In addition, four are close in age to this category at approximately 75 (range: 70 to 80) years old. These trees, it should be noted, are highly unlikely to be a part of any historic designed landscape from the prime resort era, and therefore from the period of significance, because they appear to the arborist to date to the 1930s. We have included them due to what the arborist has noted is the inexact nature of tree-dating (these specimens were noted to have an age class reliability of plus or minus 5%, or 3 to 4 years). 28 Mexican Fan Palm 70 to 80 years old
29 Mexican Fan Palm 70 to 80 years old
30 Mexican Fan Palm 70 to 80 years old
31 Mexican Fan Palm 70 to 80 years old
The study, then, identifies one broad-canopy, non-deciduous tree (the Camphor), six Mexican Fan Palms, two California Fan Palms, and one Canary Island Date Palm as being of or near an age that ARG determines could fall within the period of significance for the site.
The open area to the south of the Hotel Green (now the project site) was a historic planned landscape and can be seen in many historic images with paths, low plantings, trees, and other such features laid out according to the conventions of the day. This design worked in concert with that of Central Park, just across the street to the south. Although we have not done a thorough analysis, a review of the appearance of the garden in the historic images that we have seems to indicate that there are many features that there is no longer a trace within the project site. The trees that remain from the period do appear to be remnants of this design, but they are not significant enough on their own to give information about the overall design of the garden and they alone are not enough evidence of the design and (plant) material of the garden.
The remaining trees do not seem to be representative or typical of the range of trees that characterized the garden, given that all but one are palm trees, and palm trees do not dominate the historic photographs. One reason for this may be that the palms were very small and less visible when they were first planted, but many images show mature trees throughout the garden and relatively little sign of palm trees (which were present in early photos of Central Park, however).
The ages of the trees is certainly one issue, for it does appear that a number of them (some on the project site, and presumably some on the adjacent portion of the Castle Green property to the east) date to the property’s period of significance. These trees would be considered historic features of the property. However, many of the trees that survive may not be from the period of significance but still do contribute to the historic character of the property.
The difference between these two categories of trees is that the former are presumed to be remnants of a historic designed landscape that is mostly gone from the site, as it has been altered over time and subject to different uses over time, including (particularly on the south half of the project site) a tennis court, a parking lot, and the site of a house; the latter category consists of trees that were not planted during the period of significance. They do, however, contribute to the setting of the historic buildings. One cannot expect a site whose period of significance is 110 to 85 years ago to have the same plants or even same replacement plants
MEMORANDUM
(i.e., same species) that it had during that time in order to be considered significant. In this case, however, the hardscape, layout, and other more durable features of the garden that existed on the project site are also gone.
Castle Green residents have noted that some of these remnants existed in the recent past, but that alterations and improvements to the landscaping on the project site in recent years resulted in their disappearance.
Our opinion, however, is summed up thus:
1) The historic trees and the trees of similar species are all contributing to the historic setting of the building, whether they were planted during the resort era or not. Historic setting is one of the seven aspects of historic integrity defined by the National Park Service in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (pp. 44-45).
2) Although the trees that are older than 80-85 years old (noted in red and pink on the diagram) do appear to be remnants of the original garden design of this portion of the hotel property, the original garden design does not appear to be intact enough to merit an argument that the trees cannot be moved to other parts of the property for fear of destroying an intact historic designed landscape, or that constructing a building on the site will destroy a historic designed landscape (we do not believe that the garden or its design has high enough historic integrity (is intact enough) to merit that level of consideration).
In ARG’s opinion, the removal of the trees and the construction of the building may be an issue for its potential impact to the historic setting of the Hotel Green and Castle Green. The EIR consultant will determine whether those impacts are significant per the CEQA guidelines. In ARG’s opinion, the historic setting of the Castle Green is well served in its preservation by the buffer of its own property, on the east and west sides, and the vegetation thereon. The Hotel Green has long been served by a garden on its south-facing side, and this relationship will be effectively eliminated once the new building is constructed (even if Hotel Green residents have access to the small amount of public space that will be provided for the new apartments). However, we do not believe that the impact of this change is so great as to threaten or compromise the National Register eligibility of the property. ARG’s design for the new building has been predicated on meeting the Standards in order to avoid such an impact.
Please see following page for an illustration of the older trees that Jan Scow identified in his study.
MEMORANDUM
For reference, the above diagram shows trees over 70 years old on the project site, per the arborist’s study.
The color categories correspond to the same in the study:
Pink: oldest trees, at approximately 100-105 years of age Red: next-oldest trees, at approximately 75 to 85 years of age Yellow: Most likely not historic; appear to post-date the resort hotel era at approximately 70-75 years of age.
By: Jennifer Trotoux, Associate; Christopher Smith, Senior Associate Architectural Historian and Historic Preservation Planner E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: F. Hickman, C. Chase, C. Ahbe, J. Scow
(Cluster of 4
Mexican
fan palms)
(2 Camphor
trees)
(Camphor
tree)
(Canary
Island Date
Palm)
Mexican
Fan
Palm
Mexic.
Fan
Palm Calif.
Fan
Palm
Calif.
Fan
Palm
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC
Disease and Pest Diagnosis, Hazard Evaluation, Restorative Pruning Advice, Value Assessment 3887 Woodcliff Rd.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
(818) 789-9127
Date: 6/3/13 rev 6/7/13 To: Kristopher Forsythe From: Jan Scow Subject: Tree aging: 86 S. Fair Oaks DRAFT
Tree # Species Status1 Cohort Est. Age ~ Year Range (years) Reliability 1 Camphor Protected specimen C 70 1943 65-75 (10) 2b 2 Camphor Protected specimen C 70 1943 65-75 (10) 2b 3 Canary Island pine Protected mature E 50 1963 47-53 (6) 2a 4 Canary Island pine Protected mature E 50 1963 47-53 (6) 2a 5 Camphor Protected specimen A 100 1913 90-110 (20) 2b 6 California fan palm Protected specimen C 80 1933 75-85 (10) 1 7 Camphor Protected specimen E 45 1968 40-50 (10) 2b9 Magnolia Non-protected E 40 1963 35-45 (10) 2b 10 Elm Non-protected E 40 1963 35-45 (10) 2b11 California fan palm Protected specimen C 80 1933 75-85 (10) 1 12 Indian laurel fig Protected specimen D 65 1948 58-72 (14) 2b 13 Canary Isl date palm Protected specimen A 105 1908 100-110 (10) 1 14 Canary Isl date palm Protected mature F 20 1993 17-23 (6) 3 22 Queen palm Protected street tree F 11 2002 9-13 (4) 3 Tree # Species Status2 Cohort age ~ Year Range (years) Reliability 23 Queen palm Protected street tree F 11 2002 9-13 (4) 3 28 Mexican fan palm Non-protected C 75 1938 70-80 (10) 1 1 As per sheet A1.16 “Protected Tree & Non-Protected Tree Mitigation Analysis 2 As per sheet A1.16 “Protected Tree & Non-Protected Tree Mitigation Analysis 29 Mexican fan palm Non-protected C 75 1938 70-80 (10) 1 30 Mexican fan palm Non-protected C 75 1938 70-80 (10) 1 31 Mexican fan palm Non-protected C 75 1938 70-80 (10) 1 35 X Mexican fan palm Protected mature B 85 1928 75-95 (10) 4 36 X Mexican fan palm Protected mature E 45 1968 40-50 (10) 4 37 Mexican fan palm Non-protected B 85 1928 80-90 (10) 1 38 Mexican fan palm Non-protected D 65 1948 61-68 (7) 1 Age classes (years) Reliability
A = 100+ 1 plus or minus 5%
B = 80-89 2a plus or minus 5% C = 70-79 2b plus or minus 10% D = 60-69 3 plus or minus 3 years
E = 40-59 4 plus or minus 10%
F = < 20
Reliability 1 Believed to be very reliable, based on palm growth rates. Within plus or minus 5%. 2a Believed to be very reliable, based on ring count vs. trunk diameter of same species from previous locations. Within plus or minus 5%. 2b Believed to be reliable, based on known approximate growth rates of woody trees. Within plus or minus 10%. 3 Believed to be reliable, based on palm growth rates, but some variables make dating less certain, including uncertain growth rates and very rapid growth rates of young palms. Within plus or minus 2-3 years. 4 Believed to be fairly reliable, based on palm growth rates, but some variables make dating less certain, including uncertainty about growth rates for hybridized Washingtonia palms. Within plus or minus 10%.
APPENDIX D
Greenhouse Gases
86 Fair Oaks GHG Analysis
#Q1RXRGNO0D6X01v1
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
WHY? The project will generate Carbon Dioxide, which is the primary component of Greenhouse gases (GHG). Thus, the project will contribute to global warming as described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In total, the project will generate 1,667.47 metric tons of CO2 during construction1 and 1,641.60 metric tons per year for operations, see Air Quality Technical Memorandum.
The City of Pasadena developed the Climate Action Plan (CAP) as a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plan in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The project applicant has submitted a Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist Application Form in order to demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the Pasadena CAP by incorporating applicable actions intended to ensure that the project contributes its fair share to the City’s cumulative GHG reduction goals. Proposed sustainable development actions from the submitted CAP Consistency Checklist are listed and explained below in Tables 1 & 2. Review of the Checklist demonstrates that the proposed project would have a less than significant GHG impact.
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
WHY? The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code and is not a use that is a significant source of GHG emissions because it is consistent with the City’s CAP, as set forth below. The project would not conflict with AB 32, SB32, or the Final 2017 Scoping Plan; therefore, there would be no impacts related to conflict with applicable plans.
City of Pasadena’s Climate Action Plan
The City’s CAP requires projects to meet at least 11 GHG Reduction Strategies, including six mandatory measures, one action in Energy Efficiency and Conservation, one action in the Sustainable Mobility and Land Use category, and three additional measures. The proposed project will implement 13 actions from the City’s CAP, see Table 1, CAP Action Measures.
Table 1
CAP Action Measures
GHG Reduction Strategy Sustainable Development Actions Yes N/A 1 Construction emissions amortized over thirty years is approximately 55.57 MT CO2e/year. #Q1RXRGNO0D6X01v1
Mandatory Measures
T-1.2: Continue to improve bicycle
and pedestrian safety
Bicycle Storage: Does the project provide bicycle storage lockers, racks, or other bicycle storage facilities for residents/employees? Check "N/A" only if the project does not include residents or employees. X
T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter
miles traveled by single occupancy
vehicles
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Does the project include a TDM plan? A TDM plan is required for the following projects: multifamily residential development that are 100 or more units; mixed-use developments with 50 or more residential units or 50,000 square feet or more of non-residential development; or non-residential projects which exceed 75,000 square feet. If applicable, please submit the TDM plan for review.
X
T-4.1: Expand the availability and
use of alternative fuel vehicles and
fueling infrastructure
Alternative Vehicle Fueling Wiring: For projects with more than three parking spaces, does the project provide wiring for at least one 240V Type II electric car charger? Please include specifications on the project plans. Check "N/A' only if the project does not include more than three parking spaces.
X
E-1.2: Encourage the use of energy
conservation devices and passive
design concepts that make use of
the natural climate to increase
energy efficiency
Passive Design Features: Does the project utilize passive design techniques such as awnings or overhands on the east, west, and south facing windows which block the high summer sun but allow in low winter sun? Please include specifications on the project plans. X
WC-1.1: Reduce potable water
usage throughout Pasadena
Irrigation Efficiency: Will the project utilize drought tolerant landscaping and/or drip irrigation and/or weather controllers to reduce outdoor water use? Please include specifications on the project plans. Check "N/A" only if the project does not include any landscaping.
X
WR-1.1: Continue to reduce solid
waste and landfill GHG emissions
Facilitate Recycling: Does the project include a space for separate trash and recycling bins as well as provide information signage/handouts for residents/employees outlining materials to be recycled? Please include specifications on the project plans.
X
Energy Efficiency and Conservation (select a minimum of one action) E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency
requirements of new buildings to
perform better than 2016 Title 24
Standards
Zero-Net Energy (ZNE): Does the project generate 100% of electricity required on site? ZNE calculations must be provided.
X
E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency
requirements of new buildings to
perform better than 2016 Title 24
Standards
Energy Efficiency (Exceed 2016 Title 24): Does the project exceed the 2016 Title 24 Efficiency Standards by at least 5%? Please include Title 24 energy model.
X
E-4.1: Increase city-wide use of
carbon-neutral energy by
encouraging and/or supporting
carbon-neutral technologies
Renewable Energy: Does the project generate at least 60% of the building's projected electricity needs through renewable energy? Please include specifications on the project plans. X
Sustainable Mobility and Land Use (select a minimum of one action) T-1.1: Continue to expand
Pasadena's bicycle and pedestrian
network
End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (Commercial Development): Does the project provide at least one shower for every 50 employees? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
X
T-1.1: Continue to expand
Pasadena's bicycle and pedestrian
network
Bike Share: Does the project include a bike share station? Please include these specifications on the project plans. X
T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter
miles traveled by single occupancy
vehicles
Car Sharing: Does the project provide/facilitate car sharing by providing a designated car share space on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site? Examples of car share options include ZipCar, PitCarz, and Getaround. Please include these specifications on the project plans.
X
T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter
miles traveled by single occupancy
vehicles
Park De-Coupling: Does the project separate the cost of parking from the cost of commercial space and/or residential housing by charging for each individually? Please include these specifications on the project plans. X #Q1RXRGNO0D6X01v1
T-4.1: Expand the availability and
use of alternative fuel vehicles and
fueling infrastructure
Alternative Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure: Does the proposed project include functioning 240V Type II electric car chargers at 3% of parking spaces (at least one charger) AND conduit to allow for future charger installation to 25% of spaces? X T-5.1: Facilitate high density, mixeduse, transit-oriented, and infill development
Transit Oriented Development: Is the project located within 0.25 mile of a major transit stop as defined in the Zoning Code. Please include a map outlining the nearest transit stop. X
T-6.1: Reduce GHG emissions from
heavy-duty construction equipment
and vehicles
Reduce GHG emissions from heavy-construction equipment: Will the project utilize at least 30% alternative fueled construction equipment (by pieces of equipment) and implement an equipment idling limit of 3 minutes? Please provide idling limit plan including implementation strategies aligning with the total pieces of equipment and those utilizing alternative fuels.
X
Water Conservation
WC-1.1: Reduce potable water
usage throughout Pasadena
Indoor Water Efficiency: Will the project achieve at least a 35% reduction in indoor water use per the LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator? Please attach the calculator output.
X
WC-2.1: Increase access to and use
of non-potable water
Rainwater Capture and Reuse: Does the project utilize a rainwater capture and reuse system to reduce the amount of potable water consumed on site? Please include these specifications on the project plans. X
WC-2.1: Increase access to and use
of non-potable water
Indoor & Outdoor Recycled Water: Will the project be plumbed to utilize recycled water for either indoor or outdoor water use? Please include these specifications on the project plans. X
WC-2.1: Increase access to and use
of non-potable water
Greywater: Will the project be plumbed to take advantage of greywater produced on site such as a laundry to landscape system or another on-site water reuse system? Please include these specifications on project plans.
X
WC-3.1: Improve storm water to
slow, sink, and treat water run-off,
recharge groundwater, and improve
water quality
Permeable Surfaces: Is at least 30% of the hardscape (e.g., surface parking lots, walkways, patios, etc.) permeable to allow infiltration? Please include these specifications on the project plans. X
WC-3.1: Improve storm water to
slow, sink, and treat water run-off,
recharge groundwater, and improve
water quality
Stormwater Capture: Is the project designed to retain stormwater resulting from the 95th percentile, 24-hour rain event as defined by the Los Angeles County 95th percentile precipitation isohyetal map? Please provide the engineered stormwater retention plan with the project plans.
X
Waste Conservation
WR-1.1: Continue to reduce solid
waste and landfill GHG emissions
Recycled Materials: Does the project utilize building materials and furnishings with at least 50% ([re- or post-consumer) recycled content or products which are designed for reuse? At a minimum, project must show at least 10% of the material by cost meets the recycled content requirements? Please submit the plan for review.
X
WR-3.1: Implement a city-wide
composting program to limit the
amount of organic material entering
landfills
On-Site Composting: Does the project include an area specifically designated for on-site composting? Please include these specifications on the project plans. X Urban Greening
UG-1.1: Continue to preserve,
enhance, and acquire additional
green space throughout Pasadena to
improve carbon sequestration,
reduce the urban heat-island effect,
and increase opportunities for active
recreation
Greenspace: Does the project include at least 500 sq. ft. of public use greenspace (landscaped yards, parklets, rooftop garden, etc.)? At a minimum, 50% of the required greenspace must include softscape landscaping (e.g., trees, plants, grass, etc.). X
UG-2.1: Continue to protect existing
trees and plant new ones to improve
and ensure viability of Pasadena's
urban forest
Trees: Does the project result in a net gain of trees? Please include these specifications on the project plans. X
Source: Architectural Resources Group, Central Park Apartments 86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA. Climate Action Plan Consistency Submittal.
#Q1RXRGNO0D6X01v1
The City’s CAP requires the proposed project to provide supporting information describing how each selected Sustainable Development Action would be implemented in the proposed project.
Table 2, Project Implementation of the CAP Actions details project consistency with the thirteen actions identified within Table 1. The CAP Consistency Submittal prepared by the Architectural Resources Group provides additional information regarding project consistency with these measures.
Table 2
Project Implementation of the CAP Actions
Sustainable
Development Action Description of Project Implementation Mandatory Measures
T-1.2: Bicycle Storage The project provides bicycle storage facilities for residents and employees. A Class 1 Bicycle Facility is located within the building and is accessible to residents. A Class 2 Bicycle Facility is provided for non-residents and employees.
T-3.1: Transportation
Demand Management
Since the project is a mixed-use development with 84 residential units, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to be prepared and implemented pursuant to Section 10.64.020 of the Pasadena Municipal Code. A TDM plan has been drafted and submitted to the City for review.
T-4.1: Alternative
Vehicle Fueling Wiring
Three percent of on-site parking spaces (approximately six spaces) will accommodate 240V Type II electric car chargers for alternative vehicle fueling (AVF). Up to 25 percent of spaces (Approximately 49 spaces) will be capable of supporting such charging in the future.
E-1.2: Passive Design
Features
The project utilizes a number of passive design techniques to increase energy efficiency. Residential units will have operable, dual-pane windows that provide both daylighting and ventilation. Every unit will also have its own occupiable exterior balcony; these balconies will typically be stacked to shade apartment glazing from excessive solar exposure. Additional fixed canopies and facade overhangs will further mitigate solar heat gain on the east, west, and south facades. Retail spaces will be provided with extensive storefront glazing, also shaded by canopies. Building surface materials are generally to be light-colored to reduce heat absorption. Paved site surfaces will be offset with significant planted areas; new and relocated existing site trees will provide extensive shading.
WC-1.1: Irrigation
Efficiency
More than 75 percent of planting material utilized in this project is identified by Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) as needing "Low" or "Very Low" amounts of irrigation water, indicating that an overwhelming majority of plants will be drought tolerant. The project will use a drip irrigation system with a weather-based irrigation controller.
WR-1.1: Facilitate
Recycling
The project includes separate trash and recycling bins. The first parking level (P1) features two rooms that include space for separate trash and recycling bins. Informational signage will be displayed to clearly indicate which materials can be recycled to educate residents, employees, and visitors to the building about proper refuse disposal procedures.
Selective Actions
E-1.1: Energy Efficiency
(Exceed 2016 Title 24)
The project is projected to exceed the 2016 Title 24 Efficiency Standards by 11.3 percent. A Title 24 energy model has been prepared to demonstrate the project's energy efficiency features.
E-1.1: End-of-Trip
Bicycle Facilities
Shower facilities for bicyclists will be located inside of the building, in proximity to the Class 1 Bicycle Facility that is described in the response for Sustainable Development Action T-1.2 (Bicycle Storage). Approximately 30 employees are projected based upon the commercial program. Two showers will be available for employees of the ground floor restaurant and retail tenants. The project also includes four live-work units with bathroom facilities. The project thus exceeds the one shower per 50 employees standards.
T-3.1: Parking DeCouplingOn-site parking for residential tenants at the Central Park Apartments will be de-coupled from the lease agreements to remove an incentive for single-occupancy vehicle usage. Parking spaces will be licensed or leased via separate agreements with building management, and a fee charged per parking space. Approximately 53 parking spaces will be available to tenants of the Hotel Green located next door as "joint parking". Those parking spaces will likely not be de-coupled due to existing lease agreements.
T-3.1: Transportation
Demand Management
A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required by the City of Pasadena as the mixed-use project exceeds 50 dwelling units. This feature is not being added to the total number of selective actions that are associated with this project. A TDM plan has been drafted and submitted to the City for review.
T-4.1: Alternative
Vehicle Fueling
Infrastructure
The project includes six parking spaces with functioning 240V Type II wiring for alternative vehicle fueling (AVF), which is equivalent to 3 percent of on-site parking spaces. The project also includes an estimated 49 parking spaces with conduit to support future alternative vehicle parking (F-AVF) spaces, which is equivalent to 25 percent of on-site parking spaces.
T-5.1: Transit Oriented
Development
The project site is located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Del Mar Metro Station and 0.4 miles of the Memorial Park Station, which are both identified in the Zoning Code as major transit stops. #Q1RXRGNO0D6X01v1
WC-3.1 Stormwater
Capture
The project is designed to retain stormwater resulting from the 95th percentile, 24-hour rain event per the Los Angeles County 95th percentile precipitation isohyetal map. Two infiltration drywells are proposed below the structure to capture and infiltrate the 95th percentile storm volume generated onsite. Roof drainage and runoff from all site areas will be collected and routed to the drywells, where it will infiltrate into the soil to promote groundwater recharge. Additional storage upstream of proposed drywells will be required for 95th percentile storm. Solids will be removed from stormwater run-off through settlement in the proposed drywell chambers.
UG-2.1: Trees The project results in a net gain of trees. Nineteen trees are currently located on the property, and 38 trees are identified on the proposed landscape plan associated with the project, resulting in a net gain of 19 trees.
Source: Architectural Resources Group, Central Park Apartments 86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA. Climate Action Plan Consistency Submittal.
Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update
CARB issued the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update in November 2017 and establishes emissions reductions strategies necessary to meet SB 32’s 2030 reduction goals. Table 3, Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Measures identifies the Scoping Plan policies that are applicable to the proposed project, demonstrating project consistency.
Table 3
Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Measures Measures Project Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030:
Not Applicable. The measure is not related to development projects but intended for energy providers. • Increase the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent of retail sales by 2030 and grid reliability
• Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a
cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.
Not Applicable. This measure is directed towards
policymakers, not development projects.
• Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the above measures and other
actions as modeled in the IRPs to meet GHG emissions
reductions planning targets in the IRP process. Loadserving entities and publicly-owned utilities meet GHG emissions planning targets through a combination of
measures as described in IRPs.
Consistent. The project is required to meet CALGreen
building standards by including measures designed to reduce energy consumption.
Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels):
Consistent. The project site is located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Del Mar Metro Station and 0.4 miles of the Memorial Park Station. Thus, this would reduce VMT traveled, promote alternatives to driving, and aim to reduce GHG
emissions.
• Further reduce VMT through continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Communities Strategies; forthcoming statewide implementation of SB 743; and
potential additional VMT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but included in the
document "Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for
Discussion."
By 2019, develop pricing policies to support low-GHG
transportation (e.g. low-emission vehicle zones for heavy duty, road use, parking pricing, transit discounts).
Not Applicable. This measure is directed towards
policymakers, not development projects. However, the project is within 0.25-miles of the Del Mar Metro Station and 0.4 miles of the Memorial Park Station, which would lead to a reduction in VMT.
By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.
Not Applicable. This measure is directed towards CARB,
CalRecycle, CDFA, SWRCB, and local air districts. However, the statewide policy goals of 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduce, recycled, or composted by 2020 under AB 341. Since the project would be operational after this year, the project’s waste collection service would be required to be compliant with this waste reduction.
#Q1RXRGNO0D6X01v1
Identify and expand funding and financing mechanisms to support GHG reductions across all sectors.
Consistent. The project incorporates measures that will reduce GHG emissions from project energy, indoor water, and outdoor water use. Additionally, due to project proximity to the Del Mar and Memorial Park Metro stations, the project will reduce VMT and associated transportation emissions.
Source: CARB. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
SCAG’s RTP/SCS
2016-2040 RTP/SCS
At the regional level, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS defines strategies for reducing GHGs. In order to assess the project’s potential to conflict with the RTP/SCS, this section analyzes the project’s land use profile for consistency with those in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plan and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals. Table 4, Project Consistency with SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Actions and Strategies set forth in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
Table 4
Project Consistency with SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
Actions and Strategies Responsible Party Consistency Analysis Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and
demands, including combatting
gentrification and displacement, by
increasing housing supply at a
variety of affordability levels.
Local jurisdictions Consistent. The proposed project includes the development of a mixed-use development on a site with an existing surface parking lot. The project would increase the housing supply, and would not displace any existing residents.
Focus new growth around transit. Local Jurisdictions Consistent. The project site is located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Del Mar Metro Station and 0.4 miles of the Memorial Park Station.
Plan for growth around livable
corridors, including growth on the
Livable Corridors network.
SCAG
Local Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project site is located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Del Mar Metro Station and 0.4 miles of the Memorial Park Station.
Support local sustainability
planning, including developing
sustainable planning and design
policies, sustainable zoning codes,
and Climate Action Plans.
Local Jurisdictions Not Applicable. While this strategy calls on local governments to adopt General Plan updates, zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans to further sustainable communities, the proposed project would not interfere with such policymaking and would be consistent with those policy objectives.
Protect natural and farm lands,
including developing conservation
strategies.
SCAG
Local Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot; therefore, the proposed project would not be constructed on any natural or farm lands.
Transportation Strategies
Preserve our existing transportation
system.
SCAG
County Transportation
Commissions
Local Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. While this strategy calls on investing in the maintenance of our existing transportation system, the proposed project would not interfere with such policymaking.
Manage congestion through
programs like the Congestion
Management Program,
Transportation Demand
County Transportation
Commissions
Local Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project will minimize congestion impacts on the region because of its proximity to public transit and the implementation of a transportation demand management (TDM) program.
#Q1RXRGNO0D6X01v1
Actions and Strategies Responsible Party Consistency Analysis Management, and Transportation
Systems Management strategies.
Promote safety and security in the
transportation system.
SCAG
County Transportation
Commissions
Local Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. While this strategy aims to improve the safety of the transportation system and protect users from security threats, the proposed project would not interfere with such policymaking.
Complete our transit, passenger
rail, active transportation, highways
and arterials, regional express
lanes, goods movement, and airport
ground transportation systems.
SCAG
County Transportation
Commissions
Local Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls for transportation planning partners to implement major capital and operational projects that are designed to address regional growth. The proposed project would not interfere with this larger goal of investing in the transportation system.
Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation Promote zero-emissions vehicles. SCAG
Local Jurisdictions
Consistent. While this action/strategy is not necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis, the project would include electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Promote neighborhood electric
vehicles.
SCAG
Local Jurisdictions
Consistent. While this action/strategy is not necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis, the project would include electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Implement shared mobility
programs.
SCAG
Local Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. While this strategy is designed to integrate new technologies for last-mile and alternative transportation programs, the proposed project would not interfere with these programs.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, Chapter 5: The Road to Greater Mobility and Sustainable Growth; and Impact Sciences, 2019.
Connect SoCal Plan
On May 7, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS) for federal transportation conformity purposes only. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Regional Council will consider approval of Connect SoCal in its entirety and for all other purposes within 120 days from May 7, 2020.
Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. It charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable, and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians. Table 5, Project Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal demonstrates the project’s consistency with the major goals set forth in Connect SoCal Plan.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in Connect SoCal.
Table 5
Project Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal
Measures Consistency Analysis
Encourage regional economic prosperity
and global competitiveness.
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on encouraging regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness. The proposed project would not interfere with such policymaking.
Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability,
and travel safety for people and goods.
Consistent. The project site is located within 0.25-mile radius of the Del Mar Metro Station and 0.4 miles of the Memorial Park Station. #Q1RXRGNO0D6X01v1
Measures Consistency Analysis
Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the transportation system.
Not Applicable. While this strategy calls on enhancing the preservation, security, and resilience of the transportation system, the proposed project would not interfere with such policymaking.
Increase person and goods movements
and travel choices within the transportation
system.
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on SCAG to increase person and goods movement and travel choices across the transportation system. The proposed project would not interfere with this goal.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality.
Consistent. The Project would result in criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions during construction and operation. However, emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds and would be consistent with the City's CAP.
Support healthy and equitable
communities.
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on supporting healthy and equitable communities. The proposed project would not interfere with this goal.
Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern
and transportation network.
Consistent. The proposed project will minimize congestion impacts on the region because of its proximity to public transit and the implementation of a transportation demand management (TDM) program.
Leverage new transportation technologies
and data-driven solutions that result in
more efficient travel.
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on SCAG to use new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions to increase travel efficiency. The proposed project would not interfere with this goal.
Encourage development of diverse housing
types in areas that are supported by
multiple transportation options.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct 84 apartment units and 4 work/live units within a 0.25-mile radius of the Del Mar Metro Station and 0.4 miles of the Memorial Park Station.
Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of
habitats.
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on SCAG to promote the conservation of natural and agricultural land and the restoration of habitats. The proposed project site currently serves as a surface parking lot. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with this goal.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments; Connect SoCal; and Impact Science, 2020.
CAP Consistency Package
Central Park Apartments
86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA
Climate AcƟ on Plan Consistency SubmiƩ al
01 DRAWINGS ..................................................................................................................................1 Site Plan
P1 Level Plan
P2 Level Plan
P3 Level Plan
P4 Level Plan
Passive Design Features
Exterior ElevaƟ ons
Landscape Plan - Ground Floor Tree LocaƟ ons
Landscape Plan - Ground Floor PlanƟ ng LocaƟ ons
ExisƟ ng Tree LocaƟ on Exhibit
Transit Oriented Development Map
03 STORMWATER CAPTURE DOCUMENTATION............................................................................. 14 Engineered Stormwater RetenƟ on Plan - Drywell Exhibit
Hydrologic Analysis & Drywell CalculaƟ ons
Drywell Detail
02 PRELIMINARY SPECIFICATIONS ................................................................................................... 12 Class 1 Bicycle Facility
Class 2 Bicycle Facility
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 18 A. Geotechnical Engineering InvesƟ gaƟ on
B. Title 24 Building Energy Analysis Report
C. DraŌ TransportaƟ on Demand Management Plan
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Central Park Apartments
86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA
Climate AcƟ on Plan Consistency Checklist
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
1 Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
Introduction
The Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is intended to be a tool for new development projects to demonstrate consistency with Pasadena’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which is a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plan in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5.
This Checklist has been developed as part of the CAP implementation and monitoring process and will support the achievement of individual CAP measures as well as Pasadena’s overall GHG reduction goals. In addition, this Checklist will further Pasadena’s sustainability goals and policies that encourage sustainable development and aim to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources, such as energy and water, among others.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows lead agencies to analyze the impacts associated with GHG emissions at a programmatic level in plan-level documents such as CAPs, so that project-level environmental documents may tier from the programmatic review. Projects that meet the requirements of this Checklist will be deemed to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b). Projects that do not meet the requirements in this Checklist will be deemed to be inconsistent with Pasadena’s CAP and must prepare a project-specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible.
Applicability
This Checklist is only required for discretionary projects1that are subject to and not exempt from CEQA. Projects that are exempt from CEQA are deemed to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP, and no further review is necessary, with the exception of the Class 32 “In-Fill Development Projects” categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332), for which Projects are required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through this Checklist.
1 In this context a project is any action that meets the definition of a “Project” in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
2 Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
Application Form
When required, the Checklist must be included in the project submittal package. The requirements in the Checklist will be included in the project’s conditions of approval. The applicant is required to provide supporting documentation on how the proposed project will implement the measures identified in the Checklist to the satisfaction of the Planning & Community Development Department.
Step 1: Complete a Master Land Use Application Form (separate attachment) Step 2: Demonstrate consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan The growth projections outlined in the 2015 General Plan Land Use Element were used in Pasadena’s CAP to estimate community-wide GHG emissions over time. Therefore, new development projects must be consistent with the Land Use Element to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP. In order for City staff to determine a project’s consistency with the Land Use Element, please answer the following question and provide explanation with supporting documentation for each response.
Is the proposed project consistent with the existing land use designation of the Land Use Element? Yes No
If “Yes,” proceed and complete Step 3 of the Checklist.
If “No,” the proposed project may not tier from this document and must prepare a comprehensive project-specific analysis of GHG emissions and incorporate the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible.
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
3 Step 3: Demonstrate consistency with Pasadena’s CAP
Proposed projects which complete one of the following three options will be deemed to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG emissions (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b).
Please select one of the following options:
Option A: Sustainable Development Actions – Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the Pasadena CAP by incorporating applicable actions intended to ensure that the project contributes its fair share to the City’s cumulative GHG reduction goals
Option B: GHG Efficiency - Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with Pasadena’s per person GHG efficiency thresholds
Option C: Net Zero GHG Emissions – Demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
4 Option A: Sustainable Development Actions
In order to complete this option, a proposed project must incorporate applicable Sustainable Development Actions to the satisfaction of the applicable City Departments. Incorporating these actions will ensure that the project is reducing its fair share of GHG emissions and support the achievement of Pasadena’s overall GHG emissions reduction goals. For each action selected, please submit the requested documentation. If a mandatory action is not applicable to the project, please provide a description as to why that action cannot be implemented.
Mandatory Actions (all of the actions below are required) GHG Reduction
Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s
CAP)
Sustainable Development Actions Yes N/A
Check the appropriate
box and provide
explanation
T-1.2: Continue to improve
bicycle and pedestrian safety
Bicycle Storage: Does the project provide bicycle storage lockers, racks, or other bicycle storage facilities for residents/employees?
Check “N/A” only if the project does not include residents or employees.
T-3.1: Decrease annual
commuter miles traveled by
single occupancy vehicles
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Does the project include a TDM plan? A TDM plan is required for the following projects: multifamily residential development that are 100 or more units; mixed-use developments with 50 or more residential units or 50,000 square feet or more of non-residential development; or non-residential projects which exceed 75,000 square feet. If applicable, please submit the TDM plan for review.
T-4.1: Expand the availability
and use of alternative fuel
vehicles and fueling
infrastructure
Alternative Vehicle Fueling Wiring: For projects with more than three parking spaces, does the project provide wiring for at least one 240V Type II electric car charger? Please include specifications on the project plans.
Check “N/A” only if the project does not include more than three parking spaces.
E-1.2: Encourage the use of
energy conservation devices
and passive design concepts
that make use of the natural
climate to increase energy
efficiency
Passive Design Features: Does the project utilize passive design techniques such as awnings or overhangs on the east, west, and south facing windows which block the high summer sun but allow in lower winter sun? Please include specifications on the project plans.
WC-1.1: Reduce potable
water usage throughout
Pasadena
Irrigation Efficiency: Will the project utilize drought tolerant landscaping and/or drip irrigation and/or weather controllers to reduce outdoor water use? Please include specifications on the project plans.
Check “N/A” only if the project does not include any landscaping.
WR-1.1: Continue to reduce
solid waste and landfill GHG
emissions
Facilitate Recycling: Does the project include a space for separate trash and recycling bins as well as provide informational signage/handouts for residents/employees outlining materials to be recycled? Please include specifications on the project plans.
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
5 Selective Actions
In addition the mandatory actions, the proposed project must implement the following:
One additional action in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation category One additional action in the Sustainable Mobility and Land Use category Three additional actions from any category
Energy Efficiency and Conservation (select a minimum of one action) GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Actions Yes No
E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency
requirements of new buildings to perform
better than 2016 Title 24 Standards
Zero-Net Energy (ZNE): Does the project generate 100% of electricity required on site? ZNE calculations must be provided.
E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency
requirements of new buildings to perform
better than 2016 Title 24 Standards
Energy Efficiency (Exceed 2016 Title 24): Does the project exceed the 2016 Title 24 Efficiency Standards by at least 5%? Please include Title 24 energy model.
E-4.1: Increase city-wide use of carbonneutral energy by encouraging and/or supporting carbon-neutral technologies
Renewable Energy: Does the project generate at least 60% of the building’s projected electricity needs through renewable energy? Please include specifications on the project plans.
Sustainable Mobility and Land Use (select a minimum of one action) GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Action Yes No
T-1.1: Continue to expand Pasadena’s
bicycle and pedestrian network
End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (Commercial Development): Does the project provide at least one shower for every 50 employees? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
T-1.1: Continue to expand Pasadena’s
bicycle and pedestrian network
Bike Share: Does the project include a bike share station? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles
traveled by single occupancy vehicles
Car Sharing: Does the project provide/facilitate car sharing by providing a designated car share space on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site? Examples of car share options include ZipCar, PitCarz, and Getaround.
Please include these specifications on the project plans.
T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles
traveled by single occupancy vehiclesT-3.1
Parking De-Coupling: Does the project separate the cost of parking from the cost of commercial space and/or residential housing by charging for each individually? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles
traveled by single occupancy vehicles
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Does the project include a TDM plan? Please submit the TDM plan for review (Note: this measure cannot be combined with the mandatory measure that requires a TDM plan for projects that meet certain size thresholds.)
T-4.1: Expand the availability and use of
alternative fuel vehicles and fueling
infrastructure
Alternative Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure: Does the proposed project include functioning 240V Type II electric car chargers at 3% of parking spaces (at least one charger) AND conduit to allow for future charger installation to 25% of spaces?
T-5.1: Facilitate high density, mixed-use,
transit-oriented, and infill development
Transit Oriented Development: Is the project located within 0.25 mile of a major transit stop as defined in the Zoning Code. Please include a map outlining the nearest transit stop.
T-6.1: Reduce GHG emissions from heavyduty construction equipment and vehiclesReduce GHG emissions from heavy-construction equipment: Will the project utilize at least 30% alternative fueled construction equipment (by pieces of equipment) and implement an equipment idling limit of 3 minutes? Please provide idling limit plan including implementation strategies along with the total pieces of equipment and those utilizing alternative fuels.
X
X
X
X
X
Req'd
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
6 Water Conservation
GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Action Yes No
WC-1.1: Reduce potable water use
throughout Pasadena
Indoor Water Efficiency: Will the project achieve at least a 35% reduction in indoor water use per the LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator? Please attach the calculator output.
WC-2.1: Increase access to and use of nonpotable waterRainwater Capture and Reuse: Does the project utilize a rainwater capture and reuse system to reduce the amount of potable water consumed on site? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
WC-2.1: Increase access to and use of nonpotable waterIndoor & Outdoor Recycled Water: Will the project be plumbed to utilize recycled water for either indoor or outdoor water use? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
WC-2.1: Increase access to and use of nonpotable waterGreywater: Will the project be plumbed to take advantage of greywater produced on site such as a laundry to landscape system or another on-site water reuse system? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
WC-3.1: Improve storm water to slow, sink,
and treat water run-off, recharge
groundwater, and improve water quality
Permeable Surfaces: Is at least 30% of the hardscape (e.g., surface parking lots, walkways, patios, etc.) permeable to allow infiltration? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
WC-3.1: Improve storm water to slow, sink,
and treat water run-off, recharge
groundwater, and improve water quality
Stormwater Capture: Is the project designed to retain stormwater resulting from the 95th percentile, 24 hour rain event as defined by the Los Angeles County 95th percentile precipitation isohyetal map? Please provide the engineered stormwater retention plan with the project plans (http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/hydrologygis/)
Waste Reduction
Urban Greening
GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Action Yes No
UG-1.1: Continue to preserve, enhance, and
acquire additional green space throughout
Pasadena to improve carbon sequestration,
reduce the urban heat-island effect, and
increase opportunities for active recreation
Greenspace: Does the project include at least 500 sq. ft. of public use greenspace (landscaped yards, parklets, rooftop garden, etc.)? At a minimum, 50% of the required greenspace must include softscape landscaping (e.g., trees, plants, grass, etc.).
UG-2.1: Continue to protect existing trees
and plant new ones to improve and ensure
viability of Pasadena’s urban forest
Trees: Does the project result in a net gain of trees? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Action Yes No
WR-1.1: Continue to reduce solid waste and
landfill GHG emissions
Recycled Materials: Does the project utilize building materials and furnishings with at least 50% (pre- or post-consumer) recycled content or products which are designed for reuse? At a minimum, projects must show at least 10% of the material by cost meets the recycled content requirement? Please submit the plan for review.
WR-3.1: Implement a city-wide composting
program to limit the amount of organic
material entering landfills
On-Site Composting: Does the project include an area specifically designated for on-site composting? Please include these specifications on the project plans.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
7 Total Actions Taken
Sector Actions Selected (#) Actions Required
Mandatory Actions 6
Energy Efficiency and Conservation 1
Sustainable Mobility and Land Use 1
Water Conservation 0
Waste Reduction 0
Urban Greening 0
Total # of Actions Selected
Total Required 11
Supporting Documentation
Use the section below to provide supporting information describing how each selected Sustainable Development Action will be implemented in the proposed project. Additional information such as model outputs, invoices, and project plans should be noted below and attached to this submittal as needed.
Sustainable
Development Action Description of Project Implementation T-1.2, T-3.1, T-4.1, E-1.2, WC-1.1, WR-1.1
E-1.1 T-1.1, T-3.1, T-4.1. T-5.1 WC-3.1 13
STEP 2 : Demonstrate
consistency with Land Use
Element of the General Plan
T-1.2
Bicycle Storage
T-3.1
Transportation Demand
Management
T-4.1
Alternative Vehicle Fueling
Wiring
According to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the corresponding Land Use Diagram, the project area is designated as High Mixed Use, 0.0-3.0 FAR, 0-87 dwelling units per acre. The project is consistent with this designation. By incorporating ground floor retail, work-live units, and apartment units of varying types and sizes, it complies with the overarching goal of the High Mixed Use designation, which is "to support the development of multi-story mixed use buildings with a variety of compatible commercial (retail and office) and residential uses." Its FAR (2.89) and residential density (84 dwelling units proposed; 87 dwelling units allowed via density bonus: 64 units by right + 23 additional units) are both within the parameters of this land use designation. UG-2.1 1 1 1
4 6
The project provides bicycle storage facilities for residents and employees. A Class 1 Bicycle Facility is located within the building and is accessible to residents. A Class 2 Bicycle Facility is provided for non-residents and employees.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 1 (Site Plan) and p. 12-13 (Class 1 Bicycle Facility, Class 2 Bicycle Facility) for additional information and preliminary specifications for bicycle storage.
Since the project is a mixed-use development with 84 residential units a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required. A TDM plan has been drafted and is enclosed as Appendix C of CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs.
Three percent of on-site parking spaces (approximately six spaces) will accommodate 240V Type II electric car chargers for alternative vehicle fueling (AVF). Up to 25 percent of spaces (approximately 49 spaces) will be capable of supporting such charging in the future.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 2-5 (P1, P2, P3, and P4 Level Plans) for additional information about alternative vehicle fueling infrastructure and on-site parking.
MANDATORY ACTIONS
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
8 Sustainable
Development Action Description of Project Implementation 8 A
T-3.1
Parking De-Coupling
T-1.1
End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
E-1.1
Energy Efficiency (Exceed
2016 Title 24)
WR-1.1
Facilitate Recycling
WC-1.1
Irrigation Efficiency
E-1.2
Passive Design Features
On-site parking for residential tenants at the Central Park Apartments will be de-coupled from the lease agreements to remove an incentive for single-occupancy vehicle usage. Parking spaces will be licensed or leased via separate agreements with building management, and a fee charged per parking space. Approximately 53 parking spaces will be available to tenants of the Hotel Green located next door as “joint parking”. Those parking spaces will likely not be de-coupled due to existing lease agreements.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 2-5 (P1, P2, P3, and P4 Level Plans) for additional information about on-site parking.
The project utilizes a number of passive design techniques to increase energy efficiency. Residential units will have operable, dual-pane windows that provide both daylighting and ventilation. Every unit will also have its own occupiable exterior balcony; these balconies will typically be stacked to shade apartment glazing from excessive solar exposure. Additional fixed canopies and façade overhangs will further mitigate solar heat gain on the east west and south facades. Retail spaces will be provided with extensive storefront glazing, also shaded by canopies.
Building surface materials are generally to be light-colored to reduce heat absorption. Paved site surfaces will be offset with significant planted areas; new and relocated existing site trees will provide extensive shading.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 6-7 (Passive Design Features and Exterior Elevations) for additional information about passive design features of the project.
More than 75 percent of planting material utilized in this project is identified by WUCOLS (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) as needing “Low” or “Very Low” amounts of irrigation water, indicating that an overwhelming majority of plants will be drought tolerant. The project will use a drip irrigation system with a weather-based irrigation controller.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 8-9 (Landscape Plan - Ground Floor Tree Locations, Landscape Plan - Ground Floor Planting Locations) for additional information about landscape and irrigation systems.
The project includes separate trash and recycling bins. The first parking level (P1) features two rooms that include space for separate trash and recycling bins. Informational signage will be displayed to clearly indicate which materials can be recycled to educate residents, employees, and visitors to the building about proper refuse disposal procedures.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 2 (P1 Level Plan) for additional information about refuse disposal and storage.
The project is projected to exceed the 2016 Title 24 Efficiency Standards by 11.3 percent. A Title 24 energy model has been prepared to demonstrate the project's energy efficiency features.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, Appendix B, Title 24 Building Energy Analysis Report, p. 1 for Compliance Total, Column 5, 11.3 Percent Better than Standard.
Shower facilities for bicyclists will be located inside of the building, in proximity to the Class 1 Bicycle Facility that is described in the response for Sustainable Development Action T-1.2 (Bicycle Storage). Approximately 30 employees are projected based upon the commercial program. Two showers will be available for employees of the ground floor restaurant and retail tenants. The project also includes four live-work units with bathroom facilities. The project thus exceeds the one shower per 50 employees standard.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 1 (Site Plan) for supporting calculations, locations and features of the planned end-of-trip bicycle facilities.
SELECTIVE ACTIONS
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
8 Sustainable
Development Action Description of Project Implementation 8 B, CONTINUED
T-4.1
Alternative Vehicle Fueling
Infrastructure
T-5.1
Transit Oriented
Development
WC-3.1
Stormwater Capture
The project site is located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Del Mar Metro Station and 0.4 miles of the Memorial Park Station, which are both identified in the Zoning Code as major transit stops.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 11 (Transit Oriented Development Map) for a map that illustrates the distance between the project site, the Del Mar Metro Station and the Memorial Park Station.
UG-2.1
Trees
The project includes an estimated six parking spaces with functioning 240V Type II wiring for alternative vehicle fueling (AVF), or 3 percent of on-site parking spaces. The project also includes an estimated 49 parking spaces with conduit to support future alternative vehicle parking (F-AVF) spaces, or 25 percent of on-site parking spaces.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 2-5 (P1, P2, P3 and P4 Level Plans) for additional information about alternative vehicle fueling infrastructure and on-site parking.
The project results in a net gain of trees. Nineteen trees are currently located on the property, and 38 trees are identified on the proposed landscape plan associated with the project, resulting in a net gain of 19 trees.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 8-10 (Landscape Plan - Ground Floor Tree Locations, Landscape Plan - Ground Floor Planting Locations, Existing Tree Location Exhibit) for additional information about existing and proposed trees.
T-3.1
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required by the City of Pasadena as the mixed-use project exceeds 50 dwelling units. This feature is not being added to the total number of selective actions that are associated with this project. A draft TDM plan is included as Appendix C of the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs.
The project is designed to retain stormwater resulting from the 95th percentile, 24 hour rain event per the Los Angeles County 95th percentile precipitation isohyetal map. Two infiltration drywells are proposed below the structure to capture and infiltrate the 95th percentile storm volume generated onsite. Roof drainage and runoff from all site areas will be collected and routed to the drywells, where it will infiltrate into the soil to promote groundwater recharge. Additional storage upstream of proposed drywells will be required for 95th percentile storm. Solids will be removed from stormwater run-off through settlement in the proposed drywell chambers.
Refer to the CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Docs, p. 14 for Stormwater Capture Documentaion (Engineered Stormwater Retention Plan, Hydrologic Analysis, Drywell Calculations, Drywell Detail) and Appendix A (Geotechnical Engineering Investigation).
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
9 Option B: GHG Efficiency
The efficiency threshold assesses the GHG efficiency of a proposed project on a service person (residents + full time employees) basis. This method recognizes that highly efficient projects (e.g., compact and mixed-use development) with relatively high mass emissions may nevertheless meet the local and State GHG reduction goals/targets. Using the demographic projections developed for the CAP, Pasadena has developed service person efficiency thresholds for the years of 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035 which are consistent with Pasadena’s GHG emission goals included in the CAP and the State targets it is designed to achieve (AB 32, SB 32, and substantial progress towards EO S-3-05). Applicants may decide to assess their proposed project’s GHG emissions relative to Pasadena’s GHG efficiency thresholds in lieu of completing the Sustainable Development Actions. Applicants should utilize standard GHG modeling techniques (such as CalEEMod2) to estimate total GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Models should include all construction emissions (amortized over 30 years) and operational emissions. Total annual emissions should be divided by the proposed project’s service population (residents + full time employees) to determine the efficiency of the proposed project using the following equation:
Proposed Project’s GHG Efficiency = Annual GHG Emissions / Service Population (Residents + Full Time Employees)
The proposed project must be able to demonstrate a GHG efficiency which is less than or equal to the threshold listed below for the projects first operational year to be considered consistent with the Pasadena CAP and State targets it is designed to achieve. Refer to Appendix B for a complete description of the methodology used to calculate the efficiency thresholds.
Project First Operational Year Threshold
2017 – 2020 5.63 MT CO2e/Service Person
2021 – 2025 4.56 MT CO2e/Service Person
2026 – 2030 3.57 MT CO2e/Service Person
2031 – 2035 2.73 MT CO2e/Service Person
2 The California Emissions Estimator Model® (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for assessing air quality and GHG impacts associated with construction projects. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
10 Option C: Net Zero GHG Emissions
In lieu of Option A or B, applicants can demonstrate consistency with this CAP by demonstrating their proposed project would result in no net increase of GHG emissions. A proposed project can reduce its GHG emissions through the purchasing of carbon offsets issued by Climate Action Reserve3 or other validated carbon offset registry to a level which results in zero net GHG emissions. The following methodology must be followed to prove zero net GHG emissions.
1. The applicant must model the proposed project’s annual emissions using the most recent version of CalEEMod or equivalent model accepted by SCAQMD and/or CARB for CEQA purposes. Each model must include all emissions associated with the project including land clearing, demolition, earth moving, construction activities and operational related emissions such as energy use, water use, waste generation, transportation, area sources, and vegetation change, if applicable. The total annual operational emissions over 30 years as projected by the model should then be summed and added to the construction emissions to estimate the total lifetime GHG emissions associated with the project. CalEEMod is able to estimate operation related emissions over time taking into account changes to grid mix and vehicle fleet mandated by state legislation such as Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Pavley. Applicants should use CalEEMod forecasting to show overall GHG emissions and existing conditions (if applicable) should be modeled separately using CalEEMod for operations only and then subtracted from the project total to show the net change in GHG emissions.
Example:
Construction Emissions (1,000 MT of CO2e) + Sum of Annual Emissions over 30 years (90,000 MT of CO2e) – Existing Conditions (500 MT CO2e) = 90,500 MT of CO2e
2. The total emissions for the project must then be offset by Climate Reserve Tonnes or CRT’s through the Climate Action Reserve marketplace. In the above example, the proposed project would be required to purchase 90,500 CRT’s through the carbon marketplace. Offsets cost between $12-$15 as of September 2017 but prices are subject to changes in the carbon market. The marketplace can be found here:
http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/crt-marketplace/ The full CalEEMod output and verification of the CRT’s purchased must be provided to the City of Pasadena as part of the review process.
3 The Climate Action Reserve can be considered a bank which holds credits that amount to 1 metric ton of CO2e per Climate Reserve Tonne (CRT). These credits get their reduction value through projects which reduce GHG emissions such as renewable energy development or through carbon sequestration. Those projects can sell CRT’s equal to the amount of GHG emissions reduced. Other projects, can then purchase those CRT’s to offset their own emissions. For more information see the Technical Appendix B of the Climate Action Plan
Central Park Apartments
86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA
Climate AcƟ on Plan Consistency Checklist
SupporƟ ng Documents
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks 16 0 16 32
N
CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 1
UP
DN
DN
UP
DN
UP
UP
PARKING
ENTRY
DN TO
PARKING
WORK/LIVE
POOL
SPA
CASTLE
GREEN
EXISTING
CARPORT
EXISTING
CARPORT
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
EXISTING RETAIL
DAYTON STREET
GENERATOR
SETBACK
2' - 0"
NEW
SIDEWALK
NEW STREET
TREES ALONG
DAYTON, TYP OF 3
(E) STREET
LIGHT
(E) STREET
LIGHT
(E) STREET
LIGHT
(E) STREET
LIGHT
NEW ADA
CURB CUT,
REFER TO
APPENDIX F (E) FIRE
HYDRANT
NEW
SIDEWALK
6' DECORATIVE
METAL FENCE
AROUND POOL
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PARKING GARAGE
BELOW
TRASH
/REC
(E) STREET
TREES ALONG
FAIR OAKS TO
REMAIN, TYP
(E) TREE TO
REMAIN
NEW FDC
LOCATION
42' - 0"
R 25' - 0"
PARKING GARAGE BELOW
R 45' - 0"
834' - 0"
835' - 0"
ELECTRICAL
TRANSFORMER
834' - 0" 833' - 0" 833' - 0" 832' - 7"
WORK/LIVE WORK/LIVE WORK/LIVE
LOBBY
AMENITY STORAGE
WOMEN
MEN
LEASING
2%
12% 6%
LOADING PARKING
14' - 0"
834' - 0"
835' - 0"
835' - 0"
4%
5% MAX
34' - 0"
34' - 6"
133' - 6" 4' - 6" 20' - 0" 10' - 0"
168' - 0"
200' - 6"
10' - 0" 190' - 6"
118' - 0"
87' - 6"
100' - 6" 89' - 6"
RETAIL/
RESTAURANT
RETAIL
SWITCHGEAR
RM
FAIR OAKS AVENUE
FIRE
RISER
GARAGE
SUPPLY
GARAGE
EXHAUST
CLASS 1
BIKE RM
MIN
5' CLR
CLASS 2
BIKE
FACILITY
1/16" = 1'-0" A0.01
1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN
*Per Pasadena Municipal Code 17.46.320 Bicycle Parking
Standards, the bicycle requirement for the residential
portion of a mixed-use project is a minimum of 1 space
for every six dwelling units.
1 SPACE x 84 UNITS/6 UNITS = 14 =
Minimum of (14) Class 1 Bicycle Spaces required
(16) Class 1 Bicycle Spaces provided
See p. 12 for preliminary specification.
RESIDENTIAL BIKE PARKING
*Per Pasadena Municipal Code 17.46.320 Bicycle Parking
Standards, the bicycle requirement for the non-residential portion (less than 15,000 SF) of a mixed-use project is a minimum of (4) Class 2 Bicycle Spaces.
RETAIL 4,218 SF
RESTAURANT 1,974 SF
COMMERCIAL PORTION 3,702 SF
OF WORK/LIVE
TOTAL 9,894 SF
9,894 SF < 15,000 SF =
Minimum of (4) Class 2 Bicycle Spaces required
(4) Class 2 Bicycle Spaces provided
See p. 13 for preliminary specification.
NON-RESIDENTIAL & EMPLOYEE BIKE PARKING
RETAIL
(4,218 SF @ 1 employee/500 SF = 8.4) 9
RESTAURANT
(1,974 SF @ 1 employee/350 SF = 5.6) 6
COMMERCIAL PORTION OF WORK/LIVE
(3,702 SF @ 1 employee/250 SF = 14.8) 15
TOTAL EMPLOYEES 30
Minimum of (1) shower per 50 employees required
(2) Showers provided within End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
END-OF-TRIP BICYCLE FACILITIES
01 DRAWINGS
T - 1.2 BICYCLE STORAGE
T - 1.1 END-OF-TRIP BICYCLE FACILITIES
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks 160 16 32
N
CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 2
UP
UP
UP
DN
1367
ACFK
173' - 0" 15' - 6"
131' - 6"
188' - 6"
AVF
AVF
2% DN
5% DN
AVF20' - 0"
-11' - 4" 5% DN
-10' - 0"
-12' - 11"
-10' - 0" -8' - 4"
D
5% DN
6% 12%
29 BEGH
25 24' - 0"
24' - 0"
24' - 6"
11 10987421
12 65
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 21
23 25
26 22
20 28
27 30
31 32
33 35
4 36 37
34 24
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
GENERATOR
TRASH/RECYCLING
TRASH/REC.
POOL &
EQUIPMENT
39' - 0" 33' - 6" 38' - 6" 21' - 0"
131' - 6"
19' - 0" 31' - 0" 15' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 29' - 0" 26' - 0" 10' - 6" 20' - 9" 29' - 0" 18' - 6" 13' - 6" 30' - 0" 22' - 0"
MPOE EXHAUST
FAN SUPPLY FAN
24' - 0" 24' - 0" ELEC/GAS UTILITIES 3
DOMESTIC
WATER
PUMP + BFP
GREASE
INTERCEPTOR
FIRE BFP (WALL)
1/16" = 1'-0" A1.08 1 Parking Level 1
P1 LEVEL PLAN
Per Pasadena Municipal Code 17.40.120
Refuse Storage Facilities
TRASH & RECYCLING AREAS
01 DRAWINGS
OVERALL PARKING SUMMARY
T - 3.1 PARKING DE-COUPLING
T - 4.1 ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE FUELING WIRING
W - R 1.1 FACILITATE RECYCLING
Refer to page 4 of the Concept Design for complete parking tabulations.
RESIDENTIAL* 96 SPACES
GUEST 9 SPACES
WORK/LIVE* 12 SPACES
RETAIL/RESTAURANT* 25 SPACES
JOINT (GREEN HOTEL APTS) 53 SPACES
TOTAL PARKING 195 SPACES
OVERALL PARKING SUMMARY
TOTAL AVF: ALTERNATIVE
VEHICLE FUELING SPACES
TOTAL F-AVF: INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR FUTURE CHARGER
INSTALLATION (F-AVF)
(25% of 195 SPACES = 48.75)
* On-site parking for residential tenants at the Central Park Apartments will be licensed or leased via separate agreements with building management, and a fee charged per parking space. (3% of 195 SPACES = 5.85)
6 SPACES
STANDARD 189 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE 6 SPACES
49 SPACES
TOTAL PARKING 37 SPACES
STANDARD 34 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE 3 SPACES
P1 PARKING SUMMARY
AVF: ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE
FUELING SPACES
3 SPACES
F-AVF: INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR FUTURE CHARGER
INSTALLATION (F-AVF)
11 SPACES
(Locations of AVF & F-AVF spaces shown on plans are
preliminary and for illustrative purposes only.)
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks 160 16 32
N
CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 3
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
DN
UP
STORAGE
350 SF
UTILITIES
1367
ACFK
173' - 0" 15' - 6"
188' - 6"188' - 6"
131' - 6"
5% DN
5% DN
2% DN
5% DN
-23' - 6" -21' - 11"
D
-19' - 9"
50 40
72 79
-18' - 2"
BEGH
25 27' - 7"
39 49 48 47 46 45 44 42 41
51 52 38
55 57
58 59
54 56
60 62
63 64
66 68
65 67
69 70
71 73
76 74
78 80
77 75
81 82
83 84
86 4
87 88
85 AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
AVF
AVF F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
61 110' - 6" 21' - 0"
131' - 6"
19' - 0" 31' - 0" 15' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 29' - 0" 26' - 0" 10' - 6" 21' - 0" 29' - 0" 18' - 6" 13' - 6" 30' - 0" 22' - 0"
EXHAUST
FAN
24' - 0" 24' - 0" 24' - 6"
F-AVF
43 53
SUPPLY FAN
1/16" = 1'-0" A1.09 1 Parking Level 2
P2 LEVEL PLAN
01 DRAWINGS
T - 4.1 ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE FUELING WIRING
Refer to page 4 of the Concept Design for complete parking tabulations.
TOTAL PARKING 51 SPACES
STANDARD 48 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE 3 SPACES
P2 PARKING SUMMARY
AVF: ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE
FUELING SPACES
3 SPACES
F-AVF: INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR FUTURE CHARGER
INSTALLATION
13 SPACES
(Locations of AVF & F-AVF spaces shown on plans are
preliminary and for illustrative purposes only.)
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks 16 0 16 32
N
CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 4
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
STORAGE
300 SF STORAGE
350 SF
1 3 6 7
A
C
F
K
173' - 0" 15' - 6"
188' - 6"188' - 6"
131' - 6"
5% DN
D
5% DN
-28' - 8"
-33' - 11"
93 133
103
126
B
E
G
H
2 5
90 91
92 89
102 101 100 99 98 97 95 94
104
105 106
108
110
111 112
109
107
125
124
122
120
118
116
115
113 114
117
119
121
123 129
131
127
128
130
132
134
135
136
137
138
140
4 139
141 142
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
131' - 6"
110' - 6" 21' - 0"
19' - 0" 31' - 0" 15' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 29' - 0" 26' - 0" 10' - 6" 21' - 0" 29' - 0" 18' - 6" 13' - 6" 30' - 0" 22' - 0"
24' - 4" 24' - 0" 27' - 7" 24' - 6" F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF F-AVF
96 SUPPLY FAN EXHAUST
FAN
1/16" = 1'-0" A1.10
1 Parking Level 3
P3 LEVEL PLAN
01 DRAWINGS
T - 4.1 ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE FUELING WIRING
Refer to page 4 of Concept Design for complete parking
tabulations.
TOTAL PARKING 54 SPACES
STANDARD 54 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE 0 SPACES
P3 PARKING SUMMARY
F-AVF: INFRASTRUCTURE 16 SPACES
FOR FUTURE CHARGER
INSTALLATION
(Locations of AVF & F-AVF spaces shown on plans are
preliminary and for illustrative purposes only.)
AVF: ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE 0 SPACES
FUELING SPACES
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks 160 16 32
N
CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 5
UP
UP
UP
DN
1367
ACFK
PRELIMINARY
DRYWELL
LOCATION
188' - 6"
131' - 6"
PRELIMINARY
DRYWELL
LOCATION
D
5% DN
-39' - 1"
-44' - 4"
BEGH
25 STORAGE
300 SF STORAGE
350 SF
157 147
186
24' - 0"
144
145
146
143
156 155 154 153 152 151 149 148
158
159
161
163
165
167
168
169 170
166
164
162
160
171
173
175 176
172
174
177
178
179
182
184
180
181
183
185
187
188
189
190
191
193
4 5%
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
F-AVF
110' - 6" 21' - 0"
15' - 0" 173' - 6"
188' - 6"
131' - 6"
19' - 0" 31' - 0" 15' - 0" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 29' - 0" 26' - 0" 10' - 6" 21' - 0" 29' - 0" 18' - 6" 13' - 6" 30' - 0" 22' - 0" 27' - 7" 24' - 0"
24' - 6"
30' - 0" MIN
194 195
192
150
SUPPLY FAN EXHAUST
FAN
PRELIMINARY
SUMP PUMP
LOCATION
PRELIMINARY
EJECTOR PUMP
LOCATION
ELEV.
EQUIP.
30' - 0" MIN
30' - 0" MIN
30' - 0" MIN
1/16" = 1'-0" A1.11 1 Parking Level 4
P4 LEVEL PLAN
01 DRAWINGS
T - 4.1 ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE FUELING WIRING
Refer to page 4 of Concept design for complete parking
tabulations.
TOTAL PARKING 53 SPACES
STANDARD 53 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE 0 SPACES
P4 PARKING SUMMARY
53 SPACES
9 SPACES
JOINT PARKING
F-AVF: INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR FUTURE CHARGER
INSTALLATION
(Locations of AVF & F-AVF spaces shown on plans are
preliminary and for illustrative purposes only.)
AVF: ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE 0 SPACES
FUELING SPACES
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 6 01 DRAWINGS
PASSIVE DESIGN FEATURES
E - 1.2 PASSIVE DESIGN FEATURES
Passive design features and active systems incorporated into the project design include:
• Building configuration:
• Building is oriented to provide all occupied rooms with daylight and a view • Usable exterior balconies at all apartment units
• Materials:
• Exterior materials selected for durability and local availability • Interior materials selected for wear-resistance and low VOC emissions • Cool roofing material
• Windows:
• Operable apartment windows
• Dual pane glazing
• Overhangs and fixed canopies provide solar shading at east, south and west windows
• Energy efficient building systems:
• High-efficiency gas boilers
• Commissioning to align system performance with design targets and energy efficiency standards
• Water submetering and individual electric meters
• System control:
• Each apartment and commercial unit will have its own controllable thermostat • Daylighting, occupancy sensors and dimmer switches will be used to optimize lighting
• Landscape:
• Drought tolerant planting
• Landscaped roof terraces at mezzanine, second, third, and penthouse floors • Low backlight/uplight/glare-rated exterior light fixtures • Storage and collection of recyclables
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporti ng Documents | 7 GRADE
0' - 0"
MEZZANINE
12' - 6"
LEVEL 2
22' - 4"
LEVEL 3
32' - 2"
LEVEL 4
42' - 0"
LEVEL 5
51' - 10"
LEVEL 6
61' - 8"
LEVEL 6 MEZ
73' - 4"
BASE ALLOWABLE HGT*
75' - 0"
PROPERTY LINE
16' - 8" 11' - 8" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 22' - 4"
MAX ROOF HGT
90' - 0"
TOWER CLR HGT
81' - 8"
GROUND LEVEL
2' - 6"
01 DRAWINGS
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
GRADE
0' - 0"
MEZZANINE
12' - 6"
LEVEL 2
22' - 4"
LEVEL 3
32' - 2"
LEVEL 4
42' - 0"
LEVEL 5
51' - 10"
LEVEL 6
61' - 8"
LEVEL 6 MEZ
73' - 4"
BASE ALLOWABLE HGT*
75' - 0"
PROPERTY LINE
MAX ROOF HGT
90' - 0"
10' - 0" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 11' - 8" 8' - 4" 8' - 4"
TOWER CLR HGT
81' - 8"
GROUND LEVEL
2' - 6"
T.O.R LEVEL 6 MEZ
84' - 0"
PROPERTY LINE
GRADE
0' - 0"
MEZZANINE
12' - 6"
LEVEL 2
22' - 4"
LEVEL 3
32' - 2"
LEVEL 4
42' - 0"
LEVEL 5
51' - 10"
LEVEL 6
61' - 8"
LEVEL 6 MEZ
73' - 4"
BASE ALLOWABLE HGT*
75' - 0"
PROPERTY LINE MAX ROOF HGT
90' - 0"
11' - 8" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 10' - 0"
GROUND LEVEL
2' - 6"
T.O.R LEVEL 6 MEZ
84' - 0"
6' - 0" 10' - 8"
PROPERTY LINE
GRADE
0' - 0"
MEZZANINE
12' - 6"
LEVEL 2
22' - 4"
LEVEL 3
32' - 2"
LEVEL 4
42' - 0"
LEVEL 5
51' - 10"
LEVEL 6
61' - 8"
LEVEL 6 MEZ
73' - 4"
8' - 4" 8' - 4" 11' - 8" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 9' - 10" 20' - 8" BASE ALLOWABLE HGT*
75' - 0"
PROPERTY LINE
MAX ROOF HGT
90' - 0"
TOWER CLR HGT
81' - 8"
GROUND LEVEL
2' - 6"
T.O.R LEVEL 6 MEZ
84' - 0"
PROPERTY LINE
E - 1.2 PASSIVE DESIGN FEATURES
BY ELEVATION
PROPERTY LINE
160 16 32
N
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporti ng Documents | 8
LANDSCAPE PLAN - GROUND FLOOR TREE LOCATIONS
SYMBOL SIZE
BOTANICAL NAME
"COMMON NAME" COMMENTS
TREE LEGEND:
WUCOLS
GROUND FLOOR PROPOSED LANDSCAPE:
REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED:
DBH / BT
HT.
BOTANICAL NAME
"COMMON NAME"
TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS:
REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED
TREE ID STATUS (ORD. NO. 2237, § 2, 2012.)
0 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16' 32' 64'
NOTE:
*TREE #24 NO LONGER EXISTS. SEE PRIVATE TREE REMOVAL
REQUEST APPLICATIONS FOR DETAILS REGARDING UPDATED TREE CONDITION.
SYMBOL SIZE
BOTANICAL NAME
"COMMON NAME" COMMENTS
TREE LEGEND:
WUCOLS
GROUND FLOOR PROPOSED LANDSCAPE:
REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED:
DBH / BT
HT.
BOTANICAL NAME
"COMMON NAME"
TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS:
REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED
TREE ID STATUS (ORD. NO. 2237, § 2, 2012.)
0 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16' 32' 64'
SYMBOL SIZE
BOTANICAL NAME
"COMMON NAME" COMMENTS
TREE LEGEND:
WUCOLS
GROUND FLOOR PROPOSED LANDSCAPE:
REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED:
DBH / BT
HT.
BOTANICAL NAME
"COMMON NAME"
TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS:
REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED
TREE ID STATUS (ORD. NO. 2237, § 2, 2012.)
0 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16' 32' 64'
01 DRAWINGS
WC - 1.1 IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY
UG - 2.1 TREES
EXISTING TREES 19
PROPOSED TREES 38
NET GAIN OF TREES 19
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporti ng Documents | 9
LANDSCAPE PLAN - GROUND FLOOR PLANTING LOCATIONS
SYMBOL SIZE
BOTANICAL NAME
"COMMON NAME"
SHRUB, VINE & GROUNDCOVER LEGEND:
WUCOLS
0 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16' 32' 64'
01 DRAWINGS
WC - 1.1 IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY
UG - 2.1 TREES
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 10
EXISTING TREE LOCATION EXHIBIT
01 DRAWINGS
UG - 2.1 TREES
* TREE # 24 NO LONGER EXISTS. SEE PRIVATE TREE REMOVAL
REQUEST APPLICATION FOR DETAILS REGARDING UPDATED
TREE CONDITION.
NOTE: INVENTORIED TREES PLOTTED OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINE
BOUNDARIES ARE DESIGNATED “OS” FOR OFF-SITE AND “ST”
FOR STREET TREES
EXISTING TREES ON SITE = 19
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporti ng Documents | 11 OLD
PASADENA
PASADENA
CIVIC CENTER
CENTRAL
PARK
DEL MAR
STATION
MEMORIAL
PARK
STATION
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT MAP
1/4 MILE RADIUS
PROJECT SITE
01 DRAWINGS
T - 5.1 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
COLORADO BLVD COLORADO BLVD
E CALIFORNIA BLVD
210 FREEWAY
134 FREEWAY
ORANGE GROVE BLVD
FAIR OAKS AVERAYMOND AVE
E CALIFORNIA BLVD
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks 16 0 16 32
N
CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 12
CLASS 1 BICYCLE FACILITY
02 PRELIMINARY SPECIFICATIONS
T - 1.2 BICYCLE STORAGE
*Per Pasadena Municipal Code 17.46.320 Bicycle Parking
Standards, the bicycle requirement for the residential
portion of a mixed-use project is a minimum of 1 space
for every six dwelling units.
1 SPACE x 84 UNITS/6 UNITS = 14=
Minimum of (14) Class 1 Bicycle Spaces required
(16) Class 1 Bicycle Spaces provided
RESIDENTIAL BIKE PARKING
*This is a preliminary specification and is for
illutrative purposes only. Exact specification
to be confirmed.
x 4 = 16 Bike Spaces
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 13 CLASS 2 BICYCLE FACILITY
02 PRELIMINARY SPECIFICATIONS
T - 1.2 BICYCLE STORAGE
*Per Pasadena Municipal Code 17.46.320 Bicycle Parking
Standards, the bicycle requirement for the non-residential portion (less than 15,000 SF) of a mixed-use project is a minimum of (4) Class 2 Bicycle Spaces.
RETAIL 4,218 SF
RESTAURANT 1,974 SF
COMMERCIAL PORTION 3,702 SF
OF WORK/LIVE
TOTAL 9,894 SF
9,894 SF < 15,000 SF =
Minimum of (4) Class 2 Bicycle Spaces required
(4) Class 2 Bicycle Spaces provided
NON-RESIDENTIAL & EMPLOYEE BIKE PARKING
2 Bikes x 2 = 4 Bike Spaces
*This is a preliminary specification and is for
illutrative purposes only. Exact specification
to be confirmed.
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 14
STORMWATER CAPTURE DOCUMENTATION
03 STORMWATER CAPTURE DOCUMENTATION
WC - 3.1 STORMWATER CAPTURE
ENGINEERED STORMWATER RETENTION PLAN - DRYWELL EXHIBIT ................................................ 15 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS & DRYWELL CALCULATIONS ........................................................................ 16 DRYWELL DETAIL ................................................................................................................................. 17 Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporti ng Documents | 15
ENGINEERED STORMWATER RETENTION PLAN - DRYWELL EXHIBIT
03 STORMWATER CAPTURE DOCUMENTATION
Drywell A proposed approximate location below structure.
All drainage on structure will be collected and routed to the drywells per Plumbing Engineer's drawings. All site
drainage on grade will be collected and routed to proposed building and handoff to drywell system. Drywell A is
proposed to treat half of the total site design volume.
Drywell B proposed approximate location below structure.
All drainage on structure will be collected and routed to the drywells per Plumbing Engineer's drawings. All site drainage on grade will be collected and routed to proposed building and handoff to drywell system. Drywell B is proposed to treat half of the total site design volume.
CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS
Site Area: 0.74 Acres
Percent Impervious: 90.0%
95th Percentile, 24-Hour Storm: 2.0 in
95th Percentile Volume: 4,416 CF
700 S. Flower, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
O:213.418.0201
www.kpff.com
Drywell Capacity
Torrent Resources calculated the drywell capacity as shown on the following page. Per those calculations, the drywells have a capacity to infiltrate 1,473 CF as quickly as it enters the drywell, due to the soil percolation rate and the drywell depth and diameter. The remaining 2,943 CF can be stored in the drywell rock shaft and chamber, which has a capacity of 621 CF, and a storage tank located in or under the parking level. The storage tank will require a minimum capacity of 2,322 cf (~17,500 gallon).
This water will be drawn down within 96 hours as required by LA County. Because the drywell is designed to treat the 95th percentile storm, City of Pasadena Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are met and exceeded by the proposed drywell system.
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 16
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS & DRYWELL CALCULATIONS
Re: Maxwell® Drainage System Calculations for Central Park - Pasadena, CA Given: Design Infiltration Rate in/hr
Mitigated Volume
Required Drawdown Time hours
Min. Depth to Infiltration ft
Groundwater Depth for Design ft 85'-50'=35' Design: Actual Depth to Infiltration ft Rock Porosity % Actual Drywell Bottom Depth ft
2 Chamber diameter = feet. Drywell rock shaft diameter = feet.
Volume provided in each drywell with chamber depth of feet. x + ft x x=
The MaxWell System is composed of 2 drywell(s) .
Total volume provided =
Total 96 hour infiltration volume =
Total infiltration flowrate =
Bill De Jong, PE Torrent Resources (CA) Incorporated
Technical Engineer 9950 Alder Avenue
Torrent Resources (CA), Inc. Bloomington, CA 92316
909-915-9490 Phone 909-829-0740
CA Lic. 886759 A, C-42
An Evolution of McGuckin Drilling
April 2, 2019
Attn: Kevin Ellis
KPFF - Los Angeles
Convert Design Rate from in/hr to ft/sec.
Volume of disposal for each drywell based on various time frames are included below. ft 0.00851
=
5,881 CF.
621 CF.
3600 sec
1 hr = 2,941 cubic feet of retained water disposed of.
20 25
xx
35 18.85
x=
96 hrs: 0.0085 CFS x 96 hours x
ft 3
3.00 Combine design rate with infiltration area to get flow (disposal) rate for each drywell. ft 3 2
ft sec
2 22
ft 0.000069 sec1 hr
3600 sec
1 ft
12 in
ft3
3.00 4,416
96 40
5 310 ft 3 ft 40 % 2 28.27
ft 123 ft 2
4 6
123
ft x + 28.27 ft 2
ft
sec
0.01702 CFS.
Based on the total mitigated volume of 4416 CF, after subtracting the volume infiltrated as quickly as it enters the drywell of 1473 CF, the remaining volume is 2943 CF. The storage provided in the drywell system is 621 CF. Therefore 2322 CF can be stored in a separate detention system.
20 =
A 6 foot diameter drywell provides 18.85 SF of infiltration area per foot of depth, plus 28.27 SF at the bottom.
For a 25 foot deep drywell, infiltration occurs between 20 feet and 25 feet below grade. This provides 5 feet of infiltration depth in addition to the bottom area. Infiltration area per drywell is calculated below. in
hr
0.000069
22 ft 12.57
03 STORMWATER CAPTURE DOCUMENTATION
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: P:/2017/1700925 Central Park Apartments/ENGR/STORM/LID/2018-03-18 Drywell Calcs/95th percentile Central Park Ap Site.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.2
Input Parameters
Project Name Central Park Apartments
Subarea ID Project Site
Area (ac) 0.74
Flow Path Length (ft) 240.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.02
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 2.0
Percent Impervious 0.9
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.0 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.9567
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7155
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8816
Time of Concentration (min) 8.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.6241
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.6241
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1014
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 4416.0298
95th percentile storm
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporti ng Documents | 17
DRYWELL DETAIL
ITEM NUMBERS
The MaxWell
® IV Drainage System Detail And Specifications
Ø
ESTIMATED TOTAL DEPTH WITH 10' PENETRATION INTO PERMEABLE SOILS
SETTLING CHAMBER DEPTH
OVERFLOW HEIGHT
Manufactured and Installed by
TORRENT RESOURCES
An evolution of McGuckin Drilling
www.torrentresources.com
CALIFORNIA 661-947-9836
ARIZONA 602-268-0785
NEVADA 702-366-1234
AZ Lic. ROC070465 A, ROC047067 B-4, ADWR 363
CA Lic. 528080, C-42, HAZ.
NV Lic. 0035350 A - NM Lic. 90504 GF04
U.S. Patent No. 4,923,330 - TM Trademark 1974, 1990, 2004 1 15 3 2
18 17
8 75
16 96
18 10
14 12
®
Ø
13 1. MANHOLE CONE - MODIFIED FLAT BOTTOM.
2. CLEAN CAST IRON PRESSURIZED COVER WITH
GASKET (NEENAH R-6462-HH). BOLTED. RIM
ELEVATION ±0.02' OF PLANS.
3. GRADED BASIN OR PAVING (BY OTHERS).
4. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE SLEEVE, MIRAFITM/ 140 NL.
HELD APPROX. 10 FEET OFF THE BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION.
5. PUREFLO
® DEBRIS SHIELD - ROLLED 16 GA. STEEL X
24" LENGTH WITH VENTED ANTI-SIPHON AND
INTERNAL .265" MAX. SWO FLATTENED EXPANDED
STEEL SCREEN X 12" LENGTH. FUSION BONDED
EPOXY COATED.
6. PRE-CAST LINER - 4000 PSI CONCRETE 48" ID. X 54"
OD. CENTER IN HOLE AND ALIGN SECTIONS TO
MAXIMIZE BEARING SURFACE.
7. MIN. 6' Ø DRILLED SHAFT.
8. SUPPORT BRACKET - FORMED 12 GA. STEEL. FUSION
BONDED EPOXY COATED.
9. OVERFLOW PIPE - SCH. 40 PVC MATED TO DRAINAGE
PIPE AT BASE SEAL.
10. DRAINAGE PIPE - ADS HIGHWAY GRADE WITH TRI-A
COUPLER. SUSPEND PIPE DURING BACKFILL
OPERATIONS TO PREVENT BUCKLING OR BREAKAGE.
DIAMETER AS NOTED.
11. BASE SEAL - GEOTEXTILE OR CONCRETE SLURRY.
12. ROCK - WASHED, SIZED BETWEEN 3/8" AND 1-1/2" TO
BEST COMPLEMENT SOIL CONDITIONS.
13. FLOFAST
® DRAINAGE SCREEN - SCH. 40 PVC 0.120"
SLOTTED WELL SCREEN WITH 32 SLOTS PER ROW/FT.
120" OVERALL LENGTH WITH TRI-B COUPLER.
14. MIN. 6' Ø SHAFT - DRILLED TO MAINTAIN
PERMEABILITY OF DRAINAGE SOILS.
15. FABRIC SEAL - U.V. RESISTANT GEOTEXTILE - TO BE
REMOVED BY CUSTOMER AT PROJECT COMPLETION.
16. ABSORBENT - HYDROPHOBIC PETROCHEMICAL
SPONGE. MIN. 128 OZ. CAPACITY. TYPICAL, TWO PER
CHAMBER.
17. FREEBOARD DEPTH VARIES WITH INLET PIPE
ELEVATION. INCREASE SETTLING CHAMBER DEPTH
AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN ALL INLET PIPE ELEVATIONS
ABOVE OVERFLOW PIPE INLET.
18. STABILIZED BACKFILL - SIX-SACK SLURRY MIX.
19. INLET PIPE (BY OTHERS).
20. INTAKE SCREEN - 6" Ø SCH. 40 PVC 0.120" MODIFIED
SLOTTED WELL SCREEN WITH 32 SLOTS PER ROW/FT.
48" OVERALL LENGTH WITH TRI-C END CAP.
18 4
4 INLET PIPE INVERT
19 DEPTH OF SLURRY
12 11 20
Central Park- Pasadena- 01Nov18
30"
<8'
10'
18'
20'
26'
6"
03 STORMWATER CAPTURE DOCUMENTATION
Architectural Resources Group | Central Park Apartments | 86 S. Fair Oaks CAP Consistency Checklist Supporting Documents | 18
APPENDICES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION ................................................................................... A TITLE 24 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT .................................................................................... B DRAFT TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................ C
APPENDICES
Central Park Apartments
86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA
Appendix A: Geotechnical Engineering InvesƟ gaƟ on
www.geoteq.com
July, 2019
File Number 21674
Green Hotel Apartments,
a Limited Partnership
Prestige Homes, Inc.
5150 Overland Avenue
Culver City, California 90230
Attention: Tony Mouallem
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, California
Dear Mr. Mouallem:
This letter transmits the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the subject site prepared by Geotechnologies, Inc. This report provides geotechnical recommendations for the development of the site, including earthwork, seismic design, retaining walls, excavations, shoring and foundation design. Engineering for the proposed project should not begin until approval of the geotechnical investigation is granted by the local building official. Significant changes in the geotechnical recommendations may result due to the building department review process.
The validity of the recommendations presented herein is dependent upon review of the geotechnical aspects of the project during construction by this firm. The subsurface conditions described herein have been projected from limited subsurface exploration and laboratory testing.
The exploration and testing presented in this report should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between the exploration locations or which may result from changes in subsurface conditions.
Should you have any questions please contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.
GREGORIO VARELA
R.C.E. 81201
GV:km
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Email to: [[email protected]]
[[email protected]]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................... 2 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION............................................................................................. 3 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................ 3 Geologic Materials.................................................................................................................. 3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 4 Caving..................................................................................................................................... 4 SEISMIC EVALUATION.............................................................................................................. 4 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING......................................................................................... 4 REGIONAL FAULTING........................................................................................................... 5 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.................................................... 5 Surface Rupture ...................................................................................................................... 6 Liquefaction ............................................................................................................................ 7 Dynamic Dry Settlement......................................................................................................... 7 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding............................................................................................. 8 Landsliding ............................................................................................................................. 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 8 2016 California Building Code Seismic Parameters .............................................................. 9 Deaggregated Seismic Source Parameters............................................................................ 10 EXPANSIVE SOILS ................................................................................................................ 10 WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES ............................................................................................ 11 GRADING GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................... 11 Site Preparation..................................................................................................................... 11 Compaction........................................................................................................................... 12 Acceptable Materials ............................................................................................................ 12 Utility Trench Backfill.......................................................................................................... 13 Shrinkage .............................................................................................................................. 13 Weather Related Grading Considerations............................................................................. 14 Geotechnical Observations and Testing During Grading ..................................................... 14 FOUNDATION DESIGN......................................................................................................... 15 Conventional......................................................................................................................... 15 Miscellaneous Foundations................................................................................................... 16 Foundation Reinforcement.................................................................................................... 16 Lateral Design....................................................................................................................... 16 Foundation Settlement .......................................................................................................... 17 Foundation Observations...................................................................................................... 17 RETAINING WALL DESIGN................................................................................................. 17 Restrained Retaining Walls................................................................................................... 18 Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure ....................................................................................... 19 Miscellaneous Cantilever Retaining Walls........................................................................... 19 Retaining Wall Drainage....................................................................................................... 20 Sump Pump Design............................................................................................................... 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Waterproofing....................................................................................................................... 21 Retaining Wall Backfill ........................................................................................................ 21 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ............................................................................................ 22 Excavation Observations ...................................................................................................... 22 SHORING DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 23 Soldier Piles.......................................................................................................................... 24 Lagging ................................................................................................................................. 25 Lateral Pressures................................................................................................................... 25 Tied-Back Anchors............................................................................................................... 27 Anchor Installation................................................................................................................ 27 Tieback Anchor Testing........................................................................................................ 28 Internal Bracing .................................................................................................................... 29 Deflection.............................................................................................................................. 29 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 30 Shoring Observations............................................................................................................ 30 SLABS ON GRADE................................................................................................................. 31 Concrete Slabs-on Grade ...................................................................................................... 31 Design of Slabs That Receive Moisture-Sensitive Floor Coverings .................................... 31 Concrete Crack Control ........................................................................................................ 32 Slab Reinforcing ................................................................................................................... 33 PAVEMENTS........................................................................................................................... 33 SITE DRAINAGE .................................................................................................................... 34 STORMWATER DISPOSAL .................................................................................................. 35 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 35 The Proposed System............................................................................................................ 35 Percolation Testing ............................................................................................................... 36 Stormwater Disposal Recommendations.............................................................................. 37 DESIGN REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 38 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING......................................................................................... 39 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................... 39 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS............................................................................................ 40 EXCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................... 41 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING.................................................................................................. 42 Classification and Sampling ................................................................................................. 42 Moisture and Density Relationships..................................................................................... 42 Direct Shear Testing ............................................................................................................. 43 Consolidation Testing ........................................................................................................... 43 Expansion Index Testing....................................................................................................... 44 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics ............................................................................... 44
ENCLOSURES
References
Vicinity Map
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
ENCLOSURES - continued
Plot Plan
Local Geologic Map
Historically Highest Groundwater Levels Map
Seismic Hazard Zone Map
City of Pasadena Fault Map
Plates A-1 through A-3
Plates B-1 and B-2
Plates C-1 and C-2
Plate D
Calculation Sheets (7 sheets)
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
86 SOUTH FAIR OAKS AVENUE
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering investigation performed on the subject site. The purpose of this investigation was to identify the distribution and engineering properties of the geologic materials underlying the site, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design of the proposed development.
This investigation included three exploratory excavations, collection of representative samples, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, review of published geologic data, review of available geotechnical engineering information and the preparation of this report. The exploratory excavation locations are shown on the enclosed Plot Plan. The results of the exploration and the laboratory testing are presented in the Appendix of this report.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Information concerning the proposed development was furnished by the client and by the office of KPFF consulting Engineers. In addition, the plans prepared by Architectural Resources Group labeled Updated Concept Design Review Submittal, were reviewed for the preparation of this report. The proposed project consists of the construction of a mixed-use structure. The proposed structure will be six stories in height, built over four subterranean parking levels. The lowest finished grade of the deepest subterranean level is expected to extend up to a depth of 54 feet below the existing grade. The enclosed Plot Plan shows the location and alignment of the proposed structure.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Column loads are estimated to be between 500 and 1,200 kips. Wall loads are estimated to be between 10 and 60 kips per lineal foot. These loads reflect the dead plus live load. Grading is anticipated to consist of excavations as deep as 58 feet for construction of the proposed subterranean levels and foundation elements.
Any changes in the design of the project or location of any structure, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. The recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid until reviewed and modified or reaffirmed, in writing, subsequent to such review.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is located at 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue, in the City of Pasadena, California. The site is bounded by the existing Green Hotel Apartments structure to the north, Dayton Street to the south, Fair Oaks Avenue to the west and Castle Green Apartments structure to the east. The site is shown relative to nearby topographic features in the enclosed Vicinity Map.
The project site consists of the current parking lot for the Green Hotel Apartments as well as an advertising billboard. The surface of the parking lot consists of asphalt paving, with miscellaneous concrete hardscaped areas. The existing site grade descends gently to the southeast. Based on review of the Site Survey by S.E.C. Civil Engineers, Inc., dated December 4, 2009, the topographic relief observed across the site is approximately 3 feet.
Vegetation at the site consists of mature trees and grass lawns, contained in manicured planter areas. Drainage across the site appears to be by sheetflow to Dayton Street to the south.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
FIELD EXPLORATION
The site was explored on September 24 and 25, 2018 by drilling three exploratory excavations.
The borings were drilled to depths between 50 and 80 feet below grade with the aid of a truckmounted drilling machine using 8-inch diameter hollowstem augers. The exploration locations are shown on the Plot Plan and the geologic materials encountered are logged on Plates A-1 through A-3.
The location of exploratory excavations was determined form hardscaped features shown in the enclosed Plot Plan. Elevations of the exploratory excavations are based on elevations provided in the Site Survey by S.E.C. Civil Engineers, Inc., dated December 4, 2009. The location and elevation of the exploratory excavations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.
Geologic Materials
Fill materials were observed in the exploratory borings to an approximate depth of three feet below the existing grade. The fill consists of silty sands, which are dark brown in color, moist, medium dense and fine grained, with occasional cobbles.
The fill is in turn underlain by native alluvial soils, consisting primarily of sands and silty sands, with occasional layers of sandy silt. The native alluvial soils are yellowish brown and dark brown in color, and are moist, medium dense to very dense, or stiff to very stiff, and fine to coarse grained, with gravel and cobbles. More detailed descriptions of the earth materials encountered may be obtained from individual logs of the subsurface excavations.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum excavated depth of 80 feet. The historically highest groundwater level was established by review of California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Report of the Pasadena Quadrangle. Review of this report indicates that the historically highest groundwater level is on the order of 85 feet below the existing site grade. A copy of this plate labeled as Historically Highest Groundwater Levels Map is attached.
Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time of the measurements reported herein. Fluctuations also may occur across the site. High groundwater levels can result in changed conditions.
Caving
Caving could not be directly observed during exploration due to the type of excavation equipment utilized. However, based on the experience of this firm, large diameter excavations, excavations that encounter granular, cohesionless soils will most likely experience caving.
SEISMIC EVALUATION
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The subject site is located in the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Transverse Ranges are characterized by roughly east-west trending mountains and the northern and southern boundaries are formed by reverse fault scarps. The convergent deformational features of the Transverse Ranges are a result of north-south shortening due to plate tectonics. This has resulted in local folding and uplift of the mountains along with the propagation of thrust faults (including blind thrusts). The intervening valleys have been filled with sediments derived from the bordering mountains.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
REGIONAL FAULTING
Based on criteria established by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) now called California Geologic Survey (CGS), faults may be categorized as active, potentially active, or inactive. Active faults are those which show evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,000 years (Holocene-age). Potentially-active faults are those that show evidence of most recent surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years (Quaternary-age). Faults showing no evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive for most purposes, with the exception of design of some critical structures.
Buried thrust faults are faults without a surface expression but are a significant source of seismic activity. They are typically broadly defined based on the analysis of seismic wave recordings of hundreds of small and large earthquakes in the southern California area. Due to the buried nature of these thrust faults, their existence is usually not known until they produce an earthquake. The risk for surface rupture potential of these buried thrust faults is inferred to be low (Leighton, 1990). However, the seismic risk of these buried structures in terms of recurrence and maximum potential magnitude is not well established. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture on these surface-verging splays at magnitudes higher than 6.0 cannot be precluded.
SEISMIC HAZARDS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The primary geologic hazard at the site is moderate to strong ground motion (acceleration) caused by an earthquake on any of the local or regional faults. The potential for other earthquake-induced hazards was also evaluated including surface rupture, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, inundation and landsliding.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Surface Rupture
In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (now known as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act) was passed into law. The Act defines “active” and “potentially active” faults utilizing the same aging criteria as that used by California Geological Survey (CGS). However, established state policy has been to zone only those faults which have direct evidence of movement within the last 11,000 years. It is this recency of fault movement that the CGS considers as a characteristic for faults that have a relatively high potential for ground rupture in the future.
CGS policy is to delineate a boundary from 200 to 500 feet wide on each side of the known fault trace based on the location precision, the complexity, or the regional significance of the fault. If a site lies within an Earthquake Fault Zone, a geologic fault rupture investigation must be performed that demonstrates that the proposed building site is not threatened by surface displacement from the fault before development permits may be issued.
Based on review of the Fault Map presented in the Technical Background Report of the 2002 City of Pasadena Safety Element of the General Plan, the subject site is not located within a “Fault Hazard Management Zone”. A copy of this map is enclosed.
Ground rupture is defined as surface displacement which occurs along the surface trace of the causative fault during an earthquake. Based on research of available literature and results of site reconnaissance, no known active or potentially active faults underlie the subject site. In addition, the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on these considerations, the potential for surface ground rupture at the subject site is considered low.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated silty to cohesionless soils below the groundwater table are subject to a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excess pore pressure during cyclic loading conditions such as those induced by an earthquake. Liquefactionrelated effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures.
Review of the California Seismic Hazards Zones Map for the Pasadena Quadrangle (CDMG 1999), indicates that the subject site is not located within a “Liquefiable” area. This determination is based on groundwater records, soil type and distance to a fault capable of producing a substantial earthquake. A copy of this map has been enclosed to this report.
Groundwater was not encountered during exploration, conducted to a maximum depth of 80 feet below the existing site grade. The historically highest groundwater level for the site is reported to be on the order of 85 feet below grade. Based on the density of the soils underlying the site, and the mapped depth to the historically highest groundwater level, the soils underlying the site are not considered capable of liquefaction during the ground motion expected during the designbased earthquake.
Dynamic Dry Settlement
Seismically-induced settlement or compaction of dry or moist, cohesionless soils can be an effect related to earthquake ground motion. Such settlements are typically most damaging when the settlements are differential in nature across the length of structures.
Some seismically-induced settlement of the proposed structures should be expected as a result of strong ground-shaking, however, due to the uniform nature of the underlying geologic materials, excessive differential settlements are not expected to occur.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding
Tsunamis are large ocean waves generated by sudden water displacement caused by a submarine earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. The Project Site is high enough and far enough from the ocean to preclude being prone to hazards of a tsunami.
Review of the County of Los Angeles Flood and Inundation Hazards Map, Leighton (1990), indicates the Project Site does not lie within mapped inundation boundaries due to a breached upgradient reservoir.
Landsliding
The probability of seismically-induced landslides occurring on the site is considered to be low due to the general lack of elevation difference across or adjacent to the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the exploration, laboratory testing, and research, it is the finding of Geotechnologies, Inc. that construction of the proposed structure is considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the advice and recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during construction.
Fill materials were encountered during exploration to a depth of 3 feet below the existing site grade. It is anticipated that the existing fill will be removed during excavation of the proposed three-level subterranean garage, which is expected to extend up to an approximate depth of 54 feet below the existing site grade. The proposed structure may be supported by conventional foundations bearing in the native alluvial soils expected at the subgrade of the proposed subterranean levels.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
It is anticipated that the proposed subterranean levels will extend adjacent to the property lines and existing development. Therefore the excavation for the proposed subterranean levels will require temporary shoring in order to provide a stable excavation. Shoring recommendations are provided in the “Excavations” section of this report.
The validity of the conclusions and design recommendations presented herein is dependent upon review of the geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction by this firm. The subsurface conditions described herein have been projected from excavations on the site as indicated and should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between these excavations or which may result from changes in subsurface conditions. Any changes in the design, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. The recommendations contained herein should not be considered valid until reviewed and modified or reaffirmed subsequent to such review.
2016 California Building Code Seismic Parameters
Based on information derived from the subsurface investigation, the subject site is classified as Site Class D, which corresponds to a “Stiff Soil” Profile, according to Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-
10. This information and the site coordinates were input into the USGS U.S. Seismic Design Maps tool (Version 3.1.0) to calculate the ground motions for the site.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Site Class D
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods (SS) 2.872g Site Coefficient (Fa) 1.0
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response for Short Periods (SMS) 2.872g
Five-Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SDS) 1.915g
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at One-Second Period (S1) 0.995g Site Coefficient (Fv) 1.5
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response for OneSecond Period (SM1) 1.492g Five-Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration for One-Second Period (SD1) 0.995g
Deaggregated Seismic Source Parameters
The peak ground acceleration (PGA) and modal magnitude were obtained from the USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Deaggregation program (USGS, 2008). The results are based on a 2 percent in 50 years ground motion (2,475 year return period). A shear wave velocity of 259 meters per second was utilized for Vs30. The deaggregation program indicates a PGA of 0.97g and a modal magnitude of 6.5 for the site.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
The onsite geologic materials are in the very low expansion range. The Expansion Index was found to be between 2 and 3 for bulk samples representative of the site soils. Recommended reinforcing is noted in the “Foundations” and “Slabs on Grade” sections of this report.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES
The Portland cement portion of concrete is subject to attack when exposed to water-soluble sulfates. Usually the two most common sources of exposure are from soil and marine environments.
The sources of natural sulfate minerals in soils include the sulfates of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium. When these minerals interact and dissolve in subsurface water, a sulfate concentration is created, which will react with exposed concrete. Over time sulfate attack will destroy improperly proportioned concrete well before the end of its intended service life.
The water-soluble sulfate content of the onsite geologic materials was tested by California Test 417. The water-soluble sulfate content was determined to be between 0.1 and 0.2 percentage by weight for the soils tested. Based on American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 318-08, the sulfate exposure is considered to be moderate for geologic materials with sulfate contents between 0.1 and 0.2 percent and Type II cement with a minimum strength of 4,000 psi must be utilized for concrete foundations and slabs in contact with the site soils. In addition, a watercement ratio of 0.5 should be maintained in the poured concrete.
GRADING GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are provided for any miscellaneous compaction that may be required, such as retaining wall or trench backfill, or subgrade preparation.
Site Preparation
A thorough search should be made for possible underground utilities and/or structures.
Any existing or abandoned utilities or structures located within the footprint of the proposed grading should be removed or relocated as appropriate.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
All vegetation, existing fill, and soft or disturbed geologic materials should be removed from the areas to receive controlled fill. All existing fill materials and any disturbed geologic materials resulting from grading operations shall be completely removed and properly recompacted prior to foundation excavation.
Any vegetation or associated root system located within the footprint of the proposed structures should be removed during grading.
Subsequent to the indicated removals, the exposed grade shall be scarified to a depth of six inches, moistened to optimum moisture content, and recompacted in excess of the minimum required comparative density.
The excavated areas shall be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing compacted fill.
Compaction
All fill should be mechanically compacted in layers not more than 8 inches thick. The materials placed should be moisture conditions to within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content of the particular material placed. All fill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density for the materials used. The maximum density shall be determined by the laboratory operated by Geotechnologies, Inc. in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557.
Field observation and testing shall be performed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer during grading to assist the contractor in obtaining the required degree of compaction and the proper moisture content. Where compaction is less than required, additional compactive effort shall be made with adjustment of the moisture content, as necessary, until a minimum of 90 or 95 percent compaction is obtained.
Acceptable Materials
The excavated onsite materials are considered satisfactory for reuse in the controlled fills as long as any debris and/or organic matter, as well as over-sized material, is removed. Cobbles were July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
observed during exploration. Where cobbles are encountered in the materials to be reused as controlled fill, the size of the cobbles shall be limited to a maximum of 6 inches in dimension.
Any imported materials shall be observed and tested by the representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to use in fill areas. Imported materials should contain sufficient fines so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. Any required import materials should consist of geologic materials with an expansion index of less than 40. The water-soluble sulfate content of the import materials should be less than 0.1% percentage by weight.
Imported materials should be free from chemical or organic substances which could affect the proposed development. A competent professional should be retained in order to test imported materials and address environmental issues and organic substances which might affect the proposed development.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trenches should be backfilled with controlled fill. The utility should be bedded with clean sands at least one foot over the crown. The remainder of the backfill may be onsite soil compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Utility trench backfill should be tested by representatives of this firm in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557.
Shrinkage
Shrinkage results when a volume of soil removed at one density is compacted to a higher density. A shrinkage factor between 5 and 15 percent should be anticipated when excavating and recompacting the existing fill and underlying native geologic materials on the site to an average comparative compaction of 92 percent.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Weather Related Grading Considerations
When rain is forecast all fill that has been spread and awaits compaction shall be properly compacted prior to stopping work for the day or prior to stopping due to inclement weather.
These fills, once compacted, shall have the surface sloped to drain to an area where water can be removed.
Temporary drainage devices should be installed to collect and transfer excess water to the street in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope.
Work may start again, after a period of rainfall, once the site has been reviewed by a representative of this office. Any soils saturated by the rain shall be removed and aerated so that the moisture content will fall within three percent of the optimum moisture content.
Surface materials previously compacted before the rain shall be scarified, brought to the proper moisture content and recompacted prior to placing additional fill, if considered necessary by a representative of this firm.
Geotechnical Observations and Testing During Grading
Geotechnical observations and testing during grading are considered to be a continuation of the geotechnical investigation. It is critical that the geotechnical aspects of the project be reviewed by representatives of Geotechnologies, Inc. during the construction process. Compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations during construction requires review by this firm during the course of construction. Any fill which is placed should be observed, tested, and verified if used for engineered purposes. Please advise this office at least twenty-four hours prior to any required site visit.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Proper compaction is necessary to reduce settlement of overlying improvements. Some settlement of compacted fill should be anticipated. Any utilities supported therein should be designed to accept differential settlement. Differential settlement should also be considered at the points of entry to the structure.
FOUNDATION DESIGN
Conventional
The proposed structure may be supported by conventional foundations bearing in the native alluvial soils expected at the subgrade of the proposed subterranean levels. Continuous foundations may be designed for a bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot, and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 18 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 18 inches into the recommended native alluvial soils.
Column foundations may be designed for a bearing capacity of 5,000 pounds per square foot, and should be a minimum of 24 inches in width, 18 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 18 inches into the recommended native alluvial soils.
The bearing capacity increase for each additional foot of width is 500 pounds per square foot.
The bearing capacity increase for each additional foot of depth is 1,000 pounds per square foot.
The maximum recommended bearing capacity is 8,000 pounds per square foot.
The bearing capacities indicated above are for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads, and may be increased by one third for short duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Miscellaneous Foundations
Conventional foundations for structures such as privacy walls or trash enclosures which will not be rigidly connected to the proposed structure may bear in native alluvial soils, or in properly compacted fill materials. Continuous footings may be designed for a bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot, and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 18 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 18 inches into the recommended bearing material. No bearing capacity increases are recommended.
Since the recommended bearing capacity is a net value, the weight of concrete in the foundations may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot and the weight of the soil backfill may be neglected when determining the downward load on the foundations.
Foundation Reinforcement
All continuous foundations should be reinforced with a minimum of four #4 steel bars. Two should be placed near the top of the foundation, and two should be placed near the bottom.
Lateral Design
Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be used with the dead load forces.
Passive geologic pressure for the sides of foundations poured against undisturbed or recompacted soil may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 1,800 pounds per square foot.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
The passive and friction components may be combined for lateral resistance without reduction.
A one-third increase in the passive value may be used for short duration loading such as wind or seismic forces.
Foundation Settlement
Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. The maximum settlement is expected to be 1 inch and occur below the heaviest loaded columns.
Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ½-inch.
Foundation Observations
It is critical that all foundation excavations are observed by a representative of this firm to verify penetration into the recommended bearing materials. The observation should be performed prior to the placement of reinforcement. Foundations should be deepened to extend into satisfactory geologic materials, if necessary.
Foundation excavations should be cleaned of all loose soils prior to placing steel and concrete.
Any required foundation backfill should be mechanically compacted, flooding is not permitted.
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
It is anticipated that the finished floor elevation of the lowest subterranean level will extend to a depth of 54 feet below the existing grade. Retaining walls may be designed as indicated below, depending on whether the walls will be restrained or cantilevered. Retaining wall foundations may be designed in accordance with the provisions of the “Foundation Design” section of this report.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Additional pressure should be added to the retaining wall design, for a surcharge condition due to vehicular traffic or adjacent structures. Based on review of the enclosed Plot Plan, it is anticipated that the proposed retaining walls will be surcharged by existing structures located to the north and east of the site. Information regarding the depth, configuration and loading of adjacent foundations will be required in order to determine the additional surcharge loading.
Vehicular traffic is expected in the vicinity of the proposed subterranean retaining walls. For traffic surcharge, the upper 10 feet of any retaining wall adjacent to streets, driveways or parking areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot traffic surcharge. If the traffic is more than 10 feet from the retaining walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected.
Restrained Retaining Walls
Restrained subterranean retaining walls up to 35 feet in height and supporting a level back slope may be designed to resist a triangular distribution of earth pressure. It is recommended the walls be designed to resist the greater of the at-rest pressure, or the active pressure plus the seismic pressure, as discussed in the “Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure” section below.
RESTRAINED BASEMENT WALLS
AT-REST EARTH
PRESSURE
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE
*(To be Combined with Dynamic Seismic Earth
Pressure)
Height of
Wall
(Feet)
Triangular Distribution
of Pressure
(Pounds per Cubic Foot)
Triangular Distribution of Pressure
(Pounds per Cubic Foot)*
Up to 54 feet 52 41
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
The lateral earth pressure recommended above for retaining walls assumes that a permanent drainage system will be installed so that external water pressure will not be developed against the walls. Also, where necessary, the retaining walls should be designed to accommodate any surcharge pressures that may be imposed by adjacent traffic and existing structures.
Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure
Retaining walls exceeding 6 feet in height shall be designed to resist the additional earth pressure caused by seismic ground shaking. A triangular pressure distribution should be utilized for the additional seismic loads, with an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot. When using the load combination equations from the building code, the seismic earth pressure should be combined with the lateral active earth pressure for analyses of restrained basement walls under seismic loading condition. The dynamic earth pressure may be omitted where the retaining wall is 6 feet in height or less.
Miscellaneous Cantilever Retaining Walls
Miscellaneous cantilever retaining walls supporting a level back slope may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure. Cantilever retaining walls may be designed for 30 pounds per cubic foot for walls retaining up to 12 feet of earth. In addition, cantilever walls greater than 6 feet in height shall be designed to resist the seismic earth pressure indicated in the previous “Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure” section.
The pressure provided assumes a subdrain system will be installed behind the wall. For this equivalent fluid pressure to be valid, walls which are to be restrained at the top should be backfilled prior to the upper connection being made. Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Retaining Wall Drainage
All retaining walls shall be provided with a subdrain system in order to minimize the potential for future hydrostatic pressure buildup behind the proposed retaining walls. Subdrains may consist of four-inch diameter perforated pipes, placed with perforations facing down. The pipe shall be encased in at least one-foot of gravel around the pipe. The gravel shall be wrapped in filter fabric. The gravel may consist of three-quarter inch to one inch crushed rocks.
As an alternative to the standard perforated subdrain pipe and gravel drainage system, the use of gravel pockets and weepholes is an acceptable drainage method. Weepholes shall be a minimum of 4 inches in diameter, placed at 8 feet on center along the base of the wall. Gravel pockets shall be a minimum of 1 cubic foot in dimension, and may consist of three-quarter inch to one inch crushed rocks, wrapped in filter fabric. A collector pipe shall be installed to direct collected waters to a sump
Certain types of subdrain pipe are not acceptable to the various municipal agencies, it is recommended that prior to purchasing subdrainage pipe, the type and brand is cleared with the proper municipal agencies. Subdrainage pipes should outlet to an acceptable location.
The lateral earth pressures recommended above for retaining walls assume that a permanent drainage system will be installed so that external water pressure will not be developed against the walls. If a drainage system is not provided, the walls should be designed to resist an external hydrostatic pressure due to water in addition to the lateral earth pressure. In any event, it is recommended that retaining walls be waterproofed.
Sump Pump Design
The purpose of the recommended retaining wall backdrainage system is to relieve hydrostatic pressure. Groundwater was not encountered during exploration, conducted to a maximum height of 80 feet below the existing grade. Based on the depth of the proposed development, the only July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
water which could affect the proposed retaining walls would be irrigation water and precipitation. Additionally, the proposed site grading is such that all drainage is directed to the street and the structure has been designed with adequate non-erosive drainage devices.
Based on these considerations the retaining wall backdrainage system is not expected to experience an appreciable flow of water, and in particular, no groundwater will affect it.
However, for the purposes of design, a flow of 5 gallons per minute may be assumed.
Waterproofing
Moisture effecting retaining walls is one of the most common post construction complaints.
Poorly applied or omitted waterproofing can lead to efflorescence or standing water inside the building. Efflorescence is a process in which a powdery substance is produced on the surface of the concrete by the evaporation of water. The white powder usually consists of soluble salts such as gypsum, calcite, or common salt. Efflorescence is common to retaining walls and does not affect their strength or integrity.
It is recommended that retaining walls be waterproofed. Waterproofing design and inspection of its installation is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. A qualified waterproofing consultant should be retained in order to recommend a product or method which would provide protection to below grade walls.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Any required backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers not more than 8 inches thick, to at least 90 percent relative compaction, obtainable by the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557 method of compaction. Flooding should not be permitted. Compaction within 5 feet, measured horizontally, behind a retaining structure should be achieved by use of light weight, hand operated compaction equipment.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Proper compaction of the backfill will be necessary to reduce settlement of overlying walks and paving. Some settlement of required backfill should be anticipated, and any utilities supported therein should be designed to accept differential settlement.
TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS
Excavations up to a depth of 58 feet may be required for construction of the proposed subterranean levels and foundation elements. The excavations are expected to expose fill and dense native soils, which are suitable for vertical excavations up to 5 feet where not surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures. Vertical excavations exceeding 5 feet, or excavations which will be surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures should be shored.
Where sufficient space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments could be cut at a uniform 1:1 slope gradient to a maximum depth of 20 feet, at a uniform 1½:1 (H:V) slope gradient to a maximum depth of 40 feet, and at a uniform 2:1 (H:V) slope gradient to a maximum depth of 58 feet. A uniform sloped excavation is sloped from bottom to top and does not have a vertical component.
Where sloped embankments are utilized, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads near the top of slope within a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the excavation. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are strongly recommended along the tops of the slopes to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Water should not be allowed to pond on top of the excavation nor to flow towards it.
Excavation Observations
It is critical that the soils exposed in the cut slopes are observed by a representative of Geotechnologies, Inc. during excavation so that modifications of the slopes can be made if July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
variations in the geologic material conditions occur. Many building officials require that temporary excavations should be made during the continuous observations of the geotechnical engineer. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation.
SHORING DESIGN
The following information on the design and installation of the shoring is as complete as possible at this time. It is suggested that Geotechnologies, Inc. review the final shoring plans and specifications prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor.
One method of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles, placed in drilled holes and backfilled with concrete. The soldier piles may be designed as cantilevers or laterally braced utilizing drilled tied-back anchors or raker braces.
The purpose of the proposed shoring system is to provide a temporary stable excavation, which will allow for the construction of permanent underground retaining walls. The temporary shoring walls will be built adjacent to two historic structures, Green Hotel Apartments to the north and Castle Green Apartments to the east. Based on review of the enclosed Plot Plan, it is anticipated that portions of the Green Hotel Apartments structure may be located within the influence area of the proposed subterranean excavation. The edge of the proposed subterranean excavation is expected to be located more than 80 feet away from the Castle Green Apartments, therefore the excavation is not expected to impact this structure.
The shoring system shall be designed by a qualified shoring engineer, using the geotechnical recommendations presented herein. The shoring system shall be design to accommodate the surcharge loads anticipated from the adjacent Green Hotel Apartments. In addition, a proper vertical distance shall be maintained between the proposed tiebacks and the bottom of this adjacent structure, so the installation of these tiebacks does not introduce additional stress, or pressure, on the existing structure.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Once the shoring system has been designed by a qualified shoring engineer, the geotechnical engineer of record shall review the plans to ensure that they are in conformance with the recommendations provided in the geotechnical engineering investigation. Furthermore, shoring installation must be performed during continuous inspections provided by a field technician representing the geotechnical engineer of record. This measure is intended to ensure that the recommendations provided in the geotechnical engineering investigation and shoring plans are implemented. Additionally, the inspector would notify the geotechnical engineer of record of any condition that is not consistent with the geotechnical investigation.
If the recommendations provided herein are implemented, it is the opinion of this firm that excavation of the proposed subterranean garage should not affect the existing Green Hotel Apartments structure.
Soldier Piles
Drilled cast-in-place soldier piles should be placed no closer than 2 diameters on center. The minimum diameter of the piles is 18 inches. Structural concrete should be used for the soldier piles below the excavation; lean-mix concrete may be employed above that level. As an alternative, lean-mix concrete may be used throughout the pile where the reinforcing consists of a wideflange section. The slurry must be of sufficient strength to impart the lateral bearing pressure developed by the wideflange section to the geologic materials. For design purposes, an allowable passive value for the geologic materials below the bottom plane of excavation may be assumed to be 500 pounds per square foot per foot, up to a maximum of 3,000 pounds per square foot. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be implemented to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed geologic materials.
The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and retained geologic material may be used to resist the vertical component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.5 based on uniform contact between the steel beam and lean-mix concrete and retained earth. The July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
portion of soldier piles below the plane of excavation may also be employed to resist the downward loads. The downward capacity may be determined using a frictional resistance of 500 pounds per square foot. The minimum depth of embedment for shoring piles is 5 feet below the bottom of the footing excavation or 7 feet below the bottom of excavated plane whichever is deeper.
Caving should be expected to occur during drilling in the native granular soils underlaying the site. Where caving occurs, it will be necessary to utilize casing or polymer drilling fluid to maintain open pile shafts. If casing is used, extreme care should be employed so that the pile is not pulled apart as the casing is withdrawn. At no time should the distance between the surface of the concrete and the bottom of the casing be less than 5 feet. Large sized materials should also be anticipated during drilling (i.e. gravel, rocks and cobbles).
Lagging
Soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated pressures. Due to arching in the geologic materials, the pressure on the lagging will be less. It is recommended that the lagging should be designed for the full design pressure but is limited to a maximum of 400 pounds per square foot. It is recommended that a representative of this firm observe the installation of lagging to insure uniform support of the excavated embankment.
Lateral Pressures
Cantilevered shoring supporting a level backslope may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure as indicated in the following table:
HEIGHT OF SHORING “H”
(feet)
EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE
(pounds per cubic foot)
Up to 20 28
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
A trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth pressure would be appropriate where shoring is to be restrained at the top by bracing or tie backs, with the trapezoidal distribution as shown in the diagram below.
Restrained shoring supporting a level backslope may be designed utilizing a trapezoidal distribution of pressure as indicated in the following table:
HEIGHT OF SHORING “H”
(feet)
DESIGN SHORING FOR
(Where H is the height of the wall)
Up to 20 18H
20 to 25 20H
25 to 40 22H
40 to 58 25H
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Where a combination of sloped embankment and shoring is utilized, the pressure will be greater and must be determined for each combination. Additional active pressure should be applied where the shoring will be surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures.
Tied-Back Anchors
Tied-back anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. Friction anchors are recommended. For design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn 35 degrees with the vertical through the bottom plane of the excavation. Friction anchors should extend a minimum of 20 feet beyond the potentially active wedge. Anchors should be placed at least 6 feet on center to be considered isolated.
Drilled friction anchors may be designed for a skin friction of 500 pounds per square foot. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. Where belled anchors are utilized, the capacity of belled anchors may be designed by applying the skin friction over the surface area of the bonded anchor shaft. The diameter of the bell may be utilized as the diameter of the bonded anchor shaft when determining the surface area. This implies that in order for the belled anchor to fail, the entire parallel soil column must also fail.
Depending on the techniques utilized, and the experience of the contractor performing the installation, it is anticipated that a skin friction of 2,000 pounds per square foot could be utilized for post-grouted anchors. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads.
Anchor Installation
Tied-back anchors may be installed between 20 and 45 degrees below the horizontal. Caving of the anchor shafts should be anticipated and the following provisions should be implemented in July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
order to minimize such caving. The anchor shafts should be filled with concrete by pumping from the tip out, and the concrete should extend from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge.
In order to minimize the chances of caving, it is recommended that the portion of the anchor shaft within the active wedge be backfilled with sand before testing the anchor. This portion of the shaft should be filled tightly and flush with the face of the excavation. The sand backfill should be placed by pumping; the sand may contain a small amount of cement to facilitate pumping.
Tieback Anchor Testing
At least 10 percent of the anchors should be selected for “Quick”, 200 percent tests. It is recommended that at least three of these anchors be selected for 24-hour, 200 percent tests. It is recommended that the 24-hour tests be performed prior to installation of additional tiebacks.
The purpose of the 200 percent tests is to verify the friction value assumed in design. The anchors should be tested to develop twice the assumed friction value. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved on these initial anchors, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased until satisfactory test results are obtained.
The total deflection during the 24-hour 200 percent test should not exceed 12 inches. During the 24-hour tests, the anchor deflection should not exceed 0.75 inches measured after the 200 percent test load is applied.
For the "quick" 200 percent tests, the 200 percent test load should be maintained for 30 minutes.
The total deflection of the anchor during the 200 percent quick tests should not exceed 12 inches; the deflection after the 200 percent load has been applied should not exceed 0.25 inch during the 30-minute period.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
All of the remaining anchors should be tested to at least 150 percent of design load. The total deflection during the 150 percent test should not exceed 12 inches. The rate of creep under the 150 percent test load should not exceed 0.1 inch over a 15 minute period in order for the anchor to be approved for the design loading.
After a satisfactory test, each anchor should be locked-off at the design load. This should be verified by rechecking the load in the anchor. The load should be within 10 percent of the design load. Where satisfactory tests are not attained, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased or additional anchors installed until satisfactory test results are obtained. Where postgrouted anchors are utilized, additional post-grouting may be required. The installation and testing of the anchors should be observed by a representative of the soils engineer.
Internal Bracing
Rakers may be utilized to brace the soldier piles in lieu of tieback anchors. The raker bracing could be supported laterally by temporary concrete footings (deadmen) or by the permanent interior footings. An allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design a raker foundations. This bearing pressure is based on a raker foundation a minimum of 24 inches in width and length as well as 18 inches in depth into native alluvial soils.
The base of the raker foundations should be horizontal. Care should be employed in the positioning of raker foundations so that they do not interfere with the foundations for the proposed structure.
Deflection
It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should be realized that some deflection will occur. It is recommended that shoring deflection be limited to ½ inch at the top of the shored embankment where a structure is within a 1:1 plane projected up from the base of the excavation. A maximum deflection of 1-inch has been allowed, provided July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
there are no structures within a 1:1 plane drawn upward from the base of the excavation. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of adjacent buildings and utilities in adjacent street and alleys. If desired to reduce the deflection, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design.
Monitoring
Because of the depth of the excavation, some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is suggested. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of all soldier piles and the lateral movement along the entire lengths of selected soldier piles. Also, some means of periodically checking the load on selected anchors will be necessary, where applicable.
Some movement of the shored embankments should be anticipated as a result of the relatively deep excavation. It is recommended that video and photographs of the existing buildings on the adjacent properties be made during construction to record any movements for use in the event of a dispute.
Shoring Observations
It is critical that the installation of shoring is observed by a representative of Geotechnologies, Inc. Many building officials require that shoring installation should be performed during continuous observation of a representative of the geotechnical engineer. The observations insure that the recommendations of the geotechnical report are implemented and so that modifications of the recommendations can be made if variations in the geologic material or groundwater conditions warrant. The observations will allow for a report to be prepared on the installation of shoring for the use of the local building official, where necessary.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
SLABS ON GRADE
Concrete Slabs-on Grade
Concrete floor slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches in thickness. Slabs-on-grade should be cast over undisturbed native alluvial soils or properly controlled fill materials. Any geologic materials loosened or over-excavated should be wasted from the site or properly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density.
Outdoor concrete flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness. Outdoor concrete flatwork should be cast over undisturbed native alluvial soils or properly controlled fill materials.
Any geologic materials loosened or over-excavated should be wasted from the site or properly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density.
Design of Slabs That Receive Moisture-Sensitive Floor Coverings Geotechnologies, Inc. does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation and mitigation. Therefore it is recommended that a qualified consultant be engaged to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. The qualified consultant should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impacts of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure.
Where dampness would be objectionable, it is recommended that the floor slabs should be waterproofed. A qualified waterproofing consultant should be retained in order to recommend a product or method which would provide protection for concrete slabs-on-grade.
All concrete slabs-on-grade should be supported on vapor retarder. The design of the slab and the installation of the vapor retarder should comply with the most recent revisions of ASTM E 1643 and ASTM E 1745. The vapor retarder should comply with ASTM E 1745 Class A requirements.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Where a vapor retarder is used, a low-slump concrete should be used to minimize possible curling of the slabs. The barrier can be covered with a layer of trimmable, compactible, granular fill, where it is thought to be beneficial. If this granular fill layer is installed, it should be a minimum of two inches in thickness. See ACI 302.2R-32, Chapter 7 for information on the placement of vapor retarders and the use of a fill layer.
Concrete Crack Control
The recommendations presented in this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of concrete slabs-on-grade due to settlement. However even where these recommendations have been implemented, foundations, stucco walls and concrete slabs-on-grade may display some cracking due to minor soil movement and/or concrete shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete cracking may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete used, proper concrete placement and curing, and by placement of crack control joints at reasonable intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
For standard control of concrete cracking, a maximum crack control joint spacing of 15 feet should not be exceeded. Lesser spacings would provide greater crack control. Joints at curves and angle points are recommended. The crack control joints should be installed as soon as practical following concrete placement. Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness. Construction joints should be designed by a structural engineer.
Complete removal of the existing fill soils beneath outdoor flatwork such as walkways or patio areas, is not required, however, due to the rigid nature of concrete, some cracking, a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs should be anticipated. In order to provide uniform support beneath the flatwork it is recommended that a minimum of 12 inches of the exposed subgrade beneath the flatwork be scarified and recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Slab Reinforcing
Concrete slabs-on-grade should be reinforced with a minimum of #3 steel bars on 18-inch centers each way. Outdoor flatwork should be reinforced with a minimum of #3 steel bars on 24- inch centers each way.
PAVEMENTS
Prior to placing paving, the existing grade should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moistened as required to obtain optimum moisture content, and recompacted to 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557. The client should be aware that removal of all existing fill in the area of new paving is not required, however, pavement constructed in this manner will most likely have a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs. The following pavement sections are recommended:
Service Asphalt Pavement Thickness
Inches
Base Course
Inches
Passenger Car Traffic 3 4
Medium Truck Traffic 4 6
Heavy Trucks 5 8
Concrete paving may also be utilized for the project. For concrete paving, the following sections are recommended:
Service Concrete Pavement Thickness
Inches
Base Course
Inches
Passenger Car and Medium
Truck Traffic
6 4
Heavy Trucks 7 4
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum dry density. Base materials should conform to Sections 200-2.2 or 200-2.4 of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction”, (Green Book), latest edition.
For standard crack control maximum expansion joint spacing of 15 feet should not be exceeded.
Lesser spacings would provide greater crack control. Joints at curves and angle points are recommended. The crack control joints should be installed as soon as practical following concrete placement. Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness. Construction joints should be designed by a structural engineer. Concrete paving should be reinforced with a minimum of #3 steel bars on 24-inch centers each way.
The performance of pavement is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage away from the edges. Ponding of water on or adjacent to pavement can result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent pavement distress. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend a minimum of 12 inches below the bottom of the aggregate base.
SITE DRAINAGE
Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the designed engineering properties. Proper site drainage should be maintained at all times.
All site drainage, with the exception of any required to disposed of onsite by stormwater regulations, should be collected and transferred to the street in non-erosive drainage devices.
The proposed structure should be provided with roof drainage. Discharge from downspouts, roof drains and scuppers should not be permitted on unprotected soils within five feet of the building perimeter. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
over any descending slope. Planters which are located within a distance equal to the depth of a retaining wall should be sealed to prevent moisture adversely affecting the wall. Planters which are located within five feet of a foundation should be sealed to prevent moisture affecting the earth materials supporting the foundation.
STORMWATER DISPOSAL
Introduction
Recently regulatory agencies have been requiring the disposal of a certain amount of stormwater generated on a site by infiltration into the site soils. Increasing the moisture content of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the designed engineering properties. This means that any overlying structure, including buildings, pavements and concrete flatwork, could sustain damage due to saturation of the subgrade soils. Structures serviced by subterranean levels could be adversely impacted by stormwater disposal by increasing the design fluid pressures on retaining walls and causing leaks in the walls. Proper site drainage is critical to the performance of any structure in the built environment.
The Proposed System
Due to the preliminary stage of the project, the type and location of any potential stormwater disposal system has not been specifically addressed for the proposed development. It is however anticipated that the infiltration system may consist of a drywell system. This firm recommends that the infiltration system is installed outside the proposed structure.
The final location and design of the proposed infiltration system shall be reviewed and approved by this office prior to construction to evaluate whether the intent of the recommendations provided by this firm are satisfied.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Percolation Testing
Percolation testing was conducted in Boring B1, following the procedure for boring percolation test provided in the Guidelines for Design, Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration (GS200.2), dated June 30, 2017, presented in the Administrative Manual for the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Geotechnical and Material Engineering Division.
Borings B1 was drilled to a depth of 80 feet. At the completion of drilling, a 2-inch diameter casing was placed within the center of the borehole for the purpose of conducting percolation testing. The casing consisted of a slotted PVC pipe within the lower 30 feet of the borehole, and solid PVC pipe to the top of the borehole. A sand pack consisting of #3 Monterey Sand was poured into the annular space around the slotted portion of the casing. A 1-foot thick, hydrated bentonite seal was placed over the sand and drill cuttings were placed to the ground surface.
Prior to testing, the borehole was filled with water for the purpose of pre-soaking for 4 hours.
After presoaking, the borehole was refilled with water, and the rate of drop in the water level was measured. The percolation test readings were recorded a minimum of 8 times or until a stabilized rate of drop was obtained, whichever occurred first.
The table below summarizes the results of the infiltration rate derived from the testing. This rate includes correction factors (RFt, RFv, and RFs), as required by the County of Los Angeles procedure. Field readings and calculations for the percolation testing are included in the Appendix.
Boring No.
Depth of Boring
Below Existing
Ground Surface
(ft.)
Percolation
Testing Conducted
Between Depths
(ft.)
Infiltration Rate
(in./hr.)
B1 80 50 to 80 3.12
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
At the completion of the percolation testing, the PVC casing was removed from the percolation testing well, and the resulting hole was backfilled with on-site soils to the ground surface. An asphalt patch was placed.
Stormwater Disposal Recommendations
Based on the results of the exploration, testing and research, it is the finding of this firm that the use of a drywell system for the purpose of stormwater infiltration disposal is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The drywell system is not expected to impact the neighboring or proposed developments, provided the advice and recommendations presented herein are implemented during design and construction.
The native site soils encountered during the geotechnical explorations conducted by this firm consist of granular sandy soils suitable for stormwater infiltration. The previous section of this report presents the anticipated infiltration rates of selected soil layers. These infiltration rates may be utilized by the civil engineer for the design of a stormwater infiltration system suitable for the project.
The potential drywell system shall be installed in the exterior of the proposed structure. It is recommended that the edge of any drywell is installed at least 30 feet away from the proposed structure, and at least 20 feet away from the existing historical structures. Stormwater infiltration should only occur in the native alluvial soils located at, or deeper, than 40 feet below the existing grade.
It is anticipated that a settling chamber will be installed in the upper 40 feet of the drywell. The seams and bottom of the settling chamber should be adequately sealed to prevent infiltration within 40 feet from the existing grade. Depending on its final location, the settling chamber of the drywell may be surcharged by adjacent foundations, in which case the chamber should be designed to withstand this additional surcharge load. The final location of the proposed drywell shall be reviewed and approved by this office prior to construction.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Stormwater infiltration must be conducted a minimum of 10 feet above the groundwater level. At the site, the historically highest groundwater level is in the order of 85 feet below grade.
Therefore, it is recommended that the bottom of the drywells does not extend deeper than 75 feet below the existing grade.
Drilling for the proposed drywells will most likely encounter large sized materials (i.e. cobbles and boulders). Due to the granular nature of the site soils, caving may occur in the drilled shafts.
The use of casing to maintain open shafts for installation of the drywells should be anticipated.
It is recommended that the design team, including the structural engineer, waterproofing consultant, plumbing engineer, environmental engineer and landscape architect be consulted in regards to the design and construction of filtration systems. The design and construction of stormwater infiltration systems is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. However, based on the experience of this firm, it is recommended that several aspects of the use of such facilities should be considered by the design and construction team:
• All infiltration devices should be provided with overflow protection. Once the device is full of water, additional water flowing to the device should be diverted to another acceptable disposal area, or disposed offsite in an acceptable manner. • All connections associated with stormwater infiltration systems should be sealed and water-tight. Water leaking into the subgrade soils can lead to loss of strength, piping, erosion, settlement and/or expansion of the effected earth materials. • Excavations proposed for the installation of stormwater systems should comply with the “Temporary Excavations” sections of this geotechnical engineering investigation, as well as CalOSHA Regulations where applicable.
DESIGN REVIEW
Engineering of the proposed project should not begin until approval of the geotechnical report by the Building Official is obtained in writing. Significant changes in the geotechnical recommendations may result during the building department review process.
July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
It is recommended that the geotechnical aspects of the project be reviewed by this firm during the design process. This review provides assistance to the design team by providing specific recommendations for particular cases, as well as review of the proposed construction to evaluate whether the intent of the recommendations presented herein are satisfied.
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Geotechnical observations and testing during construction are considered to be a continuation of the geotechnical investigation. It is critical that this firm review the geotechnical aspects of the project during the construction process. Compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations during construction requires review by this firm during the course of construction. All foundations should be observed by a representative of this firm prior to placing concrete or steel. Any fill which is placed should be observed, tested, and verified if used for engineered purposes. Please advise Geotechnologies, Inc. at least twenty-four hours prior to any required site visit.
If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those disclosed herein, notify Geotechnologies, Inc. immediately so the need for modifications may be considered in a timely manner.
It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly sloped or shored. All temporary excavations should be cut and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations.
EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS
The exploration performed for this investigation is limited to the geotechnical excavations described. Direct exploration of the entire site would not be economically feasible. The owner, design team and contractor must understand that differing excavation and drilling conditions may be encountered based on boulders, gravel, oversize materials, groundwater and many other July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
conditions. Fill materials, especially when they were placed without benefit of modern grading codes, regularly contain materials which could impede efficient grading and drilling. Southern California sedimentary bedrock is known to contain variable layers which reflect differences in depositional environment. Such layers may include abundant gravel, cobbles and boulders.
Similarly bedrock can contain concretions. Concretions are typically lenticular and follow the bedding. They are formed by mineral deposits. Concretions can be very hard. Excavation and drilling in these areas may require full size equipment and coring capability. The contractor should be familiar with the site and the geologic materials in the vicinity.
CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS
The purpose of this report is to aid in the design and completion of the described project.
Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce certain risks associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are sought because of special skill in engineering and geology and were prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice.
Geotechnologies, Inc. has a duty to exercise the ordinary skill and competence of members of the engineering profession. Those who hire Geotechnologies, Inc. are not justified in expecting infallibility, but can expect reasonable professional care and competence.
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the geologic conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation.
If any variations are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geotechnologies, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be prepared.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or the owner’s representatives, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer and are incorporated into the July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
plans. The owner is also responsible to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out the geotechnical recommendations during construction.
The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside control of this firm. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Geotechnical observations and testing during construction is considered to be a continuation of the geotechnical investigation. It is, therefore, most prudent to employ the consultant performing the initial investigative work to provide observation and testing services during construction.
This practice enables the project to flow smoothly from the planning stages through to completion.
Should another geotechnical firm be selected to provide the testing and observation services during construction, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their assumption of the responsibilities of geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for review. The letter should acknowledge the concurrence of the new geotechnical engineer with the recommendations presented in this report.
EXCLUSIONS
Geotechnologies, Inc. does not practice in the fields of methane gas, radon gas, environmental engineering, waterproofing, dewatering organic substances or the presence of corrosive soils or wetlands which could affect the proposed development including mold and toxic mold. Nothing in this report is intended to address these issues and/or their potential effect on the proposed July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
development. A competent professional consultant should be retained in order to address environmental issues, waterproofing, organic substances and wetlands which might affect the proposed development.
GEOTECHNICAL TESTING
Classification and Sampling
The soil is continuously logged by a representative of this firm and classified by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system. The field classification is verified in the laboratory, also in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.
Laboratory classification may include visual examination, Atterberg Limit Tests and grain size distribution. The final classification is shown on the excavation logs.
Samples of the geologic materials encountered in the exploratory excavations were collected and transported to the laboratory. Undisturbed samples of soil are obtained at frequent intervals.
Unless noted on the excavation logs as an SPT sample, samples acquired while utilizing a hollow-stem auger drill rig are obtained by driving a thin-walled, California Modified Sampler with successive 30-inch drops of a 140-pound hammer. The soil is retained in brass rings of 2.50 inches outside diameter and 1.00 inch in height. The central portion of the samples are stored in close fitting, waterproof containers for transportation to the laboratory. Samples noted on the excavation logs as SPT samples are obtained in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 1586. Samples are retained for 30 days after the date of the geotechnical report.
Moisture and Density Relationships
The field moisture content and dry unit weight are determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples, and the moisture content is determined for SPT samples in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 4959 or ASTM D 4643. This information is useful in July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
providing a gross picture of the soil consistency between exploration locations and any local variations. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot and shown on the “Excavation Logs”, A-Plates. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight.
Direct Shear Testing
Shear tests are performed in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 3080 with a strain controlled, direct shear machine manufactured by Soil Test, Inc. or a Direct Shear Apparatus manufactured by GeoMatic, Inc. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.025 inches per minute. Each sample is sheared under varying confining pressures in order to determine the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters of the cohesion intercept and the angle of internal friction. Samples are generally tested in an artificially saturated condition. Depending upon the sample location and future site conditions, samples may be tested at field moisture content. The results are plotted on the "Shear Test Diagram," B-Plates.
The most recent revision of ASTM 3080 limits the particle size to 10 percent of the diameter of the direct shear test specimen. The sheared sample is inspected by the laboratory technician running the test. The inspection is performed by splitting the sample along the sheared plane and observing the soils exposed on both sides. Where oversize particles are observed in the shear plane, the results are discarded and the test run again with a fresh sample.
Consolidation Testing
Settlement predictions of the soil's behavior under load are made on the basis of the consolidation tests in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 2435. The consolidation apparatus is designed to receive a single one-inch high ring. Loads are applied in several increments in a geometric progression, and the resulting deformations are recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are placed in contact with the top and bottom of each July, 2019
File No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
specimen to permit addition and release of pore fluid. Samples are generally tested at increased moisture content to determine the effects of water on the bearing soil. The normal pressure at which the water is added is noted on the drawing. Results are plotted on the "Consolidation Test," C-Plates.
Expansion Index Testing
The expansion tests performed on the remolded samples are in accordance with the Expansion Index testing procedures, as described in the most recent revision of ASTM D 4829. The soil sample is compacted into a metal ring at a saturation degree of 50 percent. The ring sample is then placed in a consolidometer, under a vertical confining pressure of 1 lbf/square inch and inundated with distilled water. The deformation of the specimen is recorded for a period of 24 hour or until the rate of deformation becomes less than 0.0002 inches/hour, whichever occurs first. The expansion index, EI, is determined by dividing the difference between final and initial height of the ring sample by the initial height, and multiplied by 1,000. Results are presented in Plate D of this report.
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics
The maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content of a soil are determined in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557. A soil at a selected moisture content is placed in five layers into a mold of given dimensions, with each layer compacted by 25 blows of a 10 pound hammer dropped from a distance of 18 inches subjecting the soil to a total compactive effort of about 56,000 pounds per cubic foot. The resulting dry unit weight is determined. The procedure is repeated for a sufficient number of moisture contents to establish a relationship between the dry unit weight and the water content of the soil. The data when plotted represent a curvilinear relationship known as the compaction curve. The values of optimum moisture content and modified maximum dry unit weight are determined from the compaction curve. Results are presented in Plate D of this report.
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
REFERENCES
Applied Technology Council (1978), Tentative Provisions for Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings: ATC Publication ATC 3-06, NBS Special Publication 510, NSF Publication 78-8.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E. (1993), Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An interim Report, U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-509, 15 pp.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report for the Pasadena 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 030.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zone Map, map scale 1:24,000.
California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.
Dibblee, T.W. Jr. 1989, Geologic Map of the Pasadena Quadrangle, DMG Map #DF-23, map scale 1: 24,000.
Gregory Geotechnical Software, 2001, GSTABL with STEDwin Slope Stability Analysis System, version 2.0.
Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 1999 (updated 2005), Fault Rupture Zones in California, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, 25pp.
Leighton and Associates, Inc. (1990), Technical Appendix to the Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan: Hazard Reduction in Los Angeles County.
United States Geological Survey, 2008, U.S.G.S. Interactive Deaggregation Program. http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php.
United States Geological Survey, 2013, U.S.G.S. U.S. Seismic Design Maps tool (Version
3.1.0). http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.
REFERENCE:
VICINITY MAP
FILE NO. 21674
PASADENA, CA QUADRANGLE
U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES,
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
N
SUBJECT SITE
LAT: 34.1438 / LONG: 118.1501
LEGEND
Qa: Surficial Sediments - Alluvium: Unconsolidated floodplain deposits of silt, sand and gravel.
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Qof: Older Surficial Sediments - Alluvial fan graveland sand derived from the San Gabriel Mountains REFERENCE: DIBBLEE, T.W., (1989), GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE PASADENA QUADRANGLE, MAP #DF-23
LOCAL GEOLOGIC MAP
N
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FILE NO. 21674
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
? Fault - dashed where indefinite or inferred, dotted where concealed, queried where existence is doubtful gqd: Quartz Diorite - Massive to gneissod
Qg: Surficial Sediments -Stream channel deposits of gravel, sand and silt
EAGLE ROCK
SUBJECT SITE
0 500 1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET
2000 4000
WML
HISTORICALLY HIGHEST GROUNDWATER LEVELS
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
N
REFERENCE: CDMG, SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE REPORT, 014
PASADENA 7.5 - MINUTE QUADRANGLE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (1998, REVISED 2006) 20 Depth to groundwater in feet
SUBJECT SITE
FILE NO. 21674
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP
LIQUEFACTION AREA
REFERENCE: SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES, PASADENA QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL MAP (CDMG, 1999) Geotechnologies, Inc.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
N
SUBJECT SITE
FILE NO. 21674
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
REFERENCE: City of Pasadena Safety Element. Plate 1-2, Fault Map by Earth Consultants International, dated June 2002.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
CITY OF PASADENA FAULT MAP
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
FILE No. 21674
Geotechnologies, Inc.
SUBJECT SITE
LEGEND
B3
LOCATION & NUMBER OF BORING
LIMITS OF PROPOSED SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
File No.: 21674
Date: March '19
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
PLOT PLAN
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
REFERENCE: GROUND FLOOR PLAN BACKGROUND BY ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP
NOT DATED
B1
B2
B3
DAYTON STREET
FAIR OAKS AVENUE
EXISTING CASTLE GREEN
EXISTING GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
Green Hotel Apartments Date: 09/24/18 Elevation: 834.1'* File No. 21674 Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger km *Reference: Site Survey by S.E.C. Civil Engineers, Inc., dated 12/4/09 Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 4-inch Asphalt over 4-inch Base
-
1 --
- FILL: Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine 2 -- grained
2.5 16 8.7 98.9 -
3 --
- SM NATIVE SOILS: Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, medium 4 -- dense, fine grained
-
5 26 4.4 SPT 5 --
- SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, fine 6 -- grained
-
7 --
7.5 72 3.1 127.3 -
8 -- SW Cobbley Sand, yellowish brown, moist, dense, fine to coarse - grained
9 --
-
10 20 25.0 SPT 10 --
- ML Sandy Silt, dark and yellowish brown, moist, stiff 11 --
-
12 --
12.5 68 9.5 124.4 -
13 -- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, dense, - fine to medium grained
14 --
-
15 36 4.4 SPT 15 --
- SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, fine 16 -- grained, minor gravel
-
17 45 5.8 111.3 17 --
- dark brown, medium dense to dense, fine to medium grained 18 --
-
19 --
-
20 41 4.5 SPT 20 --
-
21 --
-
22 --
22.5 79 4.2 114.1 -
23 -- dark and yellowish brown, very dense, minor gravel -
24 --
-
25 70 4.2 SPT 25 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1a
BORING LOG NUMBER 1
Green Hotel Apartments
File No. 21674
km
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --
27.5 90 9.8 130.8 -
28 -- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very - dense, fine to medium grained
29 --
-
30 33 6.2 SPT 30 --
50/5" - SP/SW Sand to Gravelly Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, 31 -- very dense, fine to coarse grained
-
32 --
32.5 28 4.0 112.2 -
50/5" 33 -- SP Sand, dark brown, moist, very dense, fine to medium grained -
34 --
-
35 88 4.0 SPT 35 --
-
36 --
-
37 --
37.5 100/8" 4.1 119.1 -
38 -- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very - dense, fine to medium grained
39 --
-
40 53 3.8 SPT 40 --
- SP Sand, dark brown, moist, dense, fine to medium grained, minor 41 -- gravel
-
42 --
42.5 84 4.1 116.4 -
43 -- dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine grained -
44 --
-
45 90 3.7 SPT 45 --
-
46 --
-
47 --
47.5 100/8" 1.7 119.9 -
48 --
-
49 --
-
50 63 3.0 SPT 50 --
50/5" -
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1b
BORING LOG NUMBER 1
Green Hotel Apartments
File No. 21674
km
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
51 --
-
52 --
52.5 100/10" 3.5 116.1 -
53 --
-
54 --
-
55 45 4.8 SPT 55 --
50/2" - SP/SM Sand to Silty Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very 56 -- dense, fine to medium grained, minor gravel
-
57 --
57.5 100/9" 3.0 116.1 -
58 -- SP Sand, dark brown, moist, very dense, fine grained -
59 --
-
60 50/6" 2.8 SPT 60 --
-
61 --
-
62 --
62.5 100/10" 2.5 114.3 -
63 -- fine to medium grained, minor cobbles
-
64 --
-
65 50/6" 2.8 SPT 65 --
-
66 --
-
67 --
67.5 100/9" 2.1 112.6 -
68 --
-
69 --
-
70 45 2.6 SPT 70 --
- dense
71 --
-
72 --
72.5 49 2.0 115.2 -
73 --
-
74 --
-
75 49 1.8 SPT 75 --
- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, dense, fine to medium grained
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1c
BORING LOG NUMBER 1
Green Hotel Apartments
File No. 21674
km
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
76 --
-
77 --
77.5 83 14.5 109.5 -
78 -- SM/ML Silty Sand to Sandy Silt, dark brown, moist, very dense or - very stiff, fine to medium grained
79 --
-
80 48 17.8 SPT 80 --
- Total Depth 80 feet
81 -- No Water
- Fill to 3 feet
82 --
-
83 -- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate - boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. 84 --
- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
85 -- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted 86 --
- SPT=Standard Penetration Test
87 --
-
88 --
-
89 --
-
90 --
-
91 --
-
92 --
-
93 --
-
94 --
-
95 --
-
96 --
-
97 --
-
98 --
-
99 --
-
100 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1d
BORING LOG NUMBER 1
Green Hotel Apartments Date: 09/25/18 Elevation: 835.0'* File No. 21674 Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger km *Reference: Site Survey by S.E.C. Civil Engineers, Inc., dated 12/4/09 Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 2½-inch Asphalt, No Base
-
1 -- FILL: Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine - grained, minor cobbles
2 --
2.5 34 2.7 127.4 -
3 --
- SM/SP NATIVE SOILS: Silty Sand to Sand with Cobble, dark brown, 4 -- moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained
-
5 28 2.1 119.6 5 --
- SP/SW Sand to Gravelly Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, 6 -- medium dense, fine to coarse grained
-
7 --
7.5 35 3.0 119.5 -
8 -- SW Gravelly Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, medium - dense, fine to coarse grained
9 --
-
10 39 2.1 96.4 10 --
- SM/ML Silty Sand to Sandy Silt, dark and yellowish brown mottling, 11 -- moist, medium dense, stiff, fine grained
-
12 --
-
13 --
-
14 --
-
15 48 6.7 117.4 15 --
- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, dark brown, moist, dense, fine grained 16 --
-
17 --
-
18 --
-
19 --
-
20 85 4.8 127.0 20 --
- SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine to 21 -- medium grained
-
22 --
-
23 --
-
24 --
-
25 73 6.2 116.7 25 --
50/5" -
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-2a
BORING LOG NUMBER 2
Green Hotel Apartments
File No. 21674
km
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --
-
28 --
-
29 --
-
30 88 3.0 115.2 30 --
- SP/SW Sand to Gravelly Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very 31 -- dense, fine to coarse grained
-
32 --
-
33 --
-
34 --
-
35 40 3.7 117.0 35 --
50/5" -
36 --
-
37 --
-
38 --
-
39 --
-
40 45 5.5 106.3 40 --
50/4" - SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine to 41 -- medium grained
-
42 --
-
43 --
-
44 --
-
45 45 3.7 114.8 45 --
50/5" -
46 --
- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate 47 -- boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. -
48 -- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
49 -- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted -
50 100/9" 3.3 Disturbed 50 --
- Total Depth 50 feet
No Water
Fill to 3 feet
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-2b
BORING LOG NUMBER 2
Green Hotel Apartments Date: 09/25/18 Elevation: 833.0'* File No. 21674 Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger km *Reference: Site Survey by S.E.C. Civil Engineers, Inc., dated 12/4/09 Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 3-inch Asphalt, No Base
-
1 -- FILL: Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine - grained, minor cobbles
2 --
2.5 37 4.1 115.9 -
3 --
- SM/SW NATIVE SOILS: Silty Sand to Cobbley Sand, dark and 4 -- yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained -
5 49 1.5 115.9 5 --
- SW Gravelly Sand, dark brown, slightly moist, medium dense to 6 -- dense, fine to coarse grained
-
7 --
7.5 65 8.2 113.1 -
8 -- SP/SW Sand to Gravelly Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, - dense, fine to medium grained
9 --
-
10 50 24.8 99.3 10 --
- ML Sandy Silt, dark and yellowish brown mottling, moist, very stiff 11 --
-
12 --
-
13 --
-
14 --
-
15 72 9.3 125.6 15 --
- SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine to 16 -- medium grained
-
17 --
-
18 --
-
19 --
-
20 65 11.6 118.8 20 --
50/4" -
21 --
-
22 --
-
23 --
-
24 --
-
25 90 11.6 120.6 25 --
- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine grained
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-3a
BORING LOG NUMBER 3
Green Hotel Apartments
File No. 21674
km
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --
-
28 --
-
29 --
-
30 26 6.0 115.4 30 --
50/5" -
31 --
-
32 --
-
33 --
-
34 --
-
35 100/9" 2.7 112.5 35 --
- SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine to 36 -- medium grained
-
37 --
-
38 --
-
39 --
-
40 100/10" 3.0 104.3 40 --
-
41 --
-
42 --
-
43 --
-
44 --
-
45 39 11.4 115.1 45 --
50/5" - SM Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, very dense, fine grained 46 --
- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate 47 -- boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. -
48 -- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
49 -- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted -
50 100/9" 8.8 109.9 50 --
- Total Depth 50 feet
No Water
Fill to 3 feet
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-3b
BORING LOG NUMBER 3
SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM
Direct Shear, Saturated
PHI =36 DEGREES
3.5 3.0
Normal Pressure (KSF)
Shear Strength (KSF)
0.5 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
SAMPLE MOISTURE(%)
INITIAL
MOISTURE(%)
FINAL
SOIL TYPE
B2 @ 5' SP/SW 119.6 2.1 14.6
DENSITY (PCF)
DRY
B3 @ 10' ML 99.3 24.8 24.2
B2 @ 15' SM/SP 93.0 17.3 12.5
B3 @ 20' SP 117.4 6.7 15.1
B1 @ 27.5' SM/SP 130.8 9.8 12.2
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
FILE NO. 21674 PLATE: B-1
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS Geotechnologies, Inc.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
B1 @ 32.5' SP 112.2 4.0 13.5
B2 @ 5'
B2 @ 5'
B2 @ 5'
B2 @ 15'
B2 @ 15'
B2 @ 15'
B3 @ 20'
B3 @ 20'
B3 @ 20'
B1 @ 27.5'
B1 @ 27.5'
B1 @ 27.5'
B1 @ 32.5'
B1 @ 32.5'
B3 @ 10'
B3 @ 10'
B3 @ 10'
C = 285 PSF
B1 @ 32.5'
SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM
Direct Shear, Saturated
PHI =37 DEGREES
3.5 3.0
Normal Pressure (KSF)
Shear Strength (KSF)
0.5 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
SAMPLE MOISTURE(%)
INITIAL
MOISTURE(%)
FINAL
SOIL TYPE
B1 @ 32.5' SP 119.1 4.1 13.5
DENSITY (PCF)
DRY
B2 @ 35' SP/SW 117.0 3.7 15.5
B3 @ 40' SP 104.3 3.0 22.1
B2 @ 45' SP 114.8 3.7 15.3
B1 @ 52.5' SP 116.1 13.6
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
FILE NO. 21674 PLATE: B-2
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS Geotechnologies, Inc.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
B1 @ 32.5'
B1 @ 32.5'
C = 160 PSF
B1 @ 32.5'
B1 @ 35'
B1 @ 35'
B1 @ 35'
B3 @ 40'
B3 @ 40'
B2 @ 45'
B2 @ 45'
B1 @ 52.5'
B1 @ 52.5'
B2 @ 45'
B3 @ 40'
B1 @ 52.5'
3.5 CONSOLIDATION TEST
PLATE: C-1
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Consolidation Pressure (KSF)
WATER ADDED AT 2 KSF
Percent Consolidation
16 20
B3 @ 40'
FILE NO. 21674
2 0
4 B2 @ 35'
2 0
4 6
B2 @ 45'
2 0
4 GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
CONSOLIDATION TEST
PLATE: C-2
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Consolidation Pressure (KSF)
WATER ADDED AT 2 KSF
Percent Consolidation
16 20
B1 @ 62.5'
FILE NO. 21674
2 0
4 B1 @ 52.5'
2 0
4 B1 @ 77.5'
2 0
4 GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
SOIL TYPE:
SOIL TYPE:
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
ASTM D-1557
MAXIMUM DENSITY pcf.
OPTIMUM MOISTURE %
B2 @ 1- 5' B3 @ 1-5'
SM/SP
129.3
9.5 124.4
10.5 SM/SW
EXPANSION INDEX
EXPANSION CHARACTER
UBC STANDARD 18-2
VERY LOW VERYLOW
2 3
ASTM D 4829
FILE NO. 21674 PLATE: D
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
COMPACTION/EXPANSION/SULFATE DATA SHEET
SULFATE CONTENT
SULFATE CONTENT:
SAMPLE
< 0.2 % (percentage by weight)
B2 @ 1-5'
< 0.1 %
B3 @ 1-5' B1 @ 30'
< 0.1 % < 0.1 % < 0.1 %
B1 @ 10' B1 @ 20'
B2 @ 1- 5' B3 @ 1-5'
SM/SP SM/SW
GREEN HOTEL APARTMENTS
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Project: Green Hotel Apartments
File No.: 21674
Description: Drained Cantilever Retaining Walls
Input:
Retaining Wall Height (H) 54.00 feet
Unit Weight of Retained Soils () 125.0 pcf
Friction Angle of Retained Soils () 36.0 degrees
Cohesion of Retained Soils (c) 285.0 psf
Factor of Safety (FS) 1.50
Factored Parameters: (FS) 25.8 degrees
(cFS) 190.0 psf
Failure Height of Area of Weight of Length of Active
Angle Tension Crack Wedge Wedge Failure Plane Pressure
() (HC) (A) (W) (LCR)a b (PA)
degrees feet feet
2 lbs/lineal foot feet lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot 40 7.3 1706 213225.9 72.6 50795.5 162430.4 40969.2
41 6.9 1650 206199.0 71.7 46921.6 159277.3 43144.1
42 6.6 1595 199371.3 70.8 43518.0 155853.4 45150.5
43 6.3 1542 192744.3 69.9 40509.8 152234.4 46997.0
44 6.1 1491 186314.9 69.0 37837.1 148477.8 48691.4
45 5.9 1441 180077.6 68.0 35450.6 144627.0 50240.6
46 5.7 1392 174025.5 67.1 33310.1 140715.4 51651.2
47 5.6 1345 168150.7 66.2 31382.3 136768.3 52928.8
48 5.4 1300 162444.9 65.4 29639.5 132805.5 54078.6
49 5.3 1255 156899.9 64.5 28058.2 128841.8 55105.2
50 5.2 1212 151507.5 63.7 26618.7 124888.8 56012.6
51 5.1 1170 146259.7 62.9 25304.4 120955.3 56804.4
52 5.0 1129 141148.7 62.1 24100.9 117047.8 57483.6
53 5.0 1089 136167.1 61.4 22995.8 113171.3 58052.9
54 4.9 1050 131307.8 60.7 21978.6 109329.2 58514.3
55 4.9 1013 126564.1 59.9 21040.0 105524.0 58869.6
56 4.9 975 121929.5 59.3 20172.0 101757.4 59120.2
57 4.9 939 117397.9 58.6 19367.6 98030.4 59267.0
58 4.9 904 112963.7 58.0 18620.5 94343.2 59310.5
59 4.9 869 108621.2 57.3 17925.2 90696.0 59250.9
60 4.9 835 104365.2 56.7 17276.9 87088.3 59087.9 Design Equations (Vector Analysis):
61 4.9 802 100190.9 56.1 16671.3 83519.5 58821.1 a = cFS*LCR*sin(90+FS)/sin(-FS) 62 4.9 769 96093.4 55.6 16104.5 79988.9 58449.2 b = W-a 63 5.0 737 92068.4 55.0 15573.0 76495.4 57971.1 PA = b*tan(-FS) 64 5.1 705 88111.5 54.5 15073.7 73037.9 57384.8 EFP = 2*PA/H2 65 5.1 674 84218.7 53.9 14603.6 69615.1 56688.2
Maximum Active Pressure Resultant
PA, max 59310.5 lbs/lineal foot
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (per lineal foot of wall)
EFP = 2*PA/H2
EFP 40.7 pcf
Design Wall for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure: 41 pcf
Retaining Wall Design with Level Backfill
(Vector Analysis)
W
b
a
PA
N
cFS*LCR
W
LCR
c
LT
H
HC
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Project: Green Hotel Apartments
File No.: 21674
Soil Weight 125 pcf
Internal Friction Angle 36 degrees
Cohesion c 0 psf
Height of Retaining Wall H 54 feet
Restrained Retaining Wall Design based on At Rest Earth Pressure '
h = Ko'v
Ko = 1 - sin 0.412
'
v = H 6750.0 psf
'
h = 2782.4 psf
EFP = 51.5 pcf
Po = 75126.1 lbs/ft (based on a triangular distribution of pressure) Design wall for an EFP of 52 pcf
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Project: Green Hotel Apartments
File No.: 21674
Seismically Induced Lateral Soil Pressure on Retaining Wall Input:
Height of Retaining Wall: (H) 54.0 feet
Retained Soil Unit Weight: () 125.0 pcf
Horizontal Ground Acceleration: (kh) 0.36 g
Seismic Increment (PAE):
PAE = (0.5**H2
)*(0.75*kh)
PAE = 49207.5 lbs/ft
Force applied at 0.6H above the base of the wall
Transfer load to 2/3 of the height of the wall
T*(2/3)*H = PAE*0.6*H
T = 44286.8 lbs/ft
EFP = 2*T/H2
EFP = 30 pcf
triangular distribution of pressure
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Project: Green Hotel Apartments
File No.: 21674
Description: Temporary Shoring (up to 20 feet in height) Input:
Shoring Height (H) 20.00 feet
Unit Weight of Retained Soils () 125.0 pcf
Friction Angle of Retained Soils () 36.0 degrees
Cohesion of Retained Soils (c) 285.0 psf
Factor of Safety (FS) 1.25
Factored Parameters: (FS) 30.2 degrees
(cFS) 228.0 psf
Failure Height of Area of Weight of Length of Active
Angle Tension Crack Wedge Wedge Failure Plane Pressure
() (HC) (A) (W) (LCR) a b (PA)
degrees feet feet
2 lbs/lineal foot feet lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot 40 12.1 152 18971.7 12.4 14268.6 4703.1 815.2
41 11.1 159 19873.3 13.5 14200.1 5673.1 1085.6
42 10.3 163 20332.5 14.4 13865.8 6466.6 1354.9
43 9.7 164 20493.0 15.1 13393.2 7099.9 1617.4
44 9.2 164 20447.4 15.6 12854.7 7592.7 1869.6
45 8.7 162 20257.1 16.0 12292.4 7964.7 2109.3
46 8.3 160 19963.9 16.2 11730.6 8233.3 2335.0
47 8.0 157 19597.1 16.4 11183.0 8414.1 2545.7
48 7.7 153 19177.4 16.6 10657.3 8520.1 2741.0
49 7.4 150 18719.9 16.6 10157.3 8562.6 2920.5
50 7.2 146 18235.4 16.7 9684.5 8551.0 3084.2
51 7.0 142 17732.1 16.7 9238.9 8493.2 3231.9
52 6.9 138 17215.9 16.6 8819.8 8396.1 3363.9
53 6.8 134 16691.3 16.6 8426.1 8265.3 3480.1
54 6.6 129 16161.8 16.5 8056.2 8105.5 3580.6
55 6.5 125 15629.7 16.4 7708.6 7921.1 3665.6
56 6.5 121 15097.1 16.3 7381.8 7715.3 3735.3
57 6.4 117 14565.2 16.2 7074.0 7491.3 3789.6
58 6.4 112 14035.2 16.1 6783.7 7251.5 3828.7
59 6.3 108 13507.8 15.9 6509.5 6998.2 3852.6
60 6.3 104 12983.4 15.8 6250.1 6733.3 3861.4 Design Equations (Vector Analysis):
61 6.3 100 12462.4 15.6 6003.9 6458.5 3855.1 a = cFS*LCR*sin(90+FS)/sin(-FS) 62 6.4 96 11945.0 15.4 5769.8 6175.1 3833.7 b = W-a
63 6.4 91 11431.1 15.3 5546.6 5884.5 3797.2 PA = b*tan(-FS) 64 6.5 87 10920.8 15.1 5333.1 5587.7 3745.4 EFP = 2*PA/H2 65 6.5 83 10413.9 14.9 5128.1 5285.8 3678.3
Maximum Active Pressure Resultant
PA, max 3861.4 lbs/lineal foot
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (per lineal foot of shoring)
EFP = 2*PA/H2
EFP 19.3 pcf
Design Shoring for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure: 28 pcf Shoring Design with Level Backfill
(Vector Analysis)
W
b
a
PA
N
cFS*LCR
W
LCR
c
LT
H
HC
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Project: Green Hotel Apartments
File No.: 21674
Description: Temporary Shoring (up to 25 feet in height) Input:
Shoring Height (H) 25.00 feet
Unit Weight of Retained Soils () 125.0 pcf
Friction Angle of Retained Soils () 36.0 degrees
Cohesion of Retained Soils (c) 285.0 psf
Factor of Safety (FS) 1.25
Factored Parameters: (FS) 30.2 degrees
(cFS) 228.0 psf
Failure Height of Area of Weight of Length of Active
Angle Tension Crack Wedge Wedge Failure Plane Pressure
() (HC) (A) (W) (LCR) a b (PA)
degrees feet feet
2 lbs/lineal foot feet lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot 40 12.1 286 35730.7 20.1 23246.8 12484.0 2163.8
41 11.1 288 36050.3 21.2 22193.2 13857.2 2651.8
42 10.3 288 35950.5 21.9 21048.7 14901.7 3122.2
43 9.7 285 35573.2 22.4 19899.5 15673.7 3570.6
44 9.2 280 35009.6 22.8 18788.8 16220.8 3994.2
45 8.7 275 34319.6 23.0 17737.0 16582.6 4391.6
46 8.3 268 33543.9 23.2 16752.4 16791.5 4762.1
47 8.0 262 32710.6 23.3 15836.7 16873.9 5105.3
48 7.7 255 31839.4 23.3 14988.0 16851.4 5421.2
49 7.4 248 30944.3 23.3 14202.8 16741.5 5710.2
50 7.2 240 30035.3 23.2 13476.6 16558.7 5972.4
51 7.0 233 29119.7 23.1 12804.8 16314.9 6208.3
52 6.9 226 28202.7 23.0 12182.9 16019.9 6418.3
53 6.8 218 27288.2 22.8 11606.4 15681.8 6602.8
54 6.6 211 26378.8 22.7 11071.2 15307.6 6762.1
55 6.5 204 25476.4 22.5 10573.5 14902.8 6896.6
56 6.5 197 24582.3 22.3 10110.0 14472.3 7006.6
57 6.4 190 23697.5 22.2 9677.4 14020.1 7092.3
58 6.4 183 22822.4 22.0 9272.9 13549.5 7154.0
59 6.3 176 21957.4 21.8 8893.8 13063.6 7191.7
60 6.3 169 21102.4 21.5 8537.7 12564.6 7205.6 Design Equations (Vector Analysis):
61 6.3 162 20257.4 21.3 8202.5 12054.8 7195.6 a = cFS*LCR*sin(90+FS)/sin(-FS) 62 6.4 155 19422.1 21.1 7886.2 11535.9 7161.9 b = W-a
63 6.4 149 18596.3 20.9 7586.8 11009.5 7104.2 PA = b*tan(-FS) 64 6.5 142 17779.6 20.6 7302.6 10477.0 7022.6 EFP = 2*PA/H2 65 6.5 136 16971.4 20.4 7032.0 9939.4 6916.6
Maximum Active Pressure Resultant
PA, max 7205.6 lbs/lineal foot
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (per lineal foot of shoring)
EFP = 2*PA/H2
EFP 23.1 pcf
Design Shoring for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure: 32 pcf Shoring Design with Level Backfill
(Vector Analysis)
W
b
a
PA
N
cFS*LCR
W
LCR
c
LT
H
HC
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Project: Green Hotel Apartments
File No.: 21674
Description: Temporary Shoring (up to 40 feet in height) Input:
Shoring Height (H) 40.00 feet
Unit Weight of Retained Soils () 125.0 pcf
Friction Angle of Retained Soils () 36.0 degrees
Cohesion of Retained Soils (c) 285.0 psf
Factor of Safety (FS) 1.25
Factored Parameters: (FS) 30.2 degrees
(cFS) 228.0 psf
Failure Height of Area of Weight of Length of Active
Angle Tension Crack Wedge Wedge Failure Plane Pressure
() (HC) (A) (W) (LCR) a b (PA)
degrees feet feet
2 lbs/lineal foot feet lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot 40 12.1 867 108353.2 43.5 50181.4 58171.8 10082.9
41 11.1 849 106150.9 44.0 46172.2 59978.7 11477.8
42 10.3 829 103628.4 44.3 42597.4 61031.1 12787.2
43 9.7 807 100920.7 44.4 39418.7 61502.0 14010.6
44 9.2 785 98112.2 44.4 36591.1 61521.1 15149.1
45 8.7 762 95257.1 44.2 34070.7 61186.4 16204.3
46 8.3 739 92390.5 44.0 31817.8 60572.7 17178.5
47 8.0 716 89535.7 43.8 29797.6 59738.1 18074.0
48 7.7 694 86707.7 43.5 27980.0 58727.8 18893.2
49 7.4 671 83916.4 43.1 26339.1 57577.3 19638.4
50 7.2 649 81167.9 42.8 24853.0 56314.9 20311.7
51 7.0 628 78465.9 42.4 23502.7 54963.2 20915.2
52 6.9 606 75812.3 42.0 22272.1 53540.3 21450.8
53 6.8 586 73207.9 41.6 21147.2 52060.7 21920.0
54 6.6 565 70652.5 41.2 20116.0 50536.4 22324.4
55 6.5 545 68145.3 40.8 19168.3 48977.0 22665.2
56 6.5 525 65685.2 40.4 18294.8 47390.4 22943.5
57 6.4 506 63270.8 40.0 17487.8 45782.9 23160.1
58 6.4 487 60900.4 39.7 16740.5 44160.0 23315.8
59 6.3 469 58572.3 39.3 16046.6 42525.7 23411.0
60 6.3 450 56284.7 38.9 15400.8 40883.8 23446.0 Design Equations (Vector Analysis):
61 6.3 432 54035.6 38.5 14798.5 39237.1 23421.0 a = cFS*LCR*sin(90+FS)/sin(-FS) 62 6.4 415 51823.2 38.1 14235.2 37587.9 23335.9 b = W-a 63 6.4 397 49645.5 37.7 13707.3 35938.3 23190.3 PA = b*tan(-FS) 64 6.5 380 47500.8 37.3 13211.1 34289.6 22983.8 EFP = 2*PA/H2 65 6.5 363 45387.0 36.9 12743.7 32643.3 22715.9
Maximum Active Pressure Resultant
PA, max 23446.0 lbs/lineal foot
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (per lineal foot of shoring)
EFP = 2*PA/H2
EFP 29.3 pcf
Design Shoring for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure: 35 pcf Shoring Design with Level Backfill
(Vector Analysis)
W
b
a
PA
N
cFS*LCR
W
LCR
c
LT
H
HC
Geotechnologies, Inc.
Project: Green Hotel Apartments
File No.: 21674
Description: Temporary Shoring (up to 58 feet in height) Input:
Shoring Height (H) 58.00 feet
Unit Weight of Retained Soils () 125.0 pcf
Friction Angle of Retained Soils () 36.0 degrees
Cohesion of Retained Soils (c) 285.0 psf
Factor of Safety (FS) 1.25
Factored Parameters: (FS) 30.2 degrees
(cFS) 228.0 psf
Failure Height of Area of Weight of Length of Active
Angle Tension Crack Wedge Wedge Failure Plane Pressure
() (HC) (A) (W) (LCR) a b (PA)
degrees feet feet
2 lbs/lineal foot feet lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot 40 12.1 1918 239744.0 71.5 82503.0 157241.1 27254.6
41 11.1 1864 232979.0 71.5 74947.0 158032.0 30241.7
42 10.3 1809 226073.5 71.2 68455.7 157617.7 33023.9
43 9.7 1753 219149.3 70.8 62841.6 156307.7 35608.0
44 9.2 1698 212279.4 70.3 57953.8 154325.6 38001.4
45 8.7 1644 205507.1 69.7 53671.1 151835.9 40211.5
46 8.3 1591 198857.7 69.1 49896.3 148961.4 42245.6
47 8.0 1539 192345.5 68.4 46550.7 145794.8 44110.8
48 7.7 1488 185977.3 67.7 43570.4 142406.9 45813.4
49 7.4 1438 179755.3 67.0 40902.8 138852.5 47359.6
50 7.2 1389 173678.7 66.3 38504.7 135174.0 48754.6
51 7.0 1342 167744.6 65.6 36340.2 131404.4 50003.5
52 6.9 1296 161949.1 64.9 34379.1 127570.0 51110.6
53 6.8 1250 156287.2 64.2 32596.2 123691.1 52079.8
54 6.6 1206 150753.8 63.5 30969.9 119783.9 52914.4
55 6.5 1163 145343.2 62.8 29481.9 115861.3 53617.4
56 6.5 1120 140049.8 62.2 28116.6 111933.2 54191.1
57 6.4 1079 134868.0 61.5 26860.4 108007.6 54637.6
58 6.4 1038 129792.3 60.9 25701.5 104090.7 54958.4
59 6.3 999 124817.2 60.3 24629.9 100187.3 55154.5
60 6.3 960 119937.5 59.7 23636.5 96301.0 55226.7 Design Equations (Vector Analysis):
61 6.3 921 115148.2 59.1 22713.6 92434.6 55175.1 a = cFS*LCR*sin(90+FS)/sin(-FS) 62 6.4 884 110444.1 58.5 21854.1 88590.1 54999.7 b = W-a 63 6.4 847 105820.7 57.9 21051.9 84768.8 54699.7 PA = b*tan(-FS) 64 6.5 810 101273.3 57.3 20301.4 80971.9 54274.3 EFP = 2*PA/H2 65 6.5 774 96797.4 56.8 19597.8 77199.6 53721.9
Maximum Active Pressure Resultant
PA, max 55226.7 lbs/lineal foot
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (per lineal foot of shoring)
EFP = 2*PA/H2
EFP 32.8 pcf
Design Shoring for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure: 40 pcf Shoring Design with Level Backfill
(Vector Analysis)
W
b
a
PA
N
cFS*LCR
W
LCR
c
LT
H
HC
Test Date: 24‐Sep‐18
File No. 21674
File Name : Green Hotel Apartments
Testing Boring Number 1
Boring Diameter (DIA) 8 inches
Depth of Boring 80 feet
Ground surface elevation N.A. feet
Length of Casing (dc) 80 feet
Top of Casing elevation N.A. feet
finish floor elevation N.A. feet
Elevation Bottom of Casing #VALUE! feet
Pre‐soak Time 2 hours
Measured By H.C.
Terms
Initial water depth (d1) =dc‐di
Water level drop (Δd) = di‐df
Reading
Number Clock Time
Elapsed
Time
Water
Measurement
(di
) and (df)
Percolation
Rate
Preadjusted
Percolation
Rate
Initial
Water
depth (d1)
Water level
Drop (Δd)
Raw Percolation Rate
Percolation
Rate
Variation
d1 = dc‐di Δd = di‐df Vol. H2o / Bor. Surface
Min feet ft/min in/hour in in in/hr Percent
1 14:10 50.00 360
14:20 10 73.90 2.39 1720.80 286.8 6.89
2 14:23 50.00 360
14:33 10 73.40 2.34 1684.80 280.8 6.65 ‐2.1
3 14:40 50.00 360
14:50 10 73.00 2.30 1656.00 276 6.47 ‐1.7
4 14:55 50.00 360
15:05 10 72.80 2.28 1641.60 273.6 6.38 ‐0.9
5 15:09 50.00 360
15:19 10 72.50 2.25 1620.00 270 6.24 ‐1.3
6 15:22 50.00 360
15:32 10 72.50 2.25 1620.00 270 6.24 0.0
Note: Calculation based on County of Los Angeles, Administrative Manual, Low Impact Development Best Management PracticeGuideline for Design, Investigation, and Reporting, dated 6/30/17.
LA County Minimum 0.3 Inches per hour
Raw Percolation Rate= 6.2 in/hr
RFt= 2
RFv= 1
RFs= 1
Design Infiltration Rate = 3.12 in/hr
Infiltration Rate Calculation for Boring
Central Park Apartments
86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA
Appendix B: Title 24 Building Energy Analysis Report
BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT
PROJECT:
Project Designer:
Report Prepared by:
Job Number:
Date:
The EnergyPro computer program has been used to perform the calculations summarized in this compliance report. This program has approval and is authorized by the California Energy Commission for use with both the Residential and Nonresidential 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
This program developed by EnergySoft Software – www.energysoft.com. 360 E. 2nd St., Suite 225 Architectural Resources Group Los Angeles, CA 90012 626-583-1401 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Central Park Apartments Pasadena, CA 91105 1983 West 190th Street, Suite 200 Paul A. Breen, P.E. Torrance, CA 90504 (310) 464-8404 687-18-004 July 2019 Job Number:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HVAC System Heating and Cooling Loads Summary Cover Page Table of Contents Form PRF-01-E Certificate of Compliance Form ENV-MM Envelope Mandatory Measures 461 2 3
45 EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft ID: 687-18-004 User Number: 5297 Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 1 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 A. PROJECT GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Project Location (city) Pasadena 8. Standards Version Compliance2016
2. CA Zip Code 91105 9. Compliance Software (version) EnergyPro 7.2
3. Climate Zone 9 10. Weather File BURBANK-GLENDALE_722880_CZ2010.epw
4. Total Conditioned Floor Area in Scope 73,683 ft2 11. Building Orientation (deg) (W) 270 deg
5. Total Unconditioned Floor Area 19,672 ft2 12. Permitted Scope of Work NewEnvelopeAndMechanical
6. Total # of Stories (Habitable Above Grade) 6 13 Building Type(s) High-Rise Residential
7. Total # of dwelling units 88 14 Gas Type NaturalGas
B. COMPLIANCE RESULTS FOR PERFORMANCE COMPONENTS (Annual TDV Energy Use, kBtu/ft 2-yr) § 140.1
BUILDING COMPLIES
1. Energy Component 2. Standard Design (TDV) 3. Proposed Design (TDV) 4. Compliance Margin (TDV) 5. Percent Better than Standard Space Heating 3.95 7.66 -3.71 -93.9%
Space Cooling 38.90 42.11 -3.21 -8.3%
Indoor Fans 21.91 14.75 7.16 32.7%
Heat Rejection 2.21 -- 2.21 --
Pumps & Misc. 5.49 -- 5.49 --
Domestic Hot Water 17.51 13.51 4.00 22.8%
Indoor Lighting 16.13 16.13 -- 0.0%
COMPLIANCE TOTAL 106.10 94.16 11.94 11.3%
Receptacle 41.41 41.41 0.0 0.0%
Process -- -- -- --
Other Ltg 30.41 30.41 0.0 0.0%
Process Motors -- -- -- --
TOTAL 177.92 165.98 11.9 6.7%
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 2 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 C. PRIORITY PLAN CHECK/ INSPECTION ITEMS (in order of highest to lowest TDV energy savings) 1st Indoor Fans: Check envelope and mechanical Compliance Margin By Energy Component (from Table B column 4) Indoor Fans
Pumps & Misc.
Domestic Hot Water
Heat Rejection
Indoor Lighting
Space Cooling
Space Heating
Penalty Energy Credit
2nd Pumps & Misc.: Check mechanical
3rd Domestic Hot Water: Check mechanical
4th Heat Rejection: Check envelope and mechanical
5th Indoor Lighting: Check lighting
6th Space Cooling: Check envelope and mechanical
7th Space Heating: Check envelope and mechanical
D. EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS
This project includes partial performance compliance scope options. The building must show compliance with all other applicable compliance scope options (performance or prescriptively) before occupying.
The aged solar reflectance and aged thermal emittance must be listed in the Cool Roof Rating Council database of certified products. For projects where initial reflectance is used, the initial reflectance must be listed, and the aged reflectance is calculated by the software program and used in the compliance model.
This project uses the Simplified Geometry Performance Modeling Approach which is not capable of modeling daylighting controls and assumes the prescriptive Secondary Daylit Control requirements are met. PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE documentation (form NRCC-LTI-02-E) for the requirements of section 140.6(d) Automatic Daylighting Controls in Secondary Daylit Zones is required.
This project includes Domestic Hot Water in the analysis. Please verify that Domestic Hot Water is included in the design for the permitted scope of work.
E. HERS VERIFICATION
This Section Does Not Apply
F. ADDITIONAL REMARKS
None Provided
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 3 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 G. COMPLIANCE PATH & CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Identify which building components use the performance or prescriptive path for compliance. “NA”= not in project For components that utilize the performance path, indicate the sheet number that includes mandatory notes on plans.
Building Component Compliance Path Compliance Forms (required for submittal) Location of Mandatory Notes on Plans
Envelope
Performance NRCC-PRF-ENV-DETAILS (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) Prescriptive NRCC-ENV-01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06-E
NA
Mechanical
Performance NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) Prescriptive NRCC-MCH-01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06 / 07-E NA
Domestic Hot Water
Performance NRCC-PRF-PLB-DETAILS (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) Prescriptive NRCC-PLB-01-E
NA
Lighting (Indoor Conditioned)
Performance NRCC-PRF-LTI-DETAILS (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E) Prescriptive NRCC-LTI-01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05-E
NA
Covered Process:
Commercial Kitchens
Performance S2 (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E)
Prescriptive NRCC-PRC-01/ 03-E
NA
Covered Process:
Computer Rooms
Performance S3 (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E)
Prescriptive NRCC-PRC-01/ 04-E
NA
Covered Process:
Laboratory Exhaust
Performance S4 (section of the NRCC-PRF-01-E)
Prescriptive NRCC-PRC-01/ 09-E
NA
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 4 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 G. COMPLIANCE PATH & CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
The following building components are only eligible for prescriptive compliance. Indicate which are relevant to the project.
The following building components may have mandatory requirements per Part 6. Indicate which are relevant to the project.
Yes NA Prescriptive Requirement Compliance Forms Yes NA Mandatory Requirement Compliance Forms Lighting (Indoor
Unconditioned) §140.6 NRCC-LTI-01 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05-E Commissioning: §120.8
Simple Systems
Complex Systems
NRCC-CXR-01 / 02 / 03 / 05-E
NRCC-CXR-01 / 02 / 04 / 05-E
Lighting (Outdoor) §140.7 NRCC-LTO-01 / 02 / 03-E Electrical: §130.5 NRCC-ELC-01-E Lighting (Sign) §140.8 NRCC-LTS-01-E Solar Ready: §110.10 NRCC-SRA-01 / 02-E Solar Thermal Water
Heating: §140.5 NRCC-STH-01-E
Covered Process: §120.6
Parking Garage
Commercial Refrigeration
Warehouse Refrigeration
Compressed Air
Process Boilers
NRCC-PRC-01-E
NRCC-PRC-02-E
NRCC-PRC-05-E
NRCC-PRC-06/07/08-E
NRCC-PRC-10-E
NRCC-PRC-11-E
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 5 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 H. CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE & CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION SUMMARY (NRCI/NRCA/NRCV) – Documentation Author to indicate which Certificates must be submitted for the features to be recognized for compliance (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
See Tables G. and H. in MCH and LTI Details Sections for Acceptance Tests and forms by equipment.
Confirmed
Building Component Compliance Forms (required for submittal) Pass Fail Envelope
NRCI-ENV-01-E - For all buildings
NRCA-ENV-02-F- NFRC label verification for fenestration Mechanical
NRCI-MCH-01-E - For all buildings with Mechanical Systems NRCA-MCH-02-A- Outdoor Air
NRCA-MCH-03-A – Constant Volume Single Zone HVAC
NRCA-MCH-04-H- Air Distribution Duct Leakage
NRCA-MCH-05-A- Air Economizer Controls
NRCA-MCH-06-A- Demand Control Ventilation
NRCA-MCH-07-A – Supply Fan Variable Flow Controls
NRCA-MCH-08-A- Valve Leakage Test
NRCA-MCH-09-A – Supply Water Temp Reset Controls
NRCA-MCH-10-A- Hydronic System Variable Flow Controls
NRCA-MCH-11-A – Auto Demand Shed Controls
NRCA-MCH-12-A- Packaged Direct Expansion Units
NRCA-MCH-13-A- Air Handling Units and Zone Terminal Units NRCA-MCH-14-A- Distributed Energy Storage
NRCA-MCH-15-A – Thermal Energy Storage
NRCA-MCH-16-A- Supply Air Temp Reset Controls
NRCA-MCH-17-A – Condensate Water Temp Reset Controls
NRCA-MCH-18-A- Energy Management Controls Systems
NRCV-MCH-04-H- Duct Leakage Test
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 6 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 H. CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE & CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION SUMMARY (NRCI/NRCA/NRCV) – Documentation Author to indicate which Certificates must be submitted for the features to be recognized for compliance (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
See Tables G. and H. in MCH and LTI Details Sections for Acceptance Tests and forms by equipment.
Confirmed
Building Component Compliance Forms (required for submittal) Pass Fail Plumbing
NRCI-PLB-01-E - For all buildings with Plumbing Systems NRCI-PLB-02-E - required on central systems in high‐rise residential, hotel/motel application.
NRCI-PLB-03-E - Single dwelling unit systems in high‐rise residential, hotel/motel application.
NRCI-PLB-21-E - HERS verified central systems in high‐rise residential, hotel/motel application.
NRCI-PLB-22-E - HERS verified single dwelling unit systems in high‐rise residential, hotel/motel application.
NRCV-PLB-21-H- HERS verified central systems in high‐rise residential, hotel/motel application.
NRCV-PLB-22-H - HERS verified single dwelling unit systems in high‐rise residential, hotel/motel application.
NRCI-STH-01-E - Any solar water heating
Indoor Lighting
NRCI-LTI-01-E - For all buildings
NRCI-LTI-02-E - Lighting control system, or for an Energy Management Control System (EMCS) NRCI-LTI-03-E - Line-voltage track lighting integral current limiter, or for a supplementary overcurrent protection panel used to energize only line-voltage track lighting
NRCI-LTI-04-E - Two interlocked systems serving an auditorium, a convention center, a conference room, or a theater NRCI-LTI-05-E - Lighting Control Credit Power Adjustment Factor (PAF) NRCI-LTI-06-E - Additional wattage installed in a video conferencing studio NRCA-LTI-02-A - Occupancy sensors and automatic time switch controls.
NRCA-LTI-03-A - Automatic daylighting controls
NRCA-LTI-04-A - Demand responsive lighting controls
Outdoor Lighting
NRCI-LTO-01-E – Outdoor Lighting
NRCI-LTO-02-E- EMCS Lighting Control System
NRCA-LTO-02-A - Outdoor Lighting Control
Sign Lighting NRCI-LTS-01-E – Sign Lighting
Electrical NRCI-ELC-01-E - Electrical Power Distribution Photovoltaic NRCI-SPV-01-E Photovoltaic Systems
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 7 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 H. CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE & CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION SUMMARY (NRCI/NRCA/NRCV) – Documentation Author to indicate which Certificates must be submitted for the features to be recognized for compliance (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
See Tables G. and H. in MCH and LTI Details Sections for Acceptance Tests and forms by equipment.
Confirmed
Building Component Compliance Forms (required for submittal) Pass Fail Covered Process
NRCI-PRC-01-E Covered Processes
NRCA-PRC-01-F- Compressed Air Systems
NRCA-PRC-02-F- Kitchen Exhaust
NRCA-PRC-03-F- Garage Exhaust
NRCA-PRC-04-F- Refrigerated Warehouse- Evaporator Fan Motor Controls NRCA-PRC-05-F- Refrigerated Warehouse- Evaporative Condenser Controls NRCA-PRC-06-F- Refrigerated Warehouse- Air Cooled Condenser Controls NRCA-PRC-07F- Refrigerated Warehouse- Variable Speed Compressor NRCA-PRC-08-F- Electrical Resistance Underslab Heating System I. ENVELOPE GENERAL INFORMATION (See NRCC-PRF-ENV-DETAILS for more information)
1. Total Conditioned Floor Area 73,683 ft2 5. Number of Floors Above Grade 6 Confirmed
2. Total Unconditioned Floor Area 19,672 ft2 6. Number of Floors Below Grade 0
3. Addition Conditioned Floor Area 0 ft
Pass
Fail
2 4. Addition Unconditioned Floor Area 0 ft2
7. Opaque Surfaces & Orientation 8. Total Gross Surface Area 9. Total Fenestration Area 10. Window to Wall Ratio North Wall 4,089 ft2 797 ft2 19.5%
East Wall 11,794 ft2 4,242 ft2 36.0%
South Wall 6,663 ft2 3,386 ft2 50.8%
West Wall 11,515 ft2 4,738 ft2 41.1%
Total 34,061 ft2 13,162 ft2 38.6%
Roof 11,150 ft2 0 ft2 00.0%
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 8 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 J. FENESTRATION ASSEMBLY SUMMARY § 110.6 Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Pass
Fail
Fenestration Assembly Name /
Tag or I.D.
Fenestration Type / Product Type
/ Frame Type Certification Method1 Assembly Method Area ft2 OverallU-factor Overall
SHGC
Overall
VT
Status
2 Glass Door
VerticalFenestration
GlazedDoor
N/A
NFRC Rated Manufactured 4929 0.29 0.23 0.50 N
Glass Window
VerticalFenestration
FixedWindow
N/A
NFRC Rated Manufactured 6402 0.29 0.23 0.50 N
Storefront Glass Door
VerticalFenestration
FixedWindow
N/A
NFRC Rated Manufactured 583 0.92 0.79 0.87 N
Storefront Glass Window
VerticalFenestration
FixedWindow
N/A
NFRC Rated Manufactured 1248 0.92 0.79 0.87 N
1 Newly installed fenestration shall have a certified NFRC Label Certificate or use the CEC default tables found in Table 110.6-A and Table 110.6-B. Center of Glass (COG) values are for the glass-only, determined by the manufacturer, and are shown for ease of verification. Site-built fenestration values are calculated per Nonresidential Appendix NA6 and are used in the analysis. 2 Status: N - New, A – Altered, E – Existing
Taking compliance credit for fenestration shading devices? (if "Yes", see NRCC-PRF-ENV-DETAILS for more information) No K. OPAQUE SURFACE ASSEMBLY SUMMARY § 120.7/ § 140.3 Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Pass
Fail
Surface Name Surface Type Area (ft2
)
Framing
Type
Cavity
R-Value
Continuous
R-Value
U-Factor / F-Factor
/ C-Factor
Status
1 R-19 Wall (Level 2 -Pent)7 ExteriorWall 25755 Wood 19 NA U-Factor: 0.072 N R-30 Floor No Crawlspace10 ExteriorFloor 73683 NA 0 NA U-Factor: 0.229 N R-30 Roof111 Roof 11150 Wood 30 NA U-Factor: 0.031 N
8 CMU Wall (Level 1-Mez617 ExteriorWall 8306 NA 0 NA U-Factor: 0.552 N R-19 Wall (Interior)654 InteriorWall 150 Wood 19 NA U-Factor: 0.066 N Slab On Grade673 UndergroundFloor 19672 NA 0 NA F-Factor: 0.730 N 1 Status: N - New, A – Altered, E – Existing
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 9 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 L. ROOFING PRODUCT SUMMARY § 140.3 Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Pass
Fail
Product Type Product Density
(lb/ft2)
Aged Solar
Reflectance
Thermal
Emittance SRI Cool RoofCredit
Roofing Product
Description
R-30 Roof111 7.135 0.55 0.75 Not Provided Yes CRRC Prod. ID: R-30 Roof M. HVAC SYSTEM SUMMARY (see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for more information) § 110.1 / § 110.2 Dry System Equipment 1(Fan & Economizer info included below in Table N) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type
System Type
(Simple 2 or
Complex 3)
Qty
Total Heating
Output
(kBtu/h)
Supp Heat
Source (Y/N)
Supp Heat
Output
(kBtuh)
Total Cooling
Output
(kBtu/h)
Efficiency
Acceptance
Testing
Required? (Y/N)
4 Status
5 Cooling Heating
2nd Floor Studio
Units3 Exhaust () Simple 5 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
3rd Floor Studio
Units28 Exhaust () Simple 7 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
4th Floor Studio
Units65 Exhaust () Simple 5 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
5th Floor Studio
Units86 Exhaust () Simple 5 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
6th Floor Studio
Units107 Exhaust () Simple 5 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
6th Floor Studio
Units119 Exhaust () Simple 5 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
2nd Floor One
Bed Units156 Exhaust () Simple 10 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
3rd Floor One
Bed Units207 Exhaust () Simple 7 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
4th Floor One
Bed Units242 Exhaust () Simple 7 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
5th Floor One
Bed Units285 Exhaust () Simple 7 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 10 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 M. HVAC SYSTEM SUMMARY (see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for more information) § 110.1 / § 110.2 Dry System Equipment 1(Fan & Economizer info included below in Table N) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type
System Type
(Simple 2 or
Complex 3)
Qty
Total Heating
Output
(kBtu/h)
Supp Heat
Source (Y/N)
Supp Heat
Output
(kBtuh)
Total Cooling
Output
(kBtu/h)
Efficiency
Acceptance
Testing
Required? (Y/N)
4 Status
5 Cooling Heating
6th Floor One
Bed Units328 Exhaust () Simple 6 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
2nd Floor Two
Bed Units359 Exhaust () Simple 4 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
3rd Floor Two
Bed Units407 Exhaust () Simple 3 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
4th Floor Two
Bed Units445 Exhaust () Simple 4 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
5th Floor Two
Bed Units495 Exhaust () Simple 4 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
6th Floor Two
Bed Units545 Exhaust () Simple 5 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
6th Floor Two
Bed Units575 Exhaust () Simple 5 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
Level 1
Work/Live
Units614
Exhaust () Simple 4 0 No 0 0 NA NA No N
Mezzanine
Level_Amenity L SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 1 56 No 0 55
SEER14.000 /
EER-11.000
HSPF-8.200 Yes N
Level 1 Retail
Space SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 4 56 No 0 55
SEER14.000 /
EER-11.000
HSPF-8.200 Yes N
Level 1
Restaurant SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 3 56 No 0 55
SEER14.000 /
EER-11.000
HSPF-8.200 Yes N
Level 1 Lobby SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 2 56 No 0 55
SEER14.000 /
EER-11.000
HSPF-8.200 Yes N
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 11 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 M. HVAC SYSTEM SUMMARY (see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for more information) § 110.1 / § 110.2 Dry System Equipment 1(Fan & Economizer info included below in Table N) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type
System Type
(Simple 2 or
Complex 3)
Qty
Total Heating
Output
(kBtu/h)
Supp Heat
Source (Y/N)
Supp Heat
Output
(kBtuh)
Total Cooling
Output
(kBtu/h)
Efficiency
Acceptance
Testing
Required? (Y/N)
4 Status
5 Cooling Heating
Level 1 Leasing
Office SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 1 14 No 0 12
SEER21.100 /
EER-13.000
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 1 Amenity
Space SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 1 14 No 0 12
SEER21.100 /
EER-13.000
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Mezzanine
Level_Gym SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 1 56 No 0 55
SEER14.000 /
EER-11.000
HSPF-8.200 Yes N
Level 2 Studio
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 5 14 No 0 12
SEER21.100 /
EER-13.000
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 3 Studio
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 7 14 No 0 12
SEER21.100 /
EER-13.000
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 4 Studio
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 5 14 No 0 12
SEER21.100 /
EER-13.000
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 5 Studio
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 5 14 No 0 12
SEER21.100 /
EER-13.000
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 6 Studio
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 5 14 No 0 12
SEER21.100 /
EER-13.000
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 6 T/H One
Bed Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 3 14 No 0 12
SEER21.100 /
EER-13.000
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 2 One Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 10 19 No 0 17
SEER19.900 /
EER-10.800
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 12 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 M. HVAC SYSTEM SUMMARY (see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for more information) § 110.1 / § 110.2 Dry System Equipment 1(Fan & Economizer info included below in Table N) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type
System Type
(Simple 2 or
Complex 3)
Qty
Total Heating
Output
(kBtu/h)
Supp Heat
Source (Y/N)
Supp Heat
Output
(kBtuh)
Total Cooling
Output
(kBtu/h)
Efficiency
Acceptance
Testing
Required? (Y/N)
4 Status
5 Cooling Heating
Level 3 One Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 7 19 No 0 17
SEER19.900 /
EER-10.800
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 4 One Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 7 19 No 0 17
SEER19.900 /
EER-10.800
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 5 One Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 7 19 No 0 17
SEER19.900 /
EER-10.800
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 6 One Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 6 19 No 0 17
SEER19.900 /
EER-10.800
HSPF10.200 Yes N
Level 2 Two Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 4 26 No 0 23
SEER19.600 /
EER-11.700
HSPF10.800 Yes N
Level 3 Two Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 3 26 No 0 23
SEER19.600 /
EER-11.700
HSPF10.800 Yes N
Level 4 Two Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 4 26 No 0 23
SEER19.600 /
EER-11.700
HSPF10.800 Yes N
Level 5 Two Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 4 26 No 0 23
SEER19.600 /
EER-11.700
HSPF10.800 Yes N
Level 6 Two Bed
Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 3 26 No 0 23
SEER19.600 /
EER-11.700
HSPF10.800 Yes N
Level 6 T/H Two
Bed Units SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 2 32 No 0 34
SEER15.500 /
EER-11.700
HSPF-9.400 Yes N
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 13 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 M. HVAC SYSTEM SUMMARY (see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for more information) § 110.1 / § 110.2 Dry System Equipment 1(Fan & Economizer info included below in Table N) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type
System Type
(Simple 2 or
Complex 3)
Qty
Total Heating
Output
(kBtu/h)
Supp Heat
Source (Y/N)
Supp Heat
Output
(kBtuh)
Total Cooling
Output
(kBtu/h)
Efficiency
Acceptance
Testing
Required? (Y/N)
4 Status
5 Cooling Heating
Level 1 +
Mezzanine
Work/
SZHP (Split1Phase) Simple 4 32 No 0 34
SEER15.500 /
EER-11.700
HSPF-9.400 Yes N
1 Dry System Equipment includes furnaces, air handling units, heat pumps, etc. 2 Simple Systems must complete NRCC-CXR-03-E commissioning design review form 3 Complex Systems must complete NRCC-CXR-04-E commissioning design review form 4 A summary of which acceptance tests are applicable is provided in NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS 5 Status: N - New, A – Altered, E – Existing
Wet System Equipment 1 Pumps Confirmed
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type Qty Vol (gal) Rated Capacity
(kBtu/h) Efficiency Standby Loss
Tank
Ext. R
Value
Qty GPM HP VSD
(Y/N)
Status
2 Raypak WH-902C1 Storage 2 356.00 900 Thrml. Eff.: 0.87 SBLF: 0.001 NA NA No N Raypak WH-902C1 2 Commercial
Storage (TE & SBL) 2 356.00 900 Thrml. Eff.: 0.870 0.0010 NA NA 0 (kW) NA N 1 Wet System Equipment includes boilers, chillers, cooling towers, water heaters, etc. 2 Status: N - New, A – Altered, E – Existing
Discrepancy between modeled and designed equipment sizing? (if "Yes", see Table F. "Additional Remarks" for an explanation) No Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 14 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 N. ECONOMIZER & FAN SYSTEMS SUMMARY1 § 140.4 Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name
Outside
Air Supply Fan Return Fan
Economizer Type
(if present)
CFM CFM HP BHP
TSP
(inch
WC)
Control CFM HP BHP
TSP
(inch
WC)
Control
Mezzanine
Level_Amenity L 765 1750 0.500 0.500 0.91 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer Level 1 Retail
Space 211 1750 0.500 0.500 0.91 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer Level 1
Restaurant 329 1750 0.500 0.500 0.91 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer Level 1 Lobby 592 1750 0.500 0.500 0.91 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer Level 1 Leasing
Office 89 450 0.066 0.066 0.47 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer Level 1 Amenity
Space 394 450 0.066 0.066 0.47 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer Mezzanine
Level_Gym 348 1750 0.500 0.500 0.91 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NoEconomizer Level 2 Studio
Units 0 450 0.066 0.066 0.47 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 3 Studio
Units 0 450 0.066 0.066 0.47 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 4 Studio
Units 0 450 0.066 0.066 0.47 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 5 Studio
Units 0 450 0.066 0.066 0.47 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 6 Studio
Units 0 450 0.066 0.066 0.47 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 6 T/H One
Bed Units 0 450 0.066 0.066 0.47 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 2 One Bed
Units 0 560 0.066 0.066 0.37 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 15 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 N. ECONOMIZER & FAN SYSTEMS SUMMARY1 § 140.4 Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name
Outside
Air Supply Fan Return Fan
Economizer Type
(if present)
CFM CFM HP BHP
TSP
(inch
WC)
Control CFM HP BHP
TSP
(inch
WC)
Control
Level 3 One Bed
Units 0 560 0.066 0.066 0.37 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 4 One Bed
Units 0 560 0.066 0.066 0.37 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 5 One Bed
Units 0 560 0.066 0.066 0.37 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 6 One Bed
Units 0 560 0.066 0.066 0.37 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 2 Two Bed
Units 0 700 0.094 0.094 0.43 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 3 Two Bed
Units 0 700 0.094 0.094 0.43 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 4 Two Bed
Units 0 700 0.094 0.094 0.43 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 5 Two Bed
Units 0 700 0.094 0.094 0.43 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 6 Two Bed
Units 0 700 0.094 0.094 0.43 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 6 T/H Two
Bed Units 0 1200 0.189 0.189 0.50 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA Level 1 +
Mezzanine
Work/
0 1200 0.189 0.189 0.50 ConstantVolume NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 Mechanical ventilation calculations and exhaust fans are included in the NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS section Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 16 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 O. EQUIPMENT CONTROLS § 120.2 Confirmed
1. 2. 3.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type Controls
2nd Floor Studio Units3 Exhaust NA
3rd Floor Studio Units28 Exhaust NA
4th Floor Studio Units65 Exhaust NA
5th Floor Studio Units86 Exhaust NA
6th Floor Studio Units107 Exhaust NA
6th Floor Studio Units119 Exhaust NA
2nd Floor One Bed Units156 Exhaust NA
3rd Floor One Bed Units207 Exhaust NA
4th Floor One Bed Units242 Exhaust NA
5th Floor One Bed Units285 Exhaust NA
6th Floor One Bed Units328 Exhaust NA
2nd Floor Two Bed Units359 Exhaust NA
3rd Floor Two Bed Units407 Exhaust NA
4th Floor Two Bed Units445 Exhaust NA
5th Floor Two Bed Units495 Exhaust NA
6th Floor Two Bed Units545 Exhaust NA
6th Floor Two Bed Units575 Exhaust NA
Level 1 Work/Live Units614 Exhaust NA
Mezzanine Level_Amenity L SZHP
No DCV Controls
No Economizer
No Supply Air Temp. Control
No Optimum Start
No Evaporative Cooler
No Heat Recovery
Level 1 Retail Space SZHP
No DCV Controls
No Economizer
No Supply Air Temp. Control
No Optimum Start
No Evaporative Cooler
No Heat Recovery
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 17 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 O. EQUIPMENT CONTROLS § 120.2 Confirmed
1. 2. 3.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type Controls
Level 1 Restaurant SZHP
No DCV Controls
No Economizer
No Supply Air Temp. Control
No Optimum Start
No Evaporative Cooler
No Heat Recovery
Level 1 Lobby SZHP
No DCV Controls
No Economizer
No Supply Air Temp. Control
No Optimum Start
No Evaporative Cooler
No Heat Recovery
Level 1 Leasing Office SZHP
No DCV Controls
No Economizer
No Supply Air Temp. Control
No Optimum Start
No Evaporative Cooler
No Heat Recovery
Level 1 Amenity Space SZHP
No DCV Controls
No Economizer
No Supply Air Temp. Control
No Optimum Start
No Evaporative Cooler
No Heat Recovery
Mezzanine Level_Gym SZHP
No DCV Controls
No Economizer
No Supply Air Temp. Control
No Optimum Start
No Evaporative Cooler
No Heat Recovery
DHW2 - SHW Service Hot Water, Primary Only Fixed Temperature Control, No DDC No Heat Recovery
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 18 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 P. SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY § 120.4/ § 140.4(I)
Dry System Distribution Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type
Duct Leakage and
Sealing Required per
140.4(l)
Duct Leakage will be
verified per NA1 and
NA2
Ducts
Status1
Insulation
R-Value Location
Mezzanine Level_Amenity L SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 1 Retail Space SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 1 Restaurant SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 1 Lobby SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 1 Leasing Office SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 1 Amenity Space SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Mezzanine Level_Gym SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 2 Studio Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 3 Studio Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 4 Studio Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 5 Studio Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 6 Studio Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 6 T/H One Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 2 One Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 3 One Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 4 One Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 5 One Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 6 One Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 2 Two Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 3 Two Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 4 Two Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 5 Two Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 6 Two Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Level 6 T/H Two Bed Units SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 19 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 P. SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY § 120.4/ § 140.4(I)
Dry System Distribution Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Pass
Fail
Equip Name Equip Type
Duct Leakage and
Sealing Required per
140.4(l)
Duct Leakage will be
verified per NA1 and
NA2
Ducts
Status1
Insulation
R-Value Location
Level 1 + Mezzanine Work/ SZHP No No 8 Unconditioned N
1 Status: N - New, E – Existing
Does the Project Include Zonal Systems? (if "Yes", see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for system information) Yes Does the Project Include a Solar Hot Water System? (if "Yes", see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for system information) Yes Multifamily or Hotel/ Motel Occupancy? (if "Yes", see NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS for DHW system information) Yes Q. INDOOR CONDITIONED LIGHTING GENERAL INFO (see NRCC-PRF-LTI-DETAILS for more info) This Section Does Not Apply
R. INDOOR CONDITIONED LIGHTING SCHEDULE (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-01-E)1 § 130.0 This Section Does Not Apply
1 If lighting power densities were used in the compliance model Building Departments will need to check prescriptive forms for Luminaire Schedule details.
S1. COVERED PROCESS SUMMARY – ENCLOSED PARKING GARAGES § 140.9 This Section Does Not Apply
S2. COVERED PROCESS SUMMARY – COMMERCIAL KITCHENS § 140.9 This Section Does Not Apply
S3. COVERED PROCESS SUMMARY – COMPUTER ROOMS § 140.9
This Section Does Not Apply
S4. COVERED PROCESS SUMMARY – LABORATORY EXHAUSTS § 140.9 This Section Does Not Apply
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 20 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 T. UNMET LOAD HOURS
Thermal Zone Name Cooling Unmet Load Hour Limit for
Thermal Zone Proposed Cooling Unmet Load Hours Heating Unmet Load Hour Limit forThermal Zone Proposed Heating Unmet Load Hours 24-Lobby + Low Ceiling 150 779.5 150 256.5
25-Leasing Office 150 981.25 150 19.5
26-Amenity 150 2843 150 11
U. ENERGY USE SUMMARY
Energy Component Standard Design Site
(MWh)
Proposed Design Site
(MWh)
Margin
(MWh)
Standard Design Site
(MBtu)
Proposed Design Site
(MBtu)
Margin
(MBtu)
Space Heating 0.0 33.6 -- 174.4 -- --
Space Cooling 66.8 54.9 11.9 -- -- --
Indoor Fans 60.3 47.2 13.1 -- -- --
Heat Rejection 4.5 -- -- -- -- --
Pumps & Misc. 16.5 -- -- -- -- --
Domestic Hot Water 0.3 0.5 -0.2 886.9 679.1 207.8
Indoor Lighting 48.7 48.7 0.0 -- -- --
COMPLIANCE TOTAL 197.1 184.9 12.2 1,061.3 679.1 --
Receptacle 137.9 137.9 0.0 43.3 43.3 0.0
Process -- -- -- -- -- --
Other Ltg 107.6 107.6 0.0 -- -- --
Process Motors -- -- -- -- -- --
TOTAL 442.6 430.4 12.2 1,104.6 722.4 --
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 21 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 DOCUMENTATION AUTHOR'S DECLARATION STATEMENT § 10-103
I certify that this Certificate of Compliance documentation is accurate and complete.
Documentation Author Name: Paul A. Breen, P.E.
Signature:
Company:
Address: 1983 West 190th Street, Suite 200 Signature Date:
City/State/Zip: Torrance CA 90504 CEA Identification (If applicable): M-30533 Phone: (310) 464-8404
RESPONSIBLE PERSON'S DECLARATION STATEMENT
I certify the following under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California:
1 I hereby affirm that I am eligible under the provisions of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code to sign this document as the person responsible for its preparation; and that I am licensed in the State of California as a civil engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, or I am a licensed architect. 2 I affirm that I am eligible under the provisions of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code by section 5537.2 or 6737.3 to sign this document as the person responsible for its preparation; and that I am a licensed contractor performing this work. 3 I affirm that I am eligible under Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code to sign this document because it pertains to a structure or type of work described as exempt pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 5537, 5538 and 6737.1.
Responsible Envelope Designer Name:
Signature:
Company: Architectural Resources Group
Address: 360 E. 2nd St., Suite 225 Date Signed:
City/State/Zip: Los Angeles CA 90012 Declaration Statement Type:
Phone: 626-583-1401 Title: License #:
Responsible Lighting Designer Name:
Signature: NOT IN SCOPE
Company:
Address: Date Signed:
City/State/Zip: Declaration Statement Type:
Phone: Title: License #:
Responsible Mechanical Designer Name: Paul A. Breen, P.E.
Signature:
Company: Breen Engineering Inc.
Address: 1983 West 190th Street, Suite 200 Date Signed:
City/State/Zip: Torrance CA 90504 Declaration Statement Type:
Phone: (310) 464-8404 Title: License #: M-30533
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 22 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-7-31 20:58:20 NRCC-PRF-ENV-DETAILS -SECTION STARTA. OPAQUE SURFACE ASSEMBLY DETAILS Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4.
Pass
Fail
Surface Name Surface Type Description of Assembly Layers Notes R-19 Wall (Level 2 -Pent)7 ExteriorWall
Stucco - 7/8 in.
Vapor permeable felt - 1/8 in.
Wood framed wall, 16in. OC, 5.5in., R-19
Gypsum Board - 5/8 in.
R-30 Floor No
Crawlspace10 ExteriorFloor Concrete - 140 lb/ft3 - 12 in.Carpet - 3/4 in.
R-30 Roof111 Roof
Clay tile - 1/2 in.
Vapor permeable felt - 1/8 in.
Plywood - 1/2 in.
Air - Ceiling - 3/4 in.
Wood framed roof, 16in. OC, 11.25in., R-30
Gypsum Board - 5/8 in.
8 CMU Wall (Level
1-Mez617 ExteriorWall Concrete - Solid Grout - 105 lb/ft3 - 8 in.
R-19 Wall (Interior)654 InteriorWall
Gypsum Board - 5/8 in.
Wood framed wall, 16in. OC, 5.5in., R-19
Gypsum Board - 5/8 in.
Slab On Grade673 UndergroundFloor
Slab Type = UnheatedSlabOnGrade
Insulation Orientation = None
Insulation R-Value = R0
B. OVERHANG DETAILS (Adapted from NRCC-ENV-02-E) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4.
Pass
Fail
Fenestration Tag/ID Fenestration Orientation
Overhang Dimensions Side fin
Horizontal Projection Distance Above Window Vertical Projection Balcony Door67 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door71 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door75 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door79 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 23 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 B. OVERHANG DETAILS (Adapted from NRCC-ENV-02-E) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4.
Pass
Fail
Fenestration Tag/ID Fenestration Orientation
Overhang Dimensions Side fin
Horizontal Projection Distance Above Window Vertical Projection Balcony Door83 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window147 North 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window148 North 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window149 North 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window150 North 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window151 North 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door211 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door217 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door221 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door225 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door231 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door235 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door239 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door246 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door252 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door258 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door262 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door270 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door276 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door282 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door418 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door419 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door432 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door436 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window439 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 24 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 B. OVERHANG DETAILS (Adapted from NRCC-ENV-02-E) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4.
Pass
Fail
Fenestration Tag/ID Fenestration Orientation
Overhang Dimensions Side fin
Horizontal Projection Distance Above Window Vertical Projection Window440 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window441 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window442 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door456 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door457 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door470 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door478 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door479 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door487 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window490 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window491 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window492 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door8 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door13 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door17 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door21 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door25 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door160 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door166 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door170 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door192 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door196 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door200 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door204 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door370 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 25 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 B. OVERHANG DETAILS (Adapted from NRCC-ENV-02-E) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4.
Pass
Fail
Fenestration Tag/ID Fenestration Orientation
Overhang Dimensions Side fin
Horizontal Projection Distance Above Window Vertical Projection Balcony Door371 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door384 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door398 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window401 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window402 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window403 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window404 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door30 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door34 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window38 South 5.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window39 South 5.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door40 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window48 South 5.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window49 South 5.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door50 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door54 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door88 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door92 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door96 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door100 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door104 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door289 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door295 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door301 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door305 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 26 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 B. OVERHANG DETAILS (Adapted from NRCC-ENV-02-E) Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4.
Pass
Fail
Fenestration Tag/ID Fenestration Orientation
Overhang Dimensions Side fin
Horizontal Projection Distance Above Window Vertical Projection Balcony Door313 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door319 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door325 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door506 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door507 West 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door520 East 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door528 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door529 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Balcony Door537 South 1.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window540 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window541 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window542 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window586 East 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window587 East 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window589 East 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window608 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window609 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
Window610 West 2.0 ft. 0.1 ft. Left: 0 ft., Right: 0 ft.
C. OPAQUE DOOR SUMMARY Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Opaque Door Assembly Name Pass Fail
/ Tag or I.D. Door Type Certification Method Operation Area OverallU-factor Status1 Wood Door145 WoodGreaterThanOrEqualTo1.75inThickDoor DefaultPerformance Swinging 42 0.500 N 1 Status: N - New, A – Altered, E – Existing
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 27 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 NRCC-PRF-MCH-DETAILS -SECTION STARTA. MECHANICAL VENTILATION AND REHEAT (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-03-E) Confirmed
1. DESIGN AIR FLOWS 2. VENTILATION (§ 120.1)
Pass
Fail
CONDITIONED
ZONE NAME
HEATING/COOLING SYSTEM
ID
DESIGN PRIMARY AIR FLOW
(CFM)
DESIGN PRIMARY MINIMUM
AIR FLOW (CFM)
MINIMUM PRIMARY AIR
FLOW FRACTION
MAXIMUM HEATING AIR
FLOW (CFM)
MAXIMUM HEATING AIR
FLOW FRACTION
DDC CONTROL (Y/N)
VENT SYSTEM ID
CONDITIONED AREA (ft2)
MIN. VENT PER AREA
(CFM/ft2)
DESIGN NUM. OF PEOPLE
MIN. VENT PER PERSON
(CFM/person)
REQ'D VENT AIR FLOW (CFM)
DESIGN VENT AIR FLOW
(CFM)
TRANSFER AIRFLOW (CFM)
DCV (Y/N)
Operable Window Interlock §
140.4(n) (Y/N)
1-2nd Floor Studio
Units
Level 2
Studio
Units
NA NA NA NA NA N
2nd Floor
Studio
Units3
2,375 NA 10.00 19.25 193 193 NA N NA
2-3rd Floor Studio
Units
Level 3
Studio
Units
NA NA NA NA NA N
3rd Floor
Studio
Units28
3,155 NA 14.00 18.52 259 259 NA N NA
3-4th Floor Studio
Units
Level 4
Studio
Units
NA NA NA NA NA N
4th Floor
Studio
Units65
2,375 NA 10.00 19.25 193 193 NA N NA
4-5th Floor Studio
Units
Level 5
Studio
Units
NA NA NA NA NA N
5th Floor
Studio
Units86
2,375 NA 10.00 19.25 193 193 NA N NA
5-6th Floor Studio
Units
Level 6
Studio
Units
NA NA NA NA NA N
6th Floor
Studio
Units107
1,030 NA 4.00 20.45 82 82 NA N NA
6-6th Floor Studio
Units
Level 6 T/H
One Bed
Units
NA NA NA NA NA N
6th Floor
Studio
Units119
1,686 NA 6.00 21.86 131 131 NA N NA
7-2nd Floor One
Bed Units
Level 2 One
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
2nd Floor
One Bed
Units156
6,835 NA 20.00 25.50 510 510 NA N NA
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 28 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 A. MECHANICAL VENTILATION AND REHEAT (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-03-E) Confirmed
1. DESIGN AIR FLOWS 2. VENTILATION (§ 120.1)
Pass
Fail
CONDITIONED
ZONE NAME
HEATING/COOLING SYSTEM
ID
DESIGN PRIMARY AIR FLOW
(CFM)
DESIGN PRIMARY MINIMUM
AIR FLOW (CFM)
MINIMUM PRIMARY AIR
FLOW FRACTION
MAXIMUM HEATING AIR
FLOW (CFM)
MAXIMUM HEATING AIR
FLOW FRACTION
DDC CONTROL (Y/N)
VENT SYSTEM ID
CONDITIONED AREA (ft2)
MIN. VENT PER AREA
(CFM/ft2)
DESIGN NUM. OF PEOPLE
MIN. VENT PER PERSON
(CFM/person)
REQ'D VENT AIR FLOW (CFM)
DESIGN VENT AIR FLOW
(CFM)
TRANSFER AIRFLOW (CFM)
DCV (Y/N)
Operable Window Interlock §
140.4(n) (Y/N)
8-3rd Floor One
Bed Units
Level 3 One
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
3rd Floor
One Bed
Units207
4,840 NA 14.00 25.74 360 360 NA N NA
9-4th Floor One
Bed Units
Level 4 One
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
4th Floor
One Bed
Units242
4,840 NA 14.00 25.74 360 360 NA N NA
10-5th Floor One
Bed Units
Level 5 One
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
5th Floor
One Bed
Units285
4,840 NA 14.00 25.74 360 360 NA N NA
11-6th Floor One
Bed Units
Level 6 One
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
6th Floor
One Bed
Units328
3,990 NA 12.00 24.95 299 299 NA N NA
12-2nd Floor Two
Bed Units
Level 2 Two
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
2nd Floor
Two Bed
Units359
3,140 NA 12.00 20.70 248 248 NA N NA
13-3rd Floor Two
Bed Units
Level 3 Two
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
3rd Floor
Two Bed
Units407
2,370 NA 9.00 20.80 187 187 NA N NA
14-4th Floor Two
Bed Units
Level 4 Two
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
4th Floor
Two Bed
Units445
3,300 NA 12.00 21.50 258 258 NA N NA
15-5th Floor Two
Bed Units
Level 5 Two
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
5th Floor
Two Bed
Units495
3,300 NA 12.00 21.50 258 258 NA N NA
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 29 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 A. MECHANICAL VENTILATION AND REHEAT (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-03-E) Confirmed
1. DESIGN AIR FLOWS 2. VENTILATION (§ 120.1)
Pass
Fail
CONDITIONED
ZONE NAME
HEATING/COOLING SYSTEM
ID
DESIGN PRIMARY AIR FLOW
(CFM)
DESIGN PRIMARY MINIMUM
AIR FLOW (CFM)
MINIMUM PRIMARY AIR
FLOW FRACTION
MAXIMUM HEATING AIR
FLOW (CFM)
MAXIMUM HEATING AIR
FLOW FRACTION
DDC CONTROL (Y/N)
VENT SYSTEM ID
CONDITIONED AREA (ft2)
MIN. VENT PER AREA
(CFM/ft2)
DESIGN NUM. OF PEOPLE
MIN. VENT PER PERSON
(CFM/person)
REQ'D VENT AIR FLOW (CFM)
DESIGN VENT AIR FLOW
(CFM)
TRANSFER AIRFLOW (CFM)
DCV (Y/N)
Operable Window Interlock §
140.4(n) (Y/N)
16-6th Floor Two
Bed Units
Level 6 Two
Bed Units NA NA NA NA NA N
6th Floor
Two Bed
Units545
2,350 NA 9.00 20.67 186 186 NA N NA
17-6th Floor Two
Bed Units
Level 6 T/H
Two Bed
Units
NA NA NA NA NA N
6th Floor
Two Bed
Units575
1,850 NA 6.00 23.50 141 141 NA N NA
18-Level 1
Work/Live Units
Level 1 +
Mezzanine
Work/
NA NA NA NA NA N
Level 1
Work/Live
Units614
5,242 NA 8.00 44.31 355 355 NA N NA
19-Amenity Lounge
Mezzanine
Level_Ame
nity L
1,750 NA NA NA NA N
Mezzanine
Level_Ame
nity L
1,530 NA 51.00 15.00 765 765 NA N NA
20-Retail Space
Level 1
Retail
Space
1,750 NA NA NA NA N
Level 1
Retail
Space
4,218 NA 35.16 24.00 844 844 NA N NA
22-Restaurant Level 1
Restaurant 1,750 NA NA NA NA N
Level 1
Restaurant 1,974 NA 65.80 15.00 987 987 NA N NA
23-Lobby + High
Ceiling
Level 1
Lobby 1,324 NA NA NA NA N
Level 1
Lobby 1,792 NA 59.74 15.00 896 896 NA N NA
24-Lobby + Low
Ceiling
Level 1
Lobby 426 NA NA NA NA N
Level 1
Lobby 577 NA 19.23 15.00 289 289 NA N NA
25-Leasing Office
Level 1
Leasing
Office
450 NA NA NA NA N
Level 1
Leasing
Office
590 NA 2.95 30.00 89 89 NA N NA
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 30 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 A. MECHANICAL VENTILATION AND REHEAT (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-03-E) Confirmed
1. DESIGN AIR FLOWS 2. VENTILATION (§ 120.1)
Pass
Fail
CONDITIONED
ZONE NAME
HEATING/COOLING SYSTEM
ID
DESIGN PRIMARY AIR FLOW
(CFM)
DESIGN PRIMARY MINIMUM
AIR FLOW (CFM)
MINIMUM PRIMARY AIR
FLOW FRACTION
MAXIMUM HEATING AIR
FLOW (CFM)
MAXIMUM HEATING AIR
FLOW FRACTION
DDC CONTROL (Y/N)
VENT SYSTEM ID
CONDITIONED AREA (ft2)
MIN. VENT PER AREA
(CFM/ft2)
DESIGN NUM. OF PEOPLE
MIN. VENT PER PERSON
(CFM/person)
REQ'D VENT AIR FLOW (CFM)
DESIGN VENT AIR FLOW
(CFM)
TRANSFER AIRFLOW (CFM)
DCV (Y/N)
Operable Window Interlock §
140.4(n) (Y/N)
26-Amenity
Level 1
Amenity
Space
450 NA NA NA NA N
Level 1
Amenity
Space
788 NA 26.27 15.00 394 394 NA N NA
27-Gym Mezzanine
Level_Gym 1,750 NA NA NA NA N
Mezzanine
Level_Gym 2,321 NA 23.21 15.00 348 348 NA N NA
TOTAL 73,683 479.3
6 9,185 9,185 NA
B. ZONAL SYSTEM AND TERMINAL UNIT SUMMARY § 140.4
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Confirmed
System ID System Type Qty
Rated Capacity
(kBtuh)
Economizer Zone Name
Airflow (cfm) Fan
Pass
Fail
Heating Cooling Design Min. Min.
Ratio BHP Cycles ECMMotor
Level 2 Studio Units SZHP 5 14.00 12.00 No 1-2nd Floor Studio Units 450 NA NA 0.066 Level 3 Studio Units SZHP 7 14.00 12.00 No 2-3rd Floor Studio Units 450 NA NA 0.066 Level 4 Studio Units SZHP 5 14.00 12.00 No 3-4th Floor Studio Units 450 NA NA 0.066 Level 5 Studio Units SZHP 5 14.00 12.00 No 4-5th Floor Studio Units 450 NA NA 0.066 Level 6 Studio Units SZHP 5 14.00 12.00 No 5-6th Floor Studio Units 450 NA NA 0.066 Level 6 T/H One Bed
Units SZHP 3 14.00 12.00 No 6-6th Floor Studio Units 450 NA NA 0.066 Level 2 One Bed Units SZHP 10 19.00 17.00 No 7-2nd Floor One Bed Units 560 NA NA 0.066
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 31 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 B. ZONAL SYSTEM AND TERMINAL UNIT SUMMARY § 140.4
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Confirmed
System ID System Type Qty
Rated Capacity
(kBtuh)
Economizer Zone Name
Airflow (cfm) Fan
Pass
Fail
Heating Cooling Design Min. Min.
Ratio BHP Cycles ECMMotor
Level 3 One Bed Units SZHP 7 19.00 17.00 No 8-3rd Floor One Bed Units 560 NA NA 0.066 Level 4 One Bed Units SZHP 7 19.00 17.00 No 9-4th Floor One Bed Units 560 NA NA 0.066 Level 5 One Bed Units SZHP 7 19.00 17.00 No 10-5th Floor One Bed Units 560 NA NA 0.066
Level 6 One Bed Units SZHP 6 19.00 17.00 No 11-6th Floor One Bed Units 560 NA NA 0.066
Level 2 Two Bed Units SZHP 4 26.00 23.00 No 12-2nd Floor Two Bed Units 700 NA NA 0.094
Level 3 Two Bed Units SZHP 3 26.00 23.00 No 13-3rd Floor Two Bed Units 700 NA NA 0.094
Level 4 Two Bed Units SZHP 4 26.00 23.00 No 14-4th Floor Two Bed Units 700 NA NA 0.094
Level 5 Two Bed Units SZHP 4 26.00 23.00 No 15-5th Floor Two Bed Units 700 NA NA 0.094
Level 6 Two Bed Units SZHP 3 26.00 23.00 No 16-6th Floor Two Bed Units 700 NA NA 0.094
Level 6 T/H Two Bed
Units SZHP 2 32.00 34.00 No 17-6th Floor Two BedUnits 1200 NA NA 0.189 Level 1 + Mezzanine
Work/ SZHP 4 32.00 34.00 No 18-Level 1 Work/LiveUnits 1200 NA NA 0.189 19-Amenity
Lounge-Trm Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 19-Amenity Lounge 1750 NA NA NA NA 20-Retail Space-Trm Uncontrolled 4 NA NA NA 20-Retail Space 1750 NA NA NA NA 22-Restaurant-Trm Uncontrolled 3 NA NA NA 22-Restaurant 1750 NA NA NA NA 24-Lobby + Low
Ceiling-Trm Uncontrolled 2 NA NA NA 24-Lobby + Low Ceiling 426 NA NA NA NA 23-Lobby + High
Ceiling-Trm Uncontrolled 2 NA NA NA 23-Lobby + High Ceiling 1324 NA NA NA NA Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 32 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 B. ZONAL SYSTEM AND TERMINAL UNIT SUMMARY § 140.4
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Confirmed
System ID System Type Qty
Rated Capacity
(kBtuh)
Economizer Zone Name
Airflow (cfm) Fan
Pass
Fail
Heating Cooling Design Min. Min.
Ratio BHP Cycles ECMMotor
25-Leasing Office-Trm Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 25-Leasing Office 450 NA NA NA NA 26-Amenity-Trm Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 26-Amenity 450 NA NA NA NA 27-Gym-Trm Uncontrolled 1 NA NA NA 27-Gym 1750 NA NA NA NA C. EXHAUST FAN SUMMARY Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Pass
Fail
System ID Zone Name Qty CFM Motor BHP Total Static Pressure (in H20) 2nd Floor Studio Units3 1-2nd Floor Studio Units 5 60 0.023 1.47 3rd Floor Studio Units28 2-3rd Floor Studio Units 7 60 0.023 1.47 4th Floor Studio Units65 3-4th Floor Studio Units 5 60 0.023 1.47 5th Floor Studio Units86 4-5th Floor Studio Units 5 60 0.023 1.47 6th Floor Studio Units107 5-6th Floor Studio Units 5 60 0.023 1.47 6th Floor Studio Units119 6-6th Floor Studio Units 5 60 0.023 1.47 2nd Floor One Bed Units156 7-2nd Floor One Bed Units 10 60 0.023 1.47 3rd Floor One Bed Units207 8-3rd Floor One Bed Units 7 60 0.023 1.47 4th Floor One Bed Units242 9-4th Floor One Bed Units 7 60 0.023 1.47 5th Floor One Bed Units285 10-5th Floor One Bed Units 7 60 0.023 1.47 6th Floor One Bed Units328 11-6th Floor One Bed Units 6 60 0.023 1.47 2nd Floor Two Bed Units359 12-2nd Floor Two Bed Units 4 80 0.023 1.10 3rd Floor Two Bed Units407 13-3rd Floor Two Bed Units 3 80 0.023 1.10 4th Floor Two Bed Units445 14-4th Floor Two Bed Units 4 80 0.023 1.10 5th Floor Two Bed Units495 15-5th Floor Two Bed Units 4 80 0.023 1.10 6th Floor Two Bed Units545 16-6th Floor Two Bed Units 5 80 0.023 1.10 6th Floor Two Bed Units575 17-6th Floor Two Bed Units 5 80 0.023 1.10 Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 33 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 C. EXHAUST FAN SUMMARY Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Pass
Fail
System ID Zone Name Qty CFM Motor BHP Total Static Pressure (in H20) Level 1 Work/Live Units614 18-Level 1 Work/Live Units 4 91 0.023 0.97 1-2nd Floor Studio Units PropExhFan 1-2nd Floor Studio Units 5 300 NA 1.55081 2-3rd Floor Studio Units PropExhFan 2-3rd Floor Studio Units 7 420 NA 1.55081 3-4th Floor Studio Units PropExhFan 3-4th Floor Studio Units 5 300 NA 1.55081 4-5th Floor Studio Units PropExhFan 4-5th Floor Studio Units 5 300 NA 1.55081 5-6th Floor Studio Units PropExhFan 5-6th Floor Studio Units 5 300 NA 1.55081 6-6th Floor Studio Units PropExhFan 6-6th Floor Studio Units 3 300 NA 1.55081 7-2nd Floor One Bed Units
PropExhFan 7-2nd Floor One Bed Units 10 600 NA 1.55081
8-3rd Floor One Bed Units
PropExhFan 8-3rd Floor One Bed Units 7 420 NA 1.55081
9-4th Floor One Bed Units
PropExhFan 9-4th Floor One Bed Units 7 420 NA 1.55081
10-5th Floor One Bed Units
PropExhFan 10-5th Floor One Bed Units 7 420 NA 1.55081
11-6th Floor One Bed Units
PropExhFan 11-6th Floor One Bed Units 6 360 NA 1.55081
12-2nd Floor Two Bed Units
PropExhFan 12-2nd Floor Two Bed Units 4 320 NA 1.16311
13-3rd Floor Two Bed Units
PropExhFan 13-3rd Floor Two Bed Units 3 240 NA 1.16311
14-4th Floor Two Bed Units
PropExhFan 14-4th Floor Two Bed Units 4 320 NA 1.16311
15-5th Floor Two Bed Units
PropExhFan 15-5th Floor Two Bed Units 4 320 NA 1.16311
16-6th Floor Two Bed Units
PropExhFan 16-6th Floor Two Bed Units 3 400 NA 1.16311
17-6th Floor Two Bed Units
PropExhFan 17-6th Floor Two Bed Units 2 400 NA 1.16311
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 34 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 C. EXHAUST FAN SUMMARY Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Pass
Fail
System ID Zone Name Qty CFM Motor BHP Total Static Pressure (in H20) 18-Level 1 Work/Live Units
PropExhFan 18-Level 1 Work/Live Units 4 364 NA 1.02251
D. DHW EQUIPMENT SUMMARY – (Adapted from NRCC-PLB-01) § 110.3 Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Pass
Fail
DHW Name Heater
Element Type Tank Type Qty Tank Vol(gal)
Rated Input
(kBtu/h) Efficiency
Tank
Insulation
R-value
(Int/Ext)
Standby Loss
Fraction
Heat Pump
Type
Tank Location
or Ambient
Condition
Raypak WH-902C1 Gas Storage 2 356.00 900 Thrml. Eff.:
0.87 NA SBLF: 0.001 NA NA
Raypak WH-902C1
2 Gas Commercial Storage
(TE & SBL) 2 356.00 900 Thrml. Eff.:0.870 / 0.0010 NA Unconditioned E. MULTI-FAMILY CENTRAL DHW SYSTEM DETAILS § 110.3 Confirmed
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Pass
Fail
System Name
Number of Dwelling
Units Served by
System
System Type
Number of
Water
Heaters /
System
Multi-Family
Distribution Type
Solar Fraction
(%)
Recirculating
Pump Number of
Recirculation
Loops
Recirculation
Loop
Insulation
Thickness
Recirculation
Loop Location
Eff BHP
MF-Raypak
WH-902C1 88 Standard 2
Demand Control
(Standard Design for
new construction)
0.25 0.85 0.17 2 1.5 Conditioned
F. SOLAR HOT WATER HEATING SUMMARY (Adapted from NRCC-STH-01) G. § RA4
1. 2. Collector
System
Name Manufacturer Brand Model # SRRC Cert Type Area ft2 Rated
Eff.Curve
Slope
Rated
Eff.Curve
Intercept
Number Fluid
Angle from
true north
(degrees)
Slope from
horizontal
(degrees)
DHW2 - SHW
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 35 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07- 31 20:58:20 F. SOLAR HOT WATER HEATING SUMMARY (Adapted from NRCC-STH-01) G. § RA4
1. 2. Collector
System
Name Manufacturer Brand Model # SRRC Cert Type Area ft2 Rated
Eff.Curve
Slope
Rated
Eff.Curve
Intercept
Number Fluid
Angle from
true north
(degrees)
Slope from
horizontal
(degrees)
MF-Raypak
WH-902C1
F. SOLAR HOT WATER HEATING SUMMARY (Adapted from NRCC-STH-01) G. § RA4
1. 3. Software 4. Storage 5. 6 Confirmed
System Name Name of program
used Version Water Heater TankVolume (gallons)
Secondary Tank
Volume (gallons)
# of Identical Dwelling
Units Solar Fraction Pass Fail
DHW2 - SHW 712 0.25
MF-Raypak WH-902C1 0.25
G. MECHANICAL HVAC ACCEPTANCE TESTS & FORMS (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-01-E) § RA4 Declaration of Required Acceptance Certificates (NRCA) – Acceptance Certificates that may be submitted. (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
Test Description
MCH-02AMCH-03AMCH-04AMCH-05AMCH-06AMCH-07AMCH-08AMCH-09AMCH-10AMCH-11AMCH-12AMCH-13AMCH-14AMCH-15AMCH-16AMCH-17AMCH-18A Confirmed
Equipment
Requiring
Testing or
Verification
# of
units
Outdoor Air
Single Zone Unitary
Air Dist. Ducts
Economizer Controls
DCV
Supply Fan VAV
Valve leakage
Supply Water Temp.
Reset
Hyd. Variable Flow
Control
Auto Demand Shed
Control
FDD for DX Units
Auto FDD for Air &
Zone
Dist. Energy Storage
DX AC
TES Systems
Supply Air Temp. Reset
Condenser Water
Reset Controls
ECMS
Pass
Fail
DHW2 -
SHW 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2nd Floor
Studio
Units3
5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 36 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 G. MECHANICAL HVAC ACCEPTANCE TESTS & FORMS (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-01-E) § RA4 Declaration of Required Acceptance Certificates (NRCA) – Acceptance Certificates that may be submitted. (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
Test Description
MCH-02AMCH-03AMCH-04AMCH-05AMCH-06AMCH-07AMCH-08AMCH-09AMCH-10AMCH-11AMCH-12AMCH-13AMCH-14AMCH-15AMCH-16AMCH-17AMCH-18A Confirmed
Equipment
Requiring
Testing or
Verification
# of
units
Outdoor Air
Single Zone Unitary
Air Dist. Ducts
Economizer Controls
DCV
Supply Fan VAV
Valve leakage
Supply Water Temp.
Reset
Hyd. Variable Flow
Control
Auto Demand Shed
Control
FDD for DX Units
Auto FDD for Air &
Zone
Dist. Energy Storage
DX AC
TES Systems
Supply Air Temp. Reset
Condenser Water
Reset Controls
ECMS
Pass
Fail
3rd Floor
Studio
Units28
7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4th Floor
Studio
Units65
5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
5th Floor
Studio
Units86
5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
6th Floor
Studio
Units107
5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
6th Floor
Studio
Units119
5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2nd Floor
One Bed
Units156
10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
3rd Floor
One Bed
Units207
7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 37 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 G. MECHANICAL HVAC ACCEPTANCE TESTS & FORMS (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-01-E) § RA4 Declaration of Required Acceptance Certificates (NRCA) – Acceptance Certificates that may be submitted. (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
Test Description
MCH-02AMCH-03AMCH-04AMCH-05AMCH-06AMCH-07AMCH-08AMCH-09AMCH-10AMCH-11AMCH-12AMCH-13AMCH-14AMCH-15AMCH-16AMCH-17AMCH-18A Confirmed
Equipment
Requiring
Testing or
Verification
# of
units
Outdoor Air
Single Zone Unitary
Air Dist. Ducts
Economizer Controls
DCV
Supply Fan VAV
Valve leakage
Supply Water Temp.
Reset
Hyd. Variable Flow
Control
Auto Demand Shed
Control
FDD for DX Units
Auto FDD for Air &
Zone
Dist. Energy Storage
DX AC
TES Systems
Supply Air Temp. Reset
Condenser Water
Reset Controls
ECMS
Pass
Fail
4th Floor
One Bed
Units242
7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
5th Floor
One Bed
Units285
7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
6th Floor
One Bed
Units328
6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2nd Floor
Two Bed
Units359
4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
3rd Floor
Two Bed
Units407
3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4th Floor
Two Bed
Units445
4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
5th Floor
Two Bed
Units495
4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 38 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 G. MECHANICAL HVAC ACCEPTANCE TESTS & FORMS (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-01-E) § RA4 Declaration of Required Acceptance Certificates (NRCA) – Acceptance Certificates that may be submitted. (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
Test Description
MCH-02AMCH-03AMCH-04AMCH-05AMCH-06AMCH-07AMCH-08AMCH-09AMCH-10AMCH-11AMCH-12AMCH-13AMCH-14AMCH-15AMCH-16AMCH-17AMCH-18A Confirmed
Equipment
Requiring
Testing or
Verification
# of
units
Outdoor Air
Single Zone Unitary
Air Dist. Ducts
Economizer Controls
DCV
Supply Fan VAV
Valve leakage
Supply Water Temp.
Reset
Hyd. Variable Flow
Control
Auto Demand Shed
Control
FDD for DX Units
Auto FDD for Air &
Zone
Dist. Energy Storage
DX AC
TES Systems
Supply Air Temp. Reset
Condenser Water
Reset Controls
ECMS
Pass
Fail
6th Floor
Two Bed
Units545
5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
6th Floor
Two Bed
Units575
5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Level 1
Work/Live
Units614
4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mezzanine
Level_Amen
ity L
1 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Level 1
Retail Space 4 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 1
Restaurant 3 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 1
Lobby 2 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 1
Leasing
Office
1 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 39 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 G. MECHANICAL HVAC ACCEPTANCE TESTS & FORMS (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-01-E) § RA4 Declaration of Required Acceptance Certificates (NRCA) – Acceptance Certificates that may be submitted. (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
Test Description
MCH-02AMCH-03AMCH-04AMCH-05AMCH-06AMCH-07AMCH-08AMCH-09AMCH-10AMCH-11AMCH-12AMCH-13AMCH-14AMCH-15AMCH-16AMCH-17AMCH-18A Confirmed
Equipment
Requiring
Testing or
Verification
# of
units
Outdoor Air
Single Zone Unitary
Air Dist. Ducts
Economizer Controls
DCV
Supply Fan VAV
Valve leakage
Supply Water Temp.
Reset
Hyd. Variable Flow
Control
Auto Demand Shed
Control
FDD for DX Units
Auto FDD for Air &
Zone
Dist. Energy Storage
DX AC
TES Systems
Supply Air Temp. Reset
Condenser Water
Reset Controls
ECMS
Pass
Fail
Level 1
Amenity
Space
1 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mezzanine
Level_Gym 1 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 2
Studio Units 5 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 3
Studio Units 7 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 4
Studio Units 5 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 5
Studio Units 5 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 6
Studio Units 5 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 6 T/H
One Bed
Units
3 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Level 2 One
Bed Units 10 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 40 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Mon, Aug 19, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 G. MECHANICAL HVAC ACCEPTANCE TESTS & FORMS (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-01-E) § RA4 Declaration of Required Acceptance Certificates (NRCA) – Acceptance Certificates that may be submitted. (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
Test Description
MCH-02AMCH-03AMCH-04AMCH-05AMCH-06AMCH-07AMCH-08AMCH-09AMCH-10AMCH-11AMCH-12AMCH-13AMCH-14AMCH-15AMCH-16AMCH-17AMCH-18A Confirmed
Equipment
Requiring
Testing or
Verification
# of
units
Outdoor Air
Single Zone Unitary
Air Dist. Ducts
Economizer Controls
DCV
Supply Fan VAV
Valve leakage
Supply Water Temp.
Reset
Hyd. Variable Flow
Control
Auto Demand Shed
Control
FDD for DX Units
Auto FDD for Air &
Zone
Dist. Energy Storage
DX AC
TES Systems
Supply Air Temp. Reset
Condenser Water
Reset Controls
ECMS
Pass
Fail
Level 3 One
Bed Units 7 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 4 One
Bed Units 7 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 5 One
Bed Units 7 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 6 One
Bed Units 6 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 2 Two
Bed Units 4 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 3 Two
Bed Units 3 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 4 Two
Bed Units 4 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 5 Two
Bed Units 4 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 6 Two
Bed Units 3 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Level 6 T/H
Two Bed
Units
2 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 41 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 G. MECHANICAL HVAC ACCEPTANCE TESTS & FORMS (Adapted from 2016-NRCC-MCH-01-E) § RA4 Declaration of Required Acceptance Certificates (NRCA) – Acceptance Certificates that may be submitted. (Retain copies and verify forms are completed and signed to post in field for Field Inspector to verify).
Test Description
MCH-02AMCH-03AMCH-04AMCH-05AMCH-06AMCH-07AMCH-08AMCH-09AMCH-10AMCH-11AMCH-12AMCH-13AMCH-14AMCH-15AMCH-16AMCH-17AMCH-18A Confirmed
Equipment
Requiring
Testing or
Verification
# of
units
Outdoor Air
Single Zone Unitary
Air Dist. Ducts
Economizer Controls
DCV
Supply Fan VAV
Valve leakage
Supply Water Temp.
Reset
Hyd. Variable Flow
Control
Auto Demand Shed
Control
FDD for DX Units
Auto FDD for Air &
Zone
Dist. Energy Storage
DX AC
TES Systems
Supply Air Temp. Reset
Condenser Water
Reset Controls
ECMS
Pass
Fail
Level 1 +
Mezzanine
Work/
4 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
H. EVAPORATIVE COOLER SUMMARY
This Section Does Not Apply
NRCC-PRF-LTI-DETAILS -SECTION STARTA. INDOOR CONDITIONED LIGHTING CONTROL CREDITS (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-02-E) § 140.6 This Section Does Not Apply
B. INDOOR CONDITIONED LIGHTING MANDATORY LIGHTING CONTROLS (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-02-E) § 130.1 This Section Does Not Apply
C. TAILORED METHOD CONDITIONED LIGHTING POWER ALLOWANCE SUMMARY AND CHECKLIST (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E) § 140.6 This Section Does Not Apply
Project Name: Central Park Apartments NRCC-PRF-01-E Page 42 of 42 Project Address: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena 91105 Calculation Date/Time: 20:35, Wed, Jul 31, 2019 Compliance Scope: NewEnvelopeAndMechanical Input File Name: Central Park Apartments.cibd16x CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards- 2016 Nonresidential Compliance Report Version: NRCC-PRF-01-E-08022018-5160 Report Generated at: 2019-07-31 20:58:20 D. GENERAL LIGHTING POWER (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E) § 140.6-D This Section Does Not Apply
E. GENERAL LIGHTING FROM SPECIAL FUNCTION AREAS (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E) § 140.6(c) 3H This Section Does Not Apply
F. ROOM CAVITY RATIO (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E)
This Section Does Not Apply
G. ADDITIONAL "USE IT OR LOSE IT" (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-04-E) This Section Does Not Apply
H. INDOOR & OUTDOOR LIGHTING ACCEPTANCE TESTS & FORMS (Adapted from NRCC-LTI-01-E and NRCC-LTO-01-E) § 130.4 This Section Does Not Apply
ENVELOPE MANDATORY MEASURES: NONRESIDENTIAL ENV-MM
Project Name Date
DESCRIPTION
Building Envelope Measures:
§110.8(a): Installed insulating material shall have been certified by the manufacturer to comply with the California Quality Standards for insulating material, Title 20 Chapter 4, Article 3. §110.8(c): All Insulating Materials shall be installed in compliance with the flame spread rating and smoke density requirements of Sections 2602 and 707 of Title 24, Part 2.
§110.8(g): Heated slab floors shall be insulated according to the requirements in Table 110.8-A. §110.7(a): All Exterior Joints and openings in the building that are observable sources of air leakage shall be caulked, gasketed, weatherstripped or otherwise sealed.
§110.6(a):
Manufactured fenestration products and exterior doors shall have air infiltration rates not exceeding 0.3 cfm/ft.² of window area, 0.3 cfm/ft.² of door area for residential doors, 0.3 cfm/ft.² of door area for nonresidential single doors (swinging and sliding), and 1.0 cfm/ft.² for nonresidential double doors (swinging). §110.6(a): Fenestration U-factor shall be rated in accordance with NFRC 100, or the applicable default U-factor. §110.6(a) : Fenestration SHGC shall be rated in accordance with NFRC 200, or NFRC 100 for site-built fenestration, or the applicable default SHGC.
§110.6(b): Site Constructed Doors, Windows and Skylights shall be caulked between the unit and the building, and shall be weatherstripped (except for unframed glass doors and fire doors). §120.7(a):
The opaque portions of the roof/ceiling that separates conditioned spaces from unconditioned spaces or ambient air shall meet the applicable U-Factor requirements as follows:
Metal Building- The weighted average U-factor of the roof assembly shall not exceed 0.098.
Wood Framed and Others- The weighted average U-factor of the roof assembly shall not exceed 0.075. §120.7(b):
The opaque portions of walls that separate conditioned spaces from unconditioned spaces or ambient air shall meet the applicable U-factor as follows:
Metal Building- The weighted average U-factor of the wall assembly shall not exceed 0.113.
Metal Framed- The weighted average U-factor of the wall assembly shall not exceed 0.151.
Light Mass Walls- A 6 inch or greater Hollow Core Concrete Masonry Unit shall have a U-factor not to exceed 0.440.
Heavy Mass Walls- An 8 inch or greater Hollow Core Concrete Masonry Unit shall have a U-factor not to exceed
0.690.
Wood Framed and Others- The weighted average U-factor of the wall assembly shall not exceed 0.110.
Spandrel Panels and Opaque Curtain Wall- The weighted average U-factor of the spandrel panels and opaque curtain wall assembly shall not exceed 0.280.
Demising Walls-. The opaque portions of framed demising walls shall meet the requirements of Item A or B below:
A. Wood framed walls shall be insulated to meet a U-factor not greater than 0.099.
B. Metal Framed walls shall be insulated to meet a U-factor not greater than 0.151. §120.7(c):
The opaque portions of floors and soffits that separate conditioned spaces from unconditioned spaces or ambient air shall meet the applicable U-Factor requirements as follows:
Raised Mass Floors- Shall have a minimum of 3 inches of lightweight concrete over a metal deck or the weighted average U-factor of the floor assembly shall not exceed 0.269.
Other Floors-The weighted average U-factor of the floor assembly shall not exceed 0.071.
Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 2 Studio Units 2,375 5 14,000 70,000 29.5 12,000 60,000 5.0 25.3 475.0 450 2,250 0.95 450.0 15.8 % 0.15 1,189 23,7900 0 6,558 1,451 0
402 8,048 13,354 -1,451 356 -988 402 356 1,189 47,806 10,514 34,177 852 47,806 51,051 10,514 51,051 Mitsubishi PUZ-A12NKA7/PEAD-A12AA7 Jul 4 PM Jan 1 AM 1,379 1,841 457 32 ºF Outside Air 356 cfm 63 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 356 cfm Outside Air 2,250 cfm Supply Fan 52.2 % 2,250 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 20,756 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 46 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 3 Studio Units 3,155 7 14,000 98,000 31.1 12,000 84,000 7.0 26.6 450.7 450 3,150 1.00 450.0 15.0 % 0.15 1,685 33,7060 0 8,708 2,031 0
629 12,590 17,730 -2,031 473 -1,279 629 473 1,685 66,693 14,879 47,816 1,166 66,693 71,471 14,879 71,471 Mitsubishi PUZ-A12NKA7/PEAD-A12AA7 Aug 4 PM Jan 1 AM 1,954 2,445 716 32 ºF Outside Air 473 cfm 63 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 473 cfm Outside Air 3,150 cfm Supply Fan 52.1 % 3,150 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 29,548 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 47 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 4 Studio Units 2,375 5 14,000 70,000 29.5 12,000 60,000 5.0 25.3 475.0 450 2,250 0.95 450.0 15.8 % 0.15 1,189 23,7900 0 6,558 1,451 0
402 8,048 13,354 -1,451 356 -988 402 356 1,189 47,806 10,514 34,177 852 47,806 51,051 10,514 51,051 Mitsubishi PUZ-A12NKA7/PEAD-A12AA7 Jul 4 PM Jan 1 AM 1,379 1,841 457 32 ºF Outside Air 356 cfm 63 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 356 cfm Outside Air 2,250 cfm Supply Fan 52.2 % 2,250 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 20,756 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 48 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 5 Studio Units 2,375 5 14,000 70,000 29.5 12,000 60,000 5.0 25.3 475.0 450 2,250 0.95 450.0 15.8 % 0.15 1,189 23,7900 0 6,558 1,451 0
402 8,048 13,354 -1,451 356 -988 402 356 1,189 47,806 10,514 34,177 852 47,806 51,051 10,514 51,051 Mitsubishi PUZ-A12NKA7/PEAD-A12AA7 Jul 4 PM Jan 1 AM 1,379 1,841 457 32 ºF Outside Air 356 cfm 63 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 356 cfm Outside Air 2,250 cfm Supply Fan 52.2 % 2,250 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 20,756 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 49 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 6 Studio Units 1,030 5 14,000 70,000 68.0 12,000 60,000 5.0 58.3 206.0 450 2,250 2.18 450.0 13.3 % 0.29 690 13,8050 0 5,589 1,451 0
284 5,682 11,261 -1,451 300 -574 284 300 690 47,360 10,573 22,225 224 47,360 51,051 10,573 51,051 Mitsubishi PUZ-A12NKA7/PEAD-A12AA7 Jul 2 PM Jan 1 AM 790 798 322 32 ºF Outside Air 300 cfm 64 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 78 / 64 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 300 cfm Outside Air 2,250 cfm Supply Fan 51.3 % 2,250 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 16,061 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 50 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 6 T/H One Bed Units 1,686 3 14,000 42,000 24.9 12,000 36,000 3.0 21.4 562.0 450 1,350 0.80 450.0 22.2 % 0.18 1,909 38,1750 0 4,598 870 0
791 15,816 11,123 -870 300 -898 791 300 1,909 29,934 5,683 47,460 409 29,934 30,630 5,683 30,630 Mitsubishi PUZ-A12NKA7/PEAD-A12AA7 Jul 5 PM Jan 1 AM 2,332 1,307 920 32 ºF Outside Air 300 cfm 60 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 84 ºF 67 ºF 68 ºF 91 / 67 ºF 80 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 64 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 300 cfm Outside Air 1,350 cfm Supply Fan 52.5 % 1,350 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 27,650 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 51 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 2 One Bed Units 6,835 10 19,000 190,000 27.8 18,000 180,000 15.0 26.3 455.7 560 5,600 0.82 373.3 18.3 % 0.15 3,317 66,3370 0 17,627 2,901 0
1,071 21,427 38,418 -2,901 1,025 -2,996 1,071 1,025 3,317 156,329 16,824 93,499 2,301 156,329 138,566 16,824 138,566 Mitsubishi PUZ-A18NKA7/PEAD-A18AA7 Sep 3 PM Jan 1 AM 3,858 5,297 1,218 32 ºF Outside Air 1,025 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 92 / 67 ºF 79 / 64 ºF 58 / 55 ºF 59 / 56 ºF 76 / 62 ºF 75 / 62 ºF 1,025 cfm Outside Air 5,600 cfm Supply Fan 48.6 % 5,600 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 59,087 58 / 55 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 52 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 3 One Bed Units 4,840 7 19,000 133,000 27.5 18,000 126,000 10.5 26.0 461.0 560 3,920 0.81 373.3 18.5 % 0.15 2,130 42,5930 0 13,353 2,031 0
702 14,042 27,213 -2,031 726 -2,185 702 726 2,130 104,641 18,146 62,237 1,566 104,641 96,996 18,146 96,996 Mitsubishi PUZ-A18NKA7/PEAD-A18AA7 Jul 4 PM Jan 1 AM 2,470 3,751 798 32 ºF Outside Air 726 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 726 cfm Outside Air 3,920 cfm Supply Fan 52.5 % 3,920 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 40,629 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 53 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 4 One Bed Units 4,840 7 19,000 133,000 27.5 18,000 126,000 10.5 26.0 461.0 560 3,920 0.81 373.3 18.5 % 0.15 2,340 46,7900 0 13,314 2,031 0
779 15,586 27,199 -2,031 726 -2,185 779 726 2,340 104,736 18,078 66,814 1,566 104,736 96,996 18,078 96,996 Mitsubishi PUZ-A18NKA7/PEAD-A18AA7 Jul 4 PM Jan 1 AM 2,722 3,751 886 32 ºF Outside Air 726 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 726 cfm Outside Air 3,920 cfm Supply Fan 52.5 % 3,920 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 42,313 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 54 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 5 One Bed Units 4,840 7 19,000 133,000 27.5 18,000 126,000 10.5 26.0 461.0 560 3,920 0.81 373.3 18.5 % 0.15 2,340 46,7900 0 13,314 2,031 0
779 15,586 27,199 -2,031 726 -2,185 779 726 2,340 104,736 18,078 66,814 1,566 104,736 96,996 18,078 96,996 Mitsubishi PUZ-A18NKA7/PEAD-A18AA7 Jul 4 PM Jan 1 AM 2,722 3,751 886 32 ºF Outside Air 726 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 726 cfm Outside Air 3,920 cfm Supply Fan 52.5 % 3,920 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 42,313 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 55 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 6 One Bed Units 3,990 6 19,000 114,000 28.6 18,000 108,000 9.0 27.1 443.3 560 3,360 0.84 373.3 17.8 % 0.15 2,581 51,6240 0 10,874 1,741 0
1,002 20,048 22,363 -1,741 599 -1,764 1,002 599 2,581 89,838 15,416 69,401 1,328 89,838 83,140 15,416 83,140 Mitsubishi PUZ-A18NKA7/PEAD-A18AA7 Jul 4 PM Jan 1 AM 3,034 3,092 1,146 32 ºF Outside Air 599 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 599 cfm Outside Air 3,360 cfm Supply Fan 52.4 % 3,360 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 42,675 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 56 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 2 Two Bed Units 3,140 4 26,000 104,000 33.1 24,000 96,000 8.0 30.6 392.5 700 2,800 0.89 350.0 16.8 % 0.15 1,878 37,5640 0 9,047 1,652 0
856 17,112 17,595 -1,652 471 -1,348 856 471 1,878 73,293 19,799 52,019 1,086 73,293 75,847 19,799 75,847 Mitsubishi PUZ-A24NHA7/PEAD-A24AA7 Jul 3 PM Jan 1 AM 2,195 2,434 979 32 ºF Outside Air 471 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 94 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 471 cfm Outside Air 2,800 cfm Supply Fan 52.3 % 2,800 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 34,767 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 57 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 3 Two Bed Units 2,370 3 26,000 78,000 32.9 24,000 72,000 6.0 30.4 395.0 700 2,100 0.89 350.0 16.9 % 0.15 1,319 26,3790 0 6,509 1,239 0
612 12,246 13,286 -1,239 356 -1,021 612 356 1,319 54,865 15,218 36,764 816 54,865 56,885 15,218 56,885 Mitsubishi PUZ-A24NHA7/PEAD-A24AA7 Jul 4 PM Jan 1 AM 1,537 1,837 700 32 ºF Outside Air 356 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 79 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 356 cfm Outside Air 2,100 cfm Supply Fan 52.3 % 2,100 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 25,518 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 58 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 4 Two Bed Units 3,300 4 26,000 104,000 31.5 24,000 96,000 8.0 29.1 412.5 700 2,800 0.85 350.0 17.7 % 0.15 1,905 38,1030 0 8,467 1,652 0
825 16,494 18,498 -1,652 495 -1,419 825 495 1,905 76,741 15,609 52,032 1,138 76,741 75,847 15,609 75,847 Mitsubishi PUZ-A24NHA7/PEAD-A24AA7 Sep 3 PM Jan 1 AM 2,228 2,558 943 32 ºF Outside Air 495 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 92 / 67 ºF 79 / 64 ºF 58 / 55 ºF 59 / 56 ºF 76 / 62 ºF 75 / 62 ºF 495 cfm Outside Air 2,800 cfm Supply Fan 48.5 % 2,800 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 34,989 58 / 55 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 59 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 5 Two Bed Units 3,300 4 26,000 104,000 31.5 24,000 96,000 8.0 29.1 412.5 700 2,800 0.85 350.0 17.7 % 0.15 1,905 38,1030 0 8,467 1,652 0
825 16,494 18,498 -1,652 495 -1,419 825 495 1,905 76,741 15,609 52,032 1,138 76,741 75,847 15,609 75,847 Mitsubishi PUZ-A24NHA7/PEAD-A24AA7 Sep 3 PM Jan 1 AM 2,228 2,558 943 32 ºF Outside Air 495 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 92 / 67 ºF 79 / 64 ºF 58 / 55 ºF 59 / 56 ºF 76 / 62 ºF 75 / 62 ºF 495 cfm Outside Air 2,800 cfm Supply Fan 48.5 % 2,800 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 34,989 58 / 55 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 60 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 6 Two Bed Units 2,350 3 26,000 78,000 33.2 24,000 72,000 6.0 30.6 391.7 700 2,100 0.89 350.0 19.0 % 0.17 1,853 37,0690 0 7,598 1,239 0
892 17,840 14,895 -1,239 400 -1,135 892 400 1,853 55,712 14,291 49,612 686 55,712 56,885 14,291 56,885 Mitsubishi PUZ-A24NHA7/PEAD-A24AA7 Aug 3 PM Jan 1 AM 2,193 1,821 1,028 32 ºF Outside Air 400 cfm 61 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 94 / 68 ºF 80 / 65 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 57 ºF 76 / 63 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 400 cfm Outside Air 2,100 cfm Supply Fan 52.3 % 2,100 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 33,281 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 61 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 6 T/H Two Bed Units 1,850 2 32,000 64,000 34.6 35,000 70,000 5.8 37.8 317.1 1,200 2,400 1.30 411.4 16.7 % 0.22 1,626 32,5220 0 6,843 1,666 0
805 16,104 14,931 -1,666 400 -915 805 400 1,626 59,307 7,851 44,283 519 59,307 46,675 7,851 46,675 Mitsubishi PUZ-A36NHA7/PEAD-A36AA7 Sep 3 PM Jan 1 AM 1,901 1,434 923 32 ºF Outside Air 400 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 68 ºF 68 ºF 92 / 67 ºF 79 / 63 ºF 58 / 55 ºF 59 / 56 ºF 76 / 62 ºF 75 / 62 ºF 400 cfm Outside Air 2,400 cfm Supply Fan 47.9 % 2,400 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 30,980 58 / 55 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 62 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 1 + Mezzanine Work/Live Units 5,242 4 32,000 128,000 24.4 35,000 140,000 11.7 26.7 449.3 1,200 4,800 0.92 411.4 16.4 % 0.15 6,215 124,2950 0 9,758 3,331 0
3,022 60,441 29,120 -3,331 786 -2,072 3,022 786 6,215 128,873 3,802 149,814 1,990 128,873 93,350 3,802 93,350 Mitsubishi PUZ-A36NHA7/PEAD-A36AA7 Oct 2 PM Jan 1 AM 7,537 4,063 3,523 32 ºF Outside Air 786 cfm 62 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 84 ºF 67 ºF 68 ºF 88 / 63 ºF 79 / 61 ºF 58 / 53 ºF 59 / 53 ºF 76 / 60 ºF 75 / 60 ºF 786 cfm Outside Air 4,800 cfm Supply Fan 41.2 % 4,800 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 92,273 58 / 53 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 63 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Mezzanine Level_Amenity Lounge 1,530 1 56,000 56,000 36.6 57,000 57,000 4.8 37.3 322.1 1,750 1,750 1.14 368.4 43.7 % 0.50 2,625 52,5090 0 14,859 1,489 0
1,006 20,129 29,973 -1,489 765 -14,750 1,006 765 2,625 46,309 12,765 74,108 13,300 46,309 40,841 12,765 40,841 Carrier 25HBC560/FV4CNB006 Jul 3 PM Jan 1 AM 3,446 28,050 1,331 32 ºF Outside Air 765 cfm 54 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 84 ºF 69 ºF 70 ºF 94 / 68 ºF 84 / 69 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 58 ºF 75 / 68 ºF 74 / 68 ºF 765 cfm Outside Air 1,750 cfm Supply Fan 72.6 % 1,750 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 50,626 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 64 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments7 7/31/2019 Level 1 Retail Space 4,218 4 56,000 224,000 53.1 57,000 228,000 19.0 54.1 222.0 1,750 7,000 1.66 368.4 12.1 % 0.20 8,431 168,6130 0 14,076 5,956 0
3,744 74,878 33,087 -5,956 844 -4,243 3,744 844 8,431 183,465 37,697 205,506 9,817 183,465 163,362 37,697 163,362 Carrier 25HBC560/FV4CNB006 Sep 4 PM Jan 1 AM 10,854 14,060 4,940 32 ºF Outside Air 844 cfm 66 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 84 ºF 69 ºF 70 ºF 91 / 66 ºF 78 / 64 ºF 58 / 56 ºF 59 / 56 ºF 75 / 63 ºF 74 / 62 ºF 844 cfm Outside Air 7,000 cfm Supply Fan 52.7 % 7,000 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 109,496 58 / 56 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 65 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 1 Restaurant 1,974 3 56,000 168,000 85.1 57,000 171,000 14.3 86.6 138.5 1,750 5,250 2.66 368.4 18.8 % 0.50 4,708 94,1640 0 16,669 4,467 0
1,307 26,148 38,993 -4,467 987 -10,461 1,307 987 4,708 126,123 46,880 124,716 25,729 126,123 122,522 46,880 122,522 Carrier 25HBC560/FV4CNB006 Jul 5 PM Jan 1 AM 5,944 36,190 1,693 32 ºF Outside Air 987 cfm 63 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 70 ºF 70 ºF 91 / 67 ºF 79 / 66 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 58 ºF 75 / 65 ºF 74 / 65 ºF 987 cfm Outside Air 5,250 cfm Supply Fan 62.9 % 5,250 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 63,289 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 66 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 1 Lobby 2,369 2 56,000 112,000 47.3 57,000 114,000 9.5 48.1 249.4 1,750 3,500 1.48 368.4 33.8 % 0.50 4,814 96,2850 0 22,040 2,978 0
1,254 25,085 46,666 -2,978 1,185 -17,358 1,254 1,185 4,814 89,462 27,282 130,931 22,126 89,462 81,681 27,282 81,681 Carrier 25HBC560/FV4CNB006 Jul 4 PM Jan 1 AM 6,267 39,483 1,636 32 ºF Outside Air 1,185 cfm 58 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 70 ºF 70 ºF 93 / 68 ºF 82 / 68 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 58 ºF 75 / 67 ºF 74 / 66 ºF 1,185 cfm Outside Air 3,500 cfm Supply Fan 67.4 % 3,500 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 71,282 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 67 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 1 Leasing Office 590 1 14,000 14,000 23.7 12,000 12,000 1.0 20.3 590.0 450 450 0.76 450.0 19.7 % 0.15 583 11,6670 0 1,737 290 0
340 6,796 3,452 -290 89 -507 340 89 583 9,435 2,345 14,861 673 9,435 10,210 2,345 10,210 Mitsubishi PUZ-A12NKA7/PEAD-A12AA7 Jul 3 PM Jan 1 AM 756 1,180 455 32 ºF Outside Air 89 cfm 63 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 84 ºF 69 ºF 70 ºF 94 / 68 ºF 80 / 66 ºF 58 / 57 ºF 59 / 58 ºF 75 / 64 ºF 74 / 64 ºF 89 cfm Outside Air 450 cfm Supply Fan 57.3 % 450 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 10,637 58 / 57 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 68 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Level 1 Amenity Space 788 1 14,000 14,000 17.8 12,000 12,000 1.0 15.2 788.0 450 450 0.57 450.0 87.6 % 0.50 1,333 26,6680 0 7,420 290 0
483 9,659 15,241 -290 394 -13,332 483 394 1,333 12,559 0 37,045 1,115 12,559 10,210 0 10,210 Mitsubishi PUZ-A12NKA7/PEAD-A12AA7 Jul 3 PM Jan 1 AM 1,821 14,447 661 32 ºF Outside Air 394 cfm 37 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 84 ºF 69 ºF 70 ºF 94 / 68 ºF 92 / 70 ºF 58 / 56 ºF 60 / 57 ºF 76 / 72 ºF 74 / 72 ºF 394 cfm Outside Air 450 cfm Supply Fan 88.9 % 450 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 25,575 58 / 56 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 69 of 70
HVAC SYSTEM HEATING AND COOLING LOADS SUMMARY
Project Name Date
System Name Floor Area
ENGINEERING CHECKS SYSTEM LOAD
Number of Systems COIL COOLING PEAK COIL HTG. PEAK
Heating System CFM Sensible Latent CFM Sensible
Output per System Total Room Loads
Total Output (Btuh) Return Vented Lighting
Output (Btuh/sqft) Return Air Ducts
Cooling System Return Fan
Output per System Ventilation
Total Output (Btuh) Supply Fan
Total Output (Tons) Supply Air Ducts
Total Output (Btuh/sqft)
Total Output (sqft/Ton) TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD
Air System
CFM per System HVAC EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Airflow (cfm)
Airflow (cfm/sqft)
Airflow (cfm/Ton)
Outside Air (%) Total Adjusted System Output
Outside Air (cfm/sqft) (Adjusted for Peak Design conditions) Note: values above given at ARI conditions TIME OF SYSTEM PEAK HEATING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Heating Peak) COOLING SYSTEM PSYCHROMETRICS (Airstream Temperatures at Time of Cooling Peak) Central Park Apartments 7/31/2019 Mezzanine Level_Gym 2,321 1 56,000 56,000 24.1 57,000 57,000 4.8 24.6 488.6 1,750 1,750 0.75 368.4 19.9 % 0.15 2,191 43,8260 0 6,849 1,489 0
1,099 21,979 13,622 -1,489 348 -9,963 1,099 348 2,191 34,959 25,994 56,547 30,654 34,959 40,841 25,994 40,841 Carrier 25HBC560/FV4CNB006 Jul 3 PM Jan 1 AM 2,830 40,618 1,459 32 ºF Outside Air 348 cfm 63 ºF 85 ºF 85 ºF 84 ºF 69 ºF 70 ºF 94 / 68 ºF 80 / 71 ºF 58 / 58 ºF 59 / 58 ºF 75 / 70 ºF 74 / 70 ºF 348 cfm Outside Air 1,750 cfm Supply Fan 83.1 % 1,750 cfm Supply Fan Heating Coil 36,310 58 / 58 ºF Cooling Coil EnergyPro 7.2 by EnergySoft User Number: 5297 ID: 687-18-004 Page 70 of 70 Central Park Apartments
86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA
Appendix C: DraŌ TransportaƟ on Demand
Management Plan
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE
CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
The City of Pasadena, California (City) requires large projects to meet the requirements of the City’s Trip Reduction Ordinance and to prepare a project-level Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to reduce the number of vehicle trips entering and leaving the project site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Central Park Apartments mixed-use project (Project) is located at 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue on the northeast corner of South Fair Oaks Avenue & East Dayton Street. The site currently contains a surface parking lot that serves the adjacent Green Hotel Apartments.
The Project includes the following land uses:
Residential
Residential 84 dwelling units (DU)
Work/Live 4 DU within 5,245 square feet (sf)
Commercial
Retail 4,218 sf
Restaurant 1,974 sf
The Project also includes amenities and ancillary space for the residential component, including fitness rooms, open space, and tenant leasing office space.
The Project will be contained in one building with an underground parking garage, as shown in Figure 1. The commercial space and work/live units will be located on the ground level.
A total of 195 parking spaces will be provided in the underground garage. In addition, the Project will also provide 20 bicycle spaces (16 long-term bicycle spaces and four short-term bicycle spaces).
SITE CONDITIONS AFFECTING COMMUTE TRAVEL
The Project site is located on the Fair Oaks Avenue corridor and approximately 800 feet to the northwest of the Del Mar Gold Line Station, so it is ideally located to take advantage of the adjacent shopping, restaurant, and employment opportunities and the rail service connecting the Project to the region.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Per the City’s Municipal Code (Code), the residential component requires one parking space per unit for units under 650 sf and a minimum of 1.5 spaces per unit over 650 sf, the retail space requires three spaces per 1,000 sf, and the restaurant space requires 10 spaces per 1,000 sf.
With a 25% reduction in commercial parking because the Project is a transit-oriented development, the total Code requirement for parking is 142 parking spaces.
In addition to the Code-required spaces, the Project will provide 53 replacement parking spaces in a joint parking arrangement with the Green Hotel Apartments to replace the surface parking spaces that will be displaced as part of the Project. This results in a total parking requirement of 195 parking spaces.
TDM
As previously stated, the Project will be subject to the citywide Trip Reduction Ordinance and a Project-level TDM Plan. Both programs are described below.
Trip Reduction Ordinance
The Trip Reduction Ordinance requires that projects:
1. Hire a Transportation Coordinator
A Project employee will be designated as the Transportation Coordinator for the site and that employee will be trained/certified by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) (or equivalent). The Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for implementing, coordinating and maintaining the elements of the Trip Reduction Ordinance and the TDM Plan. The identity of the Transportation Coordinator will be given to the City prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy (COO).
2. Install and maintain a Transportation Information Center in a prominent space on-site The Transportation Information Center will be placed in the residential mail room so that it is accessible to all of the residents of the Project. The information center will likely be an information board that will contain the name and phone number of the Transportation Coordinator plus the following information:
Maps, routes and schedules for transit service to the site Telephone numbers and web site information for rideshare agencies and local transit operators
Ridesharing promotional materials
Bicycle routes and facility information
Listing of available facilities for bicyclists, carpoolers, pedestrians, transit riders, and vanpoolers at the site
3. Provide a commitment by the Owner to:
Agree to conduct an annual Project traffic count of the Project driveway in accordance with the procedures below to verify the level of Project vehicular trips (VT).
o The count will be conducted over a three-day consecutive weekday time period (Tuesday-Thursday) during a week with no state holidays and when Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) schools are in session. o The measure of the daily Project VT will be the average of the three days of counts.
o The vehicle count shall be taken at the Project driveway, not in the rightof-way. Agree to prepare the annual traffic count in perpetuity or until the Project VT target is met for a period of five consecutive years, at which time the City would release the obligation in writing.
4. Provide Class 2 bicycle parking spaces at the rate of one space per six DU plus four spaces for non-residential uses less than 15,000 sf.
5. The project is subject to the Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvement Fee (Ordinance No. 7076). For FY 2020, fees are $8.63 per sf for new office use, $11.46 per new retail use, and $3,662.53 per new multi-family dwelling unit. Projects shall pay the impact fees in effect at the time when the first building permit is issued.
Project-Level TDM Plan
Program Elements. The Project-level TDM Plan would acknowledge the Project VT target, which, based on information provided by the City, is 866 trips per day at full occupancy.
The Project will conduct a driveway traffic count at the Project driveway and summarize the number of vehicle trips in and out of the Project site. The count will be conducted over a threeday consecutive weekday time period (Tuesday-Thursday) during a week with no state holidays and during a week when PUSD schools are in session. The measure of the daily Project VT will be the average of the three days of counts.
The driveway traffic count will continue in perpetuity or until the fully-occupied Project meets its VT target for a period of five consecutive years, at which time the Project would be released from further counts by the City in a written staff report.
The owner shall place a deposit with the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction. This deposit is subject to a partial refund if the full deposit is not needed or additional billing in the event that the deposit amount is not sufficient to cover the cost of the review. The owner shall pay an annual TDM status report review fee in compliance with the requirements of the Trip Reduction Ordinance.
TDM Measures. The TDM Plan will include the following measures:
Tier 1 Strategies:
a. Shower and locker facilities for Project employees
The Project will provide shower and locker facilities for Project employees, including retail and restaurant employees, to encourage walking and biking to/from the Project. b. Unbundled parking for the residential uses
Monthly parking fees will be separated from the monthly residential lease payments and paid separately. The parking fees could be paid on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis.
The unbundled parking will not apply to the replacement spaces provided for the Green Hotel Apartments.
c. Transportation information packet for new residents and employees Each new resident and employee in the Project will receive an information packet summarizing the transit and transportation alternatives available to Project tenants. The packet will emphasize the location of the Transportation Information Center and include the contact information of the Transportation Coordinator. d. Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations
The Project parking garage will include six spaces with EV charging stations as well as 49 spaces wired for future EV charging stations. The actual EV charging stations at each wired space will be implemented as the demand grows.
e. No overnight parking permits
The Project will not issue any overnight parking permits to any future residents of the Project.
f. Carpool/Vanpool parking
The Project will mark a minimum of 10% of the employee parking spaces as carpool/vanpool parking only. These spaces will be more conveniently located to the place of employment than parking spaces for single occupant vehicles and as close as possible to the employee entrances.
g. Subsidized transit passes for Project residents and employees
The Project will purchase 10 monthly (or annual) Metro EZ transit passes and offer them to residents at a 50% discount for five consecutive years from the issuance of the COO.
Alternatively and preferably, at the time of the issuance of the COO, if Metro has expanded its employee-based “whole building” transit passes to residential projects, the Project will purchase 44 annual passes and offer them to employees and residents at a 50% discount for five consecutive years from the issuance of the COO. h. Bus stop improvements
The Project shall fund improvements at the bus stops serving the property in coordination with the City Transit Division.
Tier 2 Strategies (to be Implemented sequentially if the Tier 1 strategies do not achieve the target VT):
a. On-site Mobility Hub location/support
The Project will consolidate its bike share, car share, Transportation Information Center, and Transportation Coordinator into an on-site Mobility Hub in order to further promote non-auto modes of transportation. The Mobility Hub will work in concert with the City and with Metro to provide alternate transportation services to the Project and area residents and employees. The Project will be responsible for providing rent-free space for the Mobility Hub at a location and size mutually agreeable to the developer and the City or Metro.
Alternatively, given the Project’s location near the Del Mar Gold Line Station, the Project will agree to contribute $2,500 per year for a period of five years to be used for Mobility Hub improvements at the Del Mar Station.
b. Financial support for an areawide Transportation Management Organization (TMO) Should the Project fail to meet the VT target for five consecutive years and after two years of failure of the above measures to yield sufficient results to meet the target, the Project will agree to pay $20,000 toward the initial set-up costs for an areawide TMO that serves the Project site and the surrounding area. The TMO will be run by the City or by a separate Board of Directors and a Project representative will have a seat on the Board. The Project will pay annual dues of $5,000 per year for an additional nine years beyond the initial TMO founding.
PROJECT SITE PLAN FIGURE 1 N Not to Scale Source: Architectural Resources Group, 2019.
APPENDIX E
Historic Resources Technical Report
••••••••••••
‐
‐
•••
•••••
•••••••
•
•
•
•
•
•
••••••
phases
.
1/2. 50 East Green Street/99 South Raymond Avenue (Hotel Green/Castle Green)
3. 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue
4. Central Park
5. 150 South Raymond Avenue
6. 80-82 South Raymond Avenue (remnant of Hotel Green)
7. 62-70 South Raymond Avenue
8. 103-115 South Fair Oaks Avenue (Doty Block)
9. 155 South Fair Oaks Avenue (Star Saddle Livery)
•••
along
APPENDIX F
Noise
Noise Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
NOISE ASSESSMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study describes the existing noise and vibration environment of the proposed mixed-use development at 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, and evaluates potential noise and vibration impacts of the proposed project.
This report has been prepared by Impact Sciences, Inc., under contract to the City of Pasadena, in support of the environmental documentation being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This analysis considers both the temporary noise impacts that would result from project construction and the long-term impacts associated with the operation of the project.
1.1 Project Description
The project site at 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue contains 32,362 square feet bounded by S. Fair Oaks Avenue to the west, Dayton Street to the south, Castle Green historic event center to the east, and the Green Hotel Apartments to the north. The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Old Pasadena National Register Historic District and the Hotel Green National Register listing.
The proposed project is a 6-story plus mezzanine transit-oriented mixed-use development that includes retail, restaurant, and work/live units at the ground level and mixed-rate units on levels 2-6. Along Fair Oaks Avenue, the ground floor of the proposed building includes approximately 6,200 square feet of retail and food uses. Four work/live units, approximately 1,300 square feet each, are proposed in the ground floor along Dayton Street, facing Central Park. The proposed project contains 84 apartment units of varying types and sizes, including eight on-site residences for very low-income residents. All parking for the Project is located on 4 levels of underground parking that accommodate 195 parking spaces, including replacement of existing parking spaces for the Green Hotel Apartments, which currently utilizes the surface parking located on the project site. Access to and from the project site would be along Dayton Avenue on the southeast corner of the proposed project site. To enhance the relationship with the nearby network of rail and bus transit and reflect the principles of transit-oriented development, the project also incorporates bicycle parking. The project also includes common landscaped features at the ground floor and upper level terraces.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration
Noise
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound that is an undesirable byproduct of society’s normal day-today activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, and/or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). The human ear does not respond uniformly to sounds at all frequencies. For example, the human ear is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than medium frequencies, which more closely correspond with human speech. In response to the sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies, the A-weighted noise level (or scale), which corresponds better with people’s subjective judgment of sound levels, has been developed. This A-weighted sound level, referenced in units of dB(A), is measured on a logarithmic scale such that a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB(A) increase in noise level. Typically, changes in a community noise level of less than 3 dB(A) are not noticed by the human ear.
1 Changes from 3 to 5 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are sensitive to changes in noise. A greater than 5 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound.
On the A-weighted scale, the range of human hearing extends from approximately 3 to 140 dB(A). Table 1, A-Weighted Decibel Scale, provides examples of A-weighted noise levels from common sources. Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or individual motor vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of point sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites and 7.5 dB(A) at acoustically “soft” sites.2 For example, if a noise source produces a noise level of 89 dB(A) at a reference distance of 50 feet, the noise level would be 83 dB(A) at a distance of 100 feet from the noise source, 77 dB(A) at a distance of 200 feet, and so on. Noise generated by a mobile source will decrease by approximately 3 dB(A) over hard surfaces and 4.5 dB(A) over soft surfaces for each doubling of distance. 1 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013. 2 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (1980) 97. Examples of “hard” or reflective sites include asphalt, concrete, and hard and sparsely vegetated soils. Examples of acoustically “soft” or absorptive sites include soft, sand, plowed farmland, grass, crops, heavy ground cover, etc.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Table 1
A-Weighted Decibel Scale
Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels Sound Level (dB(A), Leq) Threshold of Pain 140
Jet Takeoff at 100 Meters 125
Jackhammer at 15 Meters 95
Heavy Diesel Truck at 15 Meters 85
Conversation at 1 Meter 60
Soft Whisper at 2 Meters 35
Source: United States Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Noise and Hearing Conservation Technical Manual, 1999.
Sound levels also can be attenuated by man-made or natural barriers (e.g., sound walls, berms, ridges), as well as elevational differences. Noise is most audible when traveling by direct line-of-sight, an interrupted visual path between the noise source and noise receptor. Barriers, such as walls or buildings that break the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver, can greatly reduce noise levels from the source since sound can only reach the receiver by diffraction. Sound barriers can reduce sound levels by up to 20 dB(A) or more. However, if a barrier is not high or long enough to break the line-of-sight from the source to the receiver, its effectiveness is greatly reduced.
Solid walls and berms may reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dB(A) depending on their height and distance relative to the noise source and the noise receptor.3 Sound levels may also be attenuated 3 dB(A) by a first row of houses and 1.5 dB(A) for each additional row of houses.4 The minimum noise attenuation provided by typical structures in California is provided in Table 2, Building Noise Reduction Factors.
Table 2
Building Noise Reduction Factors
Building Type
Window
Condition
Noise Reduction Due to
Exterior of the Structure
(dB(A))
All Open 10
Light Frame
Ordinary Sash
(closed) 20
Storm Windows 25
Masonry Single Glazed 25
3 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Mitigation, (1980) 18. 4 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Double Glazed 35
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December 2011.
Sound Rating Scales
Various rating scales approximate the human subjective assessment to the “loudness” or “noisiness” of a sound. Noise metrics have been developed to account for additional parameters, such as duration and cumulative effect of multiple events. Noise metrics are categorized as single event metrics and cumulative metrics, as summarized below.
In order to simplify the measurement and computation of sound loudness levels, frequency weighted networks have obtained wide acceptance. The A-weighted scale, discussed above, has become the most prominent of these scales and is widely used in community noise analysis. Its advantages are that it has shown good correlation with community response and is easily measured. The metrics used in this analysis are all based upon the dB(A) scale.
Equivalent Noise Level
Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as several single event noise exposure level events during a given sample period. Leq is the “acoustic energy” average noise level during the period of the sample. It is based on the observation that the potential for noise annoyance is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. The equivalent noise level is expressed in units of dB(A). Leq can be measured for any period, but is typically measured for 15 minutes, 1 hour, or 24 hours. Leq for a 1-hour period is used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for assessing highway noise impacts. Leq for 1 hour is referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL) in the California Airport Noise Regulations and is used to develop Community Noise Equivalent Level values for aircraft operations. Construction noise levels and ambient noise measurements in this section use the Leq scale.
Community Noise Equivalent Level
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour, time-weighted energy average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The term “time-weighted” refers to the penalties attached to noise events occurring during certain sensitive periods.
In the CNEL scale, 5 dB are added to measured noise levels occurring between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. For measured noise levels occurring between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 10 dB are Impact Sciences, Inc. 5 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
added. These decibel adjustments are an attempt to account for the higher sensitivity to noise in the evening and nighttime hours and the expected lower ambient noise levels during these periods. Existing and projected future traffic noise levels in this section use the CNEL scale.
Day-Night Average Noise Level
The day-night average sound level (Ldn) is another average noise level over a 24-hour period. Noise levels occurring between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are increased by 10 decibels (dB). This noise is weighted to take into account the decrease in community background noise of 10 dB(A) during this period.
Noise levels measured using the Ldn scale are typically similar to CNEL measurements.
Adverse Effects of Noise Exposure
Noise is known to have several adverse effects on humans, which has led to laws and standards being set to protect public health and safety, and to ensure compatibility between land uses and activities. Adverse effects of noise on people include hearing loss, communication interference, sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on people is briefly discussed in the following narrative.
Hearing Loss
Hearing loss is generally not a community noise concern, even near a major airport or a major freeway. The potential for noise-induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational noise exposures in heavy industry, very noisy work environments with long-term exposure, or certain very loud recreational activities (e.g., target shooting and motorcycle or car racing). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies a noise exposure limit of 90 dB(A) for 8 hours per day to protect from hearing loss (higher limits are allowed for shorter duration exposures). Noise levels in neighborhoods, even in very noisy neighborhoods, are not sufficiently loud enough to cause hearing loss.
Communication Interference
Communication interference is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise. Communication interference includes speech disturbance and intrusion with activities such as watching television. Noise can also interfere with communications such as within school classrooms. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dB(A) and any noise in this range or louder may interfere with speech.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 6 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Sleep Interference
Noise can make it difficult to fall asleep, create momentary disturbances of natural sleep patterns by causing shifts from deep to lighter stages, and cause awakening. Noise may even cause awakening that a person may or may not be able to recall.
Physiological Responses
Physiological responses are those measurable effects of noise on people that are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, and other physical changes. Studies to determine whether exposure to high noise levels can adversely affect human health have concluded that, while a relationship between noise and health effects seems plausible, there is no empirical evidence of the relationship.
Annoyance
Annoyance is an individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. Noise that one person considers tolerable can be unbearable to another of equal hearing capability. The level of annoyance depends both on the characteristics of the noise (including loudness, frequency, time, and duration), and how much activity interference (such as speech interference and sleep interference) results from the noise.
However, the level of annoyance is also a function of the attitude of the receiver. Personal sensitivity to noise varies widely. It has been estimated that 2% to 10% of the population is highly susceptible to annoyance from any noise not of their own making, while approximately 20% are unaffected by noise.5 Attitudes may also be affected by the relationship between the person affected and the source of noise, and whether attempts have been made to abate the noise.
Vibration
Vibration consists of waves transmitted through solid material. Groundborne vibration propagates from a source through the ground to adjacent buildings by surface waves. Vibration may comprise a single pulse, a series of pulses, or a continuous oscillatory motion. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it is oscillating and is measured in hertz (Hz). Most environmental vibrations consist of a composite, or “spectrum” of many frequencies, and are generally classified as broadband or random vibrations. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt generally starts from a low frequency of less than one Hz to a high of about 200 Hz. Vibration is often measured in terms of the peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec) when considering impacts on buildings or other structures, as PPV represents the maximum instantaneous peak of vibration that can stress buildings. 5 Wayne County Airport Authority. Background information on noise & its measurement, 2009 Impact Sciences, Inc. 7 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Because it is a representation of acute vibration, PPV is often used to measure the temporary impacts of short-term construction activities that could instantaneously damage built structures. Vibration is often also measured by the Root Mean Squared (RMS) because it best correlates with human perception and response. Specifically, RMS represents “smoothed” vibration levels over an extended period of time and is often used to gauge the long-term chronic impact of a project’s operation on the adjacent environment.
RMS amplitude is the average of a signal’s squared amplitude. It is most commonly measured in decibel notation (VdB).
Vibration energy attenuates as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease with distance away from the source. High frequency vibrations reduce much more rapidly than low frequencies, so that in the far-field from a source, the low frequencies tend to dominate. Soil properties also affect the propagation of vibration. When groundborne vibration interacts with a building, there is usually a ground-to-foundation coupling loss (i.e., the foundation of the structure does not move in sync with the ground vibration), but the vibration can also be amplified by the structural resonances of the walls and floors. Vibration in buildings is typically perceived as rattling of windows or items on shelves, or the motion of building surfaces. At high levels, vibration can result in damage to structures.
Manmade groundborne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of certain types of construction activities, especially pile driving. Road vehicles rarely create enough groundborne vibration to be perceptible to humans unless the road surface is poorly maintained and there are potholes or bumps.
If traffic induces perceptible vibration in buildings, such as window rattling or shaking of small loose items (typically caused by heavy trucks in passing), then it is most likely an effect of low-frequency airborne noise or ground characteristics. Human annoyance by vibration is related to the number and duration of events.
The more events or the greater the duration, the more annoying it will be to humans.
2.2 Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as natural parks and recreation areas, historic sites, and cemeteries are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses. Noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site include the Castle Green residences and events center to the east, the Green Hotel Apartments to the north and Central Park to the south.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 8 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
2.3 Existing Conditions
A noise monitoring survey was completed to establish existing noise levels in the City of Pasadena at locations near the project site. Existing noise levels were calculated for four locations in proximity to the project site. Figure 1, Noise Monitoring Locations maps these locations relative to the project site. Based on the results of the ambient noise measurements, it was determined that transportation related noise sources are the primary contributor to the noise environment in each of the monitoring locations. The existing average daily noise levels for these locations are presented in Table 3, Ambient Sound-Level Readings.
Table 3
Ambient Sound-Level Readings
Noise Measurement
Location # Date/Time dBA Leq
Location #1 12/10/2019; 1:23 p.m. 67.9
Location #2 12/10/2019; 1:43 p.m. 68.0
Location #3 12/10/2019; 2:13 p.m. 55.8
Location #4 12/10/2019; 2:31 p.m. 57.3
The only sources of groundborne vibration in the project site vicinity are heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., refuse trucks, delivery trucks, and school buses) traveling on local roadways. Trucks and buses typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB, and these levels could reach 72 VdB where trucks and buses pass over bumps in the road (Caltrans 2013). In terms of PPV levels, a heavy-duty vehicle traveling at a distance of 50 feet can result in a vibration level of approximately 0.001 inch per second.
Noise Monitoring Location Map
FIGURE
1 1136.004•06/2020
SOURCE: Google Earth, 2018
Impact Sciences, Inc. 10 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
3.1 State Regulations
Title 24, California Code of Regulations
The California Noise Insulation Standards of 1988 (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Section 3501 et seq.) require that interior noise levels from the exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA Ldn/community noise equivalent level (CNEL)6 in any habitable room of a multi-residential use facility (e.g., hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, and apartment houses and other dwellings, except detached singlefamily dwellings) with doors and windows closed. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn, an acoustical analysis is required to show that the building construction achieves an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn or less.
3.2 Local Plans and Policies
City of Pasadena General Plan
The City of Pasadena General Plan contains policies and programs to achieve and maintain noise levels compatible with various types of land uses. The Noise Element provides policy-level direction for the City to limit people’s exposure to noise. The following policies are found in the Noise Element of the Pasadena General Plan:
Objective 2 The City will work to reduce the effects of traffic-generated noise from major roadways on residential and other sensitive land uses.
Policy 2a The City will encourage noise-compatible land uses along major roadways.
Policy 2b The City will encourage site planning and traffic control measures that minimize the effects of traffic noise in residential zones.
Policy 2c The City will encourage the use of alternative transportation modes as stipulated in the Mobility Element (walking, bicycling, transit use, electric vehicles) to minimize traffic noise in the City.
6 Measurements are based on Ldn or CNEL.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 11 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Policy 2d The City will work with local and regional transit agencies and businesses to provide transportation services that reduce traffic and associated noise as stipulated in the Mobility Element.
Policy 2e The City will work to reduce the effects of traffic-related noise in residential neighborhoods, including but not limited to neighborhoods adjacent to South Orange Grove Boulevard, Saint John Avenue, Pasadena Avenue, California Boulevard, and other busy streets passing thorough residential neighborhoods.
Objective 3 The City will minimize noise from the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Line on residential and other sensitive land uses.
Policy 3a The City will encourage noise-compatible land uses and mitigation measures near the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Line rail system.
Policy 3b After commencing operations and regularly thereafter, the City will work with the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority and/or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) to install noise attenuation features if the Gold Line (formerly known as the Blue Line) adversely affects existing adjacent residential or other noise-sensitive uses.
Objective 6 The City will minimize noise spillovers from commercial and industrial operations into adjacent residential neighborhoods and other sensitive uses, while maximizing the Land Use Element's objectives to encourage mixed-use development in the Central District and other Specific Plan areas as well as to promote economic vitality.
Policy 6a The City will encourage automobile and truck access to industrial and commercial properties abutting residential zones to be located at the maximum practical distance from residential zones.
Policy 6b The City will limit the use of motorized landscaping equipment, parking lot sweepers, and other high-noise equipment on commercial properties if their activity will result in noise that adversely affects residential zones.
Policy 6c The City will encourage limitations on the hours of truck deliveries to industrial and commercial properties abutting residential zones unless there is no feasible Impact Sciences, Inc. 12 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
alternative or there are substantial transportation benefits for scheduling deliveries at another hour.
Objective 7 The City will minimize the effects of nuisance noise on sensitive land uses as defined in Table 4 to the degree feasible.
Policy 7a Whenever possible, City-sponsored events that generate noise will be scheduled during hours when effects would be minimal.
Policy 7b The City will encourage limitations on construction activities adjacent to sensitive noise receptors as defined in Table 4.
Policy 7c The City will encourage construction and landscaping activities that employ techniques to minimize noise.
Policy 7d The City will enforce noise level restrictions contained in the City of Pasadena Noise Regulations (Chapter 9.36 of the Municipal Code), except during federal, State, or local emergencies (such as power generators required for energy emergencies).
Table 4
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (dB, Ldn or CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential - Low Density Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Residential - Multi-Family and Mixed
Commercial/Residential Use
Transient Lodging - Motels Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Impact Sciences, Inc. 13 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Clearly Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Normally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Conditionally Acceptable - If new construction or development proceeds, an analysis of the noise reduction requirements should be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Normally Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally not be undertaken, unless it can be demonstrated that an interior level of 45 dBA can be achieved.
*Please note that these guidelines are general and may not apply to specific sites.
Source: California General Plan Guidelines, 1998, as modified by the City of Pasadena General Plan Noise Element, 2002.
City of Pasadena Municipal Code
The City has jurisdiction over noise regulation, as stated in the City’s Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 36 Noise Restrictions (Noise Ordinance). The Noise Ordinance is intended to enforce the City’s policy to prohibit “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises from all sources.” The Noise Ordinance generally limits the generation of noise that exceeds the actual measured existing ambient noise level by 5 dB(A) at neighboring properties, with adjustments made for steady audible tones, repeated impulsive noise, and noise occurring for limited periods. Section 9.36.060 sets interior noise level standards for multifamily residential development at 60 dB(A) during daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and 50 dB(A) during nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM).
The City’s noise ordinance includes specific provisions regarding construction noise. Section 9.36.070 of the Municipal Code prohibits the operation of construction equipment and construction activity except from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday in or within 500 feet of a residential district. Operation of construction equipment is prohibited on Sunday and on defined Impact Sciences, Inc. 14 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
holidays. Section 9.36.080 of the Municipal Code prohibits the operation of powered construction equipment that generates a noise level of 85 dB(A) when measured at 100 feet.
4.0 NOISE ANALYSIS
4.1 Thresholds of Significance
The impacts of the proposed project related to noise would be considered significant if they would exceed any of the following Standards of Significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines:
• Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
• Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; • 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.
4.1 Methodology
Noise levels associated with project-related construction activities were calculated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) and combined with existing ambient noise level readings to determine new ambient noise levels with construction activities. The applicant provided a list of construction equipment assumptions that is used for RCNM inputs. Noise levels were compared to the City’s noise ordinance which includes provisions regarding construction noise levels, which prohibits a noise level of 85 dB(A) when measured at 100 feet.
For operational noise impacts, the City’s noise ordinance generally limits the generation of noise that exceeds the actual measured existing ambient noise level by 5 dB(A) at neighboring properties. Therefore, increases in 5dB(A) above measured ambient noise levels are considered significant, unless mitigated.
Traffic noise in the project area was estimated using peak-hour traffic obtained from the City of Pasadena Department of Transportation. As it would take a doubling of traffic volumes to increase noise levels by 3 dB(A), traffic noise was compared to the existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes to determine if there would be a doubling of traffic volumes and result in an increase in noise levels beyond 3 dB(A).
Construction vibration damage criteria are assessed based on structural category (e.g. reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber). FTA guidelines consider 0.12 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for buildings Impact Sciences, Inc. 15 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
extremely susceptible to vibration damage, such as the Green Hotel Apartments or Castle Green. Structures or buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber have a vibration damage criterion of 0.5 inch/sec PPV pursuant to FTA guidelines.7 The FTA Guidelines include a table showing the vibration damage criteria based on structural category and is presented below in Table 5.
Table 5 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building/Structural Category PPV, in/sec
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
4.3 Impact Analysis
Construction Impacts
Temporary On-Site Construction Activity Noise
Construction, grading, and other noise-generating activities would occur weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and Saturdays between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in accordance with section 9.36.070 the Pasadena Municipal Code. Construction is not anticipated to occur on Sundays or holidays. Construction activities would vary over several phases of development and would include large off-road equipment such as tractors, loaders, and smaller equipment such as saws, hammers, and pneumatic tools.
As noted above, section 9.36.080 of the Pasadena Municipal Code requires that construction equipment noise not exceed 85 dB(A) at 100 feet. As such, construction noise impacts will be less than significant.
Temporary Off-Site Construction Activity Noise
Construction haul trucks would generate noise off-site during site preparation and construction. This would include removal of materials from the project site, including the export of cut-and-fill materials, removal of asphalt, base materials, and demolished materials. While this vehicle activity would increase ambient noise levels along the haul route, ambient noise levels would not be expected to significantly 7 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 16 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
increase ambient noise levels by 3 dB(A) or greater at any noise sensitive land use. Studies have shown that a 3 dB(A) increase in sound level pressure is barely detectable by the human ear. A 3 dB(A) increase in roadway noise levels requires an approximate doubling of roadway traffic volume, assuming that travel speeds and fleet mix remain constant.
8 The City of Pasadena’s Transportation Data Management System shows that the street segment south of the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Green Street has a traffic volume of approximately 1,354 vehicles during the A.M. peak hour, and 1,400 vehicles during the P.M. peak hour.9 The grading period would have approximately 5,688 hauling trips (including trips to and from the site) over a 130 day period, averaging about 44 trips per day. Assuming that these hauling trips would take place during an 8-hour work day period., an average of approximately 6 hauling trips per hour would occur. Though the addition of haul trucks would alter the fleet mix of the anticipated haul route, their addition to local roadways would account for 0.44 percent of the A.M. peak hour traffic volume and 0.43 percent of the P.M. peak hour traffic volume. Since it would take a doubling of roadway traffic volume to increase noise levels by 3 dB(A), the addition of haul trucks from the project would not increase traffic to levels capable of producing 3 dB(A) ambient noise increases and there would be no perceptible increase in noise due to the addition of haul trucks. However, trucks accessing the project site, while not significantly increasing ambient traffic noise levels, have the potential to instantaneously increase noise levels as each truck passes nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., an empty truck hitting a pothole, or the application of air brakes near sensitive land uses, etc.). These temporary instantaneous noise level increases may reach a maximum range of approximately 76 to 88 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source.10,11 At a reference distance of 100 feet, a noise level of 88 dB(A) at 50 feet would drop to approximately 82 dB(A). This would not exceed the requirements specified in Pasadena Municipal Code section 9.36.080. As a result, temporary haul truck construction noise impacts on ambient noise levels would be considered less than significant.
Temporary Construction Activity Vibration
The Federal Transit Administration provides ground-borne vibration impact criteria with respect to building damage during construction activities. Peak particle velocity (PPV), expressed in inches per second, is used to measure building vibration damage. Construction vibration damage criteria are assessed based on structural category (e.g. reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber). FTA guidelines consider 0.12 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage. 8 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September 2013. 9 City of Pasadena, Transportation Data Management System. Available at:
https://pasadena.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Pasadena&mod= 10 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Construction Noise Handbook, 2006. 11 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 17 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Structures or buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber have a vibration damage criterion of 0.5 inch/sec PPV pursuant to FTA guidelines.12 Groundborne vibration generated by construction activities associated with the proposed project would affect both on- and off-site sensitive uses located in close proximity to the project site. As shown in Table 6, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, vibration velocities could range from 0.003 to
0.644 inch/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source activity, with corresponding vibration levels (VdB) ranging from 58 VdB to 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source activity, depending on the type of construction equipment in use. It should be noted that pile driving and equivalent methods are prohibited by the Municipal Code.
Table 6
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate PPV (in/sec) Approximate RMS (VdB)
25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 79 70 68 65 61 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
The sensitive receptors in Figure 1 identify receptors that are sensitive to noise impacts. However, vibrational impacts can potentially damage buildings that are near the construction site. As such, Table 7, Vibration Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction - Unmitigated, shows the vibration velocity and levels that would occur at these nearby buildings and structures during construction at the project site. For clarity, the receptors in Table 7 are listed as “Vibration Receptors.” The receptors identified to be assessed for vibration impacts are the Green Hotel Apartments (Vibration Receptor #1) located to the north of the project site, the Castle Green (Vibration Receptor #2) located east of the project, a three-story red brick building located at 103-115 South Fair Oaks Avenue (Vibration Receptor #3) located west of the project, and a restaurant building located at 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue (Vibration Receptor #4). Based on the FTA guidance presented in Table 5, a vibration level of 0.12 PPV in/sec is used in this analysis as the threshold to determine potential significant vibration impacts to the existing Green Hotel Apartments, Castle Green, and restaurant building located at 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue. 12 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 18 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Table 7
Vibration Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction - Unmitigated Sensitive Uses Off-Site
Distance to Project
Site (ft.)
Receptor
Significance
Threshold PPV
(in./sec)
Estimated PPV
(in/sec) a
Vibration Receptor #1 (Green Hotel Apartments) 20 0.12 0.124 Vibration Receptor #2 (Castle Green) c 40 0.12 0.044
Vibration Receptor #3 (103-115 South Fair Oaks
Avenue) 80 0.5 0.016
Vibration Receptor #4 (84 South Fair Oaks Avenue) 15 0.12 0.191 The vibration velocities predicted to occur at Vibration Receptor #1 (Green Hotel Apartments), excluding one-story portions, located 20 feet to the north of the nearest project site boundary would be 0.124 in/sec PPV. This exceeds the FTA 0.12 in/sec PPV threshold. Vibration Receptor #2 (Castle Green) is approximately 40 feet from the project site; at this distance, vibration impacts are anticipated to be 0.044 in/sec PPV and would not exceed the FTA threshold. Vibration Receptor #3, at a distance of 80 feet, is estimated to have vibration levels of 0.016 in/sec PPV and would not exceed FTA thresholds either. Vibration Receptor #4 is estimated to have vibration levels of 0.191 in/sec PPV and would also exceed the FTA threshold of 0.12 in/sec PPV. Mitigation Measures Noise-1 and Noise-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts to associated with construction activities to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM Noise-1: Consult with Structural Engineer and Project Historical Architect Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permits, and to the satisfaction of the City of Pasadena, the applicant shall retain a Professional Structural Engineer with experience in structural vibration analysis and monitoring for historic buildings and a Project Historical Architect as a team to perform the following tasks:
• Review the project plans for demolition and construction; • Survey the project site and the existing Green Hotel Apartments and restaurant building at 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue, including geological testing, if required; and • Prepare and submit a report to the Director of Planning and Community Development to include, but not be limited to, the following:
Impact Sciences, Inc. 19 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Description of existing conditions at the existing Green Hotel Apartments and restaurant building at 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue;
Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would be below 0.12 ppv in/sec, the potential for damage to the existing Green Hotel Apartments and restaurant building at 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue;
Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified vibration level limits are not exceeded; and
A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that includes post‐construction and post‐demolition surveys of the existing Green Hotel Apartments and restaurant building at 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue.
Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or construction include, but are not limited to
Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment;
Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment; Specifying demolition by non‐impact methods, such as sawing concrete; Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources; and Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision making for subsequent activities.
MM Noise-2: Post Construction Survey and Documentation
To the satisfaction of the City of Pasadena, at the conclusion of vibration‐causing activities, in the unanticipated event of discovery of vibration‐caused damage, the Structural Engineer and the Project Historical Architect shall document any damage to the existing Green Hotel Apartments and/or restaurant building located at 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue caused by construction of the project and shall recommend necessary repairs. The project applicant shall be responsible for any repairs associated with vibration‐ caused damage as a result of construction of the project. Any such repairs shall be undertaken and completed as required to conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Impact Sciences, Inc. 20 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
Properties (36 Code of Federal Regulations 68), and shall apply the California Historical Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8) and other applicable codes.
Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of the above measures would reduce the construction related vibration impacts to a less than significant level.
Residual Impacts
Impacts would be less than significant.
Operation Impacts
Permanent Operational Traffic Noise
As discussed above, a 3 dB(A) increase in roadway noise levels requires an approximate doubling of roadway traffic volume, assuming that travel speeds and fleet mix remain constant. Furthermore, a 3 dB(A) noise level increase is the minimum noise level increase required for a human to perceive a change in ambient noise.
Trip generation estimates for the project were obtained from the traffic impact analysis prepared for the proposed project.13 Trip generation information for the proposed project was added to peak hour traffic volumes to determine whether traffic increased enough to result in an audible noise level increase. The traffic study determined that the proposed project would add approximately 52 A.M. peak hour trips and 73 P.M. peak hour trips. The City of Pasadena’s Transportation Data Management System shows that Dayton Street between Fair Oaks Avenue and Raymond Avenue has a traffic volume of approximately 70 vehicles during the A.M. peak hour, and 118 vehicles during the P.M. peak hour.14 As noted above, it would take a doubling of roadway traffic volumes to increase noise levels by 3 dB(A). The project’s addition of approximately 52 A.M. peak hour trips and 73 P.M. peak hour trips would not increase in traffic volumes enough to cause a significant audible increase in traffic noise.
Permanent Operational Stationary Noise
The Pasadena Municipal Code requires that noise generated by mechanical equipment not exceed 5 dB(A) above ambient noise levels at adjacent property lines.
13 City of Pasadena Department of Transportation, Transportation Impact Analysis Outside of CEQA Evaluation; 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue. May 3, 2019.
14 City of Pasadena, Transportation Data Management System. Available at:
https://pasadena.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Pasadena&mod= Impact Sciences, Inc. 21 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
During project operation, the project would include stationary noises from sources associated with building operations, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, as well as vehicle parking.
Large ground-level heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems typically generate noise levels between 50 and 65 dB(A) at 50 feet. Rooftop mounted equipment typically produces noise levels of up to approximately 56 dB(A) at 50 feet. The proposed project is anticipated to utilize rooftop mounted HVAC equipment. HVAC equipment would be located on the roof approximately 50 feet away from receptors at the nearest property line and therefore noise from the HVAC system would cause a maximum noise level of 56.0 dB(A) Leq and a new ambient noise level of approximately 58.9 dB(A) when combined with existing ambient noise. This would result in a maximum noise level increase of approximately 3.1 dB(A) Leq. This is below the Pasadena Municipal Code threshold of a 5 dB(A) increase in ambient noise levels, and would not cause any nearby sensitive land use to exceed the normally acceptable level of noise identified in Table 4. Therefore, on-site HVAC noise would result in a less than significant impact.
Parking noise typically generates noise levels of approximately 60 dB(A) at 50 feet. Parking from the project would occur in subterranean parking. However, as cars enter the subterranean parking from within the project site, noise generated from parking related impacts may occur at nearby receptors. Ambient noise level readings from Table 3 show noise levels at Receptor #3 (Central Park) to be at 55.8 dB(A). At approximately 60 feet from the subterranean parking entrance, there would be an increase of approximately 4.5 dB(A) when vehicles enter the parking levels of the project and receptors are exposed to parking noise. This is below the Pasadena Municipal Code recommended threshold of a 5 dB(A) increase in ambient noise levels and would not cause any nearby sensitive land use to exceed the normally acceptable level of noise identified in Table 4. Therefore, parking noise would result in a less than significant impact.
Permanent Operational Aircraft Noise
The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan. Likewise, the project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.
As such, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airportrelated noise levels. No impact would occur from the proposed project and no further analysis is required.
Residual Impacts
Impacts would be less than significant
Impact Sciences, Inc. 22 86 Fair Oaks Ave. Project
1136.04 June 2020
#Q5FEWH5N0D1VR6v1
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013.
City of Pasadena Department of Transportation, Transportation Impact Analysis Outside of CEQA Evaluation; 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue. May 3, 2019.
City of Pasadena, Transportation Data Management System. Available at:
https://pasadena.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Pasadena&mod= Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Mitigation, (1980) 18.
Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (1980) 97.
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018 Wayne County Airport Authority. Background information on noise & its measurement, 2009 Noise Monitoring Location Map
Noise Monitoring Location Map
FIGURE
1 1136.004•06/2020
SOURCE: Google Earth, 2018
Noise Monitoring Data
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.058
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0005667
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.302
User ISI, Inc.
Location 86 Fair Oaks
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2019-12-10 13:23:19
Stop 2019-12-10 13:38:19
Duration 00:15:00.0
Run Time 00:15:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre Calibration 2019-04-25 10:16:43
Post Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight Z Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamp PRMLxT1
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Freq. Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max
Overload 144.4 dB
A C Z
Under Range Peak 100.7 97.7 102.7 dB
Under Range Limit 49.7 47.7 55.7 dB
Noise Floor 36.6 37.2 44.8 dB
Results
LAeq 67.9 dB
LAE 97.5 dB
EA 620.265 µPa²h
EA8 19.848 mPa²h
EA40 99.242 mPa²h
LZpeak (max) 2019-12-10 13:37:31 107.9 dB
LASmax 2019-12-10 13:37:32 83.0 dB
LASmin 2019-12-10 13:33:19 55.7 dB
SEA -99.9 dB
LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s
LAS > 115.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s
LZpeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LZpeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LZpeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LCeq 78.8 dB
LAeq 67.9 dB
LCeq - LAeq 10.9 dB
LAIeq 69.7 dB
LAeq 67.9 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.8 dB
dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp
Leq 67.9 78.8
LS(max) 83.0 2019/12/10 13:37:32
LS(min) 55.7 2019/12/10 13:33:19
LPeak(max) 107.9 2019/12/10 13:37:31
# Overloads 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
# OBA Overloads 0
OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s
Dose Settings
Dose Name OSHA-1 OSHA-2
Exchange Rate 5 5 dB
Threshold 90 80 dB
Criterion Level 90 90 dB
Criterion Duration 8 8 h
Results
Dose -99.9 0.00 %
Projected Dose -99.9 0.11 %
TWA (Projected) -99.9 40.9 dB
TWA (t) -99.9 15.9 dB
Lep (t) 52.9 52.9 dB
Statistics
LAS5.00 73.6 dB
LAS10.00 71.4 dB
LAS33.30 65.4 dB
LAS50.00 63.4 dB
LAS66.60 62.0 dB
LAS90.00 58.9 dB
Calibration History
Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa 6.3 8.0 10.0 12.5 16.0 20.0 25.0 31.5 40.0 50.0 63.0 80.0 100 125 160 PRMLxT1 2019-04-25 10:16:43 -50.8 63.1 61.3 51.2 56.0 57.1 58.9 53.6 54.2 58.7 50.0 51.2 55.9 44.2 58.6 52.4 PRMLxT1 2019-01-12 12:02:16 -50.7 36.0 38.9 46.6 48.4 43.8 43.5 44.2 51.8 40.1 38.6 41.9 38.2 45.9 53.6 46.0 PRMLxT1 2018-11-01 09:59:25 -50.5 60.6 57.6 44.5 43.2 52.3 51.3 51.9 61.9 55.5 53.4 47.6 41.6 45.8 51.6 48.3 PRMLxT1 2018-11-01 09:58:54 -50.5 71.0 70.8 55.4 46.1 54.8 46.5 53.2 58.0 55.9 50.9 45.0 43.3 45.3 50.1 50.5 PRMLxT1 2018-07-12 08:32:20 -49.8 41.3 59.9 52.6 47.8 49.3 59.8 55.3 52.0 45.0 51.6 49.1 46.5 50.0 56.0 48.6 PRMLxT1 2018-07-11 12:06:07 -49.9 26.3 38.3 46.3 36.2 46.4 59.6 42.8 50.9 56.4 57.2 51.1 55.9 48.7 63.4 33.9 PRMLxT1 2018-07-11 11:29:38 -49.0 16.7 13.9 19.6 17.7 13.2 12.2 17.8 7.3 8.0 6.4 8.6 6.1 4.0 7.8 4.8 SLM_0005667_LxT_Data_058.00.ldbin
A C Z
200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 12500 16000 20000
37.9 51.0 48.4 43.7 35.1 29.3 25.8 93.9 32.0 29.0 40.0 29.9 40.4 32.6 34.1 35.2 36.3 37.3 38.3 39.4 41.1
44.2 45.2 46.4 45.5 37.8 33.9 27.2 93.9 30.9 28.3 39.7 30.2 40.4 32.2 33.6 34.6 35.7 37.1 38.4 39.5 41.0
53.7 47.9 42.7 44.9 38.5 31.1 27.0 94.0 31.7 28.2 40.1 30.5 40.7 32.8 33.3 35.0 36.0 36.8 38.3 39.3 40.9
51.8 47.6 44.2 43.4 38.1 30.1 27.0 93.4 30.0 27.3 39.9 29.3 39.9 32.4 32.9 33.5 34.9 36.5 37.4 38.7 40.4
48.0 43.2 48.4 48.6 47.2 36.2 34.7 114.0 49.1 28.8 64.9 29.7 58.0 31.5 34.6 35.1 35.8 36.8 38.1 39.0 40.5
43.5 46.5 43.1 47.3 37.8 34.0 28.9 113.1 48.1 26.8 62.6 29.5 54.4 30.6 30.7 31.8 32.5 31.1 31.2 29.7 29.3
8.8 7.5 6.4 7.0 6.8 7.6 10.2 10.5 10.2 12.9 13.3 14.7 13.4 14.8 16.8 17.4 17.6 19.6 20.9 21.8 22.7 Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.059
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0005667
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.302
User ISI, Inc.
Location 86 Fair Oaks
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2019-12-10 13:43:07
Stop 2019-12-10 13:58:07
Duration 00:15:00.0
Run Time 00:15:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre Calibration 2019-04-25 10:16:43
Post Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight Z Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamp PRMLxT1
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Freq. Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max
Overload 144.4 dB
A C Z
Under Range Peak 100.7 97.7 102.7 dB
Under Range Limit 49.7 47.7 55.7 dB
Noise Floor 36.6 37.2 44.8 dB
Results
LAeq 68.0 dB
LAE 97.5 dB
EA 629.830 µPa²h
EA8 20.155 mPa²h
EA40 100.773 mPa²h
LZpeak (max) 2019-12-10 13:43:42 104.4 dB
LASmax 2019-12-10 13:43:43 81.6 dB
LASmin 2019-12-10 13:52:19 50.9 dB
SEA -99.9 dB
LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s
LAS > 115.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s
LZpeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LZpeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LZpeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LCeq 76.1 dB
LAeq 68.0 dB
LCeq - LAeq 8.1 dB
LAIeq 69.7 dB
LAeq 68.0 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.8 dB
dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp
Leq 68.0 76.1
LS(max) 81.6 2019/12/10 13:43:43
LS(min) 50.9 2019/12/10 13:52:19
LPeak(max) 104.4 2019/12/10 13:43:42
# Overloads 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
SLM_0005667_LxT_Data_059.00.ldbin
A C Z
# OBA Overloads
0 OBA Overload Duration 0.0s
Dose Settings
Dose Name OSHA-1 OSHA-2
Exchange Rate55 dB
Threshold 90 80 dB
Criterion Level 90 90 dB
Criterion Duration88h
Results
Dose -99.9 0.00%
Projected Dose -99.9 0.06%
TWA (Projected) -99.9 36.8 dB
TWA (t) -99.9 11.8 dB
Lep (t) 52.9 52.9 dB
Statistics
LAS5.00 73.1 dB
LAS10.00 71.5 dB
LAS33.30 67.7 dB
LAS50.00 65.1 dB
LAS66.60 62.5 dB
LAS90.00 55.9 dB
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.060
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0005667
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.302
User ISI, Inc.
Location 86 Fair Oaks
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2019-12-10 14:13:08
Stop 2019-12-10 14:28:08
Duration 00:15:00.0
Run Time 00:15:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre Calibration 2019-04-25 10:16:43
Post Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight Z Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamp PRMLxT1
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Freq. Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max
Overload 144.4 dB
A C Z
Under Range Peak 100.7 97.7 102.7 dB
Under Range Limit 49.7 47.7 55.7 dB
Noise Floor 36.6 37.2 44.8 dB
Results
LAeq 55.8 dB
LAE 85.4 dB
EA 38.358 µPa²h
EA8 1.227 mPa²h
EA40 6.137 mPa²h
LZpeak (max) 2019-12-10 14:22:23 93.9 dB
LASmax 2019-12-10 14:22:50 68.5 dB
LASmin 2019-12-10 14:15:16 49.5 dB
SEA -99.9 dB
LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s
LAS > 115.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s
LZpeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LZpeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LZpeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LCeq 70.6 dB
LAeq 55.8 dB
LCeq - LAeq 14.7 dB
LAIeq 58.4 dB
LAeq 55.8 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 2.5 dB
dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp
Leq 55.8 70.6
LS(max) 68.5 2019/12/10 14:22:50
LS(min) 49.5 2019/12/10 14:15:16
LPeak(max) 93.9 2019/12/10 14:22:23
# Overloads 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
SLM_0005667_LxT_Data_060.00.ldbin
A C Z
# OBA Overloads
0 OBA Overload Duration 0.0s
Dose Settings
Dose Name OSHA-1 OSHA-2
Exchange Rate55 dB
Threshold 90 80 dB
Criterion Level 90 90 dB
Criterion Duration88h
Results
Dose -99.9 -99.9%
Projected Dose -99.9 -99.9%
TWA (Projected) -99.9 -99.9 dB
TWA (t) -99.9 -99.9 dB
Lep (t) 40.8 40.8 dB
Statistics
LAS5.00 59.9 dB
LAS10.00 58.2 dB
LAS33.30 55.8 dB
LAS50.00 54.8 dB
LAS66.60 53.4 dB
LAS90.00 51.4 dB
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.061
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0005667
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.302
User ISI, Inc.
Location 86 Fair Oaks
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2019-12-10 14:31:52
Stop 2019-12-10 14:46:52
Duration 00:15:00.0
Run Time 00:15:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre Calibration 2019-04-25 10:16:43
Post Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight Z Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamp PRMLxT1
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Freq. Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max
Overload 144.4 dB
A C Z
Under Range Peak 100.7 97.7 102.7 dB
Under Range Limit 49.7 47.7 55.7 dB
Noise Floor 36.6 37.2 44.8 dB
Results
LAeq 57.3 dB
LAE 86.8 dB
EA 53.521 µPa²h
EA8 1.713 mPa²h
EA40 8.563 mPa²h
LZpeak (max) 2019-12-10 14:43:30 101.8 dB
LASmax 2019-12-10 14:39:02 75.2 dB
LASmin 2019-12-10 14:36:32 47.0 dB
SEA -99.9 dB
LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s
LAS > 115.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s
LZpeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LZpeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LZpeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedance Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LCeq 68.6 dB
LAeq 57.3 dB
LCeq - LAeq 11.3 dB
LAIeq 60.0 dB
LAeq 57.3 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 2.7 dB
dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp
Leq 57.3 68.6
LS(max) 75.2 2019/12/10 14:39:02
LS(min) 47.0 2019/12/10 14:36:32
LPeak(max) 101.8 2019/12/10 14:43:30
# Overloads 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
SLM_0005667_LxT_Data_061.00.ldbin
A C Z
# OBA Overloads
0 OBA Overload Duration 0.0s
Dose Settings
Dose Name OSHA-1 OSHA-2
Exchange Rate55 dB
Threshold 90 80 dB
Criterion Level 90 90 dB
Criterion Duration88h
Results
Dose -99.9 -99.9%
Projected Dose -99.9 -99.9%
TWA (Projected) -99.9 -99.9 dB
TWA (t) -99.9 -99.9 dB
Lep (t) 42.2 42.2 dB
Statistics
LAS5.00 62.8 dB
LAS10.00 60.4 dB
LAS33.30 54.4 dB
LAS50.00 52.6 dB
LAS66.60 51.0 dB
LAS90.00 48.6 dB
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 6/18/2020
Case Description: 86 Fair Oaks Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Location #1 Residential 67.9 67.9 67.9
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 280 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 280 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 280 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 280 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 65.7 61.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 65.7 61.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dump Truck 61.5 57.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 64.1 60.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 65.7 66.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Location #2 Residential 68 68 68
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 85 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 85 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 85 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 85 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 76.1 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 76.1 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dump Truck 71.8 67.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 74.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 76.1 77 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Location #3 Residential 55.8 55.8 55.8
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 60 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dump Truck 74.9 70.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 77.5 73.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 79.1 80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Location #4 Residential 57.3 57.3 57.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 500 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 500 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 500 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 500 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 60.7 56.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 60.7 56.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dump Truck 56.5 52.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 59.1 55.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 60.7 61.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Reference Receptor Residential 55 55 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 100 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 100 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 100 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 100 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 74.7 70.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 74.7 70.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dump Truck 70.4 66.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 73.1 69.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 74.7 75.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
86 Fair Oaks Construction Noise - Unmitigated
Reference Noise Distance 100
Reference Noise Level 75.6
Sensitive Receptor
Distance
(feet)
Attenuation
Factors
Maximum
Construction
Noise Level
(RCNM)
Existing
Ambient (dBA,
Leq)
New Ambient
(dBA, Leq) Increase
Location #1 280 66.7 67.9 70.3 2.4
Location #2 85 77.0 68 77.5 9.5
Location #3 60 80.0 55.8 80.1 24.3
Location #4 500 61.6 57.3 63.0 5.7
APPENDIX G
Transportation
86 Fair Oaks Condition Letter
Transportation Impact Analysis CEQA Evaluation
Transportation Impact Analysis
CEQA Evaluation
Category 2
Project Address: 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Project Summary: Mixed-use development with 87 apartment units, 4 work-live units, 4,218 sf retail, and
1,974 sf restaurant on an existing surface
parking lot.
Applicant: Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
8 Mills Place, Suite 300
Pasadena, CA 91105
Attention: Kevin Johnson, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Pasadena
May 3, 2019
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis i 5/3/2019
Table of Contents
I. Study Objective .......................................................................................................... 1 II. Project Description...................................................................................................... 1 III. Existing Transportation Network................................................................................. 1 Street System Classifications ..................................................................................... 1 Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................. 4 IV. Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology ............................................................. 4 Analysis Purpose........................................................................................................ 5 Analysis Threshold Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures ........................ 5 Definitions................................................................................................................... 5 VMT Per Capita .....................................................................................................................5 VT Per Capita ........................................................................................................................6 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network ...............................................................................6 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network ...............................................................................7 Pedestrian Accessibility .........................................................................................................7 V. Project’s Transportation Impact Analysis.................................................................... 8 VI. Congestion Management Plan ................................................................................. 12 CMP Traffic Impact Analysis..................................................................................... 12 CMP Transit Impact Analysis.................................................................................... 13 VII. Conclusion................................................................................................................ 14 VIII.Appendices............................................................................................................... 14 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis ii 5/3/2019
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Plan................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Street Classification Map.................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Bike Facility Map.............................................................................................. 10 Figure 4. Transit Facility Map .......................................................................................... 11 List of Tables
Table 1. Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy.................................................................................. 6 Table 2. Description of Transit Facilities............................................................................ 7 Table 3. City of Pasadena CEQA Caps............................................................................. 8 Table 4. Transportation Performance Metrics Summary................................................... 9 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 1 5/3/2019
I. Study Objective
This report analyzed the impact the development will have on the City transportation system by estimating incremental changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, vehicle trips per capita (VT), service population proximity access to transit and bike facilities, and pedestrian accessibility score.
II. Project Description
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation conducted an analysis to review the construction of a mixed-use development with 87 apartment units, 4 work-live units, 4,218 sf retail, and 1,974 sf restaurant on an existing surface parking lot.
Vehicular site access will be provided via one driveway along Dayton Street.
Figure 1 depicts the project’s site plan.
III. Existing Transportation Network
Street System Classifications
Colorado Boulevard is classified as a City Connector. The speed limit varies from 25 mph in the business district to 30 to 35 mph outside the business district.
Green Street is a one-way eastbound City Connector from Pasadena Avenue to Hill Avenue with a speed limit of 30 mph. Parking is permitted along both sides of the street.
Fair Oaks Avenue is a City Connector bordering the project to the west. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the project is 35 mph. Land use along Fair Oaks Avenue is primarily commercial. Fair Oaks Avenue shall be evaluated from an urban-commercial street context.
Raymond Avenue is a Neighborhood Connector east of the project. The Metro Gold Line Del Mar Station is located just south of the development and is accessible from Raymond Avenue.
Dayton Street is an Access Road bordering the project to the south. The roadway is a narrow, undivided, two-lane roadway with parking allowed on both sides of the street. The Fair Oaks Avenue at Dayton Street intersection is unsignalized. Pasadena Central Park is located directly south of the proposed development.
Figure 2 depicts the project within the context of the City of Pasadena’s adopted Street Types map.
Transportation Analysis
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
2 5/3/2019
Figure 1. Project Site Plan
Transportation Analysis
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
3 5/3/2019
Figure 2. Street Classification Map
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 4 5/3/2019
Existing Transit Service
Public transit service within the project study area is currently provided by LA Metro (Metro), Foothill Transit (FT), and Pasadena Transit (PT). The locations of public transit stops near the project are summarized as follows:
ID Location Route
1 Southwest corner of Fair Oaks Ave at Green St Metro 260, 686, 687 2 Northeast corner of Fair Oaks Ave at Dayton St Metro 260 3 Northeast corner of Fair Oaks Ave at Del Mar Blvd Metro 260, 762 4 Southwest corner of Fair Oaks Ave at Del Mar Blvd PT 20, 51;Metro 260, 686, 687, 762
5 West side of Raymond Ave b/t Dayton St/Del Mar Blvd
PT 20, 51, 52;Metro 177,
256, 501, 686, 687; Metro
Gold Line
6 Southwest corner of Raymond Ave at Green St FT 187
7 Southwest corner of Raymond Ave at Green St PT 20, 51 8 Southeast corner of Raymond Ave at Green St PT 20, 51, 52; Metro 177, 256, 686, 687
IV. Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology
With the City of Pasadena General Plan, the City’s guiding principles cumulatively represent the community’s vision for the future:
- Growth will be targeted to serve community needs and enhance quality of life. - New construction that could affect the integrity of historic resources will be compatible with, and differentiated from, the existing historic resource. - Economic vitality will be promoted to provide jobs, services, revenues, and opportunities.
- Pasadena will be a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable community.
- Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars. - Pasadena will be promoted as a cultural, scientific, corporate, entertainment, and educational center for the region.
- Community participation will be a permanent part of achieving a greater city. - Pasadena is committed to public education and a diverse educational system responsive to the broad needs of the community.
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 5 5/3/2019
Understanding the goals and objectives of the General Plan, the Pasadena Department of Transportation sets forth goals and policies to improve overall transportation in Pasadena and create “a community where people can circulate without cars.” Inherent in this vision statement is to accommodate different modes of transportation including vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. The analysis is based on City Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. This report will assess accessibility of these different modes of travel and the project’s transportation impacts using the City’s adopted transportation performance measures.
Analysis Purpose
Pasadena reviews several types and sizes of projects that could be subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Transportation impact analyses are an integral part of the environmental review process that is required for all proposed projects not categorically exempt under CEQA.
Analysis Threshold Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures The Pasadena Department of Transportation adopted a set of performance measures and CEQA caps that are closely aligned with the Mobility Element objectives and policies.
Pasadena Department of Transportation’s mobility performance measures assess the quality of walking, biking, transit, and vehicular travel in the City. A combination of vehicular and multimodal performance measures are employed to evaluate system performance in reviewing new development projects. They are:
- Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita
- Vehicle Trips per Capita
- Proximity and Quality of the Bicycle and Transit Network - Pedestrian Accessibility
These performance measures align with the sustainability goals of the General Plan by evaluating the “efficiency” of projects by analyzing the per capita length and number of trips associated with changes in land use. With the expanded emphasis on sustainability and a continued focus on livability, the proposed performance measures will assist in determining how to balance travel modes as well as understand the mobility needs of the community.
Definitions
VMT Per Capita
The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita measure sums the miles traveled for trips within the City of Pasadena Travel Demand Model (that is based on the SCAG regional model). The VMT total considers 100% of the mileage of trips that begin and end inside Pasadena and 50% of the distance travelled for trips with one end outside of Pasadena.
The City’s VMT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.
Although VMT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, the City can reduce VMT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 6 5/3/2019
meet their daily needs within a short distance from home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
VT Per Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) per Capita is a measure of motor vehicle trips associated with the City.
The measure sums the trips with origins and destination within the City of Pasadena, as generated by the 2013 trip-based citywide Travel Demand Model. The regional VT is calculated by adding the VT associated with trips generated and attracted within City of Pasadena boundaries, and 50% of the VT associated with trips that either begin or end in the City, but have one trip end outside of the City. The City’s VT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.
As with VMT, VT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, but the City can reduce VT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
The Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of Levels 1 & 2 bicycle facility types. The facility types are aggregated into three hierarchy levels, obtained from the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan categories as shown in the following table:
Table 1. Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy
LEVEL DESCRIPTION FACILITIES INCLUDED
1 Advanced Facilities Bike Paths (P1)
Multipurpose Paths (PP)
Cycle Tracks/Protected Bike Lanes
2 Dedicated Facilities Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes (2, P2)
Bike Boulevards (BB)
3 Basic Facilities Bike Routes (3, P3)
Enhanced Bike Routes (E3, PE3)
Emphasized Bikeways (PEB)
For each bike facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer are added.
The City can improve measures of Bike Facility Access by improving and expanding existing bike facilities and by encouraging residential and commercial development in areas with high-quality bike facilities.
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 7 5/3/2019
Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
The Proximity and Quality of Transit Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of transit facility types, as defined in the following table:
Table 2. Description of Transit Facilities
TRANSIT FACILITIES HIERARCHY
LEVEL FACILITIES INCLUDED
1 Includes all Gold Line stops as well as corridors with transit service, whether it be a single route or multiple routes combined, with headways of five minutes or less during the peak periods.
2 Includes corridors with transit headways of between six and 15 minutes in peak periods.
3 Includes corridors with transit headways of 16 minutes or more at peak periods.
For each facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer are added.
The City can improve the measures of Transit Proximity and Quality by reducing headways on existing transit routes, by expanding transit routes to cover new areas, and by encouraging residential and commercial development to occur in areas with an already high-quality transit service.
Pedestrian Accessibility
Proximity and Quality of Pedestrian Environment score provides a measure of the average walkability in the TAZ surrounding Pasadena residents, based on a Pedestrian Accessibility metric. The Pedestrian proximity metric is a simple count of the number of land use types accessible to a Pasadena resident or employee in a given TAZ within a 5- minute walk. The ten categories of land uses are:
- Retail
- Personal Services
- Restaurant
- Entertainment
- Office (including private sector and government offices) - Medical (including medical office and hospital uses)
- Culture (including churches, religious and other cultural uses) - Park and Open Space
- School (including elementary and high schools)
- College
The following table summarizes the City’s Metrics for determining CEQA Caps:
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 8 5/3/2019
Table 3. City of Pasadena CEQA Caps
METRIC DESCRIPTION IMPACT THRESHOLD
1. VMT Per
Capita
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) in the City of
Pasadena per service
population (population +
jobs).
CEQA Threshold: An increase over
existing Citywide VMT per Capita of
22.6. 2. VT Per
Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) in the
City of Pasadena per
service population
(population + jobs).
CEQA Threshold: An increase over
existing Citywide VT per Capita of
2.8. 3.
Proximity
and Quality
of Bicycle
Network
Percent of service
population (population +
jobs) within a quarter mile of
bicycle facility types
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease in
existing citywide 31.7% of service
population (population + jobs) within
a quarter mile of Level 1 & 2 bike
facilities.
4. Proximity
and Quality
of Transit
Network
Percent of service
population (population +
jobs) located within a
quarter mile of transit facility
types.
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease in
existing citywide 66.6% of service
population (population + jobs) within
a quarter mile of Level 1 & 2 transit
facilities.
5. Pedestrian
Accessibility
The Pedestrian Accessibility
Score uses the mix of
destinations, and a networkbased walk shed to evaluate walkability
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease in
the Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility
Score of 3.88.
V. Project’s Transportation Impact Analysis
The analysis is based on City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The City’s calibrated travel demand forecasting model (TDF) built on SCAG’s regional model was used to analyze project’s impacts. The City’s TDF model uses TransCAD software to simulate traffic levels and travel patterns into, out of, and within the City. The program consists of input files that summarize the City’s land uses, street network, travel characteristics, and other key factors. Using this data, the model performs a series of calculations to determine the amount of trips generated, the beginning and ending location of each trip, and the route taken by the trip. To be deemed accurate for project transportation impact on the transportation system, a model must be calibrated to a year in which actual land use data and traffic volumes are available and well documented. The Pasadena TDF has been calibrated to 2013 base year conditions using actual traffic counts, Census data, and land use data compiled by City staff with land uses’ associated population and job increase estimates.
Projects’ proposed land uses that are consistent with the General Plan and complimentary to the surrounding land uses are expected to reduce the trip length 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 9 5/3/2019
associated with adjacent land uses; and/or increase the service population access to pedestrian, bike, and transit facilities if the project is within a quarter mile of those facilities.
The following table summarizes the following analyses of the proposed project’s impacts on the transportation system using the calibrated TDF model. The results are based on the project’s vehicular and non-vehicular trip making characteristics, trip length, and its interaction with other surrounding/citywide land uses, and the City’s transportation network.
Table 4. Transportation Performance Metrics Summary
Transportation Performance Metrics
Significant
Impact Cap
(existing)
Incremental
change
(existing +
project)
Significant
Impact?
VMT per Capita >22.6 16.2 No
VT per Capita >2.8 2.8 No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network <31.7% 31.7 No Proximity and Quality of Transit Network <66.6% 66.7 No Pedestrian Accessibility <3.88 3.88 No
The TDF model calculation results determined that the project does not exceed any adopted CEQA thresholds of significance.
Transportation Analysis
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
10 5/3/2019
Figure 3. Bike Facility Map
Transportation Analysis
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
11 5/3/2019
Figure 4. Transit Facility Map
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 12 5/3/2019
VI. Congestion Management Plan
CMP Traffic Impact Analysis
The 2010 Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County requires local jurisdictions to consider the regional transportation impacts that may result from major development projects through the local land use approval process. The geographic area examined in the traffic study must include the following, at minimum:
- All CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic - If CMP arterial segments are being analyzed rather than intersections, the study area must include all segments where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips.
- Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more peak hour trips
- Caltrans must also be consulted through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process to identify other specific locations to be analyzed on the state highway system.
The trip generation rates and volumes for the proposed project is summarized:
The trip generation calculations estimated that the project would generate 866 daily trips, 52 AM and 73 PM peak hour project trips.
The arterial monitoring station locations in Pasadena are:
- Arroyo Parkway at California Boulevard (CMP ID 119)
Proposed Use Land Use Code Amount Units Measure Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multi-Family Mid-Rise Apartment 221 87 DU 1 5.44 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44 Work-Live* San Diego 5,236 SF 1000 40.00 0.72 0.48 1.20 1.80 1.80 3.60 Retail San Diego 4,218 SF 1000 40.00 0.72 0.48 1.20 1.80 1.80 3.60 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 1,974 SF 1000 112.18 5.47 4.47 9.94 6.06 3.71 9.77 Daily In Out Total In Out Total
473 8 23 31 23 15 38
105 2 1 3 5 5 9
169 3 2 5 8 8 15
221 11 9 20 12 7 19
968 24 35 59 48 35 82
Internal Trip Capture 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transit Trips (Residential) 5% 24 0 1 2 1 1 2
Pass-By Trips (Restaurant + Retail) 20% 78 3 2 5 4 3 7
866 21 32 52 43 31 73
* Work-live units uses retail with 50% walk in reductions.
Net total (proposed minus existing trips) 866 21 32 52 43 31 73 Work-Live*
Total Project Trips
Multi-Family Mid-Rise Apartment
Retail
Volumes
Proposed Use
Trip Generation Rates (proposed)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Net Project Vehicle Trips
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 13 5/3/2019
- Pasadena Avenue/ St John Avenue at California Boulevard (CMP ID 120) - Rosemead Boulevard at Foothill Boulevard (CMP ID 121) The mainline freeway monitoring locations in Pasadena are:
- 110 Freeway at Pasadena Avenue (CMP Station 1050)
- 134 Freeway west of San Rafael Avenue (CMP Station 1056) - 210 Freeway west of Routes 134 and 710 (CMP Station 1060) - 210 Freeway at Rosemead Boulevard (CMP Station 1061)
This project does not add 50 or more peak hour trips onto the arterial monitoring station locations during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic.
Furthermore, this project will not add 150 or more peak hour trips onto the mainline freeway monitoring locations during the peak hours. No further CMP traffic analysis is required.
CMP Transit Impact Analysis
CMP transit analysis requirements require:
- Summary of existing transit service in the study area - Project trip generation estimates
- Project transit trip estimates
- Project components including facilities and programs to encourage public transit use - Analysis of transit impacts and mitigations, if any.
The CMP transit trip estimates are summarized as follows:
An increase in transit trip ridership of 203 daily transit trips, 12 AM peak hour transit trips, and 17 PM peak hour transit trips are estimated. With 11 transit lines plus the Gold Line, the following table shows that there should be adequate transit capacity to serve the project:
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total project vehicle trips w/o trip credit 968 59 82
Total person trips 1,355 83 115
% CMP transit factor [1] 15% 15% 15%
Total Transit Trips 203 12 17
* Based on the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County Appendix D.8.4 [1] Primarily commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit center (Gold Line Del Mar Station) 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
CMP Transit Impact Analysis - Transit Trip Calculation
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Analysis 14 5/3/2019
VII. Conclusion
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation conducted an analysis to review the construction of a mixed-use development with 87 apartment units, 4 work-live units, 4,218 sf retail, and 1,974 sf restaurant on an existing surface parking lot.
The Travel Demand Forecasting Model calculation results for this project determined that the project does not cause a significant impact to any of the metrics as outlined in the City’s Traffic Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice and Guidelines.
VIII. Appendices
Memorandum of Understanding
City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model Output/Results
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
PT 20 18 6 4 108 72 0.05 0.05 5 4
PT 51 18 3 3 54 54 0.05 0.05 3 3
PT 52 18 3 3 54 54 0.05 0.05 3 3
FT 187 40 4 6 160 240 0.05 0.05 8 12
Metro 177 40 2 2 80 80 0.05 0.05 4 4
Metro 256 40 2 2 80 80 0.05 0.05 4 4
Metro 260 40 6 8 240 320 0.05 0.05 12 16
Metro 501 40 10 10 400 400 0.05 0.05 20 20
Metro 686 40 2 2 80 80 0.05 0.05 4 4
Metro 687 40 2 2 80 80 0.05 0.05 4 4
Metro 762 40 5 4 200 160 0.05 0.05 10 8
Metro Gold Line 72 16 16 1,152 1,152 0.01 0.01 12 12
446 61 62 2,688 2,772 70 72
12 17
57 54
2 Seat capacity assumed to be 5% during peak hour.
3 Approximate seat capacity for a 2-car train at 36 seats per car. Number of cars per train vary between 2-3 cars. Assumed 1% available seating capacity during peak hours at the Del Mar Station Station.
Totals
Seats
Per Car1
Service Frequency Seat Capacity per
Route Available % Seat Capacity2,3 Available Seat Capacity Total Available Seat Capacity
Project transit trips
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
CMP Transit Impact Analysis
Surplus (Deficit)
Service Route
1 Assumed based on standard bus specifications.
Appendix:
Memorandum of Understanding
Appendix:
City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model Output/Results
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
VMT/Cap and VT/Cap Summary
Daily Trips Internal External Pop 136,116
Internal 351,155 336,010 Emp 111,367
External 336,010 491,145 Ext. Factor 50%
EMFAC
Speed Internal External Regional Total INPUT
5 109 0 1,740 1,850 0%
10 673 135 14,356 15,165 0%
15 4,135 1,353 45,870 51,358 1%
20 16,456 4,470 75,182 96,108 2%
25 98,066 12,630 150,194 260,890 5%
30 489,110 61,376 275,101 825,587 15%
35 822,415 139,323 320,207 1,281,946 23%
40 202,071 55,894 225,464 483,429 9%
45 136,021 104,933 169,393 410,347 7%
50 112,508 2,075 211,736 326,319 6%
55 95,581 7,973 229,296 332,851 6%
60 119,991 15,079 238,105 373,175 7%
65 323,603 20,896 181,045 525,544 9%
70 3,633 0 529,037 532,671 11%
75 0 0 77,279 77,279
80 0 0 0 0
85 0 0 0 0
SUM 2,424,374 426,138 2,744,006 5,594,519 100%
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,424,374 852,275 5,488,013 8,764,663 35.4
VT 351,155 672,020 - 1,023,175 4.1
Length 6.9 1.3 - 8.6 -
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,424,374 426,138 2,744,006 5,594,519 22.6
VT 351,155 336,010 - 687,165 2.8
Length 6.9 1.3 - 8.1 -
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
136,116 111,367 5,594,519 687,165 22.6 2.8
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
135,938 111,348 5,591,328 686,619 22.6 2.8
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
177 19 3,190 546 16.2 2.8
PASS PASS
FINAL REDUCED DAILY VMT BY SPEED BIN
REDUCED DAILY SUMMARY
2013 EXISTING SUMMARY
INCREMENTAL SCENARIO RESULTS
FINAL DAILY SCENARIO SUMMARY
TOTAL RAW DAILY SUMMARY
2019-0430_86_S_Fair_Oaks_Bl_VMT.xlsx
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Proximity and Quality Metric Summary
Existing
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 2 78,415 0 78,415 31.7%
Level 3 123,670 0 123,670 50.0%
No Facility 45,202 0 45,202 18.3%
Exist City Total 247,286 0 247,286 100.0%
Existing + Project
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 2 78,415 0 78,415 31.7%
Level 3 123,670 196.8065789 123,867 50.1%
No Facility 45,202 0 45,202 18.3%
Exist City Total 247,286 196.8065789 247,483 100.0%
Network Service Population
Adjustment Significant Impact Threshold Service Population % Impact? Bike 196.8065789 < 31.7% 31.7% No
Existing
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 1 90,600 0 90,600 36.6%
Level 2 74,298 0 74,298 30.0%
Level 3 50,495 0 50,495 20.4%
No Facility 31,893 0 31,893 12.9%
Exist City Total 247,286 0 247,286 100.0%
Existing + Project
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 1 90,600 196.8065789 90,797 36.7%
Level 2 74,298 0 74,298 30.0%
Level 3 50,495 0 50,495 20.4%
No Facility 31,893 0 31,893 12.9%
Exist City Total 247,286 196.8065789 247,483 100.0%
Network Service Population
Adjustment Significant Impact Threshold Service Population % Impact? Transit 196.8065789 < 66.6% 66.7% No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
Proximity and Quality Metric Summary - Bicycle
Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
Proximity and Quality Metric Summary - Transit
2019-0430 86 S Fair Oaks_ProxQual.xlsx
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Pedestrian Accessibility Calculation Summary
Weighted Average: 3.882616451
PasadenaDTATAZ Land Use Types Population_In_TAZ Employment_In_TAZ Service_Population Land Use Types 78 7 458.1239175 90.04855263 548.1724701 7
2019-0430 86 S Fair Oaks_PedAccess.xlsx
Transportation Impact Analysis Outside CEQA
Transportation Impact Analysis
Outside of CEQA Analysis
Project Address: 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Project Summary: Mixed-use development with 87 apartment units, 4 work-live units, 4,218 sf retail, and
1,974 sf restaurant on an existing surface
parking lot.
Applicant: Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
8 Mills Place, Suite 300
Pasadena, CA 91105
Attention: Kevin Johnson, Senior Planner
Planning Department
May 3, 2019
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
i
Table of Contents
I. Study Objective .......................................................................................................... 1 II. Project Description...................................................................................................... 1 III. Existing Transportation Network................................................................................. 1 Street System Classifications ..................................................................................... 1 Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................. 4 IV. Transportation Analysis Methodology......................................................................... 5 Analysis Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures ......................................... 5 Caps for Determining Project Street Segment Changes ............................................ 6 Caps for Determining Intersection Changes............................................................... 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index Discussion ............................... 8 V. Transportation Analysis .............................................................................................. 9 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................. 9 Street Segment Analysis .......................................................................................... 10 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis............................................................ 10 PEQI/BEQI Analysis ................................................................................................. 13 VI. Conclusion................................................................................................................ 13 VII. Appendices............................................................................................................... 13 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Plan................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Streets Plan Map................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Project Trip Distribution and Project Traffic Volumes ........................................ 11 Figure 4. City of Pasadena Adopted Transit Oriented Development Area ...................... 12 List of Tables
Table 1. City of Pasadena Metrics Cap............................................................................. 6 Table 2. Street Segment Caps .......................................................................................... 7 Table 3. LOS Capacity Criteria.......................................................................................... 7 Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Caps...................................................................... 8 Table 5. Street Segment Volume Summary.................................................................... 10 Table 6. Signalized Intersection LOS Summary.............................................................. 10 Table 7. PEQI/BEQI Summary........................................................................................ 13 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
1 I. Study Objective
The Department of Transportation at its discretion may analyze performance metrics outside of CEQA for projects below community-wide significance caps of 50 units and/or 50,000 square feet of development. The analysis will assess the changes to intersection Levels of Service (LOS) and “Access and Connector-Neighborhood” Street Type segments adjacent to the project. The findings may result in imposing project approval conditions to better manage project trips and protect neighborhoods from the proposed development’s vehicular trips, if applicable.
II. Project Description
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation conducted an analysis to review the construction of a mixed-use development with 87 apartment units, 4 work-live units, 4,218 sf retail, and 1,974 sf restaurant on an existing surface parking lot.
Vehicular site access will be provided via one driveway along Dayton Street.
Figure 1 depicts the project’s site plan.
III. Existing Transportation Network
Street System Classifications
Colorado Boulevard is classified as a City Connector. The speed limit varies from 25 mph in the business district to 30 to 35 mph outside the business district.
Green Street is a one-way eastbound City Connector from Pasadena Avenue to Hill Avenue with a speed limit of 30 mph. Parking is permitted along both sides of the street.
Fair Oaks Avenue is a City Connector bordering the project to the west. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the project is 35 mph. Land use along Fair Oaks Avenue is primarily commercial. Fair Oaks Avenue will be evaluated from an urban-commercial street context.
Raymond Avenue is a Neighborhood Connector east of the project. The Metro Gold Line Del Mar Station is located just south of the development and is accessible from Raymond Avenue.
Dayton Street is an Access Road bordering the project to the south. The roadway is a narrow, undivided, two-lane roadway with parking allowed on both sides of the street. The Fair Oaks Avenue at Dayton Street intersection is unsignalized. Pasadena Central Park is located directly south of the proposed development.
Figure 2 depicts the project in the City of Pasadena’s Adopted Streets Plan map. Street segment analyses are limited to “access” and “neighborhood connector” street types within a residential context.
Transportation Impact Analysis
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
5/3/2019
2 Figure 1. Project Site Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
5/3/2019
3 Figure 2. Streets Plan Map
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
4 The analysis considered potential traffic changes along the following street segments and intersections:
Street Segments:
- Raymond Avenue between Green Street and Dayton Street - Raymond Avenue between Dayton Street and Del Mar Avenue - Dayton Street between Fair Oaks Avenue and Raymond Avenue Intersections:
- Fair Oaks Avenue and Green Street
- Fair Oaks Avenue and Del Mar Boulevard
- Raymond Avenue and Green Street
- Raymond Avenue and Del Mar Boulevard
Existing Transit Service
Public transit service within the project study area is currently provided by LA Metro (Metro), Foothill Transit (FT), and Pasadena Transit (PT). The locations of public transit stops near the project are summarized as follows:
ID Location Route
1 Southwest corner of Fair Oaks Ave at Green St Metro 260, 686, 687 2 Northeast corner of Fair Oaks Ave at Dayton St Metro 260 3 Northeast corner of Fair Oaks Ave at Del Mar Blvd Metro 260, 762 4 Southwest corner of Fair Oaks Ave at Del Mar Blvd PT 20, 51;Metro 260, 686, 687, 762
5 West side of Raymond Ave b/t Dayton St/Del Mar Blvd
PT 20, 51, 52;Metro 177,
256, 501, 686, 687; Metro
Gold Line
6 Southwest corner of Raymond Ave at Green St FT 187
7 Southwest corner of Raymond Ave at Green St PT 20, 51 8 Southeast corner of Raymond Ave at Green St PT 20, 51, 52; Metro 177, 256, 686, 687
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
5 IV. Transportation Analysis Methodology
With the City of Pasadena General Plan, the City’s guiding principles cumulatively represent the community’s vision for the future:
- Growth will be targeted to serve community needs and enhance quality of life. - New construction that could affect the integrity of historic resources will be compatible with, and differentiated from, the existing historic resource. - Economic vitality will be promoted to provide jobs, services, revenues, and opportunities.
- Pasadena will be a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable community.
- Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars. - Pasadena will be promoted as a cultural, scientific, corporate, entertainment, and educational center for the region.
- Community participation will be a permanent part of achieving a greater city. - Pasadena is committed to public education and a diverse educational system responsive to the broad needs of the community.
Understanding the goals and objectives of the General Plan, the Pasadena Department of Transportation sets forth goals and policies to improve overall transportation in Pasadena and create “a community where people can circulate without cars.” Inherent in this vision statement is to accommodate different modes of transportation including vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. The analysis is based on City Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. This report will assess accessibility of these different modes of travel and the project’s transportation impacts using the City’s adopted transportation performance measures.
Analysis Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures The Department’s defined criteria and categories when determining the level of transportation impact of projects fall under three categories based on project size and community-wide significance.
- Exempt projects have 10 residential units or less, are 10,000 sf or less, or generate less than 300 daily trips if less than 10,000 sf.
- Category 1 Projects considered below community-wide significance are between 11-49 residential units, or 10,001 to 49,999 sf.
- Category 2 Projects classified as having community-wide significance have 50 or more residential units, or are 50,000 sf or more.
Pasadena Department of Transportation’s mobility performance measures assess the quality of walking, biking, transit, and vehicular travel in the City. A combination of vehicular and multimodal performance measures are employed to evaluate system performance in reviewing new development impacts.
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
6 The following table summarizes the City’s Metrics Cap Outside of CEQA for projects below “communitywide significance:”
Table 1. City of Pasadena Metrics Cap
METRIC DESCRIPTION CAP*
1. Street
Segment
Analysis
The street segment
analysis assesses traffic
intrusion on local streets
in residential
neighborhoods
Increases of 10-15% above existing on
streets with more than 1500 ADT would
trigger conditions of approval to reduce
project vehicular trips
2. Auto Level
of Service
Level of Service (LOS)
as defined by the
Transportation Research
Board's Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM)
2010.
A decrease beyond LOS D Citywide or
LOS E within Transit Oriented Districts
(TODs) would trigger conditions of
approval to reduce project vehicular trips
3. PEQI
Pedestrian
Environmental Quality
Index
Below average conditions
4. BEQI Bicycle Environmental
Quality Index
Below average conditions
*The adopted caps are not intended to be the absolute limits, but rather limits/ranges when exceeded may require additional project approval conditions.
Caps for Determining Project Street Segment Changes
Caps for evaluating changes in vehicular volumes on street segments were developed to measure the potential changes of net new trips from projects that intensify an existing land use, change site access, or alter existing traffic patterns. The caps are designed to capture a project’s anticipated level of changes measured in terms of net new trips over existing conditions.
Specific caps have been established to determine whether there would be any potential project changes along neighborhood street segments by project traffic. A conservative approach is taken when calculating the traffic growth by basing the calculation on the increase relative to existing traffic volumes as follows:
Percentage of Increase = net new project trips
existing daily traffic �
The daily traffic growth caps for determining the level of street segment transportation changes are summarized as follows:
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
7 Table 2. Street Segment Caps
Existing ADT Project-Related Vehicular Increase in ADT
0 to 1,500 average daily trips 150 trips or more
1,501 to 3,499 average daily trips 10 percent or more of final project ADT 3,500 or more 8 percent or more of final project ADT
If project-related net trips exceed the caps in the table above, conditions of approval would require the project applicant to implement measures to discourage neighborhood intrusion by project related traffic. If the project traffic increases fall below the street segment caps, additional analyses are not required.
Caps for Determining Intersection Changes
Proposed development projects that meet or exceed the caps will be evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Level of Service (LOS) analysis criteria at study intersections. This methodology determines an intersection’s level of service by calculating delay. LOS descriptions are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. LOS Capacity Criteria
HIGHWAY CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
LOS DESCRIPTION DELAY
(s)
A
Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
< 10.0
B
Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
> 10.0 to
20.0 C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to
35.0 D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.
Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to
55.0 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
8 E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor (vehicle) progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to
80.0 F This level is considered oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels.
> 80.0
Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
Intersection LOS analysis using HCM criteria will be conducted for peak hour conditions.
LOS caps are summarized in the following table:
Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Caps.
Where the evaluated intersections exceed the LOS caps, conditions of approval will be recommended consistent with the City’s guiding principles to encourage walking, biking, and transit to and from the project site to reduce project-related vehicular trips.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index Discussion The Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI) and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index (BEQI) is a quantitative, observational instrument used to describe and summarize the street and intersection environmental factors known to affect people’s travel behaviors.
The PEQI and BEQI were developed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health as a tool to assess pedestrian and bicycle safety and needs as well as to gain attention and demand for non-vehicle travel planning. The PEQI and BEQI consists of factors associated with pedestrian and bicycle environmental quality and safety, classified into five categories; Intersection Safety, Traffic, Street Design, Land Use and Perceived Safety.
Data is primarily collected through an observational survey. Indicator scores for each indicator category are based on a survey of national experts, including City, transportation planners and consultants regarding the importance of each indicator to pedestrian and bicycle environmental quality. The scores reflect the degree to which environmental factors supportive of walking, biking, and safety have been incorporated into street segment and intersection design. The PEQI and BEQI analysis result in a score for street segments and intersections on a scale ranging between 0-100 as outlined below.
Study Intersections Existing + Project LOS Cap
Citywide D
Transit Oriented District (TOD) E
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
9 Score Description
20 and below Poor quality, pedestrian/bicycle conditions absent 21-40 Low quality, minimal pedestrian/bicycle conditions 41-60 Average quality, pedestrian/bicycle conditions present but room for improvement
61-80 High quality, some important pedestrian/bicycle conditions present 81-100 Highest quality, many important pedestrian/bicycle conditions present V. Transportation Analysis
Project Trip Generation
The industry standard procedure to determine the number of daily and peak hour trips a project would generate is based on published trip generation estimates from the ITE Trip Generation manual and is summarized in the following table:
In summary, it is estimated that the project would generate 866 daily trips, 52 AM and 73 PM peak hour project trips.
Proposed Use Land Use Code Amount Units Measure Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multi-Family Mid-Rise Apartment 221 87 DU 1 5.44 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44 Work-Live* San Diego 5,236 SF 1000 40.00 0.72 0.48 1.20 1.80 1.80 3.60 Retail San Diego 4,218 SF 1000 40.00 0.72 0.48 1.20 1.80 1.80 3.60 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 1,974 SF 1000 112.18 5.47 4.47 9.94 6.06 3.71 9.77 Daily In Out Total In Out Total
473 8 23 31 23 15 38
105 2 1 3 5 5 9
169 3 2 5 8 8 15
221 11 9 20 12 7 19
968 24 35 59 48 35 82
Internal Trip Capture 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transit Trips (Residential) 5% 24 0 1 2 1 1 2
Pass-By Trips (Restaurant + Retail) 20% 78 3 2 5 4 3 7
866 21 32 52 43 31 73
* Work-live units uses retail with 50% walk in reductions.
Net total (proposed minus existing trips) 866 21 32 52 43 31 73 Work-Live*
Total Project Trips
Multi-Family Mid-Rise Apartment
Retail
Volumes
Proposed Use
Trip Generation Rates (proposed)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Net Project Vehicle Trips
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
10 Street Segment Analysis
Figure 3 describes the project trip distribution and project traffic intersection volumes on the street network. The calculated increase in average daily traffic along access or neighborhood connector street types is summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Street Segment Volume Summary
Street Segment
Daily
Volume
Project
Volume
Vehicular
Increase
in ADT
Exceeds
Cap?
Raymond Avenue between Green
Street and Dayton Street 7,745 217 2.8% No
Raymond Avenue between Dayton
Street and Del Mar Avenue 8,106 130 1.6% No
Dayton Street between Fair Oaks
Avenue and Raymond Avenue 1,049 866 82.6% Yes
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
Figure 4 indicates that the project is in the City’s Transit Oriented District. Therefore, the Existing + Project LOS cap for intersections is “LOS E”. The calculated LOS results are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Signalized Intersection LOS Summary
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Existing
w/Project
Exceeds
LOS
Cap?
Delay LOS Delay LOS Yes/No
Fair Oaks Avenue at Green Street
AM 16.3 B 16.4 B No
PM 18.3 B 18.6 B No
Fair Oaks Avenue at Del Mar
Boulevard
AM 45.5 D 46.0 D No
PM 31.5 C 31.8 C No
Raymond Avenue at Green Street
AM 10.9 B 10.9 B No
PM 16.0 B 15.9 B No
Raymond Avenue at Del Mar
Boulevard
AM 18.2 B 18.3 B No
PM 21.1 C 21.2 C No
Transportation Impact Analysis
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
5/3/2019
11 Figure 3 Project Trip Distribution and Project Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Analysis
86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
5/3/2019
12 Figure 4. City of Pasadena Adopted Transit Oriented Development Area 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/3/2019
13 PEQI/BEQI Analysis
An observational survey was conducted along Dayton Street between Fair Oaks Avenue and Raymond Avenue to document existing pedestrian and bicycle quality conditions.
Vehicle traffic features (i.e., number of lanes, vehicle speed, etc.) as well as street quality features (i.e., sidewalk widths and impediments, driveway cuts, land use characteristics, etc.) were collected on both sides of the street.
Environmental quality of non-vehicular modes must be improved when the assessment of project study segments reveal less than average conditions. According to the PEQI and BEQI indicator and indicator category scores, the following observational scores are:
Table 7. PEQI/BEQI Summary
Segment PEQI Score BEQI Score
Dayton Street between Fair Oaks Avenue and
Raymond Avenue
- Northside
- Southside
70 - High
78 - High
45 - Average
50 - Average
PEQI and BEQI calculations are found in the appendix of this report.
VI. Conclusion
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation conducted an analysis to review the construction of a mixed-use development with 87 apartment units, 4 work-live units, 4,218 sf retail, and 1,974 sf restaurant on an existing surface parking lot. Vehicular site access will be provided via one driveway along Dayton Street.
Dayton Street between Fair Oaks Avenue and Raymond Avenue exceeded the adopted segment impact caps. Conditions to reduce project vehicular trips are required.
No intersections exceed the adopted caps.
The calculated PEQI and BEQI scores determined that existing pedestrian conditions are, at minimum, average along Dayton Street.
VII. Appendices
Memorandum of Understanding
Traffic Volumes
HCM Analysis
PEQI Calculation Sheet
BEQI Calculation Sheet
Appendix:
Memorandum of Understanding
Appendix:
Traffic Volumes
Location: Pasadena PROJECT:
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
0:00 13 6 12:00 69 74
0:15 9 11 12:15 81 59
0:30 11 7 12:30 69 72
0:45 0 33 5 29 62 12:45 69 288 60 265 553
1:00 8 10 13:00 72 74
1:15 5 7 13:15 71 66
1:30 3 12 13:30 66 61
1:45 3 19 9 38 57 13:45 72 281 70 271 552
2:00 3 3 14:00 67 73
2:15 2 5 14:15 65 50
2:30 2 6 14:30 94 67
2:45 0 7 3 17 24 14:45 45 271 64 254 525
3:00 0 3 15:00 59 68
3:15 0 0 15:15 72 61
3:30 2 0 15:30 64 65
3:45 0 2 0 3 5 15:45 61 256 50 244 500
4:00 0 2 16:00 79 52
4:15 2 2 16:15 69 64
4:30 3 0 16:30 83 84
4:45 2 7 5 9 16 16:45 57 288 60 260 548
5:00 2 4 17:00 80 101
5:15 2 8 17:15 90 75
5:30 2 3 17:30 77 97
5:45 8 14 12 27 41 17:45 78 325 82 355 680
6:00 7 15 18:00 91 88
6:15 8 12 18:15 59 63
6:30 16 17 18:30 68 74
6:45 19 50 26 70 120 18:45 82 300 86 311 611
7:00 24 30 19:00 69 63
7:15 24 37 19:15 56 58
7:30 39 51 19:30 58 52
7:45 57 144 67 185 329 19:45 51 234 50 223 457
8:00 49 56 20:00 42 51
8:15 47 43 20:15 41 45
8:30 44 46 20:30 38 51
8:45 50 190 54 199 389 20:45 32 153 41 188 341
9:00 48 66 21:00 37 45
9:15 56 44 21:15 25 38
9:30 54 48 21:30 22 41
9:45 56 214 47 205 419 21:45 22 106 46 170 276
10:00 71 47 22:00 41 40
10:15 57 49 22:15 28 40
10:30 69 50 22:30 15 31
10:45 60 257 47 193 450 22:45 18 102 25 136 238
11:00 54 41 23:00 16 19
11:15 61 44 23:15 13 14
11:30 50 58 23:30 7 17
11:45 73 238 62 205 443 23:45 9 45 14 64 109
Total Vol. 1175 1180 2355 2649 2741 5390
NB SB EB WB Combined
3824 3921 7745
Split % 49.9% 50.1% 30.4% 49.1% 50.9% 69.6%
Peak Hour 11:45 11:45 11:45 17:15 17:00 17:00
Volume 292 267 559 336 355 680
P.H.F. 0.90 0.90 0.98 0.90 0.88 0.94
Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888
Thursday, September 13, 2018 SC1900
ADT2455 Raymond between Green and Dayton. Prepared by AimTD tel. 714 253 7888 Location: Pasadena PROJECT:
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
0:00 13 10 12:00 77 70
0:15 11 9 12:15 84 68
0:30 10 7 12:30 71 62
0:45 0 34 5 31 65 12:45 74 306 69 269 575
1:00 8 6 13:00 85 75
1:15 3 6 13:15 64 63
1:30 3 12 13:30 92 65
1:45 4 18 6 30 48 13:45 66 307 76 279 586
2:00 3 4 14:00 67 58
2:15 2 5 14:15 72 68
2:30 2 7 14:30 97 59
2:45 0 7 2 18 25 14:45 48 284 73 258 542
3:00 0 2 15:00 61 65
3:15 0 0 15:15 83 61
3:30 2 0 15:30 74 74
3:45 0 2 1 3 5 15:45 55 273 66 266 539
4:00 0 1 16:00 85 69
4:15 2 2 16:15 77 71
4:30 3 1 16:30 84 88
4:45 2 7 4 8 15 16:45 65 311 75 303 614
5:00 3 5 17:00 91 78
5:15 0 7 17:15 107 86
5:30 3 5 17:30 85 79
5:45 11 17 11 28 45 17:45 85 368 94 337 705
6:00 9 13 18:00 104 84
6:15 8 12 18:15 63 69
6:30 17 17 18:30 76 70
6:45 18 52 27 69 121 18:45 83 326 83 306 632
7:00 40 34 19:00 76 66
7:15 29 38 19:15 62 69
7:30 42 46 19:30 62 55
7:45 64 175 57 175 350 19:45 52 252 57 247 499
8:00 61 51 20:00 41 48
8:15 54 44 20:15 47 50
8:30 52 39 20:30 48 45
8:45 50 217 44 178 395 20:45 31 167 39 182 349
9:00 54 52 21:00 39 43
9:15 61 45 21:15 25 47
9:30 54 42 21:30 27 40
9:45 61 230 47 186 416 21:45 19 110 51 181 291
10:00 71 46 22:00 43 38
10:15 59 51 22:15 27 46
10:30 73 46 22:30 16 33
10:45 62 265 52 195 460 22:45 18 104 28 145 249
11:00 59 44 23:00 17 17
11:15 61 42 23:15 14 20
11:30 65 59 23:30 7 16
11:45 74 259 57 202 461 23:45 13 51 15 68 119
Total Vol. 1283 1123 2406 2859 2841 5700
NB SB EB WB Combined
4142 3964 8106
Split % 53.3% 46.7% 29.7% 50.2% 49.8% 70.3%
Peak Hour 11:45 11:45 11:45 17:15 17:15 17:15
Volume 306 257 563 381 343 724
P.H.F. 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.85 0.91 0.94
Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888
Thursday, September 13, 2018 SC1900
ADT2217 Raymond between Dayton and Del Mar .нема South. Prepared by AimTD tel. 714 253 7888 Location: Pasadena PROJECT:
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
0:30 0 0 12:00 10 6
0:15 2 2 12:15 11 6
0:30 2 0 12:30 8 0
0:45 3 7 0 2 9 12:45 12 41 4 16 57
1:00 0 0 13:00 9 5
1:15 3 0 13:15 14 6
1:30 0 0 13:30 15 8
1:45 2 5 2 2 7 13:45 16 54 5 24 78
2:00 2 0 14:00 14 8
2:15 0 0 14:15 6 9
2:30 2 0 14:30 15 4
2:45 0 4 0 0 4 14:45 22 57 3 24 81
3:00 0 0 15:00 16 5
3:15 0 0 15:15 11 5
3:30 0 0 15:30 14 2
3:45 0 0 0 0 15:45 13 54 5 17 71
4:00 0 0 16:00 11 8
4:15 0 0 16:15 19 6
4:30 0 0 16:30 13 3
4:45 0 0 0 0 16:45 20 63 13 30 93
5:00 0 0 17:00 19 5
5:15 0 0 17:15 22 9
5:30 0 2 17:30 24 5
5:45 0 0 0 2 2 17:45 15 80 9 28 108
6:00 2 0 18:00 21 13
6:15 0 0 18:15 19 9
6:30 0 2 18:30 12 5
6:45 2 4 3 5 9 18:45 10 62 5 32 94
7:00 4 7 19:00 16 8
7:15 3 2 19:15 9 7
7:30 4 3 19:30 9 5
7:45 12 23 4 16 39 19:45 7 41 6 26 67
8:00 12 5 20:00 10 4
8:15 3 6 20:15 9 2
8:30 10 0 20:30 3 3
8:45 16 41 6 17 58 20:45 7 29 4 13 42
9:00 7 10 21:00 4 0
9:15 13 7 21:15 8 0
9:30 7 4 21:30 3 2
9:45 10 37 4 25 62 21:45 8 23 4 6 29
10:00 16 3 22:00 8 3
10:15 4 7 22:15 0 0
10:30 12 3 22:30 4 0
10:45 6 38 8 21 59 22:45 3 15 0 3 18
11:00 10 4 23:00 2 0
11:15 12 3 23:15 3 0
11:30 6 6 23:30 2 0
11:45 12 40 2 15 55 23:45 0 7 0 0 7
Total Vol. 199 105 304 526 219 745
NB SB EB WB Combined
725 324 1049
Split % 65.5% 34.5% 29.0% 70.6% 29.4% 71.0%
Peak Hour 0:30 0:30 8:30 8:45 8:45 16:45 17:15 17:15
Volume 46 27 70 85 36 118
P.H.F. 0.72 0.68 0.80 0.89 0.69 0.87
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
ADT2454 Dayton between Fair and Raymond. Prepared by AimTD tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888
T218
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC1900
Thu, Sep 13, 18 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 1058
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: X 2 0 1 2 X 0.5 2 0.5 X X X 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 56 9 12 114 0 7 37 16 0 0 0 251 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 85 22 24 122 0 3 44 15 0 0 0 315 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 97 26 28 174 0 1 73 11 0 0 0 410 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 118 28 44 198 0 5 104 7 0 0 0 504 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 109 31 44 209 0 1 84 15 0 0 0 493 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 97 16 25 199 0 4 87 16 0 0 0 444 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 140 27 33 188 0 10 83 9 0 0 0 490 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 108 18 47 180 0 11 83 14 0 0 0 461 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 0 810 177 257 1,384 0 42 595 103 0 0 0 3,368 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 82% 18% 16% 84% 0% 6% 80% 14% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 987 / 852 1,641 / 1,487 740 / 1,029 0 / 0 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 464 102 146 794 0 20 358 47 0 0 0 1,931
APPROACH % 0% 82% 18% 16% 84% 0% 5% 84% 11% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.847 0.929 0.916 0.000 0.958
APP/DEPART 566 / 484 940 / 841 425 / 606 0 / 0 0
4:00 PM 0 125 46 35 148 0 16 100 20 0 0 0 490 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 132 40 31 154 0 7 101 26 0 0 0 491 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 126 42 39 163 0 16 104 25 0 0 0 515 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 132 42 44 160 0 11 97 35 0 0 0 521 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 131 39 37 151 0 19 101 22 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 133 52 29 172 0 18 130 31 0 0 0 565 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 103 51 52 154 0 13 116 32 0 0 0 521 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 133 53 40 151 0 19 126 33 0 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 0 1,015 365 307 1,253 0 119 875 224 0 0 0 4,158 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 74% 26% 20% 80% 0% 10% 72% 18% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 1,380 / 1,134 1,560 / 1,477 1,218 / 1,547 0 / 0 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 500 195 158 628 0 69 473 118 0 0 0 2,141
APPROACH % 0% 72% 28% 20% 80% 0% 10% 72% 18% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.934 0.954 0.922 0.000 0.947
APP/DEPART 695 / 569 786 / 746 660 / 826 0 / 0 0
Fair Oaks
NORTH SIDE
Green WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Green
SOUTH SIDE
Fair Oaks
N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 5 3 10 6 24 5 3 9 6 23 0 0 1 0 1
7:15 AM 4 7 5 11 27 4 7 5 11 27 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 7 4 7 6 24 6 3 7 5 21 1 1 0 1 3
7:45 AM 20 6 10 14 50 20 6 7 12 45 0 0 3 2 5
8:00 AM 6 9 4 15 34 6 9 4 15 34 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 9 4 3 7 23 8 4 3 7 22 1 0 0 0 1
8:30 AM 33 10 15 10 68 30 8 13 10 61 3 2 2 0 7
8:45 AM 16 17 15 8 56 15 12 15 7 49 1 5 0 1 7
TOTAL 100 60 69 77 306 94 52 63 73 282 6 8 6 4 24
AM BEGIN PEAK HR 64 27 27 44 162
4:00 PM 27 10 6 41 84 27 9 5 41 82 0 1 1 0 2
4:15 PM 52 7 17 33 109 49 5 13 27 94 3 2 4 6 15
4:30 PM 45 19 14 41 119 45 14 12 40 111 0 5 2 1 8
4:45 PM 39 34 17 41 131 37 29 15 39 120 2 5 2 2 11
5:00 PM 30 19 23 33 105 29 18 23 33 103 1 1 0 0 2
5:15 PM 42 25 17 34 118 42 23 17 33 115 0 2 0 1 3
5:30 PM 59 24 26 31 140 59 21 25 31 136 0 3 1 0 4
5:45 PM 45 26 29 35 135 44 26 27 35 132 1 0 2 0 3
TOTAL 339 164 149 289 941 332 145 137 279 893 7 19 12 10 48 174 88 92 132 486
AM PM AM
7:45 AM
PM
5:00 PM
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS
7:45 AM
PM BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS
U-TURNS
Fair Oaks Fair Oaks Green Green
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
Pasadena
Fair Oaks
Green
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
T218
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC1900
Thu, Sep 13, 18 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 183
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 44 69 8 13 122 5 1 67 50 15 102 7 503 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 65 102 9 10 120 4 2 75 48 26 149 9 619 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 72 128 20 14 165 5 10 113 68 12 164 11 782 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 58 144 19 13 190 8 7 150 83 24 216 8 920 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 58 128 11 24 189 2 12 108 75 23 194 9 833 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 65 103 10 18 204 4 3 122 102 42 206 8 887 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 48 150 21 17 194 9 7 127 94 24 150 14 855 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 46 123 17 19 168 6 5 120 125 29 131 16 805 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 456 947 115 128 1,352 43 47 882 645 195 1,312 82 6,204 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 30% 62% 8% 8% 89% 3% 3% 56% 41% 12% 83% 5%
APP/DEPART 1,518 / 1,076 1,523 / 2,192 1,574 / 1,125 1,589 / 1,811 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 229 525 61 72 777 23 29 507 354 113 766 39 3,495 APPROACH % 28% 64% 7% 8% 89% 3% 3% 57% 40% 12% 83% 4%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.922 0.965 0.927 0.896 0.950
APP/DEPART 815 / 593 872 / 1,244 890 / 640 918 / 1,018 0 4:00 PM 48 137 33 27 139 8 12 96 43 29 158 13 743 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 38 150 26 26 149 15 19 103 48 37 144 8 763 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 57 142 39 27 155 6 14 105 44 23 141 19 772 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 50 157 39 18 181 11 12 111 42 21 145 8 795 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 51 141 36 25 148 8 28 112 53 22 141 15 780 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 49 165 28 24 178 17 12 106 48 22 151 11 811 0 0 1 0 1 5:30 PM 58 126 35 23 157 25 13 132 47 31 175 14 836 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 47 170 33 21 160 11 20 149 38 28 178 8 863 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 398 1,188 269 191 1,267 101 130 914 363 213 1,233 96 6,363 0 0 1 0 1 APPROACH % 21% 64% 15% 12% 81% 6% 9% 65% 26% 14% 80% 6% APP/DEPART 1,855 / 1,413 1,559 / 1,843 1,407 / 1,374 1,542 / 1,733 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 205 602 132 93 643 61 73 499 186 103 645 48 3,290 APPROACH % 22% 64% 14% 12% 81% 8% 10% 66% 25% 13% 81% 6% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.939 0.910 0.915 0.905 0.953
APP/DEPART 939 / 722 797 / 932 758 / 724 796 / 912 0
Fair Oaks
NORTH SIDE
Del Mar WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Del Mar
SOUTH SIDE
Fair Oaks
N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 7 6 3 5 21 7 5 2 4 18 0 1 1 1 3
7:15 AM 6 3 1 7 17 6 2 1 7 16 0 1 0 0 1
7:30 AM 13 6 6 7 32 11 6 6 6 29 2 0 0 1 3
7:45 AM 8 2 6 6 22 8 1 4 6 19 0 1 2 0 3
8:00 AM 5 3 5 4 17 5 2 5 3 15 0 1 0 1 2
8:15 AM 8 10 8 6 32 8 9 8 6 31 0 1 0 0 1
8:30 AM 5 11 8 10 34 5 9 8 8 30 0 2 0 2 4
8:45 AM 9 8 2 4 23 8 6 2 4 20 1 2 0 0 3
TOTAL 61 49 39 49 198 58 40 36 44 178 3 9 3 5 20
AM BEGIN PEAK HR 26 21 25 23 95
4:00 PM 9 16 11 14 50 8 16 10 13 47 1 0 1 1 3
4:15 PM 5 14 8 11 38 5 14 8 10 37 0 0 0 1 1
4:30 PM 4 9 4 6 23 4 8 4 6 22 0 1 0 0 1
4:45 PM 9 7 10 8 34 9 6 9 7 31 0 1 1 1 3
5:00 PM 7 9 14 14 44 5 8 13 11 37 2 1 1 3 7
5:15 PM 9 8 4 8 29 7 8 4 8 27 2 0 0 0 2
5:30 PM 0 11 6 8 25 0 7 3 8 18 0 4 3 0 7
5:45 PM 6 13 10 9 38 4 11 9 6 30 2 2 1 3 8
TOTAL 49 87 67 78 281 42 78 60 69 249 7 9 7 9 32
16 34 29 33 112
AM PM AM
7:45 AM
PM
5:00 PM
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS
7:45 AM
PM BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS
U-TURNS
Fair Oaks Fair Oaks Del Mar Del Mar
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
Pasadena
Fair Oaks
Del Mar
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
T218
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC1900
Thu, Sep 13, 18 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 1059
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: X 2 0 0 2 X 0.5 2 0.5 X X X 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 15 6 4 21 0 3 55 4 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 15 11 3 32 0 5 59 4 0 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 28 7 7 39 0 8 98 8 0 0 0 195 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 42 13 12 54 0 5 141 12 0 0 0 279 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 31 20 8 43 0 13 129 15 0 0 0 259 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 34 10 4 35 0 14 105 7 0 0 0 209 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 30 19 8 39 0 6 106 6 0 0 0 214 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 32 12 7 46 0 4 112 14 0 0 0 227 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 0 227 98 53 309 0 58 805 70 0 0 0 1,620 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 70% 30% 15% 85% 0% 6% 86% 8% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 325 / 285 362 / 379 933 / 956 0 / 0 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 137 62 32 171 0 38 481 40 0 0 0 961
APPROACH % 0% 69% 31% 16% 84% 0% 7% 86% 7% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.905 0.769 0.884 0.000 0.861
APP/DEPART 199 / 175 203 / 211 559 / 575 0 / 0 0
4:00 PM 0 49 23 13 35 0 17 140 17 0 0 0 294 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 48 22 7 51 0 21 146 11 0 0 0 306 0 1 0 0 1
4:30 PM 0 55 30 8 65 0 15 159 23 0 0 0 355 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 39 19 10 44 0 14 174 17 0 0 0 317 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 52 29 11 63 0 19 155 34 0 0 0 363 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 62 20 17 54 0 19 170 25 0 0 0 367 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 54 27 9 74 0 25 169 22 0 0 0 380 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 58 33 14 58 0 20 197 27 0 0 0 407 0 1 0 0 1
VOLUMES 0 417 203 89 444 0 150 1,310 176 0 0 0 2,789 0 2 0 0 2 APPROACH % 0% 67% 33% 17% 83% 0% 9% 80% 11% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 620 / 569 533 / 620 1,636 / 1,600 0 / 0 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 226 109 51 249 0 83 691 108 0 0 0 1,517
APPROACH % 0% 67% 33% 17% 83% 0% 9% 78% 12% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.920 0.904 0.904 0.000 0.932
APP/DEPART 335 / 310 300 / 357 882 / 850 0 / 0 0
Raymond
NORTH SIDE
Green WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Green
SOUTH SIDE
Raymond
N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 5 0 9 4 18 5 0 8 2 15 0 0 1 2 3
7:15 AM 7 6 6 5 24 7 6 5 4 22 0 0 1 1 2
7:30 AM 7 8 15 9 39 7 7 15 7 36 0 1 0 2 3
7:45 AM 13 8 9 12 42 11 8 8 11 38 2 0 1 1 4
8:00 AM 15 12 14 2 43 15 11 14 1 41 0 1 0 1 2
8:15 AM 19 3 10 5 37 18 3 10 5 36 1 0 0 0 1
8:30 AM 23 13 14 7 57 22 9 11 7 49 1 4 3 0 8
8:45 AM 22 10 24 6 62 21 7 21 5 54 1 3 3 1 8
TOTAL 111 60 101 50 322 106 51 92 42 291 5 9 9 8 31
AM BEGIN PEAK HR 66 31 43 24 164
4:00 PM 42 19 20 10 91 41 18 20 10 89 1 1 0 0 2
4:15 PM 41 23 21 24 109 40 21 20 21 102 1 2 1 3 7
4:30 PM 32 9 17 15 73 31 5 16 13 65 1 4 1 2 8
4:45 PM 35 9 10 19 73 34 5 9 16 64 1 4 1 3 9
5:00 PM 37 24 14 16 91 35 23 13 15 86 2 1 1 1 5
5:15 PM 26 28 24 17 95 26 27 24 16 93 0 1 0 1 2
5:30 PM 41 33 29 22 125 41 30 27 22 120 0 3 2 0 5
5:45 PM 36 22 29 11 98 35 22 28 10 95 1 0 1 1 3
TOTAL 290 167 164 134 755 283 151 157 123 714 7 16 7 11 41 137 102 92 63 394
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
Pasadena
Raymond
Green
PM BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS
U-TURNS
Raymond Raymond Green Green
AM PM AM
7:45 AM
PM
5:00 PM
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS
7:45 AM
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
T218
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC1900
Thu, Sep 13, 18 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 294
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 10 10 7 4 21 6 6 62 19 14 105 16 280 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 8 24 4 1 23 6 12 73 8 10 173 12 354 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 18 20 1 4 38 14 11 117 16 22 188 15 464 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 17 32 9 2 52 9 6 163 19 18 226 34 587 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 24 45 14 6 43 7 10 108 24 18 190 16 505 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 25 37 18 3 20 9 10 109 24 22 214 18 509 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 26 39 14 1 32 11 13 124 21 24 154 18 477 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 26 34 11 4 38 10 6 109 34 21 133 18 444 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 154 241 78 25 267 72 74 865 165 149 1,383 147 3,620 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 33% 51% 16% 7% 73% 20% 7% 78% 15% 9% 82% 9%
APP/DEPART 473 / 462 364 / 581 1,104 / 968 1,679 / 1,609 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 92 153 55 12 147 36 39 504 88 82 784 86 2,078
APPROACH % 31% 51% 18% 6% 75% 18% 6% 80% 14% 9% 82% 9%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.904 0.774 0.839 0.856 0.885
APP/DEPART 300 / 278 195 / 317 631 / 571 952 / 912 0
4:00 PM 12 53 24 13 28 16 9 146 18 21 202 22 564 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 14 51 22 10 37 17 15 126 9 24 164 19 508 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 16 48 28 10 65 13 16 141 12 18 170 22 559 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 13 35 31 12 37 15 13 156 7 17 151 17 504 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 15 49 38 9 75 24 16 123 16 29 151 29 574 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 26 58 36 13 61 11 10 142 17 27 139 36 576 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 26 63 41 14 78 14 13 140 18 26 158 20 611 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 32 49 32 17 57 20 11 161 26 24 170 33 632 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 154 406 252 98 438 130 103 1,135 123 186 1,305 198 4,528 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 19% 50% 31% 15% 66% 20% 8% 83% 9% 11% 77% 12% APP/DEPART 812 / 707 666 / 747 1,361 / 1,485 1,689 / 1,589 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 99 219 147 53 271 69 50 566 77 106 618 118 2,393 APPROACH % 21% 47% 32% 13% 69% 18% 7% 82% 11% 13% 73% 14% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.894 0.910 0.875 0.927 0.947
APP/DEPART 465 / 387 393 / 454 693 / 766 842 / 786 0
Raymond
NORTH SIDE
Del Mar WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Del Mar
SOUTH SIDE
Raymond
N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 13 3 10 4 30 12 3 9 4 28 1 0 1 0 2
7:15 AM 6 2 11 5 24 6 2 10 5 23 0 0 1 0 1
7:30 AM 14 3 11 5 33 13 3 11 5 32 1 0 0 0 1
7:45 AM 6 4 14 7 31 6 3 13 4 26 0 1 1 3 5
8:00 AM 6 4 10 6 26 6 4 10 6 26 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 7 9 23 8 47 7 7 23 6 43 0 2 0 2 4
8:30 AM 7 8 19 4 38 6 4 19 3 32 1 4 0 1 6
8:45 AM 10 11 20 10 51 7 9 19 10 45 3 2 1 0 6
TOTAL 69 44 118 49 280 63 35 114 43 255 6 9 4 6 25
AM BEGIN PEAK HR 25 18 65 19 127
4:00 PM 14 9 13 19 55 10 6 12 15 43 4 3 1 4 12
4:15 PM 9 11 10 3 33 9 11 10 2 32 0 0 0 1 1
4:30 PM 6 8 10 12 36 6 8 10 11 35 0 0 0 1 1
4:45 PM 15 5 15 5 40 14 5 14 2 35 1 0 1 3 5
5:00 PM 13 8 14 7 42 10 7 14 7 38 3 1 0 0 4
5:15 PM 12 11 26 10 59 12 10 26 8 56 0 1 0 2 3
5:30 PM 12 3 27 7 49 11 3 27 7 48 1 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 6 16 16 7 45 4 15 15 7 41 2 1 1 0 4
TOTAL 87 71 131 70 359 76 65 128 59 328 11 6 3 11 31
37 35 82 29 183
AM PM AM
7:45 AM
PM
5:00 PM
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS
7:45 AM
PM BEGIN PEAK HR 5:00 PM
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS
U-TURNS
Raymond Raymond Del Mar Del Mar
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
Pasadena
Raymond
Del Mar
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
Appendix:
HCM Analysis
Appendix:
PEQI Calculation Sheet
City of Pasadena
Department of Transportation
Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index
Calculation Summary
-- Segment --
Dayton PEQI.xlsx 9/25/2018
Segment: Dayton Street
Limits: Between Fair Oaks Ave and Raymond Ave
Eastbound
(South side)
Westbound
(North side)
Score
Weight
Surveyed
Response
Category
Score
Surveyed
Response
Category
Score
Traffic
Number of Lanes 0.64 13 13
Posted Speed Limit 0.64 4 4
Traffic Volume1 0.64 11 11
Street Traffic Calming Features (TCFs) 0.64 0 0
28 28
Street design
Width of Sidewalk 1.35 20 20
Width of Throughway 1.35 13 13
Large SW Obstructions 1.35 22 22
Sidewalk Impediments 1.35 24 24
Trees 1.35 7 7
Driveway Cuts 1.35 15 7
Presence of Buffer 1.35 11 11
Planters/Gardens 1.35 4 4
Public Seating 1.35 0 0
116 108
Land Use
Public Art/ Historic Sites 0.15 4 4
Retail Use/Public Places 0.15 11 0
15 4
Perceived Safety
Lighting 0.34 17 17
Illegal Graffiti 0.34 2 2
Litter 0.34 11 11
Empty Spaces 0.34 4 4
34 34
Domain
Summary
Score
Weight Category Score Category Score
Traffic 0.64 Traffic 28 Traffic 28
Street Design 1.35 Street Design 116 Street Design 108
Land Use 0.15 Land Use 15 Land Use 4
Safety 0.34 Safety 34 Safety 34
2.48 193 174
PEQI Score 78 PEQI Score 70
1 Traffic volumes are based on segment volumes, not directional traffic volumes.
Eastbound (South side) Westbound (North side)
None
Continuous
No
No
No
3 or more
Continuous
No
No
No
No No
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Parallel parking Parallel parking
None 1 to 5
Sporadic Sporadic
None None
None None
4-6 ft 4-6 ft
None
8-12 ft 8-12 ft
None
1,000-6,000 V/D
25 mph or none posted 25 mph or none posted
1,000-6,000 V/D
1 1
Indicator Category
Indicator
Response
Indicator
Response
Appendix:
BEQI Calculation Sheet
City of Pasadena
Department of Transportation
Bicycle Environmental Quality Index
Calculation Summary
Dayton BEQI.xlsx 9/25/2018
Segment: Dayton Street
Limits: Between Fair Oaks Ave and Raymond Ave
Eastbound
(South side)
Westbound
(North side)
Score
Weight
Surveyed
Response
Category
Score
Surveyed
Response
Category
Score
Street design
Presence of a Marked Area for Bicycle Traffic 2.05 4 4
Width of Bike Lane 2.05 0 0
Bicycle Lane Markings 2.05 4 4
Connectivity of Bicycle Lanes 2.05 13 13
Pavement Type/Condition 2.05 40 40
Street Slope 2.05 27 27
Driveway Cuts 2.05 27 16
Presence of Trees 2.05 22 22
137 126
Vehicle Traffic
Posted Speed Limit 1.39 29 29
Traffic Volume - Avg # of Vehicles Per Day 1.39 19 19
Percentage of Heavy Vehicles 1.39 36 36
Parallel Parking Adjacent to Bicycle Lane/Route 1.39 19 19 Traffic Calming Features Streets 1.39 11 11
Number of Lanes 1.39 36 36
150 150
Safety/Other
Presence of Bicycle Lane Signs 0.42 15 15
Bicycle/Pedestrian Scale Lighting 0.42 36 36
51 51
Land Use
Bicycle Parking 0.66 12 12
Retail Use 0.66 22 14
Line of Site 0.66 36 36
70 62
Domain
Summary
Score
Weight Min Score Category Score Min Score Category Score Street design 2.05 62 137 62 126
Vehicle Traffic 1.39 59 150 59 150
Safety/Other 0.42 30 51 30 51
Land Use 0.66 33 70 33 62
4.52 184 408 184 389
BEQI Score 1 50 BEQI Score 1 45
Eastbound (South side) Westbound (North side)
1 BEQI calculation did not consider intersection indicators.
No No
3 or More 0
Clear Line of Sight Clear Line of Sight
1 1
No No
Yes - Public Yes - Public
Less than 5% Less than 5%
Time-restricted Parallel Parking (TPP) < 7 ft Time-restricted Parallel Parking (TPP) < 7 ft 0 TCF 0 TCF
Sporadically Lined Sporadically Lined
25 25
1,000 - 5,000 1,000 - 5,000
Smooth Surface Smooth Surface
< 5% < 5%
None Few (Less than Five)
None None
None None
No No
None None
Indicator Category
Indicator
Response
Indicator
Response
APPENDIX H
Letters Received on the SCEA during the Public Comment Period “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” STATE OF CALIFORNIA-------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 269-1124
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Serious Drought.
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.
April 1, 2021
Mr. Kevin Johnson
Planning Division
Design & Historic Preservation Section
City of Pasadena
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
RE: Central Park Apartments
Vic. LA-210 PM R25.54
LA-710 PM R32.45
SCH # 2021030197
GTS # LA-2021-03510AL-SCEA
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The Proposed Project involves the redevelopment of an existing surface parking lot, with the construction of a new 6-story (plus mezzanine), approximately 93,355 gross square-foot mixed-use development, with approximately 11,400 square feet of commercial/retail uses, and 84 apartments, over four levels of subterranean parking.
The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. Senate Bill 743 (2013) has been codified into CEQA law. It mandates that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed developments be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts. As a reminder, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the standard transportation analysis metric in CEQA for land use projects after the July 1, 2020 statewide implementation date.
You may reference The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) website for more information.
http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/guidelines/
This development should incorporate multi-modal and complete streets transportation elements that will actively promote alternatives to car use and better manage existing parking assets. Prioritizing and allocating space to efficient modes of travel such as 1 Letter A-1
Mr. Kevin Johnson
April 1, 2021