Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Seal Beach City Council
February 23, 2026

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
February 23, 2026
Body
Seal Beach City Council
Pages
25
Original file
192.8 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on sealbeach.primegov.com. That file is the official record.

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 465 - 314 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - 0.223 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 13.2 - 19.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.8 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
20: Seal Beach Blvd & Pacific Coast Hwy 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 49
Lane Group EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 185 635 50 65 575 410 10 160 50 420 275 Future Volume (vph) 5 185 635 50 65 575 410 10 160 50 420 275 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 170 78 159 496 97 99 200
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 90 60 60
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.964
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3412 0 3433 1863 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3412 0 3433 1863 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 128 243 27
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 1196 1066 687 614
Travel Time (s) 20.4 18.2 9.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 201 690 54 71 625 446 11 174 54 457 299 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 206 690 54 71 625 446 11 228 0 457 299 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 18 18 24 29
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 15
Number of Detectors 111111112 12
Detector Template Left Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 000000000 00
Detector 1 Position(ft) 000000000 00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 66
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 1 1 6 52344 33
Permitted Phases 6 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
20: Seal Beach Blvd & Pacific Coast Hwy 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 50
Lane Group SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 235
Future Volume (vph) 235
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0
Storage Lanes 1
Taper Length (ft)
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1583
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1583
Right Turn on Red Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 255
Link Speed (mph)
Link Distance (ft)
Travel Time (s)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 255
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 255
Enter Blocked Intersection No
Lane Alignment Right
Median Width(ft)
Link Offset(ft)
Crosswalk Width(ft)
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9
Number of Detectors 1
Detector Template Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft)
Detector 2 Size(ft)
Detector 2 Type
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s)
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
20: Seal Beach Blvd & Pacific Coast Hwy 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 51
Lane Group EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Detector Phase 116652344 33
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.6 10.6 44.0 44.0 10.6 44.0 43.3 11.3 11.3 43.3 43.3 Total Split (s) 26.0 26.0 39.0 39.0 26.0 39.0 37.0 28.0 28.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 20.0% 20.0% 30.0% 30.0% 20.0% 30.0% 28.5% 21.5% 21.5% 28.5% 28.5% Maximum Green (s) 20.4 20.4 32.0 32.0 20.4 32.0 30.7 21.7 21.7 30.7 30.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.0 3.6 5.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 7.0 7.0 5.6 7.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 8.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 30.0 30.0 22.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 18.6 56.8 56.8 10.6 46.4 80.6 12.6 12.6 27.2 27.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.36 0.62 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.45 0.07 0.49 0.49 0.42 0.06 0.64 0.64 0.77 Control Delay 78.5 29.5 0.2 68.0 36.2 7.1 52.3 58.0 41.7 52.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 78.5 29.5 0.2 68.0 36.2 7.1 52.3 58.0 41.7 52.3

LOS E C A E D A D E D D
Approach Delay 38.4 26.8 57.7 36.8
Approach LOS D C E D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 77 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.82
Intersection Signal Delay: 35.3 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 20: Seal Beach Blvd & Pacific Coast Hwy Lanes, Volumes, Timings
20: Seal Beach Blvd & Pacific Coast Hwy 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 52
Lane Group SBR
Detector Phase 3
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 43.3
Total Split (s) 37.0
Total Split (%) 28.5%
Maximum Green (s) 30.7
Yellow Time (s) 4.3
All-Red Time (s) 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.3
Lead/Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5
Recall Mode None
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0
Act Effct Green (s) 27.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.48
Control Delay 9.9
Queue Delay 0.0
Total Delay 9.9
LOS A
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Old Ranch Plaza & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 53
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 630 35 10 940 5 30 5 10 5 0 5
Future Volume (vph) 10 630 35 10 940 5 30 5 10 5 0 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 110 150 105 0 0 35 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 80 75 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.999 0.850 0.932
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.959 0.976
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3536 0 0 1786 1583 0 1694 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.750 0.836
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3536 0 0 1397 1583 0 1451 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 82 1 94 94
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 707 2617 340 327
Travel Time (s) 10.7 39.7 9.3 8.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 10 630 35 10 940 5 30 5 10 5 0 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 630 35 10 945 0 0 35 10 0 10 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 12112 12112
Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 00000 00000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 00000 00000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6666
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8
Permitted Phases 6 4 4 8
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Old Ranch Plaza & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 54
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector Phase 16652 44488
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 22.3 22.3 8.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 24.0 64.0 64.0 31.0 71.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split (%) 20.0% 53.3% 53.3% 25.8% 59.2% 20.8% 20.8% 20.8% 20.8% 20.8% Maximum Green (s) 20.0 58.7 58.7 27.0 65.7 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.0 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None None None None None Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 6.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 00000
Act Effct Green (s) 6.3 106.3 106.3 6.3 106.3 8.3 8.3 8.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.89 0.89 0.05 0.89 0.07 0.07 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.20 0.02 0.11 0.30 0.36 0.05 0.05
Control Delay 79.0 2.1 0.5 56.2 2.6 62.9 0.5 0.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 79.0 2.1 0.5 56.2 2.6 62.9 0.5 0.6

LOS E A A E A E A A
Approach Delay 3.2 3.2 49.0 0.6
Approach LOS A A D A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.36
Intersection Signal Delay: 4.4 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 21: Old Ranch Plaza & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
22: Basswood St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 55
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 450 80 10 780 10 205 5 5 5 0 10 Future Volume (vph) 20 450 80 10 780 10 205 5 5 5 0 10
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 115 0 175 0 85 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 100 75 60 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.977 0.998 0.925 0.910
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.984
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3458 0 1770 3532 0 1770 1723 0 0 1668 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.748 0.948
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3458 0 1770 3532 0 1393 1723 0 0 1607 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 26 2 5 125
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 2617 1278 620 461
Travel Time (s) 39.7 19.4 16.9 12.6
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 450 80 10 780 10 205 5 5 5 0 10
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 530 0 10 790 0 205 10 0 0 15 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6666
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
22: Basswood St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 56
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.0 20.0 9.0 21.3 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 30.0 20.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 33.3% 22.2% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Maximum Green (s) 11.0 24.7 16.0 39.7 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 3.0 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Min None Min None None None None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 7.0 11.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 5.7 22.4 5.4 22.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.48 0.12 0.48 0.28 0.28 0.28
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.32 0.05 0.47 0.52 0.02 0.03
Control Delay 23.9 9.1 24.2 10.9 20.0 11.3 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.9 9.1 24.2 10.9 20.0 11.3 0.1

LOS C A C B C B A
Approach Delay 9.6 11.1 19.6 0.1
Approach LOS ABBA
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 46.8
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.52
Intersection Signal Delay: 11.6 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 22: Basswood St & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Candlebury Ave & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 57
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 370 80 20 615 175 30
Future Volume (vph) 370 80 20 615 175 30
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 160 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 75 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.973 0.980
Flt Protected 0.950 0.959
Satd. Flow (prot) 3444 0 1770 3539 1751 0
Flt Permitted 0.492 0.959
Satd. Flow (perm) 3444 0 916 3539 1751 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 52 18
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25
Link Distance (ft) 1278 2619 927
Travel Time (s) 19.4 39.7 25.3
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 370 80 20 615 175 30
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 450 0 20 615 205 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 7 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Number of Detectors 2 1 2 1
Detector Template Thru Left Thru Left
Leading Detector (ft) 100 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 2 4
Permitted Phases 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Candlebury Ave & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 58
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR
Detector Phase 2 2 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0
Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 26.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
Recall Mode Max Max Max None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 15.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.7 30.7 30.7 10.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.22
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.52
Control Delay 4.8 5.7 5.6 19.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 4.8 5.7 5.6 19.1

LOS A A A B
Approach Delay 4.8 5.6 19.1
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 47.1
Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.52
Intersection Signal Delay: 7.5 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 23: Candlebury Ave & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Heather St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 59
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 335 65 30 545 85 55
Future Volume (vph) 335 65 30 545 85 55
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 150 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 80 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.976 0.947
Flt Protected 0.950 0.971
Satd. Flow (prot) 3454 0 1770 3539 1713 0
Flt Permitted 0.516 0.971
Satd. Flow (perm) 3454 0 961 3539 1713 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 45 55
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25
Link Distance (ft) 2619 1584 691
Travel Time (s) 39.7 24.0 18.8
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 335 65 30 545 85 55
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 400 0 30 545 140 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Number of Detectors 2 1 2 1
Detector Template Thru Left Thru Left
Leading Detector (ft) 100 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 2 4
Permitted Phases 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Heather St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 60
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Detector Phase 2 2 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 25.0
Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 25.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
Recall Mode Max Max Max None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 15.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 33.7 33.7 33.7 8.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.05 0.22 0.43
Control Delay 4.0 4.8 4.6 15.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 4.0 4.8 4.6 15.5

LOS A A A B
Approach Delay 4.0 4.6 15.5
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 48.8
Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.7 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 24: Heather St & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
25: Rose St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 61
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 360 25 25 540 40 50
Future Volume (vph) 360 25 25 540 40 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 65 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.990 0.925
Flt Protected 0.950 0.978
Satd. Flow (prot) 3504 0 1770 3539 1685 0
Flt Permitted 0.524 0.978
Satd. Flow (perm) 3504 0 976 3539 1685 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 14 50
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25
Link Distance (ft) 1584 1257 867
Travel Time (s) 24.0 19.0 23.6
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 360 25 25 540 40 50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 385 0 25 540 90 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Number of Detectors 2 1 2 1
Detector Template Thru Left Thru Left
Leading Detector (ft) 100 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 2 4
Permitted Phases 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
25: Rose St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 62
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Detector Phase 2 2 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 28.0
Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 25.0
Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
Recall Mode Max Max Max None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 18.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 38.2 38.2 38.2 7.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.03 0.20 0.30
Control Delay 3.3 4.1 3.5 13.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.3 4.1 3.5 13.2

LOS A A A B
Approach Delay 3.3 3.5 13.2
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 49.1
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.30
Intersection Signal Delay: 4.2 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 25: Rose St & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
26: Tulip St/Parkewood & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 63
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 390 15 35 510 10 40 5 75 10 5 15 Future Volume (vph) 5 390 15 35 510 10 40 5 75 10 5 15
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 80 0 65 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 85 80 35 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.994 0.997 0.859 0.932
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.984
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3518 0 1770 3529 0 1770 1600 0 0 1708 0 Flt Permitted 0.460 0.514 0.738 0.858
Satd. Flow (perm) 857 3518 0 957 3529 0 1375 1600 0 0 1490 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 8 4 75 15
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 1257 1023 510 526
Travel Time (s) 19.0 15.5 13.9 14.3
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 390 15 35 510 10 40 5 75 10 5 15
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 405 0 35 520 0 40 80 0 0 30 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6666
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2244
Permitted Phases 2244
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
26: Tulip St/Parkewood & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 64
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector Phase 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% Maximum Green (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode Max Max Max Max None None None None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 7.5 7.5 7.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.16 0.16 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.17 0.05 0.22 0.18 0.25 0.12
Control Delay 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.3 17.9 7.6 11.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.3 17.9 7.6 11.9

LOS A A A A B A B
Approach Delay 4.1 4.4 11.0 11.9
Approach LOS AABB
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 46.8
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.25
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.2 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 26: Tulip St/Parkewood & Lampson Ave Lanes, Volumes, Timings
27: Apollo Dr & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 65
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 825 60 175 1110 15 20
Future Volume (vph) 825 60 175 1110 15 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 207 220 0 90
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.97
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1529 1770 3539 1770 1583
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 65 22
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 25
Link Distance (ft) 1365 937 502
Travel Time (s) 18.6 14.2 13.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 897 65 190 1207 16 22
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 897 65 190 1207 16 22
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Number of Detectors 111111
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 000000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 000000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 221688
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
27: Apollo Dr & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 66
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 23.0 23.0 7.7 16.2 8.6 8.6
Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 15.0 40.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 41.7% 41.7% 25.0% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3%
Maximum Green (s) 20.0 20.0 11.0 35.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -3.2 -3.2 -1.7 -2.8 -1.6 -1.6
Total Lost Time (s) 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.4
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max None None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 39.2 39.2 12.7 55.2 6.8 6.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.21 0.92 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.06 0.51 0.37 0.08 0.11
Control Delay 6.3 2.2 24.0 1.0 24.3 12.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.3 2.2 24.0 1.0 24.3 12.6

LOS A A C A C B
Approach Delay 6.0 4.2 17.5
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 33 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.51
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.1 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 27: Apollo Dr & Westminster Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
28: Kitts Hwy-Alfa Rd & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 67
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 885 50 65 1140 5 5 10 5 5 5 10
Future Volume (vph) 10 885 50 65 1140 5 5 10 5 5 5 10
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 260 0 715 0 75 55 0 75
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.97 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.999 0.850 0.903
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3535 0 1770 1863 1583 1770 1682 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.746 0.750
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1543 1770 3535 0 1390 1863 1583 1397 1682 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 56 1 71 11
Link Speed (mph) 45 60 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 799 6309 1679 2824
Travel Time (s) 12.1 71.7 45.8 77.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 983 56 72 1267 6 6 11 6 6 6 11
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 983 56 72 1273 0 6 11 6 6 17 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 11111 11111
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 00000 00000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 00000 00000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 8
Permitted Phases 2 4 4 8
Detector Phase 52216 44488
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
28: Kitts Hwy-Alfa Rd & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025
Future AM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 1:10 pm 03/12/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 68
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 7.0 31.5 31.5 7.0 27.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 36.0 36.0 Total Split (s) 28.0 72.0 72.0 28.0 72.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 21.5% 55.4% 55.4% 21.5% 55.4% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% Maximum Green (s) 24.0 64.5 64.5 24.0 64.5 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.7 -3.8 -3.8 -1.7 -4.9 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 Total Lost Time (s) 2.3 3.7 3.7 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None None None None None Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 19.0 19.0 15.0 27.0 27.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 7.1 108.7 108.7 11.4 117.7 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.84 0.84 0.09 0.91 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.33 0.04 0.46 0.40 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.15 Control Delay 53.7 6.6 3.1 65.4 2.3 58.6 58.7 0.4 58.4 36.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.7 6.6 3.1 65.4 2.3 58.6 58.7 0.4 58.4 36.6

LOS D A A E A E E A E D
Approach Delay 6.9 5.7 43.5 42.3
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 90 (69%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.46
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.9 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 28: Kitts Hwy-Alfa Rd & Westminster Ave Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 1st St & Marina Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 235 80 20 165 60 65 40 15 40 20 20 Future Volume (vph) 20 235 80 20 165 60 65 40 15 40 20 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 65 0 70 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 120 70 50 50
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.962 0.960 0.959 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1792 0 1770 1788 0 1770 1786 0 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1792 0 1770 1788 0 1770 1786 0 1770 1863 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 40
Link Distance (ft) 745 1359 938 991
Travel Time (s) 16.9 30.9 21.3 16.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 235 80 20 165 60 65 40 15 40 20 20
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 315 0 20 225 0 65 55 0 40 20 20 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th AWSC
1: 1st St & Marina Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 235 80 20 165 60 65 40 15 40 20 20 Future Vol, veh/h 20 235 80 20 165 60 65 40 15 40 20 20 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 20 235 80 20 165 60 65 40 15 40 20 20
Number of Lanes 110110110111
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2232
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3222
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2322
HCM Control Delay 13.6 11.8 10.4 10

HCM LOS BBBA

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 73% 0% 75% 0% 73% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 27% 0% 25% 0% 27% 0% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 65 55 20 315 20 225 40 20 20
LT Vol 65 0 20 0 20 0 40 0 0
Through Vol 0 40 0 235 0 165 0 20 0
RT Vol 0 15 0 80 0 60 0 0 20
Lane Flow Rate 65 55 20 315 20 225 40 20 20
Geometry Grp 888888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.128 0.098 0.035 0.496 0.036 0.366 0.08 0.037 0.033 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.089 6.387 6.354 5.673 6.549 5.858 7.194 6.686 5.976 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 506 560 564 636 547 614 498 535 598
Service Time 4.833 4.131 4.087 3.405 4.285 3.593 4.942 4.434 3.723 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.128 0.098 0.035 0.495 0.037 0.366 0.08 0.037 0.033 HCM Control Delay 10.9 9.8 9.3 13.9 9.5 12 10.6 9.7 8.9 HCM Lane LOS BAABABBAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.3 0.1 2.8 0.1 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.1
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: 5th St & Marina Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 65 145 50 25 140 25 15 60 10 10 35 45 Future Volume (vph) 65 145 50 25 140 25 15 60 10 10 35 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.974 0.982 0.984 0.850
Flt Protected 0.988 0.993 0.991 0.989
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1793 0 0 1816 0 0 1816 0 0 1842 1583 Flt Permitted 0.988 0.993 0.991 0.989
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1793 0 0 1816 0 0 1816 0 0 1842 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1359 918 1174 1074
Travel Time (s) 30.9 20.9 26.7 24.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 145 50 25 140 25 15 60 10 10 35 45
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 260 0 0 190 0 0 85 0 0 45 45
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th AWSC
2: 5th St & Marina Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 65 145 50 25 140 25 15 60 10 10 35 45 Future Vol, veh/h 65 145 50 25 140 25 15 60 10 10 35 45 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 65 145 50 25 140 25 15 60 10 10 35 45
Number of Lanes 010010010011
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1121
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1211
HCM Control Delay 9.8 9.2 8.9 8.5

HCM LOS AAAA

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 18% 25% 13% 22% 0%
Vol Thru, % 71% 56% 74% 78% 0%
Vol Right, % 12% 19% 13% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 85 260 190 45 45
LT Vol 15 65 25 10 0
Through Vol 60 145 140 35 0
RT Vol 10 50 25 0 45
Lane Flow Rate 85 260 190 45 45
Geometry Grp 52277
Degree of Util (X) 0.122 0.328 0.244 0.072 0.062
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.159 4.537 4.627 5.775 4.955
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 691 790 773 617 718
Service Time 3.222 2.58 2.674 3.537 2.717
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.329 0.246 0.073 0.063
HCM Control Delay 8.9 9.8 9.2 9 8
HCM Lane LOS AAAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 1.4 1 0.2 0.2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Seal Beach Blvd & Bradbury Rd 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 125 10 70 40 5 20 130 1350 60 20 1260 120 Future Volume (vph) 125 10 70 40 5 20 130 1350 60 20 1260 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 15 15 12 12 11 10 12 12 12 12 12 12
Storage Length (ft) 92 0 0 60 358 0 205 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 60 25 75 75
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.869 0.850 0.994 0.987
Flt Protected 0.950 0.957 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1947 1753 0 0 1723 1478 1770 5049 0 1770 5006 0 Flt Permitted 0.726 0.716 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1482 1753 0 0 1284 1455 1770 5049 0 1770 5006 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 76 101 9 19
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 498 562 1142 537
Travel Time (s) 13.6 15.3 19.5 9.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 4 4 3 2 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 3 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 136 11 76 43 5 22 141 1467 65 22 1370 130 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 87 0 0 48 22 141 1532 0 22 1500 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 15 18 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 11111 11
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 00000 00
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 00000 00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Detector Phase 8 8 44416 52
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: Seal Beach Blvd & Bradbury Rd 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 3.0 12.0 3.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 15.0 26.3 15.0 26.3 Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 20.0 69.0 15.0 64.0 Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 16.7% 57.5% 12.5% 53.3% Maximum Green (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 16.5 63.7 11.5 58.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.3 3.0 4.3
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.3 0.0 -1.3
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 5.0 1.5 5.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 14.0 14.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.5 89.7 5.6 75.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.75 0.05 0.63 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.29 0.28 0.08 0.58 0.41 0.27 0.47
Control Delay 65.1 14.5 48.5 0.6 49.5 5.8 62.7 12.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 65.1 14.5 48.5 0.6 49.5 5.8 62.7 12.7

LOS E B D A D A E B
Approach Delay 45.4 33.4 9.5 13.4
Approach LOS D C A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68
Intersection Signal Delay: 14.0 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: Seal Beach Blvd & Bradbury Rd
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
4: Seal Beach Blvd & Rossmoor Center Wy 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 170 15 135 10 10 25 195 1180 80 105 1280 210 Future Volume (vph) 170 15 135 10 10 25 195 1180 80 105 1280 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 12 12 8
Storage Length (ft) 80 0 0 0 80 60 150 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 100 60
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.95 0.96
Frt 0.865 0.893 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1586 0 1770 1648 0 1770 5085 1372 1770 5085 1372 Flt Permitted 0.732 0.482 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1364 1586 0 895 1648 0 1770 5085 1308 1770 5085 1314 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 147 27 52 176
Link Speed (mph) 25 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 538 406 892 1142
Travel Time (s) 14.7 9.2 15.2 19.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 5 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1136
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 185 16 147 11 11 27 212 1283 87 114 1391 228 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 185 163 0 11 38 0 212 1283 87 114 1391 228 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 16 16
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.20 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 111111
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 000000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 000000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 522166
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
4: Seal Beach Blvd & Rossmoor Center Wy 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 8
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 36.2 36.2 15.0 15.0 15.0 17.5 17.5 15.0 18.5 18.5 Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 24.0 69.0 69.0 15.0 60.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 20.0% 57.5% 57.5% 12.5% 50.0% 50.0% Maximum Green (s) 31.8 31.8 31.8 31.8 19.5 63.5 63.5 10.5 54.5 54.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.5 -1.5 -1.5 -0.5 -1.5 -1.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 25.0 25.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 20.0 74.3 74.3 11.8 66.1 66.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.62 0.62 0.10 0.55 0.55 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.40 0.07 0.12 0.72 0.41 0.10 0.66 0.50 0.28 Control Delay 63.6 10.9 37.7 18.2 50.6 5.9 2.0 89.6 10.5 1.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 63.6 10.9 37.7 18.2 50.6 5.9 2.0 89.6 10.5 1.8

LOS E B D B D A A F B A
Approach Delay 38.9 22.6 11.6 14.6
Approach LOS D C B B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 111 (93%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 15.7 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Seal Beach Blvd & Rossmoor Center Wy Lanes, Volumes, Timings
5: Seal Beach Blvd & Towne Center Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 9
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 45 170 150 50 60 165 1130 80 35 1085 80 Future Volume (vph) 70 45 170 150 50 60 165 1130 80 35 1085 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 75 0 179 0 170 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 110 130
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.881 0.918 0.990 0.990
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1641 0 1770 1690 0 1770 5025 0 1770 5021 0 Flt Permitted 0.617 0.393 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1140 1641 0 732 1690 0 1770 5025 0 1770 5021 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 154 49 13 14
Link Speed (mph) 15 15 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 340 303 598 892
Travel Time (s) 15.5 13.8 10.2 15.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8 2 12
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 49 185 163 54 65 179 1228 87 38 1179 87 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 234 0 163 119 0 179 1315 0 38 1266 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
5: Seal Beach Blvd & Towne Center Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 10
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 10.0 3.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 34.0 34.0 15.0 22.5 15.0 22.5 Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 63.0 21.0 63.0 Total Split (%) 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 52.5% 17.5% 52.5% Maximum Green (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 16.5 57.5 16.5 57.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -1.5 -0.5 -1.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23.0 10.0 10.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 15.4 76.9 7.6 65.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.64 0.06 0.54 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.47 0.98 0.28 0.79 0.41 0.34 0.46
Control Delay 39.7 16.5 109.9 22.9 93.4 2.3 82.8 3.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.7 16.5 109.9 22.9 93.4 2.3 82.8 3.0

LOS D B F C F A F A
Approach Delay 22.2 73.2 13.2 5.4
Approach LOS C E B A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 5 (4%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.98
Intersection Signal Delay: 16.0 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Seal Beach Blvd & Towne Center Dr Lanes, Volumes, Timings
6: Seal Beach Blvd & St. Cloud Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 95 0 370 190 35 5 340 1685 170 10 1325 80 Future Volume (vph) 95 0 370 190 35 5 340 1685 170 10 1325 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 107 0 0 0 206 0 78 0
Storage Lanes 1 2 1 0 2 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 40 25 120 110
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.995 0.986 0.991
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.966 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 0 2787 1681 1700 0 3433 5002 0 1770 5034 0 Flt Permitted 0.661 0.950 0.966 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1222 0 2787 1681 1700 0 3433 5002 0 1770 5034 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 97 1 20 9
Link Speed (mph) 25 15 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 526 300 909 598
Travel Time (s) 14.3 13.6 15.5 10.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 1 1 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 52
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 103 0 402 207 38 5 370 1832 185 11 1440 87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 49%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 0 402 106 144 0 370 2017 0 11 1527 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template Left Right Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 20 100 20 100 20 100
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Perm pm+ov Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4
Detector Phase 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
6: Seal Beach Blvd & St. Cloud Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 12
Lane Group Ø8
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Storage Length (ft)
Storage Lanes
Taper Length (ft)
Lane Util. Factor
Ped Bike Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Right Turn on Red
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Link Speed (mph)
Link Distance (ft)
Travel Time (s)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Adj. Flow (vph)
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Enter Blocked Intersection
Lane Alignment
Median Width(ft)
Link Offset(ft)
Crosswalk Width(ft)
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor
Turning Speed (mph)
Number of Detectors
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft)
Trailing Detector (ft)
Detector 1 Position(ft)
Detector 1 Size(ft)
Detector 1 Type
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s)
Detector 1 Queue (s)
Detector 1 Delay (s)
Turn Type
Protected Phases 8
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
6: Seal Beach Blvd & St. Cloud Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 22.5 15.0 28.5 Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 22.0 22.0 25.0 63.0 15.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 20.8% 18.3% 18.3% 20.8% 52.5% 12.5% 44.2% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 20.5 18.0 18.0 20.5 57.5 10.5 47.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -1.5 -0.5 -1.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 16.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 14.2 35.7 15.3 15.3 17.4 76.2 5.9 57.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.30 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.64 0.05 0.48 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.45 0.50 0.66 0.74 0.63 0.13 0.64
Control Delay 77.0 26.4 56.2 64.1 68.2 8.6 68.0 15.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 77.0 26.4 56.2 64.1 68.2 8.6 68.0 15.9

LOS E C E E E A E B
Approach Delay 36.7 60.8 17.9 16.2
Approach LOS D E B B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 4 (3%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74
Intersection Signal Delay: 21.7 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 6: Seal Beach Blvd & St. Cloud Dr
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
6: Seal Beach Blvd & St. Cloud Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 14
Lane Group Ø8
Minimum Initial (s) 2.0
Minimum Split (s) 35.0
Total Split (s) 42.0
Total Split (%) 35%
Maximum Green (s) 39.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 0.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0
Recall Mode None
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 25.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
7: Seal Beach Blvd & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 15
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 330 455 1590 440 480 1285
Future Volume (vph) 330 455 1590 440 480 1285
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 147 299 319
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 2
Taper Length (ft) 25 150
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91
Ped Bike Factor 0.98 0.98
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 5085 1583 3433 5085
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1558 5085 1555 3433 5085
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 48
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 40
Link Distance (ft) 707 802 909
Travel Time (s) 10.7 12.2 15.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 359 495 1728 478 522 1397
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 359 495 1728 478 522 1397
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left
Median Width(ft) 36 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15
Number of Detectors 111111
Detector Template Left Right Thru Right Left Thru
Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 100 20 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 000000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 000000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 100 20 20 100
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot pm+ov NA pm+ov Prot NA
Protected Phases 812816
Permitted Phases 8 2
Detector Phase 882216
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
7: Seal Beach Blvd & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 16
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 38.3 15.0 35.5 38.3 15.0 15.0
Total Split (s) 38.0 31.0 51.0 38.0 31.0 82.0
Total Split (%) 31.7% 25.8% 42.5% 31.7% 25.8% 68.3%
Maximum Green (s) 33.0 26.5 45.5 33.0 26.5 76.5
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.5 4.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.3 -0.5 -1.5 -1.3 -0.5 -1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 5.0
Recall Mode None None C-Max None None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 26.0 23.0 26.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 21.4 48.1 59.9 81.6 27.0 90.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.40 0.50 0.68 0.22 0.76
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.79 0.68 0.44 0.68 0.36
Control Delay 47.3 36.5 22.8 3.8 34.5 3.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.3 36.5 22.8 3.8 34.5 3.5

LOS D D C A C A
Approach Delay 41.0 18.7 12.0
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 98 (82%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.79
Intersection Signal Delay: 19.9 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 7: Seal Beach Blvd & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
8: Seal Beach Blvd & Old Ranch Pkwy 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 45 50 325 20 560 30 1335 545 235 1195 250 Future Volume (vph) 30 45 50 325 20 560 30 1335 545 235 1195 250 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 117 0 217 124 0 260 392
Storage Lanes 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 60 100
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.862 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 3433 1525 1504 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 3433 1525 1504 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 145 262 347 509 272
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 663 410 1873 802
Travel Time (s) 15.1 8.0 28.4 12.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 49 54 353 22 609 33 1451 592 255 1299 272 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 43%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 49 54 353 284 347 33 1451 592 255 1299 272 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 111111111111
Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 000000000000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 000000000000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 7 8 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 8 2 2 6
Detector Phase 777888522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.2 12.2 12.2 44.2 44.2 44.2 12.2 15.3 15.3 12.2 35.3 35.3 Total Split (s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 13.0 37.0 37.0 24.0 48.0 48.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
8: Seal Beach Blvd & Old Ranch Pkwy 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 18
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Split (%) 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 10.8% 30.8% 30.8% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 9.8 9.8 9.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 8.8 31.7 31.7 19.8 42.7 42.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.3 4.3 3.2 4.3 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -0.2 -1.8 -1.8 -0.2 -1.8 -1.8 Total Lost Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.1 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Gap (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 25.0 25.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 9.2 9.2 9.2 19.8 19.8 19.8 8.7 65.9 65.9 13.5 75.6 75.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.55 0.55 0.11 0.63 0.63 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.34 0.21 0.62 0.61 0.65 0.13 0.52 0.54 0.66 0.41 0.25 Control Delay 56.5 59.2 1.9 51.1 12.5 10.3 31.7 6.5 2.5 62.7 10.1 2.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.5 59.2 1.9 51.1 12.5 10.3 31.7 6.5 2.5 62.7 10.1 2.7

LOS E E A D B B C A A E B A
Approach Delay 35.8 25.6 5.8 16.3
Approach LOS D C A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 46 (38%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 105
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66
Intersection Signal Delay: 14.3 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 8: Seal Beach Blvd & Old Ranch Pkwy
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
9: Seal Beach Blvd & N Gate Rd 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 19
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 10 15 405 10 505 10 1275 270 380 1225 30 Future Volume (vph) 30 10 15 405 10 505 10 1275 270 380 1225 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 100 0 100 86 225 650 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 83 120
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.960 0.850 0.850 0.996
Flt Protected 0.973 0.950 0.955 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3306 0 1681 1690 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5065 0 Flt Permitted 0.973 0.950 0.955 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3306 0 1681 1690 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5065 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 16 402 249 4
Link Speed (mph) 35 40 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 991 994 1529 1873
Travel Time (s) 19.3 16.9 20.9 25.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 11 16 440 11 549 11 1386 293 413 1332 33 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 44%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 60 0 246 205 549 11 1386 293 413 1365 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 11111111
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 00000000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 00000000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free 2
Detector Phase 4 4 3 3 52216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 15.7 15.7 12.2 23.7 Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 25.0 25.0 13.0 40.0 40.0 34.0 61.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
9: Seal Beach Blvd & N Gate Rd 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 20
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Split (%) 17.5% 17.5% 20.8% 20.8% 10.8% 33.3% 33.3% 28.3% 50.8% Maximum Green (s) 16.8 16.8 20.8 20.8 8.8 34.3 34.3 29.8 55.3 Yellow Time (s) 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.7 4.7 3.2 4.7
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.1 -1.4 -1.4 -0.2 -2.2 -2.2 -0.2 -2.2 Total Lost Time (s) 3.1 2.8 2.8 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 Minimum Gap (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max Walk Time (s) 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0
Act Effct Green (s) 9.1 20.7 20.7 120.0 8.2 49.2 49.2 30.0 80.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.17 0.17 1.00 0.07 0.41 0.41 0.25 0.67 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.85 0.70 0.35 0.09 0.67 0.37 0.93 0.40
Control Delay 42.1 73.7 60.2 0.6 54.3 31.6 6.6 66.8 4.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.1 73.7 60.2 0.6 54.3 31.6 6.6 66.8 4.0

LOS D E E A D C A E A
Approach Delay 42.1 30.8 27.4 18.6
Approach LOS D C C B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 33 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93
Intersection Signal Delay: 24.9 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 9: Seal Beach Blvd & N Gate Rd
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
10: Seal Beach Blvd & Golden Rain Rd 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 21
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Ø2 Ø4
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 60 1905 1195 215
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 60 1905 1195 215
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 115
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.98
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 1770 5085 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 1770 5085 5085 1557
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 234
Link Speed (mph) 15 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 370 174 1529
Travel Time (s) 16.8 2.4 20.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 65 2071 1299 234
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 65 2071 1299 234
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 16 16
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1111
Detector Template Left Thru Thru Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 100 100 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 4 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 6
Detector Phase 5 2 4 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
10: Seal Beach Blvd & Golden Rain Rd 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 22
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Ø2 Ø4
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 8.0 26.7 26.7 15.7 15.0
Total Split (s) 8.0 31.0 31.0 47.0 23.0
Total Split (%) 11.4% 44.3% 44.3% 67% 33%
Maximum Green (s) 6.0 25.3 25.3 41.3 19.0
Yellow Time (s) 2.0 4.7 4.7 4.7 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -1.7 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 1.5 4.0 5.7
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 14.0 14.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.4 70.0 38.2 36.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 1.00 0.55 0.52
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.41 0.47 0.25
Control Delay 46.3 1.6 11.0 2.5
Queue Delay 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 46.7 1.6 11.0 2.5

LOS D A B A
Approach Delay 3.0 9.7
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 70
Offset: 17 (24%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.48
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.8 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Seal Beach Blvd & Golden Rain Rd Lanes, Volumes, Timings
11: Seal Beach Blvd & Golden Rain Rd 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 23
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Ø5
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 235 55 0 1720 1195 0
Future Volume (vph) 235 55 0 1720 1195 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 13 16 12 12 12 12
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 91 0
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 90
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.91 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1794 0 6408 5085 0
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1794 0 6408 5085 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 60
Link Speed (mph) 15 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 316 1806 174
Travel Time (s) 14.4 24.6 2.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 255 60 0 1870 1299 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 60 0 1870 1299 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 26 4 4
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 0.96 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1
Detector Template Left Right Thru Thru
Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 100 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 100 100
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6 5
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 4 4 2 6
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
11: Seal Beach Blvd & Golden Rain Rd 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 24
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Ø5
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.7 26.7 8.0
Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 47.0 31.0 8.0
Total Split (%) 32.9% 32.9% 67.1% 44.3% 11%
Maximum Green (s) 19.0 19.0 41.3 25.3 6.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 4.7 4.7 2.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -1.7
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Max None
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 14.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0
Act Effct Green (s) 19.0 19.0 43.0 38.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.61 0.55
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.11 0.48 0.47
Control Delay 20.9 6.6 12.9 1.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.9 6.6 12.9 1.6

LOS C A B A
Approach Delay 18.2 12.9 1.6
Approach LOS B B A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 70
Offset: 17 (24%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.48
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.2 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 11: Seal Beach Blvd & Golden Rain Rd Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Seal Beach Blvd & St. Andrews Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 25
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 165 80 75 1400 1280 60
Future Volume (vph) 165 80 75 1400 1280 60
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 110 0 175 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 70 100
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91
Ped Bike Factor 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.993
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 5085 5045 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 5085 5045 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 87 13
Link Speed (mph) 15 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 538 1002 1806
Travel Time (s) 24.5 13.7 24.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 179 87 82 1522 1391 65
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 179 87 82 1522 1456 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 11111
Detector Template Left Right Left Thru Thru
Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 20 100 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 00000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 00000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 20 100 100
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 44526
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Seal Beach Blvd & St. Andrews Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 26
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 2.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 20.7 21.7
Total Split (s) 18.0 18.0 17.0 52.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 25.7% 25.7% 24.3% 74.3% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 14.0 12.5 46.3 29.3
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.7 4.7
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -1.7 -1.7
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 9.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0
Act Effct Green (s) 10.9 10.9 8.1 51.1 40.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.73 0.58
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.27 0.40 0.41 0.50
Control Delay 38.4 8.7 33.9 5.8 4.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 38.4 8.7 33.9 5.8 4.7

LOS D A C A A
Approach Delay 28.7 7.2 4.7
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 70
Offset: 48 (69%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 7.8 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 12: Seal Beach Blvd & St. Andrews Dr Lanes, Volumes, Timings
13: Seal Beach Blvd /Seal Beach Blvd & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025 Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 27
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 355 615 55 265 465 150 115 1030 240 155 885 185 Future Volume (vph) 355 615 55 265 465 150 115 1030 240 155 885 185 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 300 0 280 0 265 0 284 187
Storage Lanes 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 125 95 90
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.98
Frt 0.988 0.963 0.972 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5024 0 3433 3408 0 1770 4929 0 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5024 0 3433 3408 0 1770 4929 0 3433 5085 1559 Right Turn on Red No Yes Yes No
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 35 39
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25 50
Link Distance (ft) 1322 799 861 1002
Travel Time (s) 20.0 12.1 23.5 13.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 378 654 59 282 495 160 122 1096 255 165 941 197 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 378 713 0 282 655 0 122 1351 0 165 941 197 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
13: Seal Beach Blvd /Seal Beach Blvd & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025 Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 28
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 39.2 8.0 36.0 8.0 31.2 7.7 35.7 35.7 Total Split (s) 22.0 51.0 26.0 55.0 17.0 45.0 18.0 46.0 46.0 Total Split (%) 15.7% 36.4% 18.6% 39.3% 12.1% 32.1% 12.9% 32.9% 32.9% Maximum Green (s) 17.0 45.0 21.0 49.0 12.0 39.3 13.3 40.3 40.3 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.7 -2.8 -1.7 -2.8 -1.7 -3.2 -1.7 -3.2 -3.2 Total Lost Time (s) 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Gap (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Time Before Reduce (s) 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 28.0 25.0 20.0 23.0 23.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 00
Act Effct Green (s) 23.3 41.7 17.5 36.0 13.7 56.2 12.6 54.8 54.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.30 0.12 0.26 0.10 0.40 0.09 0.39 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.48 0.66 0.73 0.71 0.67 0.54 0.47 0.32
Control Delay 60.4 40.8 65.7 49.4 78.7 33.9 71.1 32.4 31.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.4 40.8 65.7 49.4 78.7 33.9 71.1 32.4 31.3

LOS E D E D E C E C C
Approach Delay 47.6 54.3 37.6 37.1
Approach LOS DDDD
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 140
Actuated Cycle Length: 140
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.73
Intersection Signal Delay: 43.0 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 13: Seal Beach Blvd /Seal Beach Blvd & Westminster Ave Lanes, Volumes, Timings
14: Seal Beach Blvd & Road C 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 29
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 15 0 65 0 0 0 25 1150 0 0 0 950
Future Volume (vph) 15 0 65 0 0 0 25 1150 0 0 0 950
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 192 0 196
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 60 80
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 0 1742 0 0 0 1770 5085 0 1863 0 5085 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 0 1742 0 0 0 1770 5085 0 1863 0 5085 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 201
Link Speed (mph) 15 15 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 316 163 1791 695
Travel Time (s) 14.4 7.4 24.4 9.5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 0 71 0 0 0 27 1250 0 0 0 1033
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 0 71 0 0 0 27 1250 0 0 0 1033
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Median Width(ft) 11 11 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.04 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 9 15
Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detector Template Left Right Left Thru Left Thru
Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 20 100 20 100
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Perm Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4
Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
14: Seal Beach Blvd & Road C 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 30
Lane Group SBR Ø8
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20
Future Volume (vph) 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12
Storage Length (ft) 99
Storage Lanes 1
Taper Length (ft)
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.98
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1583
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1545
Right Turn on Red Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 86
Link Speed (mph)
Link Distance (ft)
Travel Time (s)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 22
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22
Enter Blocked Intersection No
Lane Alignment Right
Median Width(ft)
Link Offset(ft)
Crosswalk Width(ft)
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9
Number of Detectors 1
Detector Template Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases 8
Permitted Phases 6
Detector Phase 6
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
14: Seal Beach Blvd & Road C 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 31
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 3.0 10.0 3.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.7 15.0 22.7
Total Split (s) 22.0 22.0 15.0 33.0 15.0 33.0
Total Split (%) 31.4% 31.4% 21.4% 47.1% 21.4% 47.1%
Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 10.5 27.3 10.5 27.3
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.7 3.5 4.7
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -1.7 -0.5 -1.7
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 12.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.3 6.3 6.2 58.4 53.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.83 0.77
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.21 0.17 0.29 0.26
Control Delay 30.4 1.4 33.4 2.3 0.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.4 1.4 33.4 2.3 0.8

LOS C A C A A
Approach Delay 6.7 3.0 0.7
Approach LOS A A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 70
Offset: 5 (7%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.29
Intersection Signal Delay: 2.1 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 14: Seal Beach Blvd & Road C
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
14: Seal Beach Blvd & Road C 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 32
Lane Group SBR Ø8
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.7 39.0
Total Split (s) 33.0 22.0
Total Split (%) 47.1% 31%
Maximum Green (s) 27.3 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.7 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.7
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0
Lead/Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 2.0
Recall Mode C-Max None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 12.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 53.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.77
v/c Ratio 0.02
Control Delay 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0
Total Delay 0.1
LOS A
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
15: Seal Beach Blvd & Apollo Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 33
Lane Group NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 1150 1040 15 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 5 1150 1040 15 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 11 16
Storage Length (ft) 180 162 0 92
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.97
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 5085 1583 1801 2111
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 5085 1539 1801 2111
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 16
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25
Link Distance (ft) 577 1791 717
Travel Time (s) 7.9 24.4 19.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 1250 1130 16 0 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 1250 1130 16 0 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Median Width(ft) 16 12 21
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 0.85
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 122111
Detector Template Left Thru Thru Right Left Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 100 20 20 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 000000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 000000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 6 20 20 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
15: Seal Beach Blvd & Apollo Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 34
Lane Group NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 526644
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.0 17.7 26.7 26.7 15.0 15.0
Total Split (s) 15.0 51.0 36.0 36.0 19.0 19.0
Total Split (%) 21.4% 72.9% 51.4% 51.4% 27.1% 27.1%
Maximum Green (s) 10.5 45.3 30.3 30.3 15.0 15.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.7 4.7 4.7 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max None None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 16.0 16.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 8.5 70.0 66.7 66.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 1.00 0.95 0.95
v/c Ratio 0.02 0.25 0.23 0.01
Control Delay 32.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 32.0 0.1 0.2 0.0

LOS C A A A
Approach Delay 0.2 0.2
Approach LOS A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 70
Offset: 53 (76%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.25
Intersection Signal Delay: 0.2 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 15: Seal Beach Blvd & Apollo Dr
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
16: Seal Beach Blvd & Adolfo Lopez Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 35
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 35 10 10 1120 1040 15
Future Volume (vph) 35 10 10 1120 1040 15
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 13 16 12 12 12 12
Storage Length (ft) 0 240 191 90
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 60
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.97
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1829 1794 1770 5085 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1829 1794 1770 5085 5085 1540
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 11 16
Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 715 1223 577
Travel Time (s) 19.5 16.7 7.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 38 11 11 1217 1130 16
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 11 11 1217 1130 16
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 13 16 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 0.96 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 111221
Detector Template Left Right Left Thru Thru Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 20 100 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 000000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 000000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 20 6 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
16: Seal Beach Blvd & Adolfo Lopez Dr 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 36
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Detector Phase 445266
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 8.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 17.7 26.7 26.7
Total Split (s) 19.0 19.0 15.0 51.0 36.0 36.0
Total Split (%) 27.1% 27.1% 21.4% 72.9% 51.4% 51.4%
Maximum Green (s) 15.0 15.0 10.5 45.3 30.3 30.3
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.7 4.7 4.7
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 16.0 16.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 8.0 8.5 59.9 57.4 57.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.86 0.82 0.82
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.28 0.27 0.01
Control Delay 29.6 15.3 31.7 1.1 0.5 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.6 15.3 31.7 1.1 0.5 0.1

LOS C B C A A A
Approach Delay 26.4 1.3 0.5
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 70
Offset: 53 (76%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.28
Intersection Signal Delay: 1.4 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 16: Seal Beach Blvd & Adolfo Lopez Dr Lanes, Volumes, Timings
17: Seal Beach Blvd & Heron Pointe/Forrestal Ln 05/29/2025 Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 37
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 0 15 40 0 75 10 1020 10 20 1000 30 Future Volume (vph) 30 0 15 40 0 75 10 1020 10 20 1000 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 90 0 120 289 0 192 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 60 60
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.850 0.999 0.996
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1770 1583 0 1770 1583 1770 5080 0 1770 5062 0 Flt Permitted 0.729 0.736 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1358 1583 0 1371 1583 1770 5080 0 1770 5062 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 206 206 2 8
Link Speed (mph) 15 15 40 50
Link Distance (ft) 253 838 2064 1223
Travel Time (s) 11.5 38.1 35.2 16.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 0 16 43 0 82 11 1109 11 22 1087 33
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 33 16 0 43 82 11 1120 0 22 1120 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 11111112 12
Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 00000000 00
Detector 1 Position(ft) 00000000 00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
17: Seal Beach Blvd & Heron Pointe/Forrestal Ln 05/29/2025 Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 38
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8
Detector Phase 44488852 16
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 15.0 25.0 15.0 24.7 Total Split (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 16.0 33.0 15.0 32.0 Total Split (%) 31.4% 31.4% 31.4% 31.4% 31.4% 31.4% 22.9% 47.1% 21.4% 45.7% Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 11.5 27.0 10.5 26.3 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.7 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -0.5 -1.7 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 14.0 14.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 6.6 52.6 6.0 53.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.75 0.09 0.77 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.04 0.28 0.23 0.07 0.29 0.15 0.29
Control Delay 31.0 0.3 32.6 1.5 26.8 3.6 23.4 6.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 31.0 0.3 32.6 1.5 26.8 3.6 23.4 6.2

LOS C A C A C A C A
Approach Delay 21.0 12.2 3.9 6.5
Approach LOS C B A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 70
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.29
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.9 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 17: Seal Beach Blvd & Heron Pointe/Forrestal Ln Lanes, Volumes, Timings
18: Seal Beach Blvd & Bolsa Ave/Anchor Way 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 39
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 185 20 20 20 15 35 15 870 20 60 775 260 Future Volume (vph) 185 20 20 20 15 35 15 870 20 60 775 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 40 167 0 189 0 198 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 95 60
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor 0.94 1.00 0.99
Frt 0.850 0.894 0.997 0.962
Flt Protected 0.957 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1783 1583 1770 1665 0 1770 5066 0 1770 4855 0 Flt Permitted 0.957 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1783 1483 1770 1665 0 1770 5066 0 1770 4855 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 136 38 3 74
Link Speed (mph) 30 15 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 1498 1062 1153 2064
Travel Time (s) 34.0 48.3 15.7 28.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 49 4 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 201 22 22 22 16 38 16 946 22 65 842 283 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 223 22 22 54 0 16 968 0 65 1125 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 12 15 16
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 11111 12 12
Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 00000 00 00
Detector 1 Position(ft) 00000 00 00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
18: Seal Beach Blvd & Bolsa Ave/Anchor Way 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 40
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 44433 52 16
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 18.0 3.0 18.0 Minimum Split (s) 44.6 44.6 44.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 31.0 15.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 46.0 46.0 46.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 61.0 17.0 62.0 Total Split (%) 32.9% 32.9% 32.9% 11.4% 11.4% 11.4% 43.6% 12.1% 44.3% Maximum Green (s) 41.4 41.4 41.4 12.0 12.0 11.5 55.0 12.5 56.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.6 -0.6 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -0.5 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 33.0 33.0 33.0 18.0 13.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 24.4 24.4 8.6 8.6 6.4 83.5 11.6 92.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.60 0.08 0.66 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.06 0.20 0.39 0.20 0.32 0.45 0.35
Control Delay 67.1 0.3 65.8 34.7 80.7 12.2 63.5 9.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 67.1 0.3 65.8 34.7 80.7 12.2 63.5 9.3

LOS E A E C F B E A
Approach Delay 61.1 43.7 13.3 12.3
Approach LOS E D B B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 140
Actuated Cycle Length: 140
Offset: 85 (61%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.72
Intersection Signal Delay: 18.4 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 18: Seal Beach Blvd & Bolsa Ave/Anchor Way Lanes, Volumes, Timings
19: Seal Beach Blvd & Marlin Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 41
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 15 15 20 680 820 40
Future Volume (vph) 15 15 20 680 820 40
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 85
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91
Frt 0.932 0.993
Flt Protected 0.976 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1694 0 1770 5085 5050 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1694 0 1770 5085 5050 0
Link Speed (mph) 25 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 591 614 1153
Travel Time (s) 16.1 8.4 15.7
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 15 15 20 680 820 40
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 0 20 680 860 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th TWSC
19: Seal Beach Blvd & Marlin Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 42
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 15 20 680 820 40
Future Vol, veh/h 15 15 20 680 820 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 15 15 20 680 820 40
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1152 430 860 0 - 0
Stage 1 840 -----
Stage 2 312 -----
Critical Hdwy 5.74 7.14 5.34 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.64 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.04 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.82 3.92 3.12 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 260 490 457 - - -
Stage 1 302 -----
Stage 2 656 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 249 490 457 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 249 -----
Stage 1 289 -----
Stage 2 656 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 17 0.4 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 457 - 330 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - 0.091 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 13.2 - 17 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
20: Seal Beach Blvd & Pacific Coast Hwy 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 43
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 330 800 25 45 775 500 40 300 90 410 210 340 Future Volume (vph) 330 800 25 45 775 500 40 300 90 410 210 340 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 170 78 159 496 97 99 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 90 60 60
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.965 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 0 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 0 3433 1863 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 118 69 23 332
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 1196 1066 687 614
Travel Time (s) 20.4 18.2 9.4 8.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 359 870 27 49 842 543 43 326 98 446 228 370 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 359 870 27 49 842 543 43 424 0 446 228 370 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 18 18 24 29
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 11111112 121
Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 00000000 000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 00000000 000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 6 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 52344 33
Permitted Phases 6 2 3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
20: Seal Beach Blvd & Pacific Coast Hwy 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 44
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector Phase 16652344 333
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.6 44.0 44.0 10.6 44.0 43.3 11.3 11.3 43.3 43.3 43.3 Total Split (s) 21.0 63.0 63.0 18.0 60.0 37.0 22.0 22.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 45.0% 45.0% 12.9% 42.9% 26.4% 15.7% 15.7% 26.4% 26.4% 26.4% Maximum Green (s) 15.4 56.0 56.0 12.4 53.0 30.7 15.7 15.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.0 5.0 3.6 5.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 7.0 7.0 5.6 7.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 8.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 30.0 30.0 22.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 15.4 65.6 65.6 9.2 57.1 90.7 15.7 15.7 26.6 26.6 26.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.47 0.47 0.07 0.41 0.65 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 1.85 0.52 0.03 0.43 0.58 0.52 0.22 1.05 0.68 0.65 0.65 Control Delay 435.0 29.5 0.1 73.2 35.0 13.2 59.7 114.4 56.1 58.3 23.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 435.0 29.5 0.1 73.2 35.0 13.2 59.7 114.4 56.1 58.3 23.0

LOS F C A E C B E F E E C
Approach Delay 144.8 28.0 109.4 44.8
Approach LOS F C F D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 140
Actuated Cycle Length: 140
Offset: 105 (75%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 140
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.85
Intersection Signal Delay: 76.1 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 20: Seal Beach Blvd & Pacific Coast Hwy Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Old Ranch Plaza & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 45
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 875 35 10 775 0 45 0 10 0 5 0
Future Volume (vph) 5 875 35 10 775 0 45 0 10 0 5 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 110 150 105 0 0 35 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 80 75 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 0 0 1770 1583 0 1863 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.754
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 0 0 1405 1583 0 1863 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 45 57
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 707 2617 340 327
Travel Time (s) 10.7 39.7 9.3 8.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 875 35 10 775 0 45 0 10 0 5 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 875 35 10 775 0 0 45 10 0 5 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 12112 12112
Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 00000 00000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 00000 00000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6666
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8
Permitted Phases 6 4 4 8
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
21: Old Ranch Plaza & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 46
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector Phase 16652 44488
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 22.3 22.3 8.0 20.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 33.0 51.0 51.0 33.0 51.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Total Split (%) 27.5% 42.5% 42.5% 27.5% 42.5% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% Maximum Green (s) 29.0 45.7 45.7 29.0 45.7 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.0 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None None None None None Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 6.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 00000
Act Effct Green (s) 6.0 102.1 102.1 6.3 102.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.85 0.85 0.05 0.85 0.08 0.08 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.29 0.03 0.11 0.26 0.42 0.06 0.03
Control Delay 54.6 2.7 0.7 56.2 2.9 63.4 0.6 49.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.6 2.7 0.7 56.2 2.9 63.4 0.6 49.6

LOS D A A E A E A D
Approach Delay 2.9 3.6 51.9 49.6
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.42
Intersection Signal Delay: 4.9 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 21: Old Ranch Plaza & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
22: Basswood St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 47
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 680 120 15 605 5 125 0 10 5 5 40 Future Volume (vph) 30 680 120 15 605 5 125 0 10 5 5 40 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 115 0 175 0 85 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 100 75 60 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.977 0.999 0.850 0.892
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.995
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3458 0 1770 3536 0 1770 1583 0 0 1653 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.724 0.976
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3458 0 1770 3536 0 1349 1583 0 0 1622 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 26 1 359 40
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 2617 1278 620 461
Travel Time (s) 39.7 19.4 16.9 12.6
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 680 120 15 605 5 125 0 10 5 5 40
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 800 0 15 610 0 125 10 0 0 50 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6666
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
22: Basswood St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 48
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.0 20.0 9.0 21.3 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 30.0 20.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 33.3% 22.2% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Maximum Green (s) 11.0 24.7 16.0 39.7 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 3.0 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Recall Mode None Min None Min None None None None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 7.0 11.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.6 22.5 5.5 22.3 9.6 9.6 9.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.58 0.14 0.57 0.25 0.25 0.24
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.40 0.06 0.30 0.38 0.02 0.12
Control Delay 17.8 8.0 19.1 8.0 17.8 0.0 7.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 17.8 8.0 19.1 8.0 17.8 0.0 7.8

LOS B A B A B A A
Approach Delay 8.3 8.2 16.4 7.8
Approach LOS AABA
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 39
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.40
Intersection Signal Delay: 8.9 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 22: Basswood St & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Candlebury Ave & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 49
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 575 115 25 545 70 20
Future Volume (vph) 575 115 25 545 70 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 160 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 75 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.975 0.970
Flt Protected 0.950 0.963
Satd. Flow (prot) 3451 0 1770 3539 1740 0
Flt Permitted 0.389 0.963
Satd. Flow (perm) 3451 0 725 3539 1740 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 47 20
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25
Link Distance (ft) 1278 2619 927
Travel Time (s) 19.4 39.7 25.3
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 575 115 25 545 70 20
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 690 0 25 545 90 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 7 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Number of Detectors 2 1 2 1
Detector Template Thru Left Thru Left
Leading Detector (ft) 100 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 2 4
Permitted Phases 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
23: Candlebury Ave & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 50
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR
Detector Phase 2 2 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0
Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 26.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
Recall Mode Max Max Max None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 15.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 38.9 38.9 38.9 7.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.04 0.19 0.32
Control Delay 3.1 3.8 3.2 18.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.1 3.8 3.2 18.3

LOS A A A B
Approach Delay 3.1 3.2 18.3
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 49.3
Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.32
Intersection Signal Delay: 4.2 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 23: Candlebury Ave & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Heather St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 51
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 530 60 65 515 55 50
Future Volume (vph) 530 60 65 515 55 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 150 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 80 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.985 0.936
Flt Protected 0.950 0.974
Satd. Flow (prot) 3486 0 1770 3539 1698 0
Flt Permitted 0.429 0.974
Satd. Flow (perm) 3486 0 799 3539 1698 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 24 50
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25
Link Distance (ft) 2619 1584 691
Travel Time (s) 39.7 24.0 18.8
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 530 60 65 515 55 50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 590 0 65 515 105 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Number of Detectors 2 1 2 1
Detector Template Thru Left Thru Left
Leading Detector (ft) 100 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 2 4
Permitted Phases 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
24: Heather St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 52
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Detector Phase 2 2 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 25.0
Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 25.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
Recall Mode Max Max Max None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 15.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 7.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.11 0.20 0.36
Control Delay 3.9 4.7 4.0 14.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.9 4.7 4.0 14.7

LOS A A A B
Approach Delay 3.9 4.1 14.7
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 50.3
Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.36
Intersection Signal Delay: 4.9 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 24: Heather St & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
25: Rose St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 53
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 565 35 65 520 30 55
Future Volume (vph) 565 35 65 520 30 55
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 65 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.991 0.913
Flt Protected 0.950 0.983
Satd. Flow (prot) 3507 0 1770 3539 1672 0
Flt Permitted 0.425 0.983
Satd. Flow (perm) 3507 0 792 3539 1672 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 12 55
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25
Link Distance (ft) 1584 1257 867
Travel Time (s) 24.0 19.0 23.6
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 565 35 65 520 30 55
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 600 0 65 520 85 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Number of Detectors 2 1 2 1
Detector Template Thru Left Thru Left
Leading Detector (ft) 100 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 2 4
Permitted Phases 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
25: Rose St & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 54
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Detector Phase 2 2 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 28.0
Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 25.0
Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
Recall Mode Max Max Max None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 18.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 38.6 38.6 38.6 7.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.28
Control Delay 3.4 4.3 3.4 12.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.4 4.3 3.4 12.2

LOS A A A B
Approach Delay 3.4 3.5 12.2
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 49.3
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.28
Intersection Signal Delay: 4.0 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 25: Rose St & Lampson Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
26: Tulip St/Parkewood & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 55
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 580 30 80 550 20 30 0 60 10 0 15 Future Volume (vph) 10 580 30 80 550 20 30 0 60 10 0 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 80 0 65 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 85 80 35 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.993 0.995 0.850 0.919
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.980
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3514 0 1770 3522 0 1770 1583 0 0 1678 0 Flt Permitted 0.438 0.421 0.909 0.843
Satd. Flow (perm) 816 3514 0 784 3522 0 1693 1583 0 0 1443 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 10 7 162 55
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 1257 1023 510 526
Travel Time (s) 19.0 15.5 13.9 14.3
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 10 580 30 80 550 20 30 0 60 10 0 15
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 610 0 80 570 0 30 60 0 0 25 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6666
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2244
Permitted Phases 2244
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
26: Tulip St/Parkewood & Lampson Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 56
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector Phase 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% Maximum Green (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode Max Max Max Max None None None None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 7.2 7.2 7.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.16 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.02 0.23 0.13 0.21 0.11 0.16 0.09
Control Delay 4.1 3.7 4.8 3.6 16.8 0.8 3.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 4.1 3.7 4.8 3.6 16.8 0.8 3.3

LOS A A A A B A A
Approach Delay 3.7 3.8 6.2 3.3
Approach LOS AAAA
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 45.5
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.23
Intersection Signal Delay: 3.9 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 26: Tulip St/Parkewood & Lampson Ave Lanes, Volumes, Timings
27: Apollo Dr & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 57
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 915 15 40 1090 150 100
Future Volume (vph) 915 15 40 1090 150 100
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 207 220 0 90
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.97
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1529 1770 3539 1770 1583
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 16 109
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 25
Link Distance (ft) 1365 937 502
Travel Time (s) 18.6 14.2 13.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 995 16 43 1185 163 109
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 995 16 43 1185 163 109
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Number of Detectors 111111
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 000000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 000000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 221688
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
27: Apollo Dr & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 58
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 23.0 23.0 7.7 16.2 8.6 8.6
Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 15.0 40.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 41.7% 41.7% 25.0% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3%
Maximum Green (s) 20.0 20.0 11.0 35.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -3.2 -3.2 -1.7 -2.8 -1.6 -1.6
Total Lost Time (s) 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.4
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max None C-Max None None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 40.6 40.6 9.2 46.3 11.4 11.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.15 0.77 0.19 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.02 0.16 0.43 0.48 0.28
Control Delay 8.6 5.3 19.5 3.0 25.8 6.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 5.3 19.5 3.0 25.8 6.6

LOS A A B A C A
Approach Delay 8.5 3.6 18.1
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 15 (25%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.48
Intersection Signal Delay: 7.1 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 27: Apollo Dr & Westminster Ave
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
28: Kitts Hwy-Alfa Rd & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 59
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 1020 10 5 1340 0 15 5 25 10 5 40 Future Volume (vph) 5 1020 10 5 1340 0 15 5 25 10 5 40
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 260 0 715 0 75 55 0 75
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98
Frt 0.850 0.850 0.868
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 0 1770 1863 1583 1770 1617 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.724 0.754
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 0 1349 1863 1583 1405 1617 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 91 155 44
Link Speed (mph) 45 60 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 799 6309 1679 2824
Travel Time (s) 12.1 71.7 45.8 77.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 6 1133 11 6 1489 0 17 6 28 11 6 44
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 6 1133 11 6 1489 0 17 6 28 11 50 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0000
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 11111 11111
Detector Template
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 00000 00000
Detector 1 Position(ft) 00000 00000
Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 8
Permitted Phases 2 4 4 8
Detector Phase 52216 44488
Switch Phase
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
28: Kitts Hwy-Alfa Rd & Westminster Ave 05/29/2025
Future PM Seal Beach Boulevard TSSP 3:32 pm 03/26/2025 Future Conditions Synchro 11 Report Iteris, Inc. Page 60
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 7.0 31.5 31.5 7.0 27.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 36.0 36.0 Total Split (s) 14.0 28.0 28.0 10.0 24.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 46.7% 46.7% 16.7% 40.0% 36.7% 36.7% 36.7% 36.7% 36.7% Maximum Green (s) 10.0 20.5 20.5 6.0 16.5 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.7 -3.8 -3.8 -1.7 -4.9 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 Total Lost Time (s) 2.3 3.7 3.7 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None Max None None None None None Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 19.0 19.0 15.0 27.0 27.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.5 49.2 49.2 6.5 49.9 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.83 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.39 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.19 Control Delay 24.2 3.8 0.0 24.2 4.3 23.2 21.8 0.4 22.6 11.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.2 3.8 0.0 24.2 4.3 23.2 21.8 0.4 22.6 11.3

LOS C A A C A C C A C B
Approach Delay 3.9 4.4 10.5 13.3
Approach LOS AABB
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 11 (18%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.51
Intersection Signal Delay: 4.5 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 28: Kitts Hwy-Alfa Rd & Westminster Ave

Intersection Improvement Cost Estimate calculations
Signal Mod
Left‐turn
Lane
Re‐striping (per
approach) 15% 30%
$150,000 $480,000 $80,000 Design Contingency
1 1st St/Marina Dr Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Modify existing curb return and curb ramp. $38,819 $5,823 $13,393 $58,034 17% $9,866 2 5th St/Marina Dr Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. $15,986 $2,398 $5,515 $23,899 20% $4,7803 Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd YY
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install raised hardscape median with turnouts and upgraded driveways with proper radii (~500 LF). $140,378 $21,057 $48,431 $209,866 5% $10,493
4 Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy
YY
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install raised hardscape median with turnouts and upgraded driveways with proper radii (~500 LF). $140,378 $21,057 $48,431 $209,866 12% $25,184
5 Seal Beach Blvd/Towne Center Dr Y Y Y 1 1 2 $150,000 $480,000 $0 $160,000 $790,000 Modify Traffic Signal to provide protected left turn phasing in for westbound approach. Add a westbound left turn lane. Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install Leading pedestrian Interval System. Install EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System.
$905,543 $135,832 $312,412 $1,353,787 6% $81,227
6 Seal Beach Blvd/St Cloud Dr Y Y Y Y 1 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Upgrade traffic signal phasing to remove split phasing. Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install Leading pedestrian Interval System. Install EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System. Modify existing curb ramps on south side of intersection to be directional curb ramps. $272,963 $40,944 $94,172 $408,079 5% $20,404
7 Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Ave Y Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install Leading pedestrian Interval System. Install bicycle video detection system, EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System.
$124,541 $18,681 $42,967 $186,188 5% $9,309
8 Seal Beach Blvd/Old Ranch Pkwy‐405 NB Ramps Y Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install Leading pedestrian Interval System. Install bicycle video detection system, EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System. Trim bushes for sight distance.
$133,038 $19,956 $45,898 $198,892 3% $5,967
9 Seal Beach Blvd/Gate Rd‐405 SB Ramps Y Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install Leading pedestrian Interval System. Install bicycle video detection system, EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System.
$87,551 $13,133 $30,205 $130,889 3% $3,272
10 Seal Beach Blvd/Golden Rain Rd (WB) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$506,437 $75,966 $174,721 $757,123 6% $45,427
11 Seal Beach Blvd/Golden Rain Rd (EB) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 6% $0
12 Seal Beach Blvd/St Andrews Dr Y Y Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Improve signal timing.

Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System. Modify existing access curb ramp. $117,700 $17,655 $40,607 $175,962 6% $10,558
13 Seal Beach Blvd/Westminster Blvd Y Y Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install Leading pedestrian Interval System. Install bicycle video detection system, EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System. Reconstruct both raised median on the South of Westminster on Seal Beach Blvd. Relocate existing OCTA bus stop at NEC on NB Seal Beach Blvd to 220' north of ECR.
$993,897 $149,085 $342,894 $1,485,876 5% $74,294
14 Seal Beach Blvd/Road C Y Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install bicycle video detection system, EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System.
$123,367 $18,505 $42,562 $184,434 6% $11,066
15 Seal Beach Blvd/Apollo Dr Y Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install bicycle video detection system, EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System.
$123,367 $18,505 $42,562 $184,434 6% $11,066
16 Seal Beach Blvd/Adolfo Lopez Dr Y Y Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Improve signal timing.

Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install Leading pedestrian Interval System. Install bicycle video detection system, EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System. Modify existing access curb ramp. $121,319 $18,198 $41,855 $181,371 7% $12,696
17 Seal Beach Blvd/Heron Point $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7% $018 Seal Beach Blvd/Bolsa Ave Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Upgrade pole equipment. Improve signal timing. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install no right‐turn‐on‐red‐restriction from Bolsa Ave on WBR movement.
$287,000 $43,050 $99,015 $429,065 11% $47,197
19 Seal Beach Blvd/Marlin Ave $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7% $020 Seal Beach Blvd/Pacific Coast Hwy 1 1 2 $150,000 $480,000 $0 $160,000 $790,000 Signal modification to Install Eastbound and Westbound protected left‐turn signal heads and implement protected left‐turn phasing for the Eastbound and Westbound movements. Improve signal timing. Restripe EB approach to add a second Eastbound left‐turn lane. This may require the conversion of the right‐turn lane into a thru‐right lane due to limited right‐of‐way. Restripe EB on the East of PCH.
$790,000 $118,500 $272,550 $1,181,050 50% $590,525
21 Old Ranch Plaza/Lampson Ave 1 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Signal modification to install updated pole standards, safety lighting and equipment. Install Curb Ramp. $150,000 $22,500 $51,750 $224,250 7% $15,698 22 Basswood St/Lampson Ave 1 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Signal modification to install updated pole standards and equipment. $150,000 $22,500 $51,750 $224,250 6% $13,45523 Candleberry Ave/Lampson Ave 1 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Signal modification to install updated pole standards and equipment. $150,000 $22,500 $51,750 $224,250 6% $13,45524 Heather St/Lampson Ave 1 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Signal modification to install updated pole standards and equipment. $150,000 $22,500 $51,750 $224,250 6% $13,45525 Rose St/Lampson Ave 1 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Signal modification to install updated pole standards and equipment. $150,000 $22,500 $51,750 $224,250 6% $13,45526 Tulip St/Lampson Ave Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install no right‐turn‐on‐red‐restriction on NBR movement. Install protected phasing on N/S movements. $93,000 $13,950 $32,085 $139,035 7% $9,732 27 Apollo Dr/Westminster Blvd $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6% $028 Kitts Hwy/Westminster Blvd Y Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install Leading pedestrian Interval System. Install bicycle video detection system, EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System. Replace existing advanced warning flashing beacons at ~2000' East of Kitts Hwy on WB Westminster Ave's North shoulder.
$212,201 $31,830 $73,209 $317,240 7% $22,207
* Existing deficiency, improvement cost estimate includes a fair‐share % 9% $1,074,788 Fair Share %
Upgrade pole equipment and APS ped push button. Upgrade signing and striping at the intersection. Install Leading pedestrian Interval System. Install bicycle video detection system, EVP, and Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection System.

Total after Fair
Signal Mod Share%
Left‐turn
Lane
Right‐turn
Lane Re‐striping
Construction
SUB‐TOTAL Subtotal
Summary of Improvements
Sub Total with SAP, LRSP & Traffic Study
Intersection Based Improvements
Itemized Improvements From SAP & LRSP Traffic Study Based Improvements Traffic Study Based Cost Signing &
Striping
New ITS
Equipment
Signal & Ped
Equipment
Roadway
Features
YYY
1 Seal Beach Traffic Impact Fee
Nexus Study
January 23, 2026
© 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com 2 Agenda
• About Iteris
• Development Impact Fee Overview
• Traffic Impact Fee Methodology
• Travel Operations Analysis
• Improvements Project Cost
• Traffic Impact Fee
© 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com 3 4
What Are Development Impact fees?
• One-time fee are paid by new development to fund the public infrastructure needs of new residents and workers
• Fees CAN fund:
‒ New public infrastructure and facility projects that serve growth ‒ Remodel/improve existing public infrastructure to expand capacity • Fees CANNOT fund:
‒ Fixing a deficiency in level of service to existing residents ‒ Personnel costs (e.g., salaries, benefits)
• Differ from user fees or permit fees, which are limited to covering the cost of a specific service or regulatory function
• The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) establishes procedural and substantive requirements for fee adoption.
• Codified in SBMC Chapter 4.10 (Transportation Impact Development Fee) © 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com 5 How the Traffic Impact Fees are calculated?
© 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com Cost of Transportation
Improvements
Attributable to Growth
Projected New Daily
Trips forecasted
Under Buildout
conditions
Fee Per
Daily
Trip
Avg Daily
Trips per
SingleFamily
Avg Daily
Trips per
Multifamily
Fee Per
Single-Family
Sq. Ft.

Fee Per
Multifamily
Sq. Ft.

Avg Daily Trips
per
Other land use
Fee Per
land use
Sq. Ft.
6 Intersection Analysis
• Collected traffic volumes for 23 study
intersections
• Projected volume increase due to anticipated
development in the City based on recently
adopted Housing Element.
‒ 7,065 new daily trips forecasted
• Analyzed impacts at each intersection and
needed improvements
© 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com 7 Traffic Improvement List
(capital improvement)
• Includes improvements from City’s Local Road
Safety Plan and Safety Action Plan
• Improvements include:
‒ New lane configuration
‒ New Pole standards and equipment
‒ Modified phasing and signal timing
‒ New Striping
‒ Audible Pedestrian System
• Fair Share % is implied to all improvements
ranging from 6% to 20% based on increase in
traffic volumes from new development.
© 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com 8 Total Transportation
Improvement Costs
© 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com 9 Final Fee Schedule
• Retail/Shopping Center: $16.36 per square foot
• General Office Building: $3.26 per square foot
• Restaurant: $25.18 per square foot
• Hotel: $2,400 per room
• Single-family Residential: $1.61 per livable square foot • Multi-family Residential: $1.58 per livable square foot • Other Land Use Types: $300.39 per daily trip generated, utilizing trip rates from the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation manual © 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com 10 Thank you.
© 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com Joshua McNeill
Principal Engineer
[email protected]
11 Anticipated Growth
Housing Type Number of Units
Housing Units
Existing Inventory1
14,512
RHNA Allocations2
1,243
Anticipated Housing Inventory 15,755
Percent Change 9%
[1] Existing housing inventory based on 2021 housing unit estimates from the California DOF.
[2] Buildout housing inventory based on the City of Seal Beach 6th Cycle Housing Element 2021 - 2029.

Source: City of Seal Beach; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) provides
the legal foundation, codified in California
Government Code Section 66000, which
establishes procedural and substantive
requirements for fee adoption.
© 2026 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved. www.iteris.com Agenda Item L

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 23, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
FROM: Shaun Temple, Interim Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal Request of the Planning Commission Approval for an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Minor Use Permit 22-03 to allow the Installation and Operation of a 1.5 Megawatt Fixed-Tilt Ground Mounted Solar
Photovoltaic System at the existing Hellman Ranch Oil
and Gas Production Facility
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:

That the City Council:

1. Hold a de novo public hearing, allow public testimony, and at the conclusion of the hearing, consider all testimony, comments and evidence; and,

2. Adopt Resolution 7736 Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission Decision, Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and Approving Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03, limited to the scope as presented in the Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026, and Subject to Conditions of Approval, to Allow the Installation and Operation of a 1.5 Megawatt (MW) Fixed-Tilt Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System at the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF) (SCH #2025080495) (the Project); and,

3. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

On September 29, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and proposed Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03, to allow the installation and operation of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF). Oil production activities have been taking place on the subject property since the 1920s and the site is zoned Oil

Page 2 ends

Extraction (OE). After presentation of the staff report, submission of public testimony and deliberation by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 25-6, adopting the IS/MND including MMRP, by a vote of two in favor and one in opposition. Chair Wheeler was absent, and the District 3 Planning Commissioner position was vacant. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution 25-07, approving MUP 22-03 subject to conditions, by the same vote of two in favor and one in opposition.

The Project
The proposed PV system would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities’ operations. While any excess power will be exported to the utility grid, the purpose of the system is primarily only for the operations at Hellman OGPF. Currently, the electrical power used for the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Facility, and the other associated facilities, such as the offsite gas plant, production wells, pump stations, etc., are provided by an onsite gas turbine generator and Southern California Edison via a direct connection with their electrical grid system. Use of solar power to provide electrical power for the facilities’ operations would serve to reduce overall air emissions associated with electrical power generation and reduce the overall operating cost of the Hellman facilities.

The system would be composed of three (3) arrays with a total of 56 solar table structures supported by piles with concrete foundations. The major components of the solar system would include solar panels and support structures, collector cables, inverters, and subpanels, power cables, transformers, and disconnect switches. All but one of the solar tables would be about 96.8 feet long by about

14.3 feet wide and would contain two (2) rows of 28 solar panels. One of the solar tables in Array 1 would be about 34.6 feet long by about 14.3 feet wide and contain two (2) rows of 10 solar panels. The solar tables would be tilted facing south at about a 10-degree angle. The front edge of the tables would be at a height of approximately 18 inches, with the back edge of the tables being at a height of about 50 inches.

As a minor utility, the proposed project requires a Minor Use Permit (MUP) in the OE zone. As a MUP requires discretionary approval by the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, and as the site is located near the sensitive habitat of the Cerritos Wetlands, and given the history of tribal artifacts being found in the vicinity, the City determined that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is the appropriate environmental compliance document for the proposed Project. The IS/MND included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which includes proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Those mitigation measures include: that the solar panels will be constructed of dark-colored materials and covered with an anti-reflective coating to reduce glare and a potential “lake effect”; that construction shall occur outside of bird nesting season and pre-construction surveys will be done for burrowing owl and southern tarplant and Coulters goldfields; that a Native American monitor shall be allowed on-site during all ground disturbance activities;

Page 3 ends

that an Interim Soil Stabilization plan shall be developed to prevent soil erosion subsequent to the construction; and that the applicant shall maintain a minimum of 30 feet from City waterlines for all project components.

The proposed IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment from July 24, 2025, through September 19, 2025.

On August 20, 2025, the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) held a public meeting to discuss the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission. All comments received during the public review period were provided to the EQCB.

Following staff presentation as well as questions to staff, the environmental consultant, the applicant, and the solar contractor, the EQCB agreed on four (4) recommendations to the Planning Commission:

1. That the solar operations be tied to the operations of the facility, so that once the operations of the facility cease, the solar equipment must also be removed.

2. That for the areas in which holes would be dug to install the support structure (piles set in concrete), that soil testing be done at the equivalent depth in which the holes will be dug to analyze any indicators of element of soil that may not be compatible with top soil, as the dug soil will be redistributed in the site area. A report of that analysis must be submitted to the City for approval prior to the redistribution of the soil.

3. That for the first year of operation, any impacts related to bird accidents and fatalities related to solar operations will be documented and that a report be submitted to the City so that further mitigation measures can be put in place if necessary.

4. That a conservation easement be put in place to protect tarplants in perpetuity.

Regarding recommendation 4 (tarplants) it was pointed out to the EQCB that Mitigation Measure Bio-5 already satisfied this requirement. Additionally, the EQCB raised concerns about how this mitigation would be enforced if this property is sold in the future. In response to this question, it was noted that the Coastal Development Permit authorizing the operations of the facility states that the land is deed restricted and must be sold for wetlands use once oil operations cease.

The EQCB concluded that this information satisfied the Board’s concerns for both recommendation 4 and for recommendation 1 (regarding the solar operations ceasing with the oil operations). Recommendations 2 and 3 have been added to the condition of approval in Planning Commission Resolution 25-07.

The full EQCB meeting can be viewed at:
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-MeetingVideos/Council-Commission-Meetings dated August 20, 2025.

All comments received by the City during the public review period were provided to the Planning Commission as part of its packet, along with all recommendations

Page 4 ends

made by the EQCB. During the Planning Commission public hearing, oral comments were presented to the Planning Commission, including comments by a representative of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust that supplemented a letter from their attorney, Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP in response to the IS/MND. As part of the public hearing before the Planning Commission, the Project’s environmental consultant, MRS Environmental, submitted and read into the record a response letter to the comments from Cerritos Wetlands Land Use including their request that the City prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project.

A copy of the MRS response letter is attached to this Staff Report (Attachment E).

As outlined above, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 25-06, adopting the IS/MND, including the MMRP, and approved Resolution 25-07, approving the Project. During the Planning Commission’s deliberation on the proposed IS/MND with MMRP, and the MUP 22-03, the Commissioners stated that they had reviewed the IS/MND as well as the EQCB meeting proceedings and comments. In their review of the IS/MND, the Commissioners voting in favor of approving the IS/MND stated that the IS/MND was thorough in its disclosure and appeared to sufficiently address all concerns that had been brought forth by the public at the hearing and was sufficient to mitigate impacts to less than significant. The Commissioners also stated that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) includes Mitigation Measures that address the concerns raised about birds, by not allowing construction activity during nesting season, the glare analysis sufficiently analyzes glare impacts so as to determine that the placement and coating of the panels would not have a significant impact, and surveys and replacement ratios would mitigate impacted plant species. During the Planning Commission discussion, a commissioner also raised a follow up question on the soil testing request by EQCB in which the environmental consultant clarified is to test for hydrocarbons, as there were sumps in the wetlands for previous oil extraction activities. Based on that comment, as part of the Planning Commission’s decision approving MUP 22-03 for the Project, the Commission modified the Conditions of Approval to state that soil testing shall be performed at pile depth and shall be assessed for hydrocarbons and be appropriately removed from site based on contamination level.

The full Planning Commission hearing can be viewed at:
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-MeetingVideos/Council-Commission-Meetings dated September 29, 2025.

The Appeal
On October 8, 2025, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (Appellant) filed an appeal (Appeal) of the Planning Commission’s decisions approving the Mitigated Declaration and MUP 22-03. The grounds for the Appeal are set out in the Appellant’s Appeal Application to City Council, received October 8, 2025, which is included with this staff report. Appellant requests that the City Council grant their Appeal and require that the City prepare an EIR to further analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before approving the Project. 23

Page 5 ends

Pursuant to Section 1.20.010 of the Municipal Code, appeals of Planning Commission decisions to the City Council are heard de novo. This means that the City Council must independently hear and consider the evidence in a new hearing and apply the same decision-making criteria that the Planning Commission used when deciding whether to approve MUP 18-8.

In order to approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Planning Commission was required to make certain findings in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Reg. 15000 et seq.) (CEQA Guidelines). These findings include that there is no substantial evidence the Project will have a significant environmental effect, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis, supported by an Initial Study that shows potential significant effects have been reduced to a lessthan-significant level through mitigation measures. These same findings, which are set forth in the proposed Resolution 7736 (Attachment A), must be made by the City Council on this appeal.

In order to approve the Minor Use Permit (MUP), the Planning Commission was required to make certain findings with regard to the proposed Project, as required by Municipal Code Section 11.5.20.020.A. The required findings generally include determining that (1) the proposal is consistent with the General Plan; (2) the proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone with use permit approval and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code; (3) the site is physically adequate for type, density and the proposed use including provision of services and the absence of physical constraints; (4) the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood; and (5) the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use at that location will not be detrimental to health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity.

These same findings must be made by the City Council on this appeal.

For the reasons stated below, and in the proposed resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s actions, adopting the IS/MND, and approving the Project, staff recommends that the required findings may be made in this case for each action, and that the Planning Commission did so in its action adopting the IS/MND and approving the Project. As such, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal with respect to both the IS/MND and MUP 22-03.

First Council Hearing
On December 9, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal. The appellant and residents from Seal Beach and surrounding communities testified and requested that an EIR be completed by the City before a decision was made by Council. Two residents of Heron Pointe testified that they had recently become aware of the project and requested more time to review the environmental document and asked if the project could be scaled back in size. The City Council

Page 6 ends

continued the hearing to February 9, 2026 to provide additional review time by the public, and asked the applicant if they could evaluate the project to see if the scope could be reduced to be less impactful to the residents at Heron Pointe.

Updates Following First Council Hearing
Subsequent to the December 9, 2025 Council Meeting, on February 2, 2026, the applicant submitted a new scope of work to remove approximately one-third of the solar tables by removing the array of solar tables located on the eastern side of the project site, closest to the area of natural vegetation and the residences at Heron Pointe (Attachment K).

Documents for Council Consideration
Included with this Staff Report are Attachment A, proposed Resolution for Council review and consideration, along with the Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 25-06 and 25-07, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Vicinity Map, Aerial Map, October 8, 2025 Appeal, Response Letter from MRS Environmental, Project Plans, and September 19, 2025 – Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Response to IS/MND submitted on behalf of Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust. As noted above, the EQCB and The Planning Commission proceedings are available online on the City’s website.

Conclusion
This Project has been analyzed pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

With the analysis set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the mitigation measures from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program incorporated into the Project, all potential impacts have been reduced to a level of less than significant. The IS/MND and related MMRP fully and substantially comply with all requirements under CEQA. Further, the Project satisfies all requirements for approval of MUP 22-03.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The application is considered a project pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and the State’s CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. (collectively “CEQA”). An Initial Study was prepared, and based on its findings, staff recommended adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to Section 21080(c) of the Public Resources Code and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section

11.5.35.010.L.

The proposed IS/MND including MMRP was circulated for public review and comment from July 24, 2025, through September 19, 2025. All comments received were included in the information provided to both the EQCB and Planning Commission and are provided with this staff report.

Page 7 ends

Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 25-06, approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the Project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Planning Commission Resolution 25-06 are attached to this staff report and can also be found at:
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/PlanningDevelopment/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review LEGAL ANALYSIS:

The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact for this item.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Hold a de novo public hearing, allow public testimony, and at the conclusion of the hearing, consider all testimony, comments and evidence; and,

2. Adopt Resolution 7736 Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission Decision, Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and Approving Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03, limited to the scope as presented in the Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026, and, and Subject to Conditions of Approval to Allow the Installation and Operation of a 1.5 Megawatt (MW) Fixed-Tilt Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System at the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF) (SCH #2025080495) (the Project); and,

3. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:

Shaun Temple Patrick Gallegos
Shaun Temple, Interim
Community Development
Director
Patrick Gallegos, City Manager

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 7736
B. Vicinity Map
C. Aerial Map
D. October 8, 2025, Appeal
E. Response Letter from MRS Environmental
F. Project Plans
G. PC Resolution 25-06 Adopting Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
H. PC Resolution 25-07 Approving Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03 I. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
J. September 19, 2025 – Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Response to IS/MND
K. Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026
1 RESOLUTION 7736

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING

THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF MINOR USE
PERMIT 22-03, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION, ADOPTING THE

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING
MINOR USE PERMIT 22-03 FOR A 1.5
MEGAWATT (MW) FIXED-TILT GROUNDMOUNTED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM AT

THE HELLMAN RANCH OIL AND GAS

PRODUCTION FACILITY
NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows:

Section 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND.

A. Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF) submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for Minor Use Permit (MUP 22-03) to allow the installation and operation of a 1.5 MW fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system (Project) at the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF.

B. The application is considered a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.

An Initial Study was prepared, and based on its findings, the City has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental compliance document.

C. The proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), was circulated for public review and comment from July 24, 2025 through September 19, 2025.

D. On August 20, 2025, the City’s Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) held a duly noticed public meeting to review and comment on the proposed Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project and the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), 2 and provided recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding solar operations, soil testing, monitoring bird impacts, and protection of southern tarplants. All public comments presented to the City during the public review period were submitted to the EQCB for their consideration. The EQCB provided comments to be forwarded to the Planning Commission as part of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the IS/MND and MUP 22-03.

E. On September 29, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval of Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03 and adoption of the IS/MND pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Following public testimony, review of the IS/MND, and consideration of EQCB
recommendations, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-06, adopting the IS/MND including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopted Resolution No. 25-07 approving MUP 22-03 for the installation and operation of a 1.5 MW fixed-tilt ground-mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility located within the Oil Extraction (OE) zoning district.

F. On October 8, 2025, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval, asserting that the IS/MND inadequately analyzed biological resources, wetlands, hydrology, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources, and asserting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required.

G. Written responses were prepared on behalf of the City addressing each issue raised in the appeal, including technical review of biological surveys, updated glare modeling, hydrology and flooding analysis, wetlands delineation criteria, CEQA legal standards, and tribal cultural resource processes.

H. On December 8, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, reviewed the accompanying Staff Report, the IS/MND, the Planning Commission record, the appeal letter, the applicant’s response materials, public testimony, and all other documents and evidence submitted in the record, and continued the item to February 9, 2026.

I. On February 2, 2026, The Applicant submitted to Staff an updated project scope (Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026) showing the removal of the eastern most array of solar tables, the array closest to natural vegetation and the residences at Heron Pointe.
3 J. On February 9, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, reviewed the accompanying Staff Report, the IS/MND, the Planning Commission record, the appeal letter, the applicant’s response materials, public testimony, and all other documents and evidence submitted in the record.

Section 2. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach does hereby find, determine and declare as follows:

A. The Initial Study identifies potential impacts associated with biological resources, hydrology and flooding, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources, all of which are reduced to less than significant through adopted mitigation measures.

B. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), were circulated for public review as required by CEQA Guidelines 15073, and written comments were received by the City.

C. Biological surveys used in the IS/MND remain valid and consistent with CEQA standards; no substantial evidence demonstrates that the project would result in significant unmitigated impacts to sensitive species or habitat.

D. Hydrology and flooding analysis demonstrates the site is suitable for the proposed improvements and is not reliant on unapproved offsite infrastructure for mitigation.

E. Updated glare modeling, including observer elevations reflecting the future berm trail, demonstrates no significant glare impacts to recreational users, bicyclists, tribal gathering areas, birds, or visual receptors.

F. Consultation with Tribal representatives pursuant to AB 52 occurred, and the monitoring of ground disturbance activities by a tribal representative will sufficiently mitigate impacts on cultural tribal resources.

G. No significant new information has been added to the IS/MND and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation of the IS/MND under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5.

H. The proposed IS/MND was reviewed by the EQCB in accordance with the City of Seal Beach Environmental Guidelines, and the EQCB comments were forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review prior to the Planning Commission’s action on the IS/MND and Project.
4 I. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and considered public testimony, and thereafter, exercising its independent judgment, adopted the IS/MND on the basis that all potential significant impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.

J. The City Council has reviewed and considered the IS/MND, all comments from the EQCB, Planning Commission and public, and has found that the IS/MND, including MMRP, is complete, adequate, and complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Seal Beach Environmental Guidelines.

K. The IS/MND, including MMRP, reflects the independent judgement of the City of Seal Beach.

L. Substantial evidence does not support a fair argument that the Project may cause a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an EIR is not required.

Section 3. FINDINGS TO DENY THE APPEAL. Based on the record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing and the prior hearing before the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in denying the appeal and adopting the IS/MND and approving MUP 22-03:

A. The Project complies with all applicable zoning and General Plan requirements for the Oil Extraction (OE) district.

B. The appellant did not demonstrate that the IS/MND fails to comply with CEQA.

C. The appeal relies on speculation, generalized assertions, and incomplete evidence, rather than substantial evidence required under CEQA to invalidate an IS/MND.

D. The IS/MND adequately analyzed biological resources, wetlands, hydrology, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources with appropriate technical studies and peer review.

E. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) establishes mitigation measures that address nesting birds, sensitive plants, cultural monitoring, soil stabilization, glare reduction, and tribal coordination and will ensure potential impacts will remain less than significant.

F. The Project will provide renewable energy benefits, reduce air emissions, support facility operations, and is consistent with State and local sustainability goals.
5 G. The Planning Commission acted properly and within its discretion in adopting the IS/MND and approving MUP 22-03.

Section 4. DECISION. Based upon the foregoing findings and all other evidence in the record, the City Council hereby:

A. Denies the Appeal filed by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust.

B. Adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

C. Approves MUP 22-03, limited to the scope as presented in the Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026, and subject to the conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-07, which are incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of February 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members: _________________________________________ NOES: Council Members: _________________________________________ ABSENT: Council Members: _________________________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Members: _________________________________________ _____________________________
Lisa Landau, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7736 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a meeting held on the 23rd day of February 2026.
________________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
VICINITY MAP:

AERIAL MAP:

APPEAL APPLICATION

TO CITY COUNCIL
For Office Use Only

RECEIVED
OCT 08 (1)(5
CITY ClL-\l,
CITY OF SEAL Bf.ACH
Planning Commission Date: ~ -2.'1-2 5 Planning Comm. Resolution No.: '2-'5-\)~ Planning Commission Action: Approval { Denial Other
Date Appeal Filed: \0 -~ 7.-5 City Council Date:

Notice Date:

City Council Action: Resolution No.:

1. Property Address: ] l I F7 R 5 1 s 1.

2. Applicant's Name: LtJ5 CM<R[JDS [,VElMA/,£)5 LA)!,}) 1U?U51 Address: 4100 G. 6.J..b 51'.,L(/;.!f.-!3GACf!, CA 9o?f1 Cf / j r'" Work Phone: ( ) Mobilel''h 3 5""7- 85 76
Home Phone: ( ) FAX: ( )--,,..,.-__ +-.,-------,-_
Email Address:---.e~iL:Z.-.-~_._b_e.=_t._.h_._l:::: ............. .-.=--.-...!..!...I.-...-.<.i.!..!(.----.L..L..!..:.--...-!.__+_:f_=.<I-.--=-:.:.=...-C"~YI1G1II .c o~

3. P rope rty Owner's Name: =~ <...:O"-}J~'):....:;._"J A~+-:+..L..!oo-""L=Lt'1'-::'-'-f'.-}.;----'...!.({-'-"-'-P--"-r_:_l"'-'f:=-'S=_:_:L7__"L:........c.. ( Address: 7l I £11< 5 1 5 1. , £AL- 8fACIt CA q 07 Y () ) ) Home Phone: ( ) ___________________ _

4. The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach Planning Commission concerning Public Hearing No. ,;25""- 0 6 .

Attach a statement that explains in detail why the decision of the Planning Commission is being appealed, the specific conditions of approval being appealed, and include your statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in error or must provide extenuating circumstances that the appellant contends would justify reversal or ~Orp;cision. (Municipal Code §1 .20.005.D. Appeal Contents) (OS C.c~S.)Tp Wt1LAA}02 I.ANSJ-<~1)')1-=, ,-----_----:-:::---:--____ _ (Signature of Applicant) (Signature of Owner) tLlZA8G7ft L/l118&
(Print Name) (Print Name)
(Date) t I (Date)
01/2013
Attach a statement that explains in detail why the Planning Commission decision is being appealed, the specific condition of approval being appealed, and include in your statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in error or must provide extenuating circumstances that the appellant contends would justify reversal or modification of the decision.

The Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust appeals the decision of the Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending approval of the proposed Hellman Solar Project, and its Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the following reasons.

Siting the 1.5-megawatt Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project within the Los Cerritos Wetlands will have significant adverse impacts on on-site biological resources and the broader wetland complex.

The Project 's construction and operation could harm important biological resources, be affected by flooding, and cause unstudied and unmitigated impacts from glint and glare. For example, the MND fails to account for the Least Bell's Vireo populations observed nearby and for the wetland indicators present during recent rainy seasons. Both the Project site and surrounding lands contain sensitive habitats hosting special-status species. These species include, but are not limited to, southern tarplant, Least Bell's Vireo, Belding's Savannah Sparrow, and the Western Burrowing Owl. The project's potential impacts on these birds and rare plant species have not been adequately evaluated or sufficiently mitigated. Furthermore, MND's biological resources surveys are outdated, as explained in our comments on the MND, Attachment A. Importantly, the Least Bell's Vireo, listed as endangered under the U.S. and California Endangered Species Acts, is a migratory species whose population and nesting locations fluctuate annually. The MND must include the results of the 2025 breeding season surveys. It does not. An EIR should include this missing information.

During the record rainy seasons of the winters of 2022-23 and 2023-24, many depressional wetlands across the Los Cerritos Wetlands held water for upwards of six months, allowing wetland indicators to emerge. Due to insufficient surveying, the project site contains wetlands that were not disclosed in the MND. Accordingly, any Project impacts on these wetlands are not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated by the MND.

The MND also relies on an unbuilt berm to reduce the risk of flooding. It omits discussion of panel glint and glare that could blind or otherwise disrupt bikers and other recreational users of the Hellman Ranch and San Gabriel River Bike Trails.

The project's cultural resources assessment fails to recognize the Traditional Cultural Landscape that has been identified for this area in previously approved environmental documents, and the Project's significant impacts on that recognized Landscape When a project could have a significant impact on the environment, it requires the preparation and certification of an EIR, not an MND. One of the initial steps in the process mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act is to assess whether the project might significantly affect the environment. Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law. As the MND fails to address all potential Project impacts, and as there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant and adverse environmental impacts, an EIR is required.

We urge the City to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to thoroughly analyze and mitigate the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts before approving the Project.

Attachments:

A. Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust Comments on MND, submitted September 19, 2025 Main Office Phone:
310 - 798-2400
Direc! Dial:
310-798-2412
Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
700 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Michelle N. Black
Email Address: mob@cbcearthlaw com
September 19, 2025
Via Email [email protected]
Mr. Shaun Temple
Planning Manager
City of Seal Beach
Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Re: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Dear Mr. Temple,
www.cbcearthlaw com
Los CelTitos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT) has advocated for the protection and restoration of Los Cerritos Wetlands for over twenty years. It is in this spirit that LCWLT submits these comments on the Hellman Solar PV Elecuical System Project (Project).

Although LCWLT SUppOltS the use of renewable solar energy where it is appropliate and environmentally friendly, LCWLT is concerned that siting the l.5- megawatt Helbnan Solar PY Elecu'ical System Project within Los CelTitos Wetlands will adversely impact the wetland complex. The Project would consu'uct 3 arrays with 56 solar table sU'uctures and 3, 100 solar panels on 4.66 acres sU11'ounded by Los CelTitos Wetlands and adjacent to the Hellman Ranch Trail. (MND p. 6.) The system would City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 2 ends

require concrete foundations and 388 concrete piers, 18 inches in diameter, driven 6 feet into the ground, for support. (MND p. 7.) Collector cables, inverters, subpanels, power cables, transf01mers, and disconnect switches would also be required, with the transfOImer pad being 12 feet in width and 33 feet in length. (MND p. 8.) The Project would require excavating 600 feet of underground trench, with an expected construction time of three to foID' months. (MND p. 9.) This will require significant disruption of a sensitive location.

Consuuction would require "removal of the vegetative cover" and all organic matter "from the limits of the construction area." (MND p. 12.) After any grading, the 388 piles would be driven 6 feet underground. Given the location of the Project within Los CeITitos Wetlands, however, groundwater can be expected at depths of four to seven feet below ground surface. (MND p. 12.) The Project's anticipated lifetime is 25 to 30 years.

LCWLT is concerned the Project construction and operation will harm imp0I1ant biological reSOlU'ces, be subject to flooding, and have unstudied and umnitigated glint and glare impacts. Specifically, the MND fails to account for Least Bell's Vireo populations obselved nearby and for wetland indicators present over recent rainy seasons. The MND also relies on an unconsu'ucted benn to reduce the likelihood of flooding. It omits discussion of panel glint and glare that may blind or otherwise disrupt bikers and other recreational users of the Hellman Ranch and San Gabriel River Bike Trails. The MND further fails to analyze the site as a u'ibal cultural landscape recognized by the California Coastal Commission and other public agencies. Accordingly, LCWLT urges the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) to fiuiher analyze and mitigate the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts if it wishes to approve the Project.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves two basic, inteITelated functions: ensming environmental protection and encomaging governmental u·ansparency. (Citizens o/Goleta Valley" Bd. o/Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) CEQ A requires full discloslU'e of a project's significant environmental effects so that decision-makers and the public are infOImed of these consequences before the project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n o/San Francisco v. Regents o/the University o/California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) When substantial evidence SUpp0I1S a fair argument that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, an environmental impact rep0I1 is required.

City of Seal Beach
Hellman SolID' PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 3 ends

A lead agency prepares an initial study to detelmine whether an EIR, a negative declaration, or an MND is the appropliate environmental review document. (14 CCR § 15365, herein "CEQA Guidelines.") "All phases of project plarming, implementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study." (CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(a)(I).) The initial study must consider whether any aspect of a project, either individually or cwnulatively, may cause a significant adverse impact. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(b)(1).) The pmpose of the initial study is to provide the lead agency with adequate infOlmation regarding a project to detelmine the appropriate environmental review document and "docwnentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." (Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation ~ County 0/ EI Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue" City 0/ Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1201 .) "Where an agency . . . fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate." (EI Dorado County Taxpayers/or Quality Growth" County 0/ EI Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591, 1597, citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to SUpp0l1 conclusions reached in the initial study is a failme to comply with the law.

When a project may have a significant impact on the environment, it necessitates the preparation and certification of an EIR, not an MND. One of the first steps in the process required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is to detelmine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. "[S]ince the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, accomplishment of the high objectives of that act requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact." (No Oil, Inc. ~ City o/Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under the CEQA Guidelines, '''Substantial evidence' means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argwnent can be made to supp0I1 a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." (Guidelines § 15384(a), emphasis added; League for Protection o/Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City o/Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 905 .) The fair argwnent standard is a "low threshold" test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 84.) Review is de novo, with a "preference for resolving doubts in favor of envil'Onmental review. "(Architectural Heritage Assn. " County o/Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, lllO; Quail Botanical Gardens City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19,2025

Page 4 ends

Foundation, Inc. v. City a/Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602-1603.) As discussed further below, as the MND fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Project's potential environmental effects, and as there is substantial evidence of a fair argument the Project may have significant impacts on biological resomces, hydrology, glint and glare, and llibal cultural resources, an EIR is required.

I. The Project May Have Significant Impacts on Biological Resources.

The Project site consists of 4.66 acres in the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, east of the San Gabriel River and north of Pacific Coast Highway.

The Project site is within and sUITounded by Los CeITitos Wetlands. The solar facility would be consllucted immediately nOlih of 100 acres owned by the Los CeITitos Wetlands Authority, east of an additional 71 acres of wetlands owned by the Authority, south of 43 acres zoned open space-natmal that serve as a County of Orange retention basin, and west of the Hellman Ranch Trail. (MND p. 2.) Both the Project site and SUITounding lands contain sensitive habitats hosting special-status species. These species include, but are not limited to, southem tarplant, Least Bell's Vireo, Belding's Savannah SpaITow, and the Westem BUITowing Owl. The Project's potential impacts on these birds and on rare plant species must be thoroughly evaluated and carefully mitigated.

A. The MND's Biological Resources Surveys are Outdated.

According to Table 2-1 oftlle Biological Technical Report, the MND's conclusions about the Project's potential impacts to biological resources were based on:
1) Focused botanical survey were conducted in summer 2022 and winter 2023; 2) Least Bell's Vireo surveys conducted in swnmer 2022; and 3) Jurisdictional waters/wetlands assessment perfOimed between August 2022 and March 2023 .

As each of these investigations occwTed at least 2.5 years ago, they are outdated and City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 5 ends

cannot be relied on to detelmine the Project will not have significant impacts on biological resources.

Southern tarplant, which has a California rare plant rank of IB, was most recently mapped in 2022. Similarly, Coulter's goldfield individuals were mapped in 2023.

However, both rare plants are annual species, meaning the MND's biological resources analysis should be based on the results of surveys from the most recent blooming season.

Least Bell's Vireo, listed as endangered under the U.S. and California Endangered Species Acts, is a migratory species whose population and nesting locations fluctuate annually. The MND must include results 2025 breeding season swveys. It does not. An ElR should include this missing infonnation.

B. The Project Site Contains Wetlands Not Disclosed in the MND.

During the record rainy seasons of the winters of 2022-23 and 2023-24, many depressional wetlands across Los Cenitos Wetlands held water for upwards of 6 months, allowing wetland indicators to present themselves. However, the MND's jurisdictional wetlands assessment includes fow· photos taken in August 2022. The photos predate these record rains and do not accurately capture current site conditions. On the contnuy, aerial imagery from Februaty 2024 indicates substantial ponding and flooding ofthe Project at·ea, which should be analyzed in the Technical RepOIt and MND. Thus, substantial evidence demonstrates the at·ea has recently been wetland, a fact not disclosed in the MND. Any wetlands designations or potential ratnifications of the Project to wetlands or wetland-dependent species must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an ElR.

City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19,2025

Page 6 ends

.. )~ ' .. ;', .' to' ••••• • ~
.' . .', t . ,r. , ' , ' , ' ," . " ~
: .. '.. . ,"(
,.. ' t.O ,' •
. : ..... . " .... ; , , . " '. , , I •
Figure I, Aerial imageryfrom February 202-1 with areas o./jlooded olltlined in red C. Least Bell's Vireo Use the Project Site.

LCWLT has perfOlmed sw'Veys of the Least Bell 's Vireo population in the Heron Pointe Bioswale, nearly adjacent to the Project site, for the last 5 breeding seasons, Individuals of this endangered species have been obsel'Ved nesting, each year, within 100 feet of the project boundmy and have also been obsel'Ved foraging within the m'ea the MND discloses would be subject to permanent Project impact. The MND acknowledges that 96-decibel noise is expected at the Heron Pointe Bioswale, Foraging habitat for Least Bell's Vireo is protected by state and federal law. Impacts to this species could be considered a "take," and wa11'ant a mandatOlY finding of significant impact under CEQA, An EIR must be prepm'ed to thoroughly disclose, analyze, and mitigate impacts to Least Bell's Vireo,
D. An EIR Must Evaluate Fuel Modification and Type Conversion Impacts.

City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19,2025

Page 7 ends

The MND's Biological Technical RepOlt mentions "fuel modification zones" but does not provide any infOimation as to how these areas are permitted, the activities that occur in these zones, or the timing of activities pelfOimed in these zones. If fuel modification occmTed before biological surveys for the MND were conducted, the Project's Biological Technical Report may not reflect the full scope of species or individuals present on the site under "pre-project" conditions. The data collected in the surveys may not be valid. Since the fuel modification zones overlap with the locations of special status plant populations, the fuel modification zones require a coastal development pennit. In order to ensure fuel modification occurs within a comprehensive plan, and that all fuel modification impacts are considered cumulatively, we request the incorporation of a mitigation measure requiring preparation of a pennitted plan that covers all fuel modification practices throughout the propelty.

Table 3-5 of the IS/MND includes a sensitive vegetation type called "Distichlis spicata - annual grasses" that comprises 1.66 acres of the total project impact area. This vegetation type overlaps with fuel modification areas. However, removal of vegetation in the area where tills vegetation type is found could result in a level of disturbance that promotes invasion of annual grasses. This "type conversion" is a significant impact on biological resources that is not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated in the MND.

Fmthennore, aerial imagery analysis indicates that most of this vegetation type (Distichlis spicata - annual grasses) has been disturbed by mowing as recently as September 2025. Heavy mowing can degrade sensitive native plant communities and alter vegetation alliances. Mowing of Distichlis spicata should require a coastal development pelmit. Additionally, this mowing nullifies the fmdings of the 2022 botanical surveys performed for this Project's Biological Technical Report. We request the City require pre-construction smveys of site vegetation after the passage of 2 blooming seasons, without mowing intelference, within the study area.

City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 8 ends

Figure 2. Aerial imageryfrom September 2025 indicating recent mowing of the Distichlis spicata - annual grasses herbaceous alliance.

E. The Project's Mitigation Measures Fail to Ensure Project Impacts Will Be Reduced Below Significance.

Mitigation Measw'e BIO-2, provides, "To the extent feasible, the project site shall not be graded." This Measure is not enforceable due to the inclusion of the modifier "To the extent feasible ." The Measure does not state the criteria for feasibility or the entity that will decide feasibility. This renders the mitigation speculative. Mitigation measw'es must be concrete and enforceable. (Lincoln Place Tenants Ass 'n" City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 425, 445; Pub. Resources Code § 210S1.6(b).) Mitigation Measure BIO-5, the Southem Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, fails to recognize that the project area has been mowed as recently as September 2025.

F or efficacy, this Mitigation Measure should prohibit impacts to the existing plant community until the completion of pre-construction swveys. Due to the potential that both Southem Tarplant and Coulter's Goldfields have been impacted by unauthorized mowing, the replacement mitigation ratio should be changed to 10: 1. Such a ratio wou.ld adequately mitigate for previous, unpelmitted impacts to these special status plant City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 9 ends

species.

The Project should incorporate a mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction jwisdictional wetland assessment be performed during the wet season most proximal to future construction.

The Project should also incorporate a mitigation measure requiring preconstruction surveys for Least Bell's Vireo and consultations with both the Califomia Depru.tment offish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

As Project mitigation fails to eliminate the Project's potential for significant impacts to listed plant and wildlife species, an EIR is required.

II. The Project May Have Significant Undisclosed and Unmitigated Hydrological Impacts.

As depicted above, the Project site has experienced recent ponding. It is sunounded by bodies of water and the Los Cenitos Wetlands complex. Accordingly, accmate analysis of flooding and hydrological impacts is impol1ant. The MND appears to rely on an offsite benn to reduce flood impacts at the Project. Section 3.4.10 of the lSI MND states that an eru.1hen belm proposed by a neighbOling landowner will "fm1her reduce the potential for flooding on-site." (MND p. 51.) However, a Project cannot rely upon mitigation provided by another agency, at another site. When a potentially significant environmental impact cannot be mitigated by the lead agency, it must be assumed to remain significant. Thus, the impact analysis must be pelfOlmed from the perspective that this non-existent belm may never be constructed.

Fw1hennore, the IS/MND apperu.·s to rely on a technical report produced by Moffatt and Nichol in 2019 for a different project previously proposed for the subject propel1y. Aside from the technical report's age and inelevant subject matter, the technical report was not provided as pru.1 of the IS/MND appendix. This renders the IS/MND incomplete. A Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study must be specifically prepared for this project and circulated to the public and decisionmakers as pru.1 of an EIR. CEQA does not tolerate attempts to sweep imp0l1ant public safety issues "under the rug." (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v 32"d Dist. Ag. Ass 'n. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 935.) III. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate Glint and Glare Impacts.

A. The Project May Cause Glare to Recreational Trail Users and the Tribal City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19,2025

Page 10 ends

Gathering Area.

As acknowledged in the MND, the LCWA-owned Southem Los Cenitos Wetlands Restoration Project is located immediately south ofthe Project site. The restoration project - scheduled to begin construction in October 2025 - will contain a 6-foot ealthen pelimeter belm on its northem boundruy. This belm will sepru'ate the Hellman property from the LCWA parcel. As discussed above, the MND assumes implementation of that belm to justify its conclusion that flooding impacts from sea level rise will not occur. (MND p. 51). Accordingly, implementation of said benn - and all its functions - should be incorporated t1u'oughout the analysis, including that of glru·e.

To detelmine potential glru'e impacts, the MND identifies t1u'ee observation points (OP) in the LCWA property, two of which ru'e effectively located on the wetlands-side of the perimeter belm: #28 (33.752156, -1l8.092389) and #29 (33.752155, -1l8.095J05).

Per the glare analysis (MND Appendix D), these OP were set 6 feet off the ground. This is too low. There will be a docent-only access trail located atop the perimeter belm (Southem Los Cenitos Wetlands Restoration Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration p. 24). Albeit restricted use, this trail will periodically contain recreational users who will travel the length of the trail to travel from one side of the restored wetlands to the other.

At + 12 ft. (6 ft. belm and 6 ft. user) the recreational user atop the benn would be taller than the panel ruTays. And as the panels are south-facing (i.e. facing the perimeter trail) and there is not a "ban-ier" obstIUcting views, users would have direct line of site to the panels along the majOlity of this trail. There is a strong potential for glare impacts to users of the perimeter trail, and an analysis of the strength, severity, and duration of these potential impacts must be conducted. These ru'e likely significant glru'e impacts, with significant impacts to recreation. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts.

As the perimeter belm/trail ru'e irregulru'ly shaped, and the selected observation points are located on pOltions of the future trail where the recreational user is walking east/west (pru'allel to the panels), it is recommended that the EIR's glru'e analysis also include OP on tlIe north-south portions of tlIe trail where tlIe user is looking directly at the panels along that trail stretch as tlIey otherwise enjoy their walk of tlIe restored wetlands.

Once the analysis is revised to understand and disclose potential impacts to recreational users of the perimeter trail, tlIese impacts must be fully mitigated. Given the project-specific needs (south facing panels situated to avoid shading), and site constraints City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19,2025

Page 11 ends

(limited space to put the panels given ongoing operations and highly sensitive wetland! habitat areas), detennining feasible mitigation could be a challenge, If the revised glare analysis shows an impact to users of the perimeter trail, and this impact cannot be fully mitigated, the EIR must disclose this information to the public, Moreover, the Project should not move fOIward, The City of Seal Beach is on the cusp of having a restored wetlands right in their backyard, We would hope Seal Beach would prioritize protecting this impOItant amenity and its recreational users,
Additionally, the Southem Los Cel1'itos Wetlands Restoration Project will include two public outlooks and one tribal gathering area on its southem boundaJ.y. The outlooks and gatheling aJ.'ea will be higher in elevation than smTounding lands and aJ.'e oriented so that public and tribal entities will look down and across the restored wetlands (i.e, facing the solaJ.' panels), As these outlooks and tribal gathering area will be set at a higher elevation than the belm, they will likely have line of sight to the panels, The EIR's revised glare analysis should analyze potential glaJ.'e impacts to the public and to tribes who will use these outlooks and tribal gathering aJ.'ea, Lastly, MND Table 3 -1 identifies OP 1-8 and OP26 as "no glaJ.'e with existing vegetation screening" whereas the other OPs aJ.'e described as "no glaJ.'e with or without existing vegetation screening," The MND does not explain this discrepancy, The revised analysis should include a "without vegetation" scenaJ.'io for OPl-8 and OP26, B. Project Glint May Blind Bikers on the San Gabriel River Bike Path.

The MND fails to disclose or analyze whether the solaJ.' panels aJ.'e visible to northbound bikers along the adjacent San Gabriel River bike path, The revised analysis must include analysis of glint. Bikers travel at high speed along this path, and a blinding flash from the panels as they whiz by could result in an accident and injmies, C. The MND Fails to Adequately Consider Glint and Glare Impacts on Birds.

As birds fly at vaJ.ying altitudes, the glint and glare of the solaJ.' panels may impact birds, including species of special concem, that fly above or below 6 feet above ground, SolaJ.' aJ.Tays reflect light that, at celtain angles, makes the panels appear to birds as bodies of water. This "lake effect," can injme or kill birds that tIy to land in these nonexistent bodies of water, If affected birds include listed species known to inhabit Los CelTitos Wetlands, including state and federally-listed birds, the Project may "take" birds under the Acts, (Attachment 2, pp, 9-10,) SolaJ.' facilities may also interfere with songbird City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 12 ends

migrations for species relying on polarized light for Olientation. (Attachment 2, p. 10.) A review of studies of solar facilities reported:

By the time a bird may realise the panels are not water, it may be too late for the bird to stop its dive from the sky and flyaway. Birds that collide with the panels are also likely to be disoriented or injured and more vulnerable to predation.

As well as increasing the direct tisk of collision and injuries, diversion off flight paths will increase depletion of energy resetves, potentially stranding animals and leading to mOltality £i'om statvation.

Obstruction from panels and fencing can also hinder birds £i'om taking-off. For exatnple, water-obligate birds that require water for take-off (ensu) - including loons (Gaviiformes), grebes (Podici-pedifonnes), COlmorants (Suliformes), coots (GruifOlmes) and some ducks (Anseriformes; e.g., Ruddy duck Oxyura jatnaicensis) - and those that use water for some aspect of their life histOlY (e.g., fatnily Chat'a- driidae) at'e atnongst the mOltalities at solat· facilities. Stranding of these birds would contribute to the disproportionate number of waterbirds represented atnongst the cases where statvation has been identified as cause of death.
(Attachment 2, p. 10.) While the MND claims impacts from the "lake effect" at'e unlikely due to the Project's small size and the presence of other neat'by water sources (MND p. 32), the MND cites no SUppOlt for this claim. That an impact occurs at lat'ge PV installations does not mean it will not occur at a smaller one. Birds may land at any perceived water bodies in the area, including the Project. Given the presence of wetlands nearby, and the higher prevalence of birds in the at'ea, the Project's location neat· water may exacerbate, not reduce, this potential impact. Fmthermore, the MND does not address potential interference with songbird migration.

An ErR must be prepared to disclose, analyze, and fully mitigate these potentially significant undisclosed impacts on biological resources.

IV. The MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project's Potentially Significant Impacts on Tribal Cultural Landscapes.

The Project's Cultural Resow'ces assessment fails to recognize the Traditional Cultural Landscape that has been identified for this at'ea in previously-approved environmental documents. The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority'S 2021 Program ErR and City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 13 ends

the 2024 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Southem Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project both indicate that consultations with local tribal groups identified a Traditional Cultural Landscape throughout the cmrent extent of the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex. The potential for this Traditional Cultmal Landscape was first described by consultations perfOlmed by Coastal Commission staff regarding the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. The LCWA's 2023 Cultmal Resomces Assessment for the Southem Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Cogstone, 2023) includes an evaluation of what is called the Puvungna Traditional Cultmal Landscape (PTCL). This evaluation determined that "The PTCL meets the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of HistOI;C Places and has sufficient integrity to justify being regarded as eligible for the Register. The area is recommended eligible for the National Register as a Traditional Cultmal Propelty. Since it is recommended for the National Register, it is automatically recommended as eligible for the CRHR. " (Attachment 2.)
The proposed project's assessment of Tlibal Cultmal Resomces makes no mention of the PTCL and therefore does not consider potential impacts or offer mitigation measmes to avoid or minimize any such impacts. Impacts generated by the proposed Project to this Traditional Cultural Landscape would be considered significant and unavoidable based on the LCWA's previous CEQA detelminations in the area.

Conclusion
LCWLT thanks the City for its consideration of these comments and mges it to prepare an environmental impact repOlt before considering this potentially impactful Project fmther.

Sincerely,
Michelle Black
Enclosmes
I. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southem Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, Cogstone (2023).

City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solru.' PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 14 ends

2. P.A. Fleming, All that Glitters: Review of solar energy impacts on fauna, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2025).

Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 1 I.A The MND’s Biological Resources Surveys are Outdated.

The biological resource surveys are not outdated and are adequate for the CEQA review.

Wetland Delineation - In California, an approved wetland delineation, also called a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is valid for five years, provided the site conditions haven't changed. There have been no significant changes to the site area since the delineation.

Focused Botanical and Least Bell Viero Surveys – The purpose of the biological surveys was to determine what species could be present in the project areas so that mitigation measures could be developed as part of the environmental review. The surveys that were conducted were adequate to meet the requirements of CEQA.

The botanical surveys identified several sensitive plant and wildlife species in the project area including the Southern Tar Plant, Coulter’s Goldfield, and the Least Bell’s Vireo. Impacts to these species were found to be potentially significant unless mitigation was applied.

Mitigation included no construction activities during the bird nesting season, and the implementation of a Southern Tar Plant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The mitigation also requires that this plan be expanded to include the Coulter’s Goldfield if this plant was found in the project area as part of required pre-construction surveys. A copy of the Southern Tar Plant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan was included in Appendix F of the IS/MND.

I.B The Project Site Contains Wetlands Not Disclosed in the MND.

According to the Coastal Commission, the presence of any one of three wetland indicators (hydrology, hydrophytes, or hydric soils) qualifies an area as a wetland. These are the criteria that were used in the Wetland Delineation include in Appendix F. The presence of ponded water as discussed in the comment does not by itself qualify an area as a wetland.

The Commission’s determination of the presence of a “One Parameter Wetland” typically follows the methods contained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual 7 (Wetland Manual) and more recently, the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (AWS v.2.0).

As discussed in the Wetland Delineation Report, the project site lacks hydric soil indicators, does not have indicators for wetland hydrology that are not associated with ponding due to rainfall totaling 185 percent of normal, and has a plant community with a collective prevalence index of 3.91., the western field does not meet the thresholds for Coastal Act wetlands in accordance with the criteria established in the AWS v 2.0.

Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 2 The ponding discussed in the comment is addressed in the Wetland Delineation Report included as part of Appendix F of the IS/MND. On March 6, 2023, a ponded area was observed in the western field that remained ponded for longer than 14 days. However, this ponding was due to a series of high rainfall total storm events, and not indicative of wetland hydrology. As of April 2, 2023, rainfall during the 2022- 2023 water year totaled 20.46 inches, which is 185 percent normal. February rainfall totaled 2.90 inches and March rainfall totaled

6.91 inches.

It is noteworthy that indicators for hydric soils were not detected within the western field, including the area with ponding, suggesting that sufficient ponding has not occurred over the years that has resulted in the formation of hydric indicators.

I.C Least Bell’s Vireo Use the Project Site.

Surveys for the Least Bell’s Vireo were conducted as part of the biological assessment in 2022. The species was considered present within the Heron Pointe Bioswale, which has the appropriate foraging habitat for this bird species. This is discussed in the IS/MND biological resources section and in Appendix F. As discussed in Appendix F, Heron Pointe Bioswale is not within the project site, and would not be physically disturbed during construction of the solar facility. The Project site does not support any riparian habitat suitable for least Bell’s Vireo. The IS/MND did find that noise from construction could impact the Heron Pointe Bioswale thereby affecting the Least Bell’s Vireo, which could have a significant impact.

Mitigation included limiting construction activities to outside of the bird nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. With the mitigation, the project would not result in a take of the Least Bell’s Vireo.

I.D An EIR Must Evaluate Fuel Modification and Type Conversion Impacts.

The Fuel Modification Zones discussed in the comment and in the IS/MND are not associated with the Proposed project and are part of the ongoing oil operation and are therefore considered part of the baseline and not subject to review in the IS/MND.

The Fuel Modification Zones are a requirement of Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) as part of a fire prevention program. The Fuel Modification Zones are areas within 100 feet of oil wells, electrical equipment, and associated facilities are subject to required maintenance/mowing due to fire risk. As discussed in the IS/MND, the fuel modification areas are periodically maintained to remove any vegetation that presents a fire hazard, but these areas support annual grasses and forbs which reestablish during the interval between maintenance events.

Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 3 In December 2022 and February 2023, Southern California Edison powerlines fell within the Hellman property. Emergency repairs were completed without incident, including fire or damage to oil field facilities, but these events underscore the need for periodic fuel modification on the Hellman Property.

I.E. The Project’s Mitigation Measures Fail to Ensure Project Impacts Will Be Reduced Below Significance.

The Applicant has committed to implementing mitigation measure BIO-2, which requires the site to not be graded. As such, the words “to the extent feasible” can be removed from the mitigation measure.

The ongoing mowing that occurs within the Hellman Oil Field Property is a requirement of Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) as part of a fire prevention program and is not related to the Proposed project. This is an existing baseline condition unrelated to the Proposed Project.

As discussed above for item I.A above, the Wetland Delineation is good for a period of five years, provided the site conditions haven't changed. Since the Wetland Delineation report covers the wet year period in 2023, there is not a need for an updated jurisdictional wetland assessment unless construction is delayed till fall of 2027.

Pre-construction surveys for the Least Bell’s Vireo are not required since the project site does support any riparian habitat suitable for least Bell’s Vireo and construction activities are restricted to outside of the bird nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. As such, the project would not result in a take of the Least Bell’s Vireo, and consultations with the resources agencies is not required.

II. The Project May Have Significant Undisclosed and Unmitigated Hydrological Impacts.

The IS/MND discussed the potential for flooding at the project site. the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone, as designated by FEMA. The site is within Zone X, an area of 0.2% annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood plain); an area of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot; an area with drainage areas less than 1 square miles; or an area protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. Therefore, the potential for flooding is very low.

As part of the approved Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, a 6-foot earthen berm would be constructed along the southern perimeter of the project site to prevent any hydraulic connection between the project site and the proposed Southern Los Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 4 Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, located to the south of the project site. This berm was not a mitigation measure but rather part of the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project that has now been approved. The CEQA document prepared for the wetland restoration Project stated the following in the project description, “A perimeter earthen berm or flood wall would be constructed in the near term to maintain protection of the Hellman Retained site from seasonally high tide levels and storm events”. Therefore, evaluating flooding impact with the berm/flood wall present is correct action under CEQA since this project has been approved and is expected to begin construction this year and would be in place prior to the planned construction of the Solar PV Project.

The Moffitt and Nichol report for 2019, was a sea level rise study that looked at flooding issues for the entire Hellman Property including the PV Solar Project site and therefore is a relevant source of information for the flooding analysis. The report is provided in the reference list for the IS/MND and is available from the City as part of the administrative record. CEQA does not require that all reference documents be included as an appendix to the environmental document but rather that reference documents be made available if requested.

III.A The Project May Cause Glare to Recreational Trail Users and the Tribal Gathering Area.

Several of the glare analysis were selected to represent the edge of the Los Cerritos Wetland Restoration Property boundary, where the perimeter berm would be located. Analysis points #28 and #29 were located on the northern edge of the wetland boundary, which is closest to the proposed solar PV array. The analysis was done at a height of 6 feet above ground surface since this represented the baseline conditions. If this height was adjusted to 12 feet to account for the future berm that will be built as part of the Los Cerritos Wetland Restoration the result for point #28 would remain the same with no glare found.

For point #29 the level of green glare would increase from 26.6 hrs per year to 32.7 hrs per year. The glare at this point would be during Sunrise from April through August. Peak day glare would increase from about 15 mins per day to 18 mins per day. The glare is associated with the easternmost solar array. As discussed in the IS/MND, these values assume no clouds or fog during the sunrise period. At the 12 foot height for these points, the impact would still be considered less than significant since the glare is in the green zone.

Analysis point #27 is located along the edge of the Los Cerritos Wetland that runs north to south. The analysis for this point was done at a height of 6 feet above the ground surface since this represented the baseline conditions. If this height was adjusted to 12 feet to Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 5 account for the future berm that will be built as part of the Los Cerritos Wetland Restoration the results would remain the same with no glare found.

Analysis point #31 is located along the edge of the Los Cerritos Wetland that runs east to west along the southern boundary. The analysis for this point was done at a height of 6 feet above the ground surface since this represented the baseline conditions. If this height was adjusted to 12 feet to account for the future berm that will be built as part of the Los Cerritos Wetland Restoration the results would remain the same with no glare found.

III.B Project Glint May Blind Bikers on the San Gabriel River Bike Path.

Several of the glare analysis points are near the San Gabriel River Bike Path (#24 and 25).

These points are within 200 to 300 feet of the bike path and as such represent reasonable estimates of the glare impact to the bike path. Both points had no glare impacts. If these two points were moved to the location of the bike path with an height of 6 feet, glare impacts would remain the same, no glare impacts.

III.C The MND Fails to Adequately Consider Glint and Glare Impacts on Birds.

The issue of lake effect associated with PV systems was only recently defined based upon levels of bird mortality associated with utility-scale solar energy (USSE) facilities. However, there is limited understanding of the phenomenon. Several studies have been conducted at various PV sites, with most being at USSEs that are 50 MW to over 300 MW, much larger than

1.5 MW for the proposed Project. The results of these studies were somewhat inconclusive and suggested that further research was needed to better understand the lake effect hypothesis.

As such, the California Energy Commission (CEC) undertook a research study to better understand the lake effect hypothesis (LEH). It is hypothesized in this report that the mortality of birds at PV facilities results from birds being attracted to and impacted by, solar PV arrays and nearby surfaces after perceiving them as a lake or some sort of oasis. To address the LEH in the context of attraction by birds to PV solar facilities, the project had the following objectives:
• Measure the light polarization properties of PV surfaces under various conditions and test how these characteristics may attract birds.
• Establish whether birds in flight respond behaviorally to PV solar facilities, and if that response varies with direction of travel, time-of-day, and altitude. • Determine how birds interact with solar facilities relative to nearby reference areas.

Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 6 The results of this study were published in June 2024. At the time the IS/MND was prepared this was the most recent and comprehensive study of lake effect hypothesis for Southern California. The major conclusions of the study were as follows.

The Study demonstrated that solar panels mimic water surfaces in terms of polarization, although they cannot mimic other properties such as waves or the feel of water. The experiments showed that birds prefer to approach features such as feeding stations that polarized the most. The study also found that bird fatalities occurred more frequently inside PV facilities than outside the facilities in desert/scrub landscapes or grasslands reference sites. In contrast, bird use and the number of fatalities was similar at the PV facility located in irrigated agricultural landscape and the associated reference area.

Some of the results of this study are consistent with key predictions and assumptions of the lake effect hypothesis. The results, however, do not confirm it conclusively. The study struggled to identify which bird species changed flight paths around solar facilities to confirm if these were the species that suffered fatalities; nor did researchers observe any bird collisions or strandings that could be directly linked to attraction to solar panels.

The results from this study suggest that some species of aquatic habitat birds could be attracted to photovoltaic (PV) utility-scale solar energy (USSE) facilities, and if attraction occurs, it is likely context-dependent. The most compelling evidence for attraction is the mortality of water-obligate species (e.g., loons) found at PV USSE facilities in desert environments without water; those species perish on dry land.

The Study found that a lake effect hypothesis cannot be readily generalized to all aquatic habitat birds in all landscape contexts, but it seems to hold for some species in some landscapes. The project was limited to facilities in southern and central California, in arid desert and grassland landscapes and one surrounded by irrigated agriculture. It seems likely that the lake effect may be most impactful in regions where water bodies sought by aquatic habitat birds are scarce.

The analysis and conclusions in the IS/MND are based primarily on the CEC study and are consistent with the finding in CEC study. While, the impacts of the lake effect in various environments is not fully understood, the IS/MND used the most recent available information to assess the impacts for the proposed Project.

Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 7 IV. The MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts on Tribal Cultural Landscapes.

The City conducted the required AB 52 consultation with tribes during the CEQA process.

The results of these consultations are discussed in the IS/MND. In addition, the Applicant meet with representative from the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council regarding the project. As a result of this discussion and based upon past archeological surveys, the footprint of the proposed PV Solar facility was modified to assure that the project would not impact a known Native American cultural site.

The site for the proposed PV facility is within an existing oil field that is industrial in nature.

Oil and gas production and processing equipment is located throughout Hellman Property.

This addition of the PV solar facility to this existing industrial area would not affect the overall landscape of the property and as such would not have a significant impact on the Tribal Cultural Landscape associated with the Hellman Property.

The IS/MND has mitigation measures that cover Native American Monitoring, handling of unanticipated discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources and unanticipated discovery of human remains. Implementation of these measures would also reduce any impacts on Tribal Cultural Landscapes.

Attachment A – Updated Glare Analysis

FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS
Summary of Results Glare with low potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh
Central Array 10.0 180.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 -
Eastern Array 1 10.0 180.0 1,780 29.7 0 0.0 -
Eastern Array 2 10.0 180.0 1,802 30.0 0 0.0 -
Western Array 10.0 180.0 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 -
Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces.

Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare
min hr min hr
OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0
Project: Hellman Solar Project
Solar Project at Hellman Oil Field in Seal Beach CA
Site configuration: Hellman Solar Field-temp-0-temp-2
Created 30 Sep, 2025
Updated 30 Sep, 2025
Time-step 1 minute
Timezone offset UTC-8
Minimum sun altitude 0.0 deg
DNI peaks at 1,000.0 W/m
Category 1 MW to 5 MW
Site ID 160752.20058
Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5
Pupil diameter 0.002 m
Eye focal length 0.017 m
Sun subtended angle 9.3 mrad
PV analysis methodology V2
2

Page 1 of 25 ends

Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare
min hr min hr
OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 20 1,185 19.8 0 0.0
OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 29 3,582 59.7 0 0.0
OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0

Page 2 of 25 ends

Component Data
PV Arrays
Name: Central Array
Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation)
Tilt: 10.0°
Orientation: 180.0°
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating
Reflectivity: Vary with sun
Slope error: correlate with material
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.754039 -118.093793 4.00 1.00 5.00
2 33.753731 -118.093800 4.00 1.00 5.00
3 33.753726 -118.093545 4.00 1.00 5.00
4 33.753631 -118.093547 4.00 1.00 5.00
5 33.753627 -118.093275 4.00 1.00 5.00
6 33.753484 -118.093276 4.00 1.00 5.00
7 33.753483 -118.092995 4.00 1.00 5.00
8 33.753799 -118.092995 4.00 1.00 5.00
9 33.753800 -118.093269 4.00 1.00 5.00
10 33.753903 -118.093269 4.00 1.00 5.00
11 33.753908 -118.093539 4.00 1.00 5.00
12 33.754034 -118.093536 4.00 1.00 5.00
Name: Eastern Array 1
Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation)
Tilt: 10.0°
Orientation: 180.0°
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating
Reflectivity: Vary with sun
Slope error: correlate with material
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.753167 -118.092573 3.00 1.00 4.00
2 33.753160 -118.092011 3.00 1.00 4.00
3 33.752949 -118.092015 3.00 1.00 4.00
4 33.752955 -118.092298 3.00 1.00 4.00
5 33.753005 -118.092296 3.00 1.00 4.00
6 33.753011 -118.092573 3.00 1.00 4.00

Page 3 of 25 ends

Name: Eastern Array 2
Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation)
Tilt: 10.0°
Orientation: 180.0°
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating
Reflectivity: Vary with sun
Slope error: correlate with material
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.752889 -118.092570 3.00 1.00 4.00
2 33.752886 -118.092302 3.00 1.00 4.00
3 33.752840 -118.092304 3.00 1.00 4.00
4 33.752840 -118.092023 3.00 1.00 4.00
5 33.752733 -118.092022 3.00 1.00 4.00
6 33.752736 -118.092302 3.00 1.00 4.00
7 33.752440 -118.092300 3.00 1.00 4.00
8 33.752436 -118.092569 3.00 1.00 4.00
Name: Western Array
Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation)
Tilt: 10.0°
Orientation: 180.0°
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating
Reflectivity: Vary with sun
Slope error: correlate with material
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.754786 -118.094476 4.00 1.00 5.00
2 33.754214 -118.094492 4.00 1.00 5.00
3 33.754200 -118.094136 4.00 1.00 5.00
4 33.754055 -118.094141 4.00 1.00 5.00
5 33.754070 -118.094498 4.00 1.00 5.00
6 33.754171 -118.094494 4.00 1.00 5.00
7 33.754176 -118.094632 4.00 1.00 5.00
8 33.754220 -118.094630 4.00 1.00 5.00
9 33.754223 -118.094854 4.00 1.00 5.00
10 33.754388 -118.094847 4.00 1.00 5.00
11 33.754401 -118.095211 4.00 1.00 5.00
12 33.754987 -118.095183 4.00 1.00 5.00
13 33.754972 -118.094822 4.00 1.00 5.00
14 33.754800 -118.094827 4.00 1.00 5.00

Page 4 of 25 ends

Discrete Observation Point Receptors
Name ID Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Elevation (ft) Height (ft) OP 1 1 33.752786 -118.090415 19.90 6.00
OP 2 2 33.752664 -118.090452 20.90 6.00
OP 3 3 33.752483 -118.090526 20.10 6.00
OP 4 4 33.752349 -118.090572 20.70 6.00
OP 5 5 33.752221 -118.090671 20.10 6.00
OP 6 6 33.752001 -118.090726 21.40 6.00
OP 7 7 33.751856 -118.090778 20.70 6.00
OP 8 8 33.751711 -118.090802 19.40 6.00
OP 9 9 33.751555 -118.090855 18.80 6.00
OP 10 10 33.751427 -118.090952 18.60 6.00
OP 11 11 33.751281 -118.091064 19.50 6.00
OP 12 12 33.751154 -118.091143 19.30 6.00
OP 13 13 33.750790 -118.091390 18.40 6.00
OP 14 14 33.750686 -118.091528 16.70 6.00
OP 15 15 33.750462 -118.091751 16.70 6.00
OP 16 16 33.750276 -118.091899 17.90 6.00
OP 17 17 33.750079 -118.091991 22.50 6.00
OP 18 18 33.750014 -118.092097 21.80 6.00
OP 19 19 33.755464 -118.097277 4.70 6.00
OP 20 20 33.754507 -118.097738 4.70 6.00
OP 21 21 33.758793 -118.099999 6.00 6.00
OP 22 22 33.757536 -118.101222 5.70 0.00
OP 23 23 33.756046 -118.103196 5.40 0.00
OP 24 24 33.756331 -118.099705 10.60 6.00
OP 25 25 33.755306 -118.100897 13.88 7.00
OP 26 26 33.752598 -118.091390 3.94 6.00
OP 27 27 33.751705 -118.091411 9.67 12.00
OP 28 28 33.752156 -118.092389 10.19 12.00
OP 29 29 33.752155 -118.095105 5.89 12.00
OP 30 30 33.751359 -118.093174 10.15 0.00
OP 31 31 33.750146 -118.094132 6.70 12.00
OP 32 32 33.749344 -118.093136 44.72 6.00
OP 33 33 33.749395 -118.095200 43.91 6.00
OP 34 34 33.749395 -118.097384 32.25 6.00

Page 5 of 25 ends

Obstruction Components
Name: Bushes and Trees Along Fence Line
Top height: 7.0 ft
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) 1 33.752566 -118.091458 3.15
2 33.752753 -118.091404 3.96
3 33.752958 -118.091458 3.92
Name: Tree and Bushes
Top height: 26.0 ft
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) 1 33.752920 -118.090578 7.16
2 33.752090 -118.090894 11.62
3 33.751769 -118.090927 13.51
4 33.751140 -118.091350 14.68

Page 6 of 25 ends

Glare Analysis Results
Summary of Results Glare with low potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh
Central Array 10.0 180.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 -
Eastern Array 1 10.0 180.0 1,780 29.7 0 0.0 -
Eastern Array 2 10.0 180.0 1,802 30.0 0 0.0 -
Western Array 10.0 180.0 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 -
Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces.

Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare
min hr min hr
OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 20 1,185 19.8 0 0.0
OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 29 3,582 59.7 0 0.0

Page 7 of 25 ends

Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare
min hr min hr
OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0

Page 8 of 25 ends

PV: Central Array no glare found
Receptor results ordered by category of glare
Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare
min hr min hr
OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 29 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0

Page 9 of 25 ends

Central Array and OP 1
No glare found
Central Array and OP 2
No glare found
Central Array and OP 3
No glare found
Central Array and OP 4
No glare found
Central Array and OP 5
No glare found
Central Array and OP 6
No glare found
Central Array and OP 7
No glare found
Central Array and OP 8
No glare found
Central Array and OP 9
No glare found
Central Array and OP 10
No glare found
Central Array and OP 11
No glare found
Central Array and OP 12
No glare found
Central Array and OP 13
No glare found
Central Array and OP 14
No glare found

Page 10 of 25 ends

Central Array and OP 15
No glare found
Central Array and OP 16
No glare found
Central Array and OP 17
No glare found
Central Array and OP 18
No glare found
Central Array and OP 19
No glare found
Central Array and OP 20
No glare found
Central Array and OP 21
No glare found
Central Array and OP 22
No glare found
Central Array and OP 23
No glare found
Central Array and OP 24
No glare found
Central Array and OP 25
No glare found
Central Array and OP 26
No glare found
Central Array and OP 27
No glare found
Central Array and OP 28
No glare found

Page 11 of 25 ends

Central Array and OP 29
No glare found
Central Array and OP 30
No glare found
Central Array and OP 31
No glare found
Central Array and OP 32
No glare found
Central Array and OP 33
No glare found
Central Array and OP 34
No glare found

Page 12 of 25 ends

PV: Eastern Array 1 low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare
Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare
min hr min hr
OP 29 1,780 29.7 0 0.0
OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0

Page 13 of 25 ends

Eastern Array 1 and OP 29
Yellow glare: none
Green glare: 1,780 min.

Eastern Array 1 and OP 1
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 2
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 3
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 4
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 5
No glare found

Page 14 of 25 ends

Eastern Array 1 and OP 6
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 7
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 8
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 9
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 10
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 11
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 12
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 13
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 14
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 15
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 16
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 17
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 18
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 19
No glare found

Page 15 of 25 ends

Eastern Array 1 and OP 20
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 21
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 22
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 23
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 24
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 25
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 26
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 27
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 28
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 30
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 31
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 32
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 33
No glare found
Eastern Array 1 and OP 34
No glare found

Page 16 of 25 ends

PV: Eastern Array 2 low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare
Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare
min hr min hr
OP 29 1,802 30.0 0 0.0
OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0

Page 17 of 25 ends

Eastern Array 2 and OP 29
Yellow glare: none
Green glare: 1,802 min.

Eastern Array 2 and OP 1
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 2
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 3
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 4
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 5
No glare found

Page 18 of 25 ends

Eastern Array 2 and OP 6
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 7
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 8
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 9
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 10
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 11
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 12
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 13
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 14
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 15
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 16
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 17
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 18
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 19
No glare found

Page 19 of 25 ends

Eastern Array 2 and OP 20
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 21
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 22
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 23
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 24
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 25
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 26
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 27
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 28
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 30
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 31
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 32
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 33
No glare found
Eastern Array 2 and OP 34
No glare found

Page 20 of 25 ends

PV: Western Array low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare
Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare
min hr min hr
OP 20 1,185 19.8 0 0.0
OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 29 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0
OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0

Page 21 of 25 ends

Western Array and OP 20
Yellow glare: none
Green glare: 1,185 min.

Western Array and OP 1
No glare found
Western Array and OP 2
No glare found
Western Array and OP 3
No glare found
Western Array and OP 4
No glare found
Western Array and OP 5
No glare found

Page 22 of 25 ends

Western Array and OP 6
No glare found
Western Array and OP 7
No glare found
Western Array and OP 8
No glare found
Western Array and OP 9
No glare found
Western Array and OP 10
No glare found
Western Array and OP 11
No glare found
Western Array and OP 12
No glare found
Western Array and OP 13
No glare found
Western Array and OP 14
No glare found
Western Array and OP 15
No glare found
Western Array and OP 16
No glare found
Western Array and OP 17
No glare found
Western Array and OP 18
No glare found
Western Array and OP 19
No glare found

Page 23 of 25 ends

Western Array and OP 21
No glare found
Western Array and OP 22
No glare found
Western Array and OP 23
No glare found
Western Array and OP 24
No glare found
Western Array and OP 25
No glare found
Western Array and OP 26
No glare found
Western Array and OP 27
No glare found
Western Array and OP 28
No glare found
Western Array and OP 29
No glare found
Western Array and OP 30
No glare found
Western Array and OP 31
No glare found
Western Array and OP 32
No glare found
Western Array and OP 33
No glare found
Western Array and OP 34
No glare found

Page 24 of 25 ends

Assumptions
Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only):
• Analysis time interval: 1 minute
• Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5
• Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters
• Eye focal length: 0.017 meters
• Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians
© Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. "Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time.

Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour.

The algorithm does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of a system; detailed features such as gaps between modules, variable height of the PV array, and support structures may impact actual glare results. However, we have validated our models against several systems, including a PV array causing glare to the air-traffic control tower at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and several sites in Albuquerque, and the tool accurately predicted the occurrence and intensity of glare at different times and days of the year.

Several V1 calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare. This primarily affects V1 analyses of path receptors.

Random number computations are utilized by various steps of the annual hazard analysis algorithm. Predicted minutes of glare can vary between runs as a result. This limitation primarily affects analyses of Observation Point receptors, including ATCTs. Note that the SGHAT/ ForgeSolar methodology has always relied on an analytical, qualitative approach to accurately determine the overall hazard (i.e. green vs. yellow) of expected glare on an annual basis.

The analysis does not automatically consider obstacles (either man-made or natural) between the observation points and the prescribed solar installation that may obstruct observed glare, such as trees, hills, buildings, etc.

The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.)
The variable direct normal irradiance (DNI) feature (if selected) scales the user-prescribed peak DNI using a typical clear-day irradiance profile.

This profile has a lower DNI in the mornings and evenings and a maximum at solar noon. The scaling uses a clear-day irradiance profile based on a normalized time relative to sunrise, solar noon, and sunset, which are prescribed by a sun-position algorithm and the latitude and longitude obtained from Google maps. The actual DNI on any given day can be affected by cloud cover, atmospheric attenuation, and other environmental factors.

The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical, and human factors, which can be uncertain. We provide input fields and typical ranges of values for these factors so that the user can vary these parameters to see if they have an impact on the results. The speed of SGHAT allows expedited sensitivity and parametric analyses.

The system output calculation is a DNI-based approximation that assumes clear, sunny skies year-round. It should not be used in place of more rigorous modeling methods.

Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum.

Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ.

Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.com/help/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here.

Page 25 of 25 ends

No. Description Date
Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV1

COVER SHEET

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68

GENERAL NOTES
SCOPE OF WORK:

THE INSTALLATION OF A GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV)

PLANT INCLUDING PV MODULES, AND GRID INTERACTIVE

INVERTERS, AND RACKING STRUCTURE TO SUPPLY POWER TO THE FACILITY IN PARALLEL WITH THE EXISTING ELECTRIC UTILITY GRID.

PROJECT LOCATION:
711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740
APN: 095-010-68
INTERCONNECTION:

THE PV SYSTEM WILL OPERATE IN PARALLEL WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDER. THE INVERTERS PROVIDE ANTI-ISLANDING PROTECTION AS WELL AS HARMONIC LIMITS THAT COMPLY WITH UL 1741, IEEE 1547, AND IEEE 519.

CODE ENFORCED:

CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, 2019 EDITION
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2019 EDITION
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2019 EDITION
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION:

SEAL BEACH BUILDING AND SAFETY
ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDER:

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE)

SHEET INDEX

PROJECT SITE
PV1 COVER SHEET
PV2 PROPERTY SITE PLAN

RACKING DETAILS

SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM

WIRE CHART

SIGNAGE

PV SYSTEM EQUIPMENT DATA SHEETS

RACKING SHOP DRAWINGS
PV3
PV4
PV6
PV7
PV8
9-16

SITE LOCATION
PV5

DC SYSTEM SIZE

AC SYSTEM SIZE

DC / AC RATIO

MANUFACTURER
MODEL
DC POWER @ STC

TOTAL MODULES

MANUFACTURER
TYPE

TILT / AZIMUTH

POCC / POI VOLTAGE

PV SYSTEM DETAILS

ROOFTOP PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULES

RACKING
1,503.50 kW
1600.0 kW

0.94 600Y/347V

HANWHA Q CELL
Q. PEAK DUO XL-G10.2
485W
3100

SOLCOMPONENTS

GROUND MOUNT FIXED TILT
10°/ 180°

MANUFACTURER
MODEL

AC POWER RATING

QUANTITY

INVERTER

CHINT POWER SYSTEMS
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
100kW
16 ROOFTOP PV SYSTEM DETAILS
NUMBER OF ARRAYS 56
PV MODULES PER ARRAY 56, (1) ARRAY W/ 20

GENERAL NOTES

HELLMAN PROPERTIES

SEAL BEACH

SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

INSTALLATION DRAWINGS

SITE PLAN
Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
CIR
(N)GROUND MOUNT PV ARRAY
(3100) HANWHA Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 MODULES
TILT: 10°/Azimuth: 180°
(16) CHINT CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 INVERTERS

PV SYSTEM

SUBPANEL

PV SYSTEM

TRANSFORMER

PV INVERTERS
#12,14

PV INVERTERS
#13,15,16
PV SUBPANEL #3
[6a]800A

PV INVERTERS
#7,8,9,10,11
PV SUBPANEL #2
[6a]800A

PARCEL BOUNDRY
APN: 095-010-68

UTILITY ELECTRICAL

MAIN SERVICE PANEL

PV SYSTEM

AC DISCONNECT

SWITCHES
PV SUBPANEL #1
[6b]800A

TRENCHING PATH
(VIF)

PV INVERTERS
#1,2,3,4,5,6

UE HERON
OFFICE No. Description Date
Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV2

PROPERTY

SITE PLAN

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68 Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
SCALE: 18" = 1'
(N)GROUND MOUNT PV ARRAY
(3100) HANWHA Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 MODULES
TILT: 10°/Azimuth: 180°
(16) CHINT CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 INVERTERS

PV SYSTEM

SUBPANEL

PV SYSTEM

TRANSFORMER

PV INVERTERS
#12,14

PV INVERTERS
#13,15,16
PV SUBPANEL #3
[6a]800A

PV INVERTERS
#7,8,9,10,11
PV SUBPANEL #2
[6a]800A

PARCEL BOUNDRY
APN: 095-010-68

UTILITY ELECTRICAL

MAIN SERVICE PANEL

PV SYSTEM

AC DISCONNECT

SWITCHES
PV SUBPANEL #1
[6b]800A

TRENCHING PATH
(VIF)

PV INVERTERS
#1,2,3,4,5,6
RON No. Description Date
Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV3

SITE PLAN

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68 Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
SCALE: 3
16" = 1'
No. Description Date
Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV4

RACKING

DETAILS

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68 Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
2 2x10 TABLE PURLIN SPACING SCALE: N.T.S. 1 2x10 TABLE PILE SPACING SCALE: N.T.S. PURLIN PURLIN [PUR-1061] PILE QTY. PER TABLE 3 MIN. PILE EMBEDMENT 6'-0" QTY. PER TABLE 4 SHEET NO.: 2x10 TABLE PROJECT: DRAWN BY: / DATE: SC22-001 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPON THE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES, DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. REVISION DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 1.5 MW HELLMAN SOLAR JEJA As Noted DATE CHECKED BY: / DATE: 02/28/22 03/07/22 SEAL BEACH, CA 33.755, -118.096 SCALE: PROJECT NO.: DESCRIPTION DJ 1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A. SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 CLIENT: SITE LOCATION: NEWPORT POWER IFP SUBMITTAL PURLIN [PUR-0161] 10 MODULES WIDE 34'-61316" [10536mm] 14'-0" [4267mm], TYP. 3'-178" [963mm] EDGE OF PURLIN TO EDGE OF PILE WEB 3'-178" [963mm] EDGE OF PURLIN TO EDGE OF PILE FLANGE SC 3.1

12.31.23 04/26/2022 1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A. SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 IFP SUBMITTAL

12.31.23 04/26/2022
3" [75mm] 7'-314" [2216mm] 4'-312" [1308mm] 12" [13mm] DESIGN N/S GAP 11'-1118" [3635mm] 1'-6"
[457mm]
MIN.
1'-7 9
16"
[497mm] MIN
2'-6"
[762mm] MAX
2'-3
11 16"
[704mm] MIN.
3'-5 18"
[1045mm] MAX.
4'-134" [1263mm] MIN.

10.0°

74.0° ±3° 7'-314" [2216mm] 4'-312" [1308mm] 5' [1524mm] 1 PILE FOUNDATION SCALE: N.T.S. 2 TOP CHORD TO PILE CONNECTION SCALE: N.T.S. 3 ANGLE BRACE TO PILE AND TOP CHORD CONNECTIONS SCALE: N.T.S. 4 PURLIN TO TOP CHORD CONNECTION SCALE: N.T.S. 5 PURLIN SPLICE CONNECTION SCALE: N.T.S. 6 TABLE SPLICE CONNECTION SCALE: N.T.S. 8 FRAMING SECTION - TWO ROWS OF MODULES IN PORTRAIT ORIENTATION SCALE: N.T.S. PILE 600S300-118 GRADE TOP CHORD 800S200-68 RISER 500T200-97 (3) 1/2"-13 SERRATED FLANGED BOLT CONNECTION TOP CHORD 800S200-68 PURLIN BRACKET L1.88"X1.88"X16GA PV MODULE FRAME PURLIN 600S200-54 5/16"-18 STAINLESS STEEL SERRATED FLANGED BOLT CONNECTION TABLE SPLICE 7 PV MODULE TO PURLIN CONN. SCALE: N.T.S. (4) 1/2"-13 SERRATED FLANGED BOLT CONNECTION PURLIN GAP 3/8" [10mm] TYP. PURLIN SPLICE L6"X2"X12GA (2) 5/16"-18 STAINLESS STEEL SERRATED FLANGED BOLT CONNECTION (3) #12 SELF-DRILLING SCREW CONNECTION INSTALLED IN TOP, BOTTOM, AND EITHER MIDDLE HOLE PV MODULE FRAME FACE FLUSHES NOMINALLY WITH PURLIN FACE (2) 1/2"-13 SERRATED FLANGED BOLT CONNECTION PILE 600S300-118 PURLIN 600S200-54 (1) 1/2"-13 SERRATED FLANGED BOLT CONNECTION SHEET NO.: TYPICAL DETAILS PROJECT: DRAWN BY: / DATE: SC22-001 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPON THE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES, DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. REVISION DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 1.5 MW HELLMAN SOLAR JEJA As Noted DATE CHECKED BY: / DATE: 02/28/22 03/07/22 SEAL BEACH, CA 33.755, -118.096 SCALE: PROJECT NO.: DESCRIPTION DJ 1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A. SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 CLIENT: SITE LOCATION: NEWPORT POWER IFP SUBMITTAL

PILE REVEAL
SEE 8/SC4.0
MIN. EMBEDMENT
SEE 1/(SC3.0 & SC3.1) SC 4.0 NOTE: 1/8" NOMINAL PURLIN AND SPLICE FLANGE GAP NOTE: ONE TABLE SPLICE PER TABLE GAP REQUIRED NOTE: INSTALL MODULES USING MOUNTING SLOTS PV MODULE TYP. PURLIN BRACKET TYP. RISER TOP CHORD PURLIN TYP. KICKER PILE 4 SC 4.0 3 SC 4.0 3 SC 4.0 7 SC 4.0 1 SC 4.0 2 SC 4.0 TYP. TYP. GRADE TYP. CONCRETE PIER, 18"Øx6'-0" DEEP (1) 1/2"-13 SERRATED FLANGED BOLT CONNECTION TOP CHORD 800S200-68 RISER 500T200-97 KICKER L2.5x2.5x12GA PILE 600S300-118 (4) #12 SELF-DRILLING SCREW CONNECTION ANY GUIDE HOLE, TYP. (1) #12 SELF-DRILLING SCREW CONNECTION FROM RISER TO TOP CHORD PURLIN 600S200-54 0'-3" [76mm] CLR, TYP.

12.31.23 04/26/2022 1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A. SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 IFP SUBMITTAL

12.31.23 04/26/2022
PILE
DIM A MIN. CLEARANCE 3 x DIM A ALL AROUND ℄ 45.0° MIN. CLEARANCE (SEE VIEW A) ≥ DIM X DIM X

45.0° A A GRADE UNACCEPTABLE TRENCH AREA STARTING EDGE AND DEPTH OF TRENCH LOCATED ALONG 45° LINE FROM NEAREST EDGE OF POST AT GRADESAMPLE TRENCH AT DEPTH SHOWN ℄ SHEET NO.: PROJECT: DRAWN BY: / DATE: SC22-001 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPON THE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES, DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. REVISION DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 1.5 MW HELLMAN SOLAR JEJA As Noted DATE CHECKED BY: / DATE: 02/28/22 03/07/22 SEAL BEACH, CA 33.755, -118.096 SCALE: PROJECT NO.: DESCRIPTION DJ 1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A. SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 CLIENT: SITE LOCATION: NEWPORT POWER IFP SUBMITTAL SC 4.1 TRENCH CLEARANCE TO PILE DETAIL MINIMUM TRENCH TO PILE CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS SCALE: N.T.S. 1

12.31.23 04/26/2022 1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A. SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 IFP SUBMITTAL

12.31.23 04/26/2022
1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 25-06

RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING

COMMISSION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION (MND) FOR MINOR USE PERMIT
(MUP 22-03) TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION AND
OPERATION OF A 1.5 MEGAWATT (MW) FIXEDTILT GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) SYSTEM AT THE EXISTING HELLMAN RANCH

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITY, LOCATED
AT 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, IN THE HELLMAN RANCH SPR–OE
(OIL EXTRACTION) ZONE
WHEREAS, the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (“Applicant”) submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for Minor Use Permit (MUP 22-03) to allow the installation and operation of a 1.5 MW fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City prepared an Initial Study for the Project; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and therefore prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c) and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section

11.5.35.010.L; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels, including but not limited to measures addressing biological resources (bird nesting avoidance, sensitive plant protection), cultural resources (Native American monitoring), soil stability and erosion control, glare reduction, and protection of City waterlines; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Quality Control Board held a duly noticed meeting on August 20, 2025, received public testimony, and recommended additional conditions regarding soil testing at pile-hole depth, and the monitoring and reporting of bird fatalities; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Seal Beach Planning Commission on September 29, 2025, at which time the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff report, written materials, and oral testimony presented at the hearing; and Resolution 25-06
Hellman Ranch OGPF
2 of 3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Seal Beach, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and together with the record of proceedings, provides adequate information on which to base environmental findings for the Project.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for MUP 22-03.

Section 2. The Planning Commission finds that:

A. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

B. There is no substantial evidence that the Project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment.

C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.

Section 3. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ensuring that all mitigation measures identified in the MND will be implemented as conditions of approval.

Section 4. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are available for public review at the City of Seal Beach Community Development Department, 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on September 29, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners NOLTA, MINGIONE
NOES: Commissioners CAMPBELL
ABSENT: Commissioners Wheeler
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
_____________________________________
Calvin Mingione
Vice Chairperson
Resolution 25-06
Hellman Ranch OGPF
3 of 3
ATTEST:
__________________________
Shaun Temple
Planning Commission Secretary
1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 25-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING

COMMISSION APPROVING MINOR USE PERMIT
(MUP 22-03) TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION AND
OPERATION OF A 1.5 MEGAWATT (MW) FIXEDTILT GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) SYSTEM AT THE EXISTING HELLMAN RANCH

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITY (OGPF),
LOCATED AT 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL
BEACH, CA 90740 IN THE HELLMMAN RANCH SPR
– OE (OIL EXTRACTION) ZONE

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for Minor Use Permit (MUP 22-03) to allow the installation and operation of a 1.5 MW fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF.

Section 2. The application is considered a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. An Initial Study was prepared, and based on its findings, the City has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental compliance document. The Planning Commission, after considering the Initial Study/MND and finding that the MND reflects the independent judgment of the City, adopted the MND prior to approving this resolution.

Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 29, 2025, to consider MUP 22-03. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the application:

A. The applicant submitted an application to the Community Development Department for MUP 22-03 for a proposed project at the Hellman Oil and Gas Production Facility.

B. The subject property is irregular in shape and 4.66 acres in size. To the north is a regional retention basin operated by the County of Orange. To the south is the Cerritos Wetlands. To the east is residential at Heron Pointe, the Animal Care Center, the Public Works Yard, and the Police Station. To the west is the Haynes Station Cooling Channel and the San Gabriel River.

C. The site is developed as an oil production facility and has been in operation since the 1920s.

Resolution 25-07
Hellman Ranch OGPF
2 of 4
D. The proposed system would be composed of 3 arrays with a total of 56 solar table structures supported by piles with concrete foundations. The major components of the solar system would include the solar panels and support structures, collector cables, inverters, and subpanels, and power cables, transformer, and disconnect switches. All but one of the solar tables would be about 96.8 feet long by about 14.3 feet wide and would contain two rows of 28 solar panels. One of the solar tables in Array 1 would be about 34.6 feet long by about 14.3 feet wide and contain two rows of 10 solar panels. The solar tables would be tilted facing south at about a 10 degree angle. The front edge of the tables would be at a height of approximately 18-inches, with the back edge of the tables being at a height of about 50 inches.

E. Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Section 11.2.15.010. (Oil Extraction Districts – Land Use Regulations allows for the establishment of solar PV system as minor utility through a Minor Use Permit.

Section 4. Based on the evidence presented in the staff report and public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pursuant to SBMC Chapter 11.5.20.020 (Required Findings):

A. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is located. The site is designated Industrial Oil Extraction in the General Plan and zoned SPR – OE (Oil Extraction). The solar PV system is classified as a minor utility use and supports continued operations of the Hellman Ranch OGPF by reducing reliance on fossil-fuel power generation and lowering operational costs, consistent with the City’s goals for sustainability and energy efficiency.

B. The proposed use is consistent with applicable provisions of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. A Minor Use Permit is required for a minor utility in the OE Zone.

This resolution grants that approval subject to conditions ensuring compliance with SBMC requirements.

C. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use. The 4.66-acre site currently accommodates oil production activities and has adequate space for the proposed 56-table solar array layout without creating adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

D. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project includes mitigation measures to protect sensitive biological resources, cultural resources, and City infrastructure. The solar panels will be dark-colored and anti-reflective to reduce glare, construction will avoid bird nesting season, and soil testing and stabilization will occur to prevent erosion.

Section 5. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves MUP 22-03, subject to the following conditions of approval:

Resolution 25-07
Hellman Ranch OGPF
3 of 4

1. Minor Use Permit 22-03 is approved for the installation and operation of a 1.5 MW fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF.

2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Minor Use Permit 22-03.

3. Building permits shall be obtained for all new construction requiring such permits.

4. Applicant shall obtain California Coastal Commission approval prior to building permit issuance.

5. Upon cessation of oil production activities and removal of oil production equipment, any equipment related to the solar operations approved by this MUP shall also be removed.

6. Soil testing shall be performed at pile-hole depth and shall be assessed for hydrocarbons to be appropriately removed from site based on contamination level before redistribution of excavated soil; a report shall be submitted to the City for approval

7. During the first year of operation, the applicant shall document and report to the City any bird accidents or fatalities attributable to the solar facility. If accidents and facilities are recorded, the report will be presented to the Planning Commission who may reserve the right to modify the MUP to add conditions related to bird impacts.

8. All applicable mitigation measures in the adopted MND shall be implemented.

9. This MUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City “Acceptance of Conditions” form has been signed and notarized by the applicant before being returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) calendar day appeal period has elapsed.

10. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this MUP in the event of any violation of the approved conditions or any violation of any provision of the Code of the City of Seal Beach.

11. The applicant must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its agents, and employees (collectively “the City” hereinafter in this paragraph) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant’s obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City’s choice in Resolution 25-07
Hellman Ranch OGPF
4 of 4
representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys’ fees in any such lawsuit or action.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on September 29, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners NOLTA, MINGIONE
NOES: Commissioners CAMPBELL
ABSENT: Commissioners Wheeler
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
_____________________________________
Calvin Mingione
Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________
Shaun Temple
Planning Commission Secretary

HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR:

City of Seal Beach

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
211 EIGHTH STREET, SEAL BEACH,
CA 90740
PREPARED BY:

MRS Environmental, Inc.
1306 SANTA BARBARA ST
SANTA BARBARA CA 93101
July 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT i INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses.............................................................................. 1

1.2 Purpose and Need for Project ..................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Public Agency Approvals Required.............................................................................................. 4

2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Project Components.................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Solar Panels and Support Structures .................................................................................. 7

2.1.2 Collector Cables, Inverters, and Subpanels ........................................................................ 7

2.1.3 Power Cables, Transformer, and Disconnect Switches ...................................................... 8

2.2 Project Construction.................................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Temporary Construction Work Areas............................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Site Disturbance................................................................................................................ 10

2.2.3 Construction Phases ......................................................................................................... 10

2.2.4 Construction Workforce, Schedule, and Equipment ........................................................ 13

2.3 Project Operations..................................................................................................................... 14

2.4 Proposed Solar Facility Lifetime ................................................................................................ 14

3.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Environmental Checklist Form................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................................. 16

3.3 Environmental Determination................................................................................................... 16

3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and Initial Study Checklist.............................................17

3.4.1 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................... 18

3.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.................................................................................. 24

3.4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 25

3.4.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 28

3.4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 34

3.4.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 37

3.4.7 Geology/Soils.................................................................................................................... 39

3.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................... 44

3.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................... 46

3.4.10 Hydrology/Water Quality.................................................................................................. 48

3.4.11 Land Use/Planning ............................................................................................................ 53

3.4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 54

3.4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 54

3.4.14 Population/Housing .......................................................................................................... 57

3.4.15 Public Services................................................................................................................... 58

3.4.16 Recreation......................................................................................................................... 59

3.4.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 60

3.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 62

3.4.19 Utilities/Service Systems................................................................................................... 65

TABLE OF CONTENTS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT ii INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

3.4.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 68

3.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................................................. 70

4.0 List of Reference Documents .................................................................................................. 74

5.0 List of Preparers...................................................................................................................... 78 List of Table
Table 1-1 Permits or Other Actions Required for Implementation of the Proposed Project.............4 Table 2-1 Summary of Solar Array Elements...................................................................................... 7 Table 2-2 Inverter Pad Dimensions..................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-3 Transformer Pad Equipment Dimensions........................................................................... 9 Table 2-4 Proposed Project Site Disturbance Areas......................................................................... 10 Table 2-5 Construction Activities, Duration, Personnel, and Vehicle Trips......................................13 Table 2-6 List of Offroad Construction Equipment by Phase............................................................ 14 Table 3-1 Summary of Analysis of Predicted Glare .......................................................................... 23 Table 3-2 Attainment Deadlines for Federal Non-Attainment Pollutants........................................26 Table 3-3 Peak Day Construction Emissions by Phase...................................................................... 27 Table 3-4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions.......................................................................... 28 Table 3-5 Summary of Impacts to the Proposed Project Vegetation/Land Use Types ....................31 Table 3-6 Estimated Construction Equipment Fuel Use (gals) ......................................................... 38 Table 3-7 Project GHG Emissions (MT/yr.) ....................................................................................... 45 Table 3-8 Peak Construction Noise Levels........................................................................................ 55 Table 3-9 Peak Operational Noise Levels.......................................................................................... 56 Table 3-10 Human Response to Transient Vibration.......................................................................... 57 Table 3-11 Estimated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels....................................................... 57 Table 3-12 Construction Vehicle Trips................................................................................................ 61 List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Map ...................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1-2 Project Area Map................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2-1 Location of Proposed Solar PV System on Helman Ranch OGPF Site.................................6 Figure 2-2 Typical Solar Array Tables................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-3 Proposed Solar Table Support Structures........................................................................... 8 Figure 2-4 Typical String Inverters........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2-5 Proposed Solar PV Electrical System Footprint and Temporary Construction Areas.......11 Figure 3-1 Current View from Gum Grove Park Looking North......................................................... 19 Figure 3-2 View from Gum Grove Park with Simulation of Solar Facility ..........................................20 Figure 3-3 Location of Glare Analysis Observation Points................................................................. 22 Figure 3-4 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone .................................................................................................. 40 Figure 3-5 Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in the Project Area ....................43 Figure 3-6 City Waterlines in Vicinity of PV Solar Project.................................................................. 66

TABLE OF CONTENTS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT iii INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Appendices
Appendix A – Mitigation Monitoring Program
Appendix B – Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Drawings Appendix C – Miscellaneous Support Calculations
Appendix D – Glare Analysis
Appendix E – CalEEMod Air Emission Output Files
Appendix F – Biological Technical Report
Appendix G – Cultural Resources Assessment Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

1.0 Introduction
This document provides an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project. The proposed Project would consist of the installation and operation of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system. This system would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities operations and export any excess power to the utility grid.

The proposed Project would require a Minor Use Permit (MUP) from the City of Seal Beach. The proposed Project requires compliance with environmental procedures (CEQA and CEQA Guidelines), with the City of Seal Beach serving as CEQA Lead Agency. The proposed Project would also require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission.

The preparation of the Initial Study and MND is governed by two principal sets of documents: The California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter “CEQA,” California Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.). The environmental analysis presented in this document primarily focuses on the changes in the environment that would result from the proposed Project. The environmental analysis also evaluates all phases of the Project, including construction and operation.

In compliance with state law and procedures, the City has determined that an MND is the appropriate environmental compliance document for the proposed Project. The Initial Study checklist form and explanation discussion format meets the requirements of the CEQA. Section 15063(d)(3) requires that the entries on the Initial Study checklist identifying environmental effects be briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. An Initial Study/MND is not intended or required to include a level of detail that would be provided in an EIR. Therefore, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the IS/MND is not intended to be a lengthy, detailed document.

The CEQA Initial Study Checklist is used throughout Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis to assess the impacts of the proposed Project. Certain documents are incorporated by reference into this Initial Study/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. These documents are included in the refences listed in Section 4.0 of the document and are available for inspection at the City of Seal Beach offices. Several technical reports were used in developing the Initial Study/MND. These technical reports are included as Appendices to the Initial Study/MND.

1.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed Project site is located just north of First Street in the City of Seal Beach on parcel APN 95- 010-68. The proposed Solar PV Electrical System would be located on a 4.66 acre site within the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF). The existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site is located east of the San Gabriel River, and north of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Seal Beach and covers about 57 acres. Seal Beach is located in the northwest portion of the County of Orange. A "Regional Map" is provided as Figure 1-1. Hellman Properties, LLC owns and operates the OGPF on the Hellman Ranch in Seal Beach, California, and would be the owner and operator of the proposed Solar PV Electrical System.

A project area map is provided in Figure 1-2, that shows the location of the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas facility property. The Hellman Ranch property is located within The City’s Planning Area 2 and is zoned as Oil Extraction (OE).

1.0 INTRODUCTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The property to the south of the proposed Project site is owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority.

This property is about 100 acres in size and is zoned open space-natural (OS-N). The property to the north of the proposed Project site is owned by the County of Orange and serves as a regional retention basin.

This property is about 43 acres in size and is zoned open space-natural (OS-N). To the west of the proposed Project site is the Department of Water and Power Haynes Cooling Channel. On the far west side of the channel is property owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority, which is about 71 acres in size covering both sides of the San Gabriel River. This property is located within the City of Long Beach.

Figure 1-1 Regional Map
Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023.

To the east of the proposed project property site is a small open space area that contains the Hellman Ranch Trail. This area is zoned open-space natural (OS-N). Just to the east of this open space is residential housing comprised of all single-family homes. This area is zoned Residential Low Density-9 (RLD-9).

1.0 INTRODUCTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 3 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

1.2 Purpose and Need for Project
Currently, the electrical power used for the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas facilities, and the other associated facilities, such as the offsite gas plant, production wells, pump stations, etc. is provided by an onsite gas turbine generator and Southern California Edison via a direct connection with their electrical grid system.

Figure 1-2 Project Area Map
Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023.

Hellman Properties is proposing to install a 1.5 MW Solar PV Electrical System, which would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the various Hellman Property facilities operations. Use of solar power to provide electrical power for the facility operations would serve to reduce overall air emissions associated with electrical power generation and reduce the overall operating cost of the Hellman facilities.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 4 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

1.3 Public Agency Approvals Required
Table 1-1 provides a list of agencies that would need to issue permits for the proposed Solar PV Electrical System. The remainder of this section discusses the key public agencies that have permitting authority over the various operations at the Hellman Ranch Property.

City of Seal Beach
The proposed Project would be located within the City of Seal Beach, and the project would require a minor use permit (MUP) from the City. Section 11.2.15.010 of the City Municipal Code covers use regulations for the oil extraction district. Table 11.2.15.010 shows that a MUP is required for major utility projects within the oil extraction zone. The MUP would be subject to approval by the Planning Commission, whose decision can be appealed to the City Council.

Table 1-1 Permits or Other Actions Required for Implementation of the Proposed Project Agency Jurisdiction Permit/Action
City of Seal Beach CEQA Lead Agency,
Land Use Authority
Certification of the IS/MND
Minor Use Permit (MUP)
Compliance Review and Construction Permits
Operations Compliance
California Coastal
Commission
Land Use Authority Under the Coastal Act
for Projects within the Coastal Zone
Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Control of Stormwater Runoff from
Construction Sites Greater than 1 Acre
Construction General Permit (CGP) and Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The City of Seal Beach, as the CEQA lead agency, will act first on the Project before any of the responsible agencies act on the Project. The City of Seal Beach decision-makers (Planning Commission and on appeal, the City Council) will use the IS/MND for decision-making regarding the proposed Project. If the proposed Project is approved by all required permitting agencies, the City would be responsible for reviewing and approving all pre-construction compliance plans and ensuring that the proposed Project modifications and operations are conducted in accordance with the Development Plan conditions.

California Coastal Commission (CCC)
The CCC issues Coastal Development Permits (CDP) for development within the City of Seal Beach’s coastal zone since the City does not have an approved Local Coastal Plan (LCP). All the Hellman Ranch OGPF property is within the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permits are the regulatory mechanism by which proposed developments in the coastal zone are brought into compliance with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The CCC has issued previous CDPs for the Hellman Ranch OGPF facilities, including the Hellman Ranch Tank Farm Replacement Project.

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) is responsible for regulating stormwater at the Hellman Ranch OGPF. The existing Hellman Ranch OGPF operations currently operate under General Permit CAS000001 for Industrial Activities, which have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements. In the Orange County area, the stormwater program covers discharges from construction sites with land disturbance of 1 acre or more. Since the project site is larger than one-acre in size the Applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to use the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. The existing SWPPP should be adequate to cover the construction and operation of the Solar PV Electrical System Project.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 5 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
The property is within the jurisdiction of the OCFA. The OCFA regulates combustible materials in Seal Beach. Hellman LLC has permits from the OCFA that allow the installation, construction, alteration and operation of oil and gas processing facilities. The OCFA also regulates the requirements for vegetation clearing at the Hellman Ranch OGPF. Hellman is required to clear vegetation within about 100 feet of all active oil and gas operating facilities, including production and injection wells. The installation and operation of the proposed Solar PV Electrical System would not require any modification of the current OCFA permits.

The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) CalGEM permits and oversees the production of oil and gas at the Hellman Ranch facility. Their primary focus of CalGEM is on the construction and operation of the oil/gas production wells and water injection wells, as well as reservoir issues. CalGEM would not regulate the construction and operation of Solar PV Electrical System. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require any permits for CalGEM.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
The Hellman Ranch OGPF has several permits with the SCAQMD covering various air emitting equipment.

No new air permits would be required for the construction and operation of the proposed Solar PV Electrical System since the project would have minimal operational air emissions and the construction emissions are below the threshold that would require a construction permit.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 6 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

2.0 Project Description
The proposed Project would consist of the installation and operation of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system on the Helman Ranch OGPF property. This system would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities operations. Electrical power generated in excess of Hellman facility needs would be exported to the SCE grid. Figure 2-1 shows location of the proposed solar PV system. The proposed system would be located on a 4.66 acre site within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF. The system would be composed of 3 arrays with a total of 56 solar table structures supported by piles with concrete foundations. Appendix B provides detailed system drawings for the solar PV project.

Figure 2-1 Location of Proposed Solar PV System on Helman Ranch OGPF Site Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023.

2.1 Project Components
The major components of the solar system would include (1) the solar panels and support structures, (2) collector cables, inverters, and subpanels, and (3) power cables, transformer, and disconnect Switches.

Each of these is discussed below.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 7 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

2.1.1 Solar Panels and Support Structures
Solar energy would be captured by solar panels mounted to a fixed-tilt support structure. The system would be comprised of three arrays of solar tables. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the key elements of each of the solar arrays.

Table 2-1 Summary of Solar Array Elements
Array# # Solar Tables # Solar Panels # Support Structures Array 1 22 1,196 150
Array 2 17 952 119
Array 3 17 952 119
Total 56 3,100 388
Source: Hellman Plan Set 12-06-2022, Newport Power (see Attachment B).

All but one of the solar tables would be about 96.8 feet long by about 14.3 feet wide and would contain two rows of 28 solar panels. One of the solar tables in Array 1 would be about 34.6 feet long by about

14.3 feet wide and contain two rows of 10 solar panels. The solar tables would be tilted facing south at about a 10 degree angle. The front edge of the tables would be at a height of approximately 18-inches, with the back edge of the tables being at a height of about 50 inches. Figure 2-2 provides a picture of a typical solar array table.

Figure 2-2 Typical Solar Array Tables
Source: Newport Solar, QCells America
The larger tables would be supported by seven support structures. The one smaller table would be supported by three support structures. Each support structure would be attached to a metal pile that would be set six feet into the ground using concrete piers. The concrete piers would be about 18-inches in diameter. Figure 2-3 shows a picture of the type of solar table support structures that would be used for the proposed Project. The solar panels would be at a fixed tilt angle of 10 degrees facing the south.

2.1.2 Collector Cables, Inverters, and Subpanels
Underground collector cables, installed within trenches, would collect direct current (DC) power from each solar table and transport the power to a set of inverters. The inverters are used to convert the power

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 8 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
from DC to alternating current (AC). There would be a total of 16 inverters located on four separate concrete pads. One of the inverter pads would be located at solar array 1, one at solar array 2 and two pads at solar array 3. Table 2-2 provides the dimensions for the Inverter pads.

Figure 2-3 Proposed Solar Table Support Structures
Source: Newport Solar, SOL Components
Table 2-2 Inverter Pad Dimensions
Pad Type Location Length (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft)
Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #1 Array #1 38 5.5 0.33
Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #2 Array #2 33 5.5 0.33
Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #3 Array #3 17 5.5 0.33
Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #4 Array #3 17.25 5.5 0.33
Source: Newport Power email dated 8-3-23.

Most of each pad would be located under a solar table, with approximately two feet extending beyond the edge of the solar table. The inverter pads would be located on the back side of a solar table. The inverter would feed alternating current (AC) to a transformer via underground cables. Figure 2-4 shows a typical layout for an inverter string that would service a set of solar tables.

One of the inverter pads at each solar array would also house a PV subpanel. The subpanels would house a main electrical beaker as well as a breaker for each of the inverters. This would allow each solar array or inverter to be isolated from the system for maintenance work. Attachment B, Hellman Properties Seal Beach Solar PV Electrical System Installation Drawings, provides more detail on the layout of the solar tables, inverters, and subpanels.

2.1.3 Power Cables, Transformer, and Disconnect Switches AC power from the inverters would be sent via underground power cables to a central transformer station, which would adjust the AC voltage for transmission to the existing Hellman facility main electrical service panel, which connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) system. The pad for the transformer would be about 12 feet wide by 33 feet long. The pad would also house a subpanel and two disconnect switches.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 9 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The disconnect switches would be located on either side of the transformer. The subpanel would house a main electrical beaker as well as a breaker for each of the solar arrays.

Figure 2-4 Typical String Inverters
Source: Newport Solar, Chint Power Systems
This would allow each solar array or the entire solar system to be isolated for maintenance work.

Attachment B, Hellman Properties Seal Beach Solar PV Electrical System Installation Drawings, provides more detail on the layout of the equipment on the transformer pad. Table 2-3 provides the dimensions of the equipment that would be on the transformer pad.

Table 2-3 Transformer Pad Equipment Dimensions
Equipment Length (ft) Width (ft) Height (ft)
Transformer 7.25 7.75 7.0
Subpanel 3.96 10.5 7.63
Disconnect Switch 2.5 3.33 7.17
Source: Newport Power email dated 8-14-23.

Approximately 600 feet of underground trench would be needed to connect the inverters to the transformer. The trench would be approximately 2 feet wide and contain two 5-inch conduits. The depth of the trench would vary between 18-inches and 24-inches, with the larger depth being in areas of road crossings. The powerlines connecting the transformer pad to the existing Hellman facility’s main electrical service panel would be placed underground in a 2.5-inch conduit.

2.2 Project Construction
Construction of the proposed Solar PV Electrical System would take about three to four months to complete and would involve several phases. Figure 2-5 shows the proposed Project layout and associated

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 10 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
construction area. The remainder of this section discussed various aspects of the construction phase of the project.

2.2.1 Temporary Construction Work Areas
A temporary staging area would be required to stage equipment and supplies during construction as shown in Figure 2-5. The temporary staging would only be used during Project construction and would be restored to preconstruction conditions at the completion of construction. The area is currently an unpaved dirt pad. The staging area would be about 0.14 acres in size (120 feet x 50 feet) and would be entirely within the existing Hellman facility boundary. This area would be used for construction personnel parking, truck loading and unloading, and equipment and material delivery and staging. Heavy equipment not permitted on public roadways would be refueled on- site; however, fuel would not be stored overnight on the Project site. Equipment maintenance activities would be conducted off-site.

2.2.2 Site Disturbance
The area of temporary and permanent disturbance for each of the Project components is provided in Table 2-4. Areas of temporary disturbance include areas that would be allowed to revegetate following construction. The solar array area would be subject to limited grading during construction, but much of the solar array area would be allowed to naturally revegetate once the solar tables were installed.

Temporary disturbance areas include temporary work areas and the portions of the project area are expected to revegetate after construction. The area of permanent disturbance includes the footprint of the solar arrays, and the equipment pads. While the area underneath and between the solar tables would be allowed to revegetate, it has been included in the permanent disturbance area.

Table 2-4 Proposed Project Site Disturbance Areas
Project Component Temporary Disturbance
(acres)
Permanent Disturbance
(acres)
Total Disturbance
(acres)
Solar Array Tables 1.48b 2.65a 4.13
Equipment Pads 0.00c 0.01 0.01
Underground Power Lines 0.29d 0.00 0.29
Staging Area 0.14 0.00 0.14
Total 1.91 2.66 4.57
a. Includes all areas within each solar array including the area under the solar tables. b. Assumes up to 20 feet of temporary impact on all sides of the components, except where there is overlap. c. Temporary impacts areas for equipment pads are included in the underground power lines. d. Temporary impacted area is based upon the area of the trench work that is outside of the permanent or temporary impact areas of the solar arrays. Assumes 2 foot wide trench and 10 feet of work area on either side of trench.

Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Appendix B provides detailed area calculations for the solar array tables.

2.2.3 Construction Phases
Construction of the proposed Project would involve several phases that include (1) site preparation; (2) support pile installation; (3) solar PV system, equipment, and conduit installation; and (4) testing and commissioning. Each of these phases is discussed below.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 11 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Figure 2-5 Proposed Solar PV Electrical System Footprint and Temporary Construction Areas Source: Newport Solar

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 12 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Site Preparation
The initial site preparation would involve removal of the vegetative cover, and the removal of any miscellaneous debris and other deleterious material. Organic matter and other material that may interfere with the completion of the work would be removed from the limits of the construction area. The site would require minimal grading since it is already flat and grading is not necessary for the installation of the solar support structures. Limited grading may be needed for the equipment pads areas. The project would not involve any cut and fill, or the import/export of any soil.

Portions of the site have already had vegetation removed as part of the required fuel modification program, which requires areas within 100 feet of oil wells, electrical equipment, and associated facilities to be periodically maintained to remove any vegetation that presents a fire hazard. Other portions of the site are clear of vegetation since they are existing road or pad areas.

The Applicant has proposed that archeological and Native American monitors would be present during all ground disturbance activities. These monitors would be actively involved in the planning and implementation of ground disturbance activities. As shown in Figure 2-5, a 20-foot buffer near the south end of solar array 3 will be maintained near the known archaeological site.

Support Pile Installation
Solar array construction would start with the installation of the support structure piles, which would be installed by drilling holes and setting the metal piles in concrete. The holes would likely be drilled with a backhoe that is equipped with an augur attachment. Each support structure would have one pile, so a total of 388 pilings would need to be installed. Each piling would be installed to a depth of six feet. A threeinch gravel base would be installed below each pile. The piles would be set in a concrete pier with a diameter of approximately 18-inches using casings.

Previous studies at the Hellman Property site have estimated depth to groundwater to be between four and seven feet below ground surface (bgs) (Wood 2018). Therefore, it is possible that water could be encountered during the installation of the piles. If groundwater is encountered, the pilings and concrete piers can be set in wet conditions. It is not anticipated that any dewatering would be needed to set the piles. Excess soil from the boring of the pile holes would be spread out on the surrounding ground, in the areas where the solar tables would be located.

Once the support structures piles are in place, the support structures and remaining solar PV system can be installed.

Solar PV System, Equipment and Conduit Installation
Once the piles have been installed the next step would be attaching the support structures to the piles.

Other work that would proceed in parallel would be the installation of the equipment pads, and the digging of the conduit trenches. The final activities in this phase would be installation of the conduits and backfilling of the trenches, installation of the solar tables, and installation of the electrical equipment (inverters, subpanels, transformer, etc.).

The conduit trenches approximately 2 feet wide and 18 to 24 inches deep would be excavated using a backhoe along the collection-line corridors, as shown in Figure 2-5. The electrical conduits would be installed in the trenches and then the trenches would be backfilled with native soils. The construction of the five equipment pads would involve the setting of forms and placement of rebar, and then the pouring of concrete.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 13 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The final stage of this construction phase would be the placement of the solar panels/tables onto the support structures, the installation of the inverters, subpanels, and transformer, followed by the installation of the electrical wires for the system.

Underground power cables would be installed from the transformer pad to the existing Hellman property main service panel, which connects to the Hellman facilities as well as an existing SCE 12-kV distribution line.

Testing and Commissioning
Inspection, testing, and commissioning of the PV solar facility would be performed prior to operation of the Project, to establish an as-built baseline for the system, to ensure safe operation of the solar facility, and to confirm that the system is performing as expected.

2.2.4 Construction Workforce, Schedule, and Equipment
Workforce and Work Hours
The construction workforce would consist of approximately 4 to 10 construction personnel depending upon the construction phase as shown in Table 2-5. Approximately 10 construction personnel would be on-site daily at the peak construction. Construction would occur between 7 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday.

Table 2-5 Construction Activities, Duration, Personnel, and Vehicle Trips Activity Duration
(days)
#
Construction
Workers
per Day
#
Vendor
Visits
per Day
#
Delivery
Trucks
per Day
Site Preparation 3 6 0 2
Support Pile Installation 21 8 1 4
Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation 20 10 1 4 Testing and Commissioning 20 4 2 0
Source: Newport Power
Project Schedule
Construction is anticipated to occur over an approximate three to four month period once all necessary regulatory permits and approvals have been obtained. Testing and commissioning would occur for approximately four weeks from the end of active construction. The anticipated duration of each construction activity is provided in Table 2-5.

Equipment
Table 2-6 provides a list of the estimated onsite equipment that would be needed for each phase of construction. Table 2-5 proves an estimate of the number of trucks that would be needed for delivering equipment and supplies to the project site during construction.

Construction Waste
Nonhazardous waste generated during construction (e.g., equipment packaging and trash generated by workers) would be temporarily stored in on-site dumpsters and disposed of off-site at an appropriate disposal facility. Any removed vegetation would be chipped on-site and spread on watershed property or composted. Typical construction-related hazardous substances such as lubricants, adhesives, and solvents would be disposed of off-site at an appropriate disposal facility.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 14 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Table 2-6 List of Offroad Construction Equipment by Phase Phase/Equipment Quantity Hours/Day Hp Load Factor
Site Preparation
Rubber Tire Dozer 1 8 84 0.37
Grader 1 8 148 0.41
Backhoe/Loader 1 8 84 0.37
Water Truck 1 4 376 0.38
Support Pile Installation
Backhoe/Loader 1 7 84 0.37
Forklift 1 8 82 0.20
Generator 1 8 14 0.74
Water Truck 1 2 376 0.38
Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation
Forklift 1 8 82 0.20
Backhoe/Loader 1 7 84 0.37
Generator 1 8 14 0.74
Welding 1 8 46 0.45
Water Truck 1 2 376 0.38
Source: Estimates based upon input from Newport Solar and other similar solar array installation projects. Hp and load factors from CalEEMod default values, Online version 2022.1.1.17.

2.3 Project Operations
The solar facility operations would be monitored as part of the Hellman facility operations by the existing facility staff. The solar facility maintenance would be dispatched on an as-needed basis in response to equipment malfunction or decreased facility performance. It is estimated that five visits per year would be needed for general maintenance. Workers would visit the site in response to maintenance requests.

Operation and maintenance of the facility would not create any new permanent employment positions.

Manual washing of the solar panels would require approximately 1,500 gallons of water and would take approximately 2 days to complete. No chemicals would be used for panel washing. Water would be applied to the solar panels at a rate that would not result in runoff from the site. Wash water would be absorbed into the soil and vegetation underneath the panels. Panel washing will occur, as needed, typically once per year. Vegetation would be allowed to regrow under the panels. Vegetation that shades or interferes with the solar panel function or that poses a fire risk would be trimmed or removed, as needed. Vegetation management would be limited to mechanical removal, which would occur approximately twice per year.

2.4 Proposed Solar Facility Lifetime
Solar panels typically have a functional lifetime of 25 to 30 years. Inverters typically operate without downtime-causing failure for extended periods of time – from 10 years to more than 25 years – when prescribed preventative maintenance is adhered to (DNV 2019). The manufacturer of the inverters for the proposed project offers extended warranties for up to 20 years (CPS 2021). At the end of their functional life, the inverters/panels could be replaced, or the system could be decommissioned and removed. The decision to replace the equipment or decommission the facility would likely be based upon several factors such as the remaining life of the oil field operations, the price of electrical power, the cost to replace the solar panels, etc.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 15 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

3.0 Environmental Analysis

3.1 Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Lead Agency Name and Address City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Contact Person and Phone Number Shaun Temple
Planning Manager
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 431-2527, Ext. 1316
Project Location 1 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach, CA 90740 (just east of First Street) Project Sponsor’s Name and
Address:

Hellman Properties, LLC
P.O. Box 2398, Seal Beach, CA 90740
General Plan Designation: Hellman Ranch Specific Plan
Zoning: Oil Extraction/Hellman Ranch Specific Plan
Description of Project: The proposed Project would consist of the installation and operation of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system. This system would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities operations. The proposed Project would include three separate solar arrays, consisting of a total of 56 solar tables, which would be comprised of 3,100 solar panels. The proposed PV system would cover approximately 2.66 acres on the north edge of the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF).

Surrounding Land Uses The property to the south of the proposed Project property is owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority. This property is about 100 acres in size and is zoned open space-natural (OS-N). The property to the north of the proposed Project property is owned by the County of Orange and serves as a retention basin. This property is about 43 acres in size and is zoned open space-natural (OS-N). To the west of the proposed Project property is the Department of Water and Power Haynes Cooling Channel. On the far west side of the channel is property owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority, which is about 71 acres in size coving both sides of the San Gabriel River. This property is located within the City of Long Beach. To the east of the proposed Project property site is a small open space area that contains the Hellman Ranch Trail. This area is zoned open-space natural (OS-N). The site primarily contains ruderal upland vegetation. Just to the east of this open space is residential housing comprised of all single-family homes. This area is zoned Residential Low Density-9 (RLD-9).

Other Public Agencies Whose
Approval is Required:

California Coastal Commission
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 16 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☒Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture / Forestry Resources ☐ Air Quality ☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
☒ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise ☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☒ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☒ Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.3 Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 17 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and Initial Study Checklist In developing the evaluation of the environmental impacts, the CEQA Environmental Checklist (also known as an “Initial Study”) was used. Each environmental issue listed on the checklist was marked “Potentially Significant Impact,” “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” “Less Than Significant Impact,” or “No Impact” depending on the potential of the Project to have adverse impacts.

For each checklist item an explanation/analysis is provided to support the level of impact determination.

In developing the initial study checklist, the following guidelines from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were used.

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.

A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 18 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Each of the issue areas specified in the CEQA Environment Checklist is discussed below.

3.4.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The City of Seal Beach is a community located on the Pacific Ocean in northwest Orange County. The proposed Project would be located within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site. Pacific Coast Highway is the nearest state highway to the Project site, which is approximately 0.7 miles away. Due to the low high height of the panels (4.5 feet) and the surrounding area vegetation, the panels would not be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. Gum Grove Park is the nearest public park and borders the eastern edge of the Hellman Ranch OGPF property. Between Grove Gum Park and the Hellman OGPF is a wetland area that is owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority, who are proposing a wetland restoration project for this area. The proposed solar facility would be visible from Gum Grove Park and the Los Cerritos Wetland property. The topography of Hellman Ranch OGPF site is primarily flat terrain. a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) The views from Gum Grove Park to the north look across the Hellman Ranch OGPF and in the distance are several large electrical generating stations. All the views are dominated by industrial type facilities. Figure 3-1 shows the current views from Gum Grove Park to the North. The brush area in the foreground of

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 19 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
picture in Figure 3-1 is the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority property. The oil tanks and oil well in the middle of the picture are part of the Hellman OGPF.

Figure 3-1 Current View from Gum Grove Park Looking North Viewpoint from Gum Grove Park at 50mm focal length as a simulation of the eye view.

The proposed solar facility would be located beyond the oil tanks and behind and to the right of the oil well and would be about 0.16 miles from the closest point in Grove Gum Park. The front edge of the solar tables would be at a height of approximately 18-inches, with the back edge of the tables being at a height of about 50 inches. Given the low profile of the solar tables, portions of the facility would be blocked from view by existing vegetation and equipment at the Hellman OGPF facility.

Figure 3-2 provides a visual simulation of the proposed solar project as viewed from the closest point in Grove Gum Park. The proposed solar project would not significantly alter the views from Grove Gum Park or the Los Cerritos Wetland, which are dominated by existing large scale industrial facilities. The solar facility panels would not block views of any scenic vistas. The impact on scenic vistas would be less than significant.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) See response to Item 1(a) above. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no other Scenic Highways in Long Beach or Seal Beach. The closest eligible state scenic highway is Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 1), which is located approximately 0.7 miles to the west of the project site, however, this is not a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not impact any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 20 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
scenic highway. No trees, rock outcroppings, or any structures would be removed from the property because of the Project. The proposed Project would not alter any views in the area and would be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. Therefore, the project would have no impact on scenic resources.

Figure 3-2 View from Gum Grove Park with Simulation of Solar Facility Viewpoint from Gum Grove Park at 50mm focal length as a simulation of the eye view. c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (No Impact) The project site is in an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable zoning and plan regulations as it relates to scenic quality. The City of Seal Beach General Plan zoning for the solar facility site is industrial-oil extraction. The proposed solar facility would not impede the enhancement, implementation, preservation of the existing saltwater marsh, freshwater wetlands, and Gum Grove Park. Therefore, the proposed solar facility would not conflict with the City of Seal Beach general plan regulations as it relates to scenic quality. As such there would be No Impact.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the surrounding area include lights associated with the Hellman OGPF, the industrial facilities to the north of the site, and the commercial building to the northeast.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 21 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Construction
Construction of the Project would primarily occur Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, and construction would last approximately 3 to 4 months. Lighting of construction work areas may be used during the morning or evening hours of construction for safety and security of personnel, particularly during the winter months when natural light is limited. Construction lighting would be temporary and all lights would be shielded and directed only toward the construction area so as not to impact surrounding areas. Project construction would not involve equipment or materials that would introduce a substantial source of glare. The impact from lighting and glare during construction would be less than significant.

Operation
There would be no permanent lighting installed as part of the proposed solar project. As such, there would be no lighting impacts associated with the operations of the PV solar facility.

Solar panels are designed to be highly absorptive of light that strikes the panel surfaces, generating electricity rather than reflecting light. Solar panels have a lower index of refraction/reflectivity than common sources of glare in residential environments. Solar PV panels are constructed of dark-colored (usually blue or black) materials and are covered with anti-reflective coatings. Modern PV panels reflect as little as two percent of incoming sunlight, about the same as water and less than soil or even wood shingles (Meister 2014).

The glare and reflectance levels of modules are further reduced with the application of antireflective coatings. PV suppliers typically use stippled glass for panels as the “texturing” of the glass to allow more light energy to be channeled/transmitted through the glass while weakening the reflected light. With application of anti-reflective coatings and the use of modern glass technology, Project solar panels would display overall low reflectivity.

Although panel would have low reflectivity, some low level of reflectivity would still exist. To address potential glare impacts associated with photovoltaic (PV) solar arrays, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) developed the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT), a modeling/compliance analysis tool.

This tool was originally developed for use in evaluating glare in the vicinity of airports. SGHAT is a webbased tool and methodology to evaluate potential glare associated with solar energy installations. The validated tool provides a quantified assessment of (1) when and where glare will occur throughout the year for a prescribed solar installation, (2) potential effects on the human eye at locations where glare occurs, and (3) the annual energy production from the array so that alternative designs can be compared to maximize energy production while mitigating the impacts of glare. The calculations and methods are based on analyses, test data, a database of different photovoltaic module surfaces (e.g., anti-reflective coating, texturing), and models developed over several years at Sandia. The model allows for the inclusion of obstructions such as trees, bushes, buildings, etc.

The SGHAT tool categorizes glare into three levels of severity which are defined by three colors. • Red glare: glare predicted with a potential for permanent eye damage (retinal burn) • Yellow glare: glare predicted with a potential for temporary after-image • Green glare: glare predicted with a low potential for temporary after-image As a point of comparison, direct viewing of the sun without a filter is on the border between yellow glare and red glare, while typical camera flashes are considered to be lower tier yellow glare (approximately three orders of magnitude less than direct viewing of the sun).

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 22 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
For the purposes of this analysis, any glare that would impact residential properties was considered significant. On open space areas, glare that was greater than green was considered significant.

The SGHAT tool, which is licensed for use in ForgeSolar for commercial use, was used to assess the glare impacts of the proposed Solar PV Project on nearby residential properties and open space areas in the vicinity of the project site. The model works by setting up the solar array(s) and their orientation as well as designating the location of residential or other receptors/observation points. Figure 3-3 shows the location of 34 observation points that were evaluated for glare impacts, and included the following:
• The 18 residential homes that back up to the project area on Blue Herron (OP1-OP18); • Three residential homes that back up to the area along Crestview Avenue (OP32-OP34); • Three locations along the Hellman Ranch Trail (OP26, OP27, and OP31); • Two locations on the western side of the Hellman Property (OP19 and OP20); • Three locations in the South LCWA Site (OP28-OP30);
• Two locations in Zedler Marsh Site (OP24 and OP25); and • Three locations in the Central LCWA Site (OP21-OP23).

Figure 3-3 Location of Glare Analysis Observation Points Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 23 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
In evaluating impacts on the residential properties, observation points were set in backyards, with an observation height of 6 feet above ground level. For open space areas that are accessible via trail, the observation height was set at 6 feet above ground level. All other open space observation heights were set at ground level.

The solar arrays would be tilted facing south at about a 10 degree angle. The greatest potential glare from the solar facility would occur during the sunrise/sunset periods when the sun is low on the horizon.

Unabsorbed incoming light would reflect off the panels which could create glare effects.

Table 3-1 provides a summary of the glare analysis results. Appendix D provides the detailed results of the glare analysis.

Table 3-1 Summary of Analysis of Predicted Glare
Observation
Point
Numbers
Description Green Glare
(hrs/year)
Comments
OP1-OP8 Residential Properties at North End of
Blue Heron
0 No Glare with Existing Vegetation Screening
OP9-OP18 Remaining Residential Properties on
Blue Heron
0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation
Screening
OP-19 Western Side of the Hellman Property 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening
OP20 Western Side of the Hellman Property 19.8 During Sunrise during March/April and August/September. Peak day glare is about 15
mins per day. Glare is associated with the western
most solar array.

OP21-OP23 Central LCWA Site 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening
OP24-OP25 Zedler Marsh Site 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening
OP26 Hellman Ranch Trail 0 No Glare with Existing Vegetation Screening OP27 Hellman Ranch Trail 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening
OP28 South LCWA Site 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening
OP29 South LCWA Site 26.6 During Sunrise from April through August. Peak day glare is about 15 mins per day. Glare is
associated with the eastern most solar array.

OP30 South LCWA Site 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening
OP31 Hellman Ranch Trail No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening
OP32-OP34 Residential Properties Crestview
Avenue
0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation
Screening
None of the observation point generated yellow or red glare.

See Appendix D for detailed glare analysis results.

Analysis assumed no cloud cover or fog occurs on any day.

None of the residential properties were predicted to have any glare impacts. Two of the open space sites were projected to have “green” glare impacts during the sunrise period for up to about 15 minutes per day for a few months of the year. No glare impacts were found to occur during the sunset hours.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 24 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The glare analysis assumes there is no fog or cloud cover during any of the hours. Cloud cover and fog would reduce/eliminate the glare. While no significant glare effects were identified, the implementation of mitigation measure AES-2 would serve to minimize the potential for glare.

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction Lighting – Any construction lighting shall be shielded and directed only toward the construction area so as not to impact surrounding areas.

Mitigation Measure AES-2: Solar Panel Design– The solar panels shall be installed facing south with a fixed tilt angle of 10 degrees. The solar panels shall be constructed of dark-colored materials and shall be covered with an anti-reflective coating. These requirements shall be documented on the final project drawing submitted to the City for approval.

3.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) The proposed Project does not involve conversion of any farmland. The proposed Project does not call for rezoning of farmland, nor is it currently zoned for agriculture. Therefore, there would be no impact on agriculture and forest resources.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 25 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) See response to Item 2(a) above. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The property is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the solar project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (No Impact)
The Project does not involve land that is considered forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production. It is a solar PV project that would occur within an existing oil and gas production site, which is zoned for industrial-oil extraction. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest or timber land.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact) The proposed Project site would be in an existing oil and gas production facility and does not involve conversion of forest land to nonforest use. Therefore, no impact on this topical area would occur. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact)
The proposed Project will not have any impact on farmland or agricultural uses. The Project site is within an existing industrial area. Therefore, the Project will not have any impact that could result in the conversion of property to non-agricultural use.

3.4.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 26 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The Project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM10.

In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times, because earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic.

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with airsheds with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised, and approved over the past decade.

On December 2, 2022, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which provides the blueprint for how the Basin will meet the 2015 8- Hour Ozone Standard by 2037. While the 2022 AQMP fulfilled Clean Air Act requirements for "extreme" nonattainment areas, it did not formally address contingency measure requirements as U.S. EPA was in the process of developing updated contingency measure guidance. The 2022 AQMP committed to address these requirements once new guidance was issued. On December 3, 2024, the U.S. EPA released updated guidance for contingency measures. The South Coast Air Basin Contingency Measure SIP Revision for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard has been developed in response to U.S. EPA's new guidance to satisfy contingency measure requirements in the Basin (SCAQMD 2025).

The current attainment deadlines for all federal non-attainment pollutants are provided in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Attainment Deadlines for Federal Non-Attainment Pollutants Standard Concentration Classification Latest Attainment Year 2008 8-hour Ozone 75 ppb Extreme 2031
2015 8-hour Ozone 70 ppb Extreme 2037
1997 8-hour Ozone 80 ppb Extreme 2023
1997 1-hour Ozone 120 ppb Extreme 2022
2012 Annual PM2.5 12 µg/m3 Serious 2030
2006 24-hour PM2.5 35 µg/m3 Serious 2023
Source: SCAQMD Final 2022 AQMP, December 2022; South Coast Air Basin Contingency Measure SIP Revisions for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard, May 20, 2025; South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard, June 7, 2024.

The proposed Project relates to the AQMP in that the project would generate clean electrical power, which would provide additional emission reductions associated with current power generation. Both the construction and operational emissions would be below the SCQAMD air quality thresholds. As such, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Basin’s AQMP. Therefore, the impacts to implementation of applicable air quality plans would be less than significant.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 27 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The SCAQMD has established CEQA threshold to assess the impacts of a project on air quality within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). These SCAQMD thresholds have been used to assess the significance of the air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project.

Construction Activity Impacts
CalEEMod was used to estimate the construction emission for the proposed Project. The CalEEMod output files are provided in Appendix E. Table 3-3 provides a summary of the peak day criteria pollutant construction emissions for each phase of the project. None of the construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA construction thresholds, or the localized thresholds. Therefore, construction impact to criteria pollutant air quality would be less than significant.

Table 3-3 Peak Day Construction Emissions by Phase
Construction Phase
Peak Day Emissions, lbs/day
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 1.02 7.49 8.98 0.03 9.19 3.99
Support Pile Installation 0.45 3.93 5.26 0.03 3.48 0.51 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation 0.63 5.24 6.97 0.03 3.56 0.56 Testing and Commissioning 0.04 0.25 0.49 0.01 0.18 0.05 Max Peak Day 1.02 7.49 8.98 0.03 9.19 3.99
SCAQMD CEQA Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Localized Thresholds (lbs/day)1 197 1,711 14 9
Exceed Localized Thresholds? No No No No

1. Localized Thresholds based upon SCAQMD Lookup Tables, for North Coastal Orange County, 5- acre site, 25 meters to receptor. Localized emissions thresholds do not include mobile emissions.

2. Construction emission estimates calculated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29.

3. See Appendix E for CalEEMod output files.

Operational Impacts
The sources of operational emissions would be associated with the eight trips per year that would be needed to service the solar facility. Five of these trips would be for general maintenance, two would be for vegetation mowing, and one would be for panel washing. Operation of the solar panels would not generate any air emissions. Table 3-4 provides peak day operational emissions. None of the operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA operational thresholds, or the localized thresholds. Operation of the solar facility would not generate any air toxic emissions. Therefore, operational impact to criteria pollutant air quality would be less than significant.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Item (b) above and recommended mitigation (see below) in compliance with the SCAQMD for short-term construction related impacts. Based upon the analysis presented for Item 3(b) above, the proposed Project’s impacts on sensitive receptor would be less than significant.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 28 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Table 3-4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Source
Peak Day Emissions, lbs/day
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Offsite Mobile Sources 0.12 0.04 2.52 0.00 0.04 0.01
Vegetation Mowing 0.10 0.03 2.36 0.01 0.01 0.01
Totals 0.22 0.07 4.88 0.01 0.05 0.02
SCAQMD CEQA Thresholds 55 55 55 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Localized Thresholds (lbs/day)1 197 1,711 4 2
Exceed Localized Thresholds? No No No No

1. Localized Thresholds based upon SCAQMD Lookup Tables, for North Coastal Orange County, 5- acre site, 25 meters to receptor. Localized emissions thresholds do not include mobile emissions.

2. Construction emission estimates calculated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29.

3. See Appendix E for CalEEMod output files.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The only odor-causing emissions that might occur would be from construction equipment and would likely be associated with diesel exhaust. This would be temporary in nature and would cease once construction is complete. The limited amount and size of the construction equipment would not typically be considered to emit significant odors. The nearest residential home to the proposed Project site is about 480 feet, which would also serve to limit exposure to any construction equipment odors. Also, construction of the project would have to comply with SCAQMD Rules regarding odors and emissions from construction equipment and should result in less than significant impacts.

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Short-Term Construction Emission Reduction Measures – During construction activities, the contractor shall ensure that measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the Project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering or other dust palliative measures (such as covering stock piles with tarps) to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune and use Tier-4-rated heavy equipment; c) enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment; and d) sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from construction site.

3.4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 29 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The Project site has been previously graded as part of past oil and gas development projects, and areas of the Project site within 100 feet of oil field facilities/equipment are periodically disked for fuel modification.

The area subject to temporary and permanent surface disturbance for the proposed Project totals about

4.57 acres. Biological surveys of the proposed solar panel array site were conducted, and a `wetland delineation of the site was prepared (multiple surveys conducted in July, August, and October 2022, and February and March 2023). The surveys were conducted for the 4.57-acre project site and a 100-foot buffer around the site, which together comprise a 12.46-acre study area. The wetland delineation found that neither the 4.57-acre gas solar panel array site nor the areas within a 100-foot buffer around the perimeter of the Project site support wetlands as defined under the Coastal Act. Focused botanical surveys detected southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.1 taxon, in the Project site and 100-foot buffer, and Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri, CRPR 1B.1) in the 100-foot buffer. The least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillis), a state and federally listed endangered bird species was detected during biological surveys in an off-site water quality basin which is partially within the 100-foot buffer.

Appendix F contains a detailed Biological Technical Report for the proposed Project (Glenn Lukos Associates, 2023). The report includes a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report as well as a detailed Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The remainder of this section presents summary of the finding in the biological Technical Report.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Special-Status Plants
No federal or state listed, or candidate plant species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 30 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
detected on the project site and the site does not exhibit suitable habitat for such species. The site does support two CRPR special status plant species, assigned by the CDFW and California Native Plant Society (CNPS), including southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields.

In the areas of the project site not subject to ongoing fuel modification, 57 individuals of southern tarplant were detected during focused surveys in the temporary impact area and 26 individuals of southern tarplant were detected in the permanent impact area of the 4.57-acre solar panel array site; therefore, construction would impact a total of 83 individuals. An additional 532 individuals were detected in the Study Area that are not in the existing fuel modification areas and would be avoided by the Project. It is important to note that southern tarplant is an annual plant species that is highly adapted to disturbance as evidenced by the occurrence of the 83 individuals within the highly disturbed solar panel array site. It is likely that southern tarplant will re-establish within the temporary disturbance areas given the presence of a seed source adjacent to the disturbance area. The loss of the 83 southern tarplant individuals from such a highly disturbed area would be a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Coulter’s goldfields were not detected in the proposed Project permanent or temporary impact areas during the recent surveys but were present in the 100-foot buffer area. Based upon the surveys, Coulter’s goldfields would not be impacted by the proposed Project since it was outside of the area that would be impacted by the project activities.

No other special-status plants were detected within the proposed Project area and none are expected to occur.

Special-Status Animals
No candidate, sensitive, or special status animal species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were detected on the project site and the site does not exhibit suitable habitat for such species.

The 100-foot buffer around the site includes a portion of an off-site water quality basin in which the state and federally listed endangered least Bell’s vireo was detected during past biological surveys. The noise analysis in Section 3.4.13 shows that the peak noise from various construction activities could be as high as 96 dBA at the property line with the Heron Pointe bioswale. This level of noise could result in indirect impacts to nesting least Bell’s vireo. A mitigation measure has been included that limits the noise generating construction activities to outside the bird nesting season. Therefore, indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo from construction noise would be a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

A wintering Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) was reported during site visits conducted on December 9 and 19, 1996 and on January 16, 1997. Follow-up breeding season surveys in spring of 1997 confirmed that this wintering individual had departed the site. This species was not detected during surveys in 2004 on the Hellman Property for the Tank Farm Relocation project. As no suitable man-made structures or rodent burrows were observed in the Study Area in 2022, this species is not expected to occur. However, given the historic wintering burrowing owl occurrences in the Hellman Property, future occurrences cannot be ruled out. Mitigation has been included to conduct surveys for the Burrowing Owl prior to construction. Impacts on Burrowing Owls would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant Impact) A total of 15 vegetation land use types were mapped within the 12.46-acre survey area, which includes the Project Impact Area and 100-foot survey buffer area. Development of the proposed Project would

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 31 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
result in direct impacts to eight vegetation/land use types totaling 4.57 acres as shown in Table 3-5. The survey buffer area contains one special-status vegetation type, the Cressa truxillensis–Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance identified as a sensitive natural community by the CDFW. However, none of the impacted vegetation types are considered special status by either CDFW or the CEQA Thresholds Guide, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)
No features subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps, CDFW, RWQCB, or wetlands defined under the California Coastal Act (CCA) are present within the proposed Project boundaries. Thus, there would be no impacts to state or federal wetlands from the construction of the proposed Project. See the detailed Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report that is part of Appendix F, Biological Technical Report.

Table 3-5 Summary of Impacts to the Proposed Project Vegetation/Land Use Types Vegetation/Land Use Type
Permanent
Impact Area
(Acres)
Temporary
Impact Area
(Acres)
Total Project
Impact Area
(Acres)
Study Area
(Acres)
Alkali heliotrope fields 0.04 0.06 0.1 1.11
Annual grassland/herbaceous semi-natural
stands 0 0.02 0.02 1.2
Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance 0 0.04 0.04 0.05 Disturbed Baccharis pilularis shrubland
alliance 0 0 0 0.35
Bassia hyssopifolia association 1.55 0.88 2.43 3.54
Castor bean stands 0 0.03 0.03 0.05
Cressa truxillensis-Distichlis spicata
herbaceous alliance 0 0 0 0.2
Distichlis spicata – annual grasses 1.05 0.61 1.66 3.23 Disturbed/Developed 0 0.22 0.22 2.51
Malvella leprosa fields 0 0 0 0.11
Mixed shrub seminatural stands 0 0 0 0.04
Ornamental 0 0 0 0.01
Raphanus sativus association 0 0 0 0.18
Salix lasiolepis – Baccharis salicifolia
shrubland alliance 0 0 0 0.58
Tree tobacco stands 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.27
Total Vegetation/Land Use Acreage 2.66 1.91 4.57 12.46
See Appendix F-Biological Technical Report for a more detailed analysis. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less Than Significant Impact) The Project site is not within a wildlife corridor and does not contain any native wildlife nursery sites.

There is a hypothesis that migrating water-dependent bird species may potentially mistake the extensive solar arrays for water features on which the birds can land, usually at night. This is known as the “lake effect”. Such collisions often do not result in direct fatality, but the birds sometimes cannot take off after collisions because they are adapted to take off from water, not dry land. Most studies of the potential

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 32 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
phenomena have been conducted at large scale solar PV facilities, which were hundreds of WMs in size and located in desert environments (Kosciuch. 2021).

The California Energy Commission (CEC) released a study in 2024 that investigated the “Lake Effect” influence on avian behavior from California’s utility scale photovoltaic solar facilities. The study documented the results of a project that examined the so-called lake effect hypothesis that utility-scale solar facilities attract birds by simulating the visual cues birds use to locate water bodies. The study followed three interrelated themes matching the process by which birds could be attracted to solar facilities from: 1) detection by birds of an attractive cue such as polarized light that results in, 2) a corresponding adjustment in flight behavior toward a solar facility that, 3) leads to arrival and interaction of birds at solar facilities, potentially resulting in bird fatalities (CEC 2024).

The study focused on several large utility scale solar PV sites that were all located away from natural water bodies, with most being in desert locations. The sites looked at in the study ranged in size from about 50 MW to 328 MW.

The results indicate that birds are more attracted to highly polarized sources of visible light, and that solar panels polarize light in a manner similar to water. A large percentage of flying animals (perhaps 10 percent or more) approaching solar facilities from the north during daylight hours in the fall migration season were shown to descend toward facilities. Finally, and perhaps most compelling, is the observed mortality of water obligate species, which perish on dry land, found at PV solar facilities in desert environments without water. Taken together, these results are consistent with an operational lake effect hypothesis of avian mortality at arid solar facilities. (CEC 2024).

Given the relatively small size of the proposed Solar PV Project, and the fact that it is in close proximity (900 to 1,900 feet) to other water bodies (Haines Cooling Channel, San Gabriel River, Los Cerritos Southern Wetland, and the Pacific Ocean) the potential for the lake effect to impact migrating birds be highly unlikely. Additionally, mitigation measure AES-2 from the Aesthetics section will require solar panels to be constructed of dark-colored materials and covered with an anti-reflective coating, to further prevent glare that could be confused as a water surface. Given the project’s limited size, the fact it is not located in an arid environment and is near a number of natural water bodies, the Project would not result in a significant impact to migratory birds.

There is the potential for the displacement of rodents (i.e., rats, ground squirrels, mice, etc.) that may inhabit the area where the proposed Solar PV facility would be installed. Installation of solar facilities have been known to displace rodent populations when the area is graded and the vegetation is removed for the installation of solar panels. Research suggests that solar panels may have indirect effects on rodent populations, particularly as solar farms replace agricultural fields or natural habitats, rodents may experience changes in their habitats, leading to shifts in population dynamics (Energy5 2023).

It has also been speculated that PV solar facilities can also create favorable microclimate and sheltered environment for rodents, which increased rodent population within the solar facility (Energy5 2023).

During the biological surveys conducted at the project site, rodents were not observed, but rodents have been regularly seen on the Hellman Ranch Oil Field Property. The site of the proposed Solar PV facility is regularly disced and/or mowed for fire control, so it is unlikely that it currently supports a large rodent population.

There are large, vegetated areas between the closest residential area and the project site. It is possible that rodents could be displaced during the construction phase of the project. It is likely that any displacement would be into the surrounding vegetated areas such as the large Los Alamitos Retention Basin or the LCWA property, which are adjacent to the Solar PV Project site. Once the PV solar facility is

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 33 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
installed, the vegetation will be allowed to regrow, so the habitat could be suitable for some rodents. As is the current practice, the area would continue to be mowed on an annual basis for fire control.

Given the current conditions of the PS Solar facility site, and the fact that most of the surrounding area is vegetated, it is likely that any rodents displaced during construction would move to the surrounding vegetated area and not as far as the residential neighborhoods. Once construction is completed, it is likely that rodent populations that were displaced would be able to return. Therefore, the impact associated with rodent displacement would be less than significant. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact)
The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. With regards to potential environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), the Coastal Act Section 30107.5 defines an ESHA as:
…any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.

Since the land cover on the solar panel array site consists of a mix of non-sensitive native vegetation and non-native herbaceous vegetation, including alkali heliotrope, non-native annual grasses, salt grass, Bassia hyssopifolia, developed areas, dirt roads, and staging areas, the site does not constitute ESHA and thus construction of the solar panel array would not directly affect ESHA. Similarly, areas within the 100- foot buffer portion of the study area consist of active oil extraction, including active wells, oil field infrastructure, and staging and equipment storage areas within a mosaic of non-native and non-sensitive native vegetation. As such, there would be no indirect impacts on ESHA. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact)
The project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Project Construction Timing – Construction activities associated with site preparation, support pile installation, and Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation shall occur outside of the bird nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September

15. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Grading Limitations– To the extent feasible, the project site shall not be graded. The vegetation on the project site shall be cleared using mowers or weed whackers.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Burrowing Owl Survey – A pre-construction (initial take avoidance) burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the 2012 Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the pre-construction survey is positive for owl presence, the project proponent will immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW, USFWS) to acquire proper avoidance measures, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 34 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If the species is not found, no further action is needed.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Southern Tarplant and Coulters goldfields Preconstruction Surveys – Prior to the initiation of construction activities, a City approved biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields during the appropriate season for each species to determine final mitigation requirements. These surveys shall cover the entire project area as well as a buffer area of 100-feet outside the construction boundaries. If Coulters goldfields are detected in the Project impact area, then the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be amended to include mitigation for Coulter’s goldfields at a 4:1 ratio at a location with suitable habitat for the species.

Any populations of Coulter’s goldfields or southern tarplant within the 100 foot buffer zone or within the construction area that can be avoided, shall be demarcated with construction fencing. No vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, or other construction activities shall occur in the fenced areas or within 30 feet of any Coulter’s goldfields.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Prior to impacts to the southern tarplant in the Project site, a biologist, approved by the City, shall implement the measures contained in the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (see Appendix F), which provides for replacement of the impacted 83 individuals at a ratio of 4:1, for a total of 332 individuals. However, if preconstruction surveys determine that total numbers of impacted individuals has changed, the total number of replacement individuals shall be adjusted accordingly at a 4:1 ratio. The plan identifies a candidate area of the Hellman Property where southern tarplant may be established and preserved in perpetuity. The plan includes provisions for seed collection, planting, performance standards for a five-year monitoring period, and contingency plans if the performance standards are not met.

3.4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
This section analyzes impacts on historical and archeological resources in the Project site. Section 3.4.18 discusses the potential impacts of the proposed Project on Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project site has been previously assessed for cultural resources as part of past oil and gas development projects. The area that would require surface disturbance for the proposed Project would be approximately 4.57 acres.

Appendix G provides a Cultural Resources Assessment Report for a Proposed Solar Array Project. This section presents a summary of the findings in the Cultural Assessment Report.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 35 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (Less Than Significant Impact)
A records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University at Fullerton failed to indicate the presence of any listed National Register of Historic Places or properties within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed Project area. Additionally, no California Historical Landmarks or California Points of Historical Interest properties were identified on the site or vicinity. The California State Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) lists no buildings in the vicinity that have been previously evaluated for historical significance. However, as discussed in section item (b) below, archaeological sites eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) may be present on the Hellman Ranch OGPF property. Sites eligible for the CRHR are considered historical resources under CEQA. As discussed in Response 5(b) below, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce the potential impact below the level of significance.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Many archeological investigations have been conducted on the Hellman property over the past 50 years in support of both oil/gas and residential development. The most recent archeological field investigation was done in 2019 in support of a proposed gas plant approximately 320 feet southwest of the current project area (Wahoff 2019). As part of the 2019 study, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University at Fullerton. The results of this records search, including previous surface and subsurface investigations and known cultural resources, are discussed below.

Previous Surveys
The 2019 records search revealed that at least 18 previous cultural resources surveys or other archaeological investigations have been conducted within 0.25 mile of the current Project area, and that the entire Project area has been intensively surveyed for archaeological resources on at least four occasions (Archaeological Associates 1980; Rosenthal and Padon 1990; Stickel 1996; York and Willey 2004). None of these field surveys revealed any cultural resources within the Project area, although one (Archaeological Associates 1980) noted two dispersed scatters of marine shell (CA-ORA-850 and -851) located approximately 500 and 50 feet east and northeast of the Project area, respectively. Other cultural resources within 0.25 mile include CA-ORA-257, -258, and -259, all consisting of remnants of prehistoric shell middens along the crest of Landing Hill to the south of the Project area (Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996; Cleland et al. 2007); P-30-01544, a large but dispersed scatter of marine shell and artifacts located on the Boeing property immediately north of Adolfo Lopez Drive (Underwood 2000); and the Los Alamitos Pump Station, approximately 550 feet north of the Project area (Shepard 2002).

Previous Subsurface Investigations
Although several extensive archaeological excavations have been conducted along the crest of Landing Hill just to the south and east of the Project area (Cleland et al. 2007; Desautels 1981; Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996), subsurface investigation in the lower elevations within the Hellman Ranch OGPF have been limited to an unreported testing program at CA-ORA-851 by LSA Associates in 1990, and an exploratory archaeological trenching program by EDAW, Inc. in 2006.

LSA Testing at CA-ORA-851: In 1990, LSA Associates initiated an extensive subsurface testing program for a planned residential development on a portion of Landing Hill just to the east of the Project area. This testing program included several large prehistoric sites along the crest of the hill (CA-ORA-260, -261, -262, and -263), as well as site CA-ORA-851, which is located approximately 50 feet to the east of the present

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 36 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Project area. Although the LSA testing program was never fully reported, York (2006) reported that field forms provided to EDAW, Inc. by LSA indicated that two 1-by-1 meter (m) test units were excavated at CA-ORA-851, both yielding only small amounts of marine shell. The shells were limited to the upper 20 centimeters (cm) of the deposit, in a highly disturbed context that also included imported fill and construction debris. Below this disturbed layer, according to the LSA field notes, were natural sediments containing no shells.

Exploratory Trenching by EDAW, Inc. (York 2006): In 2006, EDAW, Inc. conducted a program of exploratory archaeological trenching at various locations throughout the Hellman Ranch OGPF in support of a proposed underground tank farm replacement project (York 2006). A total of 31 trenches were excavated, including 20 along proposed pipeline alignments and 11 within the footprint of the proposed tank farm. Each trench measured approximately 10 m long and between 120 and 200 centimeters deep.

Of the 31 trenches, 4 were placed within or immediately adjacent to the present Project area: trenches 1, 2, and 20 in the far southeastern portion, and Trench 6 in the northwestern portion.

Trench 1, placed at the northern boundary of CA-ORA-851, appears to confirm the field notes for the LSA excavations: the upper 40 cm is clearly disturbed and contains sand, gravel, sparse marine shell, and recent debris. Underlying this were apparently undisturbed alluvial or estuarine fine sand, silt, and clay sediments that contained no shell. On this basis, York (2006) concluded that CA-ORA-851 likely represents an artificial fill deposit composed in part from sediment dredged from nearby Alamitos Bay.

Cultural Resources within Project Area
A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted for the proposed Project site (York 2023). This assessment was conducted in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA, and the guidelines for preparation of archaeological reports by the Office of Historic Preservation. A copy of the cultural resources assessment is provided in Appendix G.

This assessment indicated that none of the several previous surveys that have included the Project area have revealed cultural resources. Moreover, of the seven cultural resources that have been previously recorded within 0.25 miles of the Project area, only one, CA-ORA-851, is closer than approximately 500 feet to areas subject to direct disturbance from the proposed solar array construction. This resource, a dispersed scatter of marine shell fragments, was subject to subsurface archaeological examinations in 1996 and 2006, both of which indicated that the deposit most likely represents recently imported fill materials. It would not be affected by the proposed solar array construction. Additionally, the rest of the 2006 exploratory trenching program designed to identify buried archaeological resources at various locations within the Hellman Ranch OGPF was entirely negative, including at several locations within the present Project area (York 2006).

These results indicate that the archaeological sensitivity of the Project area is generally low, at least in near-surface contexts, and that it is generally unlikely that cultural resources would be encountered during ground disturbance associated with the Project. However, as noted in previous studies, there is still some possibility that intact cultural resources could exist within the Project under recent alluvium or artificial fill (York 2023). Given this possibility, mitigation measures have been provided. Therefore, impact to cultural/archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? (Less Than Significant Impact)
There are no known human remains within the proposed Project site. As discussed above, the proposed Project site has been previously disturbed and is located within a lowland area of the Hellman Ranch OGPF

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 37 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
site, a context generally considered unsuitable for human burial. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed Project would disturb any human remains. Implementation of mitigation measure CR-1 would address the procedures to be followed in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during the earth moving activities.

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Archeological Monitoring and Unanticipated Discovery Treatment Plan – Prior to issuance of a grading permit an Archeological Monitoring and Unanticipated Discovery Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval. The plan shall be prepared by a City approved archaeologist. The qualified archeologist shall coordinate with the Native American monitors during the preparation of the plan. The plan shall outline areas that will be designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, if needed. Significant or unevaluated archaeological resources that are being avoided and are within 50 feet of the construction zone shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The resources shall be delineated with exclusion markers to ensure avoidance.

The plans shall specify the monitoring procedures, the field and laboratory methods that would be used for treatment of unanticipated discoveries, and the requirements for Native American participation in the monitoring and treatment activities. Procedures outlined shall include stop-work and protective measures, notification protocols, procedures for significance assessments, and appropriate treatment measures. The plan shall state avoidance or preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to historical resources, unique archaeological resources, and contributors to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape but shall provide procedures to follow should avoidance be infeasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.

The plan shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed if human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods are uncovered.

Mitigation Measure CR-2: Archaeological Monitoring – An archaeologist, approved by the City of Seal Beach, shall be present at the site during all ground disturbance activities.

3.4.6 Energy
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The proposed solar PV project would use energy for both construction and operations. The main energy use for construction would be diesel fuel for construction equipment. The energy used for operation would be fuel for workers commuting to the site and for operation of a lawn mower. The 1.5 MW Solar PV Electrical System, which would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean electrical energy in support of the

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 38 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
various Hellman Property facilities operations. Any excess power generated would be sold back to the SCE grid.

For all of California, the utility-scale solar (PV) capacity factor is about 28% (USEIA. 2019). For a facility in Seal Beach, it would be expected that the solar (PV) capacity factor would be lower due to the proximity to the coast and the influence of fog. The Applicant has estimated an annual solar capacity factor of 20% which means the project would generate about 2,630 MW-hrs of electricity per year. a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction
All the offroad construction equipment would use diesel fuel. The on road vehicles would use a combination of diesel fuel and gasoline. Table 3-6 provides a breakdown of the total estimated fuel use for construction.

Implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 that requires maintaining equipment engines in proper tune, use of Tier 4 engines, and enforcing a 5-minute idling limits would serve to reduce energy use from construction.

Table 3-6 Estimated Construction Equipment Fuel Use (gals) Equipment Group Diesel Gasoline Total
Onsite Construction Equipment 3,277 0 3,277
On Road Construction Vehicles 1,046 679 1,725
Total 4,323 679 5,002
See Appendix C for fuel use calculations.

Operation
The solar array would require minimal maintenance, including panel washing, vegetation removal, and periodic maintenance work. It is estimated that about eight trips per year would be needed for operational activities, with an estimated fuel use of about 27 gallons of gasoline per year. The facility would be monitored by existing personnel at the Hellman Ranch Facility.

The solar PV facility would generate about 2,630 MW-hrs of electricity per year. Operational activities would not require excessive or wasteful use of energy that could lead to potentially significant environmental impacts. Consumption of energy during operation would be far less than the amount of renewable energy generated by the solar facility. The operational impact would be less than significant because energy use during operation would be minimal.

Given all these facts, the proposed Project’s impacts on consumption of energy resources would be less than significant.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (No Impact) Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program – California's RPS program was established in 2002 by Senate Bill (SB) 1078 with the initial requirement that 20% of electricity retail sales must be served by renewable resources by 2017. The program was accelerated in 2015 with SB 350 which mandated a 50% RPS by 2030. SB 350 includes interim annual RPS targets with three-year compliance periods and requires 65% of RPS procurement to be derived from long-term contracts of 10 or more years. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which again increases the RPS to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 39 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
come from carbon-free resources by 2045. The Project would comply with the State’s goal of increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, no impact would occur.

California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan – On Sept. 18, 2008, the CPUC adopted California’s first Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, presenting a single roadmap to achieve maximum energy savings across all major groups and sectors in California. The Strategic Plan was subsequently updated in January 2011. The proposed solar PV project would be consistent with the goals established for industrial sector.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

City of Seal Beach General Plan – The City of Seal Beach’s General Plan includes energy conservation opportunities and techniques, aimed at reducing building energy use (City of Seal Beach, 2003). The project would install no buildings and therefore, energy conservation items in the General Plan would not apply to the Solar PV project.

3.4.7 Geology/Soils
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 40 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than Significant Impact)
All Southern California, including the proposed Project site, is subject to the effects of seismic activity. The project itself will not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismicrelated ground failure including liquefaction or landslides. However, the proposed Project must adhere to the City's adopted Building Code regulations that pertain to mitigating the potential effects of fault ruptures and ground shaking, or failures caused by a seismic event.

The Alquist-Priolo and Newport-Inglewood Fault Zones cross the Hellman Ranch OGPF property just to the southwest of the proposed Solar PV facility. Figure 3-4 shows the fault zone and fault in relation to the proposed Project site. The Solar PV facility would be located outside of the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.

The solar table support structures would be required to meet Seismic Zone 4 standards per the appropriate section of the California Building Code at the time of construction. However, in a severe earthquake it is possible that the solar tables could be damaged, but the damage would be limited to the project site.

Figure 3-4 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone
California Department of Conservation Earthquake Zone Maps 2023.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 41 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The nearest habituated structure to the Project is 450 feet. The Project would not cause risk of loss, injury, or death associated with seismic-related hazards, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure, because no people or structures would be located adjacent to the solar PV facility. The Project does not involve construction of habitable structures that could cause adverse effects involving earthquakes and strong seismic ground shaking. Neither construction nor operation of the solar PV facility are anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts to fault rupture. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
(iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than Significant Impact) A reviewed the seismic hazard zone report by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (DCDMG, 1998 – Los Alamitos Quadrangle) and Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Los Alamitos Quadrangle map by California Geological Survey (CGS, 1999). Based on CGS (1999), the planned location for the expansion is within an area/zone identified by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction induced ground deformation and within an area encompassing active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting.

The entire Hellman Ranch OGPF site is in an area susceptible to liquefaction. This is primarily since the soil in the area is artificial fill (see item (c) below). The Solar PV Project would not result in the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards. In the event of damage to the Solar table from liquefaction, the damage would be limited to the project area site, and would not cause risk of loss, injury, or death since not people or structures are adjacent to the solar PV facility. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. (iv) landslides? (No Impact)
Per the California Department of Conservation Landslide Inventory, there are no mapped landslides within the project site. The subject property does not have potential for landslides in case of seismic activity or other triggering mechanism, such as rainfall or runoff, due to the flat topography of the site. Therefore, no such impact will occur because of landslides.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than Significant Impact) Construction of the Solar PV Project would not involve any cut and fill operations. No topsoil would be removed from the project site. Permanent removal of topsoil would be limited to the 388 footing for the solar table supports and five pads for the electrical equipment. These areas represent a total of 0.04 acres of the 4.57 acre site. The topsoil from these areas would be spread out within the project area. Temporary removal of topsoil would occur for the installation of the underground powerlines (0.29 acres). This topsoil would be placed back over the trenches as part of the backfilling operations. The Regional Water Quality Control Board will require that the project implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan with Best Management Practices during construction to control any soil loss. Once construction is complete the area will be allowed to revegetate. Therefore, impacts associated with loss of topsoil would be considered less than significant.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less than Significant Impact) Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated granular soils transform from a solid to a liquefied state when subjected to large, rapid loadings such as strong ground shaking during an earthquake. The

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 42 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
transformation to a liquid state occurs due to the tendency of granular materials to compact, which consequently results in increased pore water pressure accompanied by a significant reduction in the effective stress. The change of state occurs most readily in recently deposited (i.e., geologically young) loose to moderately dense granular soils. The liquefaction susceptibility is highly dependent on the density of the soil, wherein looser soils are generally more susceptible. Area of artificial fill are more susceptible to liquefaction.

The Solar PV Project site is located on ground that is susceptible to liquefaction. Figure 3-5 shows a map of the surficial deposits within the project area, and the soil is mainly artificial fill.

Over the past 70 years that has been no surface displacement, or impacts to oil field facility equipment, or existing infrastructure (roads, river, and cooling channel levees). The solar table support structures would be required to meet seismic engineering standards to prevent damage or instability during a seismic event. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less than Significant Impact) Expansive soils are characterized by the ability to undergo significant volume change (i.e., shrink and swell) as a result of variation in soil moisture content. Soil moisture content can change due to many factors, including perched groundwater, landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Expansive soils are commonly very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of clay.

The project site consists primarily of Bolsa Silt Loam and Bolsa Silt Clay Loam, which has a low to moderate expansion potential (GLA 2023). The Solar PV Project would not involve the construction of any buildings and the project site is not acceptable to the public so the risk to life or property would be minimal, and impacts would be considered less than significant.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) Due to the nature of the proposed Project, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are required or proposed for the implementation as part of the proposed project. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant)
The project site is in an area of artificial fill (See Figure 3-5). It is likely that below the artificial fill are Estuarine deposits. Artificial fill areas have no paleontological potential. Estuarine deposits have low paleontological potential (ESA 2020). Based upon boring samples done for the gas plant the upper 7 to 10 feet of soil was found to be fine-grained typically classified as medium to high plasticity clays, which would be indicative of artificial fill material (Wood 2018).

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 43 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Figure 3-5 Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in the Project Area Source: Special Report 217: Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California (2012 Revision), California Department of Conservation.

Project Site

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 44 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The soil analysis done as part of the Los Cerritos Southern Wetland Restoration Project, which is in the same area as the proposed Project, assumed an artificial fill depth of 5 feet (LCWA 2023).

The concrete pilings for the solar table supports would have a depth of 6 feet and a diameter of 1.5 feet.

The equipment pad depths are 0.33 feet, and the powerline trenches will be 3 feet deep. Therefore, the ground disturbance for the project would occur likely in artificial fill, which has no paleontological potential. As such the only project activity that might have the potentially impact paleontological resources would be the concrete pile footings.

The holes for the pilings would likely be drilled with a backhoe that is equipped with an augur attachment.

Each support structure would have one pile, so a total of 388 pilings would need to be installed.

Installation of the pilings is expected to disturb only the surficial soils and not underlying soil units. This limited ground disturbance would not be expected to destroy any paleontological resources or unique geologic feature. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

3.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
This section of the document analyzes the impact the proposed Project would have on emissions that affect climate change around the world. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions were analyzed as part of the CalEEMod air emission calculations. The CalEEMod output files are provided in Appendix E. “Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately one-half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant Impact)
The construction and operational GHG emissions for the proposed project are provided in Table 3-7.

Construction of the Solar PV facility is expected to take less than one year.

As specified by the SCAQMD, the construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to the annual operating GHG emissions. As shown in Table 3-7 the GHG emissions from the proposed Solar PV Project would be negative and as such below the CEQA Threshold established by the SCAQMD for industrial projects.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 45 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Table 3-7 Project GHG Emissions (MT/yr.)
Project Phase CO2 CO2e
Construction Phase
Site Preparation 3.13 3.16
Support Pile Installation 16.67 17.03
Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit
Installation 18.25 18.62
Testing and Commissioning 3.18 3.29
Total Construction Phase 41.23 42.10
Operational Phase
Offsite Mobile Sources 0.16 0.16
Vegetation Mowing 0.01 0.01
Water Use 0.01 0.01
Electrical Power Generation (413.16) (413.16)
Amortized Construction Emissions 1.37 1.40
Total (411.61) (411.58)
SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 10,000
Exceed Threshold? No
Operational emission estimates calculated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29.

Electrical Power generation GHG saving estimated based upon system capacity of 1.5 MW, an annual solar capacity factor of 20%, and an SCE GHG intensity factor of 346.20 lbs/Mw-hr, which is from CalEEMod for estimate year 2026.

See Appendix D for detailed calculations.

The purpose of the project is to generate renewable electrical energy, which would offset electrical power generated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and the onsite gas turbine generator. This would result in an overall reduction of GHG emissions from electrical generation. The estimated reduction in GHG emissions was based on the grid using the estimated SCE 2026 GHG intensity factor from CalEEMod. The amount of GHG reduction would reduce overtime as the SCE system obtains more of its electrical power from renewable sources. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (No Impact)
Climate Change Scoping Plan - In 2006, the Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)], which created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. AB 32 required the California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to reduce GHGs to achieve the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan was first approved by the Board in 2008 and must be updated at least every five years. Since 2008, there have been two updates to the Scoping Plan. Each of the Scoping Plans has included a suite of policies to help the State achieve its GHG targets, in large part leveraging existing programs whose primary goal is to reduce harmful air pollution.

The equipment used during construction would have to comply with the applicable GHG reduction programs for mobile sources in accordance with the Climate Change Scoping Plan to achieve the State's GHG reduction targets. The contractor who owns the equipment and vehicles is required to provide verification of compliance to the California Air Resources Board or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under state and federal law. The Project would help to implement some of the Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies as it relates to the development and use of renewable energy sources. The Project

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 46 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
would not conflict with regulations adopted to achieve the goals of the Climate Scoping Plan. No impact would occur.

City of Seal Beach - The City of Seal Beach has not yet developed a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan or Climate Action Plan. The City of Seal Beach General Plan, adopted in December 2003, does not contain an air quality element or a Climate Action Plan. The applicable GHG planning document for the City is the AB32 Climate Change Scoping Plan discussed above.

3.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code
§ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within 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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than Significant Impact) The project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Operation of the Solar PV Project would not involve the use of hazardous materials.

Project construction would involve the use and transport of typical construction-related materials such as fuels, lubricants, adhesives, and solvents. Heavy equipment not permitted on public roads would be refueled on-site, but no overnight fuel storage or maintenance of heavy equipment would occur on the Project site. Any onsite refueling operations would be conducted at the staging area, which is a flat level dirt pad. Any spills during refueling would be small and contained within the staging area.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 47 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The transformer that would be used on the site would use a biodegradable oil for cooling such as mineral oil or a type of vegetable oil. No hazardous substances as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act would be used, transported, or disposed of as a part of the Project.

Therefore, the project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and the impact would be less than significant. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less than Significant Impact)
Solar facility equipment, including transformers and inverters, requires use of oils and lubricants in small quantities. Any leaks of transformer oil or solvents would be very limited, contained in a drip pan, and would be repaired to maintain proper functioning equipment. Very small quantities of solvents, cleaners, or other chemicals may be used during maintenance of the Project for cleaning equipment or to prevent corrosion.

The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials throughout the operational life of the Project would be carried out in accordance with federal, state, and county regulations for transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts from hazardous material releases during operation would be less than significant.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact) The proposed Solar PV facility would not emit hazardous emissions or require the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous material. Also, there are no schools located within one-quarter of a mile of the proposed Project site.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact)
The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, project implementation would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e. For a project located within 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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a public airport. The site is located over three miles from Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) and is not within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for that facility.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact)
The project is required to meet all applicable fire codes and City regulations that provide for adequate access to and from the site and will not impair access. The Hellman OGPF site has two access points for emergency response and meets the requirement of Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), and CalGEM.

This project would not interfere with any emergency plans for either the City of Long Beach or the City of Seal Beach. All construction equipment and supplies will be stored on site away from public and

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 48 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
emergency access roads. As such, the project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less than Significant Impact) Once constructed, the PV solar facilities would be built to meet all relevant California building standards, including building code, electrical code, and fire code requirements, thereby minimizing the potential for ignition to occur at the facility. In addition, routine maintenance at the Hellman OGPF facility includes vegetation management to ensure a defensible space is maintained consistent with the requirements of OCFA, and CalGEM. The Hellman OGPF maintains a Fire Protection Plan and has a firewater system. The oil storage facility has fire monitors that could be used in the unlikely event of a fire at the PV solar site.

The nearest fire station to the Hellman OGPF site is OCFA Station 44, which is less than a mile from the site. Because the Project would be built to modern code requirements, would be maintained to have a defensible space around the facility, has a fire firewater system on site, the Project operational impacts related to hazards resulting from wildland fires are less than significant.

3.4.10 Hydrology/Water Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 49 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The nearby San Gabriel River Estuary, which is hydrologically connected to the project site, is listed as an Impaired Waterbody, per the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2014/2016 California Integrated Report, Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report. Water quality impairments include copper, dioxin, indicator bacteria, nickel, and dissolved oxygen (SWRCB 2023).

Water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 3,482 AF for potable use. In fiscal year (FY) 2019-20, the City’s water use was 3,273 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported). There is currently no recycled water use within the City’s service area. In FY 2019-20, the City’s water use profile was comprised of 70.4% residential use, 18.4% commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) use, 0.5% large landscape/irrigation, with non-revenue water (NRW) comprising about 10.6% (Arcadis 2021).

The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The site is within Zone X, an area of 0.2% annual chance flood (i.e., 500- year flood plain); an area of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot; an area with drainage areas less than 1 square miles; or an area protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood (FEMA 2023).
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less than Significant) Construction
Project construction would include 4.57 acres of ground disturbance, including areas for solar array tables, equipment pads, underground power lines, and staging areas (see Table 2-4, Proposed Project Site Disturbance Areas). The initial site preparation would involve removal of the vegetative cover, and the removal of any miscellaneous debris and other deleterious material. Organic matter and other material that may interfere with the completion of the work would be removed from the limits of the construction area. The site would require minimal grading since it is already flat and grading is not necessary for the installation of the solar support structures. Limited grading may be needed for the equipment pads areas.

The project would not involve any cut and fill, or the import/export of any soil.

In the absence of proper soil management, ground disturbance and construction could result in wind and water erosion and associated sedimentation of the San Gabriel River, LCWA wetland areas, and Haynes Cooling Channel. Construction-related activities that primarily result in sediment releases are related to exposing previously stabilized soils to potential mobilization by rainfall/runoff and wind. Erosion and sedimentation affects water quality and interferes with photosynthesis; oxygen exchange; and the respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Additionally, other pollutants, such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported off-site, which could contribute to degradation of water quality.

Non-sediment-related pollutants that are also of concern during construction relate to construction materials and non-stormwater flows and include construction materials (e.g., paint); chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products used in construction or the maintenance of heavy equipment; and concrete-related pollutants.

Project construction impacts would be minimized through compliance with the Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2022-0008, NPDES No. CAS618000), which includes the City of Seal Beach, and the SWRCB Construction General Permit, which is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002). Because the proposed Project is greater than 1 acre in size, the applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB in order to obtain approval to complete

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 50 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
construction activities under the Construction General Permit. This permit requires the discharger to perform a risk assessment for the proposed development (with differing requirements based upon the determined level) and to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A Construction Site Monitoring Program that identifies monitoring and sampling requirements during construction is a required component of the SWPPP. The SWPPP is also required to include constructionphase Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented. Typical BMPs that would be implemented during grading and construction of the proposed Project that would minimize degradation of surface water quality include erosion control, sediment control, waste/materials management, non-stormwater management, training and education, and inspections/maintenance/monitoring/sampling.

Proposed conduit trenches would be approximately 2 feet wide and 18 to 24 inches deep. Based on borings drilled for a geotechnical investigation of the Hellman Gas Plant Expansion, groundwater is present at a minimum depth of approximately 4 feet below ground surface (Wood 2018). Therefore, groundwater impacts are not anticipated during construction.

Through implementation of the requirements outlined in the Construction General Permit, constructionrelated impacts to surface water and groundwater would be minimized and impacts would be less than significant.

Operations
Panel washing would occur approximately once per year and would require approximately 2 days to complete. Approximately 1,500 gallons of water would be used during washing and no chemicals would be used. Water would be applied to the solar panels at a rate that would not result in runoff from the site.

Wash water would be absorbed into the soil and vegetation underneath the panels. No other potential sources of water quality impairment would be introduced to the project site during operations. In addition, operational activities would be required to comply with the requirements of Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Chapter 9.20, Stormwater Management Program. SBMC Chapter 9.20 is enforced by City officials during the permit approval process. This chapter requires development projects to comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which includes BMPs for properly storing waste material, to ensure the protection of water quality from stormwater runoff. As a result, operations-related impacts to surface water and groundwater would be minimized and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less Than Significant)
As discussed for Threshold a), approximately 1,500 gallons of water would be used annually for panel washing. Water would be supplied from the City of Seal Beach water system. This small amount of water use would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. The main source of water supply for the City is groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Groundwater levels in this basin are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long-term sustainability of the basin and to protect against land subsidence. The Orange County Water District regulates groundwater levels in the basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping and setting the Basin Production Percentage for the water year. The Basin Production Percentage is the ratio of water produced from groundwater supplies within the district to all water produced within the district, from both supplemental sources and groundwater within the district (Arcadis 2021). As a result, the annual operational water demand of 1,500 gallons would not adversely impact groundwater supplies from the Orange County Groundwater Basin.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 51 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
In addition, installation of solar arrays would not interfere with groundwater recharge, as stormwater would flow off the panels and would be absorbed into the adjacent unpaved, pervious ground surface, allowing for groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The project site is currently vacant and covered in pervious surfaces. The project would introduce minimal new impervious surfaces to the site, including equipment pads. Proposed solar arrays would not increase impervious surfaces at the site, as stormwater would flow off the solar panels and onto the unpaved/pervious ground beneath the panels. Sheet flow of stormwater runoff would be maintained where possible, with water exiting the site in existing natural contours. The pattern and volume of runoff would not be substantially altered by the project. Vegetation would be allowed to regrow under the solar panels, which would minimize any project-related, long-term increased runoff associated with construction related ground disturbance, thus in turn minimizing potential soil erosion and off-site flooding. However, pending revegetation of the site, increased stormwater runoff could temporarily occur due to a lack of vegetation. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 that limits the grading of the site and requires the existing vegetation to be cut and not removed would serve to reduce the potential for soil erosion. Increased runoff associated with ground disturbance could temporarily result in significant erosion induced water quality impacts. These impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Less than Significant)
As previously discussed, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone, as designated by FEMA. The site is within Zone X, an area of 0.2% annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood plain); an area of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot; an area with drainage areas less than 1 square miles; or an area protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. Therefore, the potential for flooding is very low. In addition, as part of the approved Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, a 6-foot earthen berm would be constructed along the southern perimeter of the project site to prevent any hydraulic connection between the project site and the proposed Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, located to the south of the project site (Moffatt and Nichol 2023). This berm would further reduce the potential for flooding on-site.

The solar tables would be mounted a minimum of 18 inches off the ground and the inverters would be mounted approximately 3 to 4 feet off the ground; therefore, in the unlikely event 1 foot of flooding occurs, the solar tables and inverters would not be affected. In the event collector cables, power cables, transformers, and disconnect switches are inundated, or partially inundated, by 1 foot of flood waters, no pollutants would be released to the environment during operations.

The project site is located approximately 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean. The City of Seal Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan indicates that the project site is located outside of the City’s projected tsunami inundation zone (City of Seal Beach 2019). The western boundary of the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Facility is located adjacent to the Department of Water and Power Haynes Cooling Channel and therefore would potentially

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 52 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
be susceptible to sloshing of water during a seiche. However, the proposed solar field is located along the northeast boundary of the facility, not in proximity to the channel, and would therefore not be susceptible to inundation by seiche.

A sea level rise analysis was completed in 2019 for the Hellman Ranch Gas Plant (Moffatt and Nichol 2019).

Sea level rise impacts were evaluated for years 2060 and 2100. Impacts were evaluated under dry weather conditions and a 50-year storm event. In addition, eight sea level rise scenarios were evaluated based on low-, medium-, and high-risk aversions. Potential flood sources included the culvert to the San Gabriel River and internal Hellman Channel, the Haynes Cooling Channel, the San Gabriel River, and ocean water overtopping Highway 1.

Based on this analysis, a sea level rise of 2.5 feet and above (up to 9.9 feet, including a 50-year storm) would inundate the proposed solar field. With the completion of the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, the +2.5 ft sea level rise scenario would not inundate the PV solar facility site. Under +3.2 ft and +3.7 ft sea level rise scenarios in the year 2060, the Haynes Cooling Channel east bank would be overtopped, and floodwater will inundate the PV solar facility site (Moffatt and Nichol 2019). The expected life of the PV solar facility is 25 to 30 years.

However, in the event flooding occurs because of sea level rise, no pollutants would be released to the environment, as storage of petroleum products and/or hazardous substances would not occur on-site. If flooding due to sea level rise became an issue for the solar facility then the equipment could be raised or removed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (No Impact)
As discussed in Thresholds a) and c) above, construction related water quality impacts would be addressed through implementation of a site-specific SWPPP and associated BMPs, and operational water quality impacts would be addressed through MM-HYD-1, Interim Soil Stabilization Plan. As a result, the project would not conflict with implementation of goals and policies of the Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). In addition, as discussed in Threshold b, groundwater impacts would not occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the 2020 City of Seal Beach Urban Water Management Plan, or the 2015 Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan. No impact would occur.

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Interim Soil Stabilization Plan - Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the City of Seal Beach (City), an Interim Soil Stabilization Plan shall be developed to the satisfaction of the City, detailing measures that will be taken to prevent soil erosion subsequent to construction and pending revegetation of the site. Examples of soil stabilization measures include construction of temporary desilting basins, use of natural and/or synthetic soil binders (i.e., tackifiers and soil stabilizers), straw wattle installation at regular intervals within solar arrays and around construction area perimeters, and revegetation with site-appropriate native plants. Site monitoring shall be completed every six months and after rainfall events of 1.0 inch or greater to ensure that soil stabilization methods are continuing to be effective. In the event that erosion is observed during monitoring, corrective actions shall be taken immediately to prevent additional erosion. The Interim Soil Stabilization Plan shall be implemented under the supervision of the City.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 53 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

3.4.11 Land Use/Planning
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a. Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) Project implementation would not result in a physical division of an established community. Rather, the PV solar facilities would be located within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site, which is zones for industrial/oil extraction use. Therefore, no impacts would occur because of the proposed Project. b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impact) The PV solar facility would be located on the Hellman OGPF property, which is within the City’s Planning Area 2 as shown in the City of Seal Beach 2003 General Plan Land Use Element. The Hellman OGPF site has a land use designation of Industrial-Oil Extraction (Figure 2, City of Seal Beach Land Use Element). The Hellman Ranch property is zoned S.P.R. (Specific Plan Regulation). The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan (HRSP) was adopted by the City in October 1997.

The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan consists of five Conservation Planning Areas and five Development Planning Areas. The PV solar project would be in Conservation Planning Area #4, which was for a public golf course. Portion of the Hellman OFPF and most of the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project site are in Conservation Planning Area #4, which is designated the Hellman Ranch Reserve Golf Course. Permitted uses are mineral production and easements for utilities. Other uses are allowed with conditional use permits that the City finds to be within the intent of the Specific Plan (Hellman Ranch Specific Plan 1997).

In 2002, the California Coastal Commission issued a Coastal Development Permit that covered the Hellman OGPF property and other portions of the area covered by the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. As such, the current provisions of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Coastal Development Permit. This fact is acknowledged in the City’s 2003 General Plan, Land Use Element, which stated the City should amended Hellman Ranch Specific Plan to be consistent with the permit conditions of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit within 12 months after adoption of the General Plan. However, the Hellman Specific Plan has never been updated. The City should collaborate with the landowners within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan to update the Plan to be consistent with the permit conditions of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit, and the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project.

Given that the City’s Municipal Code allows for utility facilities within the oil extraction districts with a minor use permit and the fact that utility easements are allowed in the Conservation Planning Area #4 the PV solar project would not conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, there would be no impact.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 54 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

3.4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact)
The PV solar facility would be located on the Hellman OGPF site, which is a known oil and gas mineral resource. The PV solar facility would not impact the development or production of oil and gas from the Hellman Ranch site. Therefore, no impacts would occur because of the proposed Project. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) The loss of known mineral resources of value to the region would not occur as a result of implementation of the PV solar project. The project site is not delineated as an important mineral resource recovery site on the City of Seal Beach General Plan or any other local plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur because of the proposed Project.

3.4.13 Noise
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 55 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Chapter 7.15 of the SBMC sets noise standards of 65 dBA at commercial properties at any time, 55 dBA at residential properties from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA at residential properties from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Section 7.15.025 of the SBMC exempts construction noise when performed between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city-observed federal holidays.

The introduction of construction in this area would expose residents of the area to intermittently higher noise levels depending on the type of equipment being used during construction. Although the increase in noise in the proposed Project area would be greater than that which currently exists, it would be temporary in nature, would only occur during normal working hours, and would cease upon completion of construction.

The nearest residence would be about 480 feet from the construction site. Table 3-8 provides an estimate of the peak noise levels that would be expected during each phase of the construction activities. The peak construction noise would be expected to occur during the site preparation phase, with a noise level of approximately 68 dBA at the nearest residence. This phase of the project would only last 3 days.

Table 3-8 Peak Construction Noise Levels
Phase/Equipment Quantity
Noise
Level
(dBA)
Distance
(feet)
Site Preparation
Rubber Tire Dozer 1 82 50
Grader 1 85 50
Backhoe/Loader 1 79 50
Water Truck 1 74 50
Combined Equipment Noise Level 88 50
Noise Level at Nearest Property Line 96 20
Noise Level at Nearest Receptor 69 450
Noise Level at Nearest Residential Receptor 68 480
Support Pile Installation
Backhoe/Loader 1 79 50
Forklift 1 75 50
Generator 1 81 50
Water Truck 1 74 50
Combined Equipment Noise Level 84 50
Noise Level at Nearest Property Line 92 20
Noise Level at Nearest Receptor 65 450
Noise Level at Nearest Residential Receptor 65 480
Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation
Forklift 1 75 50
Backhoe/Loader 1 79 50
Generator 1 81 50
Welding Machine 1 74 50

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 56 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Table 3-8 Peak Construction Noise Levels
Phase/Equipment Quantity
Noise
Level
(dBA)
Distance
(feet)
Water Truck 1 74 50
Combined Equipment Noise Level 85 50
Noise Level at Nearest Property Line 93 20
Noise Level at Nearest Receptor 65 450
Noise Level at Nearest Residential Receptor 65 480
Source: FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Mode Database (2006). Table 9.1 Compliance with the City regulations regarding limitations on construction hours and noise restrictions would reduce potential project impacts to less than significant levels. Further, the City's standard construction regulations require all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers to minimize noise.

Noise from operation of the solar PV project would be generated by the Inverters and transformers during daylight hours, when the panels are generating electrical power. Table 3-9 provides a summary of the noise levels associated with the inverters and transformers.

Table 3-9 Peak Operational Noise Levels
Equipment Quantity Nearest Property Line Nearest Residential Receptor Distance
(ft)
Noise Level
(dBA)
Distance
(ft)
Noise Level
(dBA)
Inverters (1-6) 6 30 54 1,030 23
Inverters (7-11) 5 85 44 940 23
Inverters (12,14) 2 25 50 550 24
Inverters (13,15,16) 3 130 38 500 26
Transformer 1 110 22 1,150 1
Noise would only occur during daylight hours when electrical power is being generated.

The operational noise levels would be below the 55 dBA standard set for residential properties between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at the nearest property line. Therefore, operational noise levels would be less than significant.
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant) There should be very low levels of ground borne vibration or noise during construction due to the equipment that is being used for this project. None of the construction equipment would generate significant vibration levels, and any vibration would be transient. The operation of the PV solar facility would not result in any ground borne vibration or noise. Table 3-10 provides data on vibration annoyance criteria.

The project would not involve the use of pile drivers or other equipment that typically generate large amounts of ground borne vibration or noise. The Seal Beach Municipal Code states that no use, activity, or process shall produce vibrations that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at or beyond the property line of the site on which they are situated (Seal Beach Municipal Code §11.4.10.020 Performance Standards).

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 57 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Table 3-10 Human Response to Transient Vibration
Human Response Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Barely Perceptible 0.035
Distinctly Perceptible 0.24
Strongly Perceptible 0.9
Severe 2.0
Source: Caltrans 2013.

Table 3-11 provides estimated vibration levels for construction equipment as a function of distance from the source.

Table 3-11 Estimated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment Vibration Level (in/sec)
at 25-feet at 60-feet at 450-feet
Backhoe/Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.024 0.001
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Large Truck 0.076 0.020 0.001
Source: Adapted from FTA 2006 and Caltrans 2013.

Property Boundary-60 feet; Nearest Receptor-450 feet.

Based on the threshold for transient vibration of 0.035 in/sec, construction equipment used for the PV Solar Project would not exceed the threshold beyond the property boundary. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
The project is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a public or private airport.

The project site is located over four miles from the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), the closest such site, and is not within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for that facility.

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure N-1 – Construction, grading, and haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday.

3.4.14 Population/Housing
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 58 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The construction workers would be drawn from the local Los Angeles Basin workforce. Construction of the PV Solar Project would take approximately three to four months. No new workers would be required to operate the PV solar facility. The existing Hellman Ranch OGFP staff would be adequate to monitor the facility.
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No Impact)
The project involves the construction of a PV solar facility within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF property. Given the limited staffing needs for the construction of the project, all required workers would be drawn from the local Los Angeles Basin workforce. As such, the project would not generate any population growth. Therefore, no impacts on the local population levels would occur. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
The project would not displace existing housing as no housing exists on the proposed Project site. The project would not displace substantial numbers of people since it does not propose demolition of residential units. All construction and operational activities would occur within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF property. Therefore, there would be no impact on housing from the proposed Project.

3.4.15 Public Services
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 59 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

The PV Solar Project does not include relocation or construction of any governmental or other public facilities. The Project would not induce population growth in the area, as analyzed in Section 3.4.14 Population and Housing. The Project would not create demand for any public facilities that would result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities. (i) Fire protection? (Less than Significant)
The PV solar facility would be constructed within the boundaries of the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site, and all construction and operational activities would have to comply with the OGPF’s Fire Protection Plan.

Operation of the facility would not increase fire risk at the Hellman site and would not affect the current response times or emergency access for fire protection. Therefore, impacts on fire protection services from the proposed Project would be less than significant. (ii) Police protection? (No Impact)
Construction and operation of the PV Solar facility would not require additional police support or increase demand for police protection services. Therefore, no impact on police services would occur. (iii) Schools? (No Impact)
The PV Solar Project would not involve the development of residential homes or residential zoned property. The facility would be located on property with a land use designation of industrial, oil extraction.

Given the short duration of the construction and the limited number of workers, the project would not increase families in the area. It is expected that workers would commute to the site from the local area.

Therefore, no impact on schools would occur.
(iv) Parks? (No Impact)
The PV Solar Project would not impact any parks in the City of Seal Beach or the surrounding areas.

Therefore, no impact on parks would occur.
(v) Other public facilities? (No Impact)
The PV Solar Project would only require four to ten construction workers depending upon the project phase. The longest construction phase would last about 21 days with total construction lasting three to four months. No permanent workers would be required for operation of the facility. As such, the proposed Project would not result in any additional population growth that could increase demand for other public services. Therefore, no impact on other public services would occur.

3.4.16 Recreation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 60 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Impact) The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a new PV solar facility within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF property. The proposed Project would only require four to ten construction workers depending upon the project phase. The longest construction phase would last about 21 days with total construction lasting three to four months. No permanent workers would be required for operation of the facility. As such, the proposed Project would not result in any additional population growth that could increase demand for parks or other recreational facilities. The project would be exempt from park dedication fees or from dedicating land for park uses in keeping with the City's current parkland dedication requirements. Therefore, no impact on parks or recreational facilities would occur. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact) The proposed Project does not include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

3.4.17 Transportation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Access to the Hellman Ranch OGPF is from Pacific Coast Highway via a private road at the intersection of First Street. This intersection is controlled by an existing traffic signal. Secondary access to the site is provided to the Hellman Ranch OGPF site from Seal Beach Boulevard via Adolfo Lopez Drive. This access point is used for employees to access wells located on Seal Beach Boulevard. This access point is also available to emergency response vehicles. Traffic associated with the proposed Project would use the private road entrance from Pacific Coast Highway as the main access point to the project site.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 61 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
No new employees would be needed for operation of the PV solar facility. The existing Hellman staffing would be adequate to monitor the facility. Maintenance work on the facility would be done by outside contracts and would require only eight visits per year (5 for general maintenance, 2 for vegetation control and one for solar panel washing).

Peak day construction trips would be about four round trips for trucks delivering material and supplies, and 11 round trips for workers and vendors. This peak would be expected to occur for about 20 days during the equipment installation phase. Table 3-12 provides a summary of the vehicle trips for each of the construction phases.

Table 3-12 Construction Vehicle Trips
Activity
Duration
(days)
Round Trips per Day Peak Hourly One-Way Trips
Workers Vendors
Delivery
Trucks Workers Vendors
Delivery
Trucks
Site Preparation 3 6 0 2 6 0 2
Support Pile Installation 21 8 1 4 8 1 2
Solar PV System, Equipment, and
Conduit Installation 20 10 1 4 10 1 2
Testing and Commissioning 20 4 2 0 4 2 0
Source: Newport Solar
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City of Seal Beach is not serviced by Amtrak or any other rail service. There is bus service along Pacific Coast Highway in Seal Beach, which is used for access to the project site. The nearest bus stop is located just south of 1st Street on Pacific Coast Highway. The Hellman site is accessed via 1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The limited traffic associated with the proposed Project would not impact on any of these bus stops.

Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the project site has a Class II bike lane (on road, stripped lanes).

The intersection of 1st and Pacific Coast Highway is signalized and has crosswalks with pedestrian signals.

The limited traffic associated with the proposed Project would not impact the existing Class II bike lane.

As discussed above, the proposed Project will generate a small amount of traffic during construction with a peak average daily trip (ADT) of 15 round trips. For operations it would be a peak average daily trip of one round trip. This is less than the traffic impact analysis threshold (1,600 vehicle trips per day) specified in the Orange County 2023 Congestion Management Program (CMP) (OCTA, 2023). The temporary construction traffic and very limited operational traffic would not exceed the Orange County 2023 Congestion Management Program threshold for traffic impact analysis so impacts would be less than significant.
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Construction of the PV solar facility would generate a total of 22,342 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) over the three to four months of construction. Operation of the facility would generate 480 VMT per year. This compares with 3.17 billion VMT in orange county during the first quarter of 2023 on urban area freeways (OCTA, 2023). As such, construction of the PV solar facility would have minimal impacts (if any) on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on the surrounding area.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 62 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) formerly known as the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impact in CEQA with the new VMT requirement states the following: “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks (OPR 2018). OPR also indicates that “absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact” (OPR 2018).

According to LCI, lead agencies may generally assume that a project would not have significant VMT impacts if the project would either: (1) generate fewer trips than the level for studying consistency with the applicable congestion management program or (2) where the applicable congestion management program does not provide such a level, fewer than 110 vehicle trips per day. As discussed in item (a), the proposed Project would not exceed the Orange County CMP thresholds. Therefore, the Project uses the screening criterion of 110 net new peak hour vehicle trips as the level at which most projects would not typically generate a substantial increase in VMT. The proposed project would not exceed the 110 peak hour vehicle trips, and therefore, impact would be considered less than significant. c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact) The proposed Project would not require the construction of any new public roads or create any new incompatible uses for local roadways. No new private roads would need to be created for the proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact)
The existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site has two access points for emergency service vehicles. The addition of the PV solar facility would not alert the existing emergency access to the site. Therefore, there would be no impact on emergency access.

3.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 63 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
§ 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Many archeological investigations have been conducted on the Hellman property over the past 50 years in support of both oil/gas and residential development. The most recent archeological field investigation was done in 2019 in support of a proposed gas plant approximately 320 feet southwest of the current project area (Wahoff 2019). As part of the 2019 study, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University at Fullerton.

The 2019 records search revealed that at least 18 previous cultural resources surveys or other archaeological investigations have been conducted within 0.25 miles of the current Project area, and that the entire Project area has been intensively surveyed for archaeological resources on at least four occasions (Archaeological Associates 1980; Rosenthal and Padon 1990; Stickel 1996; York and Willey 2004). None of these field surveys revealed any cultural resources within the Project area, although one (Archaeological Associates 1980) noted two dispersed scatters of marine shell (CA-ORA-850 and -851) located approximately 500 and 50 feet east and northeast of the Project area, respectively.

Other cultural resources within 0.25 mile include CA-ORA-257, -258, and -259, all consisting of remnants of prehistoric shell middens along the crest of Landing Hill to the south of the Project area (Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996; Cleland et al. 2007); P-30-01544, a large but dispersed scatter of marine shell and artifacts located on the Boeing property immediately north of Adolfo Lopez Drive (Underwood 2000); and the Los Alamitos Pump Station, approximately 550 feet north of the Project area (Shepard 2002).

The records search identified seven cultural resources within the 0.25-mile-radius buffer radius of the proposed Project site. These resources include six prehistoric archaeological sites and one historic structure. Of the six archaeological sites, one consists of milling features with a scatter of groundstone or flaked stone artifacts; one is a groundstone scatter with a flaked lithic; one is a lithic and shell scatter, and three have midden deposits. Of these three midden sites, one also includes a shell scatter, and one a scatter of flaked stone and groundstone artifacts. The historic structure is a historic-period flood pump station. None of the resources were located within the Project Area of Direct Impact (ADI).

Given the disturbed nature of the proposed Project site and the fact that limited ground disturbance activities would occur, it is unlikely that cultural resources would be found during the construction

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 64 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
activities. However, given the culturally sensitive nature of the Hellman property and the surrounding areas the mitigation measures CR-1, TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 should be implemented. Impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
For purposes of impact analysis, a tribal cultural resource is considered a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object which is of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe and is either on or eligible for the California Register or a local historic register.

The City sent notification letters on December 8, 2023 to the California Native American Tribes that requested inclusion on the City’s AB 52 notification list. As of the end of March 2024, the City had received one written response from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh). This comment letter focused on the need for Native American monitoring during ground disturbance at the project site.

The City has verbal discussions with a representative of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council. Their concern was also about having Native American monitors present during ground disturbance activities.

The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council has historically done archeological/Native American monitoring on the Hellman Properties and had been to the proposed Project site for consultation with the Applicant. The Applicant has agreed to use Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council members to conduct archeological/Native American monitoring of all ground disturbance activities associate with the proposed Project. In addition, the Applicant has committed to having an archeologist present during all ground disturbance activities.

Given the culturally sensitive nature of the Hellman property and the surrounding areas the mitigation measures CR-1, TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 should be implemented. Impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Native American Monitoring – The project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor that shall be approved by the City of Seal Beach. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity associated with the project. Ground-disturbing activity shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the monitoring agreement between the Applicant and the Native American monitor shall be submitted to the City as of the approval process.

The Native American monitor may complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of grounddisturbing activities, soil types, any cultural-related materials found, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCRs), including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project Applicant/City upon written request to the Native American monitor.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 65 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (NonFunerary/Non-Ceremonial) – Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Native American Monitor and archeologist. The Native American Monitorshall recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects – Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

3.4.19 Utilities/Service Systems
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Result in a determination by the waste water
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The Hellman Ranch OGPF is served by Southern California Edison (SCE) for electrical power and by the City of Seal Beach water and wastewater infrastructure. The PV solar facility would be a net generator of

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 66 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
electric power. No wastewater would be generated as part of the proposed Project. Water use would be limited to 1,500 gallons one per year for washing the solar panels.

Would the Project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. All runoff from the PV solar panels would remain on site. No new water or wastewater treatment facilities would need to be constructed for the proposed Project. There would be no new or expanded natural gas facilities.

The City has water pipelines that are in the vicinity of proposed Solar PV Project. Figure 3-6 shows the location of the water pipelines in the vicinity of the proposed Project. The City requires a 30 foot clearance on either side of the pipelines to allow for maintenance work. The 12-inch water pipeline that runs down the service road for the Los Alamitos Retention Basin comes the closest to the PV Solar Panels. The closest the PV Solar project components come to the southern edge of the service road is about 40 feet, which is greater than the 30 feet required by the City. To ensure that the 30 foot distance is maintained between the project components and the City waterlines mitigation measure USS-1 shall be implemented. Impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Figure 3-6 City Waterlines in Vicinity of PV Solar Project Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023, and Maps Provided by City of Seal Beach.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 67 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (No Impact) The total volume of water needed for dust control throughout construction is approximately 22,000 gallons, which is not a substantial volume of water, and is only a onetime water use. Operations would require 1,500 gallons per year washing the solar panels. Water would be obtained from the existing water system at the Hellman OGPF site, which is supplied by the City of Seal Beach. There would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed Project from existing entitlements and resources. No new or expanded entitlements would be needed. Therefore, there would be no impact. c. Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (No Impact)
The PV solar facility would not generate any wastewater and would not require any modifications to the existing sewer or water connections that currently exist at the Hellman OGPF site. The site would have portable toilets for use by the construction workers. Therefore, there would be no impact. d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less and Significant Impact)
The Hellman Ranch property is currently served by the Frank R. Bowerman landfill. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is a state-of-the-art, Class III, municipal solid waste landfill. Opened in 1990 near Irvine, CA, it is permitted for 11,500 tons per day (TPD) maximum with an 8,500 TPD annual average. The landfill has enough projected capacity to serve residents and businesses until approximately 2053. Operation of the PV solar facility would not generate any solid waste.

Construction of the Project would generate small volumes of construction waste (e.g., equipment packaging and trash generated by workers). The small quantity of waste generated would not be more than the capacity of the landfill. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact)
All local, state, and federal guidelines regarding solid waste will be complied with during project construction and operation. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure USS-1: Buffer to City Waterlines – The Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 30 feet from City waterlines for all project components. The final project drawings shall show the distance from the SV Solar Project to the 12-inch City waterline that is in the Los Alamitos Retention Basin service road.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 68 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

3.4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Wildfire risk in California is evaluated on a three-tier scale based on fire hazard severity potential: very high, high, and moderate. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) maps all areas in the state that could fall under any tier of this scale and divides these areas into zones. This Plan is concerned with the location of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs). The City of Seal Beach has no land that is currently classified as VHFHSZs. Seal Beach does not have a history of wildfires. As the City has become increasingly developed over time, the amount of land where wildfires could emerge has shrunk. Given how little undeveloped land remains in Seal Beach that the City directly controls, it is unlikely that the City will be affected by a wildfire of any significance (City of Seal Beach, 2019). a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact)
The project is required to meet all applicable fire codes and City regulations that provide for adequate access to and from the site and would not impair access. The project would not impair the implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (No Impact)
The PV solar facility would be located with the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF in an area that would not be expected to increase the risk of wildfire in the area. Construction of the proposed Project would not change the slope site or otherwise affect wind patterns in the area that would exacerbate wildfire risks.

The site would not require grading or recontouring. The solar panels would be low to the ground (mounted approximately 18-inches to 4 feet above the ground surface) and would not affect wind directions or wind patterns. Therefore, no impact would occur.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 69 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less than Significant) No new roads, fuel breaks, or emergency water sources would be installed as part of the proposed Project.

Brush and vegetation within the Project site would be mowed or weed wacked at the start of construction which would minimize the risk of igniting a wildlife. After construction, low vegetation would be allowed to grow under the solar panels. The potential for solar panel failure that would result in fires is very low because solar panels do not generate sparks or contain parts that are known to start fires. During operation vegetation management would occur that would involve mowing the vegetation within the project area.

The power lines installed with the solar panels would all be placed underground, where the risk for igniting fires would be very low. The transformers and inverters would be contained with electrical boxes. The risk of ignition from these electrical components would be low because the electrical box would contain any potential sparks in the event of an equipment malfunction.

The PV solar facility would also have access to the existing Hellman OGPF firewater system. The water monitors at the oil storage facility would be able to provide firewater to the PV solar facility in the unlikely event of a fire. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less than Significant)
The PV solar facility is surrounded by urbanized uses and borders the Heron Pointe water quality basin.

As described in Section 3.4.7, Geology and Soils, the Project site is relatively flat and has not historically been affected by landslides, nor has the area directly surrounding the Project. Construction of the Project would not involve substantial grading that could result in landslides because of post-fire instability. As described in Section 3.4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the drainage patterns of the Project site would not be altered during construction. In the unlikely event of a fire at the PV solar facility it could spread to other areas if it was contained. The PV solar facility would be subject to the existing Hellman OGPF Fire Protection Plan, which covers the entire facility site. The Hellman OGPF also has an extensive firewater system that is adequate to address any fire at the PV solar facility. As such, the PV solar facility would not pose a significant risk to people or structures due to runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes due to the flat topography of the site. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 70 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

3.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As described in Section 3.4.4, Biological Resources, construction of the PV Solar facility has the potential to affect habitat, wildlife, and plants. Mitigation measures have been provided to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Construction of the Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The impact on habitat and populations of fish and wildlife would be less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in Section 3.4.4.

As discussed in Section 3.4.5, Cultural Resources, no important examples of California history or prehistory are known to occur within the Project site. Given the limited amount of grading needed, and the fact that the site has been previously disturbed, the potential for impacting cultural resources is limited.

Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to unknown cultural resources to less than significant.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 71 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
The PV solar Project would have no significant operational impact that can’t be mitigated. Potential glare impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance using identified solar panel design measures. The solar facility operations would be monitored as part of the Hellman facility operations by the existing facility staff. The solar facility maintenance would be dispatched on an as-needed basis in response to equipment malfunction or decreased facility performance.

Most of the impacts from the project would be associated with construction and were found to be either less than significant or have no impact. All the construction impacts would be temporary in nature, lasting at most three to four months. Some of the construction impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Biology Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology/Water Quality, Utilities/Service Systems, and Tribal Cultural Resources).

The cumulative projects identified in the Project area are the proposed Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, the City Hellman Ranch Watermain Rehabilitation Project, and a few Caltrans Project along Highway 1.

The LCWA Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Phase I) and the City waterline Project would be near the PV Solar Project and could use the same route to access their respective project sites (First Street and the access road to the Hellman Property).

Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project is expected to be completed in two phases with Phase 1 expected to begin in September 2025 and to end in mid-2027. The Phase 1 restoration activities would focus on enhancing existing habitat areas in closer proximity to the existing muted tidal channel connection via the culvert connected to the San Gabriel River. Phase 2 restoration activities would expand tidal wetlands throughout the Project Area by creating a full tidal connection with the Haynes Cooling Channel (LCWA. 2023). The major construction activities associated with the Phase I Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project include the following:
• Raising 1st Street utilizing a box bridge system and fill; • Reconfiguring utilities on 1st Steet, including undergrounding utilities and anchoring utilities to the box bridge;
• Removing the culverts under the existing dirt access roads and replacing the existing culverts and headwalls under 1st Street with two standard cement 12 foot boxes to create a box bridge; • Constructing earthen berms to control flooding;
• Grading the site, including excavation to create tidal channels, which is expected to produce approximately 60,000 cubic yards of material;
• Clearing and grubbing the site to remove non-native and invasive species, including removal of approximately 100 trees; and
• Remediating soils (e.g., on-site treatment, excavation, testing and removal, or cap in place) that have been impacted by oil operations, including removal and hauling approximately 22,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils (LCWA 2025).

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 72 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
The anticipated construction schedule for Phase I Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project is as follows:
• Begin Construction: September 2025,
• Clear and Grub; Rough Grading/Earthwork in ESHA: Fall 2025 – Winter 2026, • Rough Grading Complete: Summer 2026,
• Bridge and Road Work: Spring – Summer 2026,
• Install public amenities and trails: Spring – Fall 2026, • Install irrigation: Fall 2026,
• Install landscaping: Fall 2026 – Winter 2027,
• Plant establishment period: Winter- Spring 2027 (3 Months), and • Project complete: May 2027 (LCWA 2025).

Construction of the LCWA Project has the potential to impact similar resources as the proposed Project during their major grading/construction activities. Based upon the current schedule, the LCWA Project would have completed all of the major grading/construction activities by the end of summer 2026, which would be before the beginning of construction of the proposed Project, which is estimated to start in September 2026. If construction activities of both projects were to overlap, the Adolfo Lopez Drive access could be used as an alternative for accessing the site. Given that the major grading/construction activities for the LCWA Project would not overlap with construction of the proposed Project, cumulative impacts with the LCWA Wetland Restoration Project would be less than significant.

City Hellman Ranch Watermain Rehabilitation Project would involve digging about four to eight pits along the pipeline to expose the pipeline to allow for the installation of a pipeline liner. The number of pits will depend upon the manufacturer chosen to install the lining system. Figure 3-6 shows the location of this existing 18-inch watermain. The City is proposing to use a cured-in-place pipe lining (CIPP) system that involves a resin-impregnated pipe liner that is either injected into the pipe with air or water or pulled in with a winch. The liner is then cured at ambient temperature or by using hot water, steam, or UV light.

The Watermain Rehabilitation Project would be expected to generate temporary traffic and air emissions during the project, which would likely take a few months to complete. It is unlikely to have biological and cultural resource impacts since most of the pipeline is within existing roads and in previously disturbed areas. The City will need to complete this project prior to the road work associated with the LCWA Project along First Street, which is expected to be complete in Summer of 2026. (The LWCA Project will raise the height of First Steet where the City has an easement for their existing 18-inch watermain). The City has indicated they anticipate the work to occur in the Fall of 2025. If for some reason the construction phases of the projects overlapped, the Adolfo Lopez Drive access could be used as an alternative for accessing the site. Given the current timing of the projects, there should be no overlap of construction, and therefore no cumulative impacts with the City Watermain Rehabilitation Project.

Caltrans has several potential projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project. • Caltrans has a planned project to widen and upgrade the rails on the Highway 1 San Gabriel River bridge in Long Beach. The project would also add a Class II bike lane. This project is currently in the design phase and was budgeted for the 24/25 fiscal year (Caltrans 2024); However, it has not been scheduled due to pending approvals. The schedule for this work is not known. • Caltrans plans to undertake a safety improvement project on State Route 1 (SR-1) between the Santa Ana River Bridge (PM 21.5) and Anderson Street (PM 31.1) in the City of Huntington Beach, in the

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 73 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
County of Orange. This is south of the proposed Project area. The project will add comprehensive Class II bike lanes in both directions along SR-1 within the stated limits. The project is expected to be completed by July of 2026, which would be before construction of the proposed Project would begin (Caltrans 2024a,b).
• Caltrans is in the process of removing and replacing the existing traffic signal systems at 20 intersections to enhance traffic signal poles, equipment and lighting between Crystal Heights Drive in Newport Beach and First Street in Seal Beach. This project began in August of 2023 and is expected to be completed October of 2025 (Caltrans 2024b).

These projects would not impact on the same area as the solar PV project, as it relates to biological and cultural resources so there would be no cumulative impacts for these issue areas. The third listed project could impact traffic flow along Highway 1 during the installation of the new traffic signals, but the solar PV project has minimal construction traffic, and as such the projects contribution to cumulative traffic would be less than significant.

Therefore, the solar PV project’s contribution to cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The PV Solar Project would not have any environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Direct and indirect impacts on human beings from Project construction and operation are addressed in Sections 3.4.3, Air Quality; 3.4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 3.4.13, Noise; and 3.4.20, Wildfire and show that the impacts are either less than significant or no impact.

4.0 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 74 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

4.0 List of Reference Documents
Alameda County. 2018. CalSun Solar Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. September 2018.
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/documents/CalSun_IS-MND-9.13.2018-FINALfor-dist.pdf AECOM. 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment Report for a Proposed Solar Array, Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, Seal Beach, California, April 26, 2023.

Arcadis. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Final Draft, June 2021. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%20UW MP%20FINAL%20DRAFT-2021.05.27.pdf?ver=2021-06-01-161424-263.

Association of Environmental Professionals. 2023. 2023 CEQA Statute & Guidelines, 2023. https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2023_final.pdf California Coastal Commission. 2023. Public Resources Code Division 20 California Coastal Act, 2023. https://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastact.pdf
___. 2000. Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367-A 1, October 2000. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2000/10/W14a-10-2000.pdf California Department of Conservation. 2012. Special Report 217: Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California. December 2012. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/publications/sr217
___. 2023. DOC Maps: Geologic Hazards-Earthquake Zone App. 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/
California Energy Commission. 2024. Investigating the “Lake Effect” Influence on Avian Behavior From California’s Utility-Scale Photovoltaic Solar Facilities. June 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/CEC-500-2024-055.pdf Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgmapr2020-a11y.pdf ___.2024. Proposed 2024 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). January 2024. https://tableaupublic.dot.ca.gov/views/2024SHOPP/2024SHOPPDashboard?:showAppBanner=false&:display_count=n &:showVizHome=n&:origin=viz_share_link&:isGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&:embed=y ___.2024a. Complete Streets Action Plan 2024-25. 2024.
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/esta/documents/complete-streets/2024- 25_completestreetsactionplan_publicdraft-a11y.pdf
___.2024b. Public Records Request April 24, 2024, Reference #R031243-042424. April 2024.

California Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf

4.0 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 75 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
___. 2019. California Solar Permitting Guidebook. Winter 2019. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190226-Solar_Permitting_Guidebook_4th_Edition.pdf Caterpillar. 2022. Caterpillar Performance Handbook. December 9, 2022. https://wheelercat.com/about/resources/cat-performance-handbook/ City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-Development/GeneralPlan ___. 2003a. Land Use Element, Adopted December 2003.
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Land%20Use%20Element.pdf ___. 2003b. Open Space/Conservation Element, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Open%20Space.pdf ___. 2003c. Noise Element, Adopted December 2003.
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Noise%20Element.pdf ___. 2003d. Circulation Element, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Circulation%20Element.pdf ___. 2003e. Cultural Resources Element, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Cultural%20Resources.pdf ___. 2013. Zoning Map, Marina Hill, Hellman Ranch & Boeing Facility. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/ZoningMap-MarinaHill-HellmanRanchBoeing_2013.pdf ___. 2018. Sewer System Management Plan, February 2018. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Draft%202018%20Sewer%20System%20Managem ent%20Plan.pdf
___. 2019. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, May 31, 2019.
https://sealbeachpd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/City-of-Seal-Beach-Local-Hazard-MitigationPlan.pdf. ___. 2019a. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. July 2019. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/SealBeach_VA_7.12.19_Draft01.pdf?ver=2019-07- 15-124445-557
___. 1996. Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, 1996.
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Hellman%20Ranch%20Specific%20Plan%201996.p df?ver=2016-06-07-132319-967
Chint Power Systems America (CPS). 2021. 100/125kW 1500Vdc String Inverters for North America. 2021. https://www.chintpowersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CPS-SCH100-125KTL-DO-US-600- Datasheet-3-11-2024.pdf
DNV. 2019. PV Inverter Useful Life Considerations. January 14, 2019. https://www.dnv.com/publications/pv-inverter-useful-life-considerations-144365/ East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2020. Duffel Photovoltaic Renewable Energy Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. January 2020.

4.0 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 76 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
https://www.ebmud.com/download_file/force/7167/1037?Public_Draft_Duffel_PV_ISMND_with_Appendices_8.2019.pdf Energy 5. 2023. Solar Panel Installations and their Effects on Local Rodent Populations. August 13, 2023. https://energy5.com/solar-panel-installations-and-their-effect-on-local-rodent-populations Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2023. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Orange County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 113 of 539. 2023.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor
Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. August 2006. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/8837/dot_8837_DS1.pdf Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf Glenn Lukos Associates. 2023. Biological Technical Report for Helman Property Solar Panel Array. October 2023.

Hathcock. 2018. Literature Review on Impacts to Avian Species from Solar Energy Collection and Suggested Mitigations. 2018.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/03/f61/Hathcock%202018.pdf Kosciuch. 2021. Aquatic Habitat Bird Occurrences at Photovoltaic Solar Energy Development in Southern California, USA. October 23, 2021.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/11/524
Los Cerritos Wetland Authority. 2020. Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Final EIR. October 2022. https://intoloscerritoswetlands.org/the-lcws-eir/
___. 2023. Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Final Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration. June 2023.
https://intoloscerritoswetlands.org/southern-los-cerritos-wetlands-restoration-project/ ___.2021. The Los Cerritos Wetland Habitat Restoration Plan. May 26, 2021. https://intoloscerritoswetlands.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/LCW-Restoration-Plan-Final5_26_21.pdf ___.2025. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority Request for Proposal-Construction Management Services for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project. February 20, 2025. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ltxvueiaf28fqakbbm4xc/LCWA-SLCWRP-CM-2-20-

25.pdf?rlkey=ecllrtc1t2jhvpr65a8rffe21&e=1&st=ctaip59i&dl=0 Meister Consulting Group. 2014. Solar and Glare. June 2014. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/306952_Solar%20PV%20and%20Glare.pdf Moffatt & Nichol. 2019. Hellman Ranch Gas Plan Sea Level Rise Study, June 20, 2019.

Orange County Transportation Authority. 2023. 2023 Orange County Congestion Management Program Report. November 2023.
https://www.octa.net/pdf/2023CMP.pdf?n=202311

4.0 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 77 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025
___.2022. Bikeway Map Guide. 2022.
https://www.octa.net/pdf/ocbikewaysmap.pdf
SCAQMD. 2009. Localized Air Quality Threshold Look-Up Tables. October 21, 2009. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds ___. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. December 2, 2022. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-airquality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16 ___. 2024. South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard, June 7, 2024. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/pm2.5-plans/final-pm2.5-plan/2012- annual-pm2-5-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=eb518a61_16
___. 2025. South Coast Air Basin Contingency Measure SIP Revision for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard.

May 20, 2025.
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/ozone-plans/south-coast-ozonecontingency-sip-revision/sc-contingency-public-consultation-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=8c19d61_6 Sonoran Joint Venture. 2016. Industrial-Scale Solar Projects and Birds in California Desert: Assessing Impacts & Developing Mitigation. May 5, 2016.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319204519_Industrialscale_solar_projects_and_birds_in_the_California_desert_Assessing_impacts_developing_mitigation State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. Impaired Water Bodies. 2023. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml?wbid=CAR 4051600020000229163853
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2019. Independent Statistics and Analysis Solar Capacity Factors.

November 2019.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832#:~:text=Utah's%200.9%20GW%20of%20solar, average%20capacity%20factor%20of%2028.4%25.

Wood. 2018. Geotechnical Investigation Report-Hellman Gas Plant, July 9, 2018.

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 78 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

5.0 List of Preparers
City of Seal Beach (Lead CEQA Agency)
Shaun Temple
MRS Environmental, Inc.

John Peirson, Jr.

Gregory Chittick
Dean Dusette
Nicole Trezza
Lauren Brown
Dudek
Perry W Russell, PG
Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.

Tony Bomkamp
Erin Trung
Brittany Gale
David Moskovitz
AECOM
Andrew York
Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring Program
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction Lighting – Any
construction lighting shall be shielded and directed only toward the construction area so as not to impact surrounding areas CDD C During construction A 4
Mitigation Measure AES-2: Solar Panel Design – The solar panels shall be installed facing south with a fixed tilt angle of 10 degrees. The solar panels shall be constructed of dark-colored materials and shall be covered with an anti-reflective coating.

These requirements shall be documented on the final project drawing submitted to the City for approval.

CDD B/D Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Prior to Operation
A/C 2/4
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Short-Term Construction Emission Reduction Measures – During construction activities, the contractor shall ensure that measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the Project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering or other dust palliative measures (such as covering stock piles with tarps) to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune and use Tier-4-rated heavy equipment; c) enforce 5- minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment; and d) sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from construction site.

CDD C During construction A 4
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Project Construction Timing – Construction activities associated with site preparation, support pile installation, and Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation shall occur outside of the bird nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15.

CDD B Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
A/C 2
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Grading Limitations – To the extent feasible, the project site shall not be graded. The vegetation on the project site shall be cleared using mowers or weed whackers.

CDD C During Construction A 4
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Burrowing Owl Survey – A preconstruction (initial take avoidance) burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the 2012 Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the pre-construction survey is positive for owl presence, the project proponent will immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW, USFWS) to acquire proper avoidance measures, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If the species is not found, no further action is needed.

CDD B Prior to
Construction
D 2
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Southern Tarplant and Coulters goldfields Preconstruction Surveys – Prior to the initiation of construction activities, a City approved biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields during the appropriate season for each species to determine final mitigation requirements. These surveys shall cover the entire project area as well as a buffer area of 100-feet outside the construction boundaries. If Coulters goldfields are detected in CDD B Prior to
Construction
D 2
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-3 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
the Project impact area, then the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be amended to include mitigation for Coulter’s goldfields at a 4:1 ratio at a location with suitable habitat for the species.

Any populations of Coulter’s goldfields or southern tarplant within the 100 foot buffer zone or within the construction area that can be avoided, shall be demarcated with construction fencing. No vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, or other construction activities shall occur in the fenced areas or within 30 feet of any Coulter’s goldfields.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Prior to impacts to the southern tarplant in the Project site, a biologist, approved by the City, shall implement the measures contained in the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (see Appendix E), which provides for replacement of the impacted 83 individuals at a ratio of 4:1, for a total of 332 individuals. However, if pre-construction surveys determine that total numbers of impacted individuals has changed, the total number of replacement individuals shall be adjusted accordingly at a 4:1 ratio. The plan identifies a candidate area of the Hellman Property where southern tarplant may be established and preserved in perpetuity. The plan includes provisions for seed collection, planting, performance standards for a five-year monitoring period, and contingency plans if the performance standards are not met.

CDD B Prior to
Construction
D 2
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Archeological Monitoring and
Unanticipated Discovery Treatment Plan – Prior to issuance of a grading permit an Archeological Monitoring and Unanticipated CDD B Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
D 2
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-4 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Discovery Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval. The plan shall be prepared by a City approved archaeologist. The qualified archeologist shall coordinate with the Native American monitors during the preparation of the plan. The plan shall outline areas that will be designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, if needed. Significant or unevaluated archaeological resources that are being avoided and are within 50 feet of the construction zone shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The resources shall be delineated with exclusion markers to ensure avoidance.

The plans shall specify the monitoring procedures, the field and laboratory methods that would be used for treatment of
unanticipated discoveries, and the requirements for Native American participation in the monitoring and treatment activities.

Procedures outlined shall include stop-work and protective measures, notification protocols, procedures for significance assessments, and appropriate treatment measures. The plan shall state avoidance or preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to historical resources, unique archaeological resources, and contributors to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape but shall provide procedures to follow should avoidance be infeasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.

The plan shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed if human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods are uncovered.

Mitigation Measure CR-2: Archaeological Monitoring – An archaeologist, approved by the City of Seal Beach, shall be present at the site during all ground disturbance activities.

CDD B/C Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
During Construction
D/A 4
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-5 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Interim Soil Stabilization Plan - Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the City of Seal Beach (City), an Interim Soil Stabilization Plan shall be developed to the satisfaction of the City, detailing measures that will be taken to prevent soil erosion subsequent to construction and pending revegetation of the site. Examples of soil stabilization measures include construction of temporary desilting basins, use of natural and/or synthetic soil binders (i.e., tackifiers and soil stabilizers), straw wattle installation at regular intervals within solar arrays and around construction area perimeters, and revegetation with siteappropriate native plants. Site monitoring shall be completed every six months and after rainfall events of 1.0 inch or greater to ensure that soil stabilization methods are continuing to be effective. In the event that erosion is observed during monitoring, corrective actions shall be taken immediately to prevent additional erosion. The Interim Soil Stabilization Plan shall be implemented under the supervision of the City.

BO B/E Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Post Construction
D/A 2/4
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Design of Solar Table Risers – The solar table risers shall be designed so they can be increase in height by adding additional riser sections in the event that the PV solar facility becomes subject to flooding due to sea level rise. The design elements for adding additional riser sections shall be shown on the facility design drawing submitted to the City for approval.

BO B/D Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
D/A 2/4
Noise
Mitigation Measure N-1 – Construction, grading, and haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, or at BO C During Construction A 4
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-6 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
any time on Sunday or a national holiday.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Native American Monitoring – The project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor that shall be approved by the City of Seal Beach. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity associated with the project. Ground-disturbing activity shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the monitoring agreement between the Applicant and the Native American monitor shall be submitted to the City as of the approval process.

The Native American monitor may complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, any cultural-related materials found, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCRs), including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project Applicant/City upon written request to the Native American monitor.

CDD B/C Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
During Ground
Disturbance
Activities
A/D 2
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-7 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) – Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Native American Monitor and archeologist. The Native American Monitor shall recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

CDD C During Ground
Disturbance
Activities
A/D 4
Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of
Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial
Objects – Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

CDD C During Ground
Disturbance
Activities
A/D 4
HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-8 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Utilities/Service Systems
Mitigation Measure USS-1: Buffer to City Waterlines – The Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 30 feet from City waterlines for all project components. The final project drawings shall show the distance from the SV Solar Project to the 12-inch City waterline that is in the Los Alamitos Retention Basin service road.

BO B Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
C 2
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions CDD - Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map PD - Planning Director or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/ Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP
7 - Citation
Appendix B
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Drawings
No. Description Date
Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV1

COVER SHEET

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68

GENERAL NOTES
SCOPE OF WORK:

THE INSTALLATION OF A GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV)

PLANT INCLUDING PV MODULES, AND GRID INTERACTIVE

INVERTERS, AND RACKING STRUCTURE TO SUPPLY POWER TO THE FACILITY IN PARALLEL WITH THE EXISTING ELECTRIC UTILITY GRID.

PROJECT LOCATION:
711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740
APN: 095-010-68
INTERCONNECTION:

THE PV SYSTEM WILL OPERATE IN PARALLEL WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDER. THE INVERTERS PROVIDE ANTI-ISLANDING PROTECTION AS WELL AS HARMONIC LIMITS THAT COMPLY WITH UL 1741, IEEE 1547, AND IEEE 519.

CODE ENFORCED:

CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, 2019 EDITION
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2019 EDITION
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2019 EDITION
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION:

SEAL BEACH BUILDING AND SAFETY
ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDER:

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE)

SHEET INDEX

PROJECT SITE
PV1 COVER SHEET
PV2 PROPERTY SITE PLAN

RACKING DETAILS

SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM

WIRE CHART

SIGNAGE

PV SYSTEM EQUIPMENT DATA SHEETS

RACKING SHOP DRAWINGS
PV3
PV4
PV6
PV7
PV8
9-16

SITE LOCATION
PV5

DC SYSTEM SIZE

AC SYSTEM SIZE

DC / AC RATIO

MANUFACTURER
MODEL
DC POWER @ STC

TOTAL MODULES

MANUFACTURER
TYPE

TILT / AZIMUTH

POCC / POI VOLTAGE

PV SYSTEM DETAILS

ROOFTOP PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULES

RACKING
1,503.50 kW
1600.0 kW

0.94 600Y/347V

HANWHA Q CELL
Q. PEAK DUO XL-G10.2
485W
3100

SOLCOMPONENTS

GROUND MOUNT FIXED TILT
10°/ 180°

MANUFACTURER
MODEL

AC POWER RATING

QUANTITY

INVERTER

CHINT POWER SYSTEMS
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
100kW
16 ROOFTOP PV SYSTEM DETAILS
NUMBER OF ARRAYS 56
PV MODULES PER ARRAY 56, (1) ARRAY W/ 20

GENERAL NOTES

HELLMAN PROPERTIES

SEAL BEACH

SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

INSTALLATION DRAWINGS

SITE PLAN
Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
CIR
(N)GROUND MOUNT PV ARRAY
(3100) HANWHA Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 MODULES
TILT: 10°/Azimuth: 180°
(16) CHINT CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 INVERTERS

PV SYSTEM

SUBPANEL

PV SYSTEM

TRANSFORMER

PV INVERTERS
#12,14

PV INVERTERS
#13,15,16
PV SUBPANEL #3
[6a]800A

PV INVERTERS
#7,8,9,10,11
PV SUBPANEL #2
[6a]800A

PARCEL BOUNDRY
APN: 095-010-68

UTILITY ELECTRICAL

MAIN SERVICE PANEL

PV SYSTEM

AC DISCONNECT

SWITCHES
PV SUBPANEL #1
[6b]800A

TRENCHING PATH
(VIF)

PV INVERTERS
#1,2,3,4,5,6

UE HERON
OFFICE No. Description Date
Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV2

PROPERTY

SITE PLAN

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68 Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
SCALE: 18
" = 1'
(N)GROUND MOUNT PV ARRAY
(3100) HANWHA Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 MODULES
TILT: 10°/Azimuth: 180°
(16) CHINT CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 INVERTERS

PV SYSTEM

SUBPANEL

PV SYSTEM

TRANSFORMER

PV INVERTERS
#12,14

PV INVERTERS
#13,15,16
PV SUBPANEL #3
[6a]800A

PV INVERTERS
#7,8,9,10,11
PV SUBPANEL #2
[6a]800A

PARCEL BOUNDRY
APN: 095-010-68

UTILITY ELECTRICAL

MAIN SERVICE PANEL

PV SYSTEM

AC DISCONNECT

SWITCHES
PV SUBPANEL #1
[6b]800A

TRENCHING PATH
(VIF)

PV INVERTERS
#1,2,3,4,5,6
RON No. Description Date
Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV3

SITE PLAN

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68 Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
SCALE: 3
16" = 1'
No. Description Date
Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV4

RACKING

DETAILS

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68 Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
No. Description Date
Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV5

SINGLE LINE

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68 Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
800A(3P) X1
GRD
GRD

N M GRD
15A (3P) X1
15A (3P) X1
15A (3P) X1
15A (3P) X1
GRD
4 3 2
5 RESERVED
FOR
FUTURE

METERING

EQUIPMENT
(N) 100A AC DISCONNECT
12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC,
FUSED W/ 100A FUSES
(N) 2,000A

AC DISCONNECT
600/347V, 3PH, 4W,

FUSED W/
2,000A FUSES
(N) 2,000KVA

TRANSFORMER

PRIMARY
12,000V, DELTA 3W

SECONDARY
600V, WYE 4W
(N) 2,000A SUB PANEL

EQUIPPED W/
2,000A LOAD SECTION
2,000A DISCONNECT SECTION

UTILITY NGO METER SOCKET
600/347V, 3PH, 4W
2,000A LOAD SECTION 2,000A DISCONNECT SECTION
NGO
(E) GROUND ROD OR UFER WITH
MINIMUM 3/0 COPPER GEC

IRREVERSIBLE

CONNECTION TO
(E)GROUND ROD
GRD

SERVICE
FROM

UTILITY
M
1200A/3P

MAIN BREAKER
VACUUM

CIRCUIT BREAKER
MISC

FACILITY
LOADS
PULL

SECTION

BIDIRECTIONAL
METER

INSTALLED BY

SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA EDISON

DISTRIBUTION

SECTION
(E) 1200A MAIN SERVICE PANEL,
(E) 1200A MAIN BREAKER
12,000V, 3PH, 3W,18 kAIC
SCE METER # 222020-005847
1 700A(3P) X1
700A(3P) X1
DC1
INVERTERS: #1
11X[(20)485W MODULES]
DC2.1
INVERTER #2
11X[(20)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC
7 AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
8 JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
800A (3P)
MAIN
125A (3P)
125A (3P) X1
6b
(N) 800A SUB PANEL
800A MAIN BREAKER
600V, 3PH, 4W
INVERTER #3
12X[(18)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
125A (3P)
INVERTER #4
10X[(18)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
INVERTER #5
10X[(18)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
INVERTERS: #6
10X[(18)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
7 7 7 7 7
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
8 8 8 8 8
(8)5" CONDUITS
(8) PARALLEL RUNS OF 400 KCMIL THWN-2
400 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL
250 KCMIL THWN-2 GEC
(E) GROUND ROD OR UFER WITH
MINIMUM 3/0 COPPER GEC
(1)2
1 2
" CONDUIT
(1) RUN OF 250 KCMIL NL-EPR
250 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#2 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(8)5" CONDUITS
(8) PARALLEL RUNS OF 400 KCMIL THWN-2
400 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL
250 KCMIL THWN-2 GEC
(1)2
1 2
" CONDUIT
(1) RUN OF 250 KCMIL NL-EPR
250 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#2 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(22) #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(E) GROUND ROD OR UFER WITH
MINIMUM 3/0 COPPER GEC
(N) SOLAR LINE SIDE CONNECTION

PANEL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE FIELD

EVALUATION BY NRTL UNLESS THE

PANEL INCLUDES THE PROVISION FOR A

TAP AS PART OF THE LISTED ASSEMBLY

NEUTRAL TO BE CONNECTED ON THE LINE

SIDE OF THE NEUTRAL LINK IN THE MAIN

BREAKER SECTION
INVERTERS: #7
9X[(20)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
8 INVERTER #8
8X[(20)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
INVERTER #9
12X[(18)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
INVERTERS: #10
12X[(18)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
7 7 7
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
8 8 8
INVERTERS: #11
10X[(20)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
8 DC2.2
AC1.1
AC2.1
AC3.0 AC4.0 AC5.0 AC6.0
DC1
DC3.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(24) #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC3.2
AC1.2
DC1
DC4.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(20) #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC4.2
AC1.3
DC1
DC5.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(18) #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC5.2
AC1.4
DC1
DC6.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(16) #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC6.2
AC1.5
DC1
DC7.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(24) #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC7.2
AC1.6
DC1
DC8.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC8.2
AC1.7
DC1
DC9.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC9.2
AC1.8
DC1
DC10.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC10.2
AC1.9
DC1
DC11.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC11.2
AC1.10
DC1
DC12.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC12.2
AC1.11
INVERTERS: #12
9X[(20)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
8 INVERTER #13
8X[(20)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
INVERTER #14
12X[(18)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
INVERTERS: #15
12X[(18)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
7 7 7
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
8 8 8
INVERTERS: #16
10X[(20)485W MODULES]
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
AC
~
=DC

JUNCTION
BOX
9 9
9 9
7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS
Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
485W PV MODULES
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS

PV INVERTER
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W,

96.20A OUTPUT
8 DC1
DC13.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC13.2
AC1.12
DC1
DC14.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC14.2
AC1.13
DC1
DC15.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC15.2
AC1.14
DC1
DC16.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC16.2
AC1.15
DC1
DC17.1
(1) 3" CONDUITS
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC

FREE IN AIR
(1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
DC17.2
AC1.16
125A (3P)
125A (3P)
125A (3P)
700A (3P)
MAIN
125A (3P) X1
125A (3P) X1
6a
(N) 800A SUB PANEL
800A MAIN BREAKER
600V, 3PH, 4W
125A (3P) X1
AC2.2 125A (3P) X1
125A (3P) X1
X1
X1
X1
X1
X1
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(1) 2" CONDUITS
(3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2
(1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#6 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(2) PARALLEL RUNS
(5")CONDUITS
(3)700 KCMIL THWN-2
(1)700 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#1/0 AWG THWN-2 GEC
(2) PARALLEL RUNS
(5")CONDUITS
(3)500 KCMIL THWN-2
(1)500 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#1/0 AWG THWN-2 GEC
700A (3P)
MAIN
125A (3P) X1
125A (3P) X1
6a
(N) 800A SUB PANEL
800A MAIN BREAKER
600V, 3PH, 4W
125A (3P) X1
AC2.3
125A (3P) X1
125A (3P) X1
(2) PARALLEL RUNS
(5")CONDUITS
(3)500 KCMIL THWN-2
(1)500 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL
#1/0 AWG THWN-2 GEC
KEY
1 (E) 1200A MAIN SERVICE PANEL: 1200A MAIN
12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC

QTY DESCRIPTION
1 2
(N) 100A AC DISCONNECT
12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC, FUSED W/ 100A FUSES
1 7
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W, 106.8A OUTPUT
16 8 56 (N) JUNCTION BOX
9 (N)HANWHA Q CELL, Q. PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
RATED POWER: 485W
VOC:53.64V , ISC:11.29A , VMP: 45.07V , IMP: 10.76A
3100
4 (N) 2000A AC DISCONNECT
600/347V, 3PH, 4W, FUSED W/ 2000A FUSES
1 3
(N) 2,000KVA TRANSFORMER
PRIMARY: 12,000V DELTA (3W), SECONDARY: 600V WYE (4W) 1 5 (N) 2,000A SUB PANEL: 2,000A DISCONNECT SWITCH
600/347, 3PH, 4W
1 6a
(N)800A SUB PANEL: 700A MAIN BREAKER
600/347V, 3PH, 4W
1 6b
(N)800A SUB PANEL: 800A MAIN BREAKER
600/347V, 3PH, 4W
2 SYSTEM DC STC NAME PLATE RATING
(3100) x (485W) = 1,503,500W

STRING MAX VOLTAGE
(20)Q CELL Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485: 1142.317V
(18)Q CELL Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485: 1028.086V

STRING MAX POWER POINT VOLTAGE
(20)Q CELL Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485: 901.40V
(18)Q CELL Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485: 811.26V No. Description Date Confidentiality Statement:

This drawing is property
of Newport Power. This information
is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work
described by Newport Power.

No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from
Newport power.

PV6

WIRE CHART

NEWPORT POWER
205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM
760-271-6580
12/06/2022 HELLMAN PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68 KEY
1 (E) 1200A MAIN SERVICE PANEL: 1200A MAIN
12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC

QTY DESCRIPTION
1 2
(N) 100A AC DISCONNECT
12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC, FUSED W/ 100A FUSES
1 7
(N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS
CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600
600V, 3PH, 4W, 106.8A OUTPUT
16 8 56 (N) JUNCTION BOX
9 (N)HANWHA Q CELL, Q. PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485
RATED POWER: 485W
VOC:53.64V , ISC:11.29A , VMP: 45.07V , IMP: 10.76A
3100
4 (N) 2000A AC DISCONNECT
600/347V, 3PH, 4W, FUSED W/ 2000A FUSES
1 3
(N) 2,000KVA TRANSFORMER
PRIMARY: 12,000V DELTA (3W), SECONDARY: 600V WYE (4W) 1 5 (N) 2,000A SUB PANEL: 2,000A DISCONNECT SWITCH
600/347, 3PH, 4W
1 6a
(N)800A SUB PANEL: 700A MAIN BREAKER
600/347V, 3PH, 4W
1 Newport Power
LIC # 939960
EXP: 11/30/2023
X________________ James Reeve
6b
(N)800A SUB PANEL: 800A MAIN BREAKER
600/347V, 3PH, 4W
2 DERATED WIRE RATING
>=
AMPS MAX TERMINATION AMP RATING >= AMPS MAX
WIRING CHART WIRE RATING CHART TERMINATION VOLTAGE DROP CALLOUT AMPS Isc NEC MULTIPLIER AMPS MAX PARALLEL RUNS # OF CONDUCTORS CONDUCTOR SIZE CONDUCTOR MATERIAL CONDUCTOR INSULATION NEUTRAL SIZE GROUND SIZE CONDUIT SIZE WIRE TEMPERATURE RATING WIRE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE °C CURRENT CARRYING CONDUCTORS WIRE AMP RATING WIRE TEMPERATURE DERATE WIRE CONDUCTOR DERATE TERMINATION TEMPERATURE RATING Vdrop AMPS Imp Vdrop DISTANCE Vdrop PERCENT CONDUIT QUANTITY DC1 11.29 1.56 17.61 1 2 #10 AWG CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 40 0.91 1 (40 A)X(0.91)X(1)=36.4>=17.61 60 30>=17.61 10.76 3.5 0.207 Vdrop VOLTAGE Vmp

45.07 DC2.1
DC2.2
AC1.1
AC2.1
AC3.0
AC4.0
AC5.0
AC6.0

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 #8 AWG CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 55 0.91 1 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 60 40>=17.61 10.76 901.40 50 0.093

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 22 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 22 0.91 0.45 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61 60 10.76 901.40 185 0.344

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 0.039 577.20 721.50 1.25 2 4 700 KCMIL CU THWN-2 700 KCMIL #1 AWG 2 5" 90 40 3 520 0.91 1 (520 A)X(0.91)X(1)=473.20>=360.25 60 385>=360.25 288.60 600 275 0.679

1.25 8 CU 20 0.039
250 KCMIL
1539.2 1924.0 4 8 4" 90 40 3 380 0.91 1 (380 A)X(0.91)X(1)= 345.8>=240.50 60 280>=240.50

1.25 CU 90 40 0.91 60 20

76.96 96.20 1.25 1 4 CU NL-EPR #2 AWG 1 90 40 3 145 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)= 131.95>=96.20 60 110>=96.20 76.96 12,000 20 0.002

1.25 CU NL-EPR 90 40 0.91 60 50 0.012
THWN-2
THWN-2
400 KCMIL 400 KCMIL
4 8 4" 3 1
1 3 #2 AWG 1 3 1 12,000
8 192.40 600
1539.2 1924.0 400 KCMIL 400 KCMIL 380 600

76.96 96.20
DC3.1
DC3.2
AC1.2
AC2.2

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 901.40 50

11.29 1.56 17.61 1 22 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 22 0.91 0.45 60 10.76 901.40 335 0.622

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 481.00 1.25 601.25 2 4 500 KCMIL CU THWN-2 500 KCMIL #1 AWG 2 5" 90 40 3 430 0.91 1 (430 A)X(0.91)X(1)=391.30>=300.63 60 320>= 300.63 240.50 600 400 0.877 DC4.1
DC4.2
AC1.3
AC2.3

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50 0.103

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 24 0.91 0.45 60 10.76 125 0.258

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 481.00 601.25 1.25 2 4 500 KCMIL CU THWN-2 500 KCMIL #1 AWG 2 5" 90 40 3 430 0.91 1 (430 A)X(0.91)X(1)=391.30>=300.63 60 320>=300.63 240.50 600 800 1.753 811.26
811.26
DC5.1
DC5.2
AC1.4

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 40 90 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 22 0.91 0.50 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61 60 10.76 140 0.289

96.20 1.25 120.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 811.26
811.26
DC6.1
DC6.2
AC1.5

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 22 0.91 0.50 60 10.76 185 0.382

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 811.26
811.26
DC7.1
DC7.2
AC1.6

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50

11.29 1.56 17.61 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 22 0.91 0.50 60 10.76 335 0.691

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 811.26
811.26
DC8.1
DC8.2
AC1.7

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 40 90 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 901.40 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 18 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 18 40 0.91 60 10.76 901.40 190 0.353

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 DC9.1
DC9.2
AC1.8

11.29 1.56 17.61 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 40 90 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 901.40 50

11.29 1.56 17.61 1 16 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 16 40 0.91 60 10.76 901.40 290 0.539

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20

0.50 0.50
DC10.1
DC10.2
AC1.9

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 24 0.91 0.45 60 10.76 190 0.392

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 811.26
811.26
DC11.1
DC11.2
AC1.10

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 40 90 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 24 0.91 0.45 60 10.76 290 0.599

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 811.26
811.26
DC12.1
DC12.2
AC1.11

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 40 90 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 22 0.91 0.50 60 10.76 230 0.427

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 901.40
901.40
DC13.1
DC13.2
AC1.12

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 901.40 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 18 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 18 40 0.91 60 10.76 901.40 225 0.418

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20

0.50 DC14.1
DC14.2
AC1.13

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 901.40 50

11.29 1.56 17.61 1 16 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 16 40 0.91 60 10.76 901.40 150 0.279

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 220 0.423

0.50 DC15.1
DC15.2
AC1.14

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 40 90 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 24 0.91 0.45 60 10.76 150 0.310

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 20 811.26
811.26
DC16.1
DC16.2
AC1.15

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 40 90 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 24 0.91 0.45 60 10.76 150

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 220 811.26
811.26
DC17.1
DC17.2
AC1.16

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE FREE IN AIR 90 40 2 0.91 1 60 10.76 50

11.29 17.61 1.56 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 1 3" 90 40 22 0.91 0.50 60 10.76 75 0.139

96.20 120.25 1.25 1 4 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 40 3 195 0.91 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 60 145>=120.25 96.20 600 220 901.40
901.40
250 KCMIL
4"
4"
#1 AWG #1 AWG
#1 AWG #1 AWG
(380 A)X(0.91)X(1)= 345.8>=240.50 280>=240.50 192.40
145 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)= 131.95>=96.20 110>=96.20 76.96

INVERTER
#1

INVERTER
#2

INVERTER
#3

INVERTER
#4

INVERTER
#5

INVERTER
#6

INVERTER
#7

INVERTER
#8

INVERTER
#9

INVERTER
#10

INVERTER
#11

INVERTER
#12

INVERTER
#13

INVERTER
#14

INVERTER
#15

INVERTER
#16

SUBPANEL
#1

SUBPANEL
#2

SUBPANEL
#3
AC OUTPUT (600V)
TRANSFORMER (600V)
TRANSFORMER (12,000V)
AC OUTPUT (12,000V)
SUB#1 OUTPUT
SUB#2 OUTPUT
SUB#3 OUTPUT

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.039

0.310

0.423

0.423

0.039
NOTE:

ALL PHOTOVOLTAIC OUTPUT CIRCUITS SHALL BE

GUARDED OR INSTALLED IN A RACEWAY OR TYPE MC
CABLE PER ARTICLE 690.31
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
#8 AWG
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61
(55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61
40>=17.61

← All documents from this meeting