) .................. 11 Table 3
- Sulfate Concentration and Exposure.............................................................. 21 Table 4
- Soil Resistivity and Soil Corrosivity................................................................ 22 Table 5
- Results of Corrosivity Testing......................................................................... 23 Table 6
— Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures........................................................ 24 Table 7
— Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections........................................................... 26 Attar.hmPntc
Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Figure 1 —
Site Location Map
Figure 2a
— Exploration Location Map
Figure 2b
— Development Concept Map
Figure 3 —
Regional Geology Map
Figure 4 —
Regional Fault Map and Historical Seismicity Map
Figure 5 —
Seismic Hazard Map
Figure 6 —
Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail EI>50
Rear of Text
Rear of Text
Rear of Text
Rear of Text
Rear of Text
Rear of Text
Rear of Text
Rear of Text
flo Lei hton
E-5
TOC Page ii

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
Appendix A —
Exploration Logs
Appendix B —
Percolation Test Data
Appendix C
— Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D
— Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications
All Lei hton TOC Page iii
E-6

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Description and Proposed Development
The project site is located at 1401 Quail Street in Newport Beach, California. The site location (latitude 33.660350, longitude-117.868470) and immediate vicinity are shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map.

Site Description: The approximately 1.7-acre project site is rectangular in shape and contains a single -story commercial building (circa 1972) currently used as a Credit Union. Perimeter paved parking is located to the west and south of the structure with a solar panel parking cover in the southern portion. A landscape greenbelt borders the north and east sides of the structure.

Aerial Imagery Review: Based on review of available historical aerial photographs (NETR, 1938-1963), the site was vacant undeveloped land until approximately early 1970's. By 1972, we observe the existing building and perimeter roads were being constructed at the site with paved surface parking; by approximately 1980 the site is in the current configuration as observed today.

Proposed Development: We understand several concepts are being considered the layouts of which are presented on Figures 2a and 2b, Geotechnical Maps.

Based on review of Concept Site Plan 30 Units Quail Street SFD, prepared by BSB, dated April 25, 2022, site development consists of 30 at grade multi -family, 3-story residential buildings with rooftop decks, surface parking and drive aisles connecting Quail Street and Spruce Avenue, see Figure 2a, Geotechnical Map for concept layout. Second consideration is known from review of Quail Street Podium, prepared by RHA, dated May 5, 2022, which indicates site development is considering a podium concept with 70 units (5 over 2) with one level subterranean parking, see Figure 2b, Geotechnical Map. In addition, we understand that drywells are being considered at the project site for stormwater BMPs. Ancillary improvements are anticipated to consist of utility infrastructure, flatwork, and landscaping. Preliminary structural loading information for both concepts was not yet available at the time this report was prepared. Once the concept is selected and the design progresses, building loads should be provided for our review to determine the settlement estimates provided herein remain applicable.
flo Lei hton Page 1
E-7

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

1.2 Purpose and Scope
Purpose of our geotechnical exploration was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site relative to the proposed concepts and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations to aid in the design and construction for the projects as currently described above. In accordance with our April 29, 2022 proposal authorized on May 25, 2022, our Scope of Work included the following:
• Research — We reviewed readily available and provided literature aerial photographs, and maps relevant to the site. We evaluated geological hazards and potential geotechnical issues that may significantly impact the site. The documents reviewed are listed in Section 5.0 References. • Pre -Field Exploration Activities —Reconnaissance of the site was performed by a certified engineering geologist to mark the proposed exploration locations.

Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified to locate and mark existing underground utilities prior to our subsurface exploration. • Field Exploration — Our subsurface exploration (soil borings) was performed on May 20, 2022, and included drilling, logging, and sampling of three (3) hollow - stem auger borings (designated LB-1, LB-2, and LB-3). LB-1 was drilled to a depth of approximately 51.5 feet, while LB-2 and LB-3 were both drilled to 26.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). One (1) additional boring (designated LP-1) was drilled to an approximate depth of 21.5 feet bgs for subsequent percolation testing. Approximate location of these explorations are shown on Figures 2a and 2b, Geotechnical Map and corresponding boring logs are presented in Appendix A, Exploration Logs.

During drilling of the hollow -stem auger borings both bulk and drive samples were obtained from the borings for geotechnical laboratory testing. Driven ring samples were collected from the borings using a Modified California ring -lined sampler conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were also performed within the borings in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586. Samples were collected at 2'/2 and 5-foot intervals throughout the depth of exploration. In both test methods, the sampler is driven below the bottom of the borehole by a 140-pound weight (hammer) free -falling 30 inches. The drilling rig was equipped with an automatic hammer to provide greater consistency in the drop height and striking frequency. The number of blows to drive the sampler the final 12-inches of the 18-inch drive interval is termed the "blowcount" or SPT N-value. N-values provide a measure flo Lei hton Page 2
E-8

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
of relative density in granular (non -cohesive) soils and comparative consistency in cohesive soils. Number of blows per 6 inches of penetration was recorded on the boring logs included in Appendix A.

The borings were logged in the field by a geologist from our firm under supervision of a certified engineering geologist. Each soil sample collected was reviewed and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The samples were sealed and packaged for transportation to our laboratory for testing. After completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled to the ground surface with soil cuttings and patched with cold -patch asphalt. Excess soil cuttings from the borings were spread onsite in planter areas.
• Percolation Testing — Boring LP-1 (Figures 2a and 2b) was converted to a temporary percolation test well upon completion of drilling and sampling. The test well consisted of 2-inch slotted (0.020-inch slots) PVC well casing surrounded by No. 3 Monterey Sand placed in the annulus of the well within the test zone. In -situ percolation testing was performed on May 20, 2022 in general accordance with the Orange County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Programs (WQMPs) (OCPW, 2013). The results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B, Percolation Test Data. Refer to the discussion of infiltration rate presented in Section 2.3.1, Infiltration. • Laboratory Testing — Selected relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples obtained from our current hollow -stem -auger borings were tested at our in- house Irvine (DSA LEA 063) geotechnical laboratory. This laboratory testing program was designed to evaluate physical geotechnical characteristics of site soils including corrosion potential. Geotechnical test results are presented in Appendix C, Geotechnical Laboratory Testing. Tests performed during this investigation include:
- In -situ Moisture Content and Dry Density (ASTM D 2216 and ASTM D 2937); - Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829);
- Maximum Dry Density (ASTM D 1557);
- Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080);
- Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422);
- Consolidation (ASTM D 2435); and
flo Lei hton Page 3
E-9

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
- Corrosivity Suite — pH, Sulfate, Chloride, and Resistivity (California Test Methods 417, 422, and 532/643).

Results of the in -situ moisture content and dry density testing are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.
• Engineerinq Analysis — Data obtained from these borings and geotechnical laboratory testing was evaluated and analyzed to develop geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for proposed conceptual improvements described in Section 1.1 of this report.
• Report Preparation — This report presents our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations for the proposed development.

All Lei hton Page 4
- E-10

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS

2.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The project site is located on western edge of San Diego Creek drainage within Upper Newport Bay coastal estuary near the San Joaquin Hills. The Newport Bay estuary was originally formed as the lower reach of the Santa Ana River. However, due to extensive widespread flooding in 1915-1916, the Santa Ana River realigned its course to the west. The bay is currently fed only by San Diego Creek and its tributaries. The San Joaquin Hills lie within the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province which extends 900 miles southward from the Santa Monica Mountains to the tip of Baja California (Yerkes, et al., 1965). Regional tectonic activity has uplifted the San Joaquin Hills into an elongated arched fold (anticlinorium) trending to the northwest from San Juan Capistrano and Huntington Mesa. This anticlinal folding has occurred as this entire section of the southern California coast was uplifted by the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust fault (Grant et at., 1997, 1999, and 2002; Mueller et al., 1998). The geology in the vicinity of the project site is shown in Figure 3, Regional Geology Map.

2.2 Subsurface Conditions
Based on interpretation of samples recovered during the subsurface exploration (Figure 2a and 2b), the site is underlain by four to five feet of undocumented artificial fill overlying Quaternary -age old alluvial fan deposits and Quaternary -age old lacustrine, playa, and estuarine deposits. A general description of the earth materials as encountered are described below:

Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu): The existing near -surface artificial fill soils encountered in our exploratory borings are considered undocumented, and unsuitable for foundation support due to the uncontrolled nature of these fill soils during placement. The undocumented artificial fill materials encountered in our borings (Figures 2a and 2b) range in thickness from approximately 4 to 5 feet bgs at the explored locations. These soils are characterized as reddish brown and yellowish brown, slightly moist, silty sand (SM). While the silty sand fill material was encountered at each location the overall deposit may not be continuous across the site. The composition of the earth material below the building is unknown.

Quaternary Age -Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qoo: The alluvial fan deposits encountered beneath the fill materials in our exploratory borings generally consist All Lei hton Page 5
- E-11

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 of alternating beds of orange brown, reddish brown and gray brown, and slightly moist to moist very stiff carbonate impacted sandy clay (CL), silty sand (SM), and poorly graded sand (SP). Poorly -graded sand is notably thickest at 25 feet and deeper, with increased shell fragment percentage at depth.

Quaternary Old Lacustrine, Playa, and Estuarine Deposits (Qol): The Quaternary age lacustrine, playa, and estuarine deposits beneath the Qof in our exploratory boring LB-1 at 40.5 consists of a bluish gray fat clay, very moist, and containing trace shell fragments. This clay extends to at least 51.5 feet bgs.

The stratigraphy of the subsurface soils encountered in each soil boring is presented on the boring logs (Appendix A).

2.2.1 Expansive Soil Characteristics
Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and which shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper mitigation measures, heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs -on -grade could result.

One bulk soil sample obtained during our subsurface exploration from boring LB-1 (0-5 ft bgs) and one ring sample from boring LB-2 (15 ft bgs) were tested for expansion potential and Atterberg limit testing, respectively.

The test results indicate an Expansion Index (EI) value of 1 from boring LB- 1 indicate a very low" potential for expansion of the upper five feet of silty sand interpreted as undocumented fill.

The sample tested for Atterberg limits at the approximate foundation level for the subterranean option indicated (15 ft bgs) indicate fat clay will be exposed at the foundation bearing zone. This data suggests the clays at this depth fall into the High Expansion category. Laboratory test results are included in Appendix C of this report.

Additional testing should be performed upon completion of site grading and excavation to confirm the expansion potential presented in this report. For purposes of this report, and based upon visual characterization of the overall granular undocumented fill in the upper four (4) feet may be considered to support design of Concept 1 (BSB, April 2022) with a low All Lei hton Page 6
- E-12

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 expansion index. Highly expansive fat clays are expected to be encountered at the subterranean level for Concept 2 (RHA, May 2022).

2.2.2 Soil Corrosivity
One bulk soil sample obtained during our subsurface exploration from boring LB-1 was tested for corrosivity to assess corrosion potential to buried concrete. The chemical analysis test results for the onsite soil from our geotechnical exploration are included in Appendix C of this report.

The test results indicate Soluble Sulfate concentration of 366 parts per million (ppm), Chloride content of 80 ppm, pH value of 7.65, and Minimum Resistivity value of 1,590 ohm -cm.

The results of the resistivity test indicate the underlying soil is severely to corrosive to buried ferrous metals per ASTM STP 1013. Based on the measured water-soluble sulfate contents from the soil sample of the near surface granular material, concrete in contact with the soil is expected to have negligible exposure to sulfate attack (SO) per ACI 318 (ACI, 2014).

The samples tested for water-soluble chloride content indicate a low potential for corrosion of steel in concrete (C1) due to the chloride content of the soil.

Additional sampling of site soil upon completion of grading is recommended to confirm the values presented in this report.

2.2.3 Soil Compressibility
One (1) samples of the onsite soils recovered from the borings was subjected to consolidation testing to evaluate the compressibility of the materials under assumed loads representative of anticipated structural bearing stresses. The results of testing indicate the tested soil exhibit a low to moderate compressibility potential. The test result is presented in Appendix C.

2.2.4 Shear Strenath
Evaluation of the shear strength characteristics of the soils included laboratory direct shear testing. The results of testing are included in All Lei hton Page 7
- E-13

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 Appendix C as well as summary graphs that provide values of angle of internal friction (o) and cohesion (c) for use in geotechnical analysis.

2.2.5 Excavation Characteristics
Based on our subsurface explorations performed at the site and our experience from grading jobs in the vicinity of the site, we anticipate the onsite artificial fill and native earth materials can generally be excavated using conventional excavation equipment in good operating condition.

2.3 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was encountered in our subsurface investigation at a depth of 25 feet bgs in borings LB-1, LB-2, and LB-3, and was present up to depths of 51.5 feet bgs. Clay soils expected at or near the foundation level (±15 feet bgs) for Concept 2 (RHA, 2022) display moisture contents ranging from 21 to 24 percent. These soils when subject to increase in moisture conditions may cause subgrade pumping during overexcavation.

Based on these findings, groundwater is not expected to pose a constraint during or after construction. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and an increase in soil moisture, should be anticipated during and following the rainy seasons or periods of locally intense rainfall or storm water runoff.

2.3.1 Infiltration
Percolation testing was performed within a temporary percolation test well installed within boring LP-1 (Figures 2a and 2b) to evaluate the infiltration characteristics of subsurface soils. The percolation test was conducted in general accordance with the Orange County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Programs (WQMPs) (OCPW, 2013). Results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B, Percolation Test Data. The test location, test zone and corresponding infiltration rate are shown on Figure 2a and 2b, Exploration Location Map.

A boring percolation test is useful for field measurements of the infiltration rate of soils, and is suited for testing when the design depth of the infiltration device is deeper than current existing grades, especially in areas where it is All Lei hton Page 8
E-14

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
difficult to dig test pits, or where the depths of these test pits would be considerably deep. At the subject site, testing consisted of advancing the boring to general depths anticipated for the invert of typical infiltration devices, approximately 15-20 feet below grade.

The test was performed using a constant -head method which records the approximate volume of water delivered to the test zone while maintaining a relatively constant height of water in the well over the testing period. Since the subsurface materials were generally favorable for percolation (sandy clay soils), a water source was used to deliver water to the well at a relatively constant rate while recording the water height in the well. The measured infiltration rate was calculated by dividing the total volume of water infiltrated by the total duration of the test and dividing by the percolation surface area.

Detailed results of the field testing data and measured infiltration rate for the test wells are presented in Appendix B. The test result is summarized below:

Table 1 — Measured (Unfactored) Infiltration Rate
Approximate
Measured
Test Well Approximate Depth of Depth to
Infiltration Rate
Designation Test Zone (feet bgs) Groundwater
(inches per hour)
(feet bgs)
' • 1 • 1
The results of the percolation tests indicate a favorable rate of infiltration at the specific location and depth tested. The measured infiltration rate is the result of small-scale test performed at specific location and depth, see Figures 2a and 2b, Geotechnical Maps. Static groundwater was measured at a depth of 25 feet in the three other borings (LB-1, LB-2 and LB-3).

According to the Orange County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Programs (WQMPs) (OCPW, 2013) infiltration must maintain a depth of at least 10 feet above static groundwater levels.

Based on the depth to groundwater (approx. 25 ft bgs) infiltration at these depths (15-20 feet) is not considered feasible. Clay soils of low permeability onsite extend from a depth of approximately 5 to 20 feet below grade with intermittent and laterally discontinuous interbeds of silty sand and while the flo Lei hton Page 9
E-15

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
interbedded sand may support infiltration based on the lateral discontinuity, we do not recommend infiltration for this site.

2.4 Surface Fault Rupture
Our review of available literature (geologic maps, aerial photos) indicates that no known active faults have been mapped across the site, and the site is not located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture at the site is expected to be low and a surface fault rupture hazard evaluation is not mandated for this site.

The location of the closest active faults to the site was evaluated using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program National Seismic Hazard Maps (USGS, 2008). The closest active fault to the site with the potential for surface fault rupture is the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ), located approximately 4.9 miles from the site. The San Andreas fault, which is the largest active fault in California, is approximately 40 miles northeast of the site. Major regional faults with surface expression in proximity to the site are shown on Figure 4, Regional Fault and Historic Seismicity Map.

2.5 Strong Ground Shaking
The principal seismic hazard to the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along any of several major active and potentially active faults in southern California (Figure 4). The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the source, and the site response characteristics.

Accordingly, design of the project should be performed in accordance with all applicable current codes and standards utilizing the appropriate seismic design parameters to reduce seismic risk as defined by California Geological Survey (CGS) Chapter 2 of Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). The 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC) is the current edition of the code. Through compliance with these regulatory requirements and the utilization of appropriate seismic design parameters selected by the design professionals, potential effects relating to seismic shaking can be reduced.

The following code -based seismic parameters should be considered for design under the 2019 CBC:

All Lei hton Page 10
- E-16

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
Table 2 — 2019 CBC Based Ground Motion Parameters (Mapped Values) Categorization Coefficient
Code -Based
Site Latitude

33.660350
Site Longitude
-117.868470
Site Class
D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), Ss

1.297
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), S1

0.463
Short Period (0.2 sec) Site Coefficient, Fa

1.0 Long Period (1 sec) Site Coefficient, F,

1.837
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SMs

1.297
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), SM1

0.851
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SDs

0.865
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), SD1

0.567
Site -adjusted geometric mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM

0.611
'Per Exception 2 in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, seismic response coefficient Cs to be determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T T > 1.5T5 or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL

2.6 Liquefaction Potential
The term liquefaction is generally referenced to loss of strength and stiffness in soils due to build-up of pore water pressure when subject to cyclic or monotonic loading.

Both sandy and clayey soils are susceptible to loss of strength and stiffness.

Because of the difference in strength characteristic and methods for evaluating strength loss potential for granular and clayey soils, the term liquefaction is used for granular soils while cyclic softening is used for fine-grained soils (i.e. clays and plastic silts).

In general, adverse effects of liquefaction or cyclic softening include excessive ground settlement, loss of bearing support for structural foundations, and seismically -induced lateral ground deformations such as lateral spreading.

Depending upon the relative thickness of the liquefied strata with respect to overlying non -liquefiable soils, other potentially adverse effects such as ground oscillation and ground fissuring may occur.
flo Lei hton Page 11
E-17

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
As shown on the Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Anaheim Quadrangle (CGS, 1998), the project site is not located within an area that has been identified by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction (Figure 5, Seismic Hazard Map). Pleistocene age low plasticity clayey soil below the site is very stiff and impacted with carbonate, soils of this type are generally not subject to the adverse effects of liquefaction. Based on these findings and blow counts of encountered soils, liquefaction is not considered a hazard at the site.

2.7 Seismically -Induced Settlement
Seismically -induced settlement consists of dynamic settlement of unsaturated soil (above groundwater) and liquefaction -induced settlement (below groundwater).

These settlements occur primarily within low density sandy soil due to reduction in volume during and shortly after an earthquake event.

Based on our evaluation of the site soils, the total seismically -induced settlement is estimated to be less than '/2 inch. The differential settlement can be taken as half the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet.

2.8 Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction may also cause lateral spreading. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along gently sloping ground toward an unconfined area. Since the site is relatively flat and constrained laterally, earthquake -induced lateral spreading is not considered a hazard at the site.

2.9 Earthquake -Induced Landsliding
As shown on Figure 5, the site is not mapped within a seismically -induced landslide hazard zone identified by the State of California (CGS, 1998). In addition, due to project site being relatively flat, it is our opinion that the potential for seismically - induced landslide hazard at the site is negligible.

2.10 Storm -Induced Flooding
According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map 06059CO2861 dated December 3, 2009 (FEMA, 2009), the project site is not located within a flood hazard area.

All Lei hton Page 12
- E-18

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this study, we conclude that the proposed development concepts as described in Section 1.1 of this report are considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated in design and construction.

All existing undocumented fill is recommended to be removed from the proposed building/structure footprint areas to expose suitable native soils then reworked (moisture conditioned) prior to placement as compacted engineered fill. Undocumented fill is considered suitable for reuse from a geotechnical standpoint provided it is properly moisture conditioned and placed under engineering -controlled conditions.

The recommendations below are based upon the exhibited geotechnical engineering properties of the soils and their anticipated response both during and after construction.

The recommendations are also based upon proper field observation and testing during construction. The project geotechnical engineer should be notified of suspected variances in field conditions to determine the effect upon the recommendations subsequently presented. These recommendations are considered minimal and may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the civil and structural engineers, the City of Newport Beach and other governing agencies.

Once the concept is selected and plans developed, Leighton should review the grading plans, foundation plans and project specifications as they become available to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the plans for this project.

3.1 Site Grading
Earthwork guide specifications are presented in Appendix D, Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications. Earthwork for Concept 1 (BSB, April 2022) is expected to include overexcavation and recompaction of low expansion undocumented fill soils below new improvement footprints. Earthwork for Concept 2 (RHA, May 2022) expected to consist of excavation of the subterranean parking level, foundation excavation, backfill of the basement walls, and other site improvement work. Recommendations for site earthwork are provided in the following sections.
flo Lei hton Page 13
E-19

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

3.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to construction, the site should be cleared of any vegetation, trash, and/or debris within the area of proposed grading. These materials should be removed from the site. After the site is cleared, the soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable deposits. All undocumented fill or man-made debris, should be removed, reworked and replaced as engineered fill.

3.1.2 Removals and Overexcavations
To provide uniform foundation support and reduce the potential for excessive static settlement, all existing undocumented fill and any unsuitable soil, as deemed by the geotechnical engineer, should be removed to expose suitable native soils and replaced as engineered fill below the proposed building and parking structure footprints and other structural improvements. Based on our field explorations, we estimate removals of existing undocumented fill will be approximately 4 to 5 feet below existing grade across most of the site, with localized areas that may require deeper removals.

The lateral extent of removals and overexcavations beyond foundations should be equal to the depth of removals and overexcavations below the proposed foundations where practical. Localized areas in the unexplored portions of the site should be anticipated to possibly require deeper removals depending on observed subsurface conditions and thickness of undocumented fill evaluated during grading of the site.

Any underground obstructions encountered should be removed. Efforts should be made to locate any existing utility lines. Those lines should be removed or rerouted were interfering with proposed new foundations.

Should the subterranean concept be chosen all fill is expected to be removed during excavation for the subterranean garage. The silty sand (SM) that makes up the very low expansion fill may be stockpiled and reused onsite as fill below flatwork and other slab on grade.

3.1.3 Excavation Bottom Preparation
Resulting removal excavation bottom -surfaces should be observed by Leighton prior to placement of any backfill or new construction. After these flo Lei hton Page 14
E-20

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 over -excavations are completed, and prior to fill placement, exposed surfaces should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture - conditioned to or slightly above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557 standard test method (modified Proctor compaction curve).

3.1.4 Subgrade Stabilization
It is important to recognize instability conditions may vary laterally from where observations are made during field implementation or may change from repetitive loading by heavy vehicles. Based on our findings from the boring explorations (Appendix A) saturated subgrade conditions (moisture contents ranging from 21 to 24 percent) are expected to exist across the entire footprint of the planned subterranean structure (RHA, May 2022)..

Adjustment to the limits should be anticipated based on observed performance during stabilization. The stabilization methodology may vary and it is the contractor's responsibility to achieve a non -yielding compacted subgrade prior to fill placement or foundation construction. While the laboratory -indicated moisture contents alone may not cause subgrade instability, the exposed moisture conditions may vary from what is currently reported. As such, we provide this information for planning purposes. The following proven geotechnical solution may be considered should subgrade instability occur during grading.

Rock Stabilization: After removal of alluvial soils if saturated subgrade conditions exits, a 3- to 4-inch layer of 2- to 3-inch crushed rock should be placed in the excavation. Rock should be mechanically compacted under the weight of the equipment to push the rock into the underlying clay soils.

Vibratory equipment should not be used to work in the rock blanket as the vibrations may aggravate locally soft saturated clays causing pumping conditions to expand laterally and destabilize the subgrade further. Clay soils removed from the excavation will require drying prior to reuse and are not considered suitable for use behind retaining walls.

Depending upon the degree of subgrade instability, should it occur, the initial lift may completely penetrate the subgrade, and additional lifts will be necessary. Alternatively, the quantity of material may be reduced if a geogrid or geotextile fabric is considered to provide additional reinforcement effect after the placement of the initial lift. Geogrid or geotextile All Lei hton Page 15
E-21

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
reinforcement should be placed with a minimum 3 feet of overlap between adjacent panels extending a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the footprint on all sides.

3.1.5 Fill Materials
On -site soil that is free of construction debris, organics, or rock larger than 4 inches in largest dimension is suitable to be used as fill for support of structures. Onsite clayey soils with an expansion index of 21 or greater (EI>_21) should not be used within 2 feet of concrete slabs -on -grade to avoid potential for lightly loaded concrete slabs to heave. Any imported fill soil should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to import or use onsite. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of organic material (loss on ignition less than 2 percent), have a very low expansion potential (with an Expansion Index less than 21) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements.

Because of the expansive nature of the onsite clay soils observed and documented in the borings (Appendix A) below the granular fill, precautions should be taken to reduce the potential heaving of concrete slabs on grade if clay soil is exposed in the subgrade. A layer of relatively non -expansive, predominantly granular soils is recommended immediately beneath concrete walks and slabs on grade, including Portland cement concrete paving. This select, non -expansive granular soil should contain sufficient fines as to be relatively impermeable when compacted. Material of this type was observed onsite within the undocumented fill encountered at the boring locations. This granular undocumented fill material may be reused onsite since the expansion potential of the undocumented fill observed at the boring locations had an Expansion Index (EI) of one (1), essentially non - expansive.

3.1.6 Fill Placement and Compaction
Fill soils should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches, moisture - conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (modified Proctor compaction curve). Aggregate base should also be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.

All Lei hton Page 16
- E-22

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

3.1.7 Shrinkage
The change in volume of excavated and recompacted soil varies according to soil type and location. This volume change is represented as a percentage increase (bulking) or decrease (shrinkage) in volume of fill after removal and recompaction. Field and laboratory data used in our calculations included laboratory -measured maximum dry density for the general soil type encountered at the subject site, the measured in -place densities of near surface soils encountered and our experience.

Based upon the results of the in -place density of native alluvial soils and engineered fill and the moisture -density relationship exhibited by representative bulk samples of the near surface soils, recompaction of the soils is anticipated to result in volume shrinkage in the range of 5 to 10 percent. The estimated shrinkage does not include material losses due to removal of organic material or other unsuitable bearing materials (debris, rubble, oversize material greater than 6-inches) and the actual shrinkage that occurs during grading may vary throughout the site.

3.2 Foundation Design
The proposed three-story residential buildings (BSB, April 2022) can be supported on Post Tension (PT) foundations. Maximum column loading and wall loading is not available at the time of this report. We have anticipated that the proposed residential buildings will be wood -framed and lightly loaded. We assume a maximum column load of 45 kips and maximum wall load of 2.5 kips per lineal foot are generally applicable for the relatively light residential structural loads.

Structural loading information should be provided to us when available for review.

Overexcavation and recompaction of the footing subgrade should be performed as detailed in Section 3.1. The following recommendations are based on the onsite soil conditions and soils with very low to high expansion potential.

3.2.1 Minimum Embedment and Width
Based on our preliminary investigation, footings should have a minimum embedment per code requirements, with a minimum width of 24 and 18 inches for isolated and continuous footings, respectively.

All Lei hton Page 17
- E-23

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

3.2.2 Post -Tension Foundation Design Parameters
Post -tensioned foundations founded on reconditioned undocumented fill of very low expansion should be designed by a qualified structural engineer in accordance with the 2019 CBC using the minimum geotechnical parameters provided below for soils with a "low" Expansion Index. Expansion index should be confirmed upon completion of grading.

Post -tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations
•
Center Lift 9.0
Edge Moisture Variation, em
Edge Lift 5.1
Center Lift 0.15
Differential Swell Y,,,
Edge Lift 0.36
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 120 pci
For post -tension slab foundations, exterior footings (thickened edges) should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade and a minimum width of 12 inches. These footings may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for short-term loading. The structural engineer should provide the slab with adequate stiffness to minimize potential cracking due to expansive forces. The design of post -tensioned slab foundations should follow the procedures described in the latest edition of the Design of Post -Tensioned Slabs -on -Ground by the Post -Tensioning Institute.

To provide more uniform moisture in the subgrade, the top 18 inches of the prepared subgrade should be moisture conditioned to 1 to 2 percent of the optimum moisture prior to placement of concrete.

The soil -moisture around the immediate perimeter of the slab should be maintained to near -optimum moisture content (or above) during construction and up to occupancy of the homes.

The Post -Tensioning Institute (PTI) has recommended the following guidelines for residential development:
flo Lei hton Page 18
E-24

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 • Initial landscaping should be done on all sides adjacent to the foundation. Positive drainage away from the foundation should be implemented and maintained.
• Irrigation watering should be done in a uniform manner as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation to maintain constant soil moisture content. Ponding of irrigation or rainfall water adjacent to the foundation slab can cause differential soil moisture levels potentially causing differential movements.

Planting trees closer to the structure than a distance equal to one-half the mature height of the tree could allow the root system to enter under the foundation. The root system could alter the soil moisture content within the root system and cause soil shrinkage which may result in differential movements of the foundation. A landscape architect should be consulted and made aware of these recommendations.

We recommend additional Expansion Index tests be conducted prior to the residential construction phase. The above recommended design criteria may be subject to change if the expansion potential of the subgrade soil is found to be different than assumed herein.

3.2.3 Conventional Spread Footings
It is anticipated that conventional spread footings can be used to support the proposed subterranean parking structure and other isolated columns.

Footings should be embedded at a minimum 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For footings in the upper silty sand materials, (i.e. the upper 5 feet) an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf may be used for footings with a minimum width of 12 inches. Footings for the proposed subterranean parking structure would likely be located in the clayey materials that were encountered at depth in the borings. For footings in the clayey materials, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf may be used for footings with a minimum width of 12 inches. These bearing capacities may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading.

The total static settlement induced by a column load of 800 kips is estimated to be 11/2 inch. For a column load of 150 kips, the total static settlement is estimated to be inch. Differential settlement can be taken as half the total All Lei hton Page 19
E-25

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. Since settlement is a function of footing size and contact bearing pressure, differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. Leighton should review the settlement estimates when final foundation plans and loads for the proposed structures become available. If upon review, the settlement estimates exceed tolerable values, then the use of structural slab system with grade beams connecting the footings or a mat foundation may be recommended. Additional investigation may also be considered.

Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by a combination of friction between the soil and structure interface and passive pressure acting against the vertical portion of the footings structures. For calculating lateral resistance of footings located in the upper silty sand materials (i.e. the upper 5 feet), a passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth to a maximum of 3,000 psf and a frictional coefficient of 0.30 may be used. For footings located in the deeper clayey materials, a passive pressure of 200 psf per foot of depth to a maximum of 2,000 psf and a frictional coefficient of 0.20 may be used.

Note that the passive and frictional coefficients do not include a factor of safety. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.

3.3 Slabs -on -Grade
Concrete slabs may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci provided the subgrade is prepared as described in Section 3.1. From a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend slab -on -grade be a minimum 4 inches thick with No. 3 rebar placed at the center of the slab at 24 inches on center in each direction for Concept Site Plan 30 Units Quail Street SFD, prepared by BSB, dated April 25, 2022. For the subterranean concept, Quail Street Podium, prepared by RHA, dated May 5, 2022 and in consideration of the highly expansive clay anticipated to be exposed at the bearing elevation of the parking structure we recommend slab -on -grade be a minimum 8 inches thick. The structural engineer should design the actual thickness and reinforcement based on anticipated loading conditions. Where moisture -sensitive floor coverings or equipment is planned, the slabs should be protected by a minimum 10-mil-thick vapor barrier between the slab and subgrade. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 can be used between the floor slab and the vapor barrier.

All Lei g hton Page 20
- E-26

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal and should be expected; however, concrete is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low -slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Additionally, our experience indicates that the use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations can generally reduce the potential but not eliminate for concrete cracking.

To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs -on -grade should be provided with construction or weakened plane joints at frequent intervals. Joints should be laid out to form approximately square panels.

3.4 Sulfate Attack and Ferrous Corrosion Protection

3.4.1 Sulfate Exposure
Sulfate ions in the soil can lower the soil resistivity and can be highly aggressive to Portland cement concrete by combining chemically with certain constituents of the concrete, principally tricalcium aluminate. This reaction is accompanied by expansion and eventual disruption of the concrete matrix.

A potentially high sulfate content could also cause corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete. Section 1904A of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) defers to the American Concrete Institute's (ACI's) ACI 318-14 for concrete durability requirements. Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14 lists "Exposure categories and classes," including sulfate exposure as follows:

Table 3 - Sulfate Concentration and Exposure
Water -Soluble Sulfate (SO4)
in soil (percentage by weight)

0.00-0.10
ACI 318-14 Sulfate
Class
SO (negligible)
S2 (severe
S3 (very severe)
*or seawater
All Lei hton Page 21
- E-27

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

3.4.2 Ferrous Corrosivity
Many factors can modify corrosion potential of soil including soil moisture content, resistivity, permeability and pH, as well as chloride and sulfate concentration. In general, soil resistivity, which is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils, is the most influential factor. Based on the findings of studies presented in ASTM STP 1013 titled "Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion" (February 1989), the approximate relationship between soil resistivity and soil corrosiveness was developed as follows:

Table 4 - Soil Resistivity and Soil Corrosivity
Resistivity
(ohm -cm)
0 to 900
ClassificationSoil .

Soil Corrosiveness
Very Severely Corrosive
900 to 2,300
Severely Corrosive
2,300 to 5,000
Moderately Corrosive
5,000 to 10,000
Mildly Corrosive
10,000 to >100,000
Very Mildly Corrosive
Acidity is an important factor of soil corrosivity. The lower the pH (the more acidic the environment), the higher the soil corrosivity will be with respect to buried metallic structures and utilities. As soil pH increases above 7 (the neutral value), the soil is increasingly more alkaline and less corrosive to buried steel structures, due to protective surface films, which form on steel in high pH environments. A pH between 5 and 8.5 is generally considered relatively passive from a corrosion standpoint. Chloride and sulfate ion concentrations, and pH appear to play secondary roles in modifying corrosion potential. High chloride levels tend to reduce soil resistivity and break down otherwise protective surface deposits, which can result in corrosion of buried steel or reinforced concrete structures.

3.4.3 Corrosivity Test Results
To evaluate corrosion potential of near surface soils sampled from this site, we tested a bulk soil sample for soluble sulfate content, soluble chloride content, pH and resistivity. Results of these tests are summarized below:
flo Lei g hto n Page 22
E-28

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
Table 5 - Results of Corrosivity Testing
Minimum
Boring Sample Depth Sulfate Chloride
Number (feet) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) pH Resistivity
(ohm -cm)
Note: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, or parts -per -million (ppm) These results are discussed as follows:
• Sulfate Exposure: Based on test results and Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318- 14, in our opinion, sulfate exposure should be considered "moderate" with an Exposure Class SO. Additional testing of subgrade materials recommended upon completion of grading.
• Ferrous Corrosivity: As shown above, minimum soil resistivity of 1,590 ohm -centimeters was measured in our laboratory test. In our opinion, based on resistivity correlation presented in Table 4 Section 3.4.2, it appears for site soils that corrosion potential to buried steel may be characterized as "severely corrosive" at the site.

As standard design concepts, ferrous pipe buried in moist to wet site earth materials should be avoided by using high -density polyethylene (HDPE) or other non-ferrous pipe when possible. Or ferrous pipe can be protected by polyethylene bags, tape or coatings, di -electric fittings or other means to separate the pipe from on -site earth materials. Additional testing of subgrade materials recommended upon completion of grading to confirm these reported values once rough grade mixing of onsite soils is complete.

3.5 Retaining Walls
Recommended lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf/ft. or pcf. These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the structural engineer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design.

On -site clay soils are not considered suitable to be used as retaining wall backfill due to its expansion potential. Should shallow site soil in upper five characterized as silty sand (SM) of very low expansion potential be considered or available for All Lei g hton Page 23
- E-29

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
reuse behind basement retaining walls, it should be tested to ensure Expansion potential is less than 20 (EI<20) after it is stockpiled. Recommended lateral earth pressures for retaining walls backfilled with sandy soils with drained conditions as shown on Figure 6, Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail are as follows:

Table 6 — Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures
ConditionRetaining Wall
(Level Backfill)
. Pressure
(pounds-per-cubic-footr
Active (cantilever)
35 At -Rest (braced)
60 Passive Resistance (compacted fill)
300
Seismic Increment
(add to active pressure)
20 Walls that are free to rotate or deflect may be designed using active earth pressure.

For basement walls or walls that are fixed against rotation, the at -rest pressure should be used. For the seismic condition, the pressure should be distributed as a triangular distribution and the dynamic thrust should be applied at a height of 1/3H above the base of the wall.

3.5.1 Sliding and Overturning
Total depth of retained earth for design of walls and for uplift resistance, should be measured as the vertical height of the stem below the ground surface at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of the soil over the wall footing, if drained, or 60 pcf if submerged, for properly compacted backfill.

3.5.2 Drainage
Adequate drainage may be provided by a subdrain system positioned behind any earth retaining walls. Typically, this system consists of a 4-inch minimum diameter perforated pipe placed near the base of the wall (perforations placed downward). The pipe should be bedded and backfilled with pervious backfill material described in Section 300-3.5.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), current edition. This pervious backfill should extend at least 2 feet out from the wall and to within 2 feet of flo Lei hton Page 24
E-30

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 the outside finished grade. This pervious backfill and pipe should be wrapped in filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent, placed as described in Section 300-8.1 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), current edition. The subdrain outlet should be connected to a free -draining outlet or sump.

Miradrain, Geotech Drainage Panels, or Enkadrain drainage geocomposites, or similar, may be used for wall drainage as an alternative to the Class 2 Permeable Material or drain rock backfill, particularly where horizontal space is limited adjacent to shoring (where walls are cast against shoring if considered). These drainage panels should be connected to the perforated drainpipe at the base of the wall.

3.6 Pavements
To provide support for paving, the subgrade soils should be prepared as recommended in the Section 3.1. Compaction of the subgrade, including trench backfills, to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557, and achieving a firm, hard, and unyielding surface will be important for paving support. The preparation of the paving area subgrade should be performed immediately prior to placement of the base course.

Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should be provided such that the subgrade soils and aggregate base materials are not allowed to become wet.

Cut-off walls achieved by deepening curb sections or grade beams around planters or other comparable barriers are also recommended to minimize lateral flow of irrigation water beneath the adjacent subgrade soils.

Excessive over -irrigation will have an adverse impact on adjacent pavements.

Irrigation adjacent to pavements, without a deep curb or other cutoff to separate landscaping from paving, will result in premature pavement failure.

3.6.1 Asphalt Concrete
The required paving and base thicknesses will depend on the expected wheel loads and volume of traffic (Traffic Index or TI). Assuming that the paving subgrade will consist of engineered fill with an R-value of at least 15, compacted to at least 90 percent as recommended, the minimum recommended paving thicknesses are presented in the following table.

All Lei g hton Page 25
- E-31

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
Table 7 — Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
Design Traffic Index (TI) Asphalt Concrete Base Course
(inches) (inches)
1 7.0
• 5.0 •1
•1 11.0
Traffic Indexes (Tls) used in our pavement design are considered reasonable values for proposed auto parking lots, and should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Higher Tls should be used in heavy truck traffic areas or high - volume lanes.

3.6.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavin
For light axle loads and average daily truck traffic (ADT) less than ( _) 500 or more over properly compacted fill subgrades, a minimum PCC thickness of 7-inches should be used. All PCC pavements should have a minimum 28-day concrete compressive strength of 3,250 pounds -per -square -inch (psi), and have appropriate joints and saw cuts in accordance with either Portland Cement Association (PCA) or American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines.

PCC subgrades supporting axle loads are recommended to be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction in the upper 12 inches.

A 4-inch layer of Class 2 aggregate may be used beneath areas of PCC pavement to improve performance. Additional details should be added to plans indicating pavement thickness transitions, pavement joint dowels, expansion joints and saw cut joints. Use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered at the perimeter of common parking or driveway areas when abutting either open (unfinished) or landscaped areas. flo Lei g hto n Page 26
E-32

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

3.6.3 Paving Materials
Asphalt concrete, aggregate base and Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications (current Edition):
https:Hdot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/design/documents/f00203402018stdspecsa11 y.pdf Recommended structural pavement materials should conform to the specified provisions in the Caltrans Standard Specifications including grading and quality requirements, shown below:
• Asphalt Concrete (Hot Mixed Asphalt) for pavement should be Type A and should conform to Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. Asphalt concrete specimens should be tested for surface abrasion in accordance with CT-360.
• Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) should conform to Section 26 of the Standard Specifications.
• Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement should conform to Section 40 of the Standard Specifications. PCC pavement materials (pavement, structures, minor concrete) should conform to Section 90 of the Standard Specifications.

As an alternative, asphalt concrete can conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), 2018 Edition. Crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base can conform to Sections 200-2.2 and 200-2.4 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), current edition, respectively.

3.7 Temporary Excavations
All temporary excavations, including utility trenches, retaining wall excavations, and foundation excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all OSHA requirements. Excavations 4 feet or deeper should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel are allowed to enter.
flo Lei g hto n Page 27
E-33

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 No surcharge loads should be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of cut or 5 feet, whichever is greater from the top of the cut, unless the cut is shored appropriately. Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of any adjacent existing site foundation should be properly shored to maintain support of the adjacent structure.

Temporary excavations should be treated in accordance with the State of California version of OSHA excavation regulations, Construction Safety Orders for Excavation General Requirements, Article 6, Section 1541, effective October 1, 1995. The sides of excavations should be shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA allows the sides of unbraced excavations, up to a maximum height of 20 feet, to be cut to a %H:1 V (horizontal:vertical) slope for Type A soils, 1 H:1 V for Type B soils, and 1'/2H:1 V for Type C soils. Near -surface onsite soils are to be considered Type B soils.

During construction, the soil conditions should be regularly evaluated to verify that conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions.

Close coordination between the competent person and the geotechnical engineer should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations.

3.7.1 Temporary Shoring
Vertical cuts may be supported by several methods including cross -braced hydraulic shoring or conventional shields in utility trenches, or sheet piles, soldier piles and wood lagging, and/or soil nailing for basement excavations.

These choices should be left to the contractor's judgment since economic considerations and/or the individual contractor's construction experience may determine which method is more economical and/or appropriate.

However, shoring systems should be designed by a California licensed civil or structural engineer. The contractor and shoring designer should also perform additional geotechnical studies as necessary to refine means and methods of shoring construction. The contractor should forward temporary excavation support system plans to us for pre -construction review.

Hollow -stem -auger borings were drilled, which avoid empirical observation of caving soils in drilled shafts. Therefore, this report does not have any empirical information regarding the potential for caving in drilled holes (e.g. shear wall piles, soldier piles and/or tie -backs), which should be considered All Lei g hton Page 28
- E-34

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 by the contractor. The contractor may therefore choose to evaluate the potential for difficult drilling conditions and caving of piles, soldier pile and tie -back shafts by drilling pilot holes with the intended production drilling equipment. We expect some clean sand layers at this site are prone to caving.

Support of all adjacent existing structures and infrastructure without distress is the contractor's responsibility. Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of any adjacent existing site foundation should be properly shored to maintain support of the adjacent structure. In addition, it should be the contractor's responsibility to undertake a pre -construction survey including (1) establishing surface survey monuments adjacent to existing sensitive structures and infrastructure to measure ground movement adjacent to excavations, and (2) photographing and otherwise documenting adjacent property conditions prior to excavation. Surface monuments should be established and read by a California licensed Professional Land Surveyor (PLS), with an accuracy on the order of 1/10th. of an inch.

As preliminary guidelines, the following geotechnical parameters can be used for shoring design:
• Supported Earth Pressures: For site undocumented fill, an active equivalent fluid earth pressure of 35 pounds -per -cubic -foot (pcf) should be used for temporary deflecting cantilever shoring, or 50 pcf as an at - rest pressure for temporary braced shoring, only for drained shoring above groundwater with level backfill. Braced shoring can also be designed using a uniform rectangular soil pressure of 35H psf, where H is equal to the depth of the excavation being shored, in feet. Braces, tie- backs or soil nails should be installed and pre -loaded as the excavation progresses to reduce shoring deflections. Determination of appropriate design conditions (active or at -rest) depends on shoring flexibility. If a rotation of more than 0.001 radian (0.06 degrees) at the base or at the top is allowed, active pressure conditions apply; otherwise, at -rest condition governs.
• Surcharge Loads: Surcharge loads (dead or live) should be added to the indicated lateral earth pressures and should be applied uniformly, if such loads are within a horizontal distance that is less -than the exposed shoring height. The corresponding lateral earth pressure will All Lei g hton Page 29
- E-35

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001 approximately be 33-percent of the vertical surcharge for active conditions, and 50-percent for at -rest conditions. Surcharge pressures from concentrated loads should be evaluated after geometric constraints and loading conditions are determined on individual basis. • Soldier Piles: Soldier piles typically consist of steel H-beams set in predrilled holes and backfilled with structural concrete below the proposed excavation level and then with lean -mix concrete to the ground surface. Lagging between the soldier piles is expected to be required.

Soldier piles may be assumed to have a passive resistance below the lowest adjacent excavation (bottom of pile caps) of 350 pounds -per - square -foot (psf), per foot of embedment of the soldier pile encased in concrete in firm contact with the native soil. This passive pressure should not exceed 3,500 psf, and is based on the assumption that soldier piles will be spaced at least three diameters on center. Soldier piles can be problematic in some zones of the sand material that may make drilling and lagging installation difficult. Due to the potential for sand caving, drilled shafts should be poured the same day as drilled, and under no circumstances should be left open overnight. If water is encountered then it should be pumped out, and the "tremmie" method used in pouring concrete, which should be designed for an additional compressive strength of 1,000 psi above the dry shaft design strength.

Casing should be made available during drilling.

3.8 Trench Backfill
Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1 and 306-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, ("Green book"), current edition. Utility trenches can be backfilled with onsite sandy material free of rubble, debris, organic and oversized material up to ( _) 30, passing the No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve (or as specified by the pipe manufacturer), water densified in place, or
(2) CLSM: Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) conforming to Section 201-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, ("Green book"), current Edition. CLSM should not be jetted.

All Lei hton Page 30
E-36

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
Pipe bedding should extend at least 4 inches below the pipeline invert and at least 12 inches over the top of the pipeline. Native and clean fill soils can be used as backfill over the pipe bedding zone, and should be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned above optimum, and mechanically compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, relative to the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density.

Utility trenches excavated into site clays should not have sand bedding placed within 3 feet of the trench as it exits from under the slabs to prevent water migration along bedding sand into and under the foundation. A bentonite plug or clayey soil can be placed to interrupt bedding sand and prevent water migration.

3.9 Drainage and Landscaping
Building walls below grade should be waterproofed or at least damp proofed, depending upon the degree of moisture protection desired. Surface drainage should be designed to direct water away from foundations and toward approved drainage devices. Irrigation of landscaping should be controlled to maintain, as much as possible, consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without overwatering.

3.10 Additional Geotechnical Services
Leighton should review the grading plans, foundation plans, and specifications when they are available to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated.

Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided during the following activities:
• Grading and excavation of the site;
• During installation of shoring,
• Subgrade Preparation;
• Compaction of all fill materials;
• Utility trench backfilling and compaction;
• Footing excavation and slab -on -grade preparation;
• Pavement subgrade and base preparation;
• Placement of asphalt concrete and/or concrete; and
• When any unusual conditions are encountered.

All Lei hton Page 31
E-37

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

4.0 LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical exploration does not address the potential for encountering hazardous soil at this site. In addition, this report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is, by necessity, incomplete. Please also refer GBA's Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report (included at the rear of the text), presenting additional information and limitations regarding geotechnical engineering studies and reports. The nature of many sites is such that differing soil or geologic conditions can be present within small distances and under varying climatic conditions.

Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are only valid if Leighton and Associates, Inc. has the opportunity to observe subsurface conditions during grading and construction, to confirm that our data are representative for the site. Leighton and Associates, Inc. should also review the construction plans and project specifications, when available, to comment on the geotechnical aspects.

This report was prepared using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing at this time in Orange County. We do not make any warranty, either expressed or implied.

All Lei g hton Page 32
- E-38

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001

5.0 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary, an ACI Standard, reported by ACI Committee 318.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, with Supplement 1, Effective December 12, 2018.

Bedrossian, T.L., and Roffers, P.D., 2010, Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California, Orange County, California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Report 217, Plate 12, map scale 1:100,000.

Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., Interim Revision 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publications 42, 42p.

California Building Standards Commission, 2019, 2019 California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on 2018 International Building Code, Effective January 1, 2020.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2020, Interactive Website, Water Data Library, http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrarV/index.cfm California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CaIGEM), 2020, Interactive Wellfinder Website,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/welIfinder/
California Geological Survey (CGS; formally California Division of Mines and Geology), 1997, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5- Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report No.

03. 1998, State of California Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Anaheim Quadrangle, map scale 1:24,000, released April 15, 1998.
2000, CD-ROM containing digital images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones that affect the Southern Region, DMG CD 2000-003 2000. 2002, Note 49, Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture, dated May 2002.
flo Lei g hto n Page 33
E-39

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
2008, Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California; originally adopted March 13, 1997 by the State Mining and Geology Board in Accordance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990, Revised and Re -Adopted September 11, 2008.
, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, 2010.
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 State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB), GeoTracker, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ .

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009, Map Number 06059C0142J, Effective Date December 3, 2009, Scale 1" = 1000' web site ( https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/) .

Morton D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana, 30' x 60' Quadrangles, California, USGS Open File Report 2006-1217.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR), 2020, Historic Aerials by NETR Online, website: http://www.historicaerials.com/ .

Orange County Public Works (OCPW), 2013, Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), dated December 20, 2013.

Real, C.R., 1985, Introduction, in Sherburne, R.W., Fuller, D.R., Cole, J.W., Greenwood, R.B., Mumm, H.A., and Real, C.R. (editors), Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, California; California Division Of Mines And Geology Open File Report 81-10LA, pp. 1.1-1.7.

Sprotte, E.C., Fuller, D.R., Greenwood, R.B., Mumm, H.A., Real, C.R., and Sherburne, R.W., 1980, Annual Technical Report Text and Plates, Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, California: California Division Of Mines and Geology Open File Report 80-19LA, 268 p.
flo Lei hton Page 34
E-40

Geotechnical Exploration, 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach 13542.001
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1965 (Photorevised 1972), Anaheim 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle, California, map scale 1:24,000.
2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps — Fault Parameters,
https://earthguake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfauIts 2008 search/query main.cfm , 2020a, Unified Hazard Tool, https:Hearthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ , 2020b, Interactive Geologic Map, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/MapView/ Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E. and Vedder, J.G., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California -- An Introduction: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A, 57 p.

All Lei g hton Page 35
- E-41

Geotechnical-Engineering Report
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you — assumedly
a client representative — interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered
exposure to problems associated with subsurface
conditions at project sites and development of
them that, for decades, have been a principal cause
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims,
and disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk -confrontation
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for
everyone involved with a construction project.

Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services
Provided for this Report
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.

The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.

Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects,
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil -works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical- engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.

Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time - if any is required at all - could prevent major problems.

Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
About Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:
• the site's size or shape;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept E-42

responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report
Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site's subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ - maybe significantly - from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report's Recommendations Are
Confirmation -Dependent
The recommendations included in this report - including any options or alternatives - are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation -dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:
• confer with other design -team members;
• help develop specifications;
review pertinent elements of other design professionals' plans and specifications; and
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction - phase observations.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you've included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations;' many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.

Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study - e.g., a "phase -one" or "phase -two" environmental site assessment - differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk -management guidance.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with
Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer's services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture - including water vapor - from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies.

Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold specialists on the design team.

Geotechnical engineers are not building -envelope or mold specialists.

GEOPROFESSIONAL

BUSINESS

SEA ASSOCIATION
Telephone: 301 /565-2733
e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.

Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

E-43

FIGURES
All Lei hton
E-44

gal
r3'7f c�AAnt
�'"1�'! { Lbw o ��
• 1,. 'i; P lar noi, `,, P-1—no Ave
Peulanno
St ,��, ! �' Rcw _. "'- � rs „ # �,' , r' �9aker'St �• ^ �rI �O �j �`' �i, ,�SJ!} °,fit '. a ♦ �''i/,
:a - � •rho, ,� �" !� ..� i•:
n m i"r �►,', \ John Waynel
s� -W? y�
VFW
use efmY Q r„ Jr A O �� 47 'Cl 1tt - Orange
R c t? i; " \f{, County No rh
Base � �
Co.ta r , l � . [.� , F� tf f. v
fit' A
e q f• me.µ '41
(`
73 - ? - • � der ,.+.% Q�° ` 7* - I � i
,- i„_, `, �Orf : � x .CP•� � ++1�� t_i �E � � .. awe •y `♦�/ C / j+ c Approximate !fit
V Site Location
44 i..
. H gh r - • �`` Cry„xw�
t ,�, {•`ram ' C E'L-V}4wa;. � ` -.. _ i _-�
♦ rig 'Bz. F
R.g�F' z
5'A, A#,
.�
�*"
5 B'., •mess �0`�+�
qc'y •�� +
? RESEARCH
. 4
PARK
p•, i. • :-
11 U N V E R517 Y''1~i
wn 6�� t _
RESEARCH PARK q

APN : NIA
EXISTING ZONE Light Industrial
PC11 Newport Place Planned Community

PROJECT SUMMARY

GROSS AREA

TOTAL UNITS

DENSITY

PARKING SUMMARY
PARKING REQUIRED:

PARKING PROVIDED:
- SURFACE PARKING
-GARAGES
PRODUCT MIX:

PLAN A 10 units (33-no)
PLAN B 14 units (46.7%)
PLAN G 6 unit {20.0%)
TOTAL 30 units (100%)
+1.1.7 ac
30 units

17.64 dulac
Na
74 spaces (+/-2.46 ratio)
14 spaces
60 spaces
PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE:

PROPOSED LANE: RIB (Mold-th>it Residential)
SETBACKS:

From 29
- Side: 3'
Rear. 10'
0 2Q' 40, RO'
North Scale: 1" = 20' (on 24x36 sheet)
1 NTRACORP
Newport Beach, Ca
___ l J Ui.J►�
Tire drawings presented are rkuslradti'e otdwaUvand design intwMonly, snd are subject to c4&--ge ba wd upon ON de&W wnWeretiwrs �.s. sppllcabis codes, A udurW,, and MEP desrgn requirements, unitptan I tloorpian changes, etc.) 0 20 17 8S6 Design, rrrc.

Project: 13542.001 Eng/Geol: RAR/JAR
Scale:1 " = 50 ' Date: June 2022
Reference: Base Map As Shown

GEOTECHNICAL MAP
Proposed Residential Development
1401 Quail Street
Newport Beach, California
LEGEND
LB-3 Approximate location of hollow -stem auger boring
showing proposed depth (T.D.) in feet below adjacent grade.

LP-1 Approximate location of proposed infiltration test boring 0 shown with test depth between 15-20 feet
Approximate Site Boundary
0 50 100
Feet
CONCEPT SITE PLAN - 30 UNITS
(THE PLACE FOOTPRINTS)

QUAIL STREET SFD
Newport Beach, CA.

April 25, 2022 { SF220XXX.00
Im
BS�

S I G N
aseoesi XC0M
FIGURE 2a
Leighton
as J:\Drafting\13542\001\Maps\13542 001 F02a GM 2022-06-10—d on E-46

LEGEND
L13-3 Approximate location of hollow -stem auger boring showing proposed depth (T.D.) in feet below adjacent grade.

LP-1 Approximate location of proposed infiltration test boring shown with test depth between 15-20 feet
Approximate Site Boundary
t,
JD 13L
T.D.26.5'
Afu 0-4'
Qof 4-26.5'
G.W.@25'

6.07 in/hr
I
I
-
LB-3
i
--T.D.26.5'
Afu 0-5'
Qof 5-26.5.

G!.W.@25'
LB-1
T.D.51.5
msLoPE
S Afu 0-4'
QAN 4
of 4-40!5'
�Qol 40:5-51.5' �
� 3
0 50 100
Feet • .
r
Project: 13542.001 Eng/Geol: RAR/JAR G E OT E C H N I CA L MAP FIGURE 2b Scale:1 " = 50 ' Date: June 2022
Proposed Residential Development
Reference: Quail Podium, Ground Floor 1401 Quail Street 0/o Leighton Intracorp, Dated: 05/02/2022
Newport Beach, California
Map Saved as J:\Draftinq\13542\001\Maps\13542 001 F02b GM 2022-06-10—d on 6/10/2022 10:37:18 AMA uth or: KVM (btran) E-47

\ \Qya11
�a
\ / Qyf
\
I \
Qof
r Qya
\\Qya / I I d \t I c
,-I� I Qya \\ ✓ j/ W I It
Qof
\ I I GEOLOGIC UNITS
il:�
1 •: Qya, Young Alluvial Valley Deposits
\. Qof
Qyf, Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Qof, Old Alluvial Fan Deposits
0 2,000 4,000 \ I _
\ I � 3 Qol, Old Lacustrine, Playa and Estuarine
Feet /
/ t r. °•.(Paralic) Deposits
Project: 13542.001 Eng/Geol: RAR/JAR REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP FIGURE 3 Scale:1 " = 2,000 ' Date: June 2022
Proposed Residential Development ��/
Reference: Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial 1401 Quail Street Leighton Deposits in Southern California, Orange County,
Bedrossian at. al., 2010 Newport Beach, California
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13542\001\Maps\13542-001_FO3_RGM_2022-06-03.mxdon 5/26/2022 5 13 19 PM Author: KVM (btran) E-48

Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13542\001\Maps\13542-001_F04_RFHSM_2022-06-03.mxd on 5/26/2022 5:15:06 PM Author: KVM (btran) E-49

LEGEND
- Landslide Zones
Liquefaction Zones
La4r Ave
Approximate
Site Location
lch,y
Sant, Ana
i
oi,n ]/1
G°'r �aY��wv Way 7
M1r-
ry
Apr
!U
0 1z
e
♦eau
��
p
i.
yya
Upper Back Bay A'
a m
�'cnl
'4
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Project: 13542.001 Eng/Geol: RAR/JAR SEISMIC HAZARD MAP FIGURE 5 Scale:1 "= 2,000' Date: June 2022 Proposed Residential Development e e Service Layer Credits Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Inlermap, '140'� Quail Street �1/ Leighton INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri(Thalland),NGCC,(c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the Newport Beach, California GIS User Communlly,
Seismic Hazards Program, California Geological Survey, California Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13542\001\Maps\13542-001_F05_SHM_2022-06-03.mxd on 5/27/2022 9:08:29 AM Author: KVM 6tran) E-5

SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF >50 1/2 OF WALL HEIGHT

OR HEEL WIDTH

WHICHEVER

IS GREATER

WATERPROOF

PER DESIGN
12" ENGINEER

CLEAN SAND BACKFILL
WITH S.E.>30

APPROVED BY SOILS ENGINEER
(MAY BE DENSIFIED BY COMPACTION

OR WATER JETTING)

FILTER FABRIC
WEEP HOLE ° (SEE NOTE 4)
(SEE NOTE 5)
4" PERFORATED PIPE AND GRAVEL
6" MIN. ° ' (SEE NOTES 2 AND 3)
NOTE: AS AN ALTERNATE TO CLEAN SAND BACKFILL,
CLEAN GRAVEL MAY BE UTILIZED WITH APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. A

SECOND ALTERNATE IS TO UTILIZE AN AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION. A SAMPLE OF THE

PROPOSED BASE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT PRIOR TO BACKFILL FOR SUITABILITY. COMPACTION SHOULD BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT DAMAGING THE WALL.

GENERAL NOTES:
* Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable. * Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer * All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum *Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project engineer. The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding) *Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.

Notes:
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting. 2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric 3) Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule 40, Armco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in diameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered) 4) Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent. 5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum intervals. If exposure is permitted, weepholes should be located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the sidewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement -type wall, a proper subdrain outlet system should be provided.
6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer. 7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.

RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF >50
Al., Leighton
FIGURE 6
E-51

APPENDIX A

EXPLORATION LOGS
All Lei hton
E-52

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Project No.
13542.001
Date Drilled
5-20-22
Project
Intracorp Quail St
Logged By
LFO
Drilling Co.

Martini Drilling Corp
Hole Diameter
8"
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Ground Elevation
44'
Location
See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Sampled By
LFO
c
0 SOIL DESCRIPTION
y
O�
��
V
0 Z
OM
U)
o
iY
�;-.

MD, IDS,
— — —
--
--
--
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - El,CR
Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
R-1
12 SM
@2': Silty SAND, yellowish brown, medium dense,
9 predominantly fine sand, trace medium and coarse sand, 9 some rootlets, slightly moist
40 ---
---
--
--
--
--
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - R-2
4 103.7

20.1 CL
Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
5 9
@4': Sandy CLAY, dark yellow brown, very stiff, fine sand, low 11 plasticity, weakly laminated, moist
R-3
5 107.0

8.3 CL
@6': Sandy CLAY, reddish brown, very stiff, fine sand, low to 11 medium plasticity, laminated, moist
12 R-4
6 113.4

17.0 CL
@8': CLAY, reddish brown mottled gray, very stiff, some fine 35 8
sand, low to medium plasticity, trace MnO, moist
13 10
R-5
8 110.4

18.8 CL
@10': CLAY, reddish brown mottled gray, very stiff, some fine 13 sand, low to medium plasticity, some MnO and carbonate 21 blebs, moist
30 15
S-6
3 24.0
CH
@15': Fat CLAY, light yellowish brown, very stiff, trace fine sand, 5 low plasticity, large carbonate blebs, moist
10 25
20 R-7
14 98.6

8.9 ML
@20': Sandy SILT, gray brown mottled yellow and orange
20 (heavily Fe -stained), dense, predominantly fine sand, trace 28 medium sand, friable, very moist
20 25
S-8
4 19.1
SP
@25': Poorly -graded SAND, gray brown, dense, predominantly 8 medium sand, trace fine and coarse sand, Fe -stained, 16 micaceous, friable, wet
15 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:

B BULK SAMPLE -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT %/� Leig htQn

G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY

R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH

T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 2 E-53

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Project No.
13542.001
Date Drilled
5-20-22
Project
Intracorp Quail St
Logged By
LFO
Drilling Co.

MCI)
4)
Q.y
Q.p
Q
C
y
q
UV
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the >
4)
w J
p s?.
+r
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
2 cLL
E
m
s',
o
_uj
o�
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the 4)
Q
M
C.)0)
-
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be >,
a.p
gradual.
30 R-9
25 SP
@30': Poorly -graded SAND, gray brown, very dense,
50/2"
predominantly medium sand, trace fine and coarse sand,
Fe -stained, micaceous, friable, wet
10 35
•
S-10
9 18.4
SP
@35': Poorly -graded SAND, gray brown, very dense,
24 predominantly medium sand, trace fine and coarse sand, 30 Fe -stained, micaceous, friable, abundant white shell fragments, wet
5 S-11
1_
__

32.E
SP
m
40':Saa
2 CH
_e_sabove________________
_
Quaternary Old Lacustrine. Playa, and Estuarine Deposits 2 Qol
@40.5': Fat CLAY, bluish gray, medium stiff, high plasticity, moist
0 45
S-12
Push

39.6 CH
@45': Fat CLAY, bluish gray, soft, high plasticity, trace white Push
shell fragments, wet
2 -5
50 S-13
Push

41.0 CH
@50': Same as above
Push
3 T.D. 51.5 feet bgs
Groundwater encountered at 25 feet bgs.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with -10
cold -patch asphalt.
55 -15
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:

B BULK SAMPLE -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT %/� Leig hton

G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY

R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH

T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 2 of 2 E-54

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Project No.
13542.001
Date Drilled
5-20-22
Project
Intracorp Quail St
Logged By
LFO
Drilling Co.

Martini Drilling Corp
Hole Diameter
8"
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Ground Elevation
43'
Location
See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Sampled By
LFO
c
0 SOIL DESCRIPTION
y
O�
��
V
0 Z
OM
U)
o
iY
�;-.

0.p
gradual.
0 -'
BB-1
@Surface: 8" asphalt over 4" CLAY w/ Sand base
— — —
— — —
--
--
--
--
----------------------------
Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
R-1
6 SM
@2': Silty SAND, reddish brown, medium dense, fine sand, trace 40 8
clay, slightly moist
10 — — —
— — —
R-2
—---
10 —---
109.9
--

17.5 --
CL
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
5 12
@4': Sandy CLAY, reddish brown mottled gray, very stiff, fine 14 sand, trace MnO, moist
R-3
7 113.9

6.7 SM
@6': Silty SAND, orange brown, dense, predominantly fine sand, 14 trace medium sand, friable, moist
23 35
R-4
8 117.0

15.7 CL
@8': Lean CLAY, reddish brown, hard, low plasticity, some MnO 16 stringers, moist
23 10
R-5
7 114.1

17.3 CL
@10': Lean CLAY, reddish brown, very stiff, low plasticity, some 13 MnO blebs, moist
21 30
15 S-6
3 21.1
CH
@15': Fat CLAY, light yellowish brown, very stiff, trace fine sand, 6 low plasticity, abundant carbonate blebs, moist
12 25
20 R-7
13 106.6

9.6 ML
@20': Sandy SILT, gray brown mottled orange from Fe -staining, 20 dense, fine sand, weakly laminated, friable, moist
25 20
25 S-8
5 23.5
SP
@25': Poorly -graded SAND, graybrown mottled orange from 13 Fe -staining, dense, predominantly fine to medium sand, trace 20 coarse sand, very moist
T.D. 26.5 feet bgs
15 Groundwater encountered at 25 feet bgs.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold -patch asphalt.
g�
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:

B BULK SAMPLE -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT %/� Leig htQn

G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY

R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH

T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 1 E-55

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3
Project No.
13542.001
Date Drilled
5-20-22
Project
Intracorp Quail St
Logged By
LFO
Drilling Co.

Martini Drilling Corp
Hole Diameter
8"
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Ground Elevation
42'
Location
See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Sampled By
LFO
6 SOIL DESCRIPTION
y
O�
��
V
0 Z
OM
U)
o
iY
�;-.

MCI)
4)
Q.y
Q.p
Q
C
y
q
UV
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the >
4)
w J
p s?.
+r
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
W
cLL
E
M
m
s',
o
_uj
o�
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a
Q
d
p
C.)0)
-
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be >,
gradual.
0 BB-1
@Surface: 4" asphalt over 4" CLAY base
---
---
--
--
-------------------------------------
Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
40 R-1
5 110.8
158
SM
@3': Silty SAND, yellow brown, dense, predominantly fine sand, 13 trace medium sand, trace clay, weakly laminated, moist 22 5
— — —
— — —
--
--
--
--
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - R-2
9 106.4

19.0 SC
Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
14 @5': Clayey SAND, gray yellow brown, medium dense, fine 21 sand, low plasticity, moist
35 R-3
7 115.4

16.1 CL
@T: Sandy CLAY, orange brown, very stiff, fine sand, low 13 plasticity, trace MnO, some carbonate blebs, slightly moist 19 10
R-4
6 116.5

15.0 CL
@10': Sandy CLAY, reddish brown mottled gray brown, very 14 stiff, fine sand, low plasticity, slightly moist
20 30
15 R-5
6 104.3

23.2 CH
@15': Fat CLAY, light yellowish brown, very stiff, fine sand, low AL, CN
10 plasticity, abundant carbonate blebs, slightly moist 15 25
SM
@1 T: Changes to yellow Silty SAND in tailings
20 S-6
4 14.4
SM
@20': Silty SAND, gray mottled yellow and orange from
8 Fe -staining, medium dense, fine sand, trace clay, friable, very 9 moist
20 25
S-7
7 23.4
SP
@25': Poorly -graded SAND, gray brown, very dense, fine sand, 17 friable, micaceous, very moist
21 15
T.D. 26.5 feet bgs
Groundwater encountered at 25 feet bgs.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold -patch asphalt.
g�
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:

B BULK SAMPLE -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT %/� Leig htQn

G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY

R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH

T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 1 E-56

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-1
Project No.
13542.001
Date Drilled
5-20-22
Project
Intracorp Quail St
Logged By
LFO
Drilling Co.

Martini Drilling Corp
Hole Diameter
8"
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Ground Elevation
41'
Location
See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Sampled By
LFO
c
0 SOIL DESCRIPTION
y
O�
��
V
0 Z
OM
U)
o
iY
�;-.

MCI)
4)
Q.y
Q.p
Q
C
y
q
UV
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the >
4)
w J
p s?.
+r
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
W
cLL
E
M
m
s',
o
_uj
o�
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a
Q
p
C.)Il
0) -
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be >,
gradual.
0 ��
BB-1
@Surface: 4" asphalt over 5" CLAY base
40 ---
---
--
--
--
--
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
Silty SAND w/ Clay, yellow brown, fine sand, low plasticity, friable, slightly moist
5 ---
---
--
--
--
--
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - R-1
6 105.8

14.1 SP-SM
Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
35 14
@5': Poorly -graded SAND w/ Silt and Clay, yellow brown, dense, 22 fine sand, low plasticity, friable, slightly moist
R-2
7 97.2

2.2 SP-SM
@7': Poorly -graded SAND w/ Silt, olive yellow, medium dense, SA
11 predominantly fine sand, trace medium sand, trace clay, 15 slightly moist
10 R-3
8 110.9

19.8 SP
@10': Poorly -graded SAND, orange brown, predominantly fine to 30 13
medium sand, medium dense, micaceous, friable, slightly 19 moist
@11': Lean CLAY, orange brown mottled gray brown, low
plasticity, trace MnO staining, moist
15 R-4
7 102.1

24.8 CH
@15': Fat CLAY, light yellowish brown, very stiff, low plasticity, 25 BB-2
12 abundant carbonate blebs, moist
18 20
S-5
4 10.5
SP
@20': Poorly -graded SAND, mustard yellow, medium dense, 20 9
predominantly fine sand, friable, micaceous, moist
10 T.D. 21.5 feet bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold -patch asphalt.
25 15
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:

B BULK SAMPLE -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT %/� Leig htQn

G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY

R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH

T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 1 E-57

APPENDIX 6

PERCOLATION TEST DATA
All Lei hton
E-58

Project Number:

Project Name:

Earth Description:

Liquid Description:

Tested By:

Time Interval Standard
Start Time for Pre -Soak:

Start Time for Standard:

Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Borine Percolation Test Data Sheet
13542.001
IntraCorp Quail Street
Alluvium
Tap water

BTM/LFO
8:21 AM
8:59 AM
13 5
Test Hole Number: LP-1
Date Excavated: 5/20/2022
Date Tested: 5/20/2022
Depth of boring (ft): 20
Radius of boring (in): 4
Radius of casing (in): 1
Length of slotted of casing (ft):

Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft):

Porosity of Annulus Material, n :

Bentonite Plug at Bottom:

Field Percolation Data - Falling Head Test
Reading
Time
Time Interval,
At (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
Ho/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Ad (in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
P1
8:21
13 15.00

60.0 54.0

5.56 8:34

19.50 6.0
P2
8:39
15 15.00

60.0 54.0

4.99 8:55

19.50 6.0
1 8:59
5 15.00

60.0 27.8

5.43 9:04

17.32 32.2
2 9:06
5 15.00

60.0 28.3

5.55 9:11

17.36 31.7
3 9:12
5 15.00

60.0 28.9

5.70 9:17

17.41 31.1
4 9:19
5 15.00

60.0 28.7

5.64 9:24

17.39 31.3
5 9:25
5 15.00

60.0 29.0

5.73 9:30

17.42 31.0
6 9:32
5 15.00

60.0 28.6

5.61 9:37

17.38 31.4
7 9:38
5 15.00

60.0 28.6

5.61 9:43

17.38 31.4
8 9:45
5 15.00

60.0 29.0

5.73 9:50

17.42 31.0
9 9:54
5 15.00

60.0 28.8

5.67 9:59

17.40 31.2
10 10:02
5 15.00

60.0 25.4

4.84 10:07

17.12 34.6
11 10:09
5 15.00

60.0 29.8

5.92 10:14

17.48 30.2
12 10:16
5 15.00

60.0 29.3

5.80 10:21

17.44 30.7
13 10:24
5 15.00

60.0 29.4

5.83 10:29

17.45 30.6
14 10:30
5 15.00

60.0 30.1

6.02 10:35

17.51 29.9
15 10:38
5 15.00

60.0 29.9

5.95 10:43

17.49 30.1
16 10:44
5 15.00

60.0 29.4

5.83 10:49

17.45 30.6
17 10:52
5 15.00

60.0 30.0

5.98 10:57

17.50 30.0
18 10:58
5 15.00

60.0 28.9

5.70 11:03

17.41 31.1
19 10:07
5 15.00

60.0 28.9

5.70 11:12

17.41 31.1
20 11:13
5 15.00

60.0 28.9

5.70 11:18

17.41 31.1
17 11:19
5 15.00

60.0 30.5

6.11 11:24

17.54 29.5
18 11:27
5 15.00

60.0 30.4

6.08 11:32

17.53 29.6
19 11:35
5 15.00

60.0 30.8

6.21 11:40

17.57 29.2
20 11:41
5 15.00

60.0 30.8

6.21 11:46

17.57 29.2
21 11:48
5 15.00

60.0 30.0

5.98 11:53

17.50 30.0
22 11:54
5 15.00

60.0 30.1

6.02 11:59

17.51 29.9
Infiltration Rate (1) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval Measured Infiltration Rate, I (Average of Last 3 Readings) = 6.07 5 0.35
No
in./hr.

E-59

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
All Lei hton
E-60

VIi Leighton

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
Project Name: IntraCorp Quail Street
Project No.: 13542.001
Boring No.: LB-3
Sample No.: R-5
Soil Identification: Light yellowish brown fat clay (CH) Sample Diameter (in.):

Sample Thickness (in.):

Weight of Sample + ring (g):

Weight of Ring (g):

Height after consol. (in.):

2.415

1.000
195.35

45.29 1.0103
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g):

Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g):

Weight of Container (g):

Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%):

Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
278.38
238.40

65.85 23.2
101.3
92 0.0776
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g):

Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g):

Weight of Container (g):

Final Moisture Content (%)
Final Dry Density (pcf):

Final Saturation (%):

Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed):

Water Density (pcf):
236.97
204.86

39.01 26.63

99.2 100

0.0720

2.75 62.43

0.720

0.710

0.700

0.690

0.680
0 M

0.670
v
'o
> 0.660

0.650

0.640

0.630

0.620

0.10 Inundate with
Tap water
Tested By: GB/JD Date: 06/01/22
Checked By: J. Ward Date: 06/13/22
Depth (ft.): 15.0
Sample Type: Ring

1.00 10.00
Pressure, p (ksf)
100.

Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio
Corrected
Deforma-
tion (%)
Time Readings
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time min
( )
square
Root of
Time
Dial Rdgs.
in.
( )

0.10 0.0787

0.9989

0.00 0.11

0.693

0.11 0.25

0.0826

0.9950

0.11 0.50

0.688

0.39 0.50

0.0878

0.9898

0.25 1.02

0.681

0.77 1.00

0.0915

0.9861

0.43 1.39

0.678

0.96 1.00

0.0707

1.0069

0.43 -0.69

0.713
-1.12

2.00 0.0750

1.0027

0.58 -0.27

0.709
-0.85

4.00 0.0859

0.9917

0.72 0.83

0.693

0.11 8.00

0.0999

0.9777

0.88 2.23

0.672

1.35 16.00

0.1263

0.9513

1.07 4.87

0.630

3.80 4.00

0.1123

0.9653

0.89 3.47

0.651

2.58 1.00

0.0890

0.9887

0.72 1.14

0.687

0.41 0.25

0.0720

1.0056

0.47 -0.56

0.712
-1.03
Consol LB-3, R-5 @ 15

Time Readings

0.0000

0.2000

0.2000
c
rn

0.4000

0.4000
'a
co
�p

0.6000

0.6000
6 c
O
io

0.8000

0.8000
E
`o

1.0000

1.2000

0.1 1.0 0.0

10.0 Log of Time (min.)
Square Root of Time (min.112)
-2.00
-1.00

0.00 1.00
c
O
(0
Inundate with

2.00 p
Tap water
0)
0 3.00

4.00 5.00

0.10 1.00 10.00
100.00
Pressure, p (ksf)
Boring
Sample
Depth
Moisture
D Density
Soil Identification: Light yellowish brown fat clay (CH) Project No.:
13542.001
�%%111 Leig htor

ONE-DIMENSIONAL

PROPERTIES

CONSOLIDATION
of SOILS
IntraCorp
Quail Street
ASTM D 2435
06-22
Dry (pcf)
Void Ratio
Degree of
No.

No.

Content (%)
Saturation (%)
Initial
Final
Initial
Final
Initial
Final
Initial Final
R-5
101.3

99.2 0.694

0.712
92 100
LB-3
15 23.2 26.6
E-62

C/o Leig Won TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
Project Name: IntraCorp Quail Street Tested By : GEB/JD Date: 06/07/22 Project No. :
13542.001
Checked By: J. Ward
Date: 06/13/22
Boring No.

LB-1
Sample No.

BB-1
Sample Depth (ft)
0-5
Soil Identification:

Yellowish
brown SM
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)

0.00 Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)

0.00 Weight of Container (g)

1.00 Moisture Content (%)

0.00 Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
1 100.12
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
Beaker No.

Crucible No.
5 4
Furnace Temperature (°C)
860
Time In / Time Out
13:00/13:45
Duration of Combustion (min)
45 Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)

21.6441
Wt. of Crucible (g)

21.6352
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)

0.0089
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
366.24
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
1 366
CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
ml of Extract For Titration (B)
15 ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C)

0.6 PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B
80 PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis
80 pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
pH Value
Temperature °C

7.65 21.5
E-63

C/// Leig hton

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
Project Name: IntraCorp Quail Street Tested By : J. Domingo Date: 06/11/22 Project No.: 13542.001 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 06/13/22 Boring No.: LB-1 Depth (ft.) : 0-5
Sample No.: BB-1
Soil Identification:* Yellowish brown SM
'California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.

Water
Adjusted
Resistance
Soil
Specimen
Added (ml)
Moisture
Reading
Resistivity
No.
(Wa)
me t
Content
(ohm)
(ohm -cm)
(MC1
20 15.31
1850
1850
2 30

22.97 1600
1600
3 40

30.63 1650
1650
4 5
Moisture Content (%) (MG)

0.00 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)

0.00 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)

0.00 Wt. of Container (g)

1.00 Container No.

Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
130.60
Box Constant

1.000
MC=(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)X100
Min. Resistivity
(ohm -cm)
Moisture Content
(%)
Sulfate Content
(ppm)
Chloride Content
(ppm)
Soil pH
pH
Temp. (-Q
DOT CA Test 643
DOT CA Test 417 Part II
DOT CA Test 422
DOT CA Test 643
1590 24.5
366
80 7.65 21.5
1900
1850
1800
E
y
E 1750
s
0 1700
rn
1650
fn 1600
1550
1500 -�—

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Moisture Content (%)

30.0 35.0
E-64

/Leiahton DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name: IntraCorp Quail Street Tested By: G. Bathala Project No.: 13542.001 Checked By: ACS JHW
Boring No.: LB-1 Sample Type: 90% Remold
Sample No.: BB-1 Depth ft): 0=5
Soil Identification: Yellowish brown silty sand (SM)
Date: 06/06/22
Date: 06/13/22
Sample Diameter(in):

2.415

2.415
Sample Thickness(in.):

1.000

1.000
Weight of Sample + ring(gm):
199.25
199.79
199.64
Weight of Ring(gm):

45.41 45.59

45.35 Before Shearing
Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):
161.97
161.97
161.97
Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):
153.80
153.80
153.80
Weight of Container(gm):

57.48 57.48

57.48 Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial

0.2760

0.2477

0.0000
Vertical Rdg.(in): Final

0.2858

0.2613
-0.0187
After Shearing
Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):
225.36
197.66
219.71
Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):
207.17
179.95
202.57
Weight of Container(gm):

67.69 39.55

61.74 Specific Gravity (Assumed):

2.70 2.70

2.70 Water Density(pcf):

62.43 62.43

62.43 E-65
DS LB-1, BB-1 @ 0-5

3.00 2.50
Y 2.00
U)

1.50 L

1.00 0.50

0.00 0

0.1 0.2

0.3 Horizontal Deformation (in.)

3.00 2.50
Y 2.00
L' 1.50
L

1.00 CO

0.50 0.00

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00 5.50

6.00 Normal Stress (ksf)
Boring No.

LB-1
Normal Stress (kip/ft2)

1.000

2.000

4.000
E-66
DS LB-1, 88-1 @ 0-5

3.00 2.50
Cn 2.00
Cn
2 1.50
L

1.00 0.50

0.00 0

0.1 0.2

0.3 Horizontal Deformation (in.)

3.00 2.50
N 2.00
Cn
Cn

1.50 L

1.00 CO

0.50 0.00

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00 5.50

6.00 Normal Stress (ksf)
Boring No.

LB-1
Normal Stress (kip/ft2)

1.000

2.000

4.000
E-67
DS LB-1, 88-1 @ 0-5

�11 Lei Mon EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
/ ASTM D 4829
Project Name:

Project No.:

Boring No.:

Sample No.:

Soil Identification
IntraCorp Quail Street
13542.001
LB-1
BB-1
Yellowish brown siltv sand
Tested By: G. Berdy Date: 06/07/22
Checked By: ACS/JHW Date: 06/13/22
Depth ft): 0-5
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont.
(g)
1000.00
Wt. of Container No.
(g)

0.00 Dry Wt. of Soil
(g)
1000.00
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve

0.00 Percent Passing # 4
100.00

MOLDED SPECIMEN
Before Test
After Test
Specimen Diameter (in.)

4.01 4.01
Specimen Height (in.)

1.0000

1.0010
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g)
639.10
453.70
Wt. of Mold (g)
201.30

0.00 Specific Gravity (Assumed)

2.70 2.70
Container No.
0 0
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
867.60
655.00
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
810.80
610.46
Wt. of Container (g)

0.00 201.30
Moisture Content (%)

7.01 10.89
Wet Density (pcf)
132.1
136.7
Dry Density (pcf)
123.4
123.3
Void Ratio

0.366

0.367
Total Porosity

0.268

0.269
Pore Volume (cc)

55.5 55.7
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]

51.7 80.0
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h Date
Time
Pressure (psi)
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
06/07/22
14:13
E 1.0
0 0.5560
06/07/22
14:23

1.0 10

0.5560
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
06/07/22
14:50

1.0 27

0.5570
06/08/22
5:07

1.0 884

0.5570
06/08/22
6:43

1.0 980

0.5570
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 1 E-68

a
C
C
a
z
z
Sheet 1 of 1
Borehole
Depth
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Maximum
Size
(mm)
o
boaeve
Sieve
Class-
fication
Water
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Satur-
ation
(%)
Void
Ratio
LB-1

4.0 20.1
103.7
LB-1

6.0 8.3
107.0
LB-1

8.0 17.0
113.4
LB-1

10.0 18.8
110.4
LB-1

15.0 24.0
LB-1

20.0 8.9

98.6 LB-1

25.0 19.1
LB-1

35.0 18.4
LB-1

40.0 32.7
LB-1

45.0 39.6
LB-1

50.0 41.0
LB-2

4.0 17.5
109.9
LB-2

6.0 6.7
113.9
LB-2

8.0 15.7
117.0
LB-2

10.0 17.3
114.1
LB-2

15.0 21.1
LB-2

20.0 9.6
106.6
LB-2

25.0 23.5
LB-3

3.0 15.8
110.8
LB-3

5.0 19.0
106.4
LB-3

7.0 16.1
115.4
LB-3

10.0 15.0
116.5
LB-3

15.0 23.2
104.3
LB-3

20.0 14.4
LB-3

25.0 23.4
LP-1

5.0 14.1
105.8
LP-1

7.0 2.2

97.2 LP-1

10.0 19.8
110.9
LP-1

15.0 24.8
102.1
LP-1

20.0 10.5
.� Leighton
Summary of Laboratory Results
Project Name: Intracorp Quail St
Project Number: 13542.001
Date: 6/13/2022 2:13:22 PM Figure No. 1
E-69

��• Lei hton MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project Name:

Project No.:

Boring No.:

Sample No.:

Soil Identification:

IntraCorp Quail Street Tested By: J. Gonzalez Date: 06/03/22 13542.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 06/06/22
LB-1 Depth (ft.): 0-5
BB-1
Yellowish brown silty sand (SM)
Preparation Method: N
Moist X Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft3) 0.03330 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.

TEST NO.
1 2
3 4
5 6
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
3813
3970
3918
Weight of Mold (g)
1826
1826
1826
Net Weight of Soil (g)
1987
2144
2092
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
427.0
402.6
443.2
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
407.0
374.0
402.8
Weight of Container (g)

39.3 39.7

37.9 Moisture Content M

5.44 8.56

11.07 Wet Density (pcf)
131.5
141.9
138.5
Dry Density c
124.8
130.8
124.7
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 130.9 Optimum Moisture Content (% 8.3 PROCEDURE USED 135.0
® Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
130.0
❑ Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
�+
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
= 125.0
20% or less
m
G
❑ Procedure C
o
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
120.0
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +3/4 in.
is <30%
Particle -Size Distribution:

Atterberg Limits:
115.0 1—

0.0 SP. GR. = 2.60
SP. GR. = 2.65
SP. GR. = 2.70

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.

E-70 Moisture Content (%)
MXLB-1, BB-1 @ 0-5

%•LeigMon

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
Project Name: IntraCorp Quail Street Tested By: J. Domingo Project No.: 13542.001 Input By: G. Bathala
Boring No.: LB-3 Checked By: ACS/JHW
Sample No.: R-5 Depth (ft.) 15.0
Soil Identification: Light yellowish brown fat clay (CH) Date: 06/02/22
Date: 06/07/22
TEST

PLASTIC LIMIT
1 2

LIQUID LIMIT
NO.
1 2
3 4
Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
31 23
16 9.13

9.10 20.64

20.94 20.41

7.88 7.84

13.38 13.25

12.61 1.01

1.01 1.04

1.05 1.00

18.20 18.45

58.83 63.03

67.18 Liquid Limit
62 Plastic Limit
18 Plasticity Index
44 Classification
CH
50 d 40
X
30 PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 30.66 20 OL or OL
a
One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation 10

0.121 MH or OH
LL=Wn(N/25) a = M MLorOL
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PROCEDURES USED Liquid Limit (LL)
69 Wet Preparation
Multipoint - Wet
68 67
FX
Dry Preparation
66 Multipoint - Dry
a
65 d
64 FX
Procedure A
U
63 Multipoint Test
;
62 N
0 61
Procedure B
60 One -point Test
59 58
57 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of Blows
E-71

',. Leig hton PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
ASTM D 7928 & D 6913
Project Name: IntraCorp Quail Street Tested By: GEB/JD
Project No.: 13542.001 Checked By: J. Ward
Boring No.: LP-1
Sample No.: RR2 Depth (feet): 7.0
Soil Identification: Olive yellow poorly -graded sand with silt (SP-SM) Gravel
0 Soil Type
Sand
94 SP-SM
Fines
6 Specific Gravity (Assumed)

2.70 Wt.of Air -Dry Soil + Con -
Correction for Specific Gravity

0.99 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont.

Wt.of Air -Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
570.62
Wt. of Container No._
Wt. of Container

96.83 Moisture Content (%)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
473.79
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Coarse Sieve
Cumulative Wt.

U.S. Sieve Of Dry Soil % Passing
Retained (g)
3"

0.00 100.0
11/2"

0.00 100.0
3/4"

0.00 100.0
3/8"

0.00 100.0
No.4

2.23 99.5
No.10

23.15 95.1
Pan
Date: 06/07/22
Date: 06/13/22
After
Moisture Content
Moisture Content
Hydrometer &
of Total Air -Dry
of Air -Dry Soil
Soil
Passing #10
Wet Sieve ret.
in #200 Sieve

0.00 84.95

0.00 84.90
169.63

1.00 66.67

75.84 0.00

0.27 93.79
Sieve after Hydrometer & Wet Sieve
U.S. Sieve Size
Cumulative Wt.

Of Dry Soil
Retained (g)
% Passing
% Total Sample
No.10

0.00 100.0

95.1 No.16

4.84 95.2

90.5 No.30

18.95 81.0

77.1 No.50

52.04 47.9

45.6 No. 100

86.11 13.8

13.1 No.200

93.29 6.6

6.3 Pan
Hydrometer Wt. of Air -Dry Soil (g) 1 100.18
Deflocculant 125 cc of 4% Solution
Wt. of Dry Soil (g) 99.91
Date
Time
Elapsed Time
(min)
Water Composite
Temperature Correction
(oC) 152H
Actual
Hydrometer
Readings
o /o T
Total Sample
(p) ��
Soil Particle
Diameter
(mm)
08-Jun-22
6:10
0 1

9.0 6:12
2 22.2

9.0 15.0

5.7 0.0345
6:15
5 22.2

9.0 13.0

3.8 0.0221
6:25
15 22.1

9.0 12.5

3.3 0.0128
6:40
30 22.1

9.0 12.0

2.8 0.0091
7:10
60 21.8

9.0 12.0

2.8 0.0065
8:10
120

21.8 9.0

12.0 2.8

0.0046
10:20
250

21.4 9.0

11.5 2.4

0.0032
09-Jun-22
6:10
1440

21.6 9.0

10.5 1.4

0.0013
SA & Hyd LP-1, R-2 @ 7

GRAVEL
SAND
FINES
COARSE
FINE
CRSE

MEDIUM FINE

SILT CLAY
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

HYDROMETER

3.0" 11/2"
3/4" 3/8" #4 #8
#16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90 80
70 60
x
w
50 m
40 Z
LL
w 30
U
W
a
20 10
0 100.000

10.000

1.000 0.100

0.010 0.001
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
Project Name: IntraCorp Quail Street
Project No.: 13542.001
Boring No.: LP-1
Sample No.: R=2
Depth (feet): 7_0
Soil Type : SP-SM
Aff�l Lei hton

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
Soil Identification: Olive yellow
poorly -graded sand with silt (SP-SM)
ASTM D 7928 & D 6913 GR:SA:FI : (%) 0 :
94 : 6 Jun-22
E-73
SA & Hyd LP-1, R-2 @ 7

APPENDIX D

EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
%/• Lei hton
E-74

APPENDIX D
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Appendix D Page

1.0 GENERAL............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Intent.......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record .................................................... 1

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor.......................................................................... 2

2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED........................................................ 2

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing............................................................................... 2

2.2 Processing................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Overexcavation.......................................................................................... 3

2.4 Benching....................................................................................................3

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas.......................................................... 4

3.0 FILL MATERIAL................................................................................................... 4

3.1 General......................................................................................................4

3.2 Oversize.....................................................................................................4

3.3 Import ......................................................................................................... 4

4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION.............................................................. 5

4.1 Fill Layers.................................................................................................. 5

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning........................................................................... 5

4.3 Compaction of Fill...................................................................................... 5

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes.......................................................................... 5

4.5 Compaction Testing................................................................................... 5

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing............................................................. 6

4.7 Compaction Test Locations....................................................................... 6

5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION.................................................................................6

6.0 EXCAVATION...................................................................................................... 6

7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS.......................................................................................... 7

7.1 Safety.........................................................................................................7

7.2 Bedding and Backfill.................................................................................. 7

7.3 Lift Thickness............................................................................................. 7

7.4 Observation and Testing............................................................................ 7 %/• Lei hton
E-75

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)

ATTACHMENTS
Standard Details
A - Keying and Benching
Rear of Text
B - Oversize Rock Disposal
Rear of Text
C - Canyon Subdrains
Rear of Text
D - Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrains
Rear of Text
E - Transition Lot Fills and Side Hill Fills
Rear of Text
All Lei hton
E-76

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.

Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.

During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture -conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction.

All Lei hton D-1
E-77

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture -conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.

The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished.

The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.

The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.

2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.

All Lei hton D-2
E-78

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.

If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.

As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.

2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.

2.3 Overexcavation
In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic -rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.

2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched.

Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.

Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical All Lei hton D-3
- E-79

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

3.0 FILL MATERIAL

3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.

3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.

Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.

3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.

All Lei hton D-4
E-80

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications

4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION

4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near -horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).

4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture -conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant.

Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.

4.5 Compaction Testing
Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify All Lei hton D-5
- E-81

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
adequacy of compaction
inadequate compaction
fill/bedrock benches).
levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
(such as close to slope faces and at the

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant.

The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.

4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.

5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial.

Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.

6.0 EXCAVATION
Excavations, as well as over -excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill -over -cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of %/• Lei hton
E-82

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS

7.1 Safety
The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.

7.2 Bedding and Backfill
All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.

7.3 Lift Thickness
Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.

7.4 Observation and Testing
The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.

All Lei hton D-7
E-83

FILL SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE 1:1 -
(HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL)

MAXIMUM FROM TOE

OF SLOPE TO

APPROVED GROUND

EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE��
2 FEET MIN J

KEY DEPTH

FILL -OVER -CUT SLOPE
------------------
_=COMPAGTEQ = __
_ FILL-=__'�
________ __=_ -_ =ri -- -
---------------
_=_-- _
_--- _=_-___=�--___-REMOVE
-- UNSUITAB
LE

BNCH MATERIAL

BENCH HEIGHT
- (4 FEET TYPICAL)

BENCH (KEY)
_TEa===-
EXISTING = --- =-- ---- ----
GROUND SURFACE _--- -_ _--
- - - _--_ _____ _ r�

BENCH BENCH HEIGHT
(4 FEET TYPICAL)
� ��------
�Ir= �% MIN ----

FEET MIN

LOWEST REMOVE
2 FEET BENCH (KEY) UNSUITABLE
MIN. KEY MATERIAL
DEPTH

CUT FACE

SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO

FILL PLACEMENT TO ALLOW VIEWING

OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
EXISTINGxrr

UT FACE SHALL BE

CUT -OVER -FILL SLOPE GROUND TOCOSTRUCTEDSURFACE FILLL PLACEMENTR

OVERBUILD AND

TRIM BACK

PROJECTED PLANE DESIGN SLOPE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM - -_---_

FROM TOE OF SLOPE ----------
TO
APPROVED GROUND _ __- =----Y __
- __ - _
________-
15 FEET MIN.
2 FEET MIN. LOWEST

KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY)

KEYING AND BENCHING
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

BENCH HEIGHT
(4 FEET TYPICAL)

BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1.

MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET.

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS A
/.Leighton

FINISH GRADE
— — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — -
- _ — — — — — -10'— — — — COMPACTED
— — — — — — — — MIN. - — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SLOPE FACE ——— — — — — ——————————— — — — — ——
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — —
MIN_ — — — — — 4' MINA— 15' MIN. _
----_---- ____________-- - - -
-- -- --- OVERSIZE — — — — — — — — —-
- — — -- — — — — — — — — —
�_______ __— WINDROW ____ JETTED OR FLOODED

APPROVED SOIL
• Oversize rock is larger than 8 inches
in largest dimension.
• Backfill with approved soil jetted or
flooded in place to fill all the voids.
• Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
• Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the finished slope face.

SECTION A -A'

PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
-----------------------------------
�= ==== ==== ==== ===-q- - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- -
=_- ____-______ ____� ===- ===- ====
______________- _-q'==-=============

JETTED OR FLOODED

APPROVED SOIL

OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS B
lyLei gMon

NATURAL
GROUND
— - _ — � — — — — — — — — — — — —
---------------------
- ------COMPACTED FILL- ----- — \��

TYPICAL /
BENCHING —---------
REMOVE
�-� UNSUITABLE MATERIAL

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A PERFORATED PIPE SURROUNDED

WITH FILTER MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL (9FT'/FT)
�• 6" MIN. COVER
4" Min. M
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-1
4" MII

PERFORATED PIPE
6" 0 MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC
12" MIN. OVERLAP

IRR FABRIC
(MIRAFAFI 140NC OR
r APPROVED EQUIVALENT)

SUBDRAIN
(See Alternates A and B)

FILTER MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATION, OR APPROVED ALTERNATE.

CLASS 2 GRADING AS FOLLOWS:

Sieve Size Percent Passing
1" 100
3/4" 90-100
3/8" 40-100
No.4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No.30 5-15
No.50 0-7
No.200 0-3
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-2
ALTERNATE B-1 3/4" MAX. GRAVEL OR ALTERNATE B-2

APPROVED EQUIVALENT
(9FT3/FT)

PERFORATED PIPE IS OPTIONAL PER

GOVERNING AGENCY'S REQUIREMENTS
CANYON

SUBDRAIN

DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
DESIGN

FINISHED GRADE
15' MIN
NON E
"0
6P

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS C
E-86

FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140N OR
10'MIN. BACKFILL APPROVED EQUIVALENT)
_ MIN.

PERFORATED 3/4" OPEN GRADED GRAVEL
6"0 MIN. I OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT
/• Lei ghton
a

15' MIN.

OUTLET PIPES
44 NON -PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
jj
15' MIN.

KEY DEPTH KEY WIDTH
2' MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A
CALTRANS CLASS 2
FILTER MATERIAL(3FT3/FT)
OUTLET PIPE / j T
(NON OUTLEPIP -PERFORATED) " MIN.
/ _F4" MIN.

T-CONNECTION FROM

COLLECTION PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE

POSITIVE SEAL SHOULD BE PROVIDED

AT THE JOINT
5% MIN, _�

OUTLET PIPE
(NON -PERFORATED)
3/4" ROCK (3FT 3/FT)

WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC
'I
'I
I

BACKCUT

BENCHING

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
MIN. 12" OVERLAP FROM THE TOP

FILTER FABRIC
• . /j (MIRAFI 140 OR

APPROVED
•�:'•:� EQUIVALENT)
• SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non -perforated pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be 1/4" to 1/2" if drilled holes are used. All Subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet.

SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, ASTM D1527 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 ABS pipe or ASTM D3034 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 PVC pipe.

All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, after fill is placed above it, rodded to verify integrity.

BUTTRESS OR

REPLACEMENT FILL

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS D
%y Lei hton

SUBDRAINS
E-87

CUT -FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
REMOVE
J

UNSUITABLE
GROUND
Al
�
/
LMIN.
5'
/
�
T
• _ _- - - - - -
- - -COMPACTED FILL - - - -� - - - - - -
4' MIN.
- - ---- - - - - - - T - - - - -
c

OVEREXCAVATE
- - - - _ -_ - - _

AND RECOMPACT

TYPICAL

BENCHING
-

UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT

SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD

RESTRICTED USE AREA

OVEREXCAVATE

AND RECOMPACT
(REPLACEMENT FILL)

OVERBURDEN

OR UNSUITABLE - - -
MATERIAL - _ -I�

TYPICAL
-_C - BENCHING

NATURAL
GROUND
/

FINISHED CUT PAD

PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION

SHALL BE PERFORMED IF SPECIFIED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT

SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAINS
9' MIN. WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
KEY

DEPTH UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

TRANSITION LOT FILLS SPECIFICATIONS

AND SIDE HILL FILLS STANDARD DETAILS E
/• Lei ghton
E-88

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Appendix F Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan
PlaceWorks

1401 QUAIL STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

Marcb 2024'��

Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan
(PWQMP)
Project Name:
1401 Quail Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared for:

Intracorp SW, LLC
895 Dove Street, Suite 400
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-757-8464
Prepared by:

Adams -Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc.
16755 Von Karman Ave, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92606
(949) 474-2330
DATE PREPARED: 04-25-2023
Engineer Nicholas A. Streeter Registration No. C70862
M2
OF CA
F-1

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP)
1401 Quail Street
Project Owner's Certification
Permit/Application No. Pending Grading Permit No. Pending Tract/Parcel Map No. Building Permit No. Pending
CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract) This Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Intracorp SW, LLC by Adams Streeter Civil Engineers. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the local NPDES Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of the plan.

The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non -point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors -in -interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity.

Owner: Rick Puffer
Title
Vice President
Company
Intracorp SW, LLC
Address
895 Dove Street, Suite 400, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Email
[email protected]
Telephone #
949-757-8464
Signature
Date
Intracorp SW, LLC
F-2
Owner's Certification

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP)
1401 Quail Street
Contents
Page No.

Section I Discretionary Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions.....................................3 Section II Project Description..........................................................................................4 SectionIII Site Description...........................................................................................10 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs).............................................................12 Section V Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs..........................................24 Section VI Site Plan and Drainage Plan.........................................................................26 Section VII Educational Materials..................................................................................27 Attachments
AttachmentA.............................................................................................. BMP Site Plan Attachment B. ........................................................................................ BMP Calculations Attachment C..................................... TGD and Orange County Drainage Structures Map Attachment D...............................................................Drainage Maps and Calculations Attachment E........................................................................................ Infiltration Study AttachmentF..................................................................................Educational Materials Attachment G ....................................................Operation and Maintenance Information Intracorp SW, LLC Owner's Certification
F-3

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP)
1401 Quail Street
Section I Discretionary Permit(s) and
Water Quality Conditions
Project Infomation
Permit/Application No.

Pending Tract/Parcel Map No. 427-332-04
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Additional Information/
Comments:

Water Quality Conditions
All significant redevelopment projects, where significant redevelopment is defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site.

A project water quality management plan (WQMP) conforming to the Water Quality
current water discharge requirements permit for the county of orange Conditions
(order no. R8-2009-0030) (MS4 permit) prepared by a licensed civil (list verbatim)
engineer, shall be submitted to the department of public works for review and acceptance. The WQMP shall address section XII of the MS4 permit and all current surface water quality issues. The project WQMP shall include the permit and all current surface water quality issues
Watershed -Based Plan Conditions
WIHMP:

Not Applicable
303(d) Listed Impairments for San Diego Creek and Newport Bay:

Provide applicable
Selenium,Toxaphene, Fecal Coliform, Metals, Copper, Sediment conditions from watershed
1Toxicity, Chlordane, DDT, PCB's (Polychlorinated Biphenyls), - based plans including
Indicator Bacteria, Nutrients, Pesticides, Sedimentation/Siltation WIHMPs and TMDLS.

TMDL's for San Diego Creek and Newport Bay:

Bacteria Indicators/Pathogens, Nutrients, Pesticides,
Sedimentation/Siltation
Intracorp SW, LLC
Section I

Page 3 ends

Newport Beach City CouncilApril 9, 2024

Newport Beach City Council
April 9, 2024